Jump to content

Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 24

Visuals

As we've talked here about her outfits and visuals, here is a must read article and I think we should use it. [1] GagaNutellatalk 19:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropist

Hi everyone

I feel something important is missing from the occupations field in her infobox and that is her role as a philanthropist. Gaga is extremely well known for this and I'm not sure why its not already there.Mikgregor (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mikgregor. It used to have, but someone deleted it, and I don't know why. I agree with you, it should be there. GagaNutellatalk 15:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I will add it now since its such an instrumental part of her career. If anyone disagrees we can discuss here. ^^ Mikgregor (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ce

I've submitted the article fat WP:GOCE/REQ. Hopefully it is improved more. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheek to Cheek Grammy win

Small suggestion, but chronologically this is wrong. She won the Grammy for Cheek to Cheek at the 2015 Grammy Awards. The same text (with a few minor adjustments for context) can remain, but should be moved to the 2015 section, just before the mention of her Sound of Music tribute at the Oscars. Just so we are consistent in her achievements and when they took place.

I also think her dabbling in jazz is more than just one album, she is classically trained. Thus, I suggest that jazz be added into her side box as a genre.

Jazz has been repeatedly rejected from Infobox per multiple talk page discussions. Grammy mention could really go either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Change of Style from 2015-

The current part relating to this is poorly worded: 'As Gaga appeared at the 87th Academy Awards and subsequent events, she changed her style and fashion, transforming into a more glamorous person; Vogue compared her to that of Marilyn Monroe and MTV News described the change as "more acceptably 'natural' or 'classic'"

She did not 'transform into a more glamorous person' - as that suggests she - as a person - was not glamorous before. This needs to say that she, along with her stylist Brandon Maxwell, drastically changed her style from avant garde, outre fashion intended to shock, to a much more classic, old-Hollywood glamour style. The part about Vogue comparing her to Marilyn Monroe can stay as that is a good comparison. I also think this re-branding deserves a new paragraph in this section, rather than being stuck onto the end of an existing one

I agree. I'm not an expert on music biographies so someone with more experience can write better, such as IB or Snuggums . ツ FrB.TG (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

iHeart Radio Awards win

Following 'Gaga earned the Satellite Award for Best Original Song, an Academy Award nomination in the same category', can it be added 'and won the iHeartRadio Music Award for Best Song from a Movie'. (http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7318843/iheartradio-music-awards-2016-winners-list)

This sentence should also maybe start with 'For Til It Happens To You' - just for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.140.76 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BRIT Awards

I just noticed that her Brit Award wins are totally missing from the entire article. I think these should be added somewhere - if not in the opening section, then certainly in the Achievements section.

'Gaga has also won 3 BRIT Awards, all at the 2010 ceremony'. If you want to add which categories she won in, they are 'Best International Solo Female Artist', 'Best International Album' for The Fame, and Best Breakthrough Act. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/7253155/Brit-Awards-2010-Lady-Gaga-wins-a-hat-trick-of-prizes.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.140.76 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done thank you for pointing those out; included in both lead and "achievements" section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Clothing Line in Collaboration with Sir Elton John

Hi there,

It has been announced that Gaga and Sir Elton John have collaborated with Macy's to create a clothing line, entitled 'Love Bravery'. 25% of profits from the line will go to the pair's respective charities, The Born This Way Foundation, and the Elton John Aids Foundation. (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/lady-gaga-and-elton-john-pair-up-for-a-macys-clothing-line-w204341)

Could this either be added to the 2016 section or under the Born This Way Foundation section in Philanthropy?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.140.76 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I have added. GagaNutellatalk 23:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2016

May I edit the Lady Gaga page, where it says legacy. The info is pretty valid, but I would like to add more info to it on what her impact on music is, because it does not talk about all of her cultural influence. I will also add proof from other websites such as major ones like Rolling Stone, thanks.

Fishfrychicken123 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. clpo13(talk) 20:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit by BenBowser

I noticed in the History of edits that those made by BenBowser recently to the introduction of the Article were reverted/deleted. Having read both versions, I actually think that version read much better - particularly in summarising her successful singles.

I also note that the introduction only says that ARTPOP debuted at #1 in the US. However, it did in fact debut at #1 in several major national markets - including the UK and Japan, amongst others. Can this be changed so as not to be misleading that the album only debuted at #1 in America?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.103.246 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree about BenBowser's edits; it included needless repetition of song names, and tried to promote Bad Romance as bigger than it really was among her songs (though it was still a success). As for albums, it's not really misleading to include one nation as it is that bit just happening to focus on the nation. Another option is just simply leaving album charts to article body. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Plus that seems like BenBowser's IP lol. —IB [ Poke ] 19:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I am not BenBowser. And that's a bit rich about Bad Romance, given that it was one of the first ever Diamond certified songs by the RIA, and it is most definitely her staple song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.103.246 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This hot tea spilled all over my clothes lmao, IndianBio. GagaNutellatalk 05:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FT

Clearly this article has a long way to go to FAC yet it is quite well-written for a GA. With all articles currently good and/or featured, I think we can nominate it for FT (I will nominate it shortly). FrB.TG (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure it's in good enough condition to pass? I haven't found any major issues in this page myself, though hope nobody else does. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it has drastically improved since it was trimmed down. Even if someone does, I'm sure we, so many editors, might be able to fix that. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Mymis recently did an update of the references in the article including the formatting. @Mymis: thank you for doing it. —IB [ Poke ] 09:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Just nominated the articles. Here is the link, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Overview of Lady Gaga/archive1. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

The introduction says "Her third album Artpop, released in 2013, topped the US charts and included the successful single "Applause"".

Is weird how the single is qualified as 'successful' when it didn't reach the top-three on the Hot 100 and wasn't among the best selling singles of the year. This considering she had biggest singles. I remember the media comparing it to "Roar", which did way better by a large margin. It should just be, "included the single". 190.236.88.178 (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reaching the top four is pretty successful for a nation, even if it didn't top the charts or have as much success as Roar, so it's not really weird to describe it as "successful". Whether it's better to just use "included the single" is another matter and debatable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anup [Talk] 07:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Vigil and Speech to mourn the Orlando Victims

I see that a bit has been added noting Gaga's emotional speech at the Los Angeles vigil to honour the victims of the mass shooting at the Pulse Nightclub, Orlando, FL. However, the level of English used is not great. Could someone edit this slightly so that it reads better? For example 'the 49 dead' - doesn't actually read properly.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C0E:E900:98AC:2D18:5325:8A60 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it was a little dodgy, and I just copy edited it. —IB [ Poke ] 13:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Gaga at the US Conference of Mayors

Can the following be added to either/both the Philanthropy section and/or 2015-present sections:

On June 26th 2016, Gaga attended the 84th Annual US Conference of Mayors in Indianapolis where she met with His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet and Hillary Clinton, and spoke to 300 of the country's Mayors about building compassionate cities. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/06/22/hillary-clinton-dalai-lama-and-lady-gaga/86235198/

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C0E:E900:DC1D:52F4:7146:41D3 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have added. Thank you! GagaNutellatalk 22:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Updating Lady Gaga's Main Image

Would it be possible to update Lady Gaga's current image from her Cheek To Cheek Tour to this picture from her speaking in Indianapolis this past Sunday? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LadyGagaU.S.ConferenceOfMayors2016.jpg Warpedcurrents (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) warpedcurrents

 Not done @Warpedcurrents: please do not upload false images for which you do not have the copyright. That image is strictly from a twitter account and does not belong to you. Please keep in mind that such uploads are considered falsifying the content on Wikipedia. If that image strictly belongs to you, you would need to send permission to WP:OTRS through email. —IB [ Poke ] 08:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Change the main image to this?

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Lady+Gaga+Sings+National+Anthem+Super+Bowl+ANrPSTfd-UMx.jpg It is the same image used on the Brazilian page for Lady Gaga (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga), So the uploader must surely have the rights to publish it on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.145.225 (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence the uploader has the rights, and the source the uploader gave suggests there is no such permission. I've tagged the image on commons accordingly. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Theater?

"She performed initially in theater, appearing in high school plays ..."

I'm not sure performing in high school plays counts as an initial career in theater. I was in high school plays, also, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as having "performed initially in theater." What did she first perform as professionally?

"After leaving a rock band..."

Prior to this, the article says nothing about her having been in a rock band; all of a sudden, she's leaving one. What band? Did it ever perform in public? If so, it looks like she may have initially performed as a musician.

"...participating in the Lower East Side's avant garde performance art circuit..."

Unless, of course, the band never played a gig, in which case it would appear that she initially performed as a performance artist.

Anyway, the intro needs some clean-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Performing in high school plays is definitely not beginning in theater unless she went to a performing arts high school, which she didn't. It should say she had an interest in theater, not that she began in theater. Mariahfan999 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Taylor Kinney

I tried adding information about their relationship (how they met and their breakup), and it got deleted. Cited legitimate sources and used her exact words. Why did it get deleted? Mariahfan999 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Taking a break =/= breakup, and from Gaga's own words we cannot interpret it that they have broken up. —IB [ Poke ] 18:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
We should wait until they officially break up or not. I hope they can be together again, they were amazing as a couple. But I wonder if they break up, what's going to be Asia's name. Asia Kinney or Asia Germanotta? lol GagaNutellatalk 06:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"The Fame Monster" and sections revert war

Before anyone ends up blocked, I'm starting this discussion. What issues do people have here? Acalamari 14:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I'm gathering, someone wants to separate The Fame Monster into its own section rather than being lumped with The Fame. I think it's because The Fame Monster was an EP instead of an LP (EPs aren't official studio albums). Personally, I think they should be separated because TFM was a completely different era from the fame. She promoted it as if it were a regular album, for example, the fame had its own tour and TFM had a separate one. She gained a lot more notoriety with the fame monster. Mariahfan999 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There has always been a long standing consensus to include TFM in her discography list. It was a reissue of a studio album as well as an EP and was immensely successful in its own merits, including the Grammy for Album of the Year nom. Removing it is kind of breaking the link between Gaga's beginnings, and her Born This Way era. As for the section renaming, it was again discussed for pruning info during a future FA movement of the article. —IB [ Poke ] 18:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
IB said it all! Keep TFM and don't change the sections. GagaNutellatalk 06:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that Born This Way needs its own section, as it was a massive promotional campaign, her first stadium tour, biggest first week sales for an album and single, but also the era did so much in terms of philanthropy, for example the Born Brave Bus etc. The era was arguably the most influential and important of her career thus far and should definitely be on it's own. Also, it just seems absolutely nonsensical to lump her last 3 albums spanning 4 years into one section - not hard just to separate. Allyjburr93 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I stick to my original point, please keep in mind that this is a biography article. All that you say are very much detailed and inclusive in the album's own article (PS she did not have biggest first week sales for an album/single). The era is extremely well represented if we consider the amount of content there is. There are two solid paragraphs devoted to the album, the tour and the promotion, the cancellation of it, the product releases, her relationship with Kinney, her wealth as well as side releases. Lets face it, either for the supposed fracture or for whatever reason, the BTW era fizzled by 2012. Tabloid fodder was all that was going on and that hardly is material for Wikipedia. The Artpop and the C2C era can hardly be separated from each other. One was ambitious, but flopped by her standards, and the other was a damage control. In retrospect, only one point I can see for expansion is have at least one line of critical reception for each album, but that's it. —IB [ Poke ] 20:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Words like 'flopped', and 'fizzled' are not very neutral or impartial for a Wiki editor now, are they? Starting to questions your intentions tbh. I get the feeling that anything negative and you would be desperate for it to be added. Do not underestimate the impact of the Born This Way era. Allyjburr93 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yawn, and I'm starting to question why you are still around Reece Leonard. —IB [ Poke ] 21:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to be in agreement with IndianBio, in that, I do not believe Born This Way warrants its own section; the current setup of the article is quite nice, and it covers each topic fairly and cohesively. This edit does not look well, at all. Why should we have two separate sections, 2-3 paragraphs, when they could be merged into one larger section; separate ones are not needed. livelikemusic talk! 23:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Livelikemusic. I had thought really carefully before actually proceeding to merge the BTW, Artpop and C2C eras. I strongly believe that they have a flow and is eventually giving in to Gaga's re-invention from 2015 onwards with the image change, the critical accolades, award show performance and with eventual release of LG5 (can't wait for it bitch release it!). —IB [ Poke ] 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

DNC Headliner

Can the following be added to the 2015-Present section:

'On 28th July 2016, Gaga headlined a private concert in Camden, New Jersey, called 'Camden Rising', as part of the Democratic National Convention in support of US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.' http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lady-gaga-putting-on-invite-only-democratic-national-convention-show/ http://pagesix.com/2016/07/28/lady-gaga-and-lenny-kravitz-rock-out-at-dnc-concert/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C0E:E900:489B:559C:3922:A0FB (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth adding under her political stance. —IB [ Poke ] 11:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done I've added. GagaNutellatalk 23:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

CTC 2.0

Not sure where we can add it, but I think it's important. Or maybe we can keep it for the article of the next album. GagaNutellatalk 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert image

Does anyone else feel the previous image used for the article was much better? The current one looks like it was taken with a cell phone and isn't one of her more flattering looks. Cheek to Cheek also represents her most recent popular era. 51.6.27.72 (talk)

I have to agree with you. I loved the previous one. GagaNutellatalk 00:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, replace it but dear god not with the Cheek to Cheek pic, just use one from 2014 without it being C2C related. troublednbored (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There's not really any available that are free to use. The Cheek to Cheek picture would do best. 51.6.27.72 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

2015 photo

Can someone re-add the photo that was previously in the 2015-present section? Not sure why it was removed...

Also not sure, but we may wish to add something in that section about Gaga performing and attending Tony Bennett's 90th Birthday celebrations in New York - the event has received quite substantial media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C0E:E900:9449:4CED:C3D4:477F (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done That was removed because a zoomed in edition was inserted in the Infobox, but that has been reverted per the above thread on Infobox pictures. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropist

Why was philanthropist removed from the infobox? How is being a philanthropist not an occupation? With Born This Way Foundation, LGBT advocacy and other activism, Gaga certainly has been involved in philanthropy a lot. Also, many music artists do have such occupation listed in the infobox, including Madonna, Cher (both GA), Katy Perry, Mariah Carey. Michael Jackson (all three FA), Selena Gomez etc. Mymis (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It's definitely an occupation, especially when she actually owns & actively runs a charity. Her entire career has been embedded with philanthropy. I am however unfamiliar on the rules for this type of editing. Mikgregor (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Other articles not withstanding, I don't see how it's not deemed a profession given the work she's done, but am willing to hear what those who disagree have to say. Not sure there are any "rules" per se for it other than it must be prominent and supported with credible citations talking about the work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Philanthropy is not a profession to me. There is no such thing as "career in philanthropy". A profession, to me, is what you do from which you make earnings, which one does not by doing charities. Almost every celebrity contributes to charities one way or another but that does not make it a profession. We also contribute to Wikipedia, but being a Wikipedian is not a profession. There is also an article on it [2]. FrB.TG (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
FrB.TG you put it right out of my mouth. Philanthropy is something she/or any celebrity does because they want to do good. They do not get paid for it, nor do they delve time to it professionally. —IB [ Poke ] 17:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Well said, FrB.TG! GagaNutellatalk 19:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
But the parameter is called "occupation" and not "professions that she was involved in and got paid for". And yes, lots of celebrities do charitable work (and usually very minimal amount), but in this case Gaga does have her own non-profit organization and spent half of her career helping people. And again, lots of featured articles such as Katy Perry or Mariah Carey include philanthropist as occupation, but it has somehow appeared as a problem in this article only, while Gaga has done significantly more philanthropy work than Perry or Carey. Mymis (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
What other stuff uses (or doesn't use) isn't relevant or a particularly strong point; it's best to keep the focus on this article subject only, regardless of outcome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Mymis, think of the situation in this way. In a real life scenario you going for a job and would you mention in your resume that you do philanthropy professionally, or rather you would stress upon your previous employments for which you were paid and how you excelled in it. Same here with occupation I believe, we list the professions for which Gaga is known for, not something she does because she can and has the means to do so. —IB [ Poke ] 10:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Bill Gates is a Philanthropist. It what he does. It's all he does. In fact when he signs a check for $50 million he has a hired team that he sends with the cash to make sure it is used accordingly. I believe Bono of U2 would be considered a Philanthropist. Under profession it most definitely would say: Musician or Rock star etc. and Philanthropist. Haywoodjahblome (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Born This Way Foundation

Just a minor adjustment - but in the intro section, could it maybe be changed to read 'including LGBT rights and her own non-profit organisation, the Born This Way Foundation, which focuses on promoting youth empowerment and combating bullying'.

Just explains the Foundation succinctly enough for the opening para, and also lets the reader know it was her who set it up. It is a little vague as currently stands.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C0E:E900:151E:4F36:B431:9650 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done FrB.TG (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Guinness Book of World Records

This article states twice that she has 12 Guinness Book of World Records(GBOWR) yet nowhere does it state what any of those records may be nor are there any references, citings annotations, nothing. When it says she has x amount of Grammy awards it lists the year the song etc. in great detail. Therefore I don't believe she has any world records. If she did it would be listed just like EVERYTHING else. Until the author comes up with some specifics and sources I think it should be removed.

One can't go around all willy nilly making great claims about Guinness world records with absolutely no specifics. I mean I have ten myself. See what I mean? Haywoodjahblome (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

See: List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga -- Mikgregor (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Album?

Is there a page for her fifth (2016) studio album? Tylr00 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not yet since there is no confirmed title or track list, we do not create an album page before that. We have a draft here at Draft:Lady Gaga's fifth studio album which you can look on in the meantime. —IB [ Poke ] 12:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! This may sound like a stupid question, but who is this "we" you speak of? Tylr00 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
The "we" he speaks of is the Wikipedia community, us editors, I believe. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

2015 section - image change

I just had a look on the draft article for Gaga's 5th album and I really like the way it has been written - particularly this part:

'The ambivalent reception towards Artpop lead Gaga's management to overhaul an image change for the singer. Along with a more subdued image in her media appearances, Gaga showcased her vocal prowess, and was critically lauded for her tribute performance to The Sound of Music at the 87th Academy Awards, singing a medley of songs from the film.'

I think this encapsulates her drastic image change much better than is achieved in this main article - I would suggest lifting this directly into the main article, at the beginning of the 2015 section, after the bit about her engagement? Also explains her Sound of Music performance much better too and works well as a link between the ARTPOP section and this new 2015 section. Works really well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C0E:E900:50FB:7FF0:4ADD:56FD (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect Illusion

Hey editors!

When is Perfect Illusion going to be added to this article? I noticed it was being removed before for not being notable however I believe with the extensive daily coverage its been getting its certainly notable enough for a mention in this page. 87.113.190.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It is currently mentioned within the 2015–present section: She confirmed that the album will be released during 2016. Its first single, "Perfect Illusion", will be released in September 2016. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Occupation: Record producer

Would adding record producer to her list of occupations be advisable? Since her debut she has had a large hand in the production of the majority of her tracks, all her producers claim she is the centripital force of the production. Mikgregor (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Engagement

This wiki is missing that Gaga has broken up with Taylor Kinney and the engagement was called off in July of 2016. It should also be noted that sources have said that "Perfect Illusion" is in reference to Kinney and their relationship.

 Not done First of all, Gaga said they were "taking a break", which doesn't always equate to fully breaking up. Secondly, she never said that the song is about him, and any critical commentary suggesting it might be is better for the song article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Joanne

Hi there. We could maybe add a bit more about Joanne in to the relevant section? Also, Perfect Illusion also debuted at #1 in Spain, Belgium, Finland, and other countries - could maybe change this to say "...France and 4 other countries, as well as the top 20 in a further 6 countries, including the US and the UK." Seems a bit odd to just single out France here.

Also, could we add that "Million Reasons" was released as a promotional single on iTunes on October 7th.

Might want to say a bit more about the promotion of the album too - she is the Musical Guest on SNL on Saturday October 22nd http://time.com/4523133/lady-gaga-tom-hanks-snl/

And she has recorded Carpool Karaoke with James Corden for The Late, Late Show - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/lady-gaga-will-appear-on-carpool-karaoke/

Just some suggestions, all of which will bulk up the section a bit more. It's a bit lacking at the moment for how much she is currently in the limelight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyjburr93 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Number one in France

Sorry, but that needs to go. It creates the illusion (no pun intended) that the single was a success when in fact it was quite the opposite. I get that we should wait for the album sale numbers before commenting on commercial success or failure, but in the meantime this half sentence does not belong here as it does not objectively represent what has happened with the lead single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.233.125 (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Perfect Illusion" peaked at number one in France and thats a sourced fact. It will not be removed. —IB [ Poke ] 11:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If you read this and don't know the context, you'd think it was a success. It wasn't. This article needs to be neutral and should not be a fannish list of pseudo-successes. As I said: There's no need for writing the single flopped as it will only matter what happens to the album, but this one sentence needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.233.125 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing biased about saying a song topped a nation's chart. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it also charted at number one in Andorra? Good job then, but it doesn't matter. In the big picture, this page should reflect what is important to her career. Is the number one in France with sales of a little over 2000 units important to a popstar who used to sell millions and millions of records? No it's not. If you want to keep France in, then at least tell the full story: 'The song went to number one, but the week after set a record for biggest fall from the top spot.' (Which is what happened.) Or you could focus on what is important: 'Unlike earlier lead singles, Perfect Illusion only was a minor success in UK ans the US.' Because what you are doing is selectively picking the one chart placing that makes it seem like a success, but you're only telling half the story, which is dishonest at best. This is not a fan page, and it should reflect an accurate picture of what happened at certain points in her career. It is supposed to be neutral and not make her look in the best way possible. Both your responses are deflecting and are not considering what this should be about (on purpose?). So, again, that sentence has no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.233.125 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have a source stating that it saw a record drop from #1, add it to the Perfect Illusion article. It's unnecessary detail for Gaga's article, as her career is far too expansive for things like this. The song was a #1 hit in France and Spain. #1 records are significant accomplishments for any artist. It will not be removed. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Change in lead image

The lead image was changed to "Lady Gaga vigil 2016.jpg" for a moment but the change was reverted. I would like to open up a discussion on the talk page about why the lead image was changed and if editors can reach a consensus concerning the image. @livelikemusic Benmite (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Color photos are generally preferred over black-and-white from what I've observed, and the one you inserted isn't officially verified to be a free image that complies with WP:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing. We can't use copyrighted pictures in articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed preferred, but our main intention of using that image from Cheek to Cheek tour was that there was not any free high-resolution alternative. I just checked the Flickr license in File:Lady Gaga vigil 2016.jpg and it passes. The FlickrBot malfunctions most of the time and needs human attention anyways. Sure shot to find out? Check the metadata of the image which is not possible to manufacture. The account is also a verified account from Eric Garcetti. —IB [ Poke ] 09:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should prefer black-and-white image when Commons has several decent color ones. My quick search shows that for example File:Lady Gaga Artpop ball Tour.jpg or File:Lady Gaga Posing Hands On Hips.jpg are good enough, despite being older. Brandmeistertalk 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
MOS:LEADIMAGE does not say that a colored image cannot be used. Problem with Gaga's colored images have always been that they are all of shock value only, something vehemently discouraged in the manual of style. Lets see how File:Lady Gaga vigil 2016.jpg passes them.
  1. Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic – The image clearly identifies the person to be Gaga, and is of extremely high resolution.
  2. Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value – As explained above, every image as indicated by Brandmeister suffers from this very thing, shock value. It has been a very very difficult for editors of the Gaga articles to find a proper images of the singer.
  3. These two are not valid for BLP lead images anyways.
So as I'm saying, this image is the best of the lot we have got. —IB [ Poke ] 16:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think showing what Gaga does professionally is "shocking", on the contrary it has an encyclopedic value (unless she has a shocking makeup, which I tried to avoid). But a modern black-and-white image does not convey some meaningful features, such as skin color and shade, eye color, etc. Modern B&W images belong mainly to art photography, not here where color equivalents are available. Will not argue further over this, however. Brandmeistertalk 18:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Well thats the surprise because Gaga has changed completely from the shock value and has gone into a finesse aesthetic in her career as well as public appearances also. This is well documented in the article and can be a good reason for having this image. Simplistic and under stated tallying with the current media depiction of the singer. —IB [ Poke ] 18:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Gaga vs Lady Gaga

Please point me to appropriate references if this has been discussed: as “Lady Gaga” is a stage name, and Lady is clearly meant as a title, which Germanotta does not have, why refer to her as “Gaga” as if it were a last name, and not “Lady Gaga” in full each time, like, for instance, one says “Lil’ Kim” in full? Theophani (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Archives. —IB [ Poke ] 07:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Add 'Guitar' as an instrument she plays

I haven't studied how competent she is, but it's pretty clear that since at least the Born This Way tour and much more increasingly publicly, she is stepping up her fretwork game. I vote we include this as one of her "notable instruments". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultanfromhell (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No unless there is significant discussion or playing from her in the musical analysis section. —IB [ Poke ] 18:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How about adding "musician" to the list at the beginning of the article, with singer, songwriter...? Hotgardener (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Very repetitive, plus "musician" is a rather vague term compared to "singer". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9q0TzIgNJfY she can play it. Abramlight12 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Should I also upload me twinkling with guitar and add myself as guitarist in my Bio-data? See how that works? —IB [ Poke ] 17:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

In the personal life section:

In December 2016, Lady Gaga publically announced that she was raped at the age of 19 and suffers from PTSD to this day. 158.111.236.80 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 19:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

PTSD

Lady Gaga vs Stefani Germanotta

Gaga's birth name (Stefani Germanotta) is predominantly used throughout the article. Given that the article is about the artist and not about the private life of the person, I believe "Lady Gaga" should be the predominant name used throughout.

I.e. the beginning of the article should read:

Lady Gaga (born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta)

rather than:

Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, known professionally as Lady Gaga

As the article is about Gaga and not about Stefani after all.

Other paragraphs refer to her as Stefani as well while I believe they shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.28.53 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Lady Gaga" already IS predominately used. Saying her birth name is mainly used would be a highly exaggerated claim. I only count one use in the infobox, one use in the lead, one use in "early life", once or maybe twice in "career beginnings" (depends on whether one counts "Stefani Germanotta Band"), and once in "public image". Additionally, MOS:BIO says to list birth name before stage names. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

FA

Would anyone be interested in collaborating with me on Gaga's article for FA? - FrB.TG (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Duhhhh. :P —IB [ Poke ] 14:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Fine then I will start trimming, expanding and copyediting it soon, somewhat similar to what we did with Taylor Swift's article. - FrB.TG (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant, look forward to it. —IB [ Poke ] 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing, but let's wait until Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Lawrence/archive1 concludes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It'll conclude when it'll, but Gaga's article has a long way to FAC as unlike for Lawrence, I intend to open a PR for thorough reviews of the article. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree, Gaga's article needs more and more polishing than Lawrence's which was in pretty good shape to begin with. —IB [ Poke ] 06:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay so one of my edits wasn't quite helpful. Before I make further tweaks and expansions, may I hear a say on how is the 2015 section, if it has even improved or worsened? - FrB.TG (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It overall seems pretty good, but remember when cutting/adjusting details to update refs for any changes made to things like time and titles. WP:Verifiability is crucial for any article hoping to become FA or even GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Or even an ordinary article, I know and will be more careful with that! - FrB.TG (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it suffers from the WP:PROSELINE effect unfortunately. I would say some direct quotes from Gaga is needed to eliminate the diary like entry. This had always bothered me with that section, and while I wanted to write in a different way, I somehow eliminated the PROSELINE from Madonna's latest section which you can see here for reference. —IB [ Poke ] 15:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh well, proseline. It is difficult to avoid that in mainstream BLPs as the prose easily gets repetitive in the career section. Let me try and see if I could make it better. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Well instead of multiple ideas in a diary like entry, if we can somehow join all of them together so that each event is linked and progresses to the next one, be it through quotes or paragraphs, then that would eliminate proseline. —IB [ Poke ] 16:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Numbers of albums sold sentences in Awards and recognition

This kind of sentence should be moved into a Career location, where it is better suited. Section is standard to other biographies with A & r type name. Only non-awards, non-recognition sentences need be considered for moving. Cheers, and nice article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Approach to sourcing

Could regular editors committed to this article please make a statement regarding what they understand to be the requirements for sources to appear attached to sentences in the article? There is a chance that understandings regarding what and how to source information (contained in WP:VERIFY and related docs) are not being followed here; instead, editors are stating their own original syntheses of the articles they read, posting it, and placing the articles they are interpreting as sources. This offering of editor interpretation is clearly WP:OR—see last Talk section for an example—and if this is what is being done widely, the article needs a careful going over. So, what is our understanding of how we write, and what we say, and what we cite? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life

I'm not able to glean from this article whether Lady Gaga is married, has been married, is in a relationship, has been..., has kids, etc. Many biographical entries on Wikipedia have a section on a person's personal life: whether they're married and to whom, whether they have kids, etc. Sometimes it's in the infobox. What do folks think about adding a section on personal life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-skeuomorph (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, and a "personal life" section wouldn't have any real benefit at this point. Those sections unfortunately are large magnets for trivia, fancruft, and gossip insertions. Having that here is basically asking for trouble. If she ever married and/or had children, then it would be noted in the infobox as well as in the "life and career" section. Besides, there wouldn't really be much to add in terms of personal life when she's unmarried without children and her only relationships worth noting are Taylor Kinney (fiancé) and maybe Rob Fusari (he says they once dated, but she hasn't commented on the matter), both of whom were involved in her professional career. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Apologies, no. I agree with @E-skeuomorph: this omission makes the article non-standard, and drives readers looking for encyclopedic information on published, substantiated content on formal personal elements of her biography to less reputable places. It is simply a cop-out of responsibility. This matter should be opened for discussion. Personal opinions do not matter. The discussion should focus on what the policies and guidelines say about appropriate content for celebrity biographies. This comes, when a young person asked, how can we learn about LG's family. I replied, look to a "Personal life" section in WP (not knowing this departure from standard at this high profile article). A statement that "There are no reliable reports that she has ever married, or has had children, as of [date]," or whatever is accurate, would be a simple and informative addition. Same with other elements of places she maintains residence, and other standard components of this section. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I would say "non-standard" when this is far from the only article without such a section. In any case, adding such a section here would do much more bad than good when it's basically asking for trivia, fancruft, and gossip insertions. Not worth these risks. There also are no "cop-outs" involved in not having such a section when taking precautions on what it could lead to. Again, this idea has been discussed and rejected before on multiple occasions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You may be able to find other cases not offering this information, but they are by far in the minority. Moreover, in many of the cases, the information is contained somewhere. We cannot deny published information from reputable sources, because it makes our editing more onerous. (Taken to an extreme, we would not write at all, based on this argument—all article structures invite mischosen, misplaced material.) Indeed it is reasonably argued, that it is easier to keep an article true, if the sectioning is clear, than if it is lacking such sections (because absent sections, inexperienced editors place bad material in many places, not just one). In any case, you are arguing from the abstract, from facts not in evidence. I will add to a Further reading section reputable articles from good sources that state material regarding her personal life, and then add the section based on those sources. Once you see precisely what is being offered, in the concrete, you can decide whether to delete it. If so, we can fight it out then. Look for my answer the reader question, asked of me by the young person going to the article ("Does LG have a family?"), in the citations that will appear in the next week, in Further reading. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
For instances when personal life details aren't in their own section, I've often seen relationships contained within a "life and career" section, particularly when the partners are also involved in a person's professional career. If Gaga marries and/or has children, then I would strongly recommend doing the same thing here. I should also note that just because certain articles have "personal life" sections doesn't automatically mean this one or others should. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As you will see as you begin to review the Further references, articles and books, there are a wide variety of reputable sources, including a biography and articles at/in CBSNews.com, Variety, Vanity Fair, Chicago Magazine, etc., that contains information on places of residence, a formal announcement of engagement and a 5 year relationship, etc. This is biographical information useful for 2-4 sentences, and as many sources. I have no desire to write it, but will, if no one else takes the initiative. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no need for a personal life section. Gaga's life and career are both intertwined. She has not (to be precise) been married or living outside of the spotlight. Leprof, "places of residence, a formal announcement of engagement and a 5 year relationship" is really just that, 2/3 sentences since it ultimately broke off. —IB [ Poke ] 08:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible larger, general problem

This celebrity/artist biography area is not my area of expertise, but I am an experienced editor, with real world publishing experience. I was skimming the content to answer a question regarding this artist's family, for a young person (skimming, since no Personal life section, see comment above). In doing so I read this sentence

Her status as a role model, self-esteem booster for her fans, trailblazer, and fashion icon who breathes new life, for instance, into the music industry, is by turns affirmed and denied.[244][245][246]

This seemed quote-like language, and so I did a quick plagiarism check, and then a bit more of search work. What I found was troubling, and alarming if it is generally true of the article.

What was observed:

  • none of the key terms that are very descriptive, and so potential puffery, appear in any of the three sources appearing: None of the words "role", "self", "trail", "icon", and "breathes" appear in any of the three citations appearing, at all.
  • the phrase "breathes life into" appears from various other published writers in reference to acts and works of LG (see [goo.gl/opo9Q6]), but none of the sources that use this colorful expression are cited.

This is a big issue, especially if it is general about the article—editors should not be creating original descriptions of the artist, they should be summarising and sampling from the descriptive language of published authors, then citing them. And any puffery-like language must clearly reflect a source, via quotation if at all possible.

I leave it to the dedicated editors of this page to have a look at this one example, to see if it is general—and if it is, to add the appropriate article or section tags, and only to remove the inline citation tag after the specific and potential more general issue is addressed. See also next Talk section. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. That sentence has also bothered me for a long time. It is very quote-like and an absolute POV. Thanks for pointing it out (I have removed it). – FrB.TG (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Rolling Stone never called her Queen of Pop

The article cited in the Legacy section is very misleading. Sounds like her fans got carried away with that addition. Rolling Stone did a poll of newer artists, asking who people thought was the Queen, but it did not feature Madonna, who has always held the title. After she was later added to the poll and won by a landslide. I've attached the cover of the magazine announcing it. Gaga was never given that title by Rolling Stone, and they even rescinded the article, owning their mistake for leaving Madonna out of the initial poll

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-queen-of-pop-20110706/1-madonna-0325148 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djackson84 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your whole post here is completely misleading and referring to two different articles by the publication. The first one utilizes a poll by the reader where Madonna won by a landslide as noted by the article, "With all the fan feedback, we decided to poll our readers so they could name their own queen of pop. Here are the results". In this poll Gaga came in the second position. The original article utilizes record sales and social media prowess, where Gaga was named the Queen of Pop. The article noted that it took into consideration the current pop contenders, saying "No matter how we cut the numbers, Gaga was bound to crush the competition. Even if we'd stuck to data from 2010 and 2011, her massive album and singles sales swamp her competitors". Please remember, no one exclusively holds that title although Madonna is widely regarded for being the Queen of Pop. That does not belittle Gaga's achievements and the fact that a major music publication called her with that title using hard core statistics. —IB [ Poke ] 08:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I said was "misleading". I clearly mentioned that they were two articles. What you're ignoring is that the second article backtracked on the first. THAT's the misleading part. The reason they got so much feedback, was because readers found them calling her that as such a new artist, ridiculous. Which anyone educated in music history would be bound to agree with. And it's also incorrect, that Madonna doesn't hold the title. Despite a few random opinions, she is the only star truly regarded as Queen of Pop, which is again why they got so much feedback. A few writers have called Justin Beiber the King of Pop, but no one would ever take that seriously. The same holds true in this case. Anyway, I guess you're going "alternative facts" on this was. The truth is they backtracked on the article, and that shouldn't still be cited. #FakeNews #AlternativeFacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djackson84 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017

Within this paragraph regarding Lady Gaga, I noticed:

1986–2004: Early life "[18] In 2014 Gaga said she was raped at the age of 19. She stated, "I went through some horrific things that I'm able to laugh [at] now, because I've gone through a lot of mental and physical therapy and emotional therapy to heal over the years".

In context with the rest of the article, this should be changed to 2004, as she was born in 1986, she would have been 19 during 2004, not 2014. Stobo222 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

She did the interview in 2014, talking about events that occurred in 2004. The context is correct. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 19:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_20&oldid=1144185299"