Talk:Adam Lambert/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Personal life and Sexuality

The "Sexuality" sub-category has been deleted. I don't feel one should go through a biography and gather together all references to the person being gay and lump them under "Sexuality" in the Personal life category. Some of these entries are work related and fit in appropriately within the section they were previously included prior to a move that was made without any explanation for it or the new category; but I can see how some of these, and maybe even all of these, fit under Personal life.... but the only wikis of singers who have a Sexuality category is when it has recurred over and over again in headlines throughout their careers (ie George Michael because he was arrested so many times because of gay activities and was always in the headlines about the subject and Lance Bass has Sexual orientation section because for so many years he denied being gay and then a big deal was made about his coming out for a long time and is still on going.) There are many other singers who are gay and the subject is covered appropriately as it comes up throughout their career. Adam has always been out and only made an announcement in RS after Idol because of the speculation and his not being able to address it in the press during Idol. Entries added about this seem appropriate when under Personal life. Many have expressed this same opinion to me so I have started this category. As long as this is not labeled as Sexuality, however, I have no objections to including what is currently under his Personal life. If other users feel any of these entries need to be put back in the categories they were previously placed, then edit with explanation. However, at this point it would be appreciated to discuss it here first as it may actually be an improvement the way it currently is. Please keep NPOV in mind when discussing. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

Bar fight

I'm a little disturbed to see a fight outside a Helsinki bar receive mention in a Wikipedia biography. I never see such irrelevant details mentioned in other celebrity bios, and wonder why this incident should receive attention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilover2901 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

An individual's arrest is not an irrelevant detail and is information that is found in many celebrity biographies. Aspects (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

An individual's arrest is not an irrelevant detail when the arrest is for something serious - not a spat outside a bar, when no charges are laid, and the two involved are basically taken in to cool off and sober up. I would suggest that the only reason this is here is that Adam Lambert is gay and the spat took place between him and his boyfriend. If Adam were heterosexual, do you honestly think this would be here??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilover2901 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If Lambert were heterosexual, the information would still be here if the arrest was reported by reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I get what all of you guys are saying, but lets remember that this is an encyclopedia site and should contain information that is of some kind of relevance; should we really have some data on the page in regards to an incident that had no greater outcome than that of an arrest (bearing in mind it was dropped without further investigations??) As for the sexuality thing, in this day an age such things should be irrelevent.BrotherDarksoul (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Aspects, I appreciate your perspective and the point that the incident was reported by reliable sources. It's just that so many things are "reported", especially for an openly-gay celebrity, and I don't think this is one is relevant in the least. In fact, when it's the only statement that describes the relationship, it serves to define it, and that's grossly unfair and, in my opinion, inaccurate. I agree with BrotherDarksoul.Wikilover2901 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Wikilover2901

Generally we exclude trivial information if such information weren't backed up by reliable sources. Lambert's sexuality is irrelevant in this case; if he were straight, and this were backed up by reliable sources this information still being in the article, see other bios like Hugh Grant or Billie Joe Armstrong about their arrests, just to mention a few of them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

i also understand the point being made, but must agree with Wikilover2901 and BrotherDarkSoul. in hindsight, this was an extremely minor event, reported (and exaggerated) at first by tabloids in Finland, picked up by THR -- which was then quoted in every other article about the incident in the first 12-24 hour news cycle. it's not clear that they were actually, technically arrested as opposed to held for questioning until the situation could be assessed. i also find it to be a distortion of lambert's personal life (and at the moment certainly) his ongoing relationship to see this alone, as it's defining qualification. should more minor detail about the couple be added just to balance this out?; or might it not be better to reconsider whether calling this an arrest, as opposed to (at worst) saying that attention was brought to the relationship by the media after a late-night scuffle outside a bar in Finland (for example)? again, i think this entry ought to be revisited/ultimately dropped perhaps -- even though i myself have altered the language at least twice to satisfy various points of view. (i did not post it to the page originally!) Jordan200 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I can see both sides, I would like to see this discussed further as I tend to agree with Jordan200 on the need to somehow keep this in perspective or to even delete at some point now that the facts are all in. I have to say I find the examples given by Tbhotch not to be at all similar to Lambert's other than the word "arrest" is used. Yes, Lambert had too much to drink and scuffled with his partner in public and was taken in to sort things out, perhaps even an official arrest. But it turned out to be nothing and both Lambert and Koskinen were released a few hours later with no charges filed and no fine. In the "arrest" of Hugh Grant, on the other hand, he admitted to breaking the law, pleaded no contest to lewd conduct, was fined and was put on two years probation and ordered to complete an AIDS education program. Big difference in my mind than to just being questioned. And Billie Armstrong's arrest was for DUI putting other drivers at risk - a serious offense - and he failed the breathalyzer test at over twice the legal limit . As far as "arrests" having been included in other wiki articles, there is mention in the wiki guidelines that something being done in one article is not an acceptable reason for its being done in another. I will try and locate this if it is not familiar to other users. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC))

I would like to request that the reference to the bar fight be removed. As the only descriptor, it distorts the relationship. A reader coming to the Adam Lambert page sees only a bar fight, which makes it sound like a violent relationship. Very biased. That's no more relevant on its own than describing their juicing regimen or Bora Bora trip! A neutral point of view requires that we state the relationship - period. If there's more relevant information to add at a later time, the section can be expanded at that time. Fugitivepieces (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Fugitivepieces

I agree with Fugitivepieces that this should be removed for all the reasons discussed above. A "reliable source" reporting something does not mean it should be on wikipedia, and this seems to be the only valid reason given as to why it was put here in the first place. I believe all the reasons it should or should not be here have been discussed and now that all the facts are in regarding this situation, the consensus is that it should be removed. I, therefore, join Fugitivepieces and request the removal of this entry. (68.225.205.146 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)) Sorry...apparently I did not do a final updated check today as another user has already deleted this. Thanks. (68.225.205.146 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 13 February 2012

Please add the paragraph below at the end of the section on LGBT advocacy. This update is warranted because it is a subject that has taken on greater importance for Adam Lambert in the last 6 months and he is regularly asked about it in interviews. His response in the Pressparty interview seems particularly significant, relevant to his own difficulty in being accepted in mainstream music, and also quote-worthy (particularly the last line).

In January 2012, in an exclusive interview with UK music news magazine Pressparty, Lambert recognised that despite the social progress made in the United States, there was still a long way to go, particularly in the music industry. “I still long for the LGBT community's diversity to be more broadly represented in the entertainment industry. I think larger strides have been made in film and TV but we still are just at the beginning with mainstream music. I consider myself a post-gay man working in a pre-gay industry.” http://www.pressparty.com/pg/newsdesk/adamlambert/view/37904/ 80.254.146.36 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of festival cancellation

The entry saying "The festival was cancelled..." under Trespassing section is a little vague and has caused confusion for some readers new to wiki who don't check citations/references for clarification (and they shouldn't have to). Please stipulate if this refers to the festival at Knebworth Park only, the entire Sonisphere Festival (meaning all locations) or Moscow since that is in the prior sentence and could also be a festival. Thanks. (68.225.205.146 (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

 Done Jordan200 (talk) 4 April 2012

Edit request on 22 April 2012

In the American Idol (2009) section, in the sentence "For the first and only time, he ended up in the bottom two after the public vote, but was saved by the judges." please delete "but was saved by the judges." This is incorrect, the judge's save during Season 8 had already been used at Top 7 on Matt Giraud. The judges had no input into the process during Top 5 week, his safety was determined solely by public vote.

Instead the sentence should read, "For the first and only time, he ended up in the bottom two after the public vote but received enough votes to remain in the competition." Or something like that. Thanks!

24.7.55.93 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Omgoodnessme (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of this article reads like a promo. The "Artistry" section is particularly problematic, what with its description of Lambert's "amazing" voice, outside of quotes. Some edits to tone and language would probably be warranted.

Also, on an unrelated note, there are lots of apostrophes where they shouldn't be, such as in "AMA's," "70's" and "90's." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.28.186 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jordan200 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (apostrophes)

in response to part 1 of the above unsigned comment: artistry section has been problematic for users attempting to add content -- that's apparent from the history, despite all that's been written about lambert's voice. too many quotes won't fly, web sites that do note for note comparisons or estimations have been reverted. this section in particular, i agree, is a work in progress. but i do not believe it reads like a promo. "amazing," for example, should be in quotes based on the reference here -- and i will go do that. Jordan200 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jordan200 - I disagree with this assessment of the Artistry section. Far from reading like a "promo" piece, it's factual and informative in both tone and language, and supported by credible sources that describe Lambert's voice, style, and musical/stylistic influences. I don't see how this section is at all more promotional or quote-laden than those of, say, Kelly Clarkson, Christine Aguilera, Steve Perry, Josh Groban, and many others. And the adjective "amazing" is the exact descriptor used by Bernard Telsey in the referenced source to characterize Lambert's voice. I would hope that this section can be fleshed out even more once Lambert sings with Queen this summer. Jillymiss (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)jillymissJillymiss (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jillymiss sorry if i was unclear in my response to the unsigned comment referencing the Artistry section etc. the assessment was not mine. i just clarified my previous post -- and in fact agree with you. Jordan200 (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: photos

The main photo off to the side of the article is so outdated, there are just too many images out there available to choose from that shows his new look, his new style and shows his whole face, not hidden behind humongous shades that were so last year. The fans, like this one, would appreciate a better image for the Glam. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.164.198 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this image is the best out of the choices available in the wikimedia commons, if any newer images should appear then they can be applied to the infobox but for now this image will have to do. I will keep my eyes peeled never the less for any new uploads.BrotherDarksoul ^{Blether 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)}

Television Section

I reverted for the second time deletions made by Fixer23 because he was advised this was already ongoing, yet after only 24 hours he jumped in posting "i don't see any "ongoing" move..." and once again, after already being reverted the first time, deleted items that needed to remain on the Bio page and were not promotional and did not belong in Promotion on the FYE page. Fixer, your sweeping in with a major deletion and then simply dumping material elsewhere was inconsiderate to other users and you caused additional work for them. Being Bold per wiki guidelines is good when tempered with consideration for others and when you have carefully reviewed your edit. Although this may have been a good faith edit, multiple items were randomly deleted and moved without any intent to follow up, but leaving a mess behind for others to clean up (reference to cleanup tag left on FYE page by Fixer23 after dumping everything) and you did not review the items you were deleting very carefully as it was obvious some had nothing to do with the FYE album page. Please do not make further deletions from this section. As noted in several History Summaries the paring down and reorganization of this section is ongoing and several other users are already working on it. If you have suggestions or feel items should be deleted please post here so other users can discuss. Or if you wish to complain they are not editing fast enough for you, please post here rather than jump in to 'just help them along'. Your actions were not helpful. Thank you.

I invite other users to post thoughts and suggestions regarding this section here. Thank you. Omgoodnessme (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This section is currently being edited to move important items into other sections of the article if they are majorly significant. Otherwise, remaining items need to be deleted as this entire section is eventually going to be deleted. The purpose of wiki bios is not to chronicle every tv appearance. That can be done on fan sites. You can state opinions on this or regarding which must be retained because they were major to Adam's career, or which did not make a difference and should be deleted...or you can leave this to the users currently working on this section. Thanks. Omgoodnessme (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m so pleased to see that the TV section has been restored. When I first read this Wiki page about a year ago, I was surprised at how superficial and sketchy the biography was. There were huge gaps in the information presented, the emphasis was on American Idol (even though it was two years later) and much of what was there was outdated. Over the past year, there have been huge improvements: content has been added, restructured, and organized chronologically. So I was quite disturbed to see the TV section, which included some high-profile performances and events, and some non-music-related appearances, suddenly deleted. I’m relieved to see that this deletion was temporary and that people will be working on an ongoing basis to integrate the important information into the appropriate sections of the bio. Again, thank you! Jillymiss (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation for another Wiki-Page

Hi, I would like to edit the German Wiki-page for Adam Lambert, based on the English one. You all did a great job and have put so much work into it. Has someone something against it, if I translate parts of it? Aralid2 (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked the German Wiki for Adam and it certainly is very brief and not current. It would be great to have it more current and providing more information for those who speak German. Thank you for being willing to take this project on. And thank you for your positive comments about his English wiki. A number of people have worked very hard to keep it updated and edited. It's nice to get good feedback. Omgoodnessme (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2013

please "record producer" to nothing because Lambert does not produce music. Ellemedit (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. This is referring to the content in the "Occupations" field in the infobox. It is unsouced, and the article makes no assertion that Mr. Lambert is a record producer. According to the article, he served as executive producer for one record, which is not the same thing. Rivertorch (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Since glam rock was removed by Andrzejbanas from Lambert's genre citing an archived discussion in October 2009 Talk:Adam_Lambert/Archive_3#Genre I would like to reopen this discussion and propose glam rock be added as an appropriate genre.

Basically the discussion consisted of Andrzejbanas saying glam rock was inappropriate per Allmusic source given (which no longer links properly). After no objections for 24 hours, glam rock was removed. It was only in the following month that others commented. Cinemaniac said "Glam rock fits, electropop fits, and pop rock just sorta fits. Alternative rock is not only pushing it, it's off the cliff's edge." but added "But pop rock, as its sourced, will do. And I think based on his current single, electropop is suitable as well. (It's quite possible that once the album is debuted, he will be labeled as such by professional institutions, and thus, we can source it.)" Aspects said "....so at this point I am willing to put up with whatever gets put in the genre field barring edit warring until his album comes out." Bottom line was pop rock was decided as the genre at that time until more sources were available after Lambert's album came out.

After his album came out and Lambert established himself as a "glam rocker", and years later, current users who edit this page added glam rock as one of his styles, not being aware of the archived discussion in 2009. A couple of sources for this are 1) The Times article of February 4, 2010 titled "Adam Lambert, the new face of glam rock" by Malcolm Mackenzie "Adam Lambert is a new kind of star who on first glance resembles exactly an old one. Onstage he lurches like Mick Jagger, glitter-slick face like David Bowie, with a belting Robert Plant yelp..." and "Lambert describes his record as “Seventies and Eighties rock-glam put into a time capsule and blasted off into the future”, which is a nice way of putting it." [1] 2) "Where For Your Entertainment was all glitter and glam-rock, Trespassing, which is Executive Produced by Lambert, is part buoyant dance-pop with a funk-rock sensibility, and part brooding introspection." MTV [2] Omgoodnessme (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My argument is the style is used in appropriately. I understand the promotion with the outrageous costuming, but I can't find any discussion of the use of guitar sound of the genre in his music, as allmusic notes "Glam rock was fairly simple, crunchy guitar rock put across with outrageous theatricality. Most of the music was unabashedly catchy, with melodies drawn from teenage bubblegum pop and hip-shaking rhythms from early rock & roll.". Source. Lambert's music lacks the crunching guitar sound in not just the songs mentioned, but all the music. We also can't use Lambert's own description of his music per WP:SUBJECTIVE, "it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public." and "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation.". They also refer to him as " glitter-slick face like David Bowie,", but not his music in one of your sources. All the glam rock notes seem to lean towards imagery, opposed to the music. This is why I think it shouldn't be used to describe the style of music he makes. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

i think u are being far more technical/parsing way too thoroughly for what is required here Andrzejbanas. (it's interesting to note, in addition, that very few artists have any refs whatsoever for their genres e.g., see lady gaga.) the genres also are not meant to exclude others, but to include all that are applicable. the industry worldwide refers to Lambert as glam or a glamrocker and in and of itself i think that is sufficient evidence to include it as one of his sub genres. i hear what you're saying about the music per-se, but again, i think u might be over-thinking this genre listing. glam rock is associated with theatricality, fashion/make-up and androgyny first and foremost, not "crunchy guitar sound", in most music writing. here's Spin: "Lambert's polymorphous vocal skills unite dancefloor strut and hard-rock pomp in a convincing glam package. Flamboyance with a fire underneath, this is mainstream glitz liberated by both guts and chops..." http://www.spin.com/reviews/adam-lambert-your-entertainment-19-recordingsrca/. here's a scan of a current textbook representation/definition of androgyny: http://distilleryimage10.s3.amazonaws.com/9a377e6817a011e3be6322000a1f922f_7.jpg i recall that in the discussion of this four years ago, before any of his albums or his tours, rock was rejected as a genre - though it seemed Aspects would have been happy with just rock. there really was not consensus. i think, therefore, after some thirty odd songs later (and who knows how many live performances in which he re-styles his own songs over and over) that to remove glam rock from this part of the bio (which as i said, is fairly loosely conceptualized for most artists, and without refs) is unnecessarily particular. i understand what you are saying, but i think glam rock has either not been well enough defined in the literature - or perhaps it's just been bastardized by the industry, the media, the "conceptualizers" - because i would say this is primarily the way Lambert is categorized. it's certainly applicable enough for "genres", different sources definitely seem to emphasize different aspects of the term. for now, i would agree it did not warrant a deletion. Jordan200 (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

All things have to be sorted. Just because some article doesn't have sources in the infobox for genre, doesn't mean it's not a) cited in the article, or b. The infobox is meant to show information that is already discussed in the article, not be in on it's own. "the industry worldwide refers to Lambert as glam or a glamrocker". That's a pretty broad statement, as no one can really follow it up with the sound of the genre. If Tina Turner or Sting get a punk hair cut, are they punk rockers now too? You are not providing any sources with the genre for your claims, "glam rock is associated with theatricality, fashion/make-up". Tell that to Sparks or Queen who have been related to the genre but definitely aren't as theatrical as David Bowie. Having a "a convincing glam package" or what not doesn't really speak of the music. Can you find anything that doesn't discuss the man himself but his music that are called glam rock? specific songs? Not as much as other genres certainly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In answering just a couple of your points Andrzejbanas, I don't have time to search through all musicians and provide a list of singers, but being familiar with American Idol articles which Adam's seems to have been patterned after, due to Lambert's connection with the show, several who do not cite or mention the genre within the article: Katharine McPhee, Chris Daughtry, Fantasia Barrino (hip hop soul), David Cook - but they use a wiki link. However, this is a moot point since I did provide a source of MTV calling FYE "glam-rock". MTV said "Where For Your Entertainment was all glitter and glam-rock, Trespassing, which is Executive Produced by Lambert …."

You said "If Tina Turner or Sting get a punk hair cut, are they punk rockers now too?" Of course not…and that's just the point. You would not be reading articles or headlines that said Punk-rocker Tina Turner or Punk-rocker Sting if they did this or even dressed punk since they would only look punk, not sing punk. However, if they changed their singing/music style in addition to their looks, then you would be reading about their being punk rockers. Nor would you be seeing articles and headlines saying "Glam rocker Adam Lambert" if he were dressing in glam fashion but was singing show tunes or country music.

I'm not sure why you are questioning that theatricality is part of glam since your own 'all music' definition says it is. As far as Queen being theatrical and dressing glam and flamboyant, they certainly were when Freddie was making their costumes and he was very theatrical on stage and in videos, and I doubt they would have a problem with being called theatrical as you seem to feel.

You asked "Can you find anything that doesn't discuss the man himself but his music that are called glam rock?" Again, in the source I gave MTV calls his FYE album glam-rock. Omgoodnessme (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware MTV did it, but that was a news article. Not a critical overview or review of the album's content. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, we have to go towards more expert sources that are doing something beyond doing a news report. Specficially, a report that shows that they listened to and reviewed the album. I'm not terribly convinced by the MTV article either as it's just one source. Surely more can be found. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Project Albums considers MTV a reliable source for articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so I don't see a problem with this as a source. I don't think you can get much clearer than actually labeling an album as "glam-rock" so I don't feel another source is necessary and certainly is not required. Omgoodnessme (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As no one has disagreed, I will add glam rock as a genre using this source. Omgoodnessme (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This is only one source compared to several other sources which have been turned down. We need more sources as the other genres have multiple sources. We need more sources for a controversial thing which I have shown above needs more information as his music does not match the description. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You opened a discussion in Talk and removed glam rock from genre on 10/07/09. You pointed out that no source was given and that you felt that Lambert's music did not fit with allmusic's description of glam rock (your source). Aspects agreed at the time, pointing out that it was early in Lambert's career and after his album came out the genres would probably change from your edit of "musical theatre, pop rock", and the important thing was that a source be provided. A third party to the discussion, Cinemaniac, thought glam rock was alright but alternative rock was not. After your reposting of your source, Cinemaniac dropped out of the discussion and hence your edit remained unchallenged/unchanged. Not being aware of this archived discussion glam rock was added again 4/16/13. When you reverted this citing the 2009 discussion, I opened this discussion and provided MTV as a source as Aspects had requested in 2009. But you seemed to feel despite the reliable source provided, Lambert's music did not meet allmusic's description of glam rock. It is only your personal opinion that it does not fit - I don't agree with this and neither does Jordan200. In arguing your point you've been pretty much all over the place even questioning whether theatricality was glam rock despite its being part of allmusic's description.

Despite MTV directly labeling his music as glam rock, you say you are not satisfied with this. Since allmusic in its description includes "crunchy guitar" you said "Lambert's music lacks the crunching guitar sound in not just the songs mentioned, but all the music." . I'm not sure what your definition of crunchy guitar is if you are making such a comment - either your definition is wrong or you have not listened to Lambert's album Glamnation Live! which in fact does have "crunchy guitar" as did all of his GNT concerts.

On p-71 of "Performance and Popular Music: History Place and Time", Philip Auslander (a writer used as a source for several wiki articles) says "That the music classified as glam rock ranges from the sophisticated, self-conscious deployment of rock and pop style by such artists as Bowie and Roxy Music, to the straightforward hard rock of Kiss, to the simplistic, minimalist pop of Gary Glitter indicates that, like most rock sub genres, glam rock cannot be defined purely in terms of musical style." It's the total package and that is what Malcolm Mackenzie was pointing out in his Times article titled "Adam Lambert, the new face of glam rock". He also included that Lambert sang "with a belting Robert Plant yelp". Lambert's musical instrument is his voice and therefore it has to be considered as part of the music when talking about genre.

Despite your personal feelings, glam rock should be edited back in. Omgoodnessme (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how comparisons to Robert Plant help your comment that he's a glam rock musician. Might as well compare him to Miles Davis as Robert Plant doesn't make glam rock either. Finding one person's opinion that glam rock is not fit just into a sound is foolish and based a single source (as your MTV source). The new face of glam rock just comes off as marketing, can you tell me how he fits in the genre in the article? Does the article discuss it? If not, I consider a bit of a weak citation. I'm not sure about that one live album you are referring to but if it's not on his main recordings, it hardly is strong enough to have it labeled in the infobox of the genre. We need specifics to discuss how he fits rather than just he's a glam rocker. How? Is it through the musical style? If so than put in the music. If it's just through visual (which your one definiton seems to be), than it should not be in the infobox as it's not accurate to what the author of the article is discussing if they are talking about his wardrobe. Try to find sources that describe why his music fits in with glam rock, or a explaining how the music is glam rock. Otherwise, leave the glam description out of genre.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 I was simply pointing out that in addition to the visual presentation, and the music (Lambert had released FYE in the prior months, hence this article) there was also the rock voice that is part of glam rock….the whole package that I mentioned. You are not going to find a definition of glam rock that does not include the visual/the presentation along side the music per-se. MTV would not label his album as glam-rock if in fact his voice or his music were country or punk simply because his look was flamboyant etc.  It was not because of his look that they said this. Nor is that why he is often referred to as a glam rocker. Do you seriously think this would be said about him if his music was country or punk and he dressed up glam and was flamboyant and theatrical?

Your simply saying that you don't agree or accept my expert source for this or that point being made is ridiculous. My sources are from those who are already considered reliable by Wiki - whereas you provide only one source yet seem to argue from only from part of it, and the rest coming from your personal opinion and flippant comments and then demanding more, even questioning if Lambert's sound in Glam Nation Live album can be used as an example to contradict your comment about crunchy guitar sound not being in any of his music. A genre does not have to only be present and restricted to a studio album, thus ignoring a live CD/DVD release and live performances as an indication of genre. Lady Gaga's article has rock as a genre, yet no source and the only mention within the article of rock was her performing rock during her early career….no mention of it being part of any album or her music. (Gaga's article is one of wiki's Music good articles). So one's live music performed on a regular basis is also considered when determining genre, not just major studio recordings. Lady Gaga's article doesn't provide multiple sources that describe why the music fits in with rock, nor should it have to.

I have provided a reliable source to include glam rock as genre….just because your personal opinion as a non-expert differs from that of one considered by wiki as reliable does not mean it should be removed. Omgoodnessme (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So far you've provided a single source which goes against WP:UNDUE. "often referred to as a glam rocker". You've found a few sources, but none discussing his music in relation to genre. These are very weak as I've stated before. Which songs of his are glam? That live album has a T.Rex cover, but that's pretty much it. I'll agree that the live album is notable, but you haven't found sources to back this up, so that's against WP:OR. "Lady Gaga's article doesn't provide multiple sources that describe why the music fits in with rock, nor should it have to.". Just because one article isn't following the rules, doesn't mean this one shouldn't either. The Lady Gaga one will be brought into question eventually. It's not my personal opinion, it's the fact that the citations are weak and make this article weak, and thus makes wikipedia weak. Find one that actually goes into the sound of his music rather than the promotional glam rock. You've yet to find any of his songs described as a glam rock song and have just found headlines in articles that do not address it within the article. If there's no better material out there, then it shouldn't be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In reading this discussion about genre, my head begins to spin. The entire argument seems to hinge on one user, sticking to one line in one source, as the ultimate determinant of the definition of glam rock. Any attempts by other users to add other sources, or use what music writers repeatedly say (even if they do not specify a song and explain why it is glam rock) are rejected. I have read this wiki article and almost all its sources, and I am familiar with almost every performance available of Lambert's including those pre-idol. Without a doubt, one of his most preferred genres, and his most identifiable one according to the way nearly every article about him begins or headlines, is glam rock. In fact, if you just go one sentence beyond the one Andrzejbanas quotes in Allmusic you get this: "But those innocent-sounding influences were belied by the delivery, which was all campy, glitzy showmanship and sexuality. In fact, one of the main reasons glam never caught on in the U.S. was that glam artists intentionally played around with gender conventions, dressing themselves up in outlandish, androgynous costumes and makeup." It then talks about varieties and sub-styles of glam rock. In other words, it is not one thing. I would agree with the other writers, Omgoodnessme and Jordan200, that even by Allmusic standards, performance style is a more than equal part of the definition of the genre, once you establish that your music is in the realm of rock. I don't see how anyone could argue that Lambert's is not. Andrzejbanas makes the statement that "Lambert's music lacks the crunching guitar sound in not just the songs mentioned, but all the music." Based on what are you saying this? Where is the source that says that none of Lambert's music, which of course includes how and what he performs in concert, contains crunching guitar? Since this is the basis for your entire position, I'd like to see that evidence. I think his live work, especially on Glam Nation Tour or when the production of studio recordings is dialed back, does have crunchy guitar. That is as much evidence as you saying it does not. Glam rock should be returned as one of his genres, in my opinion. Barbls23 (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, headlines with terms that are not expanded upon shouldn't be used as a source. There's no critical analysis. It reminds me of this definition of Goth Rock where they state "while some alternative metal bands also borrowed from goth rock's visual imagery (including Marilyn Manson, who -- despite countless news reports to the contrary -- is not a goth-rock artist)". This is easily applied to Lambert. Also, as you are applying only one recorded material. Several groups live performances do not reflect their studio sound but those genres are not shown. And if you can't explain that in the article (which no one seems to be able too, which violates WP:OR)"even by Allmusic standards, performance style is a more than equal part of the definition of the genre, once you establish that your music is in the realm of rock.". In contrast, I've named glam rock musicians above who are definiately in the genre, but do not follow the imagery. And from my quotes above, clearly image is later adopted but you can only mention one recording. That's not wide enough for the artist career and as stated above you have not named a single song that's been described as glam rock in any source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

how much detail is too much detail

it has been noted that the page is quite detailed, a subject that has been addressed before -- as in the television section (in talk, above), which has now successfully been absorbed by the main text and the album pages. if you have thoughts on items you think might be altered/or deleted because they are outside the bounds of wiki guidelines, please post them. a user has reduced the opening paragraph, and i have done a few very minor reverts to this edit. my preference would be to retain more of the original, though i see the point. the process of pairing down will continue, but there will be differing opinions as to what should stay or go; what's within the inclusion policy guidelines etc. Jordan200 (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly understand the need to trim from time to time, to tighten syntax, or to change emphasis. As a performer’s career evolves, what is initially important and prominent becomes less so, as other events and performances take precedence. That said, as a reader who comes to particular wiki pages to get information and updates, I appreciate as much detail as possible. There are many aspects that are extremely relevant to a singer’s bio, and readers who come to a wiki page are usually searching for this information: background, philanthropy, past performances, nominations, tour info, promo, response to an album’s release, etc. This particular bio is hardly burdened by excessive detail, especially when compared with the bios of other performers. As a matter of fact, until quite recently, Lambert’s wiki page was not current, and burdened by huge gaps in chronology and information. As it stands, the sections and summaries are all relevant to Lambert’s career. They offer a solid overview, and I often use the multiple sources listed to access additional information. I would hope that future edits do not drastically cut or eliminate relevant details that readers expect when they come to Lambert’s wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillymiss (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Jillymiss's statement that this article is "hardly burdened by excessive detail". The detail given is suitable for writing a biography of Adam Lambert but is way too long for an encyclopaedia article... And that's what we're aiming for on Wikipedia. As painful as it is for a fan to do, certain facts, details, opinions and statements need to be left out. I suggest that folk editing here take a look at the article for Madonna. She has a career lasting 30 years - about 10 times that of Adam Lambert - and yet her article is shorter. I'm not going to suggest you try to cut this article to a third the length of the Madonna one... That really wouldn't be fair! But whilst this article is still longer than Madonna's then it's definitely too long and I imagine that until editors get their heads around that there's going to continue to be edit wars and edit lockdowns. --Dakinjones (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Darkinjones. Currently the article size is 150Kb. According to WP:SIZERULE, this article should either be trimmed down or sections split off into their own articles. Although the readable text is listed as 51 kB, which means there are a lot of references, two to four references for one sentence are redundant.

As for some random specific things that are not needed, this sentence about an interview and the airing of the interview seems non-notable, "While in Shanghai, he was interviewed by CCTV, China's predominant state broadcasting system. The "UpClose" segment aired on January 5, 2013." Also random TV appearances that are non-notable "...followed on December 10 by appearances on NBC's "New York Live", CNN's Starting Point and The Wendy Williams Show; and VH1's "Big Morning Buzz Live" on December 11." Aspects (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to respond to comments by Dakinjones and Aspects. As a principal editor of this page for the past two years (roughly), I agree that it is too long. In parts. As in the devil is in the details and we might disagree about which parts. Madonna's page IS a good example -- a career that spans thirty years gives editors the benefit of hindsight in extracting that which turned out to be significant, and highlights/touchstones become obvious. I am going to start eliminating material as time permits, but have questions -- which I think I will take to you Aspects, in your Talk. I have been hesitant to go into older material that I did not take part in writing (such as the Am Idol section), but could easily see reducing. Others, of course, might disagree -- but with the benefit of time/perspective (as re Madonna), some of the detailing now seems like minutiae/to me. Then again, Aspects you bring up the CCTV add. I disagree that it is non-notable. One of the most notable aspects of Lambert's career right now is his push into the Chinese market (note the Forbes ref I just added on the Superbowl); or at very least, the Asian market where he is about to launch his only semi-official Trespassing tour. CCTV, like the rest of state sponsored Chinese TV, does not tend to highlight western artists -- or gay western artists. It signifies an official endorsement, which is important to conducting business in China. The interview itself: I posted it because it is one of the best and most comprehensive that's been done. I suppose I might not have added the short sentence/or eliminated the date -- but just added the interview link. . . but, there seems to be a problem with "a lot" of refs -- many of which I do not see as redundant (they support words like "regularly", statements about trends or other words that summarize, etc.) The whole issue of references is one I would like to discuss further, for my own clarity -- and to address concerns. So yes, as one editor, I will start to subtract -- which means reading every line and checking every reference so that it is not just willy-nilly and random. Any further advice is appreciated, and I'm going to go looking for it. Jordan200 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To Dakinjones who suggested that editors of Adam's wiki take a look at Madonna's, I would suggest he take a look at Lady Gaga. Much of Madonna's career was prior to the internet and greater media exposure of all entertainment, as well as the music business was conducted in an entirely different manner and did not have the exposure it does today. Just the appearances, performances, and concerts alone were handled differently and had less media exposure. Just looking at her ref/s that necessarily include many from books only indicates this. Half of her albums and concerts were all prior to the internet and media as we know it today. Advancement in electronics has made a huge difference in the conducting of a singer's career. Lady Gaga is a much more appropriate wiki to use if we are going to compare wikis as they are very similar artists and within the same time period. Adam's current wiki runs 145,312 bytes whereas Lady Gaga's is longer at 151,966. This indicates Adam's wiki is indeed falling within an appropriate length. This does not mean that Adam's wiki cannot be trimmed, especially as more things are added, and I am aware that editors are making an effort to do this (although much was trimmed and moved prior to your comment). However, ongoing input here is appreciated and valued by all. Omgoodnessme (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So, this page is well written and has some good information on it, but the size of the 2012 -present: Trespassing and the 2009–11: For Your Entertainment and touring sections, seem overwhelming to the reader. From a historical standpoint, I'd say some of it isn't even relevant, and it doesn't define his career as musician. Every time Adam makes an appearance somewhere or performs on a show, it's really unnecessary to put it on Wikipedia. So I'd say we should start taking serious steps in cleaning up some of this excess information. Bulba2036 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To Bulba2036 regarding length, relevance and the excess of information. I hope you have now read this section and realize that users are aware of this issue and have been taking steps to address it. It's started. In fact, it is now 10% shorter than it was last month, despite the fact that Lambert's been actively touring, drumming up controversy, nominations, reviews -- in other words, creating various stories as he goes along. I want to suggest to you that "a historical standpoint" needs time/history to understand or unfold; and similarly does that which defines a career. It is only after the fact that those elements become clear -- making "clean-up" alot easier as time passes. -- For the record, this article hardly contains every appearance of Lambert's, that's just inaccurate. Speaking for myself, I appreciate your point of view and your comment, but understand that from my point of view, the hardest thing to do is to assess what best represents an artist in real time. -- I started deleting from the article's beginning -- and because of your comment, have moved to FYE. Deletions, especially of other users' work, require explanations. I've been "bolder" in my deletions -- and getting bolder every day ;) Lambert's in a kind of transitional place at the moment -- also still considered an emerging artist . . . so historical moments for him? . . . with the exception of the obvious (like a Grammy nom), I think they do need the benefit of perspective. As one user, understand that I am committed to the ongoing and continuous deletion of material, along with keeping this updated. Other users are doing the same. Randomly deleting without the fullest possible understanding of his direction as an artist is not a good option, in my opinion. Please make any specific suggestions here (or on my User page if you like), they're welcome of course. I'm not overwhelmed by the information but am in agreement about the need to clean up! Jordan200 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Split "Artistry" and "Philanthropy" sections - "Artistry" and "Philanthropy" sections can be split off into new articles to reduce the article size. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jax 0677 my thoughts: i'd like to hold off on the splitting for a little while and see where we're headed, size and other-wise. i'd been deleting almost every time time i'd added information until the last few edits (time concerns on my part, not a change in intent). the article size has remained more or less the same as a result (and is still down from the size it was when this issue was first raised). it does not seem to be out of range of comparables, it just needs to stay there. one of the reasons i'd ask that this be postponed is that there are indications that a new career phase will begin early next year (or soon); that would mean a new demarcation/new label, new music ... all probabilities. i think it will be easier to decide what should be transferred and where at that point. Jordan200 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Although they certainly 'can' be split I disagree that this is the time to do it just to reduce the article in size for the reasons already discussed here in 2012 where it was concluded that continual paring down of the article would be done by those who are currently editing the article since it was in fact the same comparable size as other articles for similar artists. The article has been reduced by over 8K this past year while still adding new information, and this continues to be the editing process that editors are using (there are a number of items currently under Trespassing section I am aware of that will either be deleted or moved in the next few months). I agree with Jordan200 that a shift in Lambert's career is taking place so changes will need to be made after the new year. I think as new sections are added by necessity (certainly his new album being released would mean a new section and include 2014 at that time) I do agree that the sections Jax suggests would be the correct ones to move when it becomes necessary, but I would move Philanthropy first and then reassess the article. I don't see the purpose in gutting the article for no other reason than reducing it in size when size is not a problem at the moment as already discussed. I do think it should remain as is for now since it doesn't need to be merely reduced for size. I think looking at this again in about 6 months and splitting at that time would make more sense. Omgoodnessme (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion on the splitting of sections and no objections to waiting for 6 months to revisit this again, I am removing the tags within the article. The article can be retagged in July for further discussion if it has not been split before then. Omgoodnessme (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014

Hi. Two requests please: 1) There are two items called "Note 1". The first is working. The second (immediately following the Performances and Results table) is broken. 2) The Performances and Results table is displaying only the column headings - no data. Springtimeflowers (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit question (9 June 2015): Should the opening section include a sentence or two describing his collaboration with Queen?

The success of his recent tours, as well as the magnitude of the collaboration, seem worthy of a description of his recent work with Queen, no? User:Bp0413 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Adam Lambert‎

I was surprised to see there was not a List of songs recorded by Adam Lambert‎. I redirected the page to here for now, but feel free to get a list going before me if you have time and interest. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

October shortening of information

On October 4, I shortened a lot of information, going through the entire article. This is something that has needed to be done for a while, as can be seen in the previous discussion. There was a lot of announcements of future events that then happened that no longer needed to be in the article. There was a lot of information about albums, songs and concert tours that would be better left to those individual articles and not necessary for a biographical article. There was a lot of extra information about other people and organizations that were not needed for an article about Lambert. There were a lot of performances, TV show appearances, concerts, interviews and magazine covers that are small parts in an overall too long article.

Some of the sections can be further tightened up. I am not really happy with how the Trespassing section looks, but I hope other editors will help out in this regard. I hope that my edits can be the start of a newer version of the article and that they do not all get reverted. If you have problems with some of the edits, please address just those edits and not my entire process. If something I removed or changed you think is wrong, please list it here with your reasoning so they can be discussed, even if they are reverted in the article. Aspects (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In the discussion of being named the runner-up, Kris Allen's full name isn't mentioned, making it a vague reference.

sentence referred to: Lambert was announced as the runner-up for the eighth season of American Idol. Upon winning, Allen stated: "Adam deserved this",

Who is Allen? Kris Allen's full name should be inserted and linked to his Wikipedia page for clarity. Those who aren't fans of American Idol, won't know who "Allen" is referring to. It could even be a judge or some other notable person commenting perhaps. It could even be interpreted that the "winning" referred to Adam's win, not Kris Allen's. Suggestion - "The winner (of the season, of the competition, ,Adam's rival, etc.) Kris Allen stated: "Adam deserved this", 02befree (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Adam Lambert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091003131634/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/americanidoltracker/2009/08/adam-lambert-the-ultimate-interview-part-three.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/americanidoltracker/2009/08/adam-lambert-the-ultimate-interview-part-three.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602231806/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/americanidoltracker/2010/05/the-ultimate-american-idol-power-ranking-after-9-seasons-and-120-contestants-kelly-clarkson-still-re.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/americanidoltracker/2010/05/the-ultimate-american-idol-power-ranking-after-9-seasons-and-120-contestants-kelly-clarkson-still-re.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Adam Lambert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091003131634/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/americanidoltracker/2009/08/adam-lambert-the-ultimate-interview-part-three.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/americanidoltracker/2009/08/adam-lambert-the-ultimate-interview-part-three.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091003131338/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/americanidoltracker/2009/08/adam-lambert-the-ultimate-interview-part-four.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/americanidoltracker/2009/08/adam-lambert-the-ultimate-interview-part-four.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Lambert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008052800/http://www.rockstarweekly.com/cd-review-adam-lambert-acoustic-live.html to http://www.rockstarweekly.com/cd-review-adam-lambert-acoustic-live.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017

Ghost1town (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

drake labry

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

change the picture of adam lambert

File:Adam-Lambert-Casual-Blonde-Hairstyle.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.234.6 (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

103.255.234.6 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Adam-Lambert-Casual-Blonde-Hairstyle.jpg

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. Cannolis (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New 2018 Album

Through several different news videos Adam Lambert has talked about his new album and the residency show in Vegas. Though I don't know if anything can be added at the moment, I just wanted to let the permitted editors know what's up. CJJuarez17 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Personal Life

In November 2019, Adam announced on his Instagram live that he is no longer in a relationship with Javi Costa Polo. 91.153.104.105 (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2019

Please, edit personal life. In November 2019, Adam Lambert announced he’s no longer in a relationship with Javi Costa Polo in his Instagram Story. Also Javi Costa Polo announced it. (I added a link to this) (added another link, where Adam is saying he’s curently single. 84.250.112.108 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you link to a source for this from himself that still exists, or a secondary sources such as a newspaper? – Thjarkur (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 18:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Noting that the user has edited their original comment and linked to the following sources: . – Thjarkur (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done I completed the request and even added another source. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

In Personal Life, please change "As of April 2020, Lambert is currently single" to "Since November 2020, Lambert has been in a relationship with Danish fashion industry worker Oliver Gliese." (In addition to the source, both have published couple pictures in Instagram Stories on New Year's Eve.) Informatiste101 (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The whole section has been removed per WP:NOT; therefore this edit request will not be fulfilled. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Award nomination

• 32nd GLAAD Media Awards

---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Talk

Participating in a TV series not listed in the filmography here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

Adamlambert82 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021 (2)

Adamlambert82 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)please change adam's image:

| image = adam2021wikipedia.png

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Filmography

He plays The Devil in A Tale Dark & Grimm which was released on Netlfix October 2021, this information hasn't been added yet. <<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tale_Dark_%26_Grimm>>