Jump to content

Talk:Madonna (album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Infobox

Before changing the infobox on this (or any other album article), please achieve consenses at WP:ALBUM and Template talk:Album infobox. Thanks. Jkelly 01:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes to certifications and sales numbers

Please if you are going to change certifications or sales number show where you got this information from. I have gotten all of these numbers from reliable sources and trust them. If you know they are wrong please show where you got your information from. Thanks. Underneath-it-All 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales as of December 2007

Madonna Has sold over 9,500,000 worldwide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.214.150 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide sales are quoted as 8 million as per references. If you know of another "official" verified reference that specifies otherwise, please discuss it here - but please do not edit just because you think so. Same with your constant edits on the Madonna Discography. Otherwise it is just vandalism 60.234.242.196 (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


according to goldmine fifth edition to collectible record albums, AND the lp i have in my hand , 

first press "madonna" has a 4:48 version of burning up. madonna 23867 vinyl.

later pressings have a remixed 3:41 version of "burning up". easily verified . however if you dont include it such as the band "heart" does about thier pressings . i know the truth so its up to you to be thorough . if no one else knows its still the way it is. first press madonna lp 23867 have a 4:48 version of a different mix , burning up. thanks peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.173.32 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternate covers

What are people's opinions on not keeping or keeping the alternate covers and commentaries shown in this revision of the article?--Rockfang (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Inorder for an alternate cover to be kept in the articles they need to be discussed and not just used to for showing purposes. Even if they are present in commentary, having them as unsourced content clearly violates Wikipedia's rule of verifiability, hence such covers fails WP:NFCC#8. This is the case in this article. If source can be provided for the commentary added, it can definitely go back. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out in one of my edit summaries, they are being discussed.--Rockfang (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
But they are unsourced. How is anybody supposed to know whether its true or not? As I also pointed out earlier, as unsourced content clearly violates Wikipedia's rule of verifiability. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Forget I even said anything.--Rockfang (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think 'The First Album' cover should be shown. To make a complete change of album cover is definitely worth noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrub inc (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Lucky Star as an album title

I think it might be worth mentioning that the album's title was changed very late as European 7" pressings of the 'Burning Up' single feature the text 'From the album Lucky Star' on the reverse.

90.202.31.245 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Source? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Dutch 7" for Burning Up and its reverse.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250596249957&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrub inc (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Third World Film

There is a film with Madonna, who narrates, and have not seen much mentioned about it. There is mentioned how happy some of the people are in these places, despite hunger and poverty. There should be productions created with some of their stories and beliefs. Otherwise, it seems, "The Passion", is the most work of anyone from Hollywood.75.202.72.94 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but how is this related to this article? — Legolas (talk2me) 11:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

This user (ItsAlwaysLupus) keeps on adding genres of dance-pop, pop-rock and others sourcing Allmusic when it has been the general consensus that AMG lists an overall genre for an artist, and generally do not represent an artist's specific work. See extensive discussion regarding this at Talk:Circus (song). — Legolas (talk2me) 12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AMG

Let me spell something out for one problematic user. This user claims that "not to use AMG to source genres, as they list overall genres for an artist, not an indivitual work". This statement would be true if the genres listed on Artist's page were identical to the listed genres on this album, which obviously are not. Do all albums list the same genres as the disputer claims? The answer is obvious, hope the user finds out. I hope the disputer will consider that his opinion is not a fact but a baseless claim and even "Any user using them should be trout slapped even when explained." can't be considered as a serious argument but a hateful claim of a person with prejudice against this particular website. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If you still think that is not enough, please consider asking here
It says on WP:ALBUMAVOID that it should be avoided. "Biography/reviews are fine, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose." The prose -- the main body of the article -- is reliable. The sidebar is automatically generated, most likely from Amazon, and not reliable. 115.164.53.217 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Disco?!

I would love to know what the justification for classifying this album as 'Disco' is (before I edit the box). The Real One Returns (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Dissonance

Why is someone calling the album "dissonant" in the article? There's nothing dissonant about it. I'm guessing that whoever wrote that doesn't actually know what "dissonance" refers to. It doesn't appear to be sourced anywhere, either. It appears to simply be the Wikipedia author's opinion based on whatever odd definition of "dissonance" they had in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.9.239 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on "Madonna – The First Album" image

I added a second "alternative cover" to this page with the cover to the 1985 re-release of Madonna, known as Madonna – The First Album. This version of the album (outside of North America) was the only one available from 1985 until the remastered version surfaced in 2001. I cannot see why this image cannot be used as it is mentioned in several places on the page, the image and typography is completely different and it is relevant to displaying the difference in both album covers.

Please comment whether or not you would Support or Oppose that this second image should be used below.

Consensus

Where did the second cover go?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Genre

This genre was all dance, disco and R&B. She was famous for her first album being those genres (98.181.62.167 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

I agree. The fact that she was being portrayed as a black artist by appealing to more urban music only reinforces this (72.219.42.115 (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

Madonna: The First Album image

I am afraid that omitting the alternate cover is a mistake. There was a prior consensus to favor addition of the image. I can't let "ownership" take over this article. If you have a problem, I still advise you to nominate it for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a consensus only if it passes WP:NFCC, which it does not. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's your interpretation, not mine. The image was widely distributed outside America. Also, ...Baby One More Time (album) is doing the same. --George Ho (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Your interpretation then fails to comply with WP:NFCC#3a ma'dear. Any image, not significantly different from the original one included, must not be included in any article when one of them would suffice for identification purpose. In this case, both image of a blond woman's bust, with black bangles in hand, and the same words written across. The only difference I find is the color. I'm not at all against using multiple images, I like Madonna's article MDNA where it is used. In those cases along with the NFCC, the images are discussed also. Can you find me any analysis of the cover art? The new one I mean. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope this discussion helps. --George Ho (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I don't see a prior consensus either way, and the FfD linked to closed as no consensus. My opinion is that the covers are different enough (the different wording in particular, "Madonna Madonna" vs "Madonna the first album") that it passes WP:NFCC#3A. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
What about WP:NFCC#8? --George Ho (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It increases international readers' understanding of the topic, who are familiar with that cover and not the other cover. Were this not the case, the primary cover would also fail #8. (Above question moved from my talk page; please keep discussion on this matter here) Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
From what I've read, the American cover is used for 2001 and later re-releases of the album worldwide. --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I re-add the image now? --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Though I don't see a problem with the image, my advice would be to wait for IndianBio (talk · contribs) to respond before re-adding it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know; if I wait too long, the image will be tagged as orphaned and then deleted. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a minimum 7-day waiting period between being tagged as orphaned and it being eligible for deletion. If there's no reply in almost 7 days, then go ahead and restore it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Can the correct information possibly be one and for all updated to reflect ACCURATE run time for FIRST US pressings?

As mentioned in a topic below, which has a heading in regard to worldwide sales and goes on to mention the running time of Burring Up:

I can certainly agree with the comments which mentions the 4:48 version on TRUE FIRST presses of the original album in the US and not only in the UK. Since my experience as a record store owner, seller, collector, for nearly 20 years makes no difference and cannot be verified. Here is a link to the most widely used and foremost online database which CLEARLY shows it is available and was pressed...matter of factly there are several for sale right now, I have seen many copies myself and currently have 2 in my collection, one of which is sealed. yes you can tell which version even if it has not been opened. Here is the link to the main LP (first US press)

http://www.discogs.com/Madonna-Madonna/release/2897713

and here are even pictures of the label showing the track time itself...pretty sure anyone with an true knowledge of vinyl LPs can easily see this IS NOT a UK pressing by the label.

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2897713

Its not like a 50+ year old one of a kind Beatles acetate recording, it is simply not that rare in the scheme of things and this error should have never happened, much less have gone on this long without an actual correction. But maybe even with eh above proof it still won't be enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.128.15 (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant images

The images in Background, Chart performance, and Singles are irrelevant to the content. They show relatively recent concert photos of Madonna performing tracks from this album but really she could be singing anything and they do not illustrate the article in any way. --Duncantoms (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed. It's like there is an embargo against earlier pictures. 2006, 2008, 2015 pictures to illustrate an album from 1983? Seems rather odd. Shenme (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Making of album cover

—Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Madonna (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 22:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This issue has been debated very extensively in the past, and the result of it can be found at WP:PDAB. I have no objection if someone wants to bring this up at village pump again. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Madonna (Madonna album) → Madonna (album) – Primary topic, common name and concise. An album by Madonna titled Madonna is more likely to be about this one than anything else. The duplication of her name is completely unnecessary and sounds unnatural. Alternatively this can be renamed Madonna: The First Album. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If the album was the primary topic, it would simply be at Madonna. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the primary topic for albums called Madonna, not for the Madonna term. — JFG talk 08:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Support Primary topic. This title album is not ambiguous like Thriller, Love that everybody can use. Madonna is a term or name popular by herself. Even if there is other albums named Madonna is also, thanks to her. Chrishonduras (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and suggest and RfC of some kind on partial disambiguation. Personally I'm of the mind that it is nonsensical. (album) implies the only one of its kind, which it clearly isn't. When something isn't the primary topic, no harm is brought on by it being precisely disambiguated. MelanieLamont (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewording: "Hefty affair"

" Due to the restrained budget, the recording was a hefty affair as Madonna could not understand Kamins' directions and Kamins himself faced problems directing." This sentence in the "Background" section needs to be rewritten for clarity of meaning. Any suggestions?----Design (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes absolutely and I have changed it with this edit here. See if this makes it suitable. —IB [ Poke ] 04:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. ----Design (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Madonna (Madonna album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinions Masquerading As Fact...

Very concerned that the likes of AllMusic are quoted in the opening paragraphs as "fact" with no links. Also, the author who wrote about "mid-70s Elton John" being an influence. As Elton John's music in the 1970s often harked back to the 1950s and 1960s what on earth does this mean? We really do need a broader range of links and information here. Madonna's early hits were much more synth and funk than Disco. Listen to any Disco track from the mid-1970s to 1980 and compare. At this point, we had moved on from Disco. It may hurt 21st Century Disco lovers to acknowledge that fact, but is true. Disco took a lot from previous genres and did not invent the wheel. "Dance pop" was and is not Disco. It has Discos influences, but as Disco is not a pure genre that sprang fresh from the ground ready-formed either, too much should not be made of that fact. To say Madonna's first album was "Disco", as was originally stated in the article, is absurd. Fine to quote AllMusic later with the link, as happens in the article. Their opinions are their opinions.

(81.131.159.153 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC))

Requested move 1 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A proposal to ignore policies and guidelines in a particular case needs overwhelming support, which this does not have. (closed by page mover) Bradv 03:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Madonna (Madonna album) → Madonna (album) – The repeated "Madonna" in the disambiguation of this title is clearly redundant, serves no purpose, is totally unnecessary and is, frankly, stupid looking. WP:PDAB was rejected as a guideline; it's an essay, and rightfully so. Yes, I'm aware of the previous discussion and outcome, as well as dearth of policy-based arguments favoring the current embarrassing title in that discussion. The blind-following of short-sighted rules and conventions that obviously should not apply in this case and miss the big picture is no excuse. That discussion was over a year ago, and even it established that this topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Madonna (album) (it is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article). This time, let's not ignore WP:COMMONSENSE ("Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule") and fix this abomination, once and for all. Shall we? В²C ☎ 18:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 01:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Your statement of "it is totally unnecessary" is clearly wrong, and in fact Madonna (album) should actually be redirecting to Madonna#Albums and EPs, of which there are 2 other than this one. The repetition of the name is humorous, but it serves an encyclopedic purpose and would be more confusing if reduced to 'album'.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Claiming it serves an encyclopedic purpose does not make it so. The other two albums named Madonna are by obscure bands, and page view counts on those articles are decimated by this one, on the order of 50 to 1. There is no reason for the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to not apply in situations like this. The notion that we should not have so-called partial disambiguations, for encyclopedic purposes or otherwise, was rejected by the community - see WP:PDAB. Please pay heed to, and respect, this community decision. --В²C ☎ 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
      • A disambiguation is necessary no matter how popular an article is. Relative popularity should not factor into making disambiguations bigger or smaller. There is no practical purpose to removing the "Madonna" other than to satisfy your desire for the article title to "look better", and indeed it introduces more uncertainty by suggesting it is the sole album named "Madonna". I for one think this "community exception" business is riduclous, but if more people offer consensus to the contrary then so be it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, your view, that relative popularity should not factor in such cases, was rejected in the proposal to make WP:PDAB a guideline. Yes, the proposed title may suggest that this is the sole album named "Madonna", but this concern too is rejected by the very concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Paris, for example, suggests it's the only topic named "Paris". The community does not have a problem with that, and it does not have a problem with possibly suggesting a particular topic is the only topic in a given area (like albums) - that's the unavoidable effect of having primary topics whether they are entirely undisambiguated or partially disambiguated. --В²C ☎ 21:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLE/WP:CRITERIA, WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and WP:Naming conventions (music). There is another album Madonna (...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead album). Also as Zxcvbnm says the redirect (album) should be heading to the dab page. No page links to it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    @In ictu oculi: leaving aside the guidelines and rules pages for a second, do you disagree with the nominator's assertion that The repeated "Madonna" in the disambiguation of this title is clearly redundant, serves no purpose, is totally unnecessary and is, frankly, stupid looking? Because that's really what's at the heart of this. Reader experience. And personally I think "Madonna (album)" does the job far better than "Madonna (Madonna album)". We're here to give our readers the best experience, not just to honour guidelines in situations where they don't make sense. Please explain to me why this point of view is wrong. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    If that's the heart of the problem, in the discussion below there are several ways to fix it with other parenthetical disambiguators that don't involve abusing the idea of "primary topic" to include a partially disambiguated title; this is not needed here. Diego (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    Of course I disagree, yes. There are hundreds of self titled albums in exactly the same situation. There is nothing remotely stupid about it In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, so if someone writes a novel entitled Gone with the Wind then the original's article would have to be Gone with the Wind (Mitchell novel)? The Madonna album is clearly the primary album, and since Madonna by itself can't be used, then the simple descriptor 'album' should be on this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: you mean like the 1896 novel Inferno (novel) used to mean by Strindberg until Dan Brown released a novel of the same name and it moved to (Strindberg novel)? Sure, of course per WP:INCDAB we would add Mitchell yes, since we couldn't simultaneously have (novel) and (someone else novel) articles according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). I think the likelihood of anyone writing a notable book with a title as distinctive as Gone with Wind is rather unlikely, but if John Grisham did the Mitchell novel would require (Mitchell novel), naturally. Same with (footballer) (film) or any dab. Why not? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a primary album policy, AFAIK.
Parenthetical disambiguation for the term "Madonna" should take into account all articles that share that word as their title, not just the albums. It's OK that Madonna (album) links to the adecuate section in the DAB page, though. Diego (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per multiple results at Madonna#Albums and EPs. We require precision in this case. I would Support Madonna (self-titled album). -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per what I said last year (I still oppose partial disambiguation in all forms). Nohomersryan (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Just curious - why are you fine (presumably) with an unadorned title like Paris for articles about the primary topic of an ambiguous unadorned name like "Paris", but oppose titles for articles about the primary topics of ambiguous titles that include parenthetical descriptors like Madonna (album)? What objection applies to the latter but not the former? Frankly, no solid answer to this question is why WP:PDAB failed to be accepted as a guideline. --В²C ☎ 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
      Exactly. This "opposition to partial disambiguation in all forms" is based on a desire to put rules and logic ahead of reader interest, and it flouts WP:5P5, as well as common sense.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed as ambiguous. Madonna has multiple albums. Support Madonna (debut album) or Madonna (1983 album). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't much care despite my finding the style of the nomination repellent – the disambiguation works for me under either title . Under its present title I think the hatnote "for other albums of the same name" is unnecessary but under the proposed title it would be required. Thincat (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Hatnotes are de facto admissions that the title is inadequate, fails PRECISE, fails RECOGNIZABILITY (or its flipside MISRECOGNIZABILTY). Longer titles are far less reader unfriendly than hatnotes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      • SmokeyJoe, if "hatnotes are de facto admission that the title is inadequate, fails PRECISE, etc.", then we should not have ambiguous titles even for WP:PRIMARYTOPICs. Is that your position? Because every PRIMARYTOPIC article has a hatnote, and arguably fails PRECISE, etc. by the standard you seem to be suggesting should be followed here. If your position is based on the broader position that we should not have articles at any ambiguous titles, even for PRIMARYTOPIC articles, then please be explicit about that, because you're essentially arguing longtime policy and convention should be ignored (and presumably changed). If not, then please explain how "hatnotes are a de facto admission that the title is inadequate, ..." in some cases but not in others. --В²C ☎ 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
        • "We should not have ambiguous titles even for WP:PRIMARYTOPICs". Yes. NYC for example. New York City should not be at "New York" even though it is the primary topic for New York.
"Because every PRIMARYTOPIC article has a hatnote, and arguably fails PRECISE, etc". Is that true? every PRIMARYTOPIC? Or just PrimaryTopics for which there exist other pretenders?
There are more hatnotes than I think is healthy. Many hatnotes result from PRIMARYREDIRECTs that could better point to a DAB page.
"If your position is based on the broader position that we should not have articles at any ambiguous titles, even for PRIMARYTOPIC articles"?
Not sure where you are leading me. There are degrees of PRIMARTOPICNESS. You, for example, are very quick to assert that something is a PRIMARYTOPIC, I am much more hesitant, but agree with many cases.
There is a lot of longtime policy and convention still at play that I think is very dubious. I prefer to approach titling questions from the perspective of readers. I concluded long ago, as you noticed, that I think a great many titles are too brief, and that "concise" is not achieved by removing information, and that there is the important concept of "sufficiently concise". I opposed quite strongly your extreme titling minimalism in particular, and I think you moderated your position. Still, much of the documentation and convention remains of mistakes made years ago in minimising title lengths.
In this case, the hatnotes are helping people who arriving looking for Madonna and her albums generally. They are not helpful for people looking for the 1983 album. Readers would be less likely to arrive at the unwanted article if the title indicated more clearly that it was a specific album, and which one.
"please explain how "hatnotes are a de facto admission that the title is inadequate, ..." in some cases but not in others".
It's a generalisation. I think it deserves further consideration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, EVERY primary topic article has a hatnote (to PrimaryTopicTitle (disambiguation)). If it doesn't, then it's either not an ambiguous title and therefore can't be a primary topic article, or it's an error needing correction (by way of a hatnote). If you don't realize this, that explains much. I don't know what you mean by a pretender. The community disagrees with you about the topic of New York City being the primary topic for "New York", so that's a bad example. Whether a given topic is a primary topic is a separate issue from whether there should be a hatnote on the article if it is a primary topic. We're only talking about the latter question here, so whether we disagree on how often primary topics occur, that's beside the point. Let me make it simple for you: are you okay with the hatnote at Paris? Are there any articles that you agree are the primary topic for its title that you think should not have a hatnote? Can you give even one example? --В²C ☎ 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe: over 24 hours and still not a single example of a primary topic that you think should not have a hatnote? How do you reconcile that with your position, which underlies your opposition to this proposal, that "hatnotes are a de facto admission that the title is inadequate, ..."? --В²C ☎ 23:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
If the title Paris, France would mean that the article could have the hatnotes removed, that would be a reason to use that title. However, I see, with a little surprise, that all three disambiguated Mercurys have hatnotes. I find it perplexing that people like you like ultra clean titles, but are not bothered by the hatnote distractions. I still argue that a hatnote is a defacto admission that the title is inadequate, specifically that it is prone to be misrecognised. The hatnote serves to rescue readers who downloaded but did not want that page. Madonna (album) is definitely in that class. Madonna (album) could well be misrecognised by readers interested in Madonna and her albums, but not knowledgeable of her very early works. If the title were Madonna (1983 album), it would not need a hatnote pointing to Madonna#Music (what a terrible destination, Madonna_(entertainer)#Discography would be much better), because anyone looking for her discography generally would not be tempted to jump to a title including the year 1983. Similarly, if it included "debut" or "self-titled", though I think "1983" provides the most relevant information in the least space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no question that Paris is ambiguous and therefore arguably "inadequate" as a title. But the question is how best to manage this inadequacy. Even if we move the article to Paris, France we would still need the hatnote if Paris was a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it. The only way to remove the hatnote is to put Paris (disambiguation) at Paris - but that would cause every single person searching with "Paris", or ending up at the dab page at Paris for some reason, to have to load that dab page skim through it, find the city, and click on that. The community has decided that the better compromise is to put the article about the most likely topic being sought at the disambiguous title. Yes, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a compromise, resulting in "inadequate" titles if you insist, but no matter what we do with ambiguous titles it will be an inadequate compromise. The community decided long ago, and reconfirmed numerous times, that ambiguous titles that have primary topics can be titles or at least WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs when there is another title for that article that meets WP:CRITERIA even better (e.g, New York, New York is a primary redirect to New York City). In this case this article is the primary topic for Madonna (album) and Madonna (album) is the title that meets WP:CRITERIA better than any other title for this article. --В²C ☎ 18:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an agreeable logic to that. If we are going to guess that a reader wants Paris with high probability, won't be astonished to land there, we set things up to send them straight there, and then have the hatnote to catch the few who didn't want that. I don't think this applies to this topic. Someone searching for "Madonna album" will be better served by being sent to Madonna_(entertainer)#Discography, or arguably Madonna#Music. Someone searching for the 1983 album would benefit from having "1983" in the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
But we're not talking about anyone searching with "Madonna album" - we're talking about users searching with "Madonna (album)". Anyone searching with that, or linking with that, will almost certainly be looking for, or expecting, this album. Certainly nobody should be astonished to land here from a search for "Madonna (album)" or a click on Madonna (album). This article's topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Madonna (album) and this topic is abundantly recognizable from that concise title. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No one searches for “Madonna (album)”, no normal reader. Only a Wikipedia editor could think these parenthetical things are normal. But people would search for “Madonna album”, and Madonna (album) if it were an article title would feature prominently. It would be too misrecognisable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Just because no one besides WP wonks searches for "Madonna (album)" (much less "Madonna (Madonna album)") does not make searches for "Madonna album" any more relevant to deciding the primary topic for Madonna (album) than searches for "Prius sundaes". We disagree that Madonna (album) is misrecognizable. In any case, Madonna album, the topmost/prominent result when searching for "Madonna album", is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article and would remain so if this move is made, so the point is moot. If you want to discuss where those users are sent, that's a discussion for Talk:Madonna album, not here or this proposal. --В²C ☎ 18:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it is relevant. Titles are not primarily for search purposes. Good search engines, which currently excludes the search box text autosuggested completions if you have a good device and connect, use the page text, and a lot of other information like incoming links to that page and past searchers behaviours. Titling to adjust to your perceptions of one clumsy method of article search is not a good idea, but more of a PERFORMANCE issue. If the search box autocompletion gets it wrong, tell the developers if you think they don't already know. No, there are many methods of searching, like google, or navigating, like using categories or navigation templates or simply wikilinks on pages you are browsing, where the title is the primary text for human recognition. Someone looking for "Madonna's albums" will be too easily tempted by "Madonna (album)". Wikipedia is known for an aversion to the "s", the casual reader may partially misunderstand. Your suggested "Madonna (album)" is worse than the current "Madonna (Madonna album)" because it looks less weird. I agree with you that the current is weird, silly looking, but disagree with the proposed. My considered support is for Madonna (1983 album), with Madonna (self-titled album) acknowledged as receiving more support and being OK and better than the current. If so moved, which I recommend, I think Madonna album and Madonnna (album) should be retargeted to Madonna_(entertainer)#Discography. I don't think a formal discussion is required, as it averages less than one page view per day and has no incoming links. Also, no one really cares about the 1983 album unless they are already an old Madonna fanatic and such a person is already over-familiar with the subject. This old album would be more often a mishit for people looking for later works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It might be relevant to title decision making; it's not relevant to primary topic determination for Madonna (album). For primary topic determination we only look at likelihood of this topic being sought by someone using that title as a search term (regardless of how unlikely it would be used in a search, or by whom). --В²C ☎ 00:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"PrimaryTopic" of subtopics already disambiguated is a flawed concept, and quite controversial, the conversation you are already well engaged with. You use the term "we" overly freely. "Madonna (album)" as an exact search term is a concept that is even more silly than the current title. For titling, recognisability and misrecognisability are very important, and your proposed title is too misrecognisable as a page related to the entertainer's most recent album, for example. Adding "1983" adds important recognisable information that increases concision with increased length. Tangential arguments about PrimaryTopics for disambiguated titles I fear will distract this discussion from the point that the proposed title is too ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
But whether this topic is primary for the proposed title is key to determining whether being "too ambiguous" should keep us from choosing it as a title. When deciding whether a given topic is primary, ambiguity is a given; total ambiguity, in fact. Saturn, for example, has dozens of uses, including the well-known car brand, but never-the-less we have a primary topic article at Saturn. It's not only "too ambiguous", it's totally ambiguous, and yet we find it fully appropriate for a title. There are thousands of "too ambiguous" titles on WP. Being "too ambiguous" is no reason to not be a title, if there is a primary topic.

The search likelihood test is a tool for determining primary topic - it does not matter whether the term being tested is actually a likely search term. Don't get hung up on that. It's equally important that a link to it goes to where it can be reasonably expected to go - for [[Madonna (album)]] that would be to this article. So what we're trying to determine is whether a topic "belongs" with the term, compared to other uses of that term. I don't think anyone can deny that of the three potential uses for "Madonna (album)", this one is clearly primary compared to the two other uses.

Now, being the primary topic of a term does not establish that that term should be the title of that topic's article; after all a given topic might be primary for a number of terms, and only one can be the title. In this case I think it's obvious that this article's topic is primary for the proposed title (supported by it's longstanding use as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article). That alone does not mean it should be the title, but the point is that we cannot reject it for not being the primary topic (nor for not being a likely search term). Like any other primary topic title, it is not absolutely precise, but since it far more likely to be associated with this topic then the other uses, it's a more than acceptable as a title; it is not too imprecise by WP standards established by the community. So it's an acceptable title, and it's clearly more concise and less stupid looking than the current title; therefore it's preferable. I hope you followed that. --В²C ☎ 02:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I follow. I don’t agree. Madonna (album) should NOT be the title of this article. That title, if it must exist, should redirect to Madonna#Music. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Normally the presence of multiple albums by the same name would mean including the artist/band name in the parenthetical disambiguator, but WP:ALBUMDAB recognizes that there will be certain exceptions. It's abundantly obvious that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Madonna (album)" is the debut album of one of the world's most famous singers, making it a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The other two albums at Madonna#Albums_and_EPs simply are not comparable: one is an album that did not chart, while the other, while it apparently did go platinum in India (and thus might merit inclusion in a hatnote before a DAB link), largely comprises covers of Madonna songs and does not have the same cultural impact. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. As B2C says above, the community expressly rejected the proposal to make WP:PDAB a guideline, therefore it does not apply, and any opposes that rely on it are not founded in policy or guideline. There is simply no benefit to readers in maintaining the current title, and it makes us look silly frankly, to have this comical title on a technicality, given the massive preponderence of page views over any other similar album.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per music naming conventions, to avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:IAR doesn't seem to apply, since the current title is working. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • So a title has to "not work" in order for IAR to apply? What is a title that "does not work"? That's an impossible standard which renders IAR inapplicable in all title decisions. Besides, the music naming conventions themselves contradict community consensus on this issue. --В²C ☎ 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Ignoring the rules has to improve the encyclopedia. Since the qualifier qualifies the title (gets around the technical limitation that makes qualifiers necessary in the first place) and is consistent with the project naming conventions, right, this works. Rather than ask me, it's up to you to answer Why does this title "not work"? Why would going against the broader consensus naming conventions improved the encyclopedia here? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
        • First, I disagree with your premise that the proposed title violates any naming conventions. Second, even if it did technically violate some convention, what's wrong with the current title is that the parenthetic disambiguation is redundant and unnecessary, except for technical compliance with said convention. It would be the ideal application of IAR. --В²C ☎ 18:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The Madonna album was the first with that name, and also why repeat her name twice?! I think if someone see the "Madonna (album)" in the search, they will immediately understand what it is about.--88marcus (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Patar knight: @88marcus: because both the guidelines say so. We repeat the name of the album due to (1) WP:INCDAB in cases like Avalon (Roxy Music album), to Avalon (Avalon album) or H2O (H2O album) vs H2O (Hall & Oates album) All Saints (All Saints album) vs All Saints (David Bowie album). WP:INCDAB is a longstanding guideline bearing on all articles. (2) WP:Naming conventions (music) confirms that WP:INCDAB is done by artist. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that's the whole point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - to use ambiguous titles from which the topic is recognizable due to the notoriety of the topic. Some people seem to think we should not have ambiguous titles, even for primary topics, but they are in a minority. Then there is the view, which seems peculiar to me, that accepts ambiguous titles for primary topics, unless the title is partially disambiguated, like the proposed title here. The essence of that argument, as I understand it, is that the purpose of disambiguation is to disambiguate, and partial disambiguation is not disambiguation. Well, sure, but the whole point of primary topics is to use ambiguous titles whose topics are sufficiently well recognized to not require disambiguation. Why that should apply to ambiguous titles without parentheses but should not apply to titles with parentheses is beyond me. --В²C ☎ 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That is because the parentheses are not part of the name of the topic, but a navigational device originating from Wikipedia customs. That makes them different to Paris or Paris, France, which are both natural names for the topic described in that primary article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Multiple albums with this title. If the album itself was the primary topic, it would be at Madonna. I suspect most users navigate to this article either a) through the singer's page b) through her discog page c) through a navbox from album to album or d) from the disambig page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Lugnuts, no one is claiming the album is the primary topic for Madonna - the basis of the move is that this album is the primary topic for Madonna (album), and that partially disambiguated titles like this can be titles of articles, per the rejection of WP:PDAB to be elevated from essay to guideline, and the current title is unnecessarily redundant. --В²C ☎ 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @Born2cycle: - I think I see the problem. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply to specific styles of disambiguation. PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline that applies only to which topic belongs at the non-disambiguated main title. -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
        • @Netoholic:, I don't think so. That notion was specifically rejected in the attempt to make WP:PDAB a guideline (it remains an essay). I'm not the only one who has overlooked WP:INCDAB which contradicts that result. That needs to be rectified. The reasoning for treating partial (or incomplete) still-ambiguous terms like Madonna (album) which have primary topics (Madonna's album named Madonna) relative to other uses of that same term differently from plain ambiguous terms of primary topics (like Paris) doesn't exist. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Netoholic, if you look at the original discussion preceding the inclusion of [[WP:INCDAB]] you will see that it applies specifically to "pages on Wikipedia that have "incomplete" parenthetical disambiguation and no clear primary topic". Unfortunately, that qualification did not make it into the text that was actually inserted, however the failed effort to make WP:PDAB a guideline, along with incomplete disambiguations of primary topics that are accepted as titles, like Lost (TV series), demonstrate where community consensus is on this issue. --В²C ☎ 19:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A net benefit for readers. feminist 15:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Feminist: so are you then supporting Smokey Joe's alternative proposal? Because the move as proposed obviously increases confusion for both Madonna and those looking for the other albums? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This only looks redundant, until one checks to see how many other albums there are named Madonna. The premise is faulty; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only applies to the base name, not to a disambiguated name (despite a tiny handful of WP:FALSECONSENSUS RMs that have closed to the contrary; they're weird blips, like honest politicians, or gay communists in the US Marine Corp).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The notion that primary topic applies only to base names was explicitly REJECTED when supporters of that notion failed to elevate WP:PDAB frome an essay to a guideline. As a result, there is no basis in policy, guideline or convention for the notion that primary topic only applies to base names. --В²C ☎ 22:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Having now read those discussion, I see you overstate the case. "explicitly REJECTED" is an overstatement. It was may more complicated, with a strong sense of the answer not being absolute in either direction. It was not agreed that all partially disambiguated titles must be fully disambiguated. This does not mean that many partially disambiguated titles would not be better titles if better disambiguated. I support a move to something else, opposing the current largely because "it looks silly, word repetition should be avoided", but I agree with SMcCandlish, the RM nomination is built upon a faulty premise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Too many point of views and interpretations about the policies. Some of them can easily support the move request and I don't see any problem. This is probably the first album called "Madonna" (and the most mainstream) and after it, the others are references to the singer. So, we can use a template like "other uses" for the others one. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 01:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • At this point I count 10 opposes, 10 wanting to stick with WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and WP:Naming conventions (music), and 5 supports. This RM clearly has not gained consensus to make this album an exception to the guidelines and does not need be relisted for further comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Madonna (album) is not precise enough to disambiguate between the various albums titled "Madonna" by various artists. For those arguing about using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no primary topic for the term "Madonna", which is the base term for the title, so that policy doesn't apply. Diego (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move extended discussion

There is a certain "silly" factor to repeating the artist's name in the disambiguation. What do people think about using the format Madonna (self-titled album)? Its a very popular phrase in the industry, resolves the disambiguation, and removes the repetition. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The current is silly because it looks silly, good writing avoids repetition. Even if awkward, English writers will throw in "eponymous" or "self-titled" or "titular" or "aforementioned".
Madonna (Madonna album). There are so many ways to misconstrue this unprofessional title. Better titles are:
the
(a) Madonna (1983 album)
(b) Madonna (self-titled album)
(c) Madonna (debut album)
(d) Madonna (eponymous album)
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I support Madonna (self-titled album). The year disambiguation is still ambiguous. If Madonna released another self-titled album this year, then it would be named Madonna (2017 self-titled album). But I think this should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). So It can be implemented on other articles with similar issue. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
All of these choices are better than the current title. I still think Madonna (album) meets policy, guidelines and conventions better than these. In order of preference, and why:
(a) Madonna (1983 album) - The 1983 is unnecessary disambiguation since of all albums named Madonna this is clearly the one most likely to be sought.
(d) Madonna (eponymous album) - The "eponymous" is just as unnecessary as 1983, and less concise, but more concise than "self-titled" and otherwise equal to (b)
(b) Madonna (self-titled album) - Equivalent to (b) but less concise.
(c) Madonna (debut album) Again, "debut" is unnecessary and I don't think this identifies this as a Madonna album as readily as the others.
--В²C ☎ 07:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I support a change to Madonna (self-titled album) ———Design (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move 17 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. This RM is clearly not going to pass. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Madonna (Madonna album) → Madonna (self-titled album) – Since the prior move request was closed with no consensus, we are allowed to submit an alternative proposal without waiting the usual amount of time between requests. I'm offering this alternative to address the concerns of all involved. Having a repetition in the article name is certainly something we'd all like to see avoided, if possible, and we also mustn't leave the disambiguation incomplete, as the prior proposal attempted. I feel this solution uses very natural and universally understood language that resolves these concerns. Netoholic @ 08:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

  • If it is by Madonna, and titled Madonna, why not call it Madonna (Madonna album) and be clear and not expect everybody to know what "eponymous" or "self-titled" mean? See Elegant variation for the complications and confusions and unclearnesses that can result from phobia about repeating a word or a name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Please don't use "phobia" as hyperbolic tactic. Phobias are a very real psychological condition and don't deserve to be misused just to slight someone's viewpoint. THAT is inelegant writing. -- Netoholic @ 11:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still don't see the practical reason to move it. Any other title would be less descriptive, and offending certain people's sensibilities is not a persuasive argument to move. I see the repetition as a bit humorous but not so terrible that it needs to be gotten rid of, because it describes the article perfectly.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are over 100 debut albums affected by this innovation (roughly three or four every year 1980-2017), completely unnecessary, that's before counting (self-titled song) (self-titled EP) less of, but still some. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Is that right? Bob Dylan (album) would only need changing if other people released albums called "Bob Dylan". For all I know they have! Thincat (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madonna (Madonna album). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  talk 14:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Madonna (Madonna album) → Madonna: The First Album – Per WP:NATURAL, and because sometimes sidestepping the rules altogether is the best way to get out of a direct confrontation. Diego (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

My reading of the Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017 was that Madonna (1983 album) had some support, but not a consensus, and that there was a strong alternative position that Wikipedia should continue its current usual practice of repeating the artists name for disambiguated self-titled albums. I disagree with sticking with that status quo practice, but it is not terribly important, and, if it is to be continued, is a discussion for some guideline talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC) added 10:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

REFS

  • La producción vende 12 millones de copias en el mundo." (12 million copies sold worldwide) — "Geno-Madonna: La genetica de una reina", Aug. 10, 2008, Reforma/El Norte by Eugenio Guzmán (online source found in The Wikipedia Library/Gale-OneFile)
  • Madonna , released in early 1983 , had surpassed even the label's expectations — Esquire, vol 102, pag 24 (1984)
  • "...Madonna's first album was suddenly selling like hotcakes . ... Madonna album had hit million - selling status in the United States, as well as having become a huge hit in the U.K. , France , Canada , Australia , and South Africa" — Mark Bego, Madonna (2000) pag 96
  • "Although the Madonna album sold slowly at first, sales grew steadily, and eventually it became a huge hit" — Nicole Claro, Madonna (2000)
  • "Madonna's Monumental First Album" — Portland Mercury (2015)

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna_(album)/Archive_1&oldid=1171854602"