Nora lives (talk | contribs) Undid revision 403314447 by Legolas2186 (talk) wrong decision |
collapse section, enough already |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
== Not Full Italian American. == |
== Not Full Italian American. == |
||
{{collapse top|Starts off well enough, but descends into original research and incivility}} |
|||
In a recent article, published it is stated that, her father is Italian American, while her mother is of, French and English decent. Please Note the change ASAP. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.174.152.109|24.174.152.109]] ([[User talk:24.174.152.109|talk]]) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
In a recent article, published it is stated that, her father is Italian American, while her mother is of, French and English decent. Please Note the change ASAP. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.174.152.109|24.174.152.109]] ([[User talk:24.174.152.109|talk]]) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:I don't plan to insert any of this in the article. This is a fine purpose for the talk page, which is not being misused. [[User:DinDraithou|DinDraithou]] ([[User talk:DinDraithou|talk]]) 00:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
:I don't plan to insert any of this in the article. This is a fine purpose for the talk page, which is not being misused. [[User:DinDraithou|DinDraithou]] ([[User talk:DinDraithou|talk]]) 00:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
::And this thread '''does''' help the article. It's what you'll have to refer to when the inevitable "also French, etc., on her mother's side" reappears. [[User:DinDraithou|DinDraithou]] ([[User talk:DinDraithou|talk]]) 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
::And this thread '''does''' help the article. It's what you'll have to refer to when the inevitable "also French, etc., on her mother's side" reappears. [[User:DinDraithou|DinDraithou]] ([[User talk:DinDraithou|talk]]) 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse top|Irrelevant to improving the article, and largely uncivil}} |
|||
::No, the talk page is for discussing improvements related to the article. I suggest you cease adding useless stuff, lest I will archive this whole section for irrelevant commentary. — <font color="blue">[[User:Legolas2186|''Legolas'']]</font> [[User talk:Legolas2186|<sup>(<font color="red">talk</font><font color="green">2</font><font color="orange">me</font>)</sup>]] 08:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
::No, the talk page is for discussing improvements related to the article. I suggest you cease adding useless stuff, lest I will archive this whole section for irrelevant commentary. — <font color="blue">[[User:Legolas2186|''Legolas'']]</font> [[User talk:Legolas2186|<sup>(<font color="red">talk</font><font color="green">2</font><font color="orange">me</font>)</sup>]] 08:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::<small>Personal attack redacted <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''[[User:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch</font></font>]]''' [[User talk:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]</font>]]</span> 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)</small> [[User:DinDraithou|DinDraithou]] ([[User talk:DinDraithou|talk]]) 08:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
:::<small>Personal attack redacted <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''[[User:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch</font></font>]]''' [[User talk:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]</font>]]</span> 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)</small> [[User:DinDraithou|DinDraithou]] ([[User talk:DinDraithou|talk]]) 08:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:02, 20 December 2010
Lady Gaga has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Not Full Italian American.
Starts off well enough, but descends into original research and incivility
|
---|
In a recent article, published it is stated that, her father is Italian American, while her mother is of, French and English decent. Please Note the change ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.152.109 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
No, roots web is not reliable. Her mother is half Italian and half French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.217.18 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
So I will eventually be creating an article on the Byset family to cover their history in Scotland and in Ireland, and also to discuss their uncertain origins in some detail. It now looks possible they were actually Greek Normans, as claimed in an important Irish source, although a Teutonic origin, whether Norse or Frankish, can also be supported. Clan Bissett serves its own purpose for modern Scotland and its strange laws concerning the current and former nobility, the Bissetts at present belonging to the latter, but is not suitable for the fascinating history of the sept in medieval Ireland or their modern descendants. Whenever the new article starts, which could be a day or weeks from now, I'll let everyone here know. As promised, however, and without original research (OR), I have reliable sources which would, were a paper or volume to be written on the subject, support the argument that Gaga's maternal grandfather's lineage is in fact Scotch-Irish as that classification is understood in America. First of all, we have Jacob Bissett, evidently born in Maryland in 1786 and who is obviously not Jacques Pascal Besset of Quebec. Jacob moves to Fayette County, Pennsylvania and there marries Sarah Enochs,[13][14][15] herself born there in 1778 and who may or may not have descended from a Dutch-gone-Swedish family (who knows?),[16] and the two have Reason/Raison,[17] and at least one other child Brice Brison.[18] Now none of any of this so far tells us Jacob was Scotch-Irish, that is besides his Scoto-Irish surname Bissett, but this source more or less does:
That article only covers selected individuals and Morrow does not mention the Bissetts. What he does say, however (p. 166), is that Maryland was one of the principal sources for the families of Fayette County. This claim we can easily support with lots and lots and lots of sources, which state that Maryland was in fact a principal source of the Scotch-Irish basically everywhere in Pennsylvania, including Fayette County. Here are two nice ones.[19][20] And now we get to go back from Maryland to Ulster and understand it all.[21][22][23][24] Jacob Bissett was Scotch-Irish. Saying more might be original research but maybe I'll come back just to tease you with a little speculation anyway. The noble family in Ulster actually persisted on some of their lands into the 16th century. In any case I'll tell you when Byset family is up and started. DinDraithou (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, I have begun to assemble the primary sources which I will eventually use for the article at User:DinDraithou/Byset family (click the star to watch the page). This may end up becoming an article principally on the history of the family in Ireland, since I have discovered they developed a relationship with the O'Neill dynasty and I am equipped to discuss the aspects of this and other important developments, especially in their sovereignty. They soon enough got an O'Neill princess out of it, and at some point before or after began to act like something like flatha (princes) themselves, according to the documents. Earlier in Scotland one Bissett had already married a daughter of one of the kings from the House of Dunkeld, a dynasty itself probably of Northern Irish origin. So the Bissett family did very, very well in both nations, for a time. Whether Gaga has the Scoto-Irish or Scottish only lineage she (and most Bissetts) will have some distant Gaelic royal ancestry. Many people do of course, like yours truly (southern Irish), but this is still a pleasure to discover. Sadly the Irish Bissett pedigrees do not survive to my knowledge and so there is only genetic testing to discover or reestablish lineages. If the family, who seem to have lost their lordship by the mid-16th century, had remained in good shape a little longer then their pedigrees would have made it into the 17th century compilations of Duald Mac Firbis and Cú Choigcríche Ó Cléirigh. The Battle of Cnoc Buidhbh in 1522 probably ruined them, leaving them too weak to defend against their encroaching kinsmen and "friends" the MacDonnells, who eventually grabbed the lordship, basing their claim to it on the marriage to Marjory a century and a half before. This still exists today in part, belonging to the Earl of Antrim, who although technically a Kerr does descend from the MacDonnells and through them the Bissetts. DinDraithou (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
upBissett family (Ireland). The article will grow slowly. I have it outlined, but the family have not been well covered in Irish scholarship and so the secondary sources are limited. They are discussed a little in some recent scholarship but I do not have these papers. Hopefully other editors will contribute as well. I will make as many of the primary sources available as I can find, and thankfully nearly all of these are online at the CELT Project (UCC), the Internet Archive, and Googlebooks. Yes, unbelievably we are on Lady Gaga's talk page. Time for an admission. I soon enough discovered that I could benefit from studying the history of the family. There are a variety of uses for what I have found. Importantly they are a wonderful example of cultural assimilation in Late Gaelic Ireland. In any case, it is my belief that our dear own Lady Gaga's maternal grandfather is somewhat more likely to have the Irish lineage than the Scottish, although a genetic test might reveal anything, or very little. It at least appears that some Bissetts remained in Ulster following their dispossession, and the Ulster Scots people were mostly from a region of Britain where relatively few Bissetts, at least today, are native. The Scotch-Irish incorporated more than the Ulster Scots, including a small variety of the native Irish, to whom the Irish Bissetts by that time belonged. There is little more to be said right now. DinDraithou (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure Lady Gaga herself is not aware of all her family ancestry as you seem to be interested in. It's not that this topic's completely irrelevant, just it has nothing to do with who Gaga is as an artist and should be kept to a minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.217.18 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
What on Earth?! WP:EQ --Cprice1000talk2me 17:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Edit Request: New Photo
On the edit page, it says there must be permission to have a photo change. Instead of Lady Gaga in the cheetah print, could we please switch it to a photo of her from Lollapolooza 2010. The purple jacket and her hair look very good. I believe it gives her a better impression among people who do not know much about her. Please look over this photo change request and really consider it!
Thanks so much!
Griggj12 (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Griggj12
- Offending the public is not a consideration in selecting an image. The most representative image and best picture of her is. Did you have a free picture taken at Lollapalooza in mind? —C.Fred (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The image would need to be copyright free to meet WP:NFCC for an infobox image. It would also need to show Lady Gaga's face clearly, which is sometimes a problem. It's unlikely that a real cheetah or leopard died to make the costume in the infobox, it is just animal print.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, per WP:NOTCENSORED, offending people is not a problem. (Furthermore, it's kind of obvious that she doesn't care about offending those opposed to wearing animals after the meat dress fiasco...) But a new image isn't totally out of the question, it just has to be of high quality, show her face, and other editors have to agree to its use. Possible replacements: File:Lady Gaga Glitter and Grease2.jpg, File:Gaga at monster booth2.jpg (but this could possibly cause an issue as her hat covers a part of her face). –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Both the pictures you posted, donot show the artist's face properly, and is hidden behind the shades. I would propose a different one, like this, although people would complain that it shows blood. A crop would do the job though. Frankly, I don't see any reason to replace the image we have at present. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The requirements are that the subject's face is shown clearly, which it is in both pictures (or at least the Monster Ball one, but I still think the CES shows enough of her face that it would be permissible). WP:IQR#Ability to recognize does not prohibit sunglasses and they certainly don't distract from the fact that it is undoubtedly Lady Gaga in the pictures (see the FA Michael Jackson as well), not to mention that they're probably two of the highest quality Gaga pictures on Commons. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I know very well about IQR, however that is not a case when a perfectly taken, full frontal picture of the subjectr is present. A clear face pic is always preferable over an image wearing shades. And all images in Monster Ball category are high resoolution only. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's a difference between high resolution and high quality. And both of the images I posted, especially the CES one, are perfectly taken and of very high quality, definitely of higher quality than the current infobox image. I would like to see which policy or guideline says we can't use pictures where the subject is wearing sunglasses. There are plenty of images of Michael Jackson in the Commons where he isn't wearing them and his main infobox image is one where he does, and that article is a FA. The goal is to get the highest quality picture possible where the subject is easily identifiable. Both of those images meet the criteria, and arguably moreso than the current. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I know very well about IQR, however that is not a case when a perfectly taken, full frontal picture of the subjectr is present. A clear face pic is always preferable over an image wearing shades. And all images in Monster Ball category are high resoolution only. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The requirements are that the subject's face is shown clearly, which it is in both pictures (or at least the Monster Ball one, but I still think the CES shows enough of her face that it would be permissible). WP:IQR#Ability to recognize does not prohibit sunglasses and they certainly don't distract from the fact that it is undoubtedly Lady Gaga in the pictures (see the FA Michael Jackson as well), not to mention that they're probably two of the highest quality Gaga pictures on Commons. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Both the pictures you posted, donot show the artist's face properly, and is hidden behind the shades. I would propose a different one, like this, although people would complain that it shows blood. A crop would do the job though. Frankly, I don't see any reason to replace the image we have at present. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Legolas2186, the current picture of her looks manly, to a point. Plus, it's not one of her best photos out there. Why not make Gaga look her best on a site that so many people visit? Sunglasses really do not matter. It actually is apart of her and it represents Gaga and her fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griggj12 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Better plan. The person from who we got that G&G image, has exceptional high quality images from the your. She is willing to release it under the SA domain if requested. I think I will write up to her to release one of the better images, other than the G&G one. The one which shows her face clearly. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- These two are probably the best choices. Very high quality, very clear shots of the face. The first image is more flattering but the second image has an excellent shot of the face. Ask her if she can license both of these so we can see which works better. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, you are right, the second image will probably stir up more controversy amongst users. I was wondering, what do you think of this one? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's a little too grainy and bright. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just gimme a list of images she can SA. She won't release all of them I'm afraid. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The two images I posted above, and anything you might want licensed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Chase (for the first one), despite i'd prefer to put this one or this because it shows more about the personality of Gaga (her extravagance). Lxhizy! (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The two images I posted above, and anything you might want licensed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just gimme a list of images she can SA. She won't release all of them I'm afraid. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's a little too grainy and bright. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, you are right, the second image will probably stir up more controversy amongst users. I was wondering, what do you think of this one? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- These two are probably the best choices. Very high quality, very clear shots of the face. The first image is more flattering but the second image has an excellent shot of the face. Ask her if she can license both of these so we can see which works better. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
So did you guys get any photos licensed and what not? 71.115.176.58 (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I found this one in the wikimedia commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_GaGa_cropped.jpg
- Sorry IP, too old. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, there's no policy/guideline that says we must use the most recent images available. An image from 2008 is perfectly acceptable to use, especially since Gaga does not look much different now. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, why the hell would we want to use that when there are much more recent images? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, there's no policy/guideline that says we must use the most recent images available. An image from 2008 is perfectly acceptable to use, especially since Gaga does not look much different now. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
New Album Name
The album name has changed to "Almost Perfect". http://www.billboard.com/#/news/billboard-bits-gaga-calls-new-album-almost-1004128006.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itachisan125 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, are you even serious? — Legolas (talk2me) 15:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Aha. Just stop. 71.115.176.58 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC) What do you mean. I put out a reasonable and appropriate source providing for what I said, if thats good enough for you spoiled nerds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itachisan125 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to have misunderstood that article, the album is most certainly not called 'almost perfect' - Jer757 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
lol, that was the funniest thread on a wikipedia talk page XD, she means that the album itself is almost perfect in terms of recording and arranging.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Goodness, no Gaga said her album is almost perfect.. it's definitely called "Born This Way". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.217.18 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It says right in the first sentence of that source article that the title is "Born This Way". Apparently, the OP only read the headline -- and stopped reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.104.58 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Fashions of Gaga?
Q: I thought she had a house of Gaga or something but i don't see a separate fashion area, anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.3.142 (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Germanotta" vs. "Gaga"
I was just reading a few other articles and saw that usually, the real name is referred to instead of the stage name. ie for Fergie (singer): "Ferguson was a member of the female trio Wild Orchid, which she fronted with Stefanie Ridel and fellow Kids Incorporated star Renee Sandstrom." The article continues to refer to her as "Ferguson" throughout.
vs. for Lady Gaga, "An avid thespian in high school musicals, Gaga portrayed lead roles as Adelaide in Guys and Dolls and Philia in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum."
Should this not be "An avid thespian in high school musicals, Germanotta portrayed lead roles as Adelaide in Guys and Dolls and Philia in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum."? Has there been past discussion of this?
Also - I was just thinking. Is it acceptable to refer to her as simply "Gaga"? Has that become her de facto last name? Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- There was past discussion. A quick search (via the box in the header) turned up Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 5#Gaga/Germanotta. Since she's known best as Lady Gaga, WP:SURNAME indicates that it is acceptable to refer to her as Lady Gaga throughout the article rather than Germanotta, per WP:SURNAME. As for shortening it to just Gaga, in a functional sense, it functions as either a last name or a title of nobility—and in either case, WP:SURNAME permits using just Gaga. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for Save-Me-Oprah, the part of SURNAME that this would fall under would be the one about artists who are best known by stage names but use their legal names professionally. Fergie has used her legal name professionally, unlike Gaga, which is why using "Germanotta" is not appropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Movie and television by Lady Gaga
- As actress:
- The Gospel of Mark for Little Children 2009: role as Madja Look
- The Sopranos (Television Series 1999–2007): Girl at Swimming Pool #2 in "The Telltale Moozadell" (#3.9) 2001 (GaGa's Sop-rise appearance)
- As play sountrack
Newone (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Credited as S. Germanotta. Not as Lady Gaga. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter as they're still acting credits by her. Not sure how notable the Gospel of Mark film is but the Sopranos appearance is definitely notable and is worth adding. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Should we add a table?
Year Title Role Notes 2001 The Sopranos Girl at Swimming Pool #2 Uncredited extra
"The Telltale Moozadell" (Season 3, episode 9)2005 Boiling Points Herself Credited as Stefani Germanotta
- I feel its unnecessary to add a table. And I don't find the Boiling Point appearance also as notable. I will work a way to include The Sopranos appearance. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Boiling Points was somewhat notable. It shouldn't be omitted. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Languages
It's stated that Born This Way will have songs recorded in four different languages. I've checked the sources and none of them are reliable. It says that the guy is only trying to persuade her. There is no official statement from Gaga or any of her affiliates and we can't know for sure that the album will contain said songs.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give a gist of what is written in thew article? — Legolas (talk2me) 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't get you. The source says that said person is trying to persuade Gaga to do some songs in other languages such as Russian. There was no official response on behalf of Gaga or any proof that she was recording any multi-lingual songs.--196.218.126.73 (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Associated Acts
I saw this on several other artists pages. Is there any reason why an "associated acts" line is not on the info block on the top-right on the page with here picture. It would make sense to include Semi Precious Weapons, Lady Starlight, and Space Cowboy in it. It almost seems weird to leave them out.163.118.213.59 (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Associated acts are referred to bands or acts who would have performed for a long time alongside with the artist, ie Gaga. SPW are just opening for Gaga, and cant be associated. LS did not perform alongside Gaga. She was just the DJ, same for SC. A previous consensus resulted in the removal of the tag from the infobox. I suggest you do a search of the archives. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Record labels
Has there been any discussion on the record label tag in the infobox? Presently, both Def Jam and Cherrytree are included. However, she is no longer signed to these labels. Should there be a date (ie 2006 and 2007-2009, respectively) next to them? Right now, it looks like she is signed to ALL those labels at the current. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If she isn't signed to them, yes that is exactly what should happen. --Cprice1000talk2me 22:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- No. See Template:Infobox musical artist. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Chase. The labels—current and past—are presented per the documentation for the infobox template. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Classically trained or entirely self-taught?
OK, it's been established that she's been playing the piano since she was four, and learned by ear. What I would like to know is, did she at any point take up piano lessons or did she always rely on her own skills? Because I've read elsewhere that she was classically trained, so I'm entirely unsure. And can she read music? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Read music as in? Read the musical notes? Yes, she can, she said that herself. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)