Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome

To the Lady Gaga wikiproject. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting it through. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The only article that lists her official website (http://www.ladygaga.com/) in the External links section should be Lady Gaga, per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Elsewhere, WP:ELNO applies. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:ELN#Adding_a_group.27s_official_page_to_a_song_page. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there's no arguments against this, I'll clean up all the articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Red and Blue (EP)

Hi there. First of all, congrats on the still-shiny-and-new WikiProject you have here, and also for the great work in having so many high quality Gaga-related articles in a relatively short amount of time. The reason I'm writing is because I thought you all might be able to provide some assistance/expertise regarding the Red and Blue (EP) article. I have nominated it for deletion because there does not seem to be any in-depth coverage for it in reliable sources, and therefore does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS. I will happily withdraw if such references can be presented. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Thanks!  Gongshow Talk 03:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Haus of Gaga

I already created the article but it's incomplete, i need more information! YZJay 09:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YZJay (talk • contribs)

What a mess. Please see Wikipedia:Starting an article, add some WP:RS, add more content. The claim that all members are under the age 29 is somewhat dubious Space Cowboy (musician) in not under 29. I guess that information was from years ago. SunCreator (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
@YZJay. Thank you for trying to start that article, however, it has been redirected for now as there is no reliable sources validating the content that you added. If you really want the article to be created, then please create a draft of it in your sandbox, like in User:YZJay/sandbox, and then post here, so that the other members can decided whether it passes notability to have a separate article space. At present its just a bunch of names and speculations only. Feel free to contact me if you need any help. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Haus of Gaga merged with Lady Gaga.

The article was merged, as another contibutor said it is not enough cited sources. Please do something. The article was pretty long. - easy for me, please! (sms) 08:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad that they only play Lady Gaga's hits on the radio, and virtually never play her lesser-known songs such as Starstruck. It's kind of a systemic problem. Tisane (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Songwriter credit: Stage name vs. birth name

There is currently a content dispute on numerous Lady Gaga song articles as to whether the songwriter credit should be listed as her stage name or her birth name, Stefani Germanotta. Discussion and assistance in resolving this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Satori Son 16:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Songwriting credits should conform to the BMI/ASCAP listings. BMI accepts Lady Gaga as an alias for Germanotta (see Stefani Germanotta search vs. Lady GaGa search), but, if you go look it up by song, the result is this, which indicates that the primary listing is under her real name, Stefani Germanotta.
Since Stefani Germanotta redirects to Lady Gaga, either [[Lady Gaga|Stefani Germanotta]] or [[Stefani Germanotta]] is acceptable. I prefer just directly linking to Stefani Germanotta: redirects have an actual purpose, and I don't understand why people pipe around them all the time.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
However, this msut be a stage name, as visitors to Wikipedia should see the songwriter via their stage name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieJS13 (talk • contribs) 16:37, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
The songwriter must always be referred to via their stage name if possible, even if it conforms to BMI/ASCAP listings. This is so that people that wish to see who wrote the songs can understand them via their stage name. Users Tbhotch, Lil-unique1 and Kww should take note of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieJS13 (talk • contribs) 16:40, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Please check WP:COMMONNAME. In the listings use a name that people will recognize. We are supposed to make the encyclopedia easy to read. Insisting in using a name that readers don't know is detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. (I can understand that the actual article uses the real name and not the stage name, because it's a biographical article, but you should use the stage name in the listings because it's the name that readers expect to find there) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is a guideline about article names, and that is why Lady Gaga is the primary article and Stefani Germanotta is the redirect. The general practice has always been to match the songwriting credits to BMI or ASCAP.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Kww(talk), Enric Naval is correct on all accounts. May I contribute on making the encyclopedia easy to read, but Wikipedia users want to see the stage name rather than the real name as it's a name that is more recognisable and easier to understand. CharlieJS13 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not People magazine. Ease of reading, while important, is secondary to accurate information. Kww is correct in that the tradition here has been to use the BMI credited name. If you are interested in changing the traditional method, that's fine, I'm sure we'll all be willing to discuss it. However, edit warring about it and using statements such as "the songwriter must always be referred to via their stage name if possible" is tendentious and, frankly, wrong - there is no policy or guideline that states that this must happen. That just happens to be your opinion. Please try to consider other people's opinions as well. Tan | 39 17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 you are wrong on all accounts. Enric Naval has stated that the songwriter must be referred to via their writing credits (their stage name). And an encyclopedia must have reliable information, not inaccurate. CharlieJS13 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, not usage of names within articles. What Enric Naval has stated, especially without any rooting in Wikipedia policy or guideline, is immaterial to me - it is simply his opinion, as it is yours. Your last statement there is confusing; using either name in question here would be accurate; no one is questioning whether the material is reliable or accurate. It appears rather clear that you are not here to collaborate in a collegiate manner, but simply to tell us what to do. This isn't the way things work around here. You are entering into a mature discussion with other mature editors, and your methods so far are not conducive to a reasonable discussion. Tan | 39 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Enric Naval is trying to prove a point that the WP:COMMONNAME provides detailed analysis on musical articles and that it suggests that listings do not have to be conformed, but via their writing credits, henceforth their stage name. CharlieJS13 (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to make this any more clear. WP:COMMONNAMES describes Wikipedia's policy on choosing article titles. That's it. It has zero relevance on writing credit naming conventions. Continuing to state such is falling into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Tan | 39 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Enric is referring to the correct article e.g. it states the rapper Snoop Dogg must be recognised via that name not Calvin Broadus. He knows the facts, therefore he is right. CharlieJS13 (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In the article title, yes. I'm going to end this conversation here; you simply apparently do not have the WP:COMPETENCE to grasp that this policy only refers to article titles. Tan | 39 17:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most reliable source for songwriting information (unless that is later legally changed or some similar incident) be the respective album's liner notes? The booklets for both of Gaga's albums credit her as "Lady Gaga", and when discussing her BMI registration as such, "Stefani Germanotta p/k/a Lady Gaga". I'm not sure if this has to do with anything, but at the Grammys, when they were announcing the nominees for Song of the Year, "Poker Face" was credited to Lady Gaga and RedOne, not Stefani Germanotta and Nadir Khayat. So wouldn't that mean that is how that song is properly credited? –Chase (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

BMI and ASCAP contain the listing of songwriters that are registered as the copyright holders for the work, and determine the people to whom royalties flow. That's about as definitive of a source as you can get. The records get updated to track the results of legal issues. The only time I can see using liner notes is to determine which version is being discussed, as BMI will include listings like this one when multiple songs have been registered under the same title.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
One additional point, and probably the main reason that the songwriting credits normally point there, is that they are universally accessible: any editor can verify the credits easily. If we used liner notes, only people that actually owned a copy could verify them, and I can't imagine a universe where I would actually own a Lady Gaga album to use as a reference.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Im fine with the ASCAP/BMI acceptance of Germanotta as the name in songwriting credit. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
When the Personnel section (sourced from CD single booklet) clearly states who wrote the song (and who did not), how can you fanatic Lady Gaga fans make up a rule that says incorrect song writing credits must be listed in the Infobox.--z33k (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
BMI and ASCAP credit the registered songwriters: it's not an "incorrect listing" at all.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
So the label (Interscope) then deliberately provided incorrect songwriters on the CD single booklet? (Born This Way (song))--z33k (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The credits on a CD liner are provided for marketing reasons. The credits at BMI and ASCAP control who receives financial compensation for the song and reflect who holds credit with the copyright office. The CD credits are also fixed at printing. There are cases like "Whole Lotta Love", for example, where Willie Dixon didn't receive credit for writing it when it was first released, but sued and had his name added to the credits later. That's reflected in the BMI and ASCAP credits, but not on the original liner notes.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It is up to you to decide which source is most reliable?--z33k (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
ASCAP/BMI are legally binding... CD liner notes are not. This is the same situation as record labels which claim certifications which are not supported by RIAA. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It's up to consensus, and, in this case, consensus is clearly against your position.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

AfD for this article, discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Image for icon in portalbox

An image should be selected to use, for the icon to be displayed in Template:Portalbox for this topic. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe something ambiguous like the Madonna portal? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the request could be posted at Template talk:Portal box. Perhaps the image, File:Gaga-monster-ball.jpg? -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
That picure is already being used in the Wikiproject class template. Why not something else? Gaga's image generally has the typical blond bob hair and big shades (like the book cover of Lady Gaga Queen of Pop). Maybe something like that? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How about File:Monster ball uk dance in the dark.jpg? -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems good. But maybe a cropped version of just the facial part. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- now use {{Portal|Lady Gaga}} which yields: :{{Portal|Lady Gaga}}

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thats brilliant Cirt. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography FLC

The FLC for Lady Gaga discography has been running on for quite awhile now with not many comments. If anybody could take the time to leave comments, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. –Chase (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Single/album writing credit consistency issues

I feel that there is some inconsistency with the album and single articles. Writing credits in the album articles use those from the liner notes, while credits in the single articles use those from BMI. For the sake of consistency, I think we should pick one format and use it throughout all of the Gaga articles. Personally, I would go with either format, as long as it's the same throughout all of the articles. –Chase (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A prior discussion consensed that singles should have the BMI writing credits, while it is fine to have the album credits for the album articles. Will point you to that. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting. There are issues with citing the legal credits in song articles and citing the album credits in album articles. As was mentioned in a previous discussion, the legal credits are preferable since they show who is currently credit (for example, some songs' writing credits are altered due to lawsuits and such). I've already found a contradiction between the album credits of The Fame Monster and the BMI credits, for the song "Teeth". In the album booklet, only Taja Riley and Gaga are credited for writing. However, on BMI, another writer (Pete Bender) also receives credit. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's more consistent to go with the same credits in all of the articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Lady Gaga articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Lady Gaga

An editor has expressed concern here, which may be of interest to this project, about an element of Portal:Lady Gaga. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm constantly trying to make The Fame Monster have at the very beggining that is her sophomore studio album

There has been a discussion whether it's an EP or not, and the discussion is over. However, calling it a "major release" instead of "studio album" is very ambiguous, it's her second STUDIO album, the media refers Born This Way is her third album, and it's a piece of information that comes with it everytime they mention BTW.

Please, don't tell me it's her third studio album but her second studio album, because an album and a studio album is the same thing, and when the media refers it's her third album (Born This Way) they actually are saying it's her third studio album but they don't actually have to put "studio" every time they mention "album" because it's something that is obviously understood.

A couple of wiki users are accusing me of incivility but it's false, they're ignoring me repeatedly, even though I'm backing what I'm saying and indifference it's a VERY rude thing to do, and I'm not actually insulting, I'm just talking loud because they ignore me, I had one problem one user Zombieman in wich I thought his sign was an insult (don't edit wikipedia much to know this) that's why I responded, and later apologized, but later they think that everything I write is incivility, they just need to read. I'm making and effort on citing resources and they just don't care, maybe they edit and contribute to a lot of articles, but mind them they are not gods, and if they put a big effort in Wikipedia that doesn't give them the right to act so arrogant to people who know more about one sole topic, but just don't have the time to be on wikipedia editing all time to earn a reputation. Put your feet on the ground people, you're not superior if you edit wikipedia than the other person so a little humility would be appreciated.

So now, I will cite some resources about BTW being called her third album, so you can edit TFM to say "The Fame Monster is the third extended play (EP) and second studio album..." instead of "The Fame Monster is the third extended play (EP)and second major release". Obviously BTW would need the edit, too.

http://idolator.com/5722311/lady-gaga-born-this-way-bbc-interview

http://www.undercover.fm/news/13811-lady-gaga-s-born-this-way-highest-selling-digital-single-in-australia-after-just-one-week

http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-gaga-claims-1-000th-hot-100-no-1-with-1005036702.story#/news/lady-gaga-claims-1-000th-hot-100-no- 1-with-1005036702.story (This is Billboard, people)

http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/824673/lady-gagas-born-this-way-debuts-at-number-one

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2011/02/16/2011-02-16_lady_gaga_born_this_way_being_1000th_number_1_song_on_billboard_hot_100_is_great.html

In all this articles BTW is referred as her third album, obviously implying third STUDIO album. Akerk (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Yoü and I"

If project members see any way to help expand the article, any assistance would be much appreciated. Apart from the additional sources yet to be added, I think the article could be expanded even with the sources already used. I am just trying to recruit quality contributors to help if possible. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Prince proposal

Please add your opinion. I Help, When I Can.[12] 22:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

unreleased songs

New Page List of unreleased Lady Gaga songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalaKapanadze (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics

I think we should possibly put a lyrics section on the articles about songs. Thoughts? LOL2Bunnies (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they are copyrighted. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Need a little help

Guys, I need some charts. I can't enter to the Billboard Biz Charts, so I was wondering if any of you can look for some charts of Fashion of His Love, Government Hooker and Americano in the site.--Duke GiGi (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy of the Born This Way Ball

Statυs (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Count Me In

I'm a huge little monster and would be more than happy to help with this project. Can I just add my name to the Participants list, or is this done by users of higher power? --Electric Ooh La La, Who brings a gun to a knife fight? The winner. 05:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You can add your name yourself, but I already did it for you. :) —DAP388 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Леди Гага & Ledi Gaga. Since you had some involvement with the Lady Gaga redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Little Monsters (Lady Gaga Fans)

Someone has created Little Monsters (Lady Gaga Fans) but it's a bit of a mess at the moment. Could someone run their eyes over this? Hack (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello participants, while going through the different start and stub class articles, I noticed that for some of them, the parent article has been redirected, but the talk page was not redirected. I took the onus of doing so, while merging the afds and merge discussions in the parent talk pages. Cheers. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy of the Born This Way Ball (2nd nomination)

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in this discussion, involving an article that is part of the project.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Songs redirected to albums

Category:Lady Gaga songs contains several songs that are currently redirected to album articles. Is there really not enough information about the following songs to warrant individual articles? "Bad Kids", "Boys Boys Boys", "The Queen", and "Teeth"? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of songs redirected to album articles...

I created redirects to Artpop: Manicure (song), Sex Dreams, Swine (song), Jewels and Drugs and I Wanna Be with You (Lady Gaga song). These follow naming conventions, so please be sure to use them when expanding in the future. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Artpop songs

Should Category:Artpop songs exist? I have never seen a category for a specific album. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the Lady Gaga navbox and the Lady Gaga songs navbox were separated, the link Lady Gaga discography no longer appears on all articles for songs. Should the discography link be added to See also sections for song articles? Personally, I like having the two navboxes combined, but perhaps a discussion took place somewhere and consensus determined otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

artRAVE: The ARTPOP Ball

Just created the wiki page for her next tour. Everyone get in and help out and lets start to build this up:

ArtRAVE: The ARTPOP Ball --Lolcakes25 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ARTPOP Critical Reception

The consensus listed on the ARTPOP page is factually inaccurate; Metacritic is the only source that those who argue for the "mixed to positive" consensus are willing to cite, even though Metacritic forms a conglomerate of reviews for the sole purpose of using them to form a weighted, calculated score and consensus. In the matter of this album, the consensus is "generally favorable". Users have brought up the fact that there are more mixed reviews listed on the cite, but I'd like to combat that argument with multiple points: 1) Focusing on the number of categorical reviews is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring others doesn't make any sense. 2) Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does do practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. If those reviews are discounted, the majority in the mixed section evaporates. 3) I realize that gossip sites and the blogosphere has had a field day with the dip in critical acclaim for Gaga (it's always fun to tear down those on top, I guess), but you can't go by what gossip sites say; yes, the acclaim is less than her previous works, but the trend is still generally positive, as proven by the consensus listed on Metacritic and the consensus reported by an actually credible journal (the Huffington Post source I listed on the ARTPOP talk page that states that the consensus was positive from the multitude of critics that they sourced and linked to). As dealers of fact, it is our job to ignore the noise of the blogosphere and report on what is sourced and provable; in this case, the critical consensus is generally positive. I recognize that the reaction has been more ambivilant than her previous works, and have advocated for a disclaimer being listed after the (sourced and factual) consensus of "generally positive". The reception page should read that the album "recieved generally positive reviews, although the response was more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work", as this addresses the obvious issues that users have raised as well as reports the consensus as it truly is according to sourced fact. User:Renamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Lady Gaga to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lady Gaga/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Artpop song title

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Artpop regarding the most appropriate titling of the song "MANiCURE"/"Manicure". Interested editors are invited to join the RFC here. 23:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Resurrect "Sexxx Dreams"?

Do project members still feel that there is not enough content to warrant an entry for "Sexxx Dreams"? ----Another Believer (Talk) 00:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes- not enough to warrant an entry, and is unlikely to do so since the Artpop era has ended. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: What say you? Additional sources can be found on the article's talk page and there are likely others yet to be included. ----Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
AB, I don't believe anything new cropped up regarding "Sexxx Dreams" in the media did it? Unlike "Swine" I would say it still fails enough independent notability for me. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I hear you both and appreciate your feedback. I am currently in the process of expanding the article a bit more (if you look at the article history you will see that I have been adding to it intermittently). Even if it needs to be redirected again, while it is being actively worked on, feel free to help add info about the residency or The Artpop Ball tour (or anything else, really). ----Another Believer (Talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio and SNUGGUMS: Do either of you know how to fix or replace the link for the Korean chart placement? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you identify any gaps in the article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Could use information on what inspired Gaga to write the track and/or what it was originally based off of. On another note, I should add that sources like "Gigwise", Metro, "Sugarscape", "PopCrush", and Daily Mirror are not reliable and should be replaced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's a bummer. :( Wish I had known. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Both "Sexxx Dreams" and "Swine" would require hell lot of work to be GAs. At present I'm busy with Gaga's videography and the Tony/Gaga special. Maybe then I will visit these songs and the rest of the Artpop era, which well, frankly, I am super underwhelmed. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 09:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I requested a copy edit for "Sexxx Dreams" from the Guild of Copy Editors. Feel free to add any additional information to the article before the review takes place. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga: Cheek to Cheek Live!

The redirect for Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga: Cheek to Cheek Live! has been created. Feel free to move content over once we feel a separate article is appropriate. ----Another Believer (Talk) 14:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Swine

If anyone wants a project or particularly enjoys the GA process, "Swine" might be GA-ready, or at least close. I don't have time to respond to GA concerns right now, but if someone else wants to take a stab you are more than welcome. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's worth looking into, but too soon to nominate now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? Because the article is incomplete? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I guess so AB. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:LoveGame#Requested move

Page move is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Video screencaps up for deletion

The video screen captures from several Gaga articles are up for deletion as failing WP:NFCC #8. Please see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_November_19#Lady_Gaga_vidcaps for details. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheek to Cheek recordings

Should the Cheek to Cheek song recordings be included in the scope of this WikiProject? The project page states, "The scope of the project covers articles about Lady Gaga and her life and work. Included are also people and things directly related to — or who have achieved a significant part of their notability through their connection to Lady Gaga as an individual." We are currently discussing decades-old songs that were quite notable long before they were ever recorded by Gaga, and I just don't think they qualify. One-off covers generally are not included in most singers' WikiProjects, unless they are of significant importance. For example, Born This Way (song) is not included in the scope of WikiProject Katy Perry, even though Perry has performed it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the exception, if anything, would be covers officially recorded onto an album of some sort and/or had some sort of release. For example, Don McLean's "American Pie" is in the scope of Madonna's WikiProject. Her cover was a single from the soundtrack to her movie The Next Best Thing. John Lennon's "Imagine", however, was a one-time cover and shouldn't be included in WP:MADGE. I would certainly include "Anything Goes" and "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" as they topped the Billboard Jazz charts, not sure about the rest. In the case of "Born This Way", Katy just performed it once on her California Dreams Tour. Definitely not worth including on WP:KP. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Madonna's rendition of "American Pie" is what I would declare a clear exception, seeing as it was a #1 hit all over the world. Her rendition of it is very popular. Currently, besides an obscure component chart, there's not much about Gaga's versions of these songs that makes it stand out from the hundreds of recordings. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding John Lennon's "Imagine" it was not a one-time cover. It was performed in every single date of her 2004 tour and released as an audio recording on the documentary soundtrack. As for the Cheek to Cheek songs, Gaga released it as separate recordings, they are part of this project, unlike her rendering of "Whats Up?" —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 03:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • My mistake, IndianBio, I didn't notice the soundtrack listings or setlist for the tour. With that being said, perhaps Whitney Houston's "I Wanna Dance With Somebody" should for example be added to WP:KP as it was part of the main tracklist of California Dreams Tour. Same with Madonna's "Vogue" during Prismatic World Tour. I was on the fence at first for the non-singles of Cheek to Cheek, but it now makes sense to include them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the threshold would not be for just performed, but released as recording too. Did Perry release anything for California Dreams? I know she's planning to release for Prismatic Tour since she is shooting a tour documentary in Australia. Hence "Vogue" might be included once the release happens, but Whitney's song I wouldn't include since it was just live on tour. I would like to welcome other's opinion too, people who created the cover version guideline. What do you say? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The only release following California Dreams was her film Katy Perry: Part of Me, which largely consists of show recordings from the tour in addition to various clips of her life and other parts of her career. Didn't have a soundtrack or anything, so no. Only thought it would be included since it was covered during over 120 shows, but yeah releasing a recording sounds like a reasonable criterion. I'd be open for discussion as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We are going a little OT, but yeah, let's wait and see if Perry releases the Prismatic Tour on a recording media and if it includes "Vogue" (in full not as a sample) then we can list it in Perry's project. For Gaga, we agree that Cheek to Cheek songs are part of the project. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should articles for songs covered by a singer be included in their WikiProject?

Should a song covered by, but not originally recorded, by a singer be included in the scope of the singer's relevant WikiProject? –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I figured that the opinion there would be "judge on a case-by-case basis". This is a singular case I would like to see assessed individually. The question is phrased generally to be as neutral as possible. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And as noted earlier in this section, I personally do not think that songs that have been around for decades which were insignificantly covered one time by an artist do not receive enough notability from that artist's performance of it to be relevant to the WikiProject. I also feel that it is detrimental to the project to include 14-15 songs barely associated with this singer, as it stretches the project's scope far too wide. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to the songs released as singles from Cheek to Cheek, I don't think they should be included in the scope of the project either. Songs that were already famous before - and that were not made more famous after - an artist recorded it did not derive a significant portion of their notability from that artist's performance. And the project is designed for articles about Gaga and subjects that achieved notability, in whole or in significant part, from Gaga.

    There are exceptions, of course. If Whitney Houston had a WikiProject, I Will Always Love You would surely be included in its scope. Houston performed what is far and away the most popular, well-known rendition of that song. Madonna's cover of American Pie (song) is rightly included in her project, in my opinion, since her rendition was rather popular. While it is not more well-known than the original, it was a #1 hit in multiple countries around the world. There is nothing in particular that sets the Gaga and Tony Bennett recordings apart from the numerous renditions performed of the 10+ songs being discussed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And for what it's worth, giving the Gaga/Bennett recordings their own extensive section in the song articles, such as Anything Goes (Cole Porter song), when there is already a section devoted to later recordings of the song and a list of notable recordings at the end of the article, is wildly inappropriate and a major WP:UNDUE violation. But that's another matter entirely. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for being a bit blunt here, but does this really require an RfC or a discussion? I mean, if there is a WikiProject for Microsoft, then yes, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office belong to WP MS. Same way, iPod and iPad belong to WP Apple. I'm being hypothetical here, but isn't it plain obvious? Why else would Lady Gaga require a Wikiproject if her songs aren't covered by the parent Wikiproject? This logic should apply to covers as well.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Rsrikanth05: lemme explain a bit. The RFC wants to have a clarity on whether songs which singer Lady Gaga have released as cover versions of old songs, in a separate new recording, should be part of the project or not. I had theorized above as you can see that since it is part of a recording and released commercially and enough third party notability, it should be part of the project. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      Hi IndianBio, I understood exactly what has been asked by User:Chasewc91. My point is: Yes, it is part of it. Given that Most of Gaga's songs become extremely popular in no time, I think yes, the song/cover does need to be covered by her WP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

participant

Can you guys add me as a participant to this project. I'm contributing photos and adding subtitles to gaga's audios.  :) zlouiemark [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Users are free to add themselves, but sure thing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Importance reassessments

I recently updated the importance scale for the project (a modified version of that from WikiProject Albums), and I think a lot of the articles should be reassessed to better reflect this. Because many of these assessments have been in place for awhile, it involves a large number of articles, and it could be controversial, I would like to get some feedback here first. Here are my suggestions.

Proposed importance assessments
Top importance
High importance
Mid importance
Low importance
Low importance OR possibly consider removing from scope
Remove from scope

I'm more than willing to discuss any of these. For now, "Lady Is a Tramp" and Cheek to Cheek singles are not included in this discussion (see RfC above). Just as a general note, Top importance should be for only the absolute core topics, those that non-fans would immediately be very familiar with. The bio is a given. The discography is a core part of Gaga's artistry so that has been included as well. Everything else is judged on the importance related to Gaga and/or FA/GA potential.

The film cameos and Sopranos extra bit should be removed from the scope of this project altogether. For crying out loud, one of these (Kingsman) is only currently in the project based on rumors. This is just going to lead us down a very slippery slope of including too many unnecessary articles. The Glee episodes, Fogel, and RedOne I'm not completely certain on, though I would lean towards excluding those as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Good ones. Now I believe the main studio albums should also be in Top-importance as well. I would say keep the Glee episodes, since it did feature her music and those songs charted also, but remove the Sporano one and Fogel. You are right about the films though, have to agree. Machete Kills I would move to low-importance as well. Pretty short appearance, and no real importance except her mainstream debut and the Razzie. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks mostly good. Studio albums should definitely be Top-Importance. List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga should be either Top or High. I would remove the Glee episodes because unlike "Brittany/Britney" where Britney Spears herself made a guest appearance, Gaga herself was not seen. I'd say remove Arthur Fogel and RedOne. However, I'm not too sure about removing the films (except for Kingsman) and Sopranos- they might have been brief appearances, but they did feature the woman herself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Both the Glee episodes were actually tributes to the artists, rather than just featuring their songs though. I would definitely think that would make them a part of this project. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your feedback. I'm inclined to agree with IndianBio about the films and the Sopranos episode. Merely featuring her ≠ it being relevant to the understanding of her. This is what I meant about heading down a slippery slope. Soon we'll be adding things like The Block (album) just because Gaga wrote one song and sang on another, if we use the same logic.
My only qualm about moving the individual albums to Top importance is that they are not vital to the understanding of Gaga like her biography and general discography are. They have lots of quality info and are strong candidates for future FAs, like a Top importance article, but readers who are not too familiar with Gaga may not know much about The Fame, Artpop, etc. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
One thing I should mention is that for other people's albums where she only wrote songs, I would only include such tracks in the project instead of the album itself (i.e. only include Jennifer Lopez's song "Hypnotico" instead of its parent album Love?). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm certainly not advocating to include albums Gaga was featured on in the project; I'm just saying that's the path we're headed towards if we include anything that she was at all a part of, no matter how insignificant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess the question lies in how significant aspects of her career must be to meet the inclusion criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah just simply adding a parent album is out of the question. I removed many such instances from the Madonna wikiproject. So we are agreeing that few second appearances on TV/film are not part of the project? And Chase, yes I can see where you are coming from with the albums as Top-imp and I think I can agree with your stance. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Im not sure about keeping lady starlight. i agree w/ whats on the list of being removed and will possibly be removed from the scope zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 16:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheek to Cheek as potential topic?

The project page includes other Gaga albums as potential topics. Should Cheek to Cheek also be added? ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Not untill the above RFC concludes. Its still not clear the scope of the topic. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Another Believer:, lol look at it, the RFC expired just now. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 03:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Fame Monster GAR

The Fame Monster, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Intel. Gaga.

Did you see about this project between Intel and Gaga for the 58th Annual Grammy Awards? I can't wait for her comeback!!! Read and watch. GagaNutellatalk 06:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

AHS SEASON 6

OMG GUYS!!!![1]

What is that? —IB [ Poke ] 14:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
She confirmed her returning to the series during a radio interview. I don't think she will be the lead actress, bus just as support actress is great!!! GagaNutellatalk 15:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Phew, monitoring those articles are pretty time consuming. —IB [ Poke ] 15:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/z100newyork/status/705759204905078785

I was hoping some WikiProject Television project members would be into AHS and work to promote these articles. Some of them probably wouldn't require too much work, but I am less familiar with episode articles and what they require. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What I know is that the main things each episode articles require to be GA-worthy are plot, production, critical reception, and (if available) views upon release. The requirements are not quite as complex as the ones for film articles, but they have a similar premise. It would definitely be appreciated if the television WikiProject were to help with the articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well none of them will work, they are all for working on the main season article. People like LLArrow specifically mentioned that they have no concern for the episode ones. —IB [ Poke ] 09:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If Gaga does not appear in the episode "Chapter 1", should we still tag the talk page with WikiProject Lady Gaga? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just keep it to those she is actually involved in, whether it is appearing in them, directing them, producing them, writing them, or any combination of those. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
So, I don't think she was involved with this episode, but I'm not 100% certain. I am fine with removing the WikiProject banner if we can determine that she was not involved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Update: IB removed the project banner. We can add back if we see that Gaga was somehow involved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Gaga actually appears in "Chapter 3". ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl LI halftime show

Should Super Bowl LI halftime show be redirected for now, or are there enough details to get an article started with background info, etc.? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Given how Gaga's performance was only confirmed two days ago and much of it only announces her involvement, I'd say wait first and see what comes up before starting an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous user has started the article, but I didn't want to spend time expanding it without support from others, otherwise it would be a waste of time. I don't have a problem with waiting, though I imagine there is some information available, such as director, sponsor, headliner confirmation, other logistics, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tony Bennett Celebrates 90 part of WikiProject Lady Gaga?

I tagged Tony Bennett Celebrates 90 as part of WikiProject Lady Gaga, but IndianBio said "compilations containing Gaga's recorded works are not part of the wikiproject". @IndianBio: I agreed with you at the time, when I thought this was just a studio compilation with one of Gaga's previously recorded songs. However, I believe this is actually a live album. Do you think we should add WikiProject Lady Gaga back, since that would make the track a unique recording? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: my answer is still no. Its Tony's live album and tribute special where Gaga had sang "La Vie en Rose". She has done it in many instances and her songs are present in many live and compilation recordings. That does not make it a part of the project. Because including such one-off recordings would be opening a whole can of worms. —IB [ Poke ] 05:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, no worries. Just wanted to run the idea by you and other project members. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Including the song she recorded for that album is understandable, but not the album as a whole because she didn't contribute to all of its tracks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"John Wayne"

Project members are welcome to assist with the expansion of John Wayne (song). Whether or not the song has been released as a single, there are sources on the article's talk page and even more coverage with the music video release. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Today's featured article / Main Page appearance

Congrats and thanks to all who helped get the Lady Gaga article featured on the Main Page! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Dive Bar Tour page move?

See Talk:Dive Bar Tour. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

FT

I'm very proud of this team! Congratulations on our FT. Now, let's make Gaga a FA lol GagaNutellatalk 22:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Record Sales

Hello everyone

I believe this page here needs updating, Gaga is only marked as having 114 million records sold when I believe this number is higher, however I'm not sure on the actual number. 146.90.100.229 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Main page image

Is it just my computer, or does the image of Lady Gaga on the main page stick outside the border? Is there a way to fix this? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It works fine for me, maybe its your screen width? —IB [ Poke ] 15:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. I won't worry about it if it's just how I see the main page on my computer. Thanks for replying. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lady Gaga's sixth studio album ("LG6")

I've created Draft:Lady Gaga's sixth studio album as a space to add notes and content related to Gaga's upcoming album. Feel free to add if you feel inclined, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Even Gaga has referred to the album by its working title "LG6", so I've moved the page to Draft:LG6. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The page is now live at Chromatica! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Stupid Love"

Starting a draft for "Stupid Love" at Draft:Stupid Love (Lady Gaga song). Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved to main space! See Stupid Love (Lady Gaga song) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Chromatica

Finally, Chromatica! Happy listening and editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started Alice (Lady Gaga song) and welcome further improvement, especially re: charts, credits/personnel, infobox, etc. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential topic: Chromatica

Resolved

Reminder: We can probably start a Chromatica topic template for the project page's "Potential topics" section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I totally agree with you! GagaNutellatalk 21:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
GagaNutella, Thanks for getting one started! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Upcoming Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett album

Draft:Upcoming Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett album, slated for release. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

There are reports of a live performance which may mean new details are on the way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, see Love for Sale (Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga album) ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: gif

Can we please starting doing more of this? I loved seeing this moving in the "Perfect Illusion" article. 👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Pining uploader IndianBio for input. It's an interesting creation for sure, but we have to keep WP:NFCC in mind. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I did another in "Ray of Light" and will continue to do so as and when I see the need of it. Not every article would need it though. I feel "Bad Romance", "Telephone", the songs from Born This Way and "Applause" would need one. —IB [ Poke ] 05:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I can definitely see how the animated gif used in "Ray of Light" is beneficial. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I, too, was wondering about WP:NFCC, but usually let folks more familiar with licensing and imagery worry about removing inappropriate content. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I love these GIFs! I'm totally in! GagaNutellatalk 01:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Most viewed start article in this Wikiproject

Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down) 14,746 491 Start--Coin945 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Dawn of Chromatica

See new remix album entry at Dawn of Chromatica. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"Babylon"

Another editor created a stub for Babylon (Lady Gaga song), but I anticipate someone will redirect unless any project members care to expand. Happy editing ! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: User:SNUGGUMS has redirected. I'm not opposed to an article being created if notability can be established, but the stub was not helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Free Woman" -- good article?

Resolved

Hello! Anyone interested in nominating Free Woman for Good article status? Related: Talk:Free Woman ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The article has been promoted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A Star Is Born

Saw the film over the weekend (which I loved!), and I've been listening to the soundtrack since. I've been working on the articles for "Shallow" and "I'll Never Love Again", and sharing a reminder here to update List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga here, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The list is already updated and AB, "I'll Never Love Again" needs third party independent notability. Otherwise it fails WP:NSONGS. Lets hope there is some chart placements. —IB [ Poke ] 12:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick work! Thanks to ArturSik for updating the list. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Notability should not be a problem. There's now a short article for "Always Remember Us This Way", too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Max24 and IndianBio: Thank you, both, for your work on "Maybe It's Time". I'm anxious to see if articles are developed for some of the other songs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Why Did You Do That?" has third party notability. Just need to find out the chart peaks (I know it did chart in some countries). —IB [ Poke ] 15:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Great! There's now a stub for expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems more songs from the soundtrack have charted. Perhaps Lady_Gaga_discography#Other_charted_songs needs to be updated? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Images in Joanne album article

Please see Talk:Joanne_(album)#Images to discuss which images are best for the Joanne article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Haus Laboratories

Hey there, I've created this draft for Haus Laboratories. I'm here inviting everyone to colaborate and expad if neessary. Haus labs' article is very important because the brand is growing a lot and if you take a look at Gaga's Insta/Twitter, she is promoting more it than Chromatica, for example. Please, feel free to edit because I will submit it for review ASAP. GagaNutellatalk 22:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

One Last Time: an Evening with Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga

Hey, how are you guys? I have created an article about this special. Can you help me to expand it? GagaNutellatalk 03:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The Queen (Lady Gaga song)

How is everyone? Have you seen this new article? GagaNutellatalk 14:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

From a glance, it largely seems to rely on album reviews instead of pieces focusing specifically on that track, which is definitely not a good sign. It might have to be redirected. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Even though the entry has been promoted at ES and PT Wikipedias? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the song may not have enough notability and the article has many unreliable sources. "Bloody Mary" and "Heavy Metal Lover" have more notability and they don't have their own articles. GagaNutellatalk 22:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It's safe to say PopCrush and PopDust aren't trustworthy publications and inserting them was a mistake to begin with. What we should opt for is pieces that are dedicated to the song itself, just stronger than either of those sources. Album reviews alone don't cut it and niether does anything that just gives a brief mention (e.g. under a cumulative paragraph). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no independent notability of this article at all. Please redirect it. —IB [ Poke ] 10:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I tried redirecting, but somebody already restored the article, so I just nominated it for deletion in the end. This way others can share their opinion, as well. I really don't see any reason for that article to exist... Gaga has far more notable songs which don't have their own article. --Sricsi (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lady_Gaga/Archive_1&oldid=1146373700"