Talk:Lady Gaga

Albums sales

lady gaga sold 13 million albums not 15 million i was in the concert when she first heard about it http://www.theprophetblog.net/lady-gaga-reaches-sales-of-13-million-scores-third-consecutive-top-ten-albu as a fan , you should fix the mistake --Bar17 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, that's a blog post that says she's only sold 13 million. The New York Daily News says she sold 15 million.[1] That's the source that's in the article currently, and I see no need to override that based on a blog post. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

r u kidding me ? i was in the concert and i saw it !!! in all the blogs there is the picture of gaga with plaque for sales of 13 million albums and gaga was so excited ... it was a few days ago .... why you stick with the old source ????? chack in her website its clearly that gaga sold 13 millions , gaga know that , all her fans know that .... --Bar17 (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Awards lag actual sales. If you've got a recent reliable source that says she's only sold 13 million, put the link in a comment here. Blogs and first-hand accounts aren't reliable, however. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwZcbPRyma4 look at the video from the show , behind gaga , 13 million albums --Bar17 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Daily News is a WP:RS and they report a figure higher than 13 million. Hence, we go with that. –Chase (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

r u serious ????????? the record label gave it to her !!!!!!!!!!! they not reliable ?? they know exactly how many gaga sold ...... why you try to argue ???!! you know what ? im going to complaine on you , i brought a source, you didnt , so you stop change it !!!!!!!!!!!!!! look at the video , you cant see ??? the lable know exactly how many gaga sold , not a lame news paper and when exactly they reported ? this video is from the 20.8.10 , 3 weeks ago and your source ????? --Bar17 (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd source listed lists the 13 million unit sales figure, providing a reliable source but contradicting the other source. DeMyztikX (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the 3rd (YouTube) source would be considered a 1st hand account.

In the following story, image 10/10 shows an image which supports the validity of the YouTube video, however it does not validate the sales figures which is the debate here. http://www.mtv.com/photos/lady-gaga-performs-at-staples-center/1645600/5108711/photo.jhtml

I feel that the current source is more of a rebuke of the performer, as opposed to a serious attempt to convey factual information. I therefore doubt that the author validated her numbers before publication due to this conflicting source-

"This week sales surpassed 13 million and GaGa was honoured with a special presentation[...]" 14 August, 2010 http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/lady-gaga/news/234113-lady-gaga-new-album-is-best-ever

C.Fred's claim that awards lag actual sales is often true. The article was posted on the 12th of June, 2010. So logically the award would more likely represent fewer than actual sales, not more as C.Fred has proposed in the counter-argument.

My recommendation is therefore to overturn the existing source and figure of 15 million and replace it with 13 million, until such a time as someone can verify sales figures from primary sources.

--Nathan Groth72.175.93.220 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? We have a secondary source—and secondary sources are preferred to primary—that says 15 million. Why not use the reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture

I'm sorry, but there's gotta be a way somebody can get a better picture of Ms. Germanotta than that one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasotweb (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is File:The Monster Ball - Poker Face revamped2 cropped.jpg better? That's probably the only other good quality Gaga image on Commons at the moment that clearly shows her face. –Chase (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that shot, although the colors are slightly off in that version. I'll see what I can do with the source. Nymf _hideliho! 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That image is already being used in the discography article. I don't think it is needed to be repeated. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's frankly a better image than the one currently used here and it still provides a good shot of her face. The discography image can easily be replaced. –Chase (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way? Both of them are on the same level. Gaga wearing a bustier has nothing to do with quality. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blow up both of the images to full size and you will notice the quality differences, even if slight. Furthermore, in the Poker Face performance image, Gaga looks towards the camera, which I believe is preferred, but correct me if I'm wrong. –Chase (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is my version of the image proposed: File:The Monster Ball - Poker Face revamped2-tweak.jpg. I think it is a beautiful shot and would fit the article well. Nymf _hideliho! 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful editing, Nymf. Great work. I very slightly altered the color and lighting to make it less dark and cropped it a little. I think the comments here show consensus in favor of changing the image, therefore I will boldly do so. –Chase (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Chase. Much appreciate the comment. If there are any tweaks you can think of that would make it look even better, feel free to send me a message. Nymf _hideliho! 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely tired of the picture we have. The new one suggested looks purrfect, although she calls herself a dog person. I like it a lot. DinDraithou (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I so agree! The current isn't to my taste. Change it to File:The Monster Ball - Poker Face revamped2 cropped.jpg. :) It most DEFINITELY displays her how her wider audience depicts and sees her. Stephenjamesx (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlock

Unlock the page ! --93.82.1.233 (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on the IP users behaving themselves:) Since this is a high traffic article, it has been semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Registering a user account (and using it sensibly) is the best way around the semi-protection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

registered accounts who have hundreds of edits are able to edit --93.82.3.193 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Account that are at least 4 days old with 10 edits can edit the page. Nymf _hideliho! 10:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The last time this article was unprotected in March 2010, there were excessive WP:BLP violations. IP users can request changes on the talk page, but a registered account is the best way to edit semi-protected articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Gaga is a high profile celebrity and thus her article is a high target of IP vandalism, as shown in edits from when the page was not semi-protected. If you would like to edit, please register an account; within a few days and a few edits you will be able to contribute. If you disagree, I'd take it to WP:RFUP, but I'm sure they'd tell you the same thing I and other users have told you. –Chase (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask, don't tell

It is true. Lady Gaga has already proven that she is a gay rights advocate. Why isn't this in the article? Her gay rights activism should have it's own section. She clearly has stated this, and I have several sources. But I should not have to give you links. If you are an editor of Ms. Lady Gaga's article, you should already know this. And she has stated in several articles all over the damn net that she has dedicated her career to gay rights movements. Know how is it that hard to dig up some sources and make an edit?

Also, I have several sources that her song "Alejandro" was dedicated to her gay fans. source and many more.

Sources that she has dedicated her career to gay rights activism, and that is has impacted her career forever.

source ONE source TWO

She has also claimed many times that she will always be an advocate for gay rights. I have have a video where she clearly states it. PROOF (VIDEO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.139.211 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the user above, and you failed to use the right source, here is the full proof video where she states she is a gay rights advocate and that she has dedicated her career to it. proof video —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonmcallaway (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. See WP:UNDUE. It is already mentioned, but it does not need its own section. –Chase (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lady GaGa did not get her name from Lady Starlight.

She got it in the Studio because her producer, Rob Fusari, used to call her "GaGa" in studio.

Here is in fact video proof of Lady GaGa herself saying the exact same thing. (Video Courtesy of Youtbe.com)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27IjjsJTNWg&feature=channel

It's a video from Younghollywood's youtube account. On the set of the Pokerface video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.231.247 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already says that Fusari gave her the stage name. –Chase (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaga's Main Picture? Chase The Editor...?

How is "Chase" the only editor? I understand that this is irrelevant to lady gaga, but how do we know Chase does not have Gaga's best interest in mind? I mean, look at her main picture. Now that is relevant.

Chase, there are other photos of lady gaga that are not copyright and fair use. That photo does no represent her!

You should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonmcallaway (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What image would you like it to be changed to? –Chase (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, couldnt help it. Chase you stuck up bad boy!! — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Michael Jackson, we are spoiled for choice with free images of Lady Gaga. The current infobox image is OK, but if anyone dislikes it, they should establish a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page before changing it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Man/Woman/Tranny?

What about the whole fiasco w/ ppl thinking she got a penis?

I think that's noteworthy?

-God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.130.149 (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the 2008–present: The Fame, The Fame Monster and Born This Way section. Read the article, folks:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Cherrytree

Just thought I'd note that for anyone who doesn't like the registration-required link I sourced that shows Gaga is no longer signed to Cherrytree in this edit, Gaga's label information on her official Facebook (which should be visible to all) has been changed to remove Cherrytree. –Chase (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rilke quote

I was intrigued when I learned that Germanotta is wearing a Rilke quote as a tattoo, so I researched it a bit and found the original German quote and the context where it comes from. During that research, I also found a fair bit of curiosity in the media and her fandom about the quote, so I thought I'll add a footnote, with a translation, which explains it. (It's quite deep, IMO.)

Today, the footnote was removed with the edit summary "absolutely unnecessary". Is that the general consensus? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Image Change

I am considering making an edit. Of course, I would like to discuss it before making the edit. I have a free licensed image of Lady Gaga performing at the monster ball 2010 that is recent. Does anyone object to this edit? If so, please give me a specific reason as to not make the edit.

I have seen several complaints on the talk page about her image and how it is not flattering. The new image is more flattering to her persona, and looks of course, and is good quality unlike the image in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonmcallaway (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you specify which image you plan to use? The main argument I see around here is that most images don't show her entire face. — ξ^xplicit 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. File:ladygagamonsterball2010.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonmcallaway (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not from The Monster Ball... Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I need to change the file name, it from the 52nd Annual Grammys, but it is still recent and free licensed and in commons. I feel so stupid, but if you read the file description, you will see that it is correct and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonmcallaway (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, that's not free. It's under a CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 license. The "NC" portion is critical; images that restrict commercial reuse are treated as non-free content. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, it's a copyright violation. — ξ^xplicit 02:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

From here, in case you were wondering Dillon. I've tagged it as such and it will be removed from the Commons shortly. –Chase (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected: the image is ultimately under copyright, not a Creative Commons license. Even if the Commons license mentioned above were valid, it would not be a free image. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I have been virtually bashed for making a mistake. Yay! <3 -Dillonmcallaway (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly were you being bashed? Several editors pointed out the problems with this particular image due to copyright concerns. Looks more like attempts to rectify the issue more than anything. — ξ^xplicit 02:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Image Change?

Yes I did notice that Mr Chase the editor. I made a mistake. But the file itself should not be under copyright. It should be under CC-BY-SA as shown on Flickr. Your point does not conclude though that the current image is going to stay. I will find the right free licensed whether it be CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or Public Domain. The photo will be changed whether it be by another editor or by me. But of course, I will discuss it with the other editors before the change occurs. Dillon Dillonmcallaway (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Dillon, that photo was uploaded to Flickr by someone who did not own the rights to it. Secondly, even if that Flickr user did own the rights to the image, it's uploaded there with a CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 license, which is not permitted. Finally, if you want the image changed, take a look at the free images we have of Gaga and pick which one you'd like added. That's basically all we can add at this time. If you can find other non-free images of her (or even take one yourself and license it so that it can be included in the Commons), upload them and those can be considered as well. The image may or may not be changed depending on consensus, so don't assume that it will be. Regards, –Chase (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Chase, it will be. I did some digging and it turns out that you modified the original photo that was uploaded (which is gaga's main image in the article) So, it is obvious that you do not want the image changed, because you worked so hard on the "cropping and lighting" of the image. I suggest you keep an open mind when it comes to things like this, instead of being selfish. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dillon, you are obviously young and need this victory over the great powers. But I like what Nymf and Chase have done. DinDraithou (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou, apparently you are not mature enough to keep your personal opinions to yourself. This is Wikipedia encyclopedia, not urban dictionary. That is great that you like it and what they have done, but again, it is only your opinion. The majority of people that contribute on here do agree that the image should be changed. But for now, I am going to leave it alone. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

All I see is you making a fuss over this in 3 different threads. No need to create drama where there is none. Nymf _hideliho! 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're reading the old discussion, where other editors wanted the image changed from the old one to the current one. All editors except you are in favor of the current infobox image. –Chase (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The license that the photo is under in the Commons allows images to be edited... frankly, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop being overdramatic. –Chase (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, editing the picture only took me a few minutes. I really could care less if it's changed to something else, but there needs to be a consensus for doing so. –Chase (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

spelling error/typo

Spelling error in the life and career section. She learned to play piano from the age of four, went on to write her first piano ballad at 13 and began performing at open mike nights by age 14. should be; She learned to play piano from the age of four, went on to write her first piano ballad at 13 and began performing at open mic nights by age 14.

MIC is short for Microphone. Mike is acceptable for Micheal, because that is a similar name and common nickname, but Mic is the common shorthand for Microphone. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Either spelling is correct. The article is open mike. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did read that article and it is obviously incorrect. The common shorthand for microphone is Mic. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Then that is something you should bring up at talk page for the respective article, not this one. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was actually already proposed but rejected. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was proposed at the talk page for that article and rejected, then that shows that consensus is that mike is an acceptable abbreviation for microphone, especially in the context of an open mike night, so that spelling should be used in this article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)\

No, the wikipedia article you are referring to open mike does not cite any references or sources. The article in question's title is "open mike" because it was the first one created. I will create an article for "open mic" and actually cite sources instead of just external links to back it up. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sambayer.com/tirades/whymike.html Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This section is pointless. It should be removed from this talk page. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, when you create a section, it should be removed too. I am actually able to edit Mike To Mic, but I will not until "Mic" has it's proper article. Open Mike should not even be an article, THE TERM OPEN MIKE has been referenced under "common misspellings on several sources. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yvesnimmo, if this section is so pointless, you should not even be contributing to it in the first place. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the open mike article should not even exist. But it does, because someone decided so, even though majority of editors disagree with open mike being used as the article for open mic. Doesn't majority rule?

This discussion does not belong here. Dillon, you've started a new discussion at Talk:Open mike. This is not relevant here, on a talk page about the Lady Gaga article. –Chase (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Public Image/Gay Rights Work

The paragraph describing her gay rights advocacy under Public Image should have it's own section. It has enough references. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question of having enough references; of course there are enough reference, as this article is a GA and nothing here should be insufficiently referenced. It's whether or not there is enough content for it to merit its own [sub]section. The public image section is only two paragraphs. Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, The term Public image refers to maintaining a desirable public image. Her public image does not include gay rights advocacy, her personal life and public image do. There are enough references to prove that. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Public relations relates to maintaining a desirable public image. I agree with Yvesnimmo: the Public image section of the article is too short to justify splitting it. Since the second half of that section also deals with her sexuality, I could be persuaded that a better heading for the section is in order, but I would want to see where other good articles on celebrities have used the heading in question. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fred, you make a good point about her sexuality and a new heading, but, it does not matter how short the public image section is, her gay rights advocacy obviously trumps her being bisexual. I am contemplating that you and Yvesnimmo have a personal problem with gay people. No? --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dillonmcallaway, I suggest you read the article on talk page guidelines, specifically the sections on good practices and unacceptable behavior. A talk page should discuss edits or make proposals, not other things, and should stay on topic. Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yvesnimmo, I suggest that you remember what your little friend told me "Dillon, you are obviously young and need this victory over the great powers. But I like what Nymf and Chase have done." this has nothing to do with Lady Gaga and her article. I have and will always remain on topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonmcallaway (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, every section that I contribute to this talk page is relevant to Lady Gaga and her article. You also should have left the comment above on my talk page, instead of on the article's talk page. Please practice what you preach. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. There's no need to place unnecessary emphasis on her gay rights activism. –Chase (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 'Not done: As I read WP:WUNDUE I noticed "Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." I am at fault, and I apologize. The paragraph on her activism best represents her activism, does not need it's own section and shall remain as it is for now. Dillon (talk)

Main Picture Improvements

I still believe that the current main image is a little unflattering. I think she looks like a cartoon, the shadowing is bad, and quality is horrible, and she looks as if she has two streaks of blush across the sides of her face. Is this better? File:462px-The_Monster_Ball_-_Poker_Face_revamped2_cropped_lightadjustandglow.jpg (I adjusted the lighting, shadowing & added a hint of glow.) This is a follow up to the first modification (chase) of the original by John Robert Carlton. -Dillon (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That version looks over-exposured and washed out, but that's just my opinion. By the way, please don't make a new thread everytime something new pops up in your head. You are cluttering the talk page by doing so. This could all have been kept in the #Main Picture thread. Thanks. Nymf _hideliho! 20:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The main picture looks horrible, and apparently, you do not like my version of the picture because you are the one who changed the main picture last (current main picture). You are attempting an edit war with me, let the others bash me before you establish a decision. My thread is relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by dillonmcallaway (talk • contribs)

No one is bashing anyone, nor am I edit warring. WP:AGF. Nymf _hideliho! 20:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant, but it goes against WP:MULTI; it should have been continued in the #Main Picture section. If you think the main picture looks "horrible", then your proposed picture is comparatively "horrible" as it is the same picture. The main picture is not to be changed without agreement on this talk page. In my opinion, the current one is okay. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Too bright. Way too bright. –Chase (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how many friends you have on wikipedia. The only reason the current image would stay would be that your friends would back you up, even though my picture is better. You are the only ones who sit in this article day after day. That does not mean that the current picture looks better. See WP:CONSENSUS - Dillon (talk)

I'm unsure about what WP:CONSENSUS is helping you say here. There has been consensus to have the current picture. And nothing here is about "friends"; I'm not sure where you got that from. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would personally like to see opinions of other editors before making a decision, instead of the same editors that differ with me thread after thread.' - Dillon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

As someone who has worked intermediately with graphic design and Photoshop in general, I tend to agree with Nymf that your version is overexposed and so bright to the point that the lighting seems unnatural, not to mention that the black background being too dense. Your failure to assume good faith of other editors and your complete misunderstanding of what consensus is and how it works doesn't help your case, either. — ξ^xplicit 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WOW. Finally someone made her look at least a little better. The main picture is too foggy, her face looks pasty and the background makes it look bad quality in the current one. I think the new one looks better. She looks like a wax figure in the current. --ChelseaChoice (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! First person to agree with me. Although, I don't think she looks like a wax figure. Now this is editorial decision making. --Dillonmcallaway (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea, the fact that your comment was your first contribution to Wikipedia is a little suspicious. Dillon, I really hope you aren't engaging in sock puppetry. –Chase (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What?!? Chase, you cannot assume things in bad faith. See WP:CONSENSUS if you have not read it yet. There are alot of contributors that contribute and never see wikipedia again. -Dillon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

New users' first edits usually aren't at talk pages. It's not bad faith, it's reasonable suspicion. –Chase (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chase, You have tagged several things for speedy deletion, as I have read the complaints on your talk page. This leads me to reasonable suspicion that you are engaging in wrongful editing. WP:Editing policy -Dillon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

(I think we are officially suffering from something unfortunate.) DinDraithou (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Grazia magazine - ghostly or ghastly

Chill ya beenz, dudes. 'S'no biggy, (as I think one is meant to say these days). But I get 1,050,000 Google hits for "Lady Gaga" + "paranormal". Not sure how many of these have anything to do with the latest ridiculous-sounding claims, or even how many are tabloids. Yet the article currently makes no mention of Gaga's interest in this area at all? Interestingly, though, I can find no sign of the supposed original Grazia source on line. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

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

Seems like it is an EP and that column is for studio albums, only. Futhermore, the album is mentioned throughout the article, so for what is necessary? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

EPs are normally omitted from the short discographies in articles. That's why Fame Monster is excluded. —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If an exception should ever be made it include an EP, shouldn't it be for "Fame Monster" i think it would be difficult to think of many more successful or important EPsBlackballoon222 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No. –Chase (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lady gaga synthpop??/

Isn't gaga considered a synthpop artist?? all of her songs fall under that category. Can someone add that to her genre part please.?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.230.88 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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

but she is though, cause they wont leave her on the synthpop list. they say she isnt synthpop. they said unless it is on her wiki page that she is synthpop they wont leave her even though on the instruments it still says sinthesizer