This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 20, 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Previous copyedits:
/
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on 21 April, 2016.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
"Lady Gaga Brings 'Bad Romance,' Sense of Humor to 'Leno'". Rolling Stone. November 24, 2009. Gaga also expressed displeasure that her Wikipedia page refuses to change her place of origin from Yonkers to New York City, but Rolling Stone is happy to report that as of press time, the change has been made to Gaga's Wiki to reflect her Big Apple roots.
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 124 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2019.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report11 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the last line of the career section the edit about Gaga’s eighth album being announced is incorrect. At the end of the HBO special for the Chromatica Ball it’s teases LG7. Could the change be made to teased her 7th studio album. Her projects for films and with Tony are their own category of albums. 65.79.130.31 (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done we shouldn't downplay how the albums with Tony Bennett count towards her totals, so eighth is in fact correct, and don't treat a vague description in teasers as indicators of an album count (especially when that's not even a formal name for whatever she releases next). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Gaga has referred to the album several times as her seventh studio album. Referring to it as her eighth alongside articles that repeatedly call it "LG7" aka her seventh is confusing for readers. Her albums with Tony Bennett are collaborative albums consisting of covers of classic jazz tunes. Her next album will be her seventh studio album. It is unclear how her albums are labelled in her recording contract or internally so the point of reference should be the artist themselves in my opinion. Sweetcheeks123 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bold of you to assume all journalists would use the same number. I've seen many instances of articles giving wrong album counts for other artists, so this wouldn't be the first case where anybody does that, but we can't say for certain how many will later get it right. Regardless, don't treat informal descriptions as surefire indications. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll add my edit summary here in case we need to refer to it in the future. 'Gaga released five solo studio album (TFM is classified as EP) and two with Bennett, making this her eighth studio album despite Gaga referring to it as 'LG7', we're not saying we know better than Gaga which album this is, but rather that she follows a different system of classifying her albums, please respect the system we use here on Wikipedia and don't change it to 'her seventh studio album.' To add to it, I believe that contractually this is Gaga's seventh release with Interscope in terms of records she's obligated to make for them which includes TFM, and that would explain why she refers to the upcoming album as LG7, but that does not mean we should discount her records with Tony Bennett. ArturSik (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lady Gaga and the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Went to edit this in but my account isn't allowed:
"Gaga went through the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, along with the eminent mathematicians Terence Tao and Lenhard Ng, Meta founder Mark Zuckerburg, and Google co-founder Sergey Brin."
Then I would have changed further references to Lady Gaga using "She" and "Gaga" in keeping with the alternating style of the paragraph.
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Although not a graduate, Gaga spent almost two years there and "...studied music there and improved her songwriting skills...". See, Bill Gates GA article - he left Harvard after two years, but Harvard is listed in his alma_mater infobox. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That would give a false impression she graduated/got a degree, and this is why Harvard shouldn't be listed for Bill Gates under the field either (though at the time of this writing, his infobox actually lists that under "education" instead with a notice of dropping out). It's better saved for those who actually finish their studies at the place or minimally get an associate's degree (perhaps before transferring elsewhere to get a bachelor's). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
As with Gates the infobox could list NYU with '(did not graduate)' and under 'education' although 'alma_mater' seems better - '..."a university that one once attended". She was there long enough to write a thesis and spent a relevant and formative time there as a youth developing her music and songwriting. Convent of the Sacred Heart is listed in the infobox under 'education' but it doesn't appear to have the effect of the NYU education. As an Ivy Leaguer, I am no big fan of NYU and agree usually not to include, but when it's the formative education she had, why not? What are the concrete reasons for no inclusion? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Calling something an alma mater is using the term rather loosely when one drops out, though for the record, I'm not sure Sacred Heart or Strasberg are worth adding either regardless of graduation status. It therefore is misleading to describe her as an alumnus of NYU. Another thing to consider is how WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Gaga's education doesn't sound like a key fact, and either way is nowhere near important as her music career or even acting roles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @SNUGGUMS, is there a consensus that "actress" should be included in the short description? Well, I agree that her acting career is notable and lead-worthy. However, I don't think it's as notable as her music career. I mean, WP:SDESC (I know it isn't a policy or a guideline) states, "A short description is not a definition, and editors should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead." Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Gaga's music is overall more famous, but her acting has been growing in prominence over the past decade. Something I've gone by is that if an occupation is worth mentioning in the first sentence, then chances are it's also suitable for the short description. It had been there for quite some time before you removed that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, I think it's fine to exclude "actress". WP:SDESC also states, "Because they are intended to be scanned quickly, longer, more specific descriptions can be less useful." Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi again, is it really necessary to include 3 jobs in a single short description? I mean, can we trim it to "American singer and actress" or "American singer and songwriter"? Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I added a "personal life" section yesterday, which is standard for a biography article. It included information about her various relationships (previously been scattered throughout the "career" section) and I added new content about her dating and her religion. I also subsumed her activism section under this, which is also standard for a personal life section.
Another editor (User:SNUGGUMS) summarily reverted all of these changes, including deleting all of the new content wholesale, while only citing that it's not necessary to include all of her dating relationships (which I sort of agree with, but so what). I undid that revert but I would like more input. natemup (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The idea of having such a section here has already been brought up and rejected multiple times. As I've mentioned in prior threads, it's a risky idea when that would likely get bloated with excessive details. Not a chance worth taking here. Some pages might not attract much fancruft, gossip, or trivia for their sections (beats me why some get more overstuffed than others), but nevertheless I'm certain it would happen for Gaga. On another note, whenever she works professionally with a partner, writing about romantic involvement closer towards that can help avoid (or at least reduce) repetitive mentions of collaborations. For what it's worth, Ms. Germanotta certainly isn't the only case of someone not having a "personal life" split into a separate section on their Wikipedia bio page. Sometimes it's best to not have one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Upon what Wikipedia policy or recommendation do you base the idea that we should not add a standard biographical section because it, in the opinion of one editor, might become bloated in the future? (Isn't that the point of having other editors, who would restore balance?)
Moreover, you've given no explanation for deleting all of the new content, not just her relationships that you feel are not important.
(And do feel free to point me toward any RFCs or consensus that there should be no "personal life" section. I will do some digging in the meantime.) natemup (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I now see that there have been at least two discussions from 6+ years ago—prior to Gaga's two most recent engagements—that had minimal participation and clearly came to no consensus. Feel free to offer any other concerns.
If you do feel that strongly about deleting the section, I think it's worth an RfC (not least because the feared bloat has apparently never actually occurred here). natemup (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree with SNUGGUMS. I can understand the point of a ‘Personal life’ section when there’s more to write (e.g. Angelina Jolie#Personal life). But here you just made a list of her relationships. Let’s also not ignore the fact that the main section is named ‘Life and career’ so her relationships were hardly misplaced to begin with. And her religion is included in the ‘Early life’ sub section. Her religion in the section you created is also a perfect example of what SNUGGUMS said. Before we know it. Someone will add to it that she has an x number of dogs, an x number of tattoos and likes to eat eggs for breakfast. Trivia. In this article, the ‘Personal life’ section simply serves no purpose. ArturSik (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
As stated here multiple times, I added new information on her current religion. I was also preparing to add some on her chronic illnesses, which are also scattered throughout the rest of the article. Her current religion is currently included nowhere in the article, just that she was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school. And it seems manifestly POV to equate information on her religion with her number of dogs and tattoos. At no point, was there any meaningless trivia included in the personal life section I created. Just the information that was previously difficult to find because of its random locations.
P.S. Using "Life and career" in lieu of a personal life section really isn't a thing on Wikipedia from what I know. Many have both, and "life and career" should be "Biography" anyway—with a personal life section thereafter. natemup (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In addition to early life, her religious affiliation is mentioned under "LGBT advocacy" with a 2019 quote that was more recent than the 2016 link used for Catholicism. Each of the relationships Natemup introduced appear to have been low-profile upon further inspection, at least compared to Fusari and the fiancés, and either way my biggest qualm is that Daniel Horton was never confirmed by Gaga, him, or their representatives to begin with. With or without intending to, that inclusion violated WP:BLP and WP:NOTGOSSIP, confirming my suspicions that gossipy content would get added to a "personal life" section for her. The link used just went off rumors and speculation, making it an inadequate attribution for personal claims that involve living people, and we shouldn't take such claims about them at face value so easily unless minimally one involved party (which can include their reps) affirms they were ever more than friends (kissing photos don't always equate to an official romance either when those can potentially be one-day-only instances). FrB.TG has thankfully reverted that violation when restoring prior structure. As for an RFC, we don't need that when those tend to make things drag out for longer than necessary. This also is far from the only bio where "life and career" section contains romances without a "personal life" subsection contained in that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
SNUGGUMS: Answering your question from the edit summary, my understanding is that a soundtrack album consists of music/songs used directly in a film. In Joker: Folie a Deux, songs were performed by Gaga and Phoenix live, similarly to ‘ASIB’ and those will be included on the soundtrack album due for release on Oct 4th. But ‘Harlequin’ are Gaga’s interpretations of those songs, and recorded independently from the film. For starters, Joaquin does not seem to be featured on any of them. Of course, there’s still very little information about the release, but it seems that Gaga wanted to put her own spin on the songs they performed in ‘Joker’ and recorded her own studio versions. Does that count as a soundtrack to the film? It’s releated to it/been inspired by it. But none of the songs seem to actually be part of it. ArturSik (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it's a track-by-track solo version of everything on the movie's main soundtrack with Joaquin, then that sounds akin to a cover album or perhaps a re-recording, but I don't believe the latter has been fully revealed yet so let's wait until that happens. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The soundtrack tracklist leaked a couple of days ago and it’s only got some of the songs that ‘Harlequin’ has. Also, Harlequin has some new titles which are believed to be original songs, but again nothing confirmed yet. Regardless, even if all songs were covers wouldn’t that still be classified as a studio album? Her jazz albums consist of covers as well. ArturSik (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
‘Harlequin’ should be considered a mixtape. The Wikipedia description for a mixtape is "a mixtape often describes a self-produced or independently released album" and "the term has been applied to a number of releases published for profit in the 2010". The article continues with "released as holdovers or low-key releases between studio albums". Lady Gaga is promoting it as the LG6.5, something between the LG6 (Chromatica) and the LG7 (to be released). Furthermore, the album will be released on Lil Monsters' own record label. 2804:B48:194C:B100:899A:B7B3:4CA:4408 (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The record label used is irrelevant to overall count, and same goes for whether she produces the tracks. As for that tweet, it's from a fan account, so I'd take that with a grain of salt. Regardless, having all covers could potentially be a new studio album in itself. I just didn't think that would be the case when re-doing one's own songs from other releases (like Gaga did with Hitmixes being all remixes of previous songs). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The soundtrack album article offers another definition by BBC: 'By convention, a soundtrack record can contain any kind of music including music "inspired by" but not actually appearing in the movie.' The album is generally associated with the film and not treated as Gaga's new studio album, being referred to as a 'companion album' to Joker. Based on this, can we assume it is a soundtrack of sorts? ArturSik (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Request for comment on adding "Personal life" section
Yes: The article currently has a "Life and career" section that includes only some of her romantic relationships and health struggles scattered throughout. Her current and specific religion (Catholicism), which has been reported on publicly, is not mentioned at all. Easy fix with a "Personal life" section.
No it poses a risk that would do more bad than good, and you still show no concern for the points on bloating or duplications I brought up in a previous thread. Furthermore, when her most recent comments on religious affiliation (at least that I know of) are simply "Christian" as of 2019 and currently mentioned in the page, we can't simply assume a more specific mention of Catholicism from 2016 still applies. How do you know she still practices that particular division instead of being non-denominational, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox? I regardless will bring up again that the only relationships worth mentioning so far have already been implemented. We don't need low-profile or super brief involvements, especially without formal confirmation that there even was non-plantonic involvements. I'll take this moment to remind you that pieces speculating on individuals going beyond friendship are NOT a sufficient basis for inclusion per WP:BLP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Personal life is standard for this type of biography (compare her recent co-star Joaquin Phoenix). I appreciate @SNUGGUMS's concerns about bloating and trivia, but it does not seem that this common structure for WP:BLP creates that risk where it is used across Wikipedia, and nothing about this page suggests a greater risk here than any of the countless other pages on which it is used. To the specific reverted edit [1], the only added information was a current engagement, which does not seem to violate WP:NOTGOSSIP; noteably it leaves out many other less significant relationships mentioned in the supporting source. If future edits add bloat or trivia, by all means revert them. Carleas (talk) Carleas (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The violation of WP:NOTGOPSSIP actually was adding Daniel Horton without formal confirmation that they ever were more than friends, and all engagements were already implemented before it got restructured. You might be surprised how often "personal life" sections get filled with excess detail for other folks, and I remain convinced it would happen here again like it did with Natemup's imposition. could save ourselves such trouble by not having this split out. I've lots track of how often I see minor and/or speculated relationships added elsewhere. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Certain folks jumped to conclusions after one date that involved kisses. When neither party ever said it went beyond that, we shouldn't instantly assume it was more than a one-day-only occurrence, and besides the part you added only suggested a 3-month involvement which is quite brief. Downplaying the negatives of your desired structure by making that "slippery slope" remark gives the impression that simply having a "personal life" section with religion and relationships is all you care about for Gaga's page no matter how much is added. Either way, they're not always as beneficial as you seem to believe. You're also disregarding how your preference takes away from keeping personal/professional overlaps in one spot plus the fact that her most recent known comments on religious affiliation are already placed appropriately within "LGBT advocacy" where she condemns Mike Pence and his stances. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not a fallacy. Article quality degradation is real and taking steps to mitigate it, such as not including sections that are likely to attack cruft and poorly sourced rumors (which are a BLP problem, by the way), is sensible. —Compassionate727(T·C)13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The argument is fallacious, even if the concerns are real. There is no guarantee, or even a provable likelihood, that any of them will come to pass. It's just a creative way to block an edit, in this case. natemup (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. "Personal life" sections are magnets for fancruft, rumor and trivia. In Gaga's case, her important relationships are, and should be, discussed in their chronological context in the article, where it can be explained how these men affected the relevant portions of her life and career. Nearly all of them had a professional connection with her that needs to be explained chronologically. Her relationship with Polansky, or of her faith, to the extent it is important to her life and career, are better discussed in the context of what else is happening in her life. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes: I'm surprised it doesn't already exist. It's a topic that readers are often interested in, and it's more user-friendly to have it all in one section rather than having to comb through her extensive life and career section to find the info. Rainsage (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes - Well sourced information is considered encyclopedic, including personal life matters. Having a section does not mean it WILL be filled with fancruft. It is possible to cover well sourced portions of a famous person's personal life without being a gossip, and the information is not private if it is, in fact, well sourced. And by well sourced, I mean WP:RS, so that excludes typical gossip rags, which should alleviate some fears of this becoming a tabloid section. Fieari (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Taking this list of 14 female pop stars from the 2010s [2] as a reference class for pages like this one, 10 have a "personal life" sections, and 3 do not:
Note that the last three, like Gaga, are Featured Articles. If you look at the others, some of the personal life sections contain a lot of rumors, dubious statements and fancruft. Sia's for example, repeats the statements she made in the past about being a grandmother through her (somewhat dubious) supposedly adoptive son(s) but does not even mention that she has recently had a baby of her own. Grande's talks about a variety boyfriends, some of them very short-term. Jessie J's goes on at length about whether or not she is or was bisexual. Several of them include a discussion of the (not) fascinating question of whether the person "identifies" as feminist. A lot of them discuss random statements that the person has made, and often later contradicted, about whether they are of one denomination of Christianity or another, studied Kabbalah (however briefly or dubiously), still practice their birth religion or not, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like you don't like personal life info on topics you aren't interested in. That is immaterial to Wiki guidelines, though, no? natemup (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that there seems to be enough WP:DUEWEIGHT in the sense that there is enough material out there in reliable sources to cover details of a neutrally worded "personal life section". Just make sure the topics and sub-topics (if any) are very neutral and have zero bias/slant. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
While WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't by itself a convincing basis here, I will say there are various other bios (including musicians still alive) not named here who also lack such sections. Such absences are likely for the best as it helps avoid bloating and BLP issues. Even for dead ones, the clutter can be reduced when integrated within career (especially when partners work together professionally). On that note, let's not downplay the fact that if we keep the current structure for Gaga and mention how fiancé Michael Polanski worked on some Harlequin songs with her, then that would allow one succinct mention of what currently is known about their relationship without throwing different parts into separate sections. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Where the argument being made is that a specific type of section/structure is bad or harmful, it is not irrelevant to point out that that section/structure is the norm for this type of article: the fact that personal life sections are common undermines the claim that they are harmful. Indeed, where they are missing, they are frequently requested (including on this article [3]), because they are a practical and intuitive way to organize information. Carleas (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
In case there was any ambiguity, I'll make explicit now that I wouldn't go so far to call them inherently harmful for everyone. In fact, for folks who never have their careers overlap with any partners, it would make perfect sense to split that out. This isn't one of those cases. On the flip side, it would also be an oversimplification to suggest any positives of having "personal life" separated would always outweigh negatives of WP:UNDUE weight or WP:NOTADIARY additions (which appears to be your stance). My point regarding WP:OTHERCONTENT is that what one page uses isn't always guaranteed to be beneficial for another. As for past threads, the idea was rejected multiple times for good reason. By no means was I the first or last to oppose such an implementation during past years. I thought my responses to natemup in a previous thread before would've been enough to resolve the matter (especially when pointing out faulty additions). However, after their continued insistence on inserting one and going so far to start an RFC that wasn't necessary when we instead could've kept things in one thread, it became clear I initially underestimated that user's determination here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Based on the discussion above it seems a RFC was the only way to move past the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. What you believe is a "good reason" may or may not be an opinion shared by the rest of the community. Now is the time to let the community have its input. You've made your argument quite clearly. Nemov (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You have a clear aesthetic preference that the section not be added, but you don't WP:OWN this article, and this RfC seeks to establish a consensus on a question that has arisen again and again since you unilaterally moved the contents of the most recent Personal life section into the Career section [4]. There was no discussion before that decision, and you have resisted every subsequent request to restore that section that I've found, first by explaining that "there actually isn't enough to warrant a separate section as there's very little to really say" [5] and later shifting to the current "trivia, fancruft, and gossip" justification. Please point to any other discussions you think are relevant here. Carleas (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
At no point did I ever believe I owned the page. If you think my words came off as an attempt to do so, then I apologize; that was not the intent. Just for the record, I wasn't the one who first implemented a structure without that as shown at Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 13#BMi and personal life (from 2011 which is well before I even made my account). An earlier thread where the idea faced opposition in 2009 is Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 5#Personal life section. They coincidentally had similar rationales to what I gave. At the time of my own change (which I admittedly forgot was mine and I also had no memory of the 2014 thread before it got linked), two sentences each for a couple of relationships looked very minor compared to other sections that where much larger. I have no idea who made a "personal life" section between 2011 and 2014. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, I accept your apology, and I apologize for misinterpreting your words and disparaging your contributions to this article. In an ironic twist, it appears that it was also you that added the personal life section, only a few months before you moved the contents elsewhere in the article.[6]Carleas (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't remember what I was thinking when making that section over a decade ago, but regardless it indeed is very ironic given my later edits! Your apology is also accepted and quite appreciated. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes This article is quite long, and while the information may be included in the body, we shouldn't expect readers to sift through 10,658 words to find it. As long as the information is properly sourced, having a Personal Life section is perfectly reasonable and helps readers. Making information easy to digest should be the goal of this project, unfortunately it appears too many of the arguments here against inclusion of the section would rather readers go somewhere else or use ChatGPT to find this information. Nemov (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Question: Is there a best-practice for duplicating information in an article? Those opposing the section make the point that some parts of her personal life are appropriate to mention in the context of her career, since they may have affected or been affected by her work, meaning a Personal life section would be duplicative. But many people asking for the section are looking for that information specifically, and similar information is often collected in a single section even if that information appears elsewhere, e.g. the Discography/Filmography sections. I don't think anyone wants a Personal life section that resembles those, but the alternative would be duplicating some amount of substantive prose to present the information both in the context of her work and as a distinct type of information about her. Carleas (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No: For the same reason as Taylor Swift's article: her personal life is deeply intertwined with her professional endeavors. Gaga has consistently leveraged her personal experiences, relationships, and identity in shaping her artistic output and public image. Her relationships with collaborators, romantic partners, and even friends often play a direct role in her music, performances, and advocacy efforts. By discussing her personal life alongside her career milestones, readers are given a fuller, more nuanced understanding of how these elements influence her art and public persona.
Moreover, separating her personal life would result in unnecessary duplication of information. To make her personal life section coherent, some context about her career would need to be reintroduced—information already provided in the career section. This redundancy could overwhelm an already extensive article.
Additionally, placing her personal life in its own section might lead to a disjointed narrative, fragmenting an interconnected story that is best understood in tandem. Keeping personal and career details intertwined allows for a more chronological, story-like flow, providing readers with a comprehensive understanding without the need for constant cross-referencing. FrB.TG (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
A "Personal life" section doesn't need to be big. Just the highlights for those who just want some basic info. Most such sections I have seen don't usually cover everyone the person has dated for example. Most such sections are only a few paragraphs. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's entirely the point. The info is scattered throughout the body with no clear identification. No need to make readers ctrl+F for info on an important person's personal life when such sections are abundantly common. natemup (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. First of, apologies for reverting. I was not aware this discussion was going on. Though, consensus does not seem to have been reached, so 'PL' section should not have been reinstated in the first place. Ssilvers makes a valid point. One of the most prominent arguments here is that this section is a norm in bios. But we have to remember that this is a FA, and there are certain standards that we need to maintain. Of the examples that were provided, the three articles that do not have the 'Personal life' section are FAs. The quality of the rest is highly questionable, and therefore should not be used as examples as they simply don't meet FA criteria. The reason the three don't have that section is because a consensus has already been reached for each one of them. I can understand having a 'Personal life' section when there's more to discuss (e.g. Angelina Jolie). But Gaga is private about her personal life. There's not much to it. All we would be doing is making a list of her relationships, which can and has been easily incorporated into her bio. Additional sections should only really exist if we need to go into more detail of the discussed topic. Otherwise, it's pointless and all it does it makes room for redundant content. ArturSik (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was surely promoted to featured article without various sections that now exist, since she is a living person and her life develops. natemup (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. As others have summarized, this article has achieved FA status and already contains a lengthy Life and career section that includes most if not all of the information that might go into the proposed Personal life section. There are several downsides to adding this section, such as article bloat, redundancy, and creating opportunities for divergent or inconsistent information that would decrease the quality of the article. While I acknowledge that some of the objections are speculative, what swayed me is the quality of the article currently and the fact that it already includes personal life details where appropriate sources are available. MYCETEAE 🍄🟫— talk03:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Counterpoint: The info would not be redundant, since all the personal life info was moved there and removed from the "Career" section with my edit. It was simply reverted on the grounds of the slippery slope argument you have repeated. Making readers ctrl+F for basic personal life info is unnecessary, since such sections are abundantly common. natemup (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Summoned by bot) No. no compelling case for how this would constitute an improvement has been made and no game plan for how this would be undertaken without sacrificing article quality has been proposed, and per FrB.TG and MYCETEAE. Expending significant editor time on making at best lateral changes to content seems unwise. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It appears that Natemup ended this RFC and then proceeded to make the change. There does appear to be a consensus to support it, but ArturSik has rolled it back again. Probably best to let this RFC run its course and get a formal close. I've restored the RFC. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
A closure after two weeks sounds hasty, and either way it was inappropriate of Natemup to do when involved editors shouldn't be the closers of RFCs they participate in. That's a clear conflict of interest and proves the user was so determined to have their way that they didn't care about anything else, especially when apathetically restoring a BLP violation on Daniel Horton that lacked proper verification and was never a prominent relationship (if they even had multiple dates). Merely taking out the months doesn't compensate for this. I don't know why Natemup also continues to ignore how their Catholicism addition is not the most recent update Gaga has given on religious affiliation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The conversation was stale and consensus was clear, as Nemov noted; there is no policy against an involved editor closing a discussion in that case. The restoration of a personal life section seems to have only been rolled back because Artursik was not privy to the RfC. And again, I don't care about Horton being removed; I wasn't even thinking about that—your pet concern—when I restored the section. Lastly, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity; Gaga saying she's a Christian isn't remotely indicating that she is no longer Catholic (cf. avoiding synthesis). natemup (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I already knew about Catholicism being part of Christianity, and it is true that she never specified becoming a Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or non-denominational Christian. However, when the broader "Christian" term was used and not any of these branches, my point that is we shouldn't be so quick to presume a particular branch still applies. It's safer to go with the most recent terminology used. As for involved closures, while non-admins such as yourself doing that isn't as egregious as an admin doing so against the WP:INVOLVED policy, it still is frowned upon and comes off as an attempt to impose your wishes. WP:NACINV says it's best for uninvolved users to close discussions and that "For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted, or XfD discussions where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion." You intentionally going with older comments on religion and openly admitting to being careless about the Horton addition suggests you aren't taking the BLP policy on personal claims as seriously as you should be. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I noted why I re-opened the RFC. This wasn't meant to be an invitation for involved editors to argue about ending a stale RFC. Let the RFC play out. No need to beat this horse any further. Nemov (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Omitting the Horton info is entirely your prerogative. That's why it wasn't on my mind when I made the edit. And for the record, an "older comment" about someone's religion is the standard info to include unless there's an indication of actual conversion to something else. "Catholic" to "Christian" is not even remotely that, since Catholics are Christians. natemup (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You might not care how WP:Biographies of living persons (BLP) is a policy, but either way I do. It says we need to be very careful with any personal claims on those who are alive (whether it's religion, politics, relationships, crimes, identity change, or anything contentious), both for citations and the amount of details written out. I don't know why you assume older comments would be standard when things can potentially change over time, even when use of a parent term vs. specific denomination isn't as drastic as outright converting to a whole new religion or becoming atheist. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The point is that calling oneself a Catholic, and later a Christian, is not a "change". It's an alternative description. Simple as. The pope could call himself a Christian tomorrow, and likely will, and it wouldn't indicate anything new. It's no different with Gaga. This is silly, but very much related to the RfC itself. Your external assumptions (about what could happen to a personal life section, or about what Gaga may have converted to in the past couple of years), should have no bearing on what a Wikipedia article says or includes. natemup (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I propose we change Lady Gaga's infobox picture to a more recent one. The current image is outdated, and selecting a newer photo would better represent her current appearance and ongoing career evolution. Additionally, it's preferable to use a picture where she's facing the camera, as this provides a more direct and engaging portrayal, allowing readers to better connect with her. Kirtap92 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The reason I'm not a fan of this picture is because she's standing close to another person (Biden), which limits how wide we can crop it and even then you can still see his arm. The crop in my opinion is too close, which can be overwhelming. I tried to make another crop but like I said it was very difficult to come up with anything better as you can't ignore the fact that there's another person standing next to her. The current picture was taken only 2 years earlier, so I would not call it outdated. Gaga has not changed that much during that time, and the picture from the inauguration in my opinion better represents her as a public figure. ArturSik (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
To go with another image solely because it's newer would be an appeal to novelty, and as ArturSik notes, there haven't been any drastic changes over the past few years nor is a 2021 shot "outdated". A more important thing to consider is whether more recent photos are free of copyright. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done we shouldn't downplay how the albums with Tony Bennett count towards her totals, so eighth is in fact correct, and don't treat a vague description in teasers as indicators of an album count (especially when that's not even a formal name for whatever she releases next). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:18, 28 July 2024 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)