Talk:Lana Del Rey

Infobox image

This image of her has been up for over three years now, while there are a handful of other better, and more recent images of her (specifically ones of her performing). Why exactly is there a notice to consult on the Talk page before changing the photo? At this point, the photo of Del Rey in 2012 promoting her first album would be better placed in the body of the article for context, while a more recent photo would make more sense in the infobox (especially since her physical appearance has slightly shifted). Scottdoesntknow (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Three years in the context of a BLP page is not unheard of. I would be worried however (considering your talk page) what image you had in mind and if it would qualify under copyright rules. Karst (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The current infobox image choice is strange, seeing as it's from 2012 (we have more recent images) and it looks very washed-out and overexposed. All of these images are more recent - why not one of them?

May 2012

February 2013

March 2013

November 2013

April 2014

My preference would be for the May 2012 or March 2013 images as they are of the highest quality with the clearest shots of Del Rey's face. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Scottdoesntknow and Karst: thoughts? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

May 2012 would have my preference too. Karst (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2014 is the one I'm partial to, mainly because I think it gives a good profile of her face with the addition of her being live in performance; it may be silly, but I always find photos of musicians/singers "in action," so to speak, to be the best types of infobox photos. The image would need to be cropped to focus on her face though, which I could do. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally would go for March 2013; has quality capture of face and is more recent than May 2012 Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with either May 2012 or March 2013. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone except Scottdoesntknow prefers the May 2012/March 2013 pictures. From there, Karst prefers May 2012 and SNUGGUMS prefers March 2013. Dr.K has not expressed further preference. I initially did not either, but lean towards May 2012 due to the brighter lighting and less-distracting background. I will go ahead and change the image to this one, but if anyone finds this controversial then feel free to revert and we can keep this discussion going (BRD). –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The current image is pretty awful. I think the Seattle meet and greet pic is probably the best choice as her hair is now at that color again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor User:ZachDelRey has managed to add a number of images under copyright to the page. Some of them are in the process of being removed from Commons but that might take some time. When adding an image, please check that he is not the uploader and that the image has the right copyright notice attached. For the moment I have added the November 2013 image (listed above). Karst (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else saying that the May 2012 picture is the best option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a photo just showing her entire face properly would do fine 😉☺ Moley87 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed it back to the May 2012 image as that appears to have the consensus at the moment. Karst (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys. Sorry for any wrongful edits I have made - I'm new to Wikipedia. I was wondering if we could please find a photo of Lana from 2015 for her picture? Her look has changed a lot and I know a lot of the Lana Del Rey fandom would prefer a more recent picture. Pleaseeeee consider this! ZachDelRey (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a suitable picture that has no copyright attached to it, then I'm sure we can all consider it. Karst (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

http://lanadelrey-.tumblr.com/image/133287717338 How about the picture on this link? ZachDelRey (talk • contribs) 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No indication of who owns the copyright on that one, Zach. Karst (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any copyright on that photo, I looked all up and down Getty Images (which took most of the photos at that event), and that one isn't listed. I asked the owner of the tumblr, and as far as they know, there's no copyright on it. Can we use it? ZachDelRey (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You would have to make sure that it is released under a creative commons license. This can't just be a guess. Otherwise it will be removed from Commons again. Karst (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys! I realized I had a bunch of pictures taken of Del Rey from the concert in which I went to this year. There is no copyright on them, and they encapsulate her face and aura very well. I'll upload one - if you don't like the pic, feel free to contribute to the talk page. :) ZachDelRey (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting picture, although the microphone is covering her face somewhat. Zach, you can't blame us for being sceptical after you previously uploaded a number of copyrighted images that you passed off as your own. I'm willing to apply some WP:GOODFAITH on this one and let it stand. If others agree. But I would ask you to maybe step away from adding pictures. There seem to be plenty of them now. Perhaps work on some of the other aspects of the article, like adding good references. Karst (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I assumed this pic was okay after that picture of her from 2013... I couldn't see her face in that one at all... But thank you for having faith, I promised that there is no copyright on this pic at all. I've been editing other stuff too, thank you! :) ZachDelRey (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I should think a closeup of her face would be best for the infobox, so I support having the March 2013 photo. Regarding the June 2015 shot from Zach, I am suspicious of its copyright status as it was shot with an iPhone on December 9, 2015, about 200 miles west by southwest of the Xfinity Center venue which is claimed here. The iPhone should have set the date as June 9, 2015. From the same concert, there is a YouTube video taken from this exact perspective, which makes me think we are looking at a screen cap of the video: check out the scene at 3:20 to 3:50 where she's singing with her left hand wrapped over the top of the mic stand. So the June 2015 image is not ready for Wikipedia, as its copyright status is in question. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FOR THE LAST TIME. The video is MINE! I uploaded that video. You obviously know nothing about an iPhone. If I screenshot a YouTube video (which is mine), it won't automatically save under the location or date the video was uploaded! If it's my video and screenshot, there is no copyright, as I put no copyright on my own YouTube video. I'm leaving the picture up, you're just being stubborn. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I TOLD you in the first place that I took a screenshot of MY video. Stop acting like this is news to you. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's an easy fix, then. @ZachDelRey: On YouTube, in the comments to the video, add a note that you have taken a screenshot of the video and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. Make sure you do it from the same account that you used to upload the video. If the usernames match, then doubt is removed on whether that source video on YouTube is in fact yours. (Or, technically, that the uploader affirms that the image can be put on Commons.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred Ok? Sure. I can do that... But even if it wasn't my account, fan-taken YouTube videos are not copyrighted, and this is ridiculous.ZachDelRey (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fan-taken videos are most likely uploaded under the standard YouTube license, and that does not automatically allow end users to make derivative works or otherwise download them. And yes, the videos are under copyright—in the eyes of Wikipedia, all creative works are under copyright unless the creator explicitly releases them for public use. —C.Fred (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted back to the Cannes picture as the 2015 image is under copyright dispute at Commons. Using is screenshot from a video in the infobox is not desirable, certainly not when more high quality images are available. Also removed it from the gallery above. Karst (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. Maybe one of you could find a picture of her from the Billboard Women In Music Awards yesterday. That would be HQ and up-to-date. But I think I'm done trying to find a better picture, as I seem to not be good at it. ZachDelRey (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

But not necessarily free. Any press image taken at the event would be under a restrictive license. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that. But I obviously am not good at this. If any of you cared at all about Del Rey's page, you would want an up-to-date picture for her. So please, can one of you find one? ZachDelRey (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The current one is fine and widely used through Wikipedia in other languages. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news-site. In those terms, an image that is three of four years old is perfectly acceptable. Especially as her appearance has not changed drastically. Karst (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I understand your point. But I really think a newer picture would be a nice touch. I don't know why everyone is fighting me on that point. ZachDelRey (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There are bigger issues to worry about with the article than finding a newer picture. Also, the image must be a free image; it can't be something copied off of somebody else's website, YouTube video, etc. That limits the number of pictures we could use pretty severely. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if we could just use any picture we find. As Fred says. We cannot. And you obviously have found that out yourself, judging by your Userpage on Commons. As I said before, perhaps concentrate on other aspects of the set of Del Rey articles. There is plenty left to do. Happy editing Zach. Karst (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I have a question. Would we be allowed to use a photo of Del Rey taken by Getty Images, if we gave credit to them? Like what if under the photo, in addition to its description, we put: (Photo by Getty Images). Would that be allowed or no? ZachDelRey (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ZachDelRey: No, we can't use it. Getty images are under non-free licenses. We can't use any non-free images in the infobox, and the non-free content guidelines don't allow the use of images from press services like AP and Getty. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Oh ok, thanks for letting me know. ZachDelRey (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Proofreading

The quote "...stifle future opportunities..." should be closed with a quote mark before the two citations. The quote actually comes from the 2012 Horowitz article in Billboard, so the 2012 Ayers article in MTV should probably be cited second since it supports the point but doesn't source the quote. Inkwzitv (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre warring

Re: recent genre warring concerning the inclusion of "psychedelic rock" in the genre box. To begin with a reminder, Wikipedia guidelines state that genres included in the infobox should "aim for generality" rather than specificity and clutter. As far as I can see, the designation "psychedelic rock" has received no consensus across multiple sources—literally being listed only by one source in reference to one of her albums—and does not warrant being included in the genre box based on that flimsy designation. Even the intent of that one cited source is far from definitive:

The album [Ultraviolence] feels like a sprawling American desert [...] Certainly the rock ballad suits her retro preoccupation; the lead single “West Coast” evokes the opening riff of The Beatles’ “And I Love Her” and the chord progression from The Stooges’ proto-punk “Dirt.” She seems to have found confidence in psych-rock and narcotized swing.

It seems obvious (to me) that the writer of the piece is stating that psych-rock (and narcotized swing) are styles that Del Rey has amorphously engaged with on Ultraviolence. I don't see any evidence for the statement to be understood as using the term in relation to Del Rey as an artist in total, or to be designating any significant portions of her career output as falling under the heading of psychedelic rock (or narcotized swing, for that matter, for if we are to include psychedelic rock in the infobox based on this statement, surely by this logic we would have to include "narcoticized swing" as well?) Another source, in support of this interpretation, notes "the psych rock influences" on the first song of the album, but nowhere refers to the album as "psychedelic rock." Accordingly, I moved psychedelic rock to the "Musical style" section and listed it as a style that Del Rey has engaged with or touched on in her music, and removed it from the infobox, as it seems to me an utterly disingenuous stretch to interpret that particular statement so loosely.

Simply put, unless any additional cross-source consensus can be found to suggest that Lana Del Rey is a psychedelic rock artist, or that significant portions of her work can be explicitly categorized as psychedelic rock, the genre should not be kept. As always, the burden of proof lies on the editor to justify their interpretation of a source with consensus and due support. In this case, we simply have one source—referring to one particular style (among others) pursued on one particular album— being used to justify a comprehensive genre tag in the infobox.urs145 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Regardless of your personal feelings on the subject, the citation explicitly refers to Del Rey when saying that "she" has found comfort in the genre of psychedelic rock. This particular source was removed from the Ultraviolence page because it was referencing Del Rey more-so than the album. You may personally disagree with the author's sentiments and/or the consensus interpretation, but that does not warrant the removal of the genre and source. As a side note, self-promotion (your blog link) is not allowed in this section of Wikipedia. User:ilovetati91 (talk)

Again, User:ilovetati91 I'm not sure how "she" finding comfort makes the statement any more applicable outside discussion of the particular album—it's no different, for example, than saying (as many critics have) that Talking Heads found comfort in (or, more simply, created) a kind of Afrofunk on their album Remain in Light. Despite the ostensible validity of this observation, none of those sources refer to Talking Heads as an Afrofunk band, or Afrofunk as a general description of their career output—it is simply a style they explored on a particular album, among others, and which would fall under more general tags such as "new wave" and "post-punk". You also haven't addressed the fact that "psych-rock" is one of two styles listed with equal weight alongside "narcotic swing". Do you suggest "swing" should also attributed to Del Rey in the infobox as well? If not, I don't see the coherence of your sentiments.

Also, blog link? I'm not sure what you mean, as the sourced link is from an online article by a print publication apparently founded in the 1990s. Unlike what you appear to be, I'm not a Lana Del Rey devotee incessantly curating her Wikipedia pages. User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Directing personal insults towards me does not validate your ambiguous, rootless argument. "Narcotic swing" would obviously not apply as a genre tag because it was a term/description coined by Auerbach and Del Rey themselves and does not exist as a recognized genre. The article in question clearly states that Del Rey as an artist has found a comfort in that genre. It's an explicit reference in literary diction and I don't think your personal opinion is enough to deter that, unfortunately. User:ilovetati91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with LDR (and many other) articles is that there are some editors who look for any genre that is mentioned in any source and add them all in the the infobox. It could be one source mentioning one genre in relation to a component of one track, and people add that as her genre. It's nonsense. Lana Del Ray is not a psychedelic rock artist. Or a trip hop artist. Or an indie pop artist. Or... --Michig (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a point there! Del Ray's infobox genres should be ones that are supported by many sources, not one or two outliers. The genre of one song or one album does not automatically become the genre of the artist. Genres for the artist should be drawn solely from sources that talk about the artist's genre. And many sources should be tallied to get the main ones. Remember the infobox instructions tell us to keep it general. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you spell the artist's name correctly, but are suddenly experts on what genre her music is? She's quite clearly an indie pop and trip hop artist, as evidenced by the majority of her work and multiple sources solidifying that. She has explored the psychedelic rock genre quite extensively in recent works and the cited article reflected that in saying she had found comfort in the genre. It's disheartening to see a certain level of inherent sexism directed towards a popular alternative female artist and the reluctance to include her in alternative genres despite music that quite clearly fits in this realm and is reflected by sources. User:ilovetati91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't need self-appointed 'experts' here, we need people who understand the guidelines on the infobox and how to interpret sources correctly. Baseless accusations of sexism just show how weak your argument is. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim to be an expert, but solely reiterated that we must go by what has been written by sources rather than the generalizations or biases of the users above me. I noticed you didn't address any of the content of my argument, thus solidifying what I was saying. We only have the sources and their explicit references to go by and your personal feelings cannot deter from that. User:ilovetati91 (talk)

From doing a Google search on Lana Del Rey and psychedelic rock it appears that there a number of third party references. What maybe is the issue here is that we perhaps have a 'chameleon' type artist who uses different stylistic elements. Or as this Rolling Stone review outlines: "The fact that nobody has been able to verify which camp she belongs to [...] makes her one of the most compelling performers of our time". Dan Auerbach obviously injected some psychedelic elements into her music, as that RS review Caryn Ganz (now with the NYT) points out. Her latest album has been described as 'almost-psychedelic' in this Papermag review while it is mentioned twice in this Quietus review.

In the end, defining the genre remains a subjective issue. And this case IMHO is quite complex as the artist is genre hopping and carving out a distinct style of her own. From the majority of reviews, I guess we are getting largely dream pop with cinematic elements and an alternative slant, all in a 1960s style. I suppose the psychedelic rock fits in with that?

So, the question really is, do we list the various elements that appear to influence her and which are attributed properly in the style section, or do we stick to three main genres? IMHO this would be a good discussion to have, to avoid continuous reverts and genre warring. Karst (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe she fits into any one of the narrow genres that people keep adding, and the sources don't support classifying her in those narrow genres. There are elements of different things in different songs. We should go with the broad genre of Pop music as per the template guidelines. If there are specific styles that were influences or that songs/albums contain elements of they should be discussed in the prose in the articles on those albums/songs with appropriate sources, not listed in the infobox. --Michig (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct, Karst. Dream pop is a deriviant of psychedelic rock, which is why both are commonly referenced together regarding Del Rey by critics. It is hard to assign a genre to her since her music embodies so many various types, so we can only really go by the explicit sources we have right now. I also don't think a broad genre like "pop music" would fit her at all. Yes, she's a popular artist, but she's typically referred to as "alternative" or "alternative pop" by legitimate sources when referring to the actual genre of her music. It's important to make this distinction. User:ilovetati91 (talk)

It seems true that the overwhelming majority of sources that attempt to describe her music ultimately refer to it in widely disparate ways not affiliated with genre tags ("orchestral," 'retro," "50s Americana", "cinematic," etc.) or otherwise suggest it is a largely unclassifiable merger of different styles, so I wonder if perhaps its better to just leave the genre section of the infobox blank. There is already a short and effective description of her general style and sound in the lead that doesn't bother referring to stolid genre titles, and a Musical Style section is already devoted to a detailed explanation of the different tenants of her music. Rather then ineffectively attempting to simplify an artist's sound to the requirements of the infobox, this would simply defer questions of her musical style to the complexities such a designation would seem to warrant as per the majority sources.User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I stated above, it seems like general consensus is that none of the listed genres are terribly appropriate, so I'll tentatively remove them all.User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

From the above, I think the generic pop music has been pretty much agreed upon. I would slot that in rather then keep it blank, which will perhaps invite further genre warring. Maybe add a hat not referring to this discussion? Karst (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

From this discussion, it's clear a consensus has not been reached. Half of the users feel the genres should be kept and are appropriate and half want there to be no genres cited. In this case, cited information must be kept. There are too many reputable sources listed for these genres for a few personal opinions to have them removed. You may "feel" a certain way, but that does not trump information given by valid sources on multiple occasions. Her music incorporates quite a few different genres (which is reflected on the wiki page) and there are too many sources saying that her music is decidedly anti-pop in sound. As a result of these aforementioned reasons, the genres are to stay. User:ilovetati91 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who on this page has explicitly stated or suggested that they believe the genres are well cited, accurately represent the artist, and should all be included in the infobox besides you, User:ilovetati91? On the contrary, every other commenter on this topic (4 different users including myself) has suggested that the genres currently cited don't accurately apply to Del Rey as required by the general guidelines of the infobox, or that the citations regarding one album or song do not qualify, or that such citations are narrow and reductive in respect to her sound. And quit it with the rhetorical garbage ("you may 'feel' a certain way"), the fact is that consensus seems to suggest the genres do more damage to the page than good—considering how much you seem to have invested in maintaining her page, it's alarming that you're so quick to put Del Rey in reductive and simplistic categories when her music clearly stands outside them. At the end of the day, genres are not required in the infobox, they are only there to help elucidate an artist. User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Resorting to petulant personal criticisms and harsh rhetoric do not help to solidify these rootless propositions.

From this infinitesimal number of respondents (5) in this discussion that you seem to consider a significant sample size, there are two users that have explicitly stated that a multitude of sources support the genres and parallels were drawn between the various genres. These genres were added a year ago with the help of a major contributor after a consensus was reached based upon in-depth research of what experts identify her genres as being. We concluded that overarching, general labels were too restrictive for an artist as multidimensional as Del Rey is and selected the few that popped up most often, baroque pop, dream pop, rock, indie pop, trip hop. Psychedelic rock was added after the release of Ultraviolence as sources began to reflect that she was pursuing this genre (which is an offset of dream pop) increasingly. This was also done to prevent overeager fans from trying to label her as a successful "pop" artist despite the majority of sources saying that she rejects this genre in her actual work. As mentioned earlier, it's important to recognize the distinction between a "popular" artist and the genres that their music embodies. I hope this helps to clear up your concerns. I've also noticed your talk page has quite a few warnings based upon your "disruptive editing" and "violations of Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles,from editing." As I have noticed this as well, further edits of this kind will result in reports and editing bans, so I would rethink your editing patterns. User:ilovetati91 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be offensive or rude, but your persistent attempts to color the page according to your personal fringe preference is glaring, and your pretentious assumptions of authority in the service of getting your way is condescending and uncalled for.

• Number 1: 5 correspondents is a perfectly normal sample size of talk page contributors—have Wikipedia guidelines stated a minimum of contributors necessary for talk page consensus? Did you expect 17 contributors to weigh in?
• Number 2: "These genres were added a year ago with the help of a major contributor." That's a nicely vague appeal to a nonexistent thing—considering we're on the talk page, would you care to share where this apparent consensus and major contributor's advice is located, so that we might be enlightened? I don't see any evidence of such a discussion on this or your talk page. Sounds absolutely made up.
• Number 3: "after a consensus was reached based upon in-depth research of what experts identify her genres as being." When you get past the pretentious rhetoric of "in-depth" and "experts", this is another way of saying "we already made our own decision on exactly what you're explicitly questioning, so it's all taken care of and you should forget the whole thing."
• Number 4: "Psychedelic rock was added after the release of Ultraviolence as sources began to reflect that she was pursuing this genre" One source is cited on the Ultraviolence page as saying so, which we've already explicitly discussed—but thanks for repeating it in lofty terms. Coincidentally, there's also a cited source describing the album as desert rock, and yet I don't see you making the same argument for that source (presumably because it doesn't fit your preference? hmm).
• Number 5: "this genre (which is an offset of dream pop)" Really? So now we're just making historically inaccurate musical pronouncements with a false tone of authority?
• Number 6: "despite the majority of sources saying that she rejects this genre in her actual work." Proof? Plenty of sources describe how she's different from typical pop stars, but I see no massive consensus of sources saying she's definitively non-pop.
• Number 7: "it's important to recognize the distinction between a "popular" artist and the genres that their music embodies. I hope this helps to clear up your concerns." Not really, considering my point is that there's no reason to include any genres in the infobox at all, be they pop or otherwise. Sticking in some genres to keep out other ones when they're both inadequate just seems a bit silly, now doesn't it?
• Number 8: "I've also noticed your talk page has quite a few warnings based upon your "disruptive editing" And yet that seems to have no effect on my ability to see through your stubbornly preference-based editing style. Let's worry about the topic at hand, shall we?

User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You're simply continuing to implement personal attacks while projecting your own motives onto me. I'm following the guidelines of Wikipedia by adhering to sources while you're attempting to exert your opinions onto this page, which is apparently a habitual habit of yours and has been addressed extensively on your talk page.

I'm not going to engage you in this argument to allow you to distract from following rules. To answer your question of why "desert rock" has not been added as a genre. The sources explicitly describe the album, Ultraviolence, as being desert rock, but Del Rey is never once called a desert rock artist. "In-depth" research was lent towards the organization of these genres in the past and in subsequent updates, which are easily accessible. "Experts" are the critics established in Wikipedia guidelines as legitimate sources for music genres. Also, when I referenced dream pop as being relational to psychedelic rock, that derived from the genres' actual wikipedia pages and categorization, which are easily accessed. And yes, it is very important to make the distinction between the genre of pop and a "popular" artist. That is clearly the point of the genre section in the infobox. I notice you deeming the genres "inadequate," but the legitimate sources we have blatantly deny that. Again, this is why you must separate your own preferences and opinions towards the artist from what critics have established. I understand the passion of Del Rey fans and wanting her to be seen as a popular artist, which she is, but when clarifying genres, we must go with the specific ones designated by legitimate sources, which have already been collected and organized. Since these points/rules have been exhausted and explained to you multiple times, I hope reiterating them now solidifies your understanding. User:ilovetati91 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is getting decadent. First of all, where are the personal attacks you're accusing me of? I made a conscious attempt to address specific comments you made. Is this the best you can do to justify your position? Some further points: 1) Yes, Del Rey is not called a "desert rock artist." Nor is she called a "psych-rock artist" (it's sid that she has "found comfort in psych-rock"), but you've gone and decided, completely arbitrarily, that that one deserves the infobox tag. 2) Again, if you could please direct me to this "in-depth" research (it just sounds to me like you looked at these articles in question and decided they were up to your standard a year ago, and now that their legitimacy has come into question you're pretending they have some extra substantial basis). 3) " but the legitimate sources we have blatantly deny that"/"critics have established this is literally the very assumption this discussion is meant to investigate (and appears to be rejecting, as it were). Stop restating basic premises as if they have suddenly become solutions. Whether these sources are actually legitimately referring to Del Rey in a way that can be applied to her as an artist generally is the very thing we are debating here. Is this point not clear? You seem to be running out of ways to simply repeat yourself and hope you get your way.User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Decadent, indeed. And your personal accusations and original research rather than adhering to rules continue, so I've reported this to the administration to allow them to resolve the page's continued vandalism. It's been established above that the sources were valid and explicitly described the artist's genres in a specific, concise, and accurate manner. Hence, their application to the infobox. Again, it wasn't decided on my own or arbitrarily. You can easily review past edits and hidden discussions of the page in which other users and I came to the consensus based on sources rather than our opinions or those of the fans that kept inundating the page with original research. I have been attempting to explain this procedure to you, but it's constantly met with the aforementioned aggressive tone. User:ilovetati91 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Last time. Show me this where "It's been established above that the sources were valid and explicitly described the artist's genres in a specific, concise, and accurate manner" and the matter can be dropped. Thus far, however, these claims are entirely unsubstantiated, and the problems brought up by other contributors above bear this out. Meanwhile, you've carried out a personally-motivated attack on my talk page in clear violation of Wikipedia policy and basic decency.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In this particular section, which was motivated by original research itself. The genres were explained, sources verified, and a differentiation was made between popularity and particular genres for the sake of specificity and accuracy. It's not personally-motivated when there have been clear violations of rules and disruptive editing on this page. Please stop trying to deflect. User:ilovetati91 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Having received validation from additional Wiki admins elsewhere on this matter (accessible through my talk page), there's no reason to continue this back and forth. I'm removing the genres which are 1) only cited by one source 2) clearly only used to describe Del Rey on particular releases or 3) used to describe particular parts of her music, and leaving genres which have 1) multiple sources as support and 2) which are clearly used to describe her career output in general terms.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't trip hop stay as well since sources have referenced that genre during every release of Del Rey's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.63.251 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Should Del Rey be considered a philosopher under "Occupations"?

Lana Del Rey DID study metaphysics. But since she never graduated, I'm debating whether she is a philosopher. I'm sure she considers herself to be one, based on her personality and interests. Just wanted your opinions on this. ZachDelRey (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Only list Del Rey as a philosopher if you can produce some evidence that she is notable as a philosopher. Assuming she has never written a book or treatise on philosophy, nor taught the subject at a university or college, and that no reliable, published source has described her as a philosopher, I would say that "philosopher" should not be among her occupations. General Ization ^Talk 22:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with your opinion. Thanks! ZachDelRey (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Voice type

Lana's voice type should be changed to dugazon, both Diva Devotee and Critic of Music consider her one. 50.101.50.24 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)