Talk:Madonna

Archives
/Archive of Madonna documentaries /to do/Archive 1 /Archive of current redirect /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

Where is her discography?

Can't find it.Bib (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The box named Madonna at the bottom. 60.254.35.186 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. Bib (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble with this. It seems to be pretty standard for artists' pages on wikipedia to have a specific discography section. I've found this immensely useful, especially for artists as prolific as Madonna. When I do a text search on this page for "discography", the only thing that comes up is an external link. I don't think it's very obvious that the box at the bottom titled "Madonna" is where you'll find her discography, especially since it seems to be closed by default. The portal isn't obvious either. Inexperienced wikipedians may have trouble navigating this page when looking for her discography. I suggest adding a section in the main body of the article called "Discography", even if all it contains is a link to the page in question. Another option would be to re-title the "Madonna" box at the bottom "Madonna's discography" or something similar. Whatever wikipedians decide to do, a user should be able to find a link to her discography through a text search &/or a quick browsing of the contents. Alberrosidus (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Empty sections? Vikrant 12:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even though it's empty, it's standard on other musician's wiki pages to link to the discography page within the main article. There's no reason why this article should be different. Having the discography section appear in the table of contents at the top of the page is a good navigational aid. It's too hard to find tucked away at the end of the article in the "related topics" box. Dejaphoenix 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules. Madonna is not any ordinary musician that you ask "why this article should be different." There are two huge templates which anyone can open. and no overlinking. Vikrant 14:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue (diff) has also been discussed on User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame#Madonna discography and User talk:Dejaphoenix. — Athaenara ✉ 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be a discography section as there are with other artists.--Hookedonlsd (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• There was a huge one as I have stated below. Not needed now since its is spl

Third opinion

Wide consensus and the main Music Project guidelines do indicate that an article on a performer should have a discography section, and that when that section gets too long it is moved out of the article in Wikipedia:Summary style, which means leaving a short section in the parent article pointing to the new page. Ignore all rules is a strange and wonderful rule which is there to prevent rules from hindering the development of the project - it's worth reading Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means as IAR can be misunderstood. In this case IAR doesn't apply.

I am open to an argument that every article should be considered as an individual article, and that if a decision can be demonstrated to be useful and effective for a particular article then what happens on other articles doesn't matter, and that guidelines are there for the general good, but specific cases can have over-riding concerns. So I am looking for persuasive arguments for the reason that a standard feature has been removed from this article.

The main argument for not having a summary style discography section is that there are already two templates on the page. However, these templates do not provide a link to the useful and excellent Madonna discography, nor do they provide the specific discography section that regular users of the encyclopedia have come to expect. This will mean that editors will be wanting to place such a section in the article, and there will be future edit wars and instability.

My view is that a summary style discography section should be in the article. If the editor(s) concerned in removing the summary style discography section accept this explanation, then we can move on. If they feel there are valid reasons for not having a summary style discography section, then please put them here and we can debate the issue. If no valid reasons are put forward in the next 24 hours then it can be assumed that the summary style discography section may be restored to the article. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This has been discussed before. Discography summary made the page too long. So no such section is needed. Anmsd even if we add one there is no content short enough to fit here. And the template has a link to discography. Vikrant 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here they are. In the second one I put the link recently. First one has had it since long. Vikrant 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed before and - as I indicated, and trust me on this - it WILL be discussed again and again. That was part of the rationale I gave for why there should be a summary style discography section - people expect there to be one, and if there isn't one, then they will want to put one in. I also pick up that you are not clear on what a summary style discography section is when you say that it makes the article too long. I'll put one into the article so that you can see that it is not long, and that it is clear and helpful (which is what is wanted). Please let me know what you think about the summary style discography section, and if you continue to object to it. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Madonna and Grammys

Anyone? It is worth mentioning how many she has won so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How many are they? And any good source for the number? (IMDb or fansites will not do.) Vikrant 13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Madonna has received 6th Grammys- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_achievements_for_Madonna 1992-Best Long-form Video 1999-Best Pop album, Best Short-form Video and Best Dance Recording 2000-Best Song Written for a Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media 2007-Best Electronic/Dance Album

By NEIL STRAUSS Published: February 25, 1999 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFD61F3DF936A15751C0A96F958260 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In total, Madonna has won 9 Grammys from 1992 to present. Alkclark (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

36 Top 10 hits on the Billboard Hot 100

The achievement of 36 Top 10 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 is not just a feat for "rock" artists but it pertains to "any artist in the rock era." It looks like the editors are not familiar when the rock era started. Could somebody read the links given above and read what it was stated there - the most for any artist in the rock era. Somebody's making the current statement a lot confusing by saying "the most for any rock artist" cause it's actually a record for any artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Vikrant 14:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion of the word "rock", but are we supposed to add, the most for any artist in the rock era? That's what the achievement is all about and as what stated in the article's link on Billboard. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have said before. Rock era is not encyclopedic language. Vikrant 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe what the fellow is trying to say is that the achievement is not all about tying a record 36 Top 10 hits w/ Elvis Presley but it's about a feat of having the most for any artist in the history of the Billboard chart. Maybe adding that phrase would make the intro way a lot better that what's in it right now. Diphosphate8 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but avoid words like "fellow" next time. Vikrant 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"I have said before." is not a complete sentence. And why isn't 'rock era' encyclopaedic (sic) language? By the way, Wikipedia is a joke, and you are one of the clowns, Vikrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.64.177 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading

How about someone adding a "Futher Reading" section that lists some books on her. I know there are plenty of books written about her. And documentaries too. Michael Jackson and Diana Ross have this section. Madonna is just as iconic/legendary. Shoop85 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Shoop85

Most are already sources. Vikrant 09:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Section names clean-up, etc.

Many of the sections were retitled with poor summary. For instance: "Artistic development and Like A Prayer controversy", is pretty ridiculous when throughout those entire years there were millions of controversies. To make one the stand-out, is merely an opinion, not a fact. The same goes for "...and the crucifix controversy". The crucifix controversy, again, was a moot point during that period of time. I cleaned them up, and went back to the basic summary we had before for those particular years.

Also, a few of the photos were irrelevant, or were adding more than the amount that is needed on Wiki. I believe I removed two. The David Banda controversy, included a photo from a protest that happened during Halloween night. A protest that never even received coverage. Please don't add photographs just to fill up the page. It becomes cluttered, and harder to read. The current crop is just enough. Let's keep the page clean, and precise.

The people who have added sources to the text, it's immensely appreciated!!! Thanks. Maddyfan (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That protest image is not just to fill up the page. It is a relevant event. Vikrant 15:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And coverage is not necessary. Its purpose is perfectly relevant to article. (What coverage does the Evita premiere image have?) The Drowned image was a hoaxed licence so good you removed it. Vikrant 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And what images are "more than the amount that is needed on Wiki?" Just fair use and none of them are here. Vikrant 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some info to clarify

In the article it says in relation to the M clothing line:

"The company has ordered a second and third line for late 2007."[107]

Is there a more appropriate and current statement??

Also, the category listings include 'Juno award winners', and I can't find anything that says she even won one.

Thanks. JKW111 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

She's 50

She's fifty, not forty-nine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.36.239 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

She's not 50 until August. Maddyfan (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey on section titles and pictures

As there is a dispute going on regarding the Madonna home page regarding the section headings can we please have a discussion in what everyone wants for the sections as they are getting changed again and again. An agreement would be a reasonable outcome. Can we also discuss photographs that are being used, such as the Mexico waxwork photo and adoption protest. I myself would like them removed as I do not feel they are relevant to Madonna and even though they are free use does not make them relevant. I am very open to discussion as there seems to be a lot of warring going on and threats. JWAD —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JWAD. On Section titles - I'm not against the sections being descriptive of events in those periods, but the particular events highlighted (eg crucifix controversy) are probably not the right ones. In the absence of consensus of how to describe each section, Its safer to go with dates or album references. Otherwise, could use decades as in unreleased Madonna songs.

On pictures, I have already said that the waxwork photo is not relevant, and does not improve the article. I'm relaxed about the protest photo - it is connected to the issue, although maybe someone could offer an alternative of something more notable than "a new worker". JKW111 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that album references as used in the unreleased Madonna songs is the best suggestion. Other artists pages such as Janet Jackson use this. My suggestion is:

1982-1985 Madonna debut album and Like a Virgin era

1986-1991 True Blue and Blond Ambition Tour era

1992-1997 Erotica, Sex book and Evita era

1998-2002 Ray of Light and Drowned World Tour era

2003-2006 American Life and Confessions era

JWAD was added at 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1998-2002 is extremely small and notreally needed. Vikrant 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored the protest photo. About the statue, can you all show me some strict rule on editing that forbids this? Statues help many persons' articles and this is a VA! Vikrant 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On sections - I think the above list has too many sections. It is worth exploring a more meaningful breakup. (In the longer term, it's worth exploring separating this content into a music career section, separate to a film career section, an author section, and 'other activities'.)

On pictures: While it is true that there are no strict rules regarding pictures other than copyrighted ones, there is a common sense overlay that should be applied. (There are no strict rules in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean every edit to an article will or should stay.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, a vanity site, a photo gallery, etc.. Pictures should be relevant to the article in that they illustrate something about the subject of the article. I'm sure you would agree that if I drew a picture of Madonna and took a photo of it, that doesn't mean I should put it in this article. The following guidance is taken from WP:IMAGES: Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text... Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article. Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic.

Overall, in line with WP:CON, we need to reach agreement on whether a proposed picture makes the article better. For the wax picture, I say it doesn't. It is not notable, is not significant in relation to Madonna, doesn't assist a reader in understanding the subject of the article, and makes the article unnecessarily over-crowded. I'm happy for someone to explain why it should be included other than its a free image. JKW111 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT APPROPRIATE WORDING

How come in the portion of this article when it talks about Madonna's dealing with Pepsi, the word "black" leads to a link when using the phrase 'black man' but the word "white" does not lead to a link when using the phrase 'white woman'? It's obvious someone white wrote that portion, as they feel the need to have a link directing you to what a black person is. Now its not that I'm upset that there's a link to "black" in the article but if you're going to have a link for "black", you must have one for "white". If you're not going to have the link available for "white", then it should not be there for "black". We are all the same, so it must remain consistent in our writing.

Done JKW111 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the fifth paragraph under Relationships, the phrase "Madonna gave birth to his child" needs to be changed to "Madonna gave birth to their child". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.186.212 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Removed ownership of the child altogether. JKW111 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1992-2002

that is totaly off and needs to be broken down that is to long of a stretch of her career and she under went to many changes musicaly and fashion wise to be lumped into a 10 year period is way off it should be broken down from 1992 - 1997 than 1998-2002 would be more accurate and proper--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule on how long sections should be. The current/past section breaks have always been arbitrary, so where the breaks occur is largely personal preference. Lets agree on a structure before making any more changes. JKW111 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont really have a huge problem with the structure,she has had a very long and gone through many fashion changes,music style chnages trials and tribulations,and i have no problem with the other breakdowns of epoch of her career like 82-85 86-91 etc i think its is very accurate but in the middle of those you have this lump of 10 years 1992 till 2002 when during this time many chnages had happened in her career during this time and it just does not seem to mesh and should be broken down alongs these lines 92-97 to exclaim her erotica era and evita roll than 98-2002 which she transformed her image and sound again into ray of light and music etc,--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

She's not really "British"

In the initial paragraph, it says Madonna is "British." Technically she's an American living in the UK, with a British husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.211.198 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rock N Roll Hall of Fame?

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet...why was she inducted into the R&R HOF when she has never performed rock music? Smart Mark Greene (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rock music encompasses just about everything and remember that the "rock era" started in the '50s! Don't take it literally. Madonna's music straddles the pop, dance and rock worlds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Pop

in case editors want better sources for this claim should the article be nominated for FAC:

• Andrew Morton. Madonna. Macmillan, 2002. ISBN 0312983107.

...the record company found itself in the enviable position of promoting the newly crowned Queen of Pop...

• Carol Clerk. Madonnastyle. Omnibus Press, 2002. ISBN 0711988749.

:...The Queen of Pop declared her admiration for the Queen of England...

• Mary Cross. Madonna: A Biography. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. ISBN 0313338116.

...The year 1984 was unbelievable for Madonna. Indisputably, she was now the Queen of Pop. ...

• Miklitsch, Robert. From Hegel to Madonna. SUNY Press, 1998. ISBN 0791435393.

Kellner admits near the end of his analysis that Anderson is an avant-grade performance artist and Madonna the reigning queen of pop...

• Santiago Fouz-Hernández, Freya Jarman-Ivens. Madonna's Drowned Worlds: New Approaches to Her Cultural. Ashgate Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0754633721.

...the so called 'Queen of Pop' elludes both followers and critics by shifting her image before stable identificatory paradigms and criticisms can summarily describe her.

• Tisa Lewis, Susan M. Shaw. Girls Rock!: Fifty Years of Women Making Music. University Press of Kentucky, 2004. ISBN 0813123100.

The queen of pop had evolved into an urban cowgirl...

all of these books are available for preview on google and may contain useful information to improve the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

2c worth of PR bits and pieces

Looks pretty comprehensive. The only thing I didn't see was much talk of her succession of personas (not as defined as, say, David Bowie, but there was a sense, I recall, of the trashy clothes a la Desperately Seeking Susan and the first two albums which gave way to the platinum blonde and neater look for several years, and latterly the more 'casual' look of Ray of Light etc. Not a biggie though and the article is pretty big already...

I'll look at prose soon :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is a VA and WP:SIZE cant be so strict here. Ultra! 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

During The Virgin Tour, she wore the rosary around her neck - I am not catholic and am not too familair with how rosaries should be referred to but shouldn't this be 'a' rosary? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since her debut in 1982, Madonna has released many chart-topping albums and singles, and has sold more than 200 million albums worldwide - the trick is to use the word 'album' only once in this sentence for brilliant prose....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ultra! 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to fix the Guiness World Records links in the lead; link at first not second. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Most-successful - why the hyphen?

After being convinced by her ballet teacher, ...really needs an infinitive verb there (i.e. convinced to do something) how about "Her ballet teacher convinced (or persuaded) her to pursue a dance career, so she..." or "After her ballet teacher convinced (or persuaded) her to pursue a dance career, so she..." Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

a new wave label belonging to Warner Bros. Records. - belonging to sounds a teeny bit casual..I am not sure how else to phrase it however. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Madonna felt Lucas would be the producer to get the best vocals from her -clunky - " bring out the best vocals"? or something else?

Spelling Error.

"Madonna's eighth studio album, Music was released in 2000 and continued the electronica theme of Ray of Light, this time it embrassed dance and house music "

Embraced is misspelled as "embrassed" This is under the 1998-2002 section.

It's been fixed now. Acalamari 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocco Ritchie was NOT baptized Catholic as the Wiki article claims

I have encountered this phenomenom several time with Wikipedia in which a claim is made and cited and then when you read the linked citation the original claim is wrong or inaccurate. The article cited says that Madonna's son was baptized in the Church of Scotland by a woman priest. Although she was raised Catholic, clearly she did not have her son baptized in that same Church and the Wiki article is misleading. (Muckrake (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Confirmation Name

I have placed Madonna's confirmation name (Veronica) back into the article. It has always been included with Madonna's name (in press releases, biographies, etc.) since 1987. Note: Her confirmation name was chosen by her mother when Madonna was 2, that is why she has a personal connection to it. She did not choose it in her teens as one editor suggests. Alkclark (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - Not moved - clearly opposed by most editors. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal was to move Madonna (entertainer) to Madonna

Madonna (entertainer) is viewed almost 20 times as often as the Madonna, Mary (mother of Jesus). When people go to Wikipedia to look up Madonna (entertainer) they should not have to go through a disambig page 100% of the time when 95% of the time they are looking for this page. After all she did sell 200 million albums. Add For the Madonna see Mary (mother of Jesus). For other uses of Madonna see Madonna (disambiguation) at the top. There are over 5 times as many links to Madonna (entertainer) than there to Mary (mother of Jesus), including over 100 to Madonna, with all of those intending to point to the entertainer. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this is a good illustration that hit-counts don't determine primary use. This has been discussed numerous times in the past: see Talk:Madonna. Sam Staton (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And what does, in your mind, establish WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? The guidelines there say either links or consensus of editors ("this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings"). Madonna (the singer) wins on both counts. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And where is the consensus of the editors of those articles? older ≠ wiser 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you are joking. "Significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings" is patently obvious from the page view stats. Madonna (entertainer) was viewed 406,460 times in March 2008, Mary (mother of Jesus) 20,035 times. No one, even you, can dispute that Madonna (entertainer) is significantly more commonly searched for and read. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not joking. Clearly you do not understand WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. It says nothing about page views. There is nothing at all "patently obvious" about using an unproven statistical tool as the sole measure for determining primary topic status. Everything depends on consensus. If the title of the article is an actual problem, then why are you the only person supporting the move? And indeed, so far as I can tell, there has never been any serious proposal to move the article about the entertainer to the undisambiguated title. Sometime WP:COMMONSENSE is more important that using unimportant statistical measures to bolster misinterpretations of guidelines. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See below. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This has already been discussed at lenght at Talk:Madonna. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - This is not a fan site, it is an encyclopaedia and I guarantee you, 19 of every 20th more person looking for the singer will be a fan. They should have to go through a disambiguation page. After all, Mary did give birth to the most important human figure in the most followed religion in the history of the world. There are over five times as much emphasis of importance to Mary's prevalence in history than that of Madonna (entertainer). 76.167.156.93 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the guideline is to make this encyclopedia useful. Making someone click on a disambig page instead of getting to the page they are looking for is not helpful. In 10 or 20 years when no one remembers the singer and page views and links drop to a majority looking for the Madonna you can move it back. Right now 20 times as many people are interested in reading about the singer than about Mary. I wouldn't even object if you moved it back when only 2 times as many are still looking for the singer. Don't be cruel. Guidelines are written for a reason. Use them. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the guideline is to make the encyclopaedia useful. Yet, we have to make someone click on a disambig page instead of getting to the page they are looking for such as the Virgin Mary. FYI, we're not asking permission to keep the article where it is so it's not as if we're negotiating when we are going to move it back. Right now, 20x as many people are interested in reading about the Virgin Mary for research purposes and the ones looking for the singer are looking for a fan site. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Things that are most relevant to the context will be dealt with using the most emphasis. Don't be cruel. Guidelines are written for a reason. Use them. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, an exemplary case for why such solisistic data like page views, without other supporting external data or rationale, is relatively useless for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Solisistic isn't a word. Did you mean "definitive"? And why would any external data or rationale be relevant? All we are talking about is making Wikipedia easier to use by the largest number of people. Historical importance is totally irrelevant. All I care about is making Wikipedia easier to use. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Meant solipsistic. External data is the only thing that is actually relevant. In much the same way that we cannot use wikipedia articles as sources for other articles, it is foolhardy to attempt to use Wikipedia page views as a gauge for primary topic status. At the very best it can only be a very poor indicator, and without any supporting external data or rationale is meaningless. older ≠ wiser 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See now you are speaking as if you were the Pope or someone. Of course to some people Mary is more important than Madonna, but the issue is not who is more important (you might not even find anyone who thought that Madonna was more important than Mary), but which article are more people reading and how can we make it easier for them to find it. Nothing else matters. The issue is not what is the primary topic status "in your mind", but what is the primary usage, which is easily measured by counting page views, and nothing else matters. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Say what? I actually care little about either. The issue is that "Madonna" is unequivocally an ambiguous title and except for you, no one thinks the simple title should be other than a disambiguation page. Oh, and a primary topic is not determined by counting page views. Never has been, and until there is some consensus about whether the data provided by the stats tool is meaningul, it should not be considered as the sole factor for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why does the move come up so often? Obviously a lot of others have noticed that it's a problem. And I probably care less than you about either subject, just for the record. My only concern is to make Wikipedia more efficient. Page views did not become available until recently, but the guideline has always been "more commonly searched for and read" - doesn't that sound just a teeny bit like "page views" to you? 199.125.109.105 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC) By the way, I fail to see any "discussion", only edit warring.[1] 199.125.109.105 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An idiosyncratic conception of efficiency is not the primary goal of disambiguation. The primary guidance has always been that when there is a significant question about what a term refers to is should be a disambiguation page. This has always been (and always should be) a matter for discussion and consensus and not a simplistic counting of page views. older ≠ wiser 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the primary goal is simply to insure that everyone can find the article that they are looking for. In the case where there is a primary usage, that name is used for the article name and (disambiguation) is used as the disambiguation page. Where there is no primary usage the name is used as the disambiguation. Such is not the case for Madonna, where there is clearly a primary usage. However, in 10 or 20 years (or longer) no one will remember the singer and so if you want you can use Madonna as a redirect to Madonna (entertainer). 199.125.109.105 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are making the claim that the entertainer should be the primary topic for the term "Madonna". So far, no one agrees with you. And that is because despite the popularity of the entertainer, the consensus is that the term is inherently ambiguous and no one topic should be at the the simple title. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more political than that. Obviously some people can't bear the thought of Madonna redirecting to the singer, even though that is the most logical conclusion. Now try writing a rule for that one. In the absence of such a rule, existing guidelines dictate using Madonna for the singer. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what "the rules" say. The guidelines indicate that consensus determines when a primary topic is appropriate. Mechanistic counts of links or page views or google hits are bits of information that can be used in discussion, but such info is merely fodder for consideration and do not overrule consensus. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Madonna should be a dab page. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Firstly, some of the discussion on this topic has not been constructive. Our personal thoughts on the importance of one person or another is not the basis for wikipedia construction. It should be remembered that the primary criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, as I don't think we need to spend time arguing who is more notable. Where a term has multiple notable meanings, it should be a disambiguation page. I know there are heaps of pages on wikipedia that go direct to one use and reference the other, but this is more because of the order of when articles were created rather than any consistent policy. JKW111 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rightful owner of the name Madonna is the Virgin Mary. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I would like to thank everyone for at least participating in this discussion, although I admit that it was more an issue of Spock logic vs. Yuck factor in making the decision. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

[2] isn't this picture good for introduction in the article? Alecsdaniel (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) © All rights reserved. Ultra! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

Did Madonna act in any films before? She had a minor role in Bond film Die Another Day does that warrant a Filmography section? -Spansign (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)