Wikiwand AI

Talk:Lady Gaga Enigma + Jazz & Piano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information WikiProject Nevada To-do: ...
Close

The Fame

It’s common knowledge by now that The Fame is performed immediately after Beautiful, Dirty, Rich, so why is it left off the setlist? ChrisWiltrout1 (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Source? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Legs

Well, I don't know much about tours, so that's why I am asking; why leg 4 and leg 5 aren't one leg? infsai (dyskusja) 13:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-Vegas shows

The shows Gaga does outside of the Vegas Residency for private hire aren't really part of the run of shows... suggest moving them to a new section and having the show count the specific Park Theater shows. SpearsRR (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Production (stage, lighting)

Someone who's more immersed in the topic could write this section of the article. Sources:

--Sricsi (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

God I would have loved to expand it when I was more active on Wikipedia. Sucks that I am not around that much, plus I hate the Enigma part of this residency lol. —IB [ Poke ] 18:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Split proposal

As of 2021, Enigma is no longer being performed. Plus, check out the official Instagram page of Gaga's residency: https://www.instagram.com/gagavegas/. It clearly shows that Jazz & Piano should not be combined with Enigma, but viewed as two separate entities. Thus, I propose a split. Monsterofain (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch it. For one, there is not that much information about the Jazz and Piano shows to warrant a separate article. And "Enigma/Jazz & Piano" was announced as one residency with two different kind of shows. Even though Gaga seems to have stopped the Enigma shows completely, that's how it started, and the shows were developed simultaneously. Sricsi (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree with Sricsi. We should not split it at this moment. GagaNutellatalk 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article

Anyone have a sense of how close this entry is to meeting Good article criteria? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The commercial performance section seems to be not up-to-date at all. Other than that, I’d say it’s pretty close. Sricsi (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Do you or any other folks intend to nominate? If you're not interested, I might see if anyone else at WikiProject Lady Gaga is interested. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you reverted my image formatting. The inconsistency and the left-aligned images directly under section headings is irksome, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
@Sricsi: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says, "Multiple images can be staggered right and left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images horizontally opposite each other; or between an image and an infobox, navigation template, or similar." For this reason, I prefer to see the image below "Background and development" right-aligned, then the quote left-aligned. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Images

@Sricsi: Please reply above re: text sandwich. Also, the image under Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Conception_and_stage is too wide. Even lead images should only be 300px wide. I would recommend moving the image in Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Costume_design down a paragraph. I am under the impression left-aligning images can be helpful, but usually this is not done immediately under the section heading. We've disagreed re: use of upright images elsewhere, so I'll just let that go. I don't mean to be difficult here, but I think the changes I've made are improvements that help get the page ready for Good status. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH applies only when a paragraph is placed between images on both the left and right, which is not the case anywhere in this article. The current image layout has worked well for years and should not be changed without prior consensus on the Talk page. Sricsi (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
@Sricsi The quote above says "avoid sandwiching text ... between an image and an infobox". Currently, this article has text sandwiched between the image and the infobox, which this says should be avoided. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
No, that is not what MOS:SANDWHICH says. Let me quote it for you: "Multiple images can be staggered right and left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images horizontally opposite each other; or between an image and an infobox, navigation template, or similar. As an alternative, consider using the {{multiple image}} template, which places two images together on the right (but which, however, ignores logged-in users' selected image sizes). If the section has multiple relevant paragraphs, you can also move one image to another place in the section. (See WP:GALLERY for information on the use of multiple images.) Sandwiching of text can also occur when image size is set too high (see WP:IMAGESIZE for recommendations)." It's even illustrated there with a situation exactly like I explained before: ONE paragraph put inside TWO images. Sricsi (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
@Sricsi: Why are you ignoring "or between an image and an infobox"? Also, please provide reasons for reverting my changes re: Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Conception_and_stage and Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Costume_design, otherwise you are reverting without explanation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The only issue I noticed with the images was the photo of the venue, which pushed one of the opening paragraphs into an awkward position. I don’t think that image contributes any real value to the article, so I removed it. Otherwise, everything functions just as well as it has for the past few years. Sricsi (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the current layout works well. Having two images side by side helps illustrate both Enigma and Jazz & Piano, which are distinct shows within the residency. The text does not feel cramped or "sandwiched" in this case, and the flow remains clear. The only one that feels a bit heavy to me is the pair of stage photos in Conception and stage, but I also see the value in showing both facets there. Perhaps reducing their size slightly would be a good compromise. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
@CHr0m4tiko0 My edit made the width 300px, which is generous. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see — my bad, I must have overlooked that. Thanks for clarifying, 300px works well for me. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Great! I've made the change. With this and the sandwiched text by infobox resolved, I'm fine with the current layout. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I have made the images in Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Conception_and_stage vertical instead of horizontal, as the horizontal version is too wide per MoS. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sricsi: Please stop with the snarky edit summaries. I am not disrupting by attempting to make images more compliant with Wikipedia's manual of style. Clearly you and I disagree about how images should be displayed, but I am only getting this sort of pushback from you (and now Kirtap92, who appears to edit in tandem with you). I'll just move on from editing Gaga articles since my work isn't being appreciated. Happy editing --Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@QEDK and NinjaRobotPirate: FYI --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Your "work" on Gaga articles is definitely disruptive. Your repeated insistence on changing image sizes and positions serve no constructive purpose and do nothing to improve the articles. Your complaints about the use of upright are not based on any existing policy—there is no rule saying it must be avoided. Your insistence on policing images, while ignoring article content and overall quality, is exactly what is hindering progress toward Good Article or Featured Article status. You make no effort to improve the quality of any of the articles that we are getting ready for GAN or FAN, other than showing up to start fighting over images.
Regarding Kirtap92: helping another editor maintain article quality is not sockpuppetry. The 2017 CheckUser investigation was closed with only a warning and found no sockpuppet activity. Linking it now, 9 years later, is misleading, and even more questionable than your editing.
If you truly want to help the articles, focus on content improvements. Constant image battles are not constructive. If you do move away from this article, as you have stated, then you finally did something I can appreciate, and will help me work on the article's GAN in peace. Sricsi (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry, I was simply acknowledging the tandem editing. Whatever, I'll just move on, I'm not here to argue about image placement with someone who feels strongly that their way is the only way. Take care. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
If you don’t see how unconstructive this is—showing up only to mess with images while other editors are actually improving the article content—then I don’t know what more to tell you. For example, this edit, where you cropped out the robot prop from the Scheiße image—the sole reason that image exists in the article—is extremely unhelpful. When the only "support" I get in preparing an article for GAN is edit warring over images, it does nothing to advance the article. Sricsi (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Moving on! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sricsi: I still take issue with how images are displayed here. How can we have a discussion about images without edit warring? Can I at least make changes to show how I think the article should look, so you can explain why you disagree? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO, this version does a better job at displaying images with appropriate and more consistent sizing as well as left-alignment. I have self-reverted, but wanted to share the diff link. ---Another Believer (Talk)
That looks really bad. Forcing uniform image widths isn't required by MOS and often makes things worse. In your version, Synopsis images look oversized, while Costume design images become miniature. Image sizing should be contextual, not fixed. MOS:IMAGESIZE expects editorial judgment based on relevance and layout, not a single standard width everywhere. That's why good articles vary image sizes. But feel free to ping editors here. --Sricsi (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Strongly disagree -- the Synopsis images do not look oversized, they are the same width as default thumbs. To be clear, do you disagree with all of the changes I've proposed or can there be some compromise here? Also, can you point me to where MOS says "image sizing should be contextual" or where good articles should have varying image sizing? I'm not doubting you, I just want to read more and I am not finding a helpful resource. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@IndianBio, Livelikemusic, Mb4422, Debyfann, Marysblige, Danionek, Gagalandro, Musicpoplover12, Christian Sironi, Mortal Aphrodite, Rafaelfgc, GagaNutella, and Bluesatellite: I am pinging all of the top editors of this article (who are registered and not banned), based on this page. Sricsi and I have different ideas about how articles should be illustrated. Below, I have outlined some specific changes and I invite editors to share thoughts. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the way the images are currently being displayed. However, I also think—to be beyond blunt and frank—there are too many fucking images to begin with, which is only exacerbated by what I see as the ridiculous sizes they are displayed as in this edit. Simply because an image exists does not mean it should be added into an article's prose. Even physical encyclopedias are not overrun with images (unless new-releases are, in which case, that is beyond unfortunate). The images in the concert synopsis and commercial performance (from my standpoint) are pointless and do nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of those sections. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Glad to hear you also see no issues with the image sizes. Hm, I would agree that the two images in the Commercial section only have decorative purposes. But the Synopsis is the one section in a concert article that directly describes the staging, visuals, and structure of the show itself, so I don't necessarily see images there as redundant in the same way. E.g. "a custom-made instrument which includes a keyboard and guitar strings, while singing "The Fame".", is difficult to understand without an image. Sricsi (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
@Livelikemusic@Sricsi Glad to see discussion re: which images are necessary or not, but I hope you and other editors will also respond in the subsections below, where I have made specific suggestions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I feel my response above handles all of that (which is what I am able to handle response-wise at this moment); also, please refrain from pinging me further on this talk page. I would appreciate it. Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
All I'm getting from your reply is that you think there are too many images and that you don't like Wikipedia's default image size (shrug), but thanks for weighing in. I am still waiting for Sricsi to share links re: "image sizing should be contextual" and "good articles should have varying image sizing". ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
If that's all you got from my response, then you did not read it, and if my opinion (not what I like/do not like—which I never specifically stated, so please do not put words into my mouth) is not warranted, then next time I just will not respond. You pinged me into this discussion, I provided my response concerning the sizing of images, and then provided other insight into my view of the inclusion of the images within article prose (even pointing out not one but two problem areas, which would address one of the sections you pointed out below. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I only meant to point out that the "ridiculous sizes" you mention are actually Wikipedia's default thumb size. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
That's a rather dismissive way to respond to an editor that you pinged, especially in a discussion where you're inviting broader input. Anyway...
MOS:IMAGESIZE doesn't prescribe a single fixed width for all images or suggest that good articles should use uniform sizing. In practice, image sizing is a matter of editorial judgment based on context, relevance, and layout balance. That's why you'll see variation across GA/FA articles rather than a single enforced standard.
In your proposed version, the uniform sizing actually creates new issues—some images end up overpowering sections while others become too small to be useful in context. That doesn't seem aligned with the intent of the guideline.
I don't have endless amount of time to respond to every single comment you made for each and every image. The current layout is completely adequate. Feel free to discuss your issues over image sizes with other editors. Sricsi (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
How convenient to not respond to specific changes I've proposed. I'll bring them up at GAN. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with all proposed changes. The current image layout has been stable and works well, and I don't see a need for individual justification of each image size in this way.
I truly wish you had spent at least some of the energy you put into image size discussions on improving Gaga-related articles' content for GAN, or on reaching out to image owners to obtain additional images, as some of us, thankfully, do. Sricsi (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, you've said this before, but you're still not addressing my specific suggestions and requests. I see this isn't going to go anywhere, so once again I just have to move on because you are always right and I am always wrong... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Specific suggestion #1: Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Conception_and_stage

In Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Conception_and_stage, I suggest changing the width from 220px to 260px. This would make the images display at the default thumb width and the section can accommodate this size. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Specific suggestion #2: Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Enigma

Similarly, I think the total width in the template used in the Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Enigma section should be changed from 205px to 260px, which would make the images display at the default thumb width. The section can accommodate this size, so I don't understand the arbitrary downsize. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Specific suggestion #3: Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Enigma_2

I suggest removing the "upright=0.8|" command, so the image is the width of a standard thumb. The image is busy and the larger size is actually more helpful to readers, in my opinion. Again, the section has plenty of space, so there's no need to downsize. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Specific suggestion #4: Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Costume_design

This template is too large, wider than 300px. MOS:IMGSIZE says, "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 250px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide (300px for lead images) and 500px tall, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays)."

In my opinion, it looks bad when a section starts with a left-aligned image, especially when the image is too wide and stretches beyond the title of the section itself. I suggest making the total width 260px and preferably making the image right-aligned. If not right-aligned, then consider moving the image down a paragraph so not right under the section header. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Specific suggestion #5: Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Commercial_performance

Resolved
More information Extended content ...
Close

Specific suggestion #6: Lady_Gaga_Enigma_+_Jazz_&_Piano#Jazz_&_Piano_2

I would recommend making this image right-aligned. Yes, I know which direction Gaga is facing, but I don't think sections should start with left-aligned images, especially when the image is wider than the title of the section itself. Currently, the image placement makes only the text "Quintet "was spot-on too" wrap underneath, which looks bad. Since the section's not large enough to justify moving the image down a paragraph, I suggest making it right-aligned. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

General discussion

I disagree with all of these changes. At this point I don't really have anything new to add—I see absolutely zero issue with how the images are currently presented (size, position, etc.). But let's hear what other editors, or the GAN reviewer, have to say, if anything. Sricsi (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
But why do you disagree with all of the changes? I understand you disagree with me, but we are going around in circles and from my perspective it feels like you are saying "because I am right and you are wrong" over and over. Not only are you violating 3RR but you are refusing to provide MOS links I have asked for multiple times. Can you please respond to each of the proposed changes so I can understand? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks