Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Infobox photo

Resolved

Hey, what do you think about changing the infobox picture back to that one? the person who changed it to the one from joanne tour said it's better because she's a singer so the infobox picture should show her perform but is it true ? I don't think that's a rule. + on the one from TIFF she looks more like herself and imo it's easier to recognise her on that one. your opinions? ArturSik (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, there isn't a rule mandating pictures of performances, but the one you've linked has subpar lighting for her face. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is that a big problem? the shadow isn't that dark and her face can still be clearly seen. It is a neutral photograph of Lady Gaga in a good quality and we haven't got that many of them. I remeber there was a photoshop team here on Wikipedia but never worked with them directly. maybe they could do something about it? ArturSik (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SNUGGUMS, the lighting is really weird on the image, making her forehead look like a Rihanna-fivehead, and her nose abnormally long (no pun intended). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess in that case we’ll have to wait for something better. Hopefully not long with so many promo events for ASB. ArturSik (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes hopefully. Here's hoping she someday does a film which goes to Comic-Con, cause those ones surely get good pictures haha. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Haha yeah. If only rumors about her role on Birds of Prey were true we wouldn't have to wait that long. ArturSik (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS IndianBio okay. so someone just uploaded a cropped version of a photo from TIFF that I haven't even considered before and imo it looks really good. it's this one. what you think? ArturSik (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A vast improvement over the other TIFF photo you linked. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

yeah I think that too. Although, imo the other one is much better than the one we have in the infobox now. She has a sweaty upper lip and looks like she has air in her mouth. Anyways, Let’s see what IB says and then we can make the decision. ArturSik (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There is one thing I wanna try with File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1)-3 (cropped).jpg. I want to give it to the Visual editors here who can really change the image a bit with the lighting and stuff to make it suitable for infobox. This one is actually a much stronger picture, its just that its shadow is my main issue. Let me submit it to the Visual arts team and see. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Have submitted it here. Lets see what they can do with it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ll be happy with either as long as we have a replacement for the current one. Although, I really like the second one, she looks really pretty and... normal in it, something we probably never expected to get from her. No weird pose, no weird facial expression. Eitherway, let’s see what the editors do with the first one and then we can decide. ArturSik (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS IndianBio the photo's been edited but it doesn't look good. ArturSik (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

update: I've edited the photo myself cause the editor from graphics lab added too much effect and it really looked bad. what do you think ? ArturSik (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

While your brightness changes for File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1)-3 (cropped).jpg did make the image better, I still personally prefer File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1) (cropped 2).jpg. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said I'll be okay with either. There's probably nothing else we can do with File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1)-3 (cropped).jpg to improve it so let's see what IB says and then I guess we can change it. ArturSik (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed that FrB.TG uploaded a new cropped version of File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1) (cropped 2).jpg and I personally think that this would be the best choice for infobox. ArturSik (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry this picture is atrocious. You cannot see her face, its in blurry resolution and in place of images where we can clearly see her face, I will never support this one. I personally liked your brightness change ArturSik and I would prefer this as infobox rather than the side faced one. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see where you’re coming from. But I feel like the one you’re proposing although looks better than originally still has issues. To me it looks a bit too retouched. I’ll try to work on it so it isn’t so bright but without bringing back the shadow that we had in first place. I’m not a professional and only played around with it in the lightroom app on my mobile. I’m not sure if it will be today tho. I’ll get back to you when I get the chance to work on it and hopefully we will be able to reach an agreement. ArturSik (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

check the updated version of File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1)-3 (cropped).jpg and let me know what you think. ArturSik (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to like the original version a lot now :( *Facepalm* —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

to be perfectly honest, the more I kept editing it the more I was starting to dislike it. Maybe just a slight light change would be better. I'll revert it to the original one and upload the edited one as a new file so that we have a choice. ArturSik (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

IndianBio how about that? ArturSik (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@ArturSik: yes please go ahead with this one as I really like it now. I think a minimal change is all it needed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS what do you say? ArturSik (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Better lighting there for sure. We can use it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The above image was removed with this edit (not by me). To be honest I do prefer File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1) (cropped 2) (cropped).jpg though.--NØ 18:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(→) Reverted. Users have already achieved a consensus. This circular discussion can go on and on. Majority has preferred the image ArturSik added and lets leave it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Um, if this is what you call a "consensus", then I'm not sure you know what a true consensus is. There are only a handfull of people who have had a chance to speak their opinion, and, after reading through this conversation, it appears that you were all bullied into picking this unflattering close-up image just because IB thinks the wider angle one is "atrocious" and claims it isn't high quality enough... Based on what? It looks fine to me and you can CLEARLY see her face. Plus, she actually looks GOOD. It seems to me that the majority of people (ArturSik, NØ, Snuggums), liked the wider angle of Gaga, File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1) (cropped 2) (cropped).jpg, until you kept badgering them to reconsider. Not cool. Kim Leung (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kim Leung, show me where I have badgered users who have much more authority and knowledge about this article than you. I had personally initially opposed this image until ArturSik had found an edited version which toned it down. Just learn when to drop it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't feel badgered here at all. It was ArturSik's most recent brightness adjustment that changed my mind on what to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither did I. As you can see the discussion began with the original version of the current infobox photo and I was very much a fan of it. However, our issue was the shadow. In the meantime the photo you're proposing showed up and yes I do like it but since we managed to resolve the shadow issue we all agreed this would be the best choice. I don’t think anyone was pressured to make any decision. We were simply exchanging our views and this is what the talk page is for. File:TIFF 2018 Lady Gaga (1 of 1)-3 (cropped).jpg kept changing and not all of us were happy with it hence we didn’t put it in the infobox (it was changed by a user who didn’t participate in this discussion) until we were all happy with the final result and all agreed to change it. I don’t think it’s fair to attack other users just because they don’t agree with you. You need to remember that we need to follow certain criteria when choosing the infobox photo and stick to them. ArturSik (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE 20TH OCTOBER : okay stop putting that picture of Gaga up... the one that is up now looks WAY better than the one you have chosen. PERIOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilwikiboi (talk • contribs)

No, the previous one had a clearer view of her face AND better overall angle than what you uploaded. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: OKAY BUT SHE LITERALLY LOOKS WAY BETTER IN THE PICTURE I CHOSE OMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilwikiboi (talk • contribs) 18:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

AND NO ITS NOT ABOUT ME UPLOADING THE PICTURE BECAUSE I DONT CARE... I JUST WANT HER TO HAVE A PICTURE THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS GOOD AND THE ONE THAT YOU KEEP CHOSING DOESNT LOOK GOOD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilwikiboi (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Neilwikiboi: The problem is, "looks good" is subjective. That's why you need to discuss and get a new consensus for a changed picture, since the old one was decided by consensus here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You also haven't given any discernible reason for why she "looks way better" in your upload. If anything, others who have reverted you would likely find it inferior for subpar angle and view of face. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You also haven't given any good reason as to why we should keep that picture up there other than the fact that you can see her face. The reason I even thought about changing it was because I saw a lot of people on social media complaining about the picture wanting to be changed. I dont know why you are choosing to keep an unflattering photo of her up there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilwikiboi (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing one's face clearly IS a valid reason to choose images. The one used before your insertion also had better brightness and wasn't taken from some top angle. Eye-level/face-level angles are ideal when available. There's nothing "unflattering" about it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello there. I think we should find another photograph of Gaga. If you don't like the photo my friend has suggested to use we can look for another one. Millions of people click on her page a day and as a fan I dont want them to see such an awful photograph of her. Her skin looks pasty and she looks like shes balding. Shes a beautiful woman and deserves a beautiful picture. Lots of us fans on twitter are complaining about it. Lukeaanthony (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Luke Anthony

While I don't see any signs of balding or "pasty" skin, feel free to list any specific suggestions you have that aren't copyrighted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this could work if you specifically need a photo from 2018 . If so I found one with a front face view that's much more appealing. Here's a link https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Star_Is_Born_04_%2844027219335%29_%28cropped%29.jpg/484px-Star_Is_Born_04_%2844027219335%29_%28cropped%29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeaanthony (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Luke. That photo is more appealing.

Blurry and non high-resolution images are not allowed for info-box when high quality images are available which can clearly identify the subject. The current image is absolutely fine as it is, and Lukeaanthony, Wikipedia does not care what Twitter or social media says. Both your and Neilwikiboi's contributions do not adhere to any policies governing WP:BLP. The image was achieved through the process of WP:CONSENSUS (do read it) and does not fail any part of BLP. It does not violate WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY nor does it make her look inebriated or with awkward expression. A clear shot, where a reader can identify that this is "Lady Gaga" is more than enough to include as main infobox image. Beauty is not a discussion point. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Madonna's infobox photo is blurry, Beyonce's infobox photo isn't high resolution, there are PLENTY of wonderful photos to use instead of this chosen one. Why is it such a big deal to not change it? And in this photo she doesn't even look like herself. Not many would see this and recognize it as Lady Gaga. I made this page for the purpose of helping out and updating Gaga, making her look like the gorgeous woman she is for all to see. And it feels you don't want her looking the best she can look. How about using the previously chosen image from the JWT. I think that's a fair solution https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Lady_Gaga_JWT_Montreal_BM%2C_2017-11-03_%28cropped%29.jpg

Lukeaanthony (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC) LukeAanthony

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and for your kind information Madonna's image is a high-resolution non-blurry image where she can be clearly recognized). And she does not look like herself? LukeAnthony, I gave you enough reasons above for why the image was discussed time and time again and then accepted through consensus. Your continuous agenda pushing of "making her look like the gorgeous woman she is" is appearing as simply a fan agenda and not a rational request anymore. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would you work on a Lady Gaga wiki page when you are not even a Lady Gaga fan. I care about HER. and I care about people seeing accurate updated information along with a nice photo. I showed about 5 people her photo today and none of them recognized it as her or thought it looked appealing. Why does every other musician get a nice photo but Gaga. It seems like you not only arn't a fan but dislike the woman. I get it. YOU wanna control the page. But your opinion isn't any more valid than mine. Fans are not happy and they are important when it comes to an artists career. Thank you. Lukeaanthony (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Lukeaanthony

Just so IndianBio isn't on his own with this, I just wanted to say that this is getting more and more ridiculous and it needs to stop. You clearly don't understand the purpose of wikipedia and how it works. it isn't a fan page and we won't be agreeing to your demands. You're getting more and more agressive and personal and if this doesn't stop we will have to get you blocked. some of these users you're discrediting right now worked on this article for years and are behind its success and you're just coming here and destroying it. I can assure you we're all big gaga fans and devote a lot of time to make sure her page is always at its best. but we cannot ignore wikipedia's rules just to make her look better. her article doesn't show her in bad light at all and just because you or some of her fans don't like the picture we decided to use isn't a good enough reason to change it. ArturSik (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to discredit anyone. I am simply trying to help. I'm a huge Gaga fan and want to make this page the very best it can be. I'm just sassy don't take it too personally. Lukeaanthony (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Lukeaanthony

IndianBio SNUGGUMS guys, although we've reached an agreement and closed the discussion, since there's so much drama surrounding our choice, which of course isn't at all a valid reason to change anything, I looked through her commons gallery and found one picture from joanne tour that could possibly work. I cropped it and it looks quite decent - File:Lady Gaga JWT Montreal, 2017-11-03 (cropped 7).jpg. ArturSik (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Anyway, that ain't bad at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think it looks great. I think we should change it. From the technical point of view its got everything and the fact that her mouth is open I think we've already established with Gaga its acceptable. ArturSik (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You can't be serious? Her eyes are half-closed, her mouth is opened as if to perform fellatio. You think the IPs and the fanboy editors storming here is a nusiance? Wait till you change to this image and see the uproar. I follow enough music boards to know how terrible "Little Monsters" gang up can be. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

IndianBio hahah I personally really like it but okay let’s just leave it as it is. As I said fans’ complaints were not at all the reason I proposed change. I just looked through her gallery to see if there was anything better and found this which I liked. But I see your point. ArturSik (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

New Photograph

Yes, I'm willing to keep pushing for a new infobox photo because I feel that strongly about it. I really think we should simply revert to one of her previous used photos. There was a lovely one of her in red from the JWT that would be much nicer. I know you don't care what "Twitter" thhinks but many are outraged with this photo and there is absolutely NO reason that we can't change it. Lukeaanthony (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to File:Lady Gaga JWT Montreal BM, 2017-11-03 (cropped).jpg? Regardless, keep in mind that what fans state on social media isn't really by itself enough reason to change the infobox image. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Lukeaanthony I think you're going about this the wrong way. Consensus already exists to keep the current image in the article. Your best bet of getting it changed is to suggest one that would be a better alternative and letting people determine if they prefer it to the current one, thus establishing a new consensus. Please select one specific picture that would be better in your opinion and then try to convince others why, through civil discussion. I personally like this one.--NØ 19:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We have had enough discussion to last a lifetime, and I see only Lukeaanthony having problem with the picture. This is getting to the point of WP:IDHT and WP:STICK and frankly its a waste of time. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No this is absolutely NOT a waste of time. I posted the issue to Twitter, I received over 100 likes within a few hours with outrage from fans. You really think I don't see through you huh. You are a pressed Madonna stan who has nothing better to do than sabotage Gaga's page. Wikipedia is a COMMUNITY. It is controlled by all of us. Not just by you. So stop acting like you're in charge of the world and be a little more welcoming. The people have spoken and we want the picture changed. Don't talk to me about how "Little Monsters" don't matter. This page is one of the most viewed in the world, typically by her fans and it should be presented as nicely as possible. All you have done since I've got here is revert edits and claim nothing is reliable. Yes MGM is a reliable source for her record sales as that's the venue where she will be performing a 2 year residency. This photograph is unflattering and you should realize there's a problem when an entire thread has to be made about it. If you aren't here to contribute to helping Gaga's page stay updated and polished then you shouldn't be allowed to edit. You are undershooting many of Gaga's accomplishments, calling "Joanne's" success "Medium" when it sold over 2 Million WW with Streaming is laughable. How can an album be certified for selling One Million Units in the US have only sold 1 Million units WW. Stop being bias and do your job. I have sat here trying my very best to improve upon this page but haven't been able to get anything done due to your control issues. Stick to streaming Rebel Heart. Thank you VERY much.Lukeaanthony (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Lukeaanthony (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

IndianBio IS NOT trying to sabotage the page; that's an absurd claim when he's massively helped with prose and referencing as well as neutrality over the years. I know this because I've helped maintain the page as well for a while and reviewed more of his edits than I can count. Your comments on him being biased are therefore completely unwarranted. Also, just because you don't like the image doesn't mean you should accuse anybody of sabotaging. People don't have to polish any specific page, and are free to focus on other articles if desired, though he's chosen to focus time on this one. I'm not sure where that 2M figure came from, but streaming-equivalent units ARE NOT the same thing as actual sales. Certifications don't equate to sales either these days; they're now based on a combination of pure sales and streams, so it's quite possible to achieve 1 million EQUIVALENT UNITS in the US and at the same time sell less than a million copies there. We shouldn't cite press releases from artists, their labels, venues they play at (which includes MGM for her upcoming residency), or anyone affiliated with them for sales claims because they're known to often inflate sales numbers for promotional purposes. It's better to cite unaffiliated sources as they're more likely to give realistic numbers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Snuggums. Lukeaanthony, you have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. So instead of cribbing about my writing skills and editing, make an effort to understand why your edits have not been allowed and how you can be better. Case in point, learn to understand not to beat a dead horse time and time again by opening a section about same infobox image. The consensus is against you and for the image placed currently, so let it go. Move on. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh and also, make another personal threat or attack like this "You really think I don't see through you huh. You are a pressed Madonna stan who has nothing better to do than sabotage Gaga's page." I will report you to administrators. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

Can somebody add the World Music Awards winners category please? 2600:6C4E:580:A:E4FF:5F0E:45DB:A35A (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Preventing a line break in the infobox

@SNUGGUMS has reverted the edit I made to improve the layout of the "Associated acts" section of the infobox. I ask you to please give further consideration to why I did this. Your edit summary neatly illustrates the problem I was trying to solve. According to the edit summary, it seems you did not see Tony Bennett with a line break in the middle of his name. Well, I do ... which illustrates the fact that different users will have different experiences because they have different browsers, different fonts, and different personal preference settings. Importantly, a user's individual preference for the thumbnail width causes the infobox image to change width, and the whole infobox with it.

This is why we would try to anticipate something that might be a problem visually for some users. Please don't assume that what you see is the same for everybody. It's just harder to read when your eyes have to follow Tony (line break) Bennett. Given that the list is bulleted, it's not a problem that is likely to lead to an actual misunderstanding. But it is harder to read, for some readers, so why shouldn't we fix it?

I have to respectfully disagree with your suggestion that adding the {{nobr}} "needlessly overfills the infobox with coding". My response is that our goal should be to make the article better for readers. I'm all for clarity in the wikitext, but convenience for editors is by far a lesser priority. Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you viewing this page on a mobile device? If so, then there look for a "desktop view" option which should display Bennett's name on one line. It might just come down to a difference of devices and what they display by default. I indeed saw no asthetic difference when you added that bit, so it didn't come off as any discernible improvement. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm viewing it on a desktop computer. But really, that's not the point. As you say yourself, different devices (or different configurations of desktop) will display different results. Neither you nor I can be sure what others will see. But I think we have established that, to some people, the infobox will appear narrower than the one you see. – Wdchk (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Please change the picture of Lady Gaga at the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival to a picture of her at the Venice Film Festival. Specifically from this source: VENICE, ITALY - AUGUST 31: Lady Gaga attends the 'A Star Is Born' premiere during the 75th Venice Film Festival at the Palazzo del Cinema on August 31, 2018 in Venice, Italy. (Photo by John Rasimus) (Photo credit should read John Rasimus / Barcroft Media via Getty Images) because the lighting and quality of the picture is better overall and encompasses who Lady Gaga is better than an overly edited and unflattering picture. Greciator (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:IUPC - such an image can only be used if it has been released under a free license. Most celebrity photos taken by a professional photographer don't qualify. If such a license does exist, please visit WP:UPLOAD to upload the file and then reopen this request linking to the image. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Change the unflattering main photo to this one: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DuOnf5PU4AAiGnt.jpg:large Romeosansaet (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Lady Gaga's image change to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_Gaga_Grammys_2018.jpg Guiltyplayer (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No. You are not the owner of the image and I have submitted it to be deleted. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Update Net Worth

We should update Gaga's networth from the 275 Million to at LEAST 300 Million where CelebrityNetWorth lists her. She made 50 Million within the past year being the 5th highest paid women in music. Most likely due to the sold out Joanne World Tour and A Star Is Born... Lots of magazines have stated it as 300 million now. Didn't want to get yelled at so I'm asking here first :) Lukeaanthony (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Celebritynetworth.com has long been denounced as a gross, unreliable source through multiple discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard. Please peruse of the archives before you list a source. Previous RSN discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Hence it cannot be used. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Forbes has also stated that the 50 Million earnings from 2018 is accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeaanthony (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yearly earnings aren't the same thing as net worth. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Updated Sales Stats

Lady Gaga's sales have now been updated on the official Park Theater website where she is starting a residency in the winter. They've updated her global single sales to 171 Million and Album sales to 31 Million. This is a very credible source and should be taken into consideration. https://www.parkmgm.com/en/entertainment/lady-gaga.html Lukeaanthony (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Luke Anthony

I have updated this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilwikiboi (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. Neilwikiboi if you go into Editwarring once more, will make sure that you are blocked for a longer duration now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is MGM not a valid source? Can we take a vote on this or get higher up wikipedia to confirm whether it is valid or not

In this case, it's giving a promotional press release, and such pieces are known to often inflate figures to unrealistically high numbers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, the sales stats are of 2016 - since then Lady Gaga has released another studio album, 'Joanne', whixh included 'Million Reasons', she performed at the Superbowl which made sales skyrocket and this year she co-wrote and performed many songs on the 'A Star is Born', including 'Shallow', one of her best selling singles so far. Also, according to several sources, Gaga's Net worth is now over $300,000,000. It is now December 2018, not February 2016. Jakey626 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide the sources you speak of for a 2018 net worth. 2016 is currently included as the most recent figure that's from anything credible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Add Keytar and Guitar to instruments played. Add Gaga to list of Art Pop musicians. 79.79.89.45 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not known specifically for playing keytar/guitar unlike a piano. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Residency

Thoughts on adding Residency section after "Tours" including Enigma, Jazz & Piano, and Roseland Ballroom... similar to Britney Spears' page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeaanthony (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Should she be referred to as a ARTPOP singer as well as dream pop? Ana jerie (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No; those aren't actual genres. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Religion

I wanted to discuss this here before adding to the article, but I believe we should add a section (under personal life/personal views) that includes Gaga's religious beliefs and practices, as it has been the subject of media attention throughout the years (as early as 2011 and as recently as a few days ago). Thoughts? Here are some sources I've found discussing her Catholic faith: Christianity's future looks more like Lady Gaga than Mike Pence; The provocative faith of Lady Gaga; Lady Gaga's fabulous, patriotic theology; Lady Gaga the Theologian; Lady Gaga clashes with Catholic blogger over criticism of her lifestyle; Lady Gaga answers religious blogger over claims about Catholic celebrities; Lady Gaga posts image of her praying the rosary, describes her ‘physical and mental health struggles'; Lady Gaga in row over Catholic faith online; Lady Gaga and pro-LGBT Catholics: Beyond "the homo stuff"; Lady Gaga takes Catholic blog to task over celebrity faith; Lady Gaga Defends Her Catholic Faith After Posting an Image with a Priest; Lady Gaga’s Mass pics and posts on faith stir Catholic reaction; Lady Gaga to Catholic critic: 'We're not just celebrities, we're humans'; Priest Pulse: Gaga for the Jesus Movement -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not something that should have its own section as it could easily attract trivia, fancruft, and gossip, even if we give more detail than how she was from a Catholic family (mentioned in "Early life"). Not worth the trouble it's practically asking for. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Other articles on singers and actors mention their religion, if sourced, in personal life sections. I fail to see that this doesn't belong in the article especially with sources like CNN, The Independent, and The Washington Post focusing on it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that her Catholicism can't be discussed (probably should've made that clearer before), only that we shouldn't dedicate an entire section to it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree with that as well. I do think this needs to be added in the article though. Where would it best fit? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

All of it is part of her work themes, stemming from usage of religion in music videos to her vocal outbursts against them. So either in the public image or the themes and influences sections. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources provided show her talking about her Catholic faith, not having outbursts against it, just to clarify. I think influences is the best section for it as it has been reflected in her work. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)