User talk:Chasewc91/Sandbox

Draft

Appreciate your assistance on the draft. I've made some minor adjustments, but I've also restored some content and I'd like to discuss that here with you.

The filmography tables - Lady Gaga videography literally says in the infobox, "Lady Gaga video discography". Therefore, that article should focus on Gaga's music videos and video albums - her film and TV work doesn't fit into that and should be worked into the main article.
Her religion - simply stating that she was born into a Catholic family doesn't provide enough context. Did she rebel against her family upbringing? Begin practicing a new religion later? It's important to have an updated quote from her (the 2010 Larry King interview), and the quote is significant as she denounces religion while also identifying with it. That would be too confusing to paraphrase, and too important to skim over.

If you have any questions or concerns about this, let me know and I'd be happy to discuss further. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The videography one I can explain quite easily, Chase- see FL's like Justin Timberlake videography, Michael Jackson videography, and Rihanna videography. They incorporate music videos/video albums as well as TV/Film work. I'm working on Gaga's videography with IndianBio to achieve something like those. The reason why it says "video discography" in infobox is because the discography infoboxes were used, and that infobox automatically adds "discography" in titles. I suppose one could in place try to replicate the style used for things like Madonna filmography. When such content is already included in a separate videography/filmography page, the standard is to just list film roles under "Filmography" section, similar idea of only listing albums under "discography" sections when there is a separate page for discography. As for religion, how exactly does one identify with something and denounce it at the same time? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that videography and filmography are rather different - one has to do with the video aspects of a musical artist's discography, while the other is about a different aspect of their career entirely - and there are some examples, such as Madonna, that make the distinction as well. Also, the problem with listing just Gaga's film roles in the main article is that apart from Machete Kills, none of those roles are significant and are merely cameo appearances.

The best way to go about the videography page, in my opinion, would be for the lead to discuss Gaga's body of work in her music videos, as I'm sure there's an abundance of critical commentary on that - and for the rest of the article to solely focus on her musical videos. Gaga's film/TV credits aren't extensive and fit comfortably in her main article, but they also don't fit in with the music videos, concert DVDs, etc.

As for the religion quote, it is an oxymoron for her to say she is a religious woman while also saying religion is bogus. But both quotes of that are important, and to omit either would be to misrepresent her statement. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So..... if it is an oxymoron and very confusing to readers, why not include something less confusing in place? I'll do some searching if need be, but there's definitely less confusing statements about her affiliations. I get what you're saying when it comes to videography vs. filmography, but keep in mind that Madonna's film/TV career has been the most extensive so far, thus her "filmography" is split from "videography". For Timberlake, Jackson, Rihanna, and Gaga, keeping their TV/film credits listed on their page would be clutter given the amount of work they've done. "Videography" is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "The process or art of making video films", by Merriam-Webster as "the practice or art of recording images with a video camera", and by Dictionary.com as "the art or process of making films with a video camera". Given how television programs and movies are forms of video, Wikipedia standards are to have all video-related material on a videography page except for cases like Madonna and Cher. The first reason I can think of for them is that Madonna and Cher have appeared in many, MANY music videos in addition to many films/TV shows. Their cases are different. Rihanna and Jackson's music video appearances are also quite extensive, less so their TV/film work, which would seem empty on a lone filmography page. Timberlake, one could perhaps argue his film/TV career is enough to warrant filmography, but that would leave his videography page a bit empty with only music videos and video albums. Gaga's videography would also seem empty with just music videos and video albums. If she reaches a point in her career where her film/TV career is extensive as those like Madonna and Cher, then a separate filmography page will be created. For now "Lady Gaga filmography" is a redirect. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said give Gaga's filmography her own page. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly fine to have the filmography as part of the videography. Those tables in your draft are completely WP:UNDUE. Also, those image alignments needs to be corrected. When are you planing to merge into mainspace? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main idea is to merge this content into mainspace, I have started working on it. Main problem with Chase's biography is that it veers off from the content at hand to borderline gossipy additions about conflicts and other stuff, or give them WP:UNDUE importance. The early life and career beginnings sections are impeccably constructed, but things are in piss with the BTW section. Snuggums, I have again removed the table contents. It is already present in Lady Gaga videography, and does not need another bunch of tables since the Manual of Style for tables forbid us to do so. Coming to the influences and the musical style, I don't know whether you are planning to expand the section or that is what it is, but anyways, the main article Musical style and influence section are pretty much immaculate with minor rearrangements and touch ups. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining table use, IndianBio. There's more fluff to remove, and I'll do some rearranging. I think it's mainly her life and career section that needs work in main article. We'll touch that up in Chase's sandbox, and then move to main article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chase has wonderfully condensed the biography for future expansion also, especially by merging the BTW and AP in one section. I believe minor rearrangement and replace some of the undue fluff with more about the music would do it (let's face it, she's still a singer primarily). I would prefer the musical style and influences as it is in the main article. We can also work in condensing that though Snuggums. And that personal life and public image sections, well, I don't know what to do with them. Have part of a single section? I don't know, let's brainstorm on the talk page of the draft shall we? Snuggums this being your talk page its better you can move this conversation there for continuation. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her personal life doesn't really warrant a separate section for two reasons: 1) there really isn't much to say on her dating life aside from Rob Fusari and Taylor Kinney, maybe some info on Luc Carl, 2) her high-profile relationships where incorporated into her professional career, with Fusari being her producer, and meeting Kinney while filming the video for "You and I". Therefore, include her dating life in "life and career", similar to articles like Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Madonna, Yoko Ono, Cher, and Katy Perry among others. Public Image should be under artistry as it is now in main article, and I agree that "musical style" and "influences" are fine right now in main article. I don't know if this whole conversation so far should be moved or only parts of it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can merge/copy it whole, this whole conversation is about Chase's draft anyways :P. And yeah you are correct about the personal life section. I also feel that making it a part of the main biography would be better. Plus the section there goes tad bit overboard with the fluffy nonsense. I removed bits about Elton John worrying about Gaga's health and all. I mean, c'mon, total tabloidy stuff. This is again one of the main issues with a section on personal life. It would later point of time become the target of such fancruft. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion

@SNUGGUMS and IndianBio: appreciate the comments in work, though I would appreciate even more if you guys didn't make baseless WP:UNDUE accusations or refer to my work as "in piss" (what's wrong with it, by the way?)... anyway, I'm fine with merging the filmography/videography if that's what both of you think works best, but I think the "personal life" section is fine as is. Generally speaking, it reads much easier when career/personal life are separated, except in rare cases where the subject's relationships and personal predicaments share equal notability with the rest of their career, such as Michael Jackson. The initial draft merged the two and I think it reads more awkwardly with the career/personal merged. Aside from the Rob Fusari relationship, it just reads as an overview of her career achievements with a random "oh, by the way, she also dated so-and-so" thrown in here and there. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also makes it easier to discuss her sexuality with a personal life section, as that doesn't particularly pertain to a certain period of her career. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, the problem with "personal life" is as it currently stands now, just about everything except Fusari, Kinney, and perhaps Luc Carl (assuming Carl even should be included) is pure fluff. Keep in mind, Jackson is just one of many people whose personal life was intertwined with his professional career. I also gave several other examples where dating life intertwined with careers. Another reason is that there is very little to say on her dating life with only two or three high-profile relationships, and keeping out any lower-profile boyfriends. Fusari was definitely the most involved in her career, Kinney to a lesser extent. Not sure what to say about Luc Carl. While it could perhaps have different phrasing, it definitely doesn't warrant a separate section. Let's see IndianBio says. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where would her sexuality be mentioned without such a section, though? It also is a convenience to the reader due to such sections being included in many similar BLPs. As long as care is taken to avoid the section from becoming unencyclopedic, there are definitely benefits to separating it from her career. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably in "LGBT advocacy", but we don't need to go into much detail on it. Simply mentioning that it (in part) influences her gay activism will suffice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, I'm still not seeing much of a point. It reads much less awkwardly as a whole, and the career/personal life format is present in music bio FAs such as Aaliyah, David Bowie, Kate Bush, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Ayumi Hamasaki, John Mayer, Paul McCartney, Kylie Minogue, Gwen Stefani, etc. and is also listed as an acceptable format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed often used while FA's such as Katy Perry, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson incorporate it all into one section. Also, I'm afraid this just bloats the fluff further :/. Structure aside, see this regarding Mayer. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily have to follow the standards of Katy, Elvis, and Michael. And while no one else has commented yet on the proposal to delist Mayer, that is just one example and plenty of others were cited that use the career/personal format. I frankly don't see the benefits of merging them. It reads better with the information about her relationships and sexuality in one location instead of scattered about randomly throughout a section that otherwise is exclusively about her career achievements - what works for Michael Jackson, for example, doesn't work in every bio. There's even comment from RSes about Gaga's noted privacy regarding her relationships which otherwise would not even fit in the article.

I'm sure any of the info available could be reworked, but there's no point in deleting it altogether when it's verifiable and well-covered by sources. And it's certainly not an WP:UNDUE violation - her personal relationships are not covered extensively and are given appropriate weight in proportion with the musical career that she is first and foremost notable for. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything in that section aside from her boyfriends and perhaps sexuality is really trivial, though, even if reliably sourced. It's actually in part because they aren't covered extensively that they don't warrant a separate section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant they aren't covered extensively in the Wiki article/draft. There is far more coverage in the press, and plenty trivial info was omitted. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still has too much trivia, though..... For starters, the stuff on Elton John and Perez Hilton is purely trivial and simply doesn't belong. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chase, just to address a few comments. I did not mean it in a bad way with the "piss" comment, its just what I saw that the wonderful beginning during the first sections and the flow was missing in the BTW section. No offence meant and I'm sorry if you felt bad, I certainly have commended you for the work on the bio part. Now coming to the personal life section, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Snuggums regarding the trivial info. In the beginning of the section we make it clear that Gaga is a secretive person about her personal life. So except for Taylor, Luc and Fusari, there is simply not much to add in the section. I do not consider frivolous relationships with Elton John and feud with Perez Hilton as that notable frankly. Hence, its best to have it as part of her main bio, and that includes the bisexual things also which as Snuggums suggested, might be part of the LGBT advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianBio (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Section titles

Since The Fame and The Fame Monster are both headlined in their section, any particular reason Cheek to Cheek isn't when Born This Way and Artpop are? Only curious. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was feeling the same thing, Cheek to Cheek is anyways going to be released. I was thinking more about removing that "professional struggle" bit and just list it as "Born This Way, Artpop and Cheek to Cheek". What say Snuggs? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just read my mind. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I don't like about that is that it doesn't provide any sort of description of what happened in her career during this time period, just album titles, which isn't very informative for readers who don't follow pop music or aren't familiar with Gaga. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Struggle" could perhaps be included, but Cheek to Cheek definitely shouldn't be left out Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping image

I'm having issue with the Lady Gaga Lollapalooza image breaking the 2008–10 section header and going into that section. Any one has any thoughts how to avoid this? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can do one of three things:

Manually alter the image size
Move the image further up into the subsection
Insert this at the bottom of the subsection: {{-}}

Hope this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did option 2, but as usual Chase reverted. It is not a hard and fast rule that an image has to stick to a section describing it. Look at books and biographhies. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEKILL

Snuggums, lets get to work on the overcitation of this article. Also do you feel those Daily Mailreferences ought to be replaced? They are too tabloidy. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, YES REPLACE DAILY MAIL! Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I will look for an alternate source, if not found I will delete it. Snuggs, do you also think we should merge the rest of the article from the main bio and see how it stands? That way we can trim those as well and check the referencing and all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to transfer over here, go ahead. Discography/Filmography sections are fine, though, so no need to transfer those. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okies sir! :D —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS:, we have work to do. Let's pick sections and clean this shit. Are you very busy if i may ask? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't take me more than a few days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD?

Chase, any particular reason you requested speedy deletion for this sandbox? Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing all of my contributions referred to as "piss", "shit", "unnecessary", etc. I'll continue to work on the draft on my own time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any frustration :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, if you take every comment on your heart then what would you do at FAC? This was coming along beautifully, and inspite of minor disagreements we were bettering an article and really polishing it for future FA. If you are collaborating, you need to understand that and not feel an ownership to everything you add. Anyways, whatever, your sandbox, your rules. Me and @SNUGGUMS: will work on Lady Gaga on our own and you are free to contribute. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making this about me, perhaps you should learn to collaborate without using rude language, which, contrary to your comments, does not commonly occur at FAC and similar avenues. There is constructive criticism, and there are edit summaries such as "Good lord, quit making unnecessary additions" in response to good-faith edits and comments here about one's work being "shit" and "piss". I can assure you I am not the only Wikipedia user who would take offense to such comments. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have been pushing that Lollapalooza event pic, which me and Snuggums felt that have been breaking the section. Anyways, no hard feelings, I apologize if you are hurt or feel bad. Agai I repeat, this was coming along wonderfully. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize if you felt I was acting in bad faith or trying to assume page ownership - I wasn't aware that you two were having problems with it breaking the section. I have a larger screen resolution, I suppose, so I didn't notice, and I felt that it should have been next to the related paragraph. I personally would just rather go ahead and finish working on the draft, take it to mainspace, clean it up as the three of us (and others) see fit, then take it to peer review for others to assess, instead of trying to reach agreements on small issues before the draft is finished - it's more of a focus issue for me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't want us to interfere now, we won't. You can ask HJ Mitchell to reinstate it. I seriously did not thiink this would go in a bad way. :( Please reinstate the draft chase and work it and move to mainspace. You had mentioned that you would leave for school, then me and Snuggums can look after it for issues in Peer review etc. A humble request. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't harbor any bad feelings anymore, but I don't feel like going through the trouble of reinstating the page. I have the draft saved on my computer and will continue to work on it, possibly this week depending on my schedule. I generally prefer people not seeing my sandbox work anyway - weird habit. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then. In the meantime me and Snuggums will work on the article from the artistry section down while you complete the biography and the personal life part and then move it mainspace as and when you desire. Does that sound fine? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The career/personal sections are basically done. I was just going to finish up (artistry, public image, etc.) and send it to the mainspace when done. If you two would like to get a leg up, that's fine, but I was planning on rewriting the other sections anyway due to gross inaccuracies, syntheses, fluff, etc. in the current article - they're not as bad as the career section was, but I just wanted to give the article a top-down makeover. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]