Jump to content

Talk:Madonna/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 24

Requested move 9

The following discussion is an archived 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. I don't see a strong enough consensus to move away from the current title in the below discussion. I would strongly advise all interested parties to take several months before trying a new move request, though as a non-admin I won't go so far as to set a moratorium. Calidum Talk To Me 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Survey

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna (singer) – Even though she has appeared in several films, Madonna is undeniably best-known as a singer. In Google Books, for example, the term "Madonna singer" pulls up 812 results while "Madonna actress" only pulls up 38 hits. "Madonna entertainer" finds 455 results, although it would appear that this is only because much of the material is sourced by this poorly-titled Wikipedia article. Several articles have been renamed replacing their former "(entertainer)" disambiguators, and given her international success for her music, it seems fitting that Madonna be disambiguated with this specific term. The titling of this article is clearly a controversial topic, although I hope that simply modifying the disambiguator will be a better option than the current naming. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC) WikiRedactor (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose I completely understand what you're saying, but she's known for more than just singing. In addition to acting, she's also known for her ventures in business and books (most famously Sex). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support She is mainly known for other things because she made it as a singer. Madonna (disambiguation) reads: Madonna (entertainer) (born 1958), American singer-songwriter and producer. Her website starts with singing. There is no certainty that she would have attained her measure of fame without her song and video performace. Gregkaye (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose amongst her 20 movies Evita swung it for me.
  • Halleluya, yes! Support Support - per WP:HONORIFIC at last instead of trying repeatedly to unseat the Virgin Mary somebody has put in a move to remove the cringeworthy "(entertainer)", thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
WikiRedactor, appears you are correct regarding the sowing of Wikipediaism "entertainer" in the Google Book results. I have taken out -Wikipedia and -LLC in the following searches:
"the actress madonna" = 7 results
"the entertainer madonna" = 54 results
"the singer madonna" = 3,480 results
That probably still includes some influence from Wikipedia but still the result is undeniable. It also shows that Madonna is not thought of as an "actress" - for all her undeniable talent in Evita and several others. We should follow the sources not attempt to lead them. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a policy or guideline on misciting any policy or guideline? WP:NPOV doesn't mention talk pages. I had to strike that because I was "gaming the system", not because of WP:NPOV. You are an administrator, so explain why WP:NPOV applies to talk pages. As for the what I did (umm... you chose wrong date), I completely forgot that I did that. --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:WAX redirects to WP:AADD (for deletion discussions). Can you give me another essay? --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Not that I know of but you should refrain from POV posts. I have seen this before also in your comments. Edit in a professional way. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:POV doesn't apply to discussions. WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to talk comments about the subject, unless the subject herself is present in Wikipedia. She is not, so what's the point? --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it makes one's comment less valid if POV is what you use for discussions. Anyway, do as you wish, I would not take your comments seriously from now on. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@George Ho: How about WP:LAWYER and WP:GAME? Surely you already know as well as everyone else here that virtually all of the reasoning behind WP:AADD applies to other procedural consensus building processes, not just deletion ones, per se (especially given that more and more XfDs are being renamed to "discussion" not "deletion"). You certainly should know all this by now, particularly if you're going to get into policy arguments about these matters. Please also learn to lose them more gracefully.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Gee... I forgot about WP:GAME; struck per that, not frivolously cited essays. (Here's a tip: try WP:ATADP; you'd be more aware of that) --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised that ATADD and ATADP haven't merged by now. Regarding what you said further above, WP:CIVIL has nothing to do with subjects; it's entirely about inter-editor behavior. I think, in your response to IndianBio above, you were thinking of WP:BLP, which governs making statements about (living) article subjects. PS: I wasn't trying to get you to strike anything (and what you struck has nothing to do with WP:GAME; I was citing GAME and LAWYER in response to your suggesting that something better than ATADD had to be cited (the point being that ATADD itself was sufficient, because the arguments to avoid really apply to RM discussions as well).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
...I think now or soon is the time to create "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in renaming discussions"; no, I'm serious! Misciting that essay must either stop or die down. --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • RM 9, along with most of the RMs, have been suggestions to move this article to "Madonna". The only remotely similar RM was a proposal to move the page from "Madonna (entertainer)" to "Madonna (performer)", which is simply not standard disambiguation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Can Madonna juggle? She is certainly more than "an entertainer" or singer, but she is significantly and foremost a singer. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Got my words mixed up, corrected --Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Also well known as a songwriter, actress, model, etc. There is no need for a parenthetical disambiguator to be a specific one that is marginally the most appropriate in the minds of a larger number of readers, when a more generic one will suffice for all readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per SMcCandlish. As an aside, this article title will remain controversial until this article is finally moved to Madonna. Often, following policy and proven convention is the only way to resolve an apparent "no consensus" situation like this one. When readers search for "Madonna", this is the article they are almost always seeking; so this article should be at Madonna. It is that simple. --В²C ☎ 00:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC) clarified per below --В²C ☎ 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Observation: I did not actually make the case Born2cycle is making here, so I think this should be interpreted as "Per SMcCandlish. Additionally, this article title...". I'm not sure I'd support the entertainer being the WP:PRIMARY topic (I haven't reviewed the pro/con arguments in any detail).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you made that case, just that I was opposing this proposal per your argument! Clarified accordingly. --В²C ☎ 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    this article may well get more controversial if that happened. (ie. through my crystal ball, I forsee a possibility it may be invaded by those who think it blasphemy at "Madonna" on an encyclopedia) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, Special:Contributions/65.94.169.222, religious bias is why this article is not, yet, at Madonna. But while the situation remains the status quo, it's much easier for irrational argument favoring it to prevail. Once it is moved and they have the burden, their arguments will be so obviously absurd they won't bother. --В²C ☎ 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposal creates about as many problems as it solves, and the problems are not so great a problem. She is well known as a singer, and I would have a slight preference for that, but the preference is too slight. Better reasons should be required to rename articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. per User:Chasewc91|Chase 04:44, 14 August 2014. It's a small change, but "singer" should definitely help readers needing help, better than "entertainer". "Entertainer", sounding over-generic, makes me think of this sort of thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think you can call what Madonna does singing ;-) for real though, confining her brand to that category alone is ridiculous. I support 'Madonna' or 'Madonna (entertainer)'. Nothing more.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as it's more consise, plus she is significantly more likely to be referred to as "singer" in sources than "entertainer".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While she may be known more often than not as a singer, she has always been an entertainer... actress, singer, choreographer, etc. It would probably be best if this was simply at Madonna, but Madonna (entertainer) is probably the next best thing. So I say leave it be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. TWENTY Movie Credits.

TWENTY!!! That's pretty good for a "singer" --В²C ☎ 22:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. This is such an obvious suggestion, I'm surprised noone has made it until now. Madonna is, first and foremost, a singer. It's what she's best-known for, it's what she's most successful at, and it's how she became famous in the first place. A few other thoughts:
1. Yes, as has been noted, she has been in movies and she has written books. However, as celebrities go, that isn't really something unusual about her; it's just the sort of thing that happens when you're already famous. I'm sure everyone can think of plenty of examples of people who are famous for something besides acting getting chances to act in movies, sometimes even star in them, people who are famous for something besides singing getting chances to release albums, people who are famous for something besides writing getting chances to publish books, and people who are famous for something besides politics getting chances to run for major offices. This doesn't happen as much in sports, but it does happen, usually with an athlete famous for a different sport.
2. Currently, there's only one notable Shaquille O'Neal, so we don't need a disambiguator for him, but if we ever did, it would be "basketball", wouldn't it? It's what he's best known for, and he was very successful at it, and very highly-rated. He's also done a bunch of other things, though, including rapping, where he released four albums, and acting, where, by my count at IMDB, he has been in at least 19 films, not that the exact number of screen credits really matter. Yet, if anyone were to suggest that all those things be taken into account when choosing a disambig label, I would be really surprised. I think a lot of people would be. That's not a dig at his ability at those things, it's just an acknowledgment that they aren't what he's best known for.
3. Frank Sinatra had a pretty impressive acting career. Elvis, less so, but he still did get top billing in almost all his movies. I don't think it's controversial to say that Madonna's acting career isn't at that level – for one, she's frequently not one of the leads of the movies she's in. Yet, if you were going to tell someone who had never heard of Sinatra or Elvis about them, you'd still focus on them as singers first, wouldn't you? And if that's the case, would that not also be the case with famous singers with less prominent acting careers, like Madonna? Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Although Ciccone is the only prominent entertainer known as Madonna, I think the "precise" portion of WP:NC solidifies my support !vote - for example, when someone searches "Madonna" and Wiki pulls up suggestions, I think "singer" is more obvious and less likely to confuse people since it's so specific. Furthermore, not everyone knows Madonna as an actress, but it's highly unlikely that anyone doesn't know her as a singer. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Madonna doesn't just sing. She composes songs, she produces songs, and she dances. She writes books and she acts in films; especially notable was Evita. She's also a businesswoman. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, I get it: she has a significant career outside singing. That, however, does not mean that we must select an all-encompassing disambiguator, and I'm with the many who find "entertainer" jarring and unnatural. Per WP:NCDAB, The word or phrase in parentheses should be: [...] the generic class that includes the topic [...]. And further: If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. (emphasis mine). As many pointed out, singer is her original and primary occupation, and readers' primary association with her name, and has the virtue of being much more natural than "entertainer". Why not using it, then? No such user (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Madonna (entertainer) is fine. I don't understand why we're still debating this. Israell (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Then you haven’t read the support votes that complain about “entertainer.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not broken – this isn't an easy one to settle on, but after nine move requests, I trust we already have it right. Google Ngrams gives a little different view. Yes, she is primarily known as a singer, but Madonna filmography is enough to convince me that the current title is just fine, and Maverick (company) just reinforces that. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • in context of my "oppose" above, comment, I did a search on: Madonna "describes herself", bear with me. less relevant results included:
Singer Madonna describes herself "an ambassador of Judaism"
Madonna describes herself as her father's favorite being the oldest girl
The singer-songwriter - who describes herself as a socialist
Madonna describes herself “like a cockroach” (sorry I had to include that, Like a cockroach, eating waste for the very first time).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102370/reviews "She definitely takes herself very seriously when she describes herself as an "artist" who will not change anything in her show, even if she risks to get arrested for "indecent exposure" or any such like - very unlikely - charge." There is nothing wrong with being an entertainer. There are seven items on the Let Me Entertain You disambiguation page. In addition to her success as an actress attention might also be charitably given to her desire to succeed in film. In her hey day news was still full of comment on her intention to progress with an acting career. It seems to have been a big part of what she is about. Gregkaye (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: She’s not known as an “entertainer,” relatively speaking. She’s known as a singer or a pop star, and more broadly as a celebrity, and (per Gregkaye) as an artist. Aren’t we supposed to use descriptors that are widely used? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"Entertainer" is really a broad term that can encompass signing, acting, comedy, dancing, among other things. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about concision

Extended content
NB. "Credits" count for little, cf WP:PORNBIO, where that mistake is still slowly being corrected.
Madonna filmography. "Madonna's film career has attracted a largely negative reception from the film critic community. Stephanie Zacharek from Time magazine stated: "[Madonna] seems wooden and unnatural as an actress, and it's tough to watch, because she's clearly trying her damnedest."[21]" She is not known as an actress, but as a singer, who was tried hard to be an actress.
that said, "(entertainer)" fits well the breadth of Madonna's output, including filmography, and it is not a problem. While "singer" is more precise, none who know her as a singer would be confused by the label "entertainer".
The CONCISE references used by some above, are they facetious? Literally character counting? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Between two titles that are reasonable for a given topic, the shorter one, by character counting, is more concise, by definition. --В²C ☎ 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Not by definition. This may or may not be true, depending on the situation. Omnedon (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In what situation would it not be true? By what definition of concision? See also: Wikipedia:Concision razor. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You know very well. The definition of "concise" has often been discussed. "Concise" doesn't mean "shortest" or "fewest number of characters". You have agreed with this in the past. Omnedon (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Given two choices that are both reasonable titles for the article in question? No, I've never agreed that it may or may not be true that that the shorter one is more concise. In that situation, the shorter one is always more concise, by definition. There are two components to concision: comprehensiveness and brevity. In the context of titles, comprehensiveness is not measured in terms how well it describes the title (describing the topic is not a function of a title), but in how well it meets CRITERIA. If two titles both reasonably meet all CRITERIA (besides concision), then they are both reasonable titles for the article (comprehensive as titles), and, so, the shorter one is more concise (it as comprehensive as the longer one, and of course more brief) between the two. Again, see Wikipedia:Concision razor where this is thoroughly explained. --В²C ☎ 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You are fooling yourself and confusing others with your notion that you can redefine words. "thoroughly explained" would mean your inconcise ramblings and circular logic? No reliable dictionary agrees that shorter is necessarily more concise. I think Wikipedia:Concision razor should be redlinked, and that you should be required to keep your personal theories in you userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
If you think anything I've written here or at Wikipedia:Concision razor means "shorter is necessarily more concise", you either are not paying attention or have a serious reading comprehension problem. If you don't think anything I said means "shorter is necessarily more concise", why did you write, "No reliable dictionary agrees that shorter is necessarily more concise"? In any case, that's a Red herring. --В²C ☎ 03:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I admit that I have trouble comprehending your writing. What do you mean by "In that situation, the shorter one is always more concise, by definition"? Specifically, what definition do you refer to? Also, I don't see what situation you refer to, and am irritated by the illogical combination of a specific situation and the word "always". Is it always, or is it particular, it can't be both. I definitely disagree that "entertainer" is more concise than "singer". There is more subtlety to the meaning of concise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"When I'm in water, I am always wet" does not mean "I am always wet". It means, "I am always wet, in that situation". Are you irritated "by the illogical combination of a specific situation and the word 'always' here as well?" If so, I can't help you. If you're not, why are you not irritated by it here, but you are above?

Speaking of above, the situation I'm referring to is: "Between two titles that are reasonable for a given topic", the scope I clearly specified in my 17:32, 5 August 2014 comment. It is to that comment that Omnedon replied, "This may or may not be true, depending on the situation" (17:36, 5 August 2014), and to which I inquired, "In what situation would it not be true?" (17:53, 5 August 2014). And in my 18:31, 5 August 2014 comment, I reiterated the scope from the outset: "Given two choices that are both reasonable titles for the article in question? No, ...". Yet it is to that comment to which you replied, "You are fooling yourself...".

IF we have two choices which are both reasonable titles for the article in question (that is, they both meet all the WP:CRITERIA reasonably well - which means they are "comprehensive" in the context of WP title selection), THEN the shorter one is more concise.

Is that clear? --В²C ☎ 14:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The key here is your use of the word "reasonable". As you well know, there will not even be agreement on whether or not a given title is reasonable. So that introduces a variable into your logic. Even given that, it is simply not true to say that between two "reasonable" titles, the shorter is necessarily the more concise. The longer might well include information that makes it more concise. Omnedon (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
While there are certainly situations where there is no agreement on whether both choices in question are "reasonable", the point I was making - which you challenged - obviously does not apply to those case. I was referring to cases where there is no debate about that, just about which of the two reasonable titles should be preferred over the other, and there are plenty of those. Those are also the cases to which WP:Concision razor refers.

What is so hard to understand in my wording? I originally wrote, "Between two titles that are reasonable for a given topic, ..." See? "That are reasonable". I did not say "that are reasonable (though this is may be in debate)". Later, I emphasized this point, "Given two choices that are both reasonable titles for ...". Do you not understand what given means? If I say "Given that X = 2, X + 3 = 5", it's not reasonable to disagree by pointing out that if someone does not agree that X equals 2 then X + 3 would not necessarily equal 5. What is so difficult to comprehend here? Why would anyone think these statements (or WP:Concision razor, for that matter) should apply to situations where people don't agree both choices in question are reasonable? --В²C ☎ 17:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you not read or comprehend what people say here? As I stated, even aside from the question of "reasonableness" -- a shorter title is not necessarily more concise according to the definition of "concise", regardless of how many times you claim that the definition of "concise" supports your idea here. Omnedon (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Again? We all agree that a shorter title is not necessarily more concise according to any reasonable definition of "concise". If you think anything I've written here or at Wikipedia:Concision razor means "a shorter title is necessarily more concise", you either are not paying attention or have a serious reading comprehension problem. If you don't think anything I said means "a shorter title is necessarily more concise", why did you write, "a shorter title is not necessarily more concise according to the definition of 'concise'"? Duh. --В²C ☎ 18:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no interest in your absurd "concision razor". You have claimed that, by definition, the character count in a title determines which title between two "reasonable" titles is the most concise. That's simply not true. You're using some made-up definition of "concise". Omnedon (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is true. Produce a counter-example -- two "reasonable" titles (you agree both choices meet WP:CRITERIA reasonably, but not necessarily equally, well) for a given a article, one shorter than the other, and the shorter one is not more concise -- if you really think it isn't. --В²C ☎ 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC) clarification --В²C ☎ 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"Madonna (entertainer)" versus "Madonna (singer)". Both are probably reasonable titles, but the former is more concise though it is slightly longer. It is more comprehensive since she is known for more than simply singing. Omnedon (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Touché. --В²C ☎ 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so my qualified statement is not sufficiently qualified; it does not always hold for titles that require disambiguation. By the same token, it does not always hold for descriptive titles (like List of sovereign states). However, within the domain of titles that are not descriptive - where both choices in question reflect names of the topic, either of which could reasonably be the title - I still submit the shorter one is necessarily more concise (because a name of a topic is fully "comprehensive" in the context of a title of an article about that topic). --В²C ☎ 20:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “concise” as: “giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.” It does not mean “as short as possible.” Let me reiterate: Concise does not mean short. If adding a word to a phrase gives sufficient additional information, that additional word makes it more concise. If a longer word gives sufficient additional information compared to a shorter word, as Omnedon illustrated, the longer word makes it more concise. And conciseness is of course but one consideration to give to article titles, and not the most important one. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
So to answer the overly simplistic scenario of two titles that objectively contain exactly the same amount of relevant information and differ only in the size and number of words used… yes, the shorter one is more concise, by definition. But, as is often the case with overly simplistic scenarios, this is rarely the case in reality. It would help if there were a mathematical formula that could objectively tell us how much desired information a certain phrasing relayed, but there is not, so it’s largely subjective. And subjectivity destroys simplicity. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all that you say, but add that the reality on WP is often quite different from, well, reality. In particular, in title decision making, any two commonly used names for a given topic often do "objectively contain exactly the same amount of relevant information and differ only in the size and number of words used". Consider Yogurt and Yoghurt, for example. --В²C ☎ 05:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
“… any two commonly used names for a given topic often do ‘objectively contain exactly the same amount of relevant information …’” Considering that an objective measure of something as subjective as language is quite impossible, I don’t believe you. And frankly, I’d venture to guess that this sort of supposition is what makes it difficult for some of our fellow editors to take you seriously. Also, “yogurt”/“yoghurt” is a poor example because conciseness isn’t even a factor there, but recognizability via WP:COMMONNAME. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rarely the case in reality? Let's just look at actual examples at WP title reality at WP:RM, marking those where judging concision solely by counting characters works with a green check mark, skipping those involving disambiguation or descriptive titles, and a red X for where this fails.

  • The Pink Print → The Pinkprint Green tickY
  • Russei Keo District → Russey Keo District Green tickY
  • Ore Monogatari!! → My Love Story!! Green tickY
  • Seedbank → Seed bank Green tickY
  • Grand Prix Championship Series → Grand Prix Super Series Green tickY
  • Biomimicry → Biomimetics Green tickY
  • Deutsche Babcock Middle East → Bilfinger Deutsche Babcock Middle East Green tickY
  • List of PHP libraries → List of PHP extensions Green tickY This should not be here as it's a descriptive title
  • The Parks at Chehaw → Chehaw Park Green tickY
  • Bang-A-Boomerang → Bang en boomerang Green tickY
  • Grease interceptor → Grease trap Green tickY
  • Tecmo Koei → Koei Tecmo Green tickY
  • The Bahamas → Bahamas Green tickY
  • Hamedan → Hamadan Green tickY

In each of these we can determine which of the two choices is more concise (or if there is a concision tie) simply by counting the characters. That doesn't mean we should prefer the more concise choice in each case, of course. It just means that the concision criterion favors the shorter one. But, of course, the other criteria have to be considered as well. That point I'm making here is that situations are hardly rare on WP; they are the norm. --В²C ☎ 06:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You’re not looking at conciseness by counting characters here. You’re looking at shortness. You agreed that these concepts are not the same thing. So I… I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say with this list. I’m not sure that you’re sure what you’re trying to say with this list. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that conciseness has two components: shortness and comprehensiveness. When both choices are equally comprehensive, then the only aspect of conciseness that matters is shortness. And that's very often the case in WP title decision making, including in all of these cases. That is, we determine which of the two is more concise in all such cases by counting characters. --В²C ☎ 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Is that the royal we? It's not a collective we.
The question is which is the better word: singer or entertainer. One is more correct in focusing on her specific occupation from which her great notability derives. The other is more correct in including other things that would indepently have made her notable. These are worthy factors, a couple of characters length is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Right. Singer and entertainer are not equally comprehensive, so the shorter one is not necessarily the more concise one. We agree. And this was all resolved 3 days ago - why are you bringing it up again? Right now the question at issue is whether cases of equal comprehensiveness are rare or common in WP RM discussions.

Above you say "it's not a collective we", presumably in response to my assertion that "we determine which of the two is more concise in all such cases by counting characters", where "such cases" refers to cases of equal comprehensiveness. When comprehensiveness is equal, as in all of the examples I listed just above, how do we determine which of the two in each case is more concise if not by counting characters? --В²C ☎ 00:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If two words or phrases have two different meanings, they are in no way “equally comprehensive” in any meaningful sense. PHP libraries and PHP extensions are two distinct things, for instance. And for a good number of the RMs you listed, conciseness isn’t even a factor between the two; by my estimation, it could possibly be a concern in only four of your pairs. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but in none of the examples I snagged from just 2 days of RMs do the two words or phrases have two different meanings; — Born2cycle — continues after insertion below
I have just pointed out one of your examples where they do. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - missed that. Those should not be in the list for two reasons. First, they're descriptive. Second, and more to the point in this case, they're not both reasonable names for the topic; they're not equally comprehensive. As you point out, they don't refer to the same topic. I haven't looked at the article, but this is really about identifying the article topic; then it can be titled correctly. --В²C ☎ 04:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
they are all "equally comprehensive". Whether conciseness is a relatively important criterion to consider in any given case is separate from the question of which of the two choices conciseness favors. If the only significant difference, in terms of CRITERIA, between the two choices is their length, then conciseness matters a lot. If other criteria strongly point to one choice or another, then conciseness probably matters very little, if any. But either way, we can talk about which of the two choices is most concise, and, in these cases where they are equally comprehensive, we do that by counting characters.

For example, Bahamas is clearly more concise than The Bahamas; it's shorter, and "The" adds nothing informative to the title. But that does not mean we should necessarily favor Bahamas. The most important considerations are natural and recognizable, the underpinnings of COMMONNAME. Now, if use in reliable sources does not clearly favor either one then indeed it might come down to conciseness (and counting characters), after all. But whether it's a significant concern or not, conciseness favors the shorter one. --В²C ☎ 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose that this off-topic discussion about conciseness in article titles in general be moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No objection. --В²C ☎ 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Discussion about the move request

I’d like to propose an alternative that should satisfy all concerned parties, sufficiently disambiguating the title while covering all aspects of the subject:

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna (Madonna)

If anyone wishes to oppose, I would ask that you first click the link at the beginning of this proposal. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

I have a source that proves that madonna has sold 400 million albums! 2.222.89.173 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly is that source? Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IPA

Wouldn't it be /tʃɪˈkoʊni/ in English as opposed to /tʃɪˈkoʊneɪ/ in Italian? If I remember well, Madonna pronounces her last name /tʃɪˈkoʊni/. Israell (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Mononym to Opening Lead Sentence.

Accordingly to Wikipedia guidelines described in MOS:BIO, a person's legal name should be listed first, shortly followed by their stage name (which can be a mononym).

I suggest the lead says: "Madonna Louise Ciccone (/tʃɪˈkoʊneɪ/) (born August 16, 1958), known by her mononym Madonna, is an American singer-songwriter, actress, and businesswoman."

It's the guideline followed by several articles including these: Beyoncé, Drake, Rihanna, Ciara, Kesha, Pharrell Williams, Gillette, LeToya Luckett, Brandy Norwood, Monica, Fantasia Barrino, Jenifer, Jacynthe, Mitsou, Alizée & Prince. There is no reason why Madonna's article would follow a different guideline. Israell (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In some cases, though, the mononym is part of the person's legal name. When it reflects the person's actual first name, that isn't exactly a pseudonym (which is what stage names are), so such cases like Kesha, Madonna, Beyoncé, and Usher would be unneeded repetition. For people who just go by middle names (i.e. Rihanna and Drake), wouldn't be so repetitious. Since MOS:BIO doesn't explicitly mention mononyms, neither form technically goes against guidelines. Personally, I'd opt for the more concise edition, which would be without the "known as" or "known by" or anything of the sort for the sake of simplicity. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Especially for Madonna's case her first name is her mononym, so I would say, adding it second time as a stage name feels a little redundant. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So it is for several of the artists I've mentioned above who go by their first name. It's not a question of redundancy but guideline and style as shown in Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/355916/Madonna . Israell (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Snuggums that it’s not necessary to point out here, and further that it’s not necessary in some of the cases you cited. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it more helpful to include "known by the mononym..." since it explains why we refer to the mononymous person throughout the article by one name that isn't their surname. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre

In the genre field, rock is mentioned, why? Where exactly does it come from? It has no source. I looked at every album of hers, and rock is never mentioned as a full or main genre at all. Dance-pop is the most common and mentioed genre in Madonnas discography, yet its not added.

Rock should be removed and dance-pop should be added. These albums are all sourcered as dance-pop albums:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Madonna_%28Madonna_album%29 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Like_a_Virgin http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/True_Blue_%28Madonna_album%29 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Erotica_%28Madonna_album%29 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Music_%28Madonna_album%29 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Confessions_on_a_Dance_Floor http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hard_Candy_%28Madonna_album%29

While reviewing Like a Prayer album from 1989, Billboard magazine described Madonna and her musical career since her debut as dance-pop; "By early 1989, the world had come to know Madonna as a dance-pop provocateur with quirky-sexy style."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/5944624/madonna-s-like-a-prayer-at-25-classic-track-by-track-review

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.101.151 (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm..... she was inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame..... also, it would be redundant to have "pop" and "dance-pop" or any other subgenre of pop in the infobox at the same time. I would add "dance" to the field, but that is not a genre. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a genre. Rosiedanugbtugn (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Guinness World Records

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/8000/best-selling-female-recording-artist Guinness World Records is explain: Madonna has sold more than 300 million albums. But you don't accept. Why? Guinness World Records is a reliable and official source. I writing this on Madonna(entertainer) but you to remove. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I will let IndianBio answer this since he is the one who reverted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll jump in. Guinness is already cited later in the article, so we don't need to cite again in the intro. That leaves a word choice issue of whether she's sold albums or records. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that when they said "albums", it actually means the overal recordings. Many people outside music industry are confused with the term "albums" or "records". The same article also cites Mariah Carey and Celine Dion at 200 million "albums", which are actually "records". The missinterpretation of the word "albums" and "records" is often disscussed at Talk:List of best-selling music artists. Aditionally, our previous discussions here have reached consensus that she sold 300 million records. FYI, official worldwide music industry source is the IFPI, which estimated Madonna's album sales at 200 million units as of the Confessions on a Dance Floor era. So, I don't think she sold another 100 million with Hard Candy, MDNA, Celebration or her past catalogs. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
When was the most recent discussion on albums vs. records? Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Just search the archive of Talk:List of best-selling music artists :p Bluesatellite (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to WP:SYNTHESIS, let's analyze Madonna's album sales based on various sources (see Madonna albums discography or their respective album articles):

  • Madonna (10 million)
  • Like a Virgin (21 million)
  • True Blue (25 million)
  • Who's That Girl (5 million)
  • You Can Dance (5 million)
  • Like a Prayer (15 million)
  • I'm Breathless (7 million)
  • The Immaculate Collection (30 million)
  • Erotica (5 million)
  • Bedtime Stories (7 million)
  • Something to Remember (10 million)
  • Evita (11 million)
  • Ray of Light (16 million)
  • Music (15 million)
  • GHV2 (7 million)
  • American Life (4 million)
  • Confessions on a Dance Floor (12 million)
  • Hard Candy (4 million)
  • Celebration (4 million)
  • MDNA (2 million)

Total:215 million albums. Some of these sales estimations (such as Music and Confessions) are already inflated enough. Even if we counted all her minor releases' sales (EP, remix, boxsets) are as high as 5 million, her album sales would be roughly 220 million, which are still far away from 300 million. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Navyiconer I think you have your answer now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Madonna 10 million Like A Virgin 21 million True Blue 25 million Like A Prayer 15 million Erotica 6 million Bedtime Stories 7 million Ray of Light 20 million Music 15 million American Life 5 million Confessions On A Dance Floor 12 million Hard Candy 4 million MDNA 2 million Who's That Girl 5 million I'm Breathless 7 million Evita 11 million You Can Dance 5 million The Immaculate Collection 30 million Something To Remember 10 million GHV2 7 million Celebration 4 million The Confessions Tour +1 million TOTAL= 222 million (only 21 albums studio, live only 1 album, compilation and soundtracks albums) Madonna's albums = 60 albums (studio albums 12, live albums 4, Compilation albums 6, EPs 11, soundtracks 3, remix 3, box sets 21) 21 albums = 222 million 39 albums=78 million TOTAL = 300 million albums sold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

and okey Madonna has sold 222 million albums. Madonna has sold 78 million singles? no this is impossible Madonna is the most succesful single artist. Source: meditraffic http://www.mediatraffic.de/top-track-achievements.htm Be logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 11:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediatraffic is VERY unreliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Because they don't have any concrete methodology and they base all of this on their guesswork. You have got your answer countless times that Madonna has not sold 300 million albums. Now please stop bothering the article. Wikipedia goes by consensus and it states clerly amongst other users that the 300 million album sales claim is grossly inflated. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


While it's very unlikely Madonna's album sales stand at 300 million, it is safe to say her total record sales would be over 300 million. She is credited with 115 million single sales by 2008 (So they are probably higher now) and let's say approx. 200 million album sales which brings her overall record sales to more than 300 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.197.2 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the '25 female's who changed the face of feminism'

Harpers Bazaar magazine made a list of 25 female's who 'changed the face of feminism' and Madonna was included in it. Suggesting that a brief mention of this should be added to her 2013- present section? or the Legacy?

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/famous-feminists-throughout-history?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1447_97840120#slide-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.197.2 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name

How come "(entertainer)" and not "(musician)"?

This seems very weird and disrespecting. 5.102.234.238 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite. Please see Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)/Archive_18 to see the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Disrespecting!? Not at all. If disrespectful, it would've gone against NPOV policies. "Entertainer" is used as it is a more broad term that encompasses all her career endeavors, and singing is certainly not the only thing she's known for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The richest recording artist in the world...

Madonna has been named as The World’s Richest Recording Artist by Wealth-X. According the the site Madonna has a net worth of $800 million, $140 ahead of Paul Mcartney who is in second place.

This should be used to update her Net worth statistics & also a mention of her as The World’s Richest Recording Artist according to Wealth-x in the 2013- section?

http://www.wealthx.com/articles/2014/wealth-x-reveals-the-worlds-richest-recording-artists/

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6334796/madonna-paul-mccartney-worlds-richest-list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.43.247 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How is Wealth-X a reliable source? Billboard is reported what they reported and not on their own. So neither can be used to validate the $800 million claim. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Interview Magazine- impact & Rebel Heart Leak

With Madonna covering the December edition of Interview Magazine she caused controversy around the globe for pictures with showed her exposing her breasts. Such controversy has resulted in Madonna landing front page headline's on numerous newspapers. Furthermore, she has been applauded for what is seen as 'Triumph for women her age' & breaking the social norms.[1]


Additionally, in late November 2014 two of her new demo's for songs believed to be called "Rebel Heart" & "Wash All Over Me" have been leaked, or at east surfaced, on to the internet. This too has been widely reported and surely should be mentioned under the upcoming album section of the wiki page???[2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.43.247 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2014‎ (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11267514/Madonna-topless-photos-are-a-triumph-for-women.html
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2854456/Madonna-s-manager-asks-fans-help-singer-s-new-track-Rebel-Heart-leaks-ahead-2015-release.html
  3. ^ http://www.madonnarama.com/posts-en/2014/09/09/new-tracks-rebel-heart-devil-prays-from-madonnas-new-album-revealed-exclusive/
  4. ^ http://www.musictimes.com/articles/17876/20141129/madonna-rebel-heart-wash-over-me-leak-online-avicii.htm
None of them are even remotely worthy of inclusion. Madonna has had tons and tons of outrageous pictures as well as scandals, controversy etc. A photograph is the least significant of them and is a case of WP:RECENTISM. Same with leaks, not worthy of inclusion. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rude much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.43.247 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Guinness book of world records

The latest addition of the Guinness Book of World Records says that Madonna earned more money in 2012 than any other female recording artist in history. Shouldn't this be included in the article, possibly in the intro? [1] 172.56.33.5 (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Former vegetarian

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Music/9901/19/madonna.lkl/ In an interview, in 1999, with Larry King Madonna said she became a vegetarian because of her older brother, Anthony. She was vegetarian since 15, until 40? so for 25 years.

And according to NYMAG in 2013, http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/07/madonnas-diet-is-the-hardest-i-have-ever-tried.html Regarding her diet: "Madonna follows a very strict macrobiotic diet that abolishes the consumption of wheat, eggs, meats, and dairy, and extolls the benefits of something called “sea vegetables.”" which would be considered vegan.

And according to a 2001 article she didn't consider her self vegetarian as she hunted and ate what she hunted, since her husband at the time Guy Ritchie was a fisher and hunter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1711494.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/apr/29/foodanddrink1 The guardian notes her on-again-off-again vegetarianism.

Anyone going to add this? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't really significant detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Other celebrities have it noted especially when it was done since childhood. Is it ever a significant detail? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I would only include it if the person is widely known for advocating vegan diet/vegetarianism (i.e. PETA). Madonna isn't known for doing so. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Esther

the article says "Madonna is dedicated to Kabbalah, and in 2004, she adopted the name Esther which in Persian means "star"." it doesn't mean star in Persian. (it may have been drived from a Persian word that means star: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Esther_(given_name) ) also, the book that was referenced here says "... which in Hebrew means "star"." https://books.google.com/books?id=fPaWGKupylAC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=I%27ll+Take+You+There:+Pop+Music+and+the+Urge+for+Transcendence+madonna+esther&source=bl&ots=zZhRn_0S2i&sig=TZxdh7XSS_0wcagzGDWhhbOw0s4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5SmjVIrHEcP9yQS__IGgAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=I'll%20Take%20You%20There%3A%20Pop%20Music%20and%20the%20Urge%20for%20Transcendence%20madonna%20esther&f=false Arfsp (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Name

Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone

Can we use her full name? Thanks.... Seth  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pghseth (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done that is her confirmation name, not her legal identity or birth name. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Infobox as well as the 'Life and career' section do mention that information. Israell (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Partners list in box

Why does it only list Carlos Leon? Is he more legitimate because he sired Lourdes? Seems very... biologically driven. Warren Beatty was pretty key at one point in her life, they collaborated on a movie together, why doesn't he get to be listed there?--100.2.222.99 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor didn't say ALL, just Warren Beatty. Look at Colin Farrell's box; he's never married. --Aichik (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I am aware Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Christopher Ciccone, in his autobiography, Warren Beatty proposed to Madonna. He was also less homophobic than Guy so putting him in.--A21sauce (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed that because engagements/proposals alone aren't enough to warrant a mention in infobox, though would be if a couple becomes married and/or has children. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You were right to do so Snuggums. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you attach the link that shows that Wikipedia favors siring a son over proposing in marriage?--108.30.35.45 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

How known is her surname "Ciccone"?

Her surname has been posted in her album booklets for songwriting credits. Sure, her surname is not frequently used, especially by secondary sources, but that doesn't make it "obscure", does it? --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

She is commonly known as "Madonna", but she is not the primary "Madonna". Why is parenthetical disambiguation used rather than natural disambiguation (i.e. "Madonna Ciconne")? Isn't it a violation of WP:NATURAL? I did propose "Ciconne" to be part of an article title once; majority opposed it. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That itself should answer your question. She is known commonly as Madonna only. But since to disam her from the original biblical Madonna, we have to use a parenthetical disamb. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Although there was "no consensus" to change disambiguation to "(singer)", there were half of opposes and half of supports. In other words, she can't be "entertainer", can she? --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
She is per the definition of the term itself. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Why did half of us, including me, see her as a "singer" rather than an "entertainer"? --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Entertainer" is a broad term that can include multiple things like singing, acting, animatiom, dancing, and jokes. Madonna is not solely known for singing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll ask you the same question then. George Ho (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The music industry being what it is combined with her innovations in concert presentations, she makes the majority of her income from her tours, in which she does a whole lot other than just singing.--108.30.35.45 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Charity section

Could someone start one? I'd like to see this as a featured article again. The nomination link above, by the way, doesn't link to the reasons why this article was delisted as an FA.--108.30.35.45 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it warrants a separate section, but I've been meaning to work this up to FA-standard. As for why it was demoted, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1 where there were many sourcing issues. This isn't ready to be renominated yet, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"Dancer" as profession

"Dancer" is already listed as one of her professions in the info box at the right of the page, so I added it to the first sentence in the lede. Madonna started as a dancer, and in interviews she has notes that it is her "foundation." Though she is most famous as a singer, her background in dance is of particular pertinence because she is primarily a singer within the genre of "dance music." I believe she is the most successful act in the history of dance music, with some unheard-of number of #1's in that genre, something like 30 #1 Dance singles. Skatefan2014 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking it out. Dancing is always in the service of the song. She's never released a DVD or done a concert in just dance.--A21sauce (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
She also said in the I Want to Tell You A Secret DVD, in the audition process for her dancers, that she's glad she's not a dancer anymore saying that it was a "dog's life."--108.30.35.45 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm putting it back in. In the 1987 interview with Jane Pauley, she refers to dancing as her "foundation." [2] As someone who has studied with one of her dance teachers, I know that Madonna first went to New York to be a dancer -- and she did so at the suggestion of her dance teacher, Christopher Flynn. Releasing a DVD of dance is not the qualifier of whether one is a dancer or not (though I DO remember a dance-oriented DVD called "Addicted to Sweat" [3] being sold during the MDNA concert), and the fact is that at the start of her career she DID take part in performances that were always dance-only. Dance has always been an integral part of her performances, and she has more hits on the Dance Charts than any other act. If not for dance, her career in the entertainment field would never have happened. Skatefan2014 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: And I remember that in the late 1980s, Madonna was the first act to release a remix album, titled, ahem, You Can Dance. The liner notes to that album make explicit Madonna's deep connection to the world of dance: [4]. ("Only when I'm dancing can I feel this free…." [5]. Skatefan2014 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Said Madonna of Seymour on record, “If I didn't meet Seymour Stein, I might still be a broke dancer living in Hell's Kitchen." [6] Skatefan2014 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Yes, dance is an integral part of her performance, but she is never widely known as a professional dancer. Listing it to the infobox is more than enough. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "widely known" is the criterion. I think factual accuracy is. Simply put, she was a professional dancer, and continues to be a dancer. Incidentally: http://m.billboard.com/entry/view/id/116366 Skatefan2014 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, or else we have to list every profession she has ever done. Per WP:LEAD, opening section should "summarize the most important points" of the subject, hence we include only the most notable professions. Being a "singer" (13 albums), "songwriter" (hundreds of entry on ASCAP/BMI + Songwriters Hall of Fame nominee), "actress" (21 film credits), and "businesswoman" (multiple business deals and companies) are what Madonna most known as. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
and having 44 dance hits doesn't make you a "dancer", but a dance musician. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
But I wasn't suggesting you list every profession she's ever had, but merely list the ONE THAT STARTED IT ALL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gN21t6W_TA Skatefan2014 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Falling off a stage.

Is this notable? It's been added 3 times by two different editors an removed 3 times by two different editors - including me. If there is consensus that it is encyclopedic then I am happy for it to remain. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No strong view. I was just taking a BBC News headline at face value. This is the rarified world of "mayja slebs", don't forget. Perhaps we should wait for a decent broken limb or concussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Defnitely worthy of inclusion in "Living For Love" song article, maybe Rebel Heart album, but not on bio page (for now). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Madonna had a career of nearly 30 years. One fall on the stage during an award performance does not make it notable to include it on her biography. It's enough to have it in the 'Live performance' section on the "Living for Love" article. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
... you mean her career's now over?! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Lol. No -_-. I mean she had so many more important things that should be included on her bio page, not some stupid fall. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless it leads to something severe like when Lady Gaga had to cancel a month's worth of shows from her Born This Way Ball after a hip injury which led to surgery, I see no reason to include this particular incident on her bio page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
p.s. it made UK national TV news. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The most of distinctive bit of the Brits made the headline? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Martin, you've overlooked Tomica's point; just because it's in the news doesn't necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for tripping over that. Rich is right, it was the most notable bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC) ... apparently it's called a brittfall. No-one's going to be foolish enough to search YouTube for "madonna sparta", are they?

Net worth

Madonna's net worth is now $800m according to http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/madonna-net-worth/ BurtDakarax (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done "Celebrity Net Worth" is not a reliable source Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Made this update in the infobox with a reliable reference (CNN). Girona7 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Reverted. CNN mentions they took the info from Wealth-X, a gross unreliable source with no journalistic credibility. Please verify the content next time before blindly assuming that just its CNN, it would be ok to add it. Same for Billboard, BBC etc. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful, IndianBio, if you didn't make assumptions about my editing and fact-checking processes before chiding me about them. For the record, I didn't "blindly assume" anything; I did look beyond CNN to the Wealth-X website, and it seems appropriate to me as a source. It is regularly used by top media outlets. In fact, an entire Wikipedia article on individuals of high net worth is based on research gathered by Wealth-X and UBS. Can you point me to a source or two to back up your claim that Wealth-X is "grossly unreliable"? Girona7 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Girona I apologize since I did not mean it in a negative way about your fact checking. Thing is Wealth-X does not seem to be an authoritative source on the wealth calculation of celebrities and business tycoons and nowhere I could find any information as to how theu come to their wealth list calculations. That is why I said its unreliable. Just because it is used in another wikipedia article does not mean that we would deem it reliable as well. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: I have found the Time source talking about the $800 million here. Can this be used? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 08:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'll go right ahead and include it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

Madonna Louise Ciccone was born to a Catholic family in Bay City, Michigan, on August 16, 1958. She is the eldest daughter of Silvio Anthony "Tony" Ciccone and Madonna Louise Fortin (c. 1933 – December 1, 1963).[3] Her father's parents were immigrants from Pacentro, Italy, while her mother was of French-Canadian ancestry.[4]

Madonna Louise Ciccone was born to a Catholic family in Bay City, Michigan, on August 16, 1958. She is the eldest daughter of Silvio Anthony "Tony" Ciccone (Italian pr.: tʃɪk’kɔnɛ; born 1931) and Madonna Louise Fortin (c. 1933 – December 1, 1963).[3] Her father's parents were immigrants from Pacentro, Italy, while her mother was of French-Canadian ancestry.[4]

Please add Italian pronunciation (tʃɪk’kɔnɛ), which differs from the English one, and Tony Ciccone's year of birth (born 1931), thanks. 89.184.104.3 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What source(s) give Tony's birth year as 1931 or that the Italian pronunciation is used? In any case, pronunciation goes in the lead section (which currently contains one) rather than article body. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

There needs to be a period instead of a comma after the phrase "unconventional behavior".

Original text: She was known for her high grade point average, and achieved notoriety for her unconventional behavior, she would perform cartwheels and handstands in the hallways between classes, dangle by her knees from the monkey bars during recess, and pull up her skirt during class—all so that the boys could see her underwear.

New text: She was known for her high grade point average, and achieved notoriety for her unconventional behavior.

Alera1 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

"Madonna turned to her paternal grandmother in the hope of finding some solace and some form of her mother in her" shouldn't be changed into "Madonna turned to her maternal grandmother in the hope of finding some solace and some form of her mother in her"? Madonna spent time with her mother's mother in Bay City, didn't she? I think "paternal" is wrong. Saxkite (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

§ Original text:Madonna turned to her paternal grandmother in the hope of finding some solace and some form of her mother in her.

New text:Madonna turned to her maternal grandmother in the hope of finding some solace and some form of her mother in her.

Paternal should be changed because Madonna used to spend her summers at her maternal grandmother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxkite (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What reference(s) did you get this from? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the link talking about her maternal grandmother: http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/03/visitation_today_in_bay_city_f.html In particular "Fortin was reportedly very close with Madonna — one of Fortin’s 36 grandchildren — having partially raised her since the death of Madonna’s mother in 1963. As a child, Madonna spent weeks at a time with Fortin during the summer months and, as an adult, came back to Bay City from time to time to visit." Anyway, how could Madonna find some form of her mother in her paternal grandmother? I do not think it is logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxkite (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Updates

-The Rebel Heart section can be updated with reference to its US or/and its worldwide charting position -Musical genre's and Theme section needs Rebel Heart added- it being a pop/dance record with influences of house, trap and reggae merged with acoustic guitar (according to the Rebel Heart album wiki page) -the Achievements section needs to be updated.. Madonna now has 157 number ones across billboard and 44 on the Dance Chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.206.190 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_18&oldid=1120913560"