Talk:Madonna

Personal Life

This article needs it's Personal Life section back. Please see discussion here - thewolfchild 01:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You talk as if there's already a consensus on it, which it is not. Kww has challenged your proposition and I agree with his points. No need for a personal life section. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote nothing that would indicate there is consensus on this, so your comment is somewhat disingenuous and inflammatory. I posted my opinion, (which is not consensus), along with a link to a discussion on the subject. Your opinion is noted, but on it's own, is not consensus either. - thewolfchild 17:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a "personal life" section is essential to a WP biography when their personal life has been well documented, ie. marriages, children, travels, philosophies, religion, personal problems, etc. My guess is that most readers come to read about the person, aka "bio," and not an extended annotated discography. Note a similar discussion about how Peter Sellers' personal life was similarly shredded and put into the trivia broth of his article. I see a similar heading style in that one with paragraphs of little more than strings of disconnected career trivia and a massive article, more an annotated, chronological filmography, or triviography, IMO. I see all the same anti-bio problems here. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(singer)

I was surprised to see that among the 7 RMs no-one has proposed (singer) as meeting WP:AT 2. Naturalness "..actually called" for this article. Google Books:

• "the singer Madonna" = 3,520
• "the entertainer Madonna" = 50
• "American singer Madonna" = 383
• "American entertainer Madonna" = 0 (excluding Wikipedia content)

In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move September 2013

Madonna (entertainer) → ? – Now out with proposals to make this comtemporary person the primary topic and to use surname. This time, due to hooplah about improper use of "(entertainer)", shall we call her the "(singer)" or the "(musician)"? "Actress" is out of question, as her acting abilities are limited at best, and her film appearances are not as notable as her albums. George Ho (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current article title works fine. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – The dab is fine as it is and really encompasses the person she is. No need to move and on a side-note, you need to seriously stop crapping up these move requests. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Something wrong with the way I do? --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, faulty RMs. It's irritating now. Did you go though the zillions of old RMs posted above and frame your request different from them? I don't see it, all I can see is a requested where no justifiable reason has been given for moving into any of the other dabs mentioned. I would even go to say to withdraw it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't need to explain further why she may not qualify as "entertainer", do I? I already mentioned her "acting" skills. As for her other occupancies, I've always known her as a musician/singer. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• George, actors do not have to meet your approval to be notable as actors. Madonna has continued to act from time to time in the 2000s, especially as a voice actor in Arthur and the Invisibles in 2006.
  Regarding your time-wasting move requests, I think you are too trigger-happy. You should consider the price the community pays each time you initiate a community process. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Madonna's lack of ability as an actor does not mean that she is not actor any more than William Hung's lack of ability mean that he is not a singer. A bad actor is still an actor.--64.229.164.69 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is the fourth RM in the year and nothing has changed. Yes "(entertainer)" is not a good label, but labelling her as a "bad actress" is a WP:NPOV violation and irrelevant to this RM or any other page. Unless something extraordinary happens to move this page to Madonna or Madonna (disambiguator) it is enough of RMs for this year and the next one. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Tbhotch, 64.229.164.69, Binksternet, and IndianBio: In response, I stroke my comments about her acting as "irrelevant", like you said. Let's move on then... --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Madonna (singer), or to just plain Madonna. Far too many celebs on Wiki have the disambiguator "(entertainer)", often because the title of this article is being used a model. On Highbeam for the last two years, I get 135 results for "Madonna entertainer", 745 for "Madonna actress", 810 for "Madonna actor", and 1,979 for "Madonna singer". Looking at the results, I don't actually see Madonna being referred to as an actor or actress at all. The actor being referred to is usually Sean Penn or someone else she is with. 128.204.196.75 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)