Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 18

"Actor"?

Her film role (which might be very big at all) has yet to be aired and yet she is put in all of these "Actors" categories? She is not well-known for her acting and I don't think that many people even know that she has been cast in a film. One cameo appearance and some music videos do not make a person an "actor", it is for people who have had a series of stage, TV and film appearances over their career. A smattering of stunt casting roles do not make someone an actor.

It's like if you said every actor who sang a song was a "singer". Maybe technically true, but not their primary occupation. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Information

A lot of unsourced information on this article. "Unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" per Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaeditor10011 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Users wrote too much for this article without citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaeditor10011 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed immediately. Let's not selectively edit policies now. And as I said in my edit summary, the article body is impeccably sourced, while the lead's lack of sourcing is appropriate per WP:CITELEAD, as all the citations would be redundant from the article body and theoretically impede the lead's readability.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Vote for Influence Section to be Deleted

Listing "Influences" is overly promotional. Being a fan or an admirer is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaeditor10011 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently promotional about an "Influences" section. An artist's influences can play a huge part in their life and career, so it's easily worthwhile information, and in this case the content of that section is well-sourced.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As Mbinebri pointed out, no, the section wont be deleted. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

The Fame Monster is not a studio album it is an EP thus should be removed from her discography on the main page. It should only be The Fame, Born This Way and ARTPOP. Popofculture (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out that it belongs there because it was an extremely significant release and was treated as though it were a studio album, rather than as most extended plays are treated. Most extended plays don't have 3 global singles (along with another local one) and a supporting world tour. MusicMonster96 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It would be better to reach a consensus with the other editors before making this change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wordage

9,500 words. Sigh. Sca (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Move this to Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Blatant WP:POINT violation. -- tariqabjotu 15:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Lady Gaga → Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta – Slippery slope of people choosing their own name plus fear of confusion by wikipedia users who expect all names to be same as legal name.

Lady Gaga is not this person's legal name. By WP:COMMONNAME we cannot allow anyone to claim to change the name. What if someone claims to be named Jesus Christ? Would we need to change the name too? And what about wikipedia users that look for Stefani Germanotta and then get confused by the realization that a person could pick her own name?Vexorian (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME. --GeicoHen (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. This is very unlikely to happen because it is a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, this clearly goes against WP:COMMONNAME. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 15 October 2013

Please change the caption from 'in September 1' to 'on September 1'. 171.207.247.143 (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting that, 171.207.247.143! :) Acalamari 15:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert explained

I reverted this change because of its magnitude, and because it introduced date range MOS errors and the removed The Fame Monster from the discography section. I don't have any objection to the removal of trivia but I think something like this ought to be done in a series of smaller edits with clear edit summaries rather than in one massive edit. Thoughts? I'm happy to revert if necessary. Acalamari 08:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right in reverting the change. It seemed to be XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk · contribs)'s own personal choice to remove content deeming them as unneeded but failing to explain as to why. Request XXSNUGGUMSXX to gain a consensus here in the talk page before making such a drastic move and removing content. Failure to do so would be deemed as disruptive. Also, I have seen your edits on the Katy Perry and Artpop album pages XXSNUGGUMSXX, and you are equally non-vocal and unresponsive about changes without consensus and get into edit warring. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, tattoos and natural hair color are not notable features. Also, much of the content I removed came from unreliable sources. The only times I ever really got into "edit warring" was trying to stop the sock abuser Brexx on Prism (Katy Perry album), though. Additionally, I never really edited the Artpop page very much. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said about Artpop, so I'm not worried about that page. However, most of everything else that's been mentioned still stands. Again, I don't have a problem with cutting out trivia, just in the manner in which it's been done. What links do you consider to be unreliable sources and why? I don't think that's an unreasonable question, otherwise, your edits appear as mostly-unexplained content removal.

As for IndianBio's concern about your lack of communication, you removed the note I left for you earlier; you're free to do that, of course, but dismissing other people's input - be it in the form of talk page messages or edit summaries - isn't beneficial to anyone (your talk page has a history of complaints). Acalamari 13:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To be specific, OK! Magazine, Daily Mail, Perez Hilton, and Huffington Post are all unreliable sources as they are known to repeatedly give out false information. The link containing commentary from Perez also gives false information such as giving "Gabriella" as Gaga's middle name when in fact her middle names are "Joanne" and "Angelina". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that other editors have already explained about the removal of some of those sources; I was hoping you would wait before cutting the article, seeing as there currently isn't any consensus for your edits and this discussion is ongoing. In addition, The Fame Monster is regarded as a major release and shouldn't be removed from the discography section. Acalamari 16:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

edit request- editor's English seemingly not a first language

Section "Public Image", 4th para; "Showpiece of the exhibition was a compilation of effigies of two women who have achieved a high status in the society of its time.[196] One of them, Dorothea de Biron came from a princely family and as a matter of birth, but also beauty and intellect, was universally a admired figure in the late 18th-century court culture, celebrity at that time."

several grammatical issues here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.88.20 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out and I have corrected it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Forbes most powerful women

She needs to be added to [[Category:Forbes most powerful women]]. Thanks.

Ghost section. Signing to add timestamp. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Length

Am I the only one who thinks this article is way too long?2.102.82.162 (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no limit to how long a Wikipedia article can be, although it sometimes is necessary to split some of the content off into other articles. That being said, it's good to remove trivia and redundancies; how would you trim this article? It would be helpful to know what you think should be cut; suggestions are very much welcome, although random comments about the article length because of dislike for the subject are unhelpful. Acalamari 13:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

YTMA

YouTube Video Music Awards--150.216.254.206 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Troy Carter

Where to put the 2013 change about her manager?

On 6 November 2013, Troy Carter is no longer Lady Gaga's manager.

Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Should have been added to the 2013–present section. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Main Photo

Who chose the main picture of her on this page and why? It is both completely random and extremely unflattering. There are several better shots of her where she is actually facing the camera. The wig in this picture looks ready to fall off and the sweat is making her makeup look really bad. I don't know who is running this page, but this picture is not appropriate for the article. There should be one of her face and body facing forward, as most Wikipedia pages have. Very bad judgment was used when picking this old picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.27.103 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this!--SNTMcentral (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It should instead be this photo or this photo. 11:22, 21 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.229.255 (talk)

These pictures are copyrighted. Every month(s) is the same request, we can't change the picture just because someone disagrees with the current image. Get consensus, because there is no real reason to change it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The table under "FILM" is screwed up - please fix.

Film Year Title Role Notes 2011 Lady Gaga Presents the Monster Ball Tour: At Madison Square Garden Herself HBO Special Emmy Award for Outstanding Picture Editing for a Special (Single or Multi-Camera) 2012 Men in Black 3 Alien on TV Monitors Cameo appearance Katy Perry: Part of Me Herself Cameo appearance 2013 Machete Kills La Chameleón 2014 Sin City: A Dame to Kill For[246] Muppets Most Wanted Herself Cameo appearance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.47.102 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed THe rowspan was off on the first film. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

I don't understand why there isn't a "Personal life" section as in most articles. It could adress her bisexuality, drug abuse issues and relationships inclunding Taylor Kinney which has recently been a frequent topic in interviews. Bleff (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Costumes

The Psychic Twins claim that Lady Gaga has copied their costumes, and the pictures on their site make it hard to disagree. I think it ought to be mentioned in this article. Dugnad (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Source

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/05/lady-gaga-depressed_n_4733161.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

--Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not at all a reliable source. Find something else if her being depressed is going to be mentioned in the article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post has definitely been used as a reliable source, actually. It may not be the best source we have to offer but it certain isn't unreliable. Gloss • talk 17:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, it often fabricates information, particularly in politics. They have often been criticized for their liberal bias and skewing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's only your opinion. Like I said, it's been used plenty, regarded as being reliable. Gloss • talk 18:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't exclusively my opinion..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You may find a few others with the same view but the general consensus among Wikipedians is that it is reliable. If that's a major problem with you, there is a reliable sources noticeboard you can take it up with. Gloss • talk 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Beyonce as a Featured Artist

Seeing as how the two have featured each other on two seperate singles (x,x), albums (x,x), and music videos (x,x) and not one single as I have been previously told, I'm going to go ahead and assume that her recent exclusion is an act of conjecture that should just be rectified as soon as possible. Reece Leonard (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Albums have no significance on singles collaboration, and neither does video. A one time collaboration on just two songs in the same time frame does ot make one an associated act. Long time collaborators do, like West with Jay-Z, DC with Yonce, Breakfast Club for Madonna, The Flaming Lips with Kesha, and for Gaga its Tony Bennett. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

They participated in two highly publicized music videos, singles and were featured on each others' albums; that warrents the title. On Rihanna's page, Eminem is listed as an associated act for an identical situation. Also, I'd just like to point out that Beyonce was listed as an associated act for multiple years before someone recently removed her. Reece Leonard (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Beyonce hasn't been listed as an associated act for several years; I know this because I've been watching this article since it was created in 2008, so it's not a recent removal at all. To expand upon what IndianBio said above, the albums and videos do not count as separate collaborations from the singles: they are a part of them. As for Eminem and Rihanna, they have collaborated a few times over several years, not twice in one year, hence what IndianBio said about long-term collaborators. Acalamari 16:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014

Please change "She has considered Donatella Versace her muse and the English fashion designer and close friend Alexander Mc Qeen..." to "She has considered Donatella Versace and Jan Klod, New York, her muses and the English fashion designer and close friend Alexander Mc Queen as..." because everyone knows it in fashion industry. For example, on the french wikipedia they mention it. Verif pedia (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Next time please provide a reliable third party source listing Jan Klod as a fashion inspiration. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Judas is listed as a song critical of religion but Lady Gaga's article lists her as a Christian (I doubt she is one but I don't have proof, well you can't prove a negative but yeah). 86.41.70.249 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. She identifies as Catholic, though critics found her song "Judas" to be sacreligious. Whether she intended this or not is another story. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Lip Synch?

What is her stance on lip synching now? It looked like she was lip synching to some of her songs during the Muppets Holiday Spectacular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.211.207.209 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's spelled lip "sync"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.200.48 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you can find multiple reliable sources that establish the notability of the topic, go for it. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Muppet Holiday was not a live show. She therefore recorded the vocals separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.5.182.95 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support this? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Associated acts

Lady Gaga has worked with RedOne on multiple occasions, and why does Tony Bennett deserve to be included when he has only worked with her once, and the other collaborations haven't even been released yet?! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankyhashpants (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Producers and lyric writers don't really count as associated acts unless they provide things like vocals to the songs. One must meet at least one of the following to be an associated act:

1. The two work together frequently and/or at least several times (examples: Jennifer Lopez with Pitbull, Jay-Z with Beyoncé)
2. The two co-tour together (example: Eminem with Rihanna)
3. The two release collaborative albums (this includes solo artists with musical groups) (examples: Katy Perry with The Matrix, John Lennon and Paul McCartney with The Beatles, Eminem with D12, Jay-Z with Kanye West)

Hope this helps. I understand how one would think Beyoncé is an associated act of Lady Gaga, though as previously discussed she doesn't really count since they only have done two songs together. Tony Bennett on the other hand is an associated act of Gaga since they made a collaborative album together. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Update the template photo, the current one is so old holy crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.253.120 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Album sales

Hello, I was just wondering about the album sales figures. On individual album pages they are: The Fame 15M, The Fame Monster 5M, Born This Way 6m, ARTPOP 2.3M and The Remix 500,000. On her main page she is listed as having sold an estimated 24M albums when 28M would be more accurate. All of those figures have certifications and sources on the individual album pages, I was just wondering if we couldn't update her main pages sales considering this?

Unless there's something I'm missing? Thank you. 86.145.99.138 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

|image = The ARTPOP Ball.jpg |size = 250px |subtitle = Lady Gaga during the artRAVE: The ARTPOP Ball Tour. MNART (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No valid edit request given. If you want to change an image, please give exact image url. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Vocal range

In this article it says she has a vocal range of 2.7 octaves, but this is no longer true. She has shown to have a range of more than 3 octaves. If you look here: http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2014/05/digging-deeper-axl-rose-is-not-singer.html it says she has a range of 3 octaves and 1 semitone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.219.77 (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Born this way foundation scandal

WHy is there no mention of this at all...i think that any reader should be aware of both the good things and bad things that this singer has done, not just read good things and assume she is some kind of angel.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.62 (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The info has been added to Born This Way Foundation, the appropriate article for such info. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Net Worth

Net Worth is grossly understated. Actual figure is $220 million. http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/lady-gaga-net-worth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lltnt342 (talk • contribs)

Celebrity Net Worth is NOT a reliable source. A more reliable source for $220 million would be needed. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's Net Worth & Infobox Picture

The picture on Lady Gaga is insulting to her by a bad picture. The picture that was used before was a great quality picture and not of her making an uncommon face.

Also, the net worth needs to be either fixed or removed because it is a 2011 estimate, making it three years ago and we need something recent for accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmonster1247 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your edits, Alex. See the above discussion for photo use. As for net worth, sometimes a few years back is the most recent one can get as far as reliable sources go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

wrote her first piano ballad at thirteen

The word Ballad is wrong. Use another term. Ballad is historically used for a poem. OK> -r

192.214.192.71 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily, "ballad" has often been used in song articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Labels

Please add this: "Streamline, Intescope (current) Def Jam, Cherrytree, KonLive (former)". --Mr Jefferson (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Template instructions say to omit parenthetical dates; that would apply to current/former tags also. Further, the latest label should be listed last per the documentation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheek to Cheek Tour

Cheek to Cheek Tour. I hope that you will add it on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheerzeep (talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Scheerzeep: It would help to have more reliable sources writing about the tour to verify its existence before we add it to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Poor image

There is an editor who uploaded the current head image . When another editor changed it to a better image, he or she changed the photo back to an unflattering one. We asked for it to be changed. There are better images that represents Lady Gaga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrystalAlejandro (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have any better suggestions, please list them here or upload a new free image of her yourself. Remember that no pictures taken after January 1, 1923 are free unless their source specifically indicates otherwise. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this one? I added it a few days ago but was reverted by IndianBio. It's a clear shot of her face, no awkward facial expression like in the current pic, and no headset in the way. It's also fairly recent (2012), albeit not as recent as the current one, though her appearance hasn't altered drastically since. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. This image has again something (a hat?) obstructing her face and she seems to be sleepy. I frankly do not see any reason for the current image as unflattering, except that there is a microphone. It is the most recent one, shows her face clearly, is not a BLP violation in any way. I wouldn't have any qualms about using the image Chase suggested, but I'm pretty sure that the Flickr account is a flickr wash. The account needs to be investigated first since the Bot itself could not determine it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a hat that is a minor obtrusion of the shot, but for the most part it is very clear, not to mention better than most of the free Gaga images available. Previous infobox images suffered from a variety of problems - sunglasses, low quality, lighting, major obtrusion of face, etc. I feel that both the current infobox image and the one I have suggested are among the better ones available, though I think "mine" is of slightly better quality and, while not of utmost importance, is a little more flattering as CrystalAlejandro noted. I'm curious as to what other editors prefer. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This person who took the Roseland pics, Aphrodite In NYC @Roseland has many more bust shots of Gaga from the 2014 performances. Can we also check if one of them is reusable? I think the one with the red roses atop her head is extremely pretty. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: did you get a chance to browse through the above album set from Roseland? I'm listing the following images for consideration. [1], [2] and a few others. We can also ask the graphic lab if they can remove the microphone from the present infobox image and do other changes, since it is a small obstacle. And guys, lets not discuss Gaga's weird looking face anymore. Let's face it, the woman has made weird the new style and if she has weird angles, she cannot help it. It is much easier to remove a small ear-piece than a large hat I believe. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The current image is better than both of those imo. My preference is still for the 2012 picture. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Performing at the Roseland Ballroom

Performing at ArtRave

Of the two images above, which image do you think would be better to use for the article? Please share your thoughts.--CityMorgue (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. While Roseland picture shows whole face (without hair in front of her eye), ArtRave photo gives a better angle. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The ArtRave picture frankly fails identification. That can be anyone, not solely Gaga. Sadly CityMorgue has been indefinitely blocked though. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Lady Gaga ArtRave San Diego (14705593955).jpg is good quality and very recent. If someone can edit it to alter the lighting/color, I think this is what we should go with. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This one seems pretty nice and is not too close to her face. https://www.flickr.com/photos/aphrodite-in-nyc/13744390683/in/set-72157643716746803 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kworbi (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

.....but there's a microphone hindering her face..... SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: are you sure that's the correct image? I mean... lol, her whole face is hidden/shadowed. :D —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It can possibly be edited by highlighting shadows and altering the color/tint. I used to be able to do such things with Photoshop Elements which I no longer have access to. I wonder if there's anyone who has access to photo editing that could edit that and see how it looks. A black-and-white version of that picture, with some lighting alterations, could work as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a photoshop lab though, in WP. Maybe they can? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(←) This one is older and will likely be a controversial choice, and I've tried proposing it in previous discussions, but what about File:Gaga at monster booth2.jpg (or a closer crop of it)? It's unmistakably Lady Gaga, shows her in a "crazy" outfit/hat (she is known for her eccentric attire), is of excellent quality, and looks great in the infobox. It really hits the nail on the head per the preferences outlined at WP:LEADIMAGE:

 "allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page"

 "should be made with some care with respect to [not offending readers]"

 "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic"

 "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"

 "an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value"

LEADIMAGE makes no mention of sunglasses, hats, or other objects which might partially obscure the face, nor does it mandate that the most recent image be used. This is still a fairly recent picture (2010) that is certainly not outdated, and the sunglasses/hat may be even more beneficial since they're accessories that Lady Gaga typically wears, and thus the picture is what one might expect upon arriving to her page. And it's certainly of better quality than any of the Gaga images previously presented, and better quality than nearly all Gaga images on Commons. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You do know that IP and new users will come marching in with their image choice, especially if an image from 2010 is added right? It is all about how "fakepedia is destroying GAGA!!!" —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If we discuss this now, we can establish a consensus and streamline future discussions about the image.

I personally am not satisfied with the current image either, and I think there are several better options. It's not just the IP contributors and new users, even though their opinions are just as important as anyone else's. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is inappropriate about the current image? It is of high resolution, does not disrespect the blp, people can easily identify its Gaga, I see no reason for changing it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not "inappropriate", but there are better options available. As other users and myself have pointed out, it's at an awkward angle, Gaga has an awkward facial expression, and it's not of horrible quality but not amazing either. Why don't you wish to discuss other options? It's apparent from the comments from numerous IPs and new/inexperienced users you've complained about that many people are not satisfied with your preference/the current image, and as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, we should try to make all of our editorial choices please as many users as possible. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Chase, what exactly do you think I'm doing here? Do you see me write "No only this image is allowed"? I'm trying to find out the problem with the current image as well as the previous ones too, so that finally an image can be selected which does not get everyone else's panties in a knot. I'm failing to see the awkward issue and awkward angle being avoided in the images proposed either. I think its time to open a RFC since we are not coming close to anything better amongst ourselves. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding fresh comment. Why don't we peruse that ArtRave tour picture and ask photolab to clear it? That's a most recent good option. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lady Gaga ArtRave San Diego (14519027639).jpg, Update, I added the image beside to Graphics lab to crop and adjust levels and remove that microphone. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Voila, graphics lab did wonders!! —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(←) IndianBio, I have issues with the photo you've chosen due to the extreme amount of editing on her face and the angle. I think it would be most helpful if we had a proper discussion with multiple editors about the pros and cons of several images instead of just throwing picture suggestions back and forth, no? –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You can always go for a RFC, no? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

IndianBio, it would appear that Alexmonster1247 agrees with your (edited) image choice. Before using it, however, we should gather official consensus. Not sure if Chase still has issues with it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late on this, but for what it's worth, this gives quite a clear view of her face (though is somewhat too bright). I would probably use it if copyrights weren't an issue. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol so what are we going to use then? Snuggums, have you checked the Roseland Ballroom show category in commons? There are many many high-res pics in there. Else finally we can use a cropped version of Chase's infobox pic. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there are many, but something tells me those from Roseland Ballroom will get complaints about her "wild" hair and/or making her "ugly". ArtRave photo from Chase's sandbox is also a fine choice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with a cropped version of File:Lady Gaga ArtRave San Diego (14518936768).jpg (currently in my userspace draft), as IndianBio and Snuggums have agreed upon, or a crop of File:Lady Gaga ArtRave San Diego (14518893240).jpg if the hair isn't too much of an issue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Chase,Snuggums, this image was listed by Chase initially and I had been against it, but now I completely accept it. I feel it bonds perfectly with the era, the ArtRave tour going on, the face being visible unlike the above two listed, there is no awkward expression etc etc. I have listed it in the draft sandbox also and it looks good too. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually proposed File:Lady Gaga ArtRave San Diego (14705593955).jpg, not the current image, and only under the condition that the lighting/color be improved to better identify Gaga in the picture. The lighting is appalling in the current image and the quality regardless is questionable. Image change will be reverted as there needs to be consensus. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(←) After going through all of the Roseland photos, I quite like File:P1010654 (13737679975).jpg. Good quality, no awkward angle/facial expression, and it's very recent. What say everyone else? If there is no objection, I'll add this soon. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm..... my concern is how her eyes can't really be seen when shut, and the microphone blocks her mouth Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Her mouth is visible in the picture; the microphone barely obstructs anything on her face. File:P1010655 (13737670595).jpg, where her eyes are slightly open, is also an option. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

She looks drunk in File:P1010655 (13737670595).jpg with the half-open eyes, so File:P1010654 (13737679975).jpg is a better option. My main concern is that the closed eyes will surely draw a negative reaction when this will go for FAC, mark my words. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policies blocking images of the subject with closed eyes - as far as I know, the main goal is to depict a clear shot of the subject. 16:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chasewc91 and SNUGGUMS: are we ok to go forward with File:P1010654 (13737679975).jpg or not? If I don't get a response I will raise a RFC, this shit is going on for too long. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to raise RFC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, after we listen to what Chase says. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use that image. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. I have some proposal images in case you might wanna change her lead image:

1

2

3

Zlouiemark45546 (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to use option#2. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Me too. That's a wonderful image. Much better than the lousy one we have. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

can we use it now?Zlouiemark45546 (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the current infobox image is of much better quality, and it's best for the stability of this page if we don't have the infobox image constantly changing every few months. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, a better image is a better image. Just because you decided on a bloody image does not mean a better one won't be accepted. @Zlouiemark45546: you are free to change it. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is about discussing a decision and arriving at a conclusion from that, and I've brought up valid reasons why the current one should stay. Ignoring my comments just because you disagree with them is not good faith at all. Please stop being petty, ditch the attitude, and allow for discussion to continue, please. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What valid reason? Just because you found an image where Gaga looks dead does not make it a valid image. I only accepted it because there were no better image. And Zloui found a better image where her face is clearly visible and she does not look awkward, does not look dead and does not look deranged. End of discussion. And what stability are you talking about? Please stop having the OWN attitude and learn to respect that others can also find a better image. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Quit making this a personal issue. Just because I have had several disagreements in this discussion does not mean I think others are incapable of finding suitable images. It is not the "end of discussion", either. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making this a personal issue. You need to learn to accept other's solutions to problem, and me, Snuggums and Zlouie accepted that the option #2 is the better one than the current image. Its funny how suddenly this is not an end of discussion. Come to think of, all three of the options he posted are better than the dead carcass of infobox image we have now. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I also vote option number #2. It's the best quality image of the proposed ones. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring others' preferences; I simply stated my concerns with quality and stability, and those have yet to be properly addressed. Also, consensus is not a vote. It's a discussion, which you are trying to stifle with bad-faith accusations. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You already ruined the stability of the image with this discussion, so leave that. Coming to quality, other editors have all agreed the image in question to be of lesser quality than the one porposed. And for the love of God, no one's trying to stifle you but trying to open your eyes that there is a better option. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(←) I still prefer the Roseland image, but if this will settle it then I've gone ahead and changed it. I personally don't have problems with it - it's of fairly good quality and has a clear shot of the face. However, I would just like to see more stability in the future. It's not a race to get the absolute most recent image available. At the end of the day, it's about having a quality image that appropriately identifies the subject. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I will say, though, that I would prefer a slightly cropped/rotated version of this. Also just a suggestion, but it may be a good idea for the crown/tiara to be cropped out per the "no shock value" guideline in LEADIMAGE (marijuana leaf). –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There definitely isn't a race. I feel proposed option#2 gives a clearer view of the front face, and she also seems happier in it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

How much of a crop do you guys think? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys for considering my image :) I'm really happy. I respect all of you. Wikipedia is collaborative team effort so all of your opinion matters. @Chasewc91: and @IndianBio:, i'm sorry for the mess. For the sake of quality and decency of the image, I uploaded the new version of the image.Zlouiemark45546 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

Just wondering, why has a "Personal Life" section never been written on Gaga? I feel as though there is plenty of information out there to constitute a separate section. She lives a pretty widely publicized life. Topics could include her high profile relationship with Taylor Kinney, personal wealth, recent home purchase in California, parents/sister and so on. Thoughts? Lltnt342 (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There was once, but there actually isn't enough to warrant a separate section as there's very little to really say. Her relationships with Kinney and Rob Fusari are mentioned in article body, and so is wealth through Forbes earnings. The rest would really be fluff. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheek to Cheek portion

I was thinking maybe it would require a little more expansion to give context. @Chasewc91: is your draft ready for mainspace? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What details do you have in mind for adding? Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

One two line on critical and commercial reception that's it. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Far from it. I probably won't be able to get significant work on it done until next month. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

Please add the Cheek To Cheek Tour on Lady Gaga's Concerts section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_to_Cheek_Tour) Sources exist in the Wiki page about it Thanks ARTPOPC2C (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Looks like there isn't consensus yet that the Cheek to Cheek Tour is a notable event in its own right (or, if I'm reading the edit summaries right, that it's the proper name of the tour). —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Musical style

Given that she's released a jazz album and plans to do two I think you need to update the section to mention her jazz voice and mention it in the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

One album alone that differs from other material isn't enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Rape discussion on Howard Stern

• http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6334807/lady-gaga-rape-howard-stern-interview-swine

Time to update the Swine article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rob Fusari relationship

This is not a comfortable topic to bring up due to BLP policies and not wanting to sound accusatory of someone with so little information, but I feel it needs to be addressed. According to this article where Gaga says she was raped at the age of 19: "Gaga did not get into many specifics — only that the man in question used to tell the public they were dating. 'I didn’t know that was a date,' she said. 'You were 20 years older than me. I was a kid. How was that a date?'"

In the article, we currently say that Rob Fusari and Gaga previously had a romantic relationship, but this is only supported by statements from Fusari and his lawyers. Gaga has never said she was in a relationship with him, and Fusari could be the man she is referring to. How we cover this is very tricky. What was done in this edit is unacceptable. However, perhaps we could add an "according to Fusari" whenever the relationship is mentioned, with the rape incident being mentioned separately and without speculation as to who it might be about. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed that edit violated both WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. The rape should definitely not be mentioned near her relationship with Fusari unless it is proven that he was the one who raped her. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

However, we still have a problem if Gaga is saying that at least one of her documented "relationships" is only believed to be such because that's what the other person told the media, yet we are treating her relationship with Fusari - acknowledged by him, but not her - as if it actually, definitely happened. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I had reverted that edit for violating the basic dignity of the BLP. Now how do we want to treat the relationship? Chase gave a simplest and easiest most answer, make it come from the other person. I think that would pass BLP violation and would drive the point home. And I agree, the rape is something that should no where be near Fusari unless proven otherwise. Again, it happened pretty close to each other so hmm... —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that everything from Fusari should be attributed to him rather than taken at face value. Binksternet (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)