Talk:Lady Gaga

From MansonWiki, the Marilyn Manson encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This should be removed. I'm a fan of Lady Gaga personally, but she doesn't deserve her own article on the MARILYN MANSON wiki. They collaborated on one remix (and btw, Manson didn't remix it himself, he just supplied the extra vocals on the chorus. It was remixed by Chew Fu) and have had no other contact that we know of since then. Are we really going to start articles for every artist who ever remixed a Manson song or whom Manson did a remix for? I vote that this article gets removed. Lagozzino

So the articles about Slipknot and Joey Jordison should be removed too, because they didn't collaborate a lot with Manson (maybe a little bit more than Lady Gaga, but not enough to have their own aritcles). I4ig0 17:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Lady gaga should be removed and maybe Joey Jordison but Slipknot have collaborated with Manson at least four times. Yawaraey 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Yawaraey Lagozzino 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe all collaborators are notable, regardless of the capacity they've been involved with Manson; I just never had the time to work out articles for everybody. Alden Weston talk forum profile 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree Vixen. People looking for info about Manson may want to read about who collaborated, but I think hardly any of them is interested in extensive articles about the individual artists. For those that are we can provide external links. The imprortant part is how and why they collaborated, and when that's only one or two songs we could easily mention that at the song's articles. I just deleted some stubs about some early Mrs. Scabtree collaborators, there's nothing more to say about them that justifies their own page. Slipknot and for example The Prodigy are a grey area, but I'm not even sure those pages have a home here. Jessicka is a good example of an artist that does belong here, as are godhead (because of them having been signed at Posthuman Records. Litso 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the mansonwiki used to have an article that was a compilation list of various bands that had collaborated with Manson at one point or another? I could swear it was on here and had short articles about each band with just a quick history and a mention of how they collaborated with Manson. Maybe I imagined it, but still, I think that we really should have an article like that on the wiki, if only to avoid having a bunch of articles that are only tangentially related to Marilyn Manson.
I like that Lady Gaga and Manson worked together, but does that really merit an exhaustive article detailing her entire life with only a small note at the end about Manson? I don't think so. Manson also remixed a Linkin Park song, so should they have a full biography here too? Does Felix Da Housecat get an article for remixing Personal Jesus? I'd like to think that if the article has nothing to do with Marilyn Manson except for a passing mention of a collaboration, then it has no business being on this wiki.
As for which collaborators we should consider "worthy" of larger articles, I think those should be reserved for people like Bon Harris, Trent Reznor, Charlie Clouser and Sean Beaven; people who are (or were) frequent collaborators who have actually worked on the band's albums over the years and could almost be considered honorary members of the band for the work they put in. Lagozzino 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[[Related bands and artists]]. All in favor of reinstating this article say "aye!" Litso 09:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I never said the articles had to be extensive, I just think that anyone who pertains to the scope of this website warrants an article of their own. The exact length of each article will just vary from person to person. If I had the Internet to myself I could show you exactly what I mean, but at the moment that isn't the case. I haven't got the time to check every related musician's article, but looking at this particular one, it's clear that it's been copy-pasted from Wikipedia, so rather than worry about biographies for "unworthy" musicians and such and how they have no place here, I think the more important question would be how can we refine it to the standards of this website. Has anybody noticed how several (maybe more, like I said I've been Internet-challenged since November) Manson articles on Wikipedia have been copied from here? For example much of The High End of Low (especially the reception section which I wrote, though there may be some differences now) on Wikipedia was copied directly from here. Where I'm going with this is that in the beginning MansonWiki's album articles were copied from Wikipedia, and now we're in the position where te opposite occurs. That is why it's important to take all this copy-pasted material and decide how it can be revised to apply MansonWiki, because we've already shown the effectiveness of making articles "ours." Alden Weston talk forum profile 00:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
@Listo - I'll volunteer to work on the "related bands and artists" article. I should have some time tonight and on the weekend to pull something together.
@Vixen - My problem wasn't really the length of the article, so much as the manson-related content. A full biography of Lady Gaga with only a passing mention of Manson just seems out of place to me. I'll work on editing it though, when I'm compiling that list of related acts. Lagozzino 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
@Vixen: I agree on some parts, but I have the same thoughts about it as Lagozzino. Thinking from the visitor's perspective, which is obviously an important one, what do you seek and expect to find on a Manson website? When an artist collaborates with Manson you'd want to know about it, obviously. Ideally everything that has to do with Manson should be present on this website. So if somebody hears Manson and Lady GaGa collaborated, he'll want to read about it here, which he can do at the song's page. If that's all there is to it, why make an article about Lady GaGa that doesn't have anything to do with Manson except for that one collaboration? Hardly anybody is going to read the entire article, they'll want to read about how she has to do with Manson, so we mention that (as mentioned if they really want to read more we should just link to wikipedia).
So, if we keep that in mind and just state some basic info (Lady GaGa is an artist, blabla, two lines of introduction) and then skip to the Manson part the article gets really short. There's hardly anything to link to on this website except for the article about the song the reader just came from, and they're stuck. They can go back a page, or use the sidebar to start browsing for another article, but they're pogosticking, something all usability experts try to avoid and with a reason: it's annoying as hell. Ending up on a stub page, reading three lines and then having to go back to read on is acceptable once in a while, but the more it happens the more people get annoyed. People see a link to a page and expect a page, not three lines of text.
The related bands and artists page on the other hand provides the exact same information as all the individual articles would, but they also provide something else: related information people weren't looking for but might be interested in. They still might choose to browse back, but at least they get the opportunity to read on after finishing the part about Lady GaGa and read some other stuff they didn't know about. The artists directly above and below are L.U.N.G.S and Life Sex & Death. Each three sentences, but already four links to former bandmembers. Readers get an opportunity to read on, click onwards and find new pages in stead of getting stuck or having to go back. WILFing is good. In a nutshell: I think a single page collecting all related bands and artists that have (rough guideline) less than four collaborations/contributions or collaborations in only one era/album has a great advantage over a lot of single stubs.
@Lagozzino: please hold on until we're all agreeing here. I can easily undelete the related bands article and we'll just see what needs to be done to update it, if we decide to go back to using it. Litso 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Shut the fuck up Litso, I'll handle this! No I'm kidding, just feeling hyper for various reasons. Anyways, I don't really have the time to read everything you said Lagozzino (please don't be offended, when I have the net at my place and I can actually concentrate I'd love to see what ideas you're proposing). Which brings me to my next point, when I do have the net to myself I'd like to do a writeup of a typical related band or artist in the sandbox. Actually that gives me an idea, if there's anyone here besides myself who is actually for artists having their own articles so long as they're done the right way, I'd like to challenge you to try to come up with a good format for such articles as this one. I don't know, if anyone's interested. Either way it's on my list of things to do. Alden Weston talk forum profile 00:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't feel that an extensive Biography on Lady Gaga is necessary. They collaborated on one song, which was not even featured on a Manson album. I was suprised to find that there was no Biography for Rudy Coby when I first came aboard, seeing as how he is an obvious collaborator. I believe we should focus bios on those who have had a major role and/or influence in Manson in one form or another. For Example, Steve Macauley (Camets) who is Manson's personal assistant/ head of the official Youtube. Helnwein, Perou, Dean Karr, Delaney Bishop, and could even go as far as Jordowsky, et cetera rather than a single pop star who's collaboration was most likely an attempt at boosting records sales through Universal Music. There is a lot of work to be done, and I feel that rather than spending time combing through the minute details of an extensive biography we should focus on bringing forth new ideas to make the Wiki the penultimate resource. Which is why Jen convinced Litso to create an interview section, I'd rather see more time being put into that than a bio on Gaga.
Jen & I are currently in the process of an entire visual revamping of the site. Which is why we haven't been making as many edits the past two weeks.
We have a few more ideas for new sections, but at the moment the visual aspect is where our attention is focused, We will keep you posted in the coming weeks.
[g]S (godspeed 07:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
I personally think there should be a page devoted to known collaborators, perhaps not a page each but a single page with a contents. It will be evident whether a person/band is a large or small collaborator of by the amount of text devoted to them, all collaborators should still be noted I think though, just not a whole page and as Litso has mentioned, anyone wanting information about Manson may want to know who collaborated, I know I do. Wiki is about providing as much accurate information as possible in my opinion, what one finds relevant another finds useless, however, that doesnt mean it should not be reported if known. In the case of Lady Ga Ga and smilar, I would suggest rather than spending time writing a bio on an artist other than Marilyn Manson, a heading on the "Related bands and artists"/"Collaborations" page and a brief outline of the collaboration, with a link to her already written article on wiki, a suitable edit on her wiki page to note the collaboration and a link back to here. The same for other collaborators, that way you don't have to spend time writing up bios about another artist and you generate traffic back to MansonWiki. ‡-me-‡ 08:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat on the fence with this issue, but as you should know, you specifically wouldn't be charged with the task of writing the biographies for non-Manson personnel. This is a wiki, someone else would be bound to come along and do it themselves eventually. No one here besides Litso knows half of the menial tasks I sat down to clear up for MansonWiki (many of which were mind-numbingly boring but I still went through with anyway). My point is everyone has their own comfort zone in terms of what they want to contribute to (for example, Jen's wouldn't be related band/artist biographies, which again I never said needed to be extensive; that's what stub-class articles are for), but as long as there's room for development on the wiki, it's a fact that someone who knows what they're talking about will come to lend a hand in explaining or refining things. The reason I support individual articles for these people is because using their names as search words on websites like Google will likely keep our rank from slipping if their names are used in the titles of their own articles. Alden Weston talk forum profile 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, please read and respond to my thoughts on user behaviour and expectations. Second, your google argument is invalid, and I'll explain why. Google ranks pages by an algorithm unknown to anybody, but at least we know it takes in consideration the amount of links to a page, the respect (PageRank) the referring pages has in Google's eyes, the amount of relevant text in a page, the keyword density of the searched term and the keywords used in the link towards the page. An individual article on Lady GaGa (to stick to the example, although the same goes for all other related bands) is short, has a low keyword density (the name is mentioned only once or twice, but is surrounded by more irrelevant text like the sidebars etc than there is text in the article itself), and has only a small handful of links pointing to it. The referrer's pagerank and link text will stay the same. Searching for Lady GaGa on google will never turn up a result from the MansonWiki. Why is this? Because Google ranks the page very low. And why is that? Because Google tries to predict what a visitor will expect, and someone looking for Lady GaGa will not expect to end up on a stub on her collaborations with Manson.
Putting all bands on a single page will lower the keyword density of a band's name, but it will up the keyword density of "marilyn manson". This makes the chance of finding that page when searched for Lady Gaga and Manson a lot higher. The page ranks quite okay for Marilyn Manson, and because Lady GaGa is also mentioned it is very relevant. People will actually expect to end up on a page about the both of them when looking for both terms, and because the keyword density and relevancy of "marilyn manson" is high for the entire MansonWiki and for this page even more so because it is mentioned at every artist's description, Google will show this page. (Yes, when searching for both artists the individual page will also be relevant, but the word manson is mentioned a lot less and so the page will be ranked less relevant for the search words). Also, an article on several related artists has a lot more links to it and more text, so it's pagerank will be higher regardless of which terms were searched for. In the end this argument is quite similar to the one I made about user expectations, because Google tries to match it's results to what the user wants to find. From both the perspective of the user and that of Google's search results I think it's safe to say a 'related bands and artists' page is more valuable than several single stubs on artists. Litso 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I see. I knew you might know the bottom line for this argument better than anybody, so thanks for clearing that up. I was under that impression because of what an administrator at another wiki I once worked on put in my head. Anyways, as long as the reinstated related bands article is done properly than I have no complaints. Alden Weston talk forum profile 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Page title[edit]

Shouldn't it be Lady Gaga. Yawaraey 14:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia the article is called Lady Gaga, so I think it's the correct version I4ig0 (Talk) 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
She's been known to sometimes stylize it as "GaGa". And that guy Perez Hilton (who is close friends with her and can probably be considered an authority on the subject) spells it GaGa. I don't really care either way about what way we spell it, but I don't think the way we have it now is incorrect.--Lagozzino 15:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)