Talk:Lady Gaga

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

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

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

Vocal range

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

Poor image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born this way foundation scandal

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

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