Jump to content

Talk:Madonna/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Personal Relationships and Children

Where is this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1180:259B:5801:D968:5B:E8C7 (talk • contribs)

These details are already interspersed throughout "Life and career", with 1992–1997 even containing "motherhood" as part of its title. They don't necessarily need a separate section and that would probably get bloated with excess detail anyway. Not a risk worth taking. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

List: The 6 Greatest Entertainers Of All Time

https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/greatest-entertainers-all-time/ should this get included in her legacy/impact section? Johnny Gnecco (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't because therichest.com (what you linked) has repeatedly been rejected as a subpar reference that cannot be trusted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

In Section 1.2, the last paragraph, immediately after reference #70: Change "In July, Penthouse and Playboy magazines published..." to "in September, Penthouse and Playboy magazines published...".

Penthouse and Playboy magazines first published nude photos of Madonna in their respective September issues. This can be verified by searching each magazine's online archives, as well as numerous online selling listings (such as ebay).

Respectfully,

Cannonball967Cannonball967 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Cannonball967 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Were the issues called "September" but published in July? Many periodicals post-date their editions in that way. Certes (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Yup, that's likely the case. Closing. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Madame X film

Hello, I just created an article for the upcoming Madame X film. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You could add some info about the re-shooting of some performances in early/mid 2021 Johnny Gnecco (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Why no "personal life" section?

Almost every notable person on Wikipedia has a "personal life" section separate from their career. I came to this article to find out the names of Madonna's children... I shouldn't have to read her entire career history to know this. Doesn't seem like "good article" material to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8992:C100:A135:E49F:C047:F4EC (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Arguably, unless the children are notable, the names shouldn't even be in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Care to quote the policy that extends 'notability' from article subjects out to the entire content of the same? SAMBLAman (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Children don't have to be notable to be named, but "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." – WP:BLPNAME. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's perfectly fine to name them when such details are already public knowledge and it's not like they or Madonna have tried to conceal such information. To not identify any (especially when there are many appropriate sources to use) would be a disservice to our readers. As for the idea of a "personal life" section, that idea has previously been rejected and I strongly oppose implementing one as it could easily become a magnet for gossip, speculation, and trivia. Not a risk worth taking as it pretty much would be asking for trouble. Either way, having relationship/child tidbits interspersed throughout life and career helps prevent needless repetition of career details that overlap with exes (e.g. co-starred with Sean Penn in Shanghai Surprise and with Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy plus appeared in Guy Ritchie's remake of Swept Away). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Guinness World Records figures

According to Guinness World Records, “Since 1983, Madonna (USA, b. Madonna Ciccone) has sold an estimated 335 million albums and singles (including digital tracks) worldwide.” Link: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-female-recording-artist Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Filmography is missing die another Day, 2002

She played Verity, from the fencing scene. 82.24.153.140 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor roles are listed at Madonna filmography. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

1979–1985 section; Conflicting info in Desperately Seeking Susan behind-the-scenes interview.

Conflicting info in Desperately Seeking Susan behind-the-scenes interview. Wiki says she spent 3 months combined time in France + Tunisia? at 26:20 timestamp she says she was in France for 6 months. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acpXWH0YAtM&t=1580s EDIT: Also during her first interview with Molly Meldrum, she also says she was there for 6 months. 2:55  ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMyiCHVqnys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwat1234 thesecond (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Legally speaking, these YouTube videos are unauthorized and fail WP:ELNEVER (the videos are, however, legitimate). However, I tagged the sentence as the current source ([2]) doesn't say anything about this. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is she still here

Is she alive in 2022? 2603:9000:6C00:3C4A:2402:8DC2:60B8:B7E2 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Most definitely yes. I haven't seen anything that credibly indicates Madonna has died. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Madonna's controversies" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Madonna's controversies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Madonna's controversies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Queen of Controversy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Queen of Controversy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Queen of Controversy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus in favour of a move is impossible to achieve anyhow. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Madonna → Madonna (entertainer) – Does Madonna Ciccone really triumph the Mary, mother of Jesus when it comes to the name Madonna? I think Madonna Ciccone should not be used as the article simply "Madonna" but rather "Madonna (entertainer)" (as before) or "Madonna (singer)" should be used to refer to the singer. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC) FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That was two years ago. I think people should reconsider whether Ciccone really should be simply "Madonna". I disagree fundamentally.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: Per our policies that are more applied to the singer, that Mary (linked in the section "commentaries"), including key aspects of the zeitgeist:

This is not an encyclopedia of art or for religious people, is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Before Mary, mother of Jesus the meaning of the word "Madonna" was of the ideal woman, not Mary herself. Mary can be semantically related to the word until our world today, but its meanings has expanded since the 1980s or even before; clearly with a key curve because of Madonna Ciccone. Some of her depictions are called "Lady" or "Our Lady of" instead of "Madonna of". And we can't also pretend that education is the same in all countries, even in the English-speaking area, nor even that most people are interested in art/religious art or they are "art experts"; music has larger accessibility to all human in this aspect even if the singer isn't the "center". Nor even, for those million of people the figure/word "Mary" is visually the same as the word "Madonna" and in regards the universal book of the Bible, the word "Madonna", eg, does not appears. Put it simpler: Most people actually can relate Madonna to the singer, instead of Mary. Everyday forms of our lives, including Google, YouTube or other popular websites/apps, like TikTok, newspapers of record or even in our world of Wikipedia (statistics) is a reminder of this. We no longer lives in the era of Catholicism/religious art (or even, the pre-1980s/pre-Madonna Ciccone world), that's an old hat. Those periods seems to be more appropriate for Mary in that context, but not in this one.
The singer can be viewed by some Wikipedian, variously, as a whore, an old woman, underwhelming, untalented etc as it happens with criticisms of other modern or historical cultural figures (even, Mother Teresa isn't safe of criticisms, nor Catholics, or Mary herself). In her case appears that those are tags to attack that she doesn't have a "value". Nevertheless, beyond that and the argument of "just another singer", she has an entire meaning in the academia world. (Sic) academic Camille Paglia (2017): "She's a major historical figure and when she passes, the retrospectives will loom larger and larger in history". So, even if she's aging, or she will die, academics will not stop writing about the singer, or people will not stop buying her records. We don't have a crystal ball, but its a corollary that her likeness will still seeing a variety of depictions, such as music covers, tributes, name-droppings from lesser-known or widely known figures of their time and to their audiences, or even references in the contemporary art that are and will be present. Of course, Mary as well, her figure, but not entirely her Madonna-word association which is eclipsed in many ways in the zeitgeist because the life of Ciccone. Simple. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Madonna the word and name has massive tradition unassociated with the entertainer, and the entertainer’s name (given name) connects to that tradition. A popular entertainer (ie a commercial business, even if culturally and a person) should not be allowed to usurp tradition. Appending “(entertainer)” is in no way a disparagement or degradation, but actually better serves readers wanting the entertainer, as well as readers who don’t want the page on the entertainer. The base name should redirect to Madonna (disambiguation) (repudiate MALPLACED), unless it is considered to be better as a WP:DABCONCEPT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
    • It is nonsense to say "repudiate MALPLACED"; if the proposition is that there is no primary topic, then the title should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect to itself. BD2412 T 01:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
      User:BD2412. The proposition is that that there is no primarytopic. The basis for this is that there is a group of readers who would expect the primary topic to be something else (the religious figure or the art of the religious figure), and so they will be astonished to arrive at the popular entertainer, a major disservice because it is a heavy loading page.
      By "repudiate MALPLACED" I mean repudiate the very old practice of always moving foo (disambiguation) to foo if foo was a redirect to foo (disambiguation).
      Madonna should be a disambiguation page, but as a disambiguation page, it should be at Madonna (disambiguation) so that everyone considering going there, downloading that page, know it is a disambiguation. i.e apply recognizability to disambiguation pages. i.e leave Madonna (disambiguation) and have Madonna be a redirect to it. The unqualified "Madonna" should not be in the dropdown list, and this is well achieved by it being a redirect. "Madonna (disambiguation)" should be in the dropdown list, as it is something that readers sometimes want, and usually don't want. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "Madonna" functions right now as the page to what most people usually will likely to search for based in our century/culture, and according to our recommendations of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. It is demonstrated even with the statistics, that facts/numbers also means and matters. As you can notice, despite several appearances of trends, popular topics, memes etc every year, the singer has always stayed among the 500-700 pages (among 6,919,813 articles) with most traffic in our Wikipedia every month, even if she doesn't release anything. Her accumulative views has been enough to appears in our base of all-time popular pages. Something that Mary, or every of her depictions of "the Madonnas" or other meaning of the word is no where, not even monthly. From that science/application/view, you can notice what you or others are discussing. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Then it seems that what you mean to propose is that disambiguation pages generally should be at their "Foo (disambiguation)" title, rather than their "Foo" title. I see no argument for "Madonna" receiving unique treatment among all disambiguation pages in this regard. BD2412 T 02:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
        That's what I have proposed, repeatedly, for years. The failure to do this, to generally place disambiguation pages generally at their "Foo (disambiguation)" title, puts pressure on erring on over-generous assignments of "primarytopic", as the disambiguation page at the base name is a serious problem to many readers, it being not the page that most want.
        Madonna is nowhere near unique in this. The titling of disambiguation pages is well made for mercury.
        The question here is whether the entertainer is the primarytopic, which I argue it is not, but note that fixing that error makes the situation worse because MALPLACED is a stupid old practice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose because, yes, in fact, the singer topic does "triumph" the topic of Mary, mother of Jesus. The singer attracts more Wikipedia readers. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Citing Common Name here, the mother of Jesus is more commonly referred to as Mary in the English language, and Madonna Ciccone is more commonly referred to as Madonna. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word "Madonna" does not even appear in the lead section of Mary, mother of Jesus, and is mentioned fleetingly later on as a medieval Italian term for "our lady". The singer is clearly the primary topic in late late 20th and early 21st centuries. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose there was already an extensive discussion on the matter which decided to title this page as just "Madonna". The term more often than not is used to refer to the singer as opposed to Jesus' mother, and there are also many religious folks who mean Ms. Ciconne here when using the first name instead of Mary. Contrary to what SmokeyJoe asserts, we aren't actually defying any traditions here. No need to beat a dead horse with another RM. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
    User:SNUGGUMS, what traditions do I assert is being defied? I don't think I do. There is a tradition of the madonna referring primarily to the art, and I argue a small subset of readers hold to that with poor awareness of the entertainer. I wish to repudiate (like defy?) the Wikipedia tradition of the MALPLACED practice of making disambiguation pages themselves ambiguously titled if there is no primarytopic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I was talking about your sentence "A popular entertainer (ie a commercial business, even if culturally and a person) should not be allowed to usurp tradition." Having the singer at the base "Madonna" title without any parentheticals doesn't usurp any traditions I can think of. She's a much more likely search term for this name than anyone else, which makes her the primary topic. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should have written "usurp the older tradition, even though the numbers holding to the older tradition (madonna is in the field of religious art is a primary topic for people in that field) are small. My counterpoint to you last sentence that that where there is a reader subset with a different primarytopic, they should not be ignored. Readers searching for the entertainer will have no inconvenience if the entertainer has an unambiguous title. The status quo is a case of the dominant culture squeezing out others, with no advantage for anyone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sigh, not this tiring discussion again. "Madonna" is an medieval Italian term for "my lady", and it was not exclusivelly invented nor originally used for the mother of Jesus, it could be used to refer any woman. Jesus' mother has many different nicknames/titles, and "Madonna" is just one of the very least used ones for her worldwide. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Ciconne is the primary topic for Madonna with respect to usage. As for long-term significance, Mary and the art form probably mean there is no PT, and the dab belongs at the base name. However, the status quo has strong support and works well in practice. (Madonna gets only a couple of new links a year intended for the art genre, and the dab isn't in the top 20 next-clicked pages.) Whether to reverse WP:MALPLACED is a separate debate for another page, which would not be influenced significantly by putting one more dab at the base name. Note that this is a multi-move; if supported then we need to put something at the title Madonna. I'm assuming that would be the dab (or a redirect to it if MALPLACED were overturned). Certes (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Certes, although my personal non-policy-based preference would be for Madonna Ciccone as the title. I think it takes a lot for a derivative usage to become primary. We do not even recognize a primary topic for Cheddar. —Srnec (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
    She is not known by her last name. She is mononymous; known just as Madonna. cookie monster 755 05:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Apoxyomenus and the information on page traffic. Clearly this is what Wikipedia readers are looking for. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The singer has more long-term notability than one of the Bible's minor characters. Mary barely appears in the Gospels. Dimadick (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Madonna, the singer is obviously the main topic here, while Jesus' mother is known more as Mary than Madonna. Tom(T2ME) 11:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed with Apoxyomenus, Bluesatellite and Tomica thoughts. Vera (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above discussion. I agree that the singer is the main topic and has more long-term notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – we already hashed this out in the last move request. The singer is absolutely the primary topic for the base name. See Cultural impact of Madonna: Madonna has built a legacy that goes beyond music and has been studied by sociologists, historians and other social scientists. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not the primary topic for Madonna. The only time you hear Madonna refer to Jesus is in the study of Western art history. cookie monster 755 05:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Comment WP:IFITAINTBROKE. cookie monster 755 05:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – Everybody knows who Madonna is and it is the most common usage. The most common usage should get the preference of having the main page, specially when it is a celebrity of this magnitude. Omranduk (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Commentaries

To the closing admin: A guideline with policies & references. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

unnecessary citation

Why is a citation necessary regarding her given name? The third citation should be removed. Junius Cursus (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the one used for "Madonna Louise Ciccone was born on August 16, 1958, in Bay City, Michigan, to Catholic parents Madonna Louise (née Fortin) and Silvio Anthony 'Tony' Ciccone" under the "Early life" section? It's needed because that is the first mention of her full name within the article body. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Madonna (entertainer)

There's currently a WP:CFD discussion about Category:Madonna (entertainer). Bluesatellite (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

400 million records sold

Madonna has just revealed on ‘Jimmy Fallon’ that she actually sold over 400 million records and that the 300 million records figure is incorrect. She must have her sources, so that is worth looking into for the encyclopedia. It’s been awhile since the 300 million figure was issued, and there are all those digital sales, etc. Israell (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Madonna is fine where she is at the moment with the 300M claim, based in our de facto guidelines at the List of best-selling artists. While there no exists accuracy in record sales, the most authored source in global sales, IFPI reported 200 million albums in 2006, and she has sold dozen of million singles as well in the report of other industry sources (100 million). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2022

Voguemi (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


During her August 10 2022 appearance on the US show "Jimmy Fallon", Madonna stated that her updated sales to date are over 400 million.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide sources independent of Madonna. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Needs a "personal life" section

I came here looking for information about Madonna's family and children. I'm sure it's somewhere in the article, but without a separate section, one doesn't know where to look. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This idea has already been rejected; it would put the article at risk for being cluttered with fancruft, gossip, and trivia. Not a chance worth taking. You'll find such details within "Life and career". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it is better in this form, unlike many celebrities/artists even with GA/FA status with that specific section that looks like a teenager magazine column. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
How about we make a new page just for that: "Madonna personal life" like we do with discography pages. This can be huge article, so I agree that it would clutter the main page, but there is so much info that we can easily have a page for that. The main sections would be:
- Madonna's dating life - She has had dozens of relationships
- Madonna's kids.
- Where she lives and has lived. Omranduk (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm working in something like that. Beyond the stereotype of tabloid journalism, Madonna's life has generated vast academic views. Including that her personal relationship have impacted sectors. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes there is something oddly inconsistent about this article. Almost an attempt to bury her personal life, number of biological children vs adopted and the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:C010:8470:26C4:79BC:2FEE (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I personally don't think it's that important, but a section talking about her adoptions and why she did them would be nice, since there's a lot of misinformation about it Johnny Gnecco (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To be blunt, that sounds like it would be a bloated content fork, and not everything that goes on in her life is worth mentioning. See WP:NOTADIARY for more. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I too am wondering why this article, in contrast to every other celebrity biography on Wikipedia, pointedly has nothing on Madonna's personal life, family, and relationships. I can understand keeoing out anything that's poorly sourced, speculative, or just not notable - that's admirable and in keeping with the best practices of WP:BLP. But what's been done with this article goes WAY beyond that. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary, this article DOES talk about her family and relationships. It's been interspersed throughout "Life and career". Not every personal life detail is worth mentioning as going into that could get gossipy and/or bloated with trivia. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Not the big deal for me, but I'm working in an user-draft about this, with academic-focus and without (perhaps) WP:CFORK and following WP:BLP guidelines. The draft later can be submitted to a review; it can took me months/years because to be honest, it's not a priority. I'm just seeing if this works, because there are a lot of commentaries like y'll about this matter regarding the article over the years, and as was pointed out it contrasted by virtually almost every celebrity here, in which a subsection about these details are vigorously detailed (FA and GAs), that on the contrary, many of them looks like a gossip column. Specific categories like Category:Personal life and relationships of individuals even exists. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

I don't know when the infobox image was changed, was there any consensus for it? If not should we look into getting one? —IB [ Poke ] 06:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't any consensus for the change. And honestly, it's not an improvement over the previous infobox picture :p Bluesatellite (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it was changed without consensus. Talking about profile images, more than once I tried to search better ones. I tried this one eg. The Madonna at 2015 MET Gala looks fine too. Y'll could considering take a tour finding profile pics. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
What you've linked is a fine choice, Apoxyomenus, and I would have no objections to implementing it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This one cannot be sourced since not in Commons. I still don't understand what is wrong with the original picture? —IB [ Poke ] 04:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I also support the original photo, which was actually the result of a previous consensus as far I remember. I didn't specify my point above, sorry. Just giving the idea to find other images with contacting their authors and ask change their license in order to have even better photos for her infobox. I successfully did with photos like this one, used now for other articles. I tried with this photo for her infobox image, but with no responses from the author. In gettyimages, like these results shows their authors, that might can be contacted in FB/their website/other outlet. Run the extra mile. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
One problem Apoxy for the pre-2015 images are that Madonna's face has changed, and I say this with respect quite a lot, because of her affinity to plastic surgery. I would have been happy if we got something from the Madame X Tour, but we all know how that tour had a Hitleresque rule for photography. —IB [ Poke ] 03:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Not in commons? My bad; I was basing my comment on the linked image said "This photo is safe". By no means is the 2015 tour pic bad either. Can't remember who swapped it out or why. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How about this one? I've seen so much articles using screencaps from interviews/youtube as infobox pictures; why don't we get one for Madonna? --Christian (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Because its blurry? Lol reason enough. —IB [ Poke ] 11:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Why not search for a good youtube screencap? :) --Christian (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Madonna Accused of Child Trafficking

Updated: https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/madonna-accused-of-child-trafficking-pornography-551439 https://www.startribune.com/madonna-accused-of-child-trafficking/42323582/ 95.24.46.222 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If a blogger from 2009 and no one else says it, anyways Johnny Gnecco (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/madonna-accused-of-child-trafficking-pornography-551439 204.237.2.10 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, see above Cannolis (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
this is fake news from Breitbart. The country it is originating from Ethiopia is one of the countries with the most violations against children and civil rights. This fake news is an attack against madonna because of her ties with the lgbt community and allowing david to have artistic freedrom to dress as he wishes. Please stop peddling this fake news this is not real 2600:1700:4038:8000:1CAB:BF46:4928:ACCF (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction

Her father didn’t work at General Motors. It’s General Dynamics. I was his colleague there. 2601:40A:8203:7900:4011:C10D:7E7E:AE4D (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fixed now. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Why no separate personal life section?

I'm just putting it out there however this article is swamped when it comes to the "Life and career" section by Madonna's career. It makes it hard to find the personal life details about Madonna - except her pre-1979 life - and one can't easily find critical details about her marriages, children, divorces etc. without trawling through a litany of career focused material. AprilHare (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Both marriages actually are listed within headings: Sean Penn under 1984-1987 and Guy Ritchie under 1998-2002. You can also find Lourdes's birth in 1992–1997 (keyword being "motherhood"). As for why there isn't a separate "Personal life" section, I oppose implementing that when it would basically be asking for trouble here when that's easily susceptible becoming bloated with gossip, trivia, and fancruft. Not a risk worth taking and such an idea has already been rejected before. Furthermore, both ex-husbands and some other partners have had some overlap with Ms. Ciccone's professional endeavors (e.g. starring with Penn in Shanghai Surprise and Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy while appearing in Ritchie's remake of Swept Away), so having them in one cumulative "Life and career" section helps avoid redundancies for what she did with them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you SNUGGUMS on Life and Career being generally superior to personal life, but I will say as an experienced reader it was hard to find the sentences where the article mentions her adoption of David & Mercy etc. Is it possible we can move those sentences to the first sentence of the paragraph, or at least add additional descriptors denoting that she adopted kids around that time?
Ergo:
  • 2003-2006 - American Life, Confessions on a Dance Floor and first adoption
  • 2007–2011: Hard Candy, filmmaking, business ventures and personal events (this includes divorce and second adoption)
PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I would be fine with implementing adoptions into the section headings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Veronica"

Legally we may not be able to find documents finding her true legal name as of today, but she continues to use "Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone" as her full name as recent as 2022. In comparison, the reference used for her legal name in the article dates back to 1992. After an entire marriage, are you sure that reference still can be trusted?

Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Last I checked, one's confirmation name doesn't formally become part of legal identity unless they submit forms for name changes or they use what already was their middle name, so it would help to find evidence of her doing the former. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Madonna vs. Maradona

Should the hatnote linking to Maradona be returned? (see below for example) I removed it since no one will confuse Madonna with football legend Diego Maradona. EVER.

Not to be confused with Maradona.

RMXY (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. They are completely two different article topics and it is extremely unlikely someone will mispell Madonna for Maradona. It's not a one letter change. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article in 2023

It has been about 10 years since Madonna's article was demoted from Featured Article. What's preventing her article from getting back to FA? If possible, I would like to contribute to upgrade the article to FA as my next big project. Thank you.

Paging @SNUGGUMS:, if interested, as a connoisseur of featured articles about female pop stars. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

When she has an upcoming tour, it's probably best for the sake of stability to wait until that concludes (in case it brings any big changes for her career). I also don't know whether the article is comprehensive enough or uses all the best possible citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed they isn't a section listing references to her in shows like The Simpsons and movies like Weird: The Al Yankovic Story. Shouldn't one be added? CaptainBlackSaber (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Age controversy cat

Madonna used to peg her age to a 1960 birthdate. In publications from the early to mid 1980s, two years were routinely shaved off (see [3], [4] and [5]). As late as 1991, Good Morning America gave her age as 30 when she was actually turning 33 that year (see [6]). PromQueenCarrie (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems in her first years, press/scholars created a little "controversy" around her age, according to this D Magazine 1986 reportage: "Like hens on June bugs, scholars and reporters have pounced upon the fact that two different dates are given for Madonna’s birth... Is V-Day August 16, 1959, as some biographers maintain, or August 16, 1960?". Back in 1985, the singer told Michael Gross, when he asked When were you born? and her answer was: "1958. I’m actually born in several different years, depending on what you read". No opinion about the category added; although this topic received little attention and only in the 20th century unlike fellow such as Mariah Carey (from 1990s to present) whom has a definitive proof even before she became famous. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree. It's actually never been considered "controversial". Unlike Mariah Carey or Anastacia Bluesatellite (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd never seen that interview before. Interesting how she says she came to NYC in the summer of 1976 and moved in the summer of '77 officially. I always heard it was 1978? The Early life section says 1978. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Madonna's name is actually Madonna Louise Veronica CicconeCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 92.29.159.219 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
cc @Paper9oll:; Madonna's legal name as far as we know is "Madonna Louise Ciccone", however, she uses the full "Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone" in public as recently as 2022. Is there a precedent specifically to only have legal names in public? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@PHShanghai I deem this edit request as a controversial changes hence the above answer. If you disagree, you may overwrite it. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Photos from the Celebration Tour?

Fans are already publishing their photos from the Celebration Tour and some of them looked really good. Since they are private individuals who have no interest in selling these photos, would it be crazy to ask them to donate their photos for her Wikipedia article? How would I exactly go about this? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

User:PHShanghai For future reference, you could ask them directly. Here are examples and this could be helpful maybe. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Guinness Book's updated sales of Madonna, over 400 million records Alarinaticos (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Change caption of the image under "2018–present: Madame X, catalog reissues, and the Celebration Tour": Madonna performing at the Madame X Tour in 2020 (Photo taken in February 2020) 219.77.73.137 (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for highlighting this. Karst (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

Change “she sold 300 milioni records, to 400 millions”.

According with Guinness world records.

Source: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/10/madonna-cements-status-as-biggest-selling-female-recording-artist-of-all-time-760147 5.90.133.121 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Better quality sources say 300 million. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-female-recording-artist#:~:text=In%20her%20homeland%2C%20Madonna%20has,2%20multi%2Dplatinum%20singles%20awards.
you can see it here 5.90.133.121 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Guinness published this. All I'm saying is that it's not as reliable as the many other sources saying 300 million. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

Change “she sold 300 milioni records, to 400 millions”.

According with Guinness world records.

Source: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/10/madonna-cements-status-as-biggest-selling-female-recording-artist-of-all-time-760147 5.90.133.121 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that that source only supports the claim that Madonna CLAIMS to have sold 400 million records, not that she has actually done so. PianoDan (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

New Infobox picture

I believe one of these could work :)

Christian (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this other example could be useful too. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The third one should be cropped and used in my opinion, she looks stunning! Johnny Gnecco (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
My preference definitely is the third one (and I agree with Johnny Gnecco about cropping it) since that doesn't have a microphone in front of her face like the other options do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I actually think that this photo (File:MadonnaO2171023 (115 of 133) (53269593417).jpg) is a better option too, cropped ofc Johnny Gnecco (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I definitely have a preference for the fifth one; I don't really like the third one because she's pointing her head up and her nose looks kind of weird.
Having a microphone in front of her face isn't the worst, the current lead image has a microphone in front of her face. I think fifth has better hair and her makeup looks better because the lighting is warmer. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is what a cropped version of image six may look like. I quite like it! I think she looks great.

    • PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

    I personally like 1, 3 and 5 --Christian (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    Update, there are far more choices actually than just these images. If you go on Flickr, there are two photographers who basically were able to take pictures of the entire concert. I think this one is my favorite and I'll test it on the infobox right now; however, as we're still building consensus I think we can probably sift through the rest of the Flickr uploads and keep looking for the best one. It's just a lot of images to look through, like, a lot. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    OMG I like the one you uploaded :D it works really well --Christian (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    Aside from the microphone, I don't have any qualms with File:MadonnaO2171023 (5 of 133) (53270847219) (cropped).jpg myself, and yes indeed there are tons of pics available from Flickr! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    I am more than happy to find another photo that doesn't have the microphone blocking some of her face.
    The only qualm I could have is some of the pics from the Ray of Light segment, she's higher up in her flying platform so the photos taken from that low angle make her look a little funny.
    I'm afk right now but when I get more time I can find an alternative, microphone-less picture on Flickr. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, I changed it to a photo that has better lighting and that doesn't have the microphone as prominently in her face. I really like the lighting on it, but can someone tell me how to remove the ugly purple lighting bleeding in? Where can I consult someone on WM commons to help with that? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    You can request here those changes. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    (→) Guys, late response here but I definitely feel merit in File:Madonna - The Celebration Tour live London14 10 2023 (53272334700).jpg and with a little editing in Graphics Lab. @Chrishm21: thanks for uploading these pics. —IB [ Poke ] 14:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

    Dating history

    https://people.com/music/madonna-dating-history/

    Quite a lot. Not sure how many are included in the article. Her latest, Popper, is not there. -- GreenC 07:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

    That piece openly calls it a rumored relationship, and certainly doesn't warrant a mention without confirmation. That would feel too gossipy. Per WP:NOTADIARY, not every aspect of a celebrity's life is worth adding, and it would feel excessive to add all romances. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

    Madonna has been officially certified at over 400 million records sold now. 216.243.57.249 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

     Not done for now:
    1. Where should this information be added?
    2. What is/are your source/sources?
      — Urro[talk][edits] 17:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

    One studio album is missing/listed as a soundtrack. I'm Breathless (1990) is a full-length studio album, with music from/inspired by the film Dick Tracy. An actual soundtrack for the movie is also available. 216.187.38.170 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

     Not done: The album is listed in her discography here and is a Soundtrack. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

    Add an "ED"

    Madonna learn the finer techniques of dance under the guidance of her dance teacher Sandip Soparrkar[4][5] Sydneyjuliette (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

     Done it now reads "learned", thanks for pointing out the mistake. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

    Need to talk about Back That Up To The Beat and Frozen Remix trending on tiktok, Popular making her first top 10 single in 15 years in her collab with the weeknd, and the celebration tour being more sucsessfull then the previous madame x and rebel heart tours XMadame (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    Controversies

    Should there be a section about controversies Madonna has been involved in? Like accusations of child trafficking and stuff. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

    @NintendoTTTEfan2005: the information is actually present in one of her articles, philantrophy and activism. Seems it was a claim made by the EWF and later by Candace Owens and met a bit of popularity in Twitter or some platforms. A demand for a "controversy" section seems have been requested here since mid '00s by some IPs and active users of their time. The lack of the section might be comparable to the absence of other sections like "public image", a bit common section in some pop stars and other public figures articles. But her public image/controversies are fragmented by areas (like Donald Trump), because she has "many" public image(s)/reception(s), evidenced by areas such as her gay icon status, fashion and more plus denoted by a response from multiple ideologies/interests and decades/clichés from popular press and other sectors. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    Lets not use drivel by a despicable piece of shit like Candace Owens to try to engage an accusation piece on Madonna, when everything has proven to be the opposite of.
    —IB [ Poke ] 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    Well, how about you look up "Madonna sex trafficking" on Google and see what you can find. Analyze the information available and then we go from there to determine whether this is notable to be included in this article. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    @NintendoTTTEfan2005: Regardless if the info is later deleted or synthetized (now or posthumously), what you request is found under the circunstances of the above article. About Google searches, seems those are circular reports with roots from the mentioned organization. Maybe we can compare it to request conservative reactions regarding Nintendo in their main's article, though Madonna generates a more "obvious" reaction due to her known polarized figure xD. Although are not untypical reactions from sectors like religious/conservatives/sociological reviews towards even superstars of "friendly"/"nice" image within popular press/public collective. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    Agree. There has undoubtedly been criticism throughout her career (similarly with many public figures) and I was very much expecting to find one in Wiki. Its absence seems to suggest an effort to keep the entry clean fbow. 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:8980:6397:490C:72B0 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    I don't know enough about trafficking accusations to comment on those, but lumping controversies into separate sections/subsections within bio pages is frowned upon as that would create undue negative weight. We're better off interspersing such details throughout the article instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, that makes sense. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    I know this is not a reliable source, I heard about this from watching this YouTube video titled "Madonna Investigated for Human Trafficking Her Own Children" by SLOAN NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

    Dividing up "Life and career"

    Now that the Celebration Tour is over, I think some changes should be made to the table of contents for her article. As 2017 was around the time the Rebel Heart era ended and she moved to Portugal, I think that should be the beginning of the Madame X section.

    Furthermore, the Celebration Tour should have its own section, seperated from the Madame X Tour.

    In summary:

    • 2012-2016: Superbowl, MDNA and Rebel Heart
    • 2017-2021: Move to Portugal, further adoption, Madame X
    • 2021-present: Finally Enough Love and The Celebration Tour

    Will do WP:BOLD and edit this now. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

    World Record Numbers

    It’s still listed as over 300M when it has been certified for over 400M sales. Please correct. 24.228.89.34 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

    Madonna is currently eligible 135.85 million sales in the United States [7], if she were certified up to date her global units would go up to 237 million. Putting her above Elvis Presley who is claimed to have sold 500 million and only behind Michael Jackson and the Beatles.
    I think it's more than reasonable to either move Madonna to 400 million now, or wait until she's certified again to do so. Never17 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    "Music On Charts" seems like a fan account, and either way we'd need something better than a tweet merely talking about "Eligible Career Units" when that's not the same thing as being certified. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move 1 June 2024

    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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The result of the move request was: not moved. This discussion centered on the question of whether the singer Madonna should continue to be considered the primary topic for "Madonna". There are two major criteria that primary topic determinations are based upon: usage (WP:PT1) and long-term significance (WP:PT2). Along the first criterion, it was clearly shown that readers are seeking the singer at a higher rate than any other topics (when compared against all other competing topics, including Mary, mother of Jesus, it was shown that the singer received 70% of pageviews; the lead was markedly stronger when the singer was only compared to other topics named Madonna specifically). However, pageview differentials can sometimes be overcome if there is a consensus that other topics hold greater long-term significance by a sufficient margin. Therefore, the bulk of this discussion addressed the question of: how significant are the different topics known as "Madonna", as compared to each other?

    Supporters of the move noted that the Madonna, as a religious figure and artistic motif, unambiguously predates the singer by centuries, and continues to be widely used in certain fields. However, opposers noted that the singer is not a short-lived or newly popular celebrity, but one who has had a multi-decade career of significant commercial success and influence on her musical field. Some supporters argued that the singer's relevance is declining due to her commercial peak having passed, while opponents suggested that the religious uses of the term may be similarly in decline owing to the decreasing prevalence of Christianity in the Anglophone world; however, as was noted in the discussion, predictions of which topics will retain (or lose) their notability are WP:CRYSTALBALL and thus do not carry much weight. Some opponents of the move also noted that "Madonna" is not a term that the public widely uses in reference to the religious figure, and from that basis argued that the significance of Madonna-as-term-for-Mary would not be necessarily the same as that of Mary herself.

    I believe both sides of the debate have made sound arguments for the significance of their respective topics; the arguments presented in the discussion suggest to me that this would likely be a no-primary-topic scenario if we were to consider long-term significance alone. However, to bring this closing statement full circle: long-term significance is only one of the criteria used for primary topic determinations. Usage is just as relevant for determining the primary topic, and the assertion that most readers are seeking the singer remained essentially unchallenged throughout the discussion. Therefore, when considering all of the relevant policies, I see this discussion as having resulted in a consensus to retain the current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

    (Edit: As an additional note, I'd also like to acknowledge that several participants supported the inclusion of a hatnote pointing toward Mary, mother of Jesus. Though only a handful of participants discussed the question of a hatnote, everyone who mentioned it was in favor, so I believe there to be consensus that this hatnote is a beneficial navigational aid.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    Madonna → Madonna (entertainer) – The entertainer simply is not the primary topic here. The argument made to previously move was based on views and what the reader expected to see upon searching the term, both of which are not considered strong arguments for primacy and are prone to bias, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, specifically WP:NWFCTM which lists the island of Java as the primary topic despite having less views than the programming language: [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Java Traumnovelle (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose The proposer's claim that pageviews and reader expectations are not considered strong arguments is belied by the guideline WP:PT1, which says to look at just those things. The singer gets a strong 87.6% of the views among the main uses of madonna (per academic sources that I mention just below; and still 70%, more ... than all the other topics combined, when including Mary, though I think most English language use of that kind falls under Madonna (art)). Only 0.39–0.42% of readers go to Madonna (disambiguation) from Madonna, which is on par with the disambiguation drain from Bono.
    Usage is more mixed when looking at academic search results for madonna: The first few pages of Google Scholar are pretty evenly split between the singer and all other uses (namely the religious figure, stereotype, and name), while Jstor is only about one third for the singer and Project Muse just a little more, though Google Books is basically entirely for the singer. This test does suggest no primary, though I tend to weigh reader benefit more so wouldn't support moving the article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    Most readers find pages through third party search engines. The average reader is unlikely to put 'Madonna' into Wikipedia, although I did do just that and was surprised.
    If views were a strong metric then Isis would go to the Islamic State article: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Islamic_State%7CIsis Drake would go to Drake (musician) and not the disambiguation page: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Drake%7CDrake_(musician)%7CDuck Apple would go to the company and not the fruit: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Apple%7CApple_Inc. The Walking Dead would go to the TV series: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)%7CThe_Walking_Dead%7CWalking_Dead%7CThe_Walking_Dead_(franchise)%7CThe_Walking_Dead_(comic_book) A more context relevant example too, Pink would go to the singer and not the colour too if views were the main metric: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Pink%7CPink_(singer)
    >Usage is more mixed when looking at academic search results for madonna:
    That is my point, usage is mixed in academia and when considering the historical significance of the term Madonna in art and culture you cannot say the entertainer is the primary topic. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    Also I am not sure how you can manage to analyse the tens of thousands of academic papers on the subject to be able to confirm that the singer has more academic articles.
    Simply typing in 'Madonna' generates 721,000 results on Google Scholar, if you omit 'Christian' from the results it drops to 448,000, which is already 37% of the results simply mentioning 'Christian'. Searching 'Madonna' on Project Muse generates 12151 results, omitting all results with 'christian' in them drops it to just 2851 results, which is 76% of results omitted. Jstor goes from 102,514 to 67,521, with many of the results still being about Mary and not the entertainer. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    On GoogleBooks pretty much everything go to the context of the religious figure what is evidenced that chart increase and decrease during excatly the same time what very related phrase Our Lady (which has worse results than Madonna which peaked in early 20th century BTW). Regardless of what sometimes maybe displayed on the first pages, religous context dominated subject on overall in academics database. In English language even phrase for Madonna Lily (named after context of history of religous art tradition) got more ngrams than Madonna Ciccone: [8], in some other languages situation is differ [9] but as it is English Wikipedia, such disambiguation appears as the best choice. German Wikipedia has disambig for both: Nirvana (also important religous thing vs iconic pop music band) and for Madonna as well: NPOV, we have opposite things in one accident and another accident, none has disambig. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    Also, comprasion of drai with Bono (disambiguation) is very not convincing choice as Yassine Bounou is still recentism subject which also should be moved long time ago to Bono (footballer) to make faster navigation, per reliable sources and wikinav. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Sorry for the long sentence. Partly because of my skills with English and to avoid making assumptions about fan perspectives or biases. After the third request, I still stand by my choice. Based on the same Wikipedia guidelines (see hidden text). See my 2cents below.
    • Forget about Madonna Ciccone: "Madonna" might signify "everything" as well as "nothing" to others, both here and in real life. Despite these and other contradictions, Madonna Ciccone still outperforms Wiki's figures for the term. Considering the typical volatile state of a entertainer, and despite the occasional online mockery of her antics/appearance or established hatred/criticism/rejection/indifference to her figure by various, she has proved, at least with the name, that she is neither recentism or obscure. To my knowledge, at least there are sources in English that support her significance with the name.
    • Regarding the long-significance, or appreciation of a tenier, Mary was without objections the first, at least compared to Madonna Ciccone, because Mary was not the first subject to be named Madonna, nor it wasn't a term invented for Mary, neither Mary wasn't born as Madonna. Madonna Ciccone already implemented that "newer" significance attached with the name.
    • If people could criticize Wikipedia for favoring Madonna Ciccone, sure, it could happen. Similarly, people (authors/academics/fandoms/faiths) could criticize many things: content in Wikipedia or many things/institution/people in their lives (online or real life). This include Catholic Church as institution or as faith (internal/outside criticism), the same goes to Protestant churches or Islamic faith or Mary herself (at least the way she is "revered" in some faiths) or Madonna Ciccone to give examples. It could be bizarre, or sentient, but this happens. In fact, Wikipedia itself have entries for all of those pages as far my acknowledge, and including criticism of Wikipedia itself. This need to be hidden? I don't think so. On this particular point, for ages, the term "Madonna" as a likeness to Mary has been scrutinized and even, criticized, so if you give me a permission to say it, those aren't commentaries/analyses from "haters" or "non-conformists" or "pop culture editors" or "Madonna fans", as they might be "labeled" from a specific grouping, rather, it appears legitime analyses or commentaries from 3rd party sources. We must avoid, push a POV, whether we like it or not, in the same that we do not serve as PR of the Catholic Church, for Madonna Ciccone, for the richest person in the world or any other institution. Act like a tree, and ofc, as long as it comes from recognized publishers or credible sources and that inclusion doesn't affect WP:UNDUE.
    • For a more sensitive point, I'm aware of the challenges from varied of perspectives against Christian faith or religion, including Madonna Ciccone, who already has a devoted article to the subject. At the very least, we can be certain that "Madonna" is not a homogenized term of devotion to all Christians, or even homogenized for Mary in academia or whatever perspective we could categorize it. Like it or not, blasphemous or not, I presume that various if not many would preferably overthink on God/Jesus rather than a figurine of Mary, yet respecting her, but still placing her second in subjects of how she raised Jesus or seeing a baby Jesus with a gargantuan Mary statue, but instead, overthinking about his adulthood, ministry, and redemption first and foremost, for a scriptural basis. I say it, "presumably", because Jesus is the centre of mainstream Christianity, and still being depicted most in mainstream media, art, also attracting more Wikipedia's stats than her mother. -Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    My argument isn't even that Madonna is only used by Christians - my argument is that it's usage is varied and the primary topic cannot be claimed by the entertainer. The disambiguation page should occupy this title. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    The term Madonna for Mary is well-placed, with the title Madonna (art). Because it belongs to the origins of the term for Mary: art depictions of Mary. This article, also has a disamb link, where indicates readers to what Madonna could also means. Throughout ages, Madonna was a thing outside Mary’s likeness but overtaken by certain people. This could explain the discrepancy with art works like Madonna of Munch. Or even Madonna-whore complex, as Feud coined it with a very different term. Note also that as could happen in real life, Madonna Ciccone outpaces general websites like YouTube or Google contrary to Mary. So isn’t only Wikipedia --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    While it's hard to measure how fast the term will outpace other things, let's not reinforce the problematic notion that Wikipedia is somehow mutually exclusive from "real life", and same goes for YouTube and Google. Your phrasing wrongfully implies that everything on the sites is fake. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    To the closing admin: After 1 week, despite this isn't a vote processing, perhaps we could have permanently a redirect to the art depictions of Mary within article's template of "Other uses" if this space remains for Madonna Ciccone in order to easily redirect those who thinks on "Mary as Madonna". Or as some "support" comments have also favored the entire disambiguation of the page, we so, might consider have something similar to the latest Traumnovelle's edit in the disamb. space. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    might consider have something similar to the latest Traumnovelle's edit in the disamb. space Here is last edit of Daniel Case which was made soon after closing discussion in 2020 (by him) and it was fine as there are such situations (pretty much very rarely but still). For example on ITwiki page it:Abba (disambigua) has not marked primary topic for music group despite fact Abba redirects to music group there (per primary usage). Also, Wikinav significantly changed after we moved Madonna to the entertaimer, now fairly after clicking Madonna (disambiguation) users more often choose to go to Mary, Mother of Jesus page than to the entertainer or art context even despite fact the entertainer is picked (BTW: not the same ballance is after people click pink (disambiguation) [10]). "Search box" is for users who know what they want to search and use the needed word but disambig is especially for people who do not know what word Madonna is at all and can later sinhandelly decide what is personally important for them after reading those pages. The entertainer has one name and does not have as many alternatives as Jesus' Mother has but at least your comment below: Mary will be always more popular than Madonna. Because she is a religious icon and religion never gets old. will well aged in the future especially that even Ciccone's douther name happen to be the same what city/town associated with Marian cults (aka Madonna of Lourdes, Our Lady of Lourdes). Dawid2009 (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    We live in a world with various people having a different way to look things: art, religion etc, where intellectuals like Sigmund Freud have made opinions about religion. Despite views against religion by intellectuals or statisticians, is pretty obvious that religion, especially Christianity will remains strong. To me and various, Mary will be always more important, the only woman that was choosen to give birth Jesus. The thing here is "Mary as Madonna" direct us to a different arena explained in different situations throught this and the past RMs (all of the RMs, no only the last two). I was unaware of Daniel's edit in the disamb page and how it was later changed to the current look, but I definitely agree with his edit and also with the next one. I originally removed the redirection to Mary here, thinking about the tenier of the name, and that the disamb could solve that. However, if this page remains for the singer in the next years at least, I agree to have a direct link to Mary's art article. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose when over 87% of the page views for "Madonna" and 70% of academic sources pertain to the singer, it frankly is absurd to say she isn't the primary topic. There is no good reason to ignore such statistics. WP:PT1 very much applies here, and nothing presented here changes my stances from the previous two RMs. Trying to change the page's title again is just beating a dead horse. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      Page views are a poor metric of primacy, see above.
      Where is your evidence that 70% of academic sources pertain to the singer? Simply typing in 'Madonna' generates 721,000 results on Google Scholar, if you omit 'Christian' from the results it drops to 448,000, which is already 37% of the results simply mentioning 'Christian'. And was it 'beating a dead horse' to propose moving the entertainer here after 6 failed moves? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I thought it was obvious that I meant the percentage that Hameltion gave above, also your "poor metric of primacy" comment regarding viewership of pages is completely false. While it admittedly baffles me how this wasn't just named "Madonna" before the 2020 RM, that discussion had been quite thorough, and until 2022 I was sure it had already resolved the matter definitively. For what it's worth, I do think having 6 prior discussions was excessive and that the page should've gotten its current title much sooner. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • It could continued until the end of times, tbh. We might have a more shifting culture: this or others future generations could witness the entirely collective dead memory of Ciccone and/or have a more established worldwide's spiritual awakening, but yet Mary could still a debated figure, therefore, the term Madonna too. Or Madonna Ciccone could be still referring despite her "irrelevance" as a historic 20th century figure, who knows. Because we don't have a crystal ball but yet, we could still see/compare the current denominations and they will still practicing their faith as of today. So no a single religion perhaps will exist (I mean, in the way we are still living, multiple denominations, no a single one). This has happened since centuries, including the views on Mary, as appears were a flashpoint starting in the 5th century with current effects, although the monoculturalism of that time favored it. The term will still popular by art critics. But yet we are not an encyclopedia oriented solely to art, as the same way, we aren't a fanzine. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per all the extensive explanation in the previous RMs, which is just way too exhausting to quote. Besides, "(entertainer)" is such a bad disambiguator invented by Wikipedia for Madonna Ciccone. She is rarely referred to as that in media and reliable sources. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      The new title isn't my primary concern with this move request. Feel free to suggest a better alternative. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      No, we should move on. Statistics shows Miss Ciccone as the primary topic of Madonna by a huge margin. Even, the United Nations legally approved the trademark of "Madonna" for her. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      You are really going to use a cybersquatting case as an argument for primacy? Views are not a determiner of primacy as evidenced by the guideline which gives multiple examples of a topic with less views being a primary topic. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      It's not only views. Madonna Ciccone is also a widely documented figure in academics and has long-term significance too (42 years and counting). Bluesatellite (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      There appears to be more academic documentation of Madonna in art there is also the concept in psychoanalysis. Both of which have a far longer term. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      Did you have a cristal ball to say Madonna Ciccone will no have a continued documentation? Certainly, they are first to Madonna Ciccone, but Mary isn’t even the first subject ever named Madonna and the original origins have more tenier than Mary. And returning to our times, Madonna Ciccone still out performing ‘Wikipedia’s stats’. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      You also do not have one to suggest she will continue to maintain her relevance. I cannot understand what else you are trying to say with the rest of your comment. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      We still living in 2024 and you still don’t have a crystal ball. We can also assume people in 100 years or more could continue to ignore Mary as Madonna (no the standard Mary in the Bible) in their faith or knowledge or simply respectfully overlook it, as it have happened the tendency over centuries. And I meant that you can’t overlook the fact the tenier of the term is fact earlier that Mary, because wasn’t invented for her. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
      WP:PRIMARYTOPIC considers the 'long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term', and in that regard we have centuries of notability and educational value before the entertainer was even born. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (U
      The policy also deals about the views alongside stats. Appears that she isnt an obscure example nor she has desmonstrated to either be recentism: Madonna Ciccone still have a new long significance starting when she debuted in the 1980s. Like I said before, educational curriculum could vary by regions, even in English countries and advanced classes of art could be minimal or non-existent. Perhaps some institutions could have their educational program oriented in their faith, including perhaps examples like evangelical or Islamic ones where Mary is perhaps not represented as Madonna in a 100%. I suspect, that naturally this has happened long before the existence of Madonna Ciccone. Therefore, culturally this also could explains some things. If you look at other Wikipedias, like Portuguese, French or Spanish, historically the term hasnt been a problem and those are regions where Catholicism, mainly, is the most popular faith. Appears, by context of some sources, that English countries have follow a non-homogenized reception by sectors as we can see.--Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support The long-term significance criterion is clear, and this is a similar case to Apple being where it is despite Apple Inc. being tremendously prominent. Similarly, Madonna (art) is at the very least an equivalent primary topic, if not THE primary topic by longterm significance despite the entertainer being hugely popular. I can accept a compromise where both the art term and the entertainer are disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. One, overwhelmingly the primary topic by pageviews. Two, the entertainer is known monomonously as "Madonna", giving a stronger reason than usual to occupy just "Madonna". SnowFire (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. My view that she is not primary topic by long-term significance has not changed, given the religious meaning that has been around for many centuries and will be around for centuries after she is dead and forgotten. I would prefer Madonna (singer), however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
      Note to closer, I have no opposition to Madonna (singer), nor do I favour it over the alternative. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. If there is a primary topic, it would be the religious figure by overwhelming significance. It is not surprising that the entertainer gets more page views, but this is temporary compared to the ongoing significance of the religious figure. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with youressay User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views at all. Sometimes even all Internet stats may not reflects fairly significance in real world. Sunni Islam has so overhemingly much larger population than Shia Islam but almost always gets less views than Shia. Topics which appear in the news or topics like the Java are overrepresented. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    Here is chart from Google Books Ngram Viewer for English language which shows that Java (programming language) modernly dominated ngrams for term java in academics database (Google Books) but the term Madonna the most often goes to the context of art and religous figure: [1]. Note User:Traumnovelle did not chosed Java as random otherstuffexist but just from WP:Disambiguation, the example which User:Red Slash added here to the guidelines in 2015. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support This is pretty much the textbook example of why the "greater enduring notability and educational value" criterion was added to PRIMARYTOPIC. In Google NgramViewer, results overhemigly go to te context of religious figure. Pageviews fairly is not wp:DETERMINEPRIMARY, especially when the Entertainer gets worse google trends this decade comparing Jesus' mother anyway (google trends include all contexts). According to Pantheon.World which was constributed by MIT University (highly ranked and influential),Mary is woman biography with HPI (historical popularity index) of all time on thw Wikipedia an fairly Britannica consider The Madonna as enough common name to be figured as alternative in the lead of the biography for that matter, this name beats in ngrams other algternatives mentioned in the lead of biography in Britannica: [11]. Google Dictionuary (which is the same dicionary what Britannica's and Marian Webster) define things related to religious figure and resonance of the term but just does not mention trademark, does notdefine given name and all people called or nicknamed Madonna (from Onion Madonna to Madonna Ciccone). Wikipedia is not encyclopedia of popular music so Nirvana does not redirect to Nirvana (band) over primary topic or over disambigution. Pay also attention Nirvana is not common word in English language as Madonna or Madame and there is no single Nirvana University called in the world, there is also no single university named after the entertaimet, meanwhile for that matter Nigerian one (called after religous figure in third most speaking English-language country in the world) already out goned the entertainer in google trends in home country: [12]. Regarding nom's analogy, Java as programming language not only does not stand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but even does not compromise dismbiguation page despite roughly cover 86-87% of all pageviews!, users were discussing in those failed moves wp:bias and wp:recentism. It is not consistecy in terms of ballance for deterimeprimary when there is contigent to we analyse all criteria for wp:npov to be not shortsighted and narrow. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per detailed nomination, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, Necrothesp, Andrewa and Dawid2009. This page was created as Madonna (singer) [05:00, 8 February 2002 Chato talk contribs m 1,982 bytes +1,982 (was most wanted) Initial entry, short bio + long plays]. The entries for Mary, mother of Jesus [00:16, 19 December 2001 SimonP talk contribs 4,481 bytes +4,481] as well as Madonna (art) [17:21, 29 October 2002 Nate Silva talk contribs 278 bytes +278 disambiguation from Madonna] were likewise created during English Wikipedia's early period. Madonna (singer) was moved to Madonna (entertainer) in August 2004 and ultimately, after 16 years and several unsuccessful nominations, moved to the current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC — Madonna — in July 2020, resulting in a very lengthy explanation by the closer. The July 2022 nomination to move the header back to Madonna (entertainer) received little support, but it appears to be gaining more strength in this nomination. I am convinced that Madonna should be, at the very least, the main title header of a disambiguation page simply on the basis of the wide expanse of history preceding the entertainer's arrival on the scene, including titles of books, plays, films and artworks, such as those listed upon the Madonna (art) as well as the Madonna and Child (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose – the idea that Madonna Ciccone doesn't/won't have "long-term significance", either on her own or compared to Mary, is pure wish-casting. This isn't the case of Latest Industry Plant who's big now but will probably be forgotten in a few years; Ciccone already has enough long-term significance over four decades, to the point any female singer after her invariably draws comparisons to her. From a pageviews analysis, Ciccone is by far the primary topic of Madonna even including Mary, and Wikinav metrics indicate there is no noticeable clickthrough to the disambiguation page. Hence, I don't believe the case has been sufficiently made to justify a move away. Sceptre (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support she's less and less popular over time, and less and less known. Youngers nowadays don't know who she is. This should never have been moved to primary, since her time as the possible primary topic contender has long since passed. This isn't the 1990s anymore. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
      Your opinion on her popularity contradicts the view statistics, which the singer leads by huge margin. Even, a research by University of Toulouse shows that Madonna Ciccone is even more influential than Virgin Mary[13] based on algorithm of all 24 languages of Wikipedia. And sorry, Catholicism is getting less and less followers, and not many people nowadays know "Madonna" as one of the titles of Virgin Mary. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
      You seem to think I am Catholic or pro-Catholic, which I am not. I am saying that Madonna the singer is not the primary. I did not say that Catholicism is the primary. It is suspect to say that Madonna has had more impact over thousands of years of impact of the Catholic topic. Clearly a very much recentism biased position. And considering that many people have never heard of her where Western pop culture never reaches, Wikipedia itself is a biased sample because it is just that. Young people don't know who this article's topic is, and that increases with time. Entertainment news no longer compares new singers to her, unlike other contemporary or even older singers. She is of her time, and her influence is on those around her of her time. Articles on Wikipedia have a bias concerning time sampling. A disambiguation page is usually a good idea. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
      "Entertainment news no longer compares new singers to her". You’re joking, right? Up until very recently – as in the past year or two! – Madonna was undisputedly the most successful female pop artist of all time. Hell, even now the jury is still out on whether Taylor Swift has passed her or simply drawn alongside, and as a result, there have been a lot of comparisons between the two recently. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. In Poland, at least, this would not be the primary meaning. A disambig at Madonna seems like a good idea. --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 06:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
      Seconded as a russophone, I think people are assuming Madonna (art) to be the new primary topic when really it would just redirect to the main page on Mary. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    Relisting comment: Final relist. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Note: WikiProject Madonna, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Electronic music, WikiProject Business, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Women in Music, WikiProject United States, WikiProject American music, WikiProject Women in Business, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Rock music, and WikiProject Record Production have been notified of this discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Note: WikiProject English Language, WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Anthroponymy, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women in Religion, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Jewish Women, WikiProject Saints, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and WikiProject Disambiguation have been notified of this discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose - per WP:PT1 the usage of Madonna the singer is many magnitudes larger based on page uses than that of the other uses, which for the time being make it a clear case that the Singer staying as the Primary Topic helps users searching for it, rather than forcing them to go through disambiguation. Raladic (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose We choose primary topics by set of metrics. The Wikipedia pageviews for the entertainer are much more than those for the religious figure, so readers searching for "Madonna" usually want the entertainer. Reliable sources talking about Madonna are almost always talking about the entertainer. The argument for change seems to be that the term used to usually refer to the religious icon, but that is not the case now as the entertainer still has one of the most popular articles in Wikipedia. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per above (any arguments I would've made have already been mentioned). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose As far as I understand, other meanings (read: the religious figure) are more prominent around the world. It's certainly true in Russia (in Russian Wikipedia, "Madonna" is a disambig), and seems to be true in Poland, according to Piotrus. The arguments above lead me to believe that's not the case in the English-speaking countries (namely the United States). And while yes, she is losing popularity and we don't know if an average person will still know her in the year 2100 (unlike the religious figure), we are renaming this article now, when she's still a major figure in popular culture, and when most people still look for her when searching "Madonna". AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
      Since this is the English WP, then we should follow the practice followed in the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and others. Who knows if The Madonna or Our Lady (or "My Lady", the meaning of the word) will still be venerated in 2100. The art will still exist though, one hopes — Iadmc♫talk  18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Mary will be always more popular than Madonna. Because she is a religious icon and religion never gets old. "Mary as Madonna" seems to be a different thing, in the world pre-Ciccone/Post-Ciccone because is a term less homogenized. She is highly revered, for example, in Mexico, but she is mostly known as "Guadalupe" or with a diminutive if Virgin. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    That's not really true, many religions in history have died out and it's gods forgotten.★Trekker (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    And yet a lot of pagan and indigenous religions are seeing a revival today. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Meh, not in any way that actually really matters. Certainly doesn't compare to their ancient cults or how big major world religions like Islam look like today. And even if some better attested "pagan" religions are getting some followers that doesn't change that entire religions and their pantheons are completely unknown today. By your logic, who knows if Ciccone will be worshipped as a goddess one day? Less accomplished people have been given divine status in history.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Greco-Roman gods are quite well remembered. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Never claimed they weren't! Maybe try to counter things I've actually said instead of things you seem to think I've said.★Trekker (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    You're trying to imply that Christianity's decline means the artistic value will be forgotten too: your speculation isn't supported by any evidence whatsoever. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Not at all what I said. And I've already explained this bellow. If you're going to continue to extrapolate unfounded arguments from my comments then I'm quite done with this. My oppose will stand as is.★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't realise the English speaking world was limited to those five specific countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose If we're going to take into account popularity trends as a reason for why this should or should not be moved, should we also look at trends within religion? Aren't people on average becoming less religious (or at least less Christian) in the English-speaking world? In the vast majority of cases I would support the relevancy of a religious concept over that of a modern entertainer, but in this specific case I can see an argument be made that the entertainer is better known by this specific name than the concept of depictions of Mary by an Italian name has been known in the English language (according to the Madonna (art) article the word entered into English in the 17th-century, so relatively recently).★Trekker (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
      The idea that an entertainer's popularity will outlive a large religion with over one billion adherents is just asinine. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Good thing that's not what I wrote. My point is that crystal ball "in the future no one will remember the entertainer because some young people I know don't recognize her" is a worthless argument. Besides, "Madonna" is not Christianity, it's one name (an Italian one) used to refer to one figure (or her depictions) within Christianity in some languages, and not that common in English anymore.★Trekker (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
        You mentioned the decline of Christianity.
        >Besides, "Madonna" is not Christianity, it's one name (an Italian one) used to refer to one figure (or her depictions) within Christianity in some languages, and not that common in English anymore.
        Here's an example of the term Madonna used in a modern art piece in an English speaking country: Surfing Madonna, clearly the term is still being used with reference to Mary in English speaking countries.
        We also value reliable sources over popular culture and what people search for, views is explicitly discounted a metric for primacy on the page with examples of primary topics that have less views. I also provided other examples above. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    Congrats you have a few examples of Madonna being used for Mary art, still not convinced that it's popular enough these days to matter. Also, never once did I mention page views, so don't try to put words in my mouth, argue with other people about that if you wish.★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose as we already had this discussion when it was moved from Madonna (entertainer) to Madonna. The entertainer is by fair the primary topic and any confusion with Mary, mother of Jesus in art can be solved with a hatnote. cookie monster 755 04:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose The majority of opinions opposing this move in the comments make valid points, particularly regarding the significance of Madonna Ciccone in popular culture and academia.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose The entertainer is the primary topic. The fictional character from the Gospels is hardly relevant. Dimadick (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
      How hardly relevent? She is venerated by billions and thousands of images depicting her appear all over the world. Both her and the art could conceiveably be the primary topic — Iadmc♫talk  09:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The evidence presented above shows that the singer is clearly the primary topic now. Whether she will still be the primary topic in 2100 is both unknowable and irrelevant - what matters is what people reading the English Wikipedia in 2024 are looking for when they search "Madonna" and overwhelmingly that isn't the religious figure. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per centuries of notability and educational value before the entertainer was even born mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, a disambig between Mary, the art scholarship concept, and the entertainer seems the most reasonable. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
      There was consensus against moving at Talk:Madonna/Archive 23#Requested move 23 July 2022. Page moves against such consensus should not be made without there being substantial new developments or having a highly convincing argument that was not previously considered. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Mia Mahey (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
      There was consensus against making the entertainer the primary topic for half a dozen RMs. Consensus can change and there is nothing wrong with starting a new discussion. Page views have not been considered for other examples, despite that being the main argument in the previous RM.
      Please don't try to suggest we shouldn't allow discussion because something has been discussed two years ago. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
    • A common trend among those calling Mary the primary topic (not just during this RM) is such users seem to overlook how she isn't known by the "Madonna" name nearly as much as her formal name. People more often just use the latter when not adding "Mother of Christ" or "Mother of Jesus" or anything similar onto it. This includes many observant Catholics and other Christians. There's a reason that page doesn't have "Madonna" in its title. Ms. Ciccone on the other hand is predominantly known by her own legal first name, which is Madonna, and most sources that do discuss her tend to just use that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
      I'm not saying Mary, Mother of Jesus is the primary topic for 'Madonna', I am saying there can be no clear primary topic given the varied usage of the term. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
      Except, in this case there is a clear primary topic per WP:PT1 - A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
      As was already established above now, the usage of the term Madonna, not Mary, is much more likely to be used for Madonna the singer. This is backed by Wikinav as well as page views, which clearly show that most people looking for Madonna go to the article of the singer, not the disambiguation, or the art piece.
      It is clear that based on usage, this is the topic sought, therefore it is primary and other topics are accessible via the disambiguation page. Raladic (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
      You forgot WP:PT2. Views ultimately show what someone found and not necessarily what they were searching for. There are plenty of primary topics that receive far less views. Pink would go to Pink (singer) if views were such an important factor. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wiki.x.io&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Pink%7CPink_(singer)
      Traumnovelle (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    You still are unfairly downplaying how views DO matter. Regarding Pink, it's possible that the color is such a commonly known term that lots of readers aren't looking to learn more than they already do about that and instead have recently opted to discover things about the singer, but I can't say for certain how the discrepancy came about. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT lists examples of topics where the primary topic has less views than the main one. There are more important factors such as the long term significance of the term and it's continued usage in academia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    Among singers the most anological example probably is Usher, see: Talk:Usher (musician)/Archive 2#Requested move 18 February 2022
    Usher has fewer ngrams in mondern English after 1900's than phrase Madonna: [14] and Usher (occupation) gets even less views than Usher (album) from Usher (musician). Occupation also has 9 language versions in comprasion to musician who has 74, meanwhile Mary (The Madonna) has 148 language versions in comprasion to the Entertainer Madonna born who has currently 150. Madonna in context of religious art has wide influence per Wikipedia:CONCEPTDAB (all articles: Madonna of, Madonna and Child,Virgin and Child etc.) which why Jesus' mother now has historical popularity 90.47 index, meanhile the entertainer has 74.95 historical popularity index (updated yesterday as earlier page was not avialabl due to working in progress by developers of webpage). Also Saint Sarah which was dropped as Black Madonna afer MAry has better HPI than Beyonce and Kanye West which sometimes are namedropped as Black Madonna after the entertaner: [15]/[16]/[17]. Mary is pretty much always ranked 1-st among all woman[18], meanwhile Madonna Ciccone now is 28-th among all woman artists: [19]. Regardless of score that RM it probably will be very well aged in (far) future in favour disambiguation at least. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Traumnovelle: Actually, WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT does not list examples like that. You got my hopes up. I'm aware of a couple of others, but I haven't found more than a few. I did spot one example mentioned there, which is Java – and that was already mentioned here. Are there any others mentioned there? (Usher is a disambiguation page, so it doesn't fall into that category.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    It lists Java which is an example of that. There's no other examples mentioned on the page but there are so many examples through out Wikipedia where primacy has been determined through a lot more than page views, with academic and long term significance being given greater weight. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    @BarrelProof: Usher is a disambiguation page, so it doesn't fall into that category - There are plenty such examples especially among more niche subjects, if you are searching very notable example other than Java, where even 85%+-viewed page is not the priamry and even does not compromise wp:disambig either, then one such example which fall into that category is Sex Education (TV series) vs Sex Education, one subject is numerous times more popular with users and one subject is numerous times older: [20] but usually 85%+ views is already disambiguation at least, topic with less than 15% rarely are discussed as potential primary topic, far more often as disambiguation compromise like Usher and now Madonna: [21]. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

    You should read on in the policy - In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. Your argument about pink is not relevant here here as it’s a case of WP:OTHERCONTENT. We are here to discuss (or more, rehash since it’s the same arguments as were used two years ago in the last move discussion) Madonna and as others have also shown above, it is not only usage, but also a clear and large amount of coverage of the singer in RS. So for the time being, unless this actually changes, she is the primary topic that most people are coming here for. Raladic (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    That policy says in most cases, quite obviously the long-term significance of the singer is not greater than the artistic/religious term and thus it doesn't apply to this article. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    We do not employ WP:CRYSTALBALLs on Wikipedia, so what the long term significance of a religious icon of one religion of the world has or has not cannot be said at this point in time and compared to the existence of the planet, 2000 years of religious history isn’t long enough to claim that it has enduring importance (versus your earlier argument of the color pink that has existed since the existence of colors, so millions of years, which is how someone can argue that the color pink, has shown to have more long term significance).
    So with that, PT2 is a wash and we fall back to usage, aka PT1 and in that one, the singer is a clear winner, at least as far as Wikipedia Usage is concerned.
    We make decisions and form consensus around policies. Raladic (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    We don't need to employ a crystal ball, there is ample evidence of the long term significance of the term Madonna in art. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    The Madonna redirect covers that, e.g. "The Madonna of X" or "The Madonna and Child" — Iadmc♫talk  04:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    There is also ample evidence of the long term significance of Madonna the singer with even a whole field of study dedicated to it.
    So without a crystal ball, at this moment in time, it can’t be said the singers legacy won’t be equally as long term as the religious art. Raladic (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    There are far more works on Google Scholar that concern Madonna as a religious and artistic figure than the singer. Comparing the two is laughable. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    Other users have already looked at that further up as well and found that there is also a lot of reference work about the singer out there between scholarly work, books and obviously media, so as I just scrolled through it, it appears you are starting to repeat the same arguments over and over to every user that has opposed your proposal. Raladic (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    You replied to an unrelated comment by me with an argument that's been repeated by multiple other people and you're accusing me of bludgeoning? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    "Madonna" is just a different way of referring to Mary, it's unfair to compare the main article on the singer to a subtopic about how this clearly notable figure is portrayed in a specific type of art. Madonna (art) is essentially just a fork, not the primary topic we're discussing. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Support, no PRIMARY by long-term significance.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    • A hatnote at a minimum, I'd added Mary, mother of Jesus to the hatnote with this edit, which was reverted. Seems that would solve much of the immediate problem. The singer's article receives thousands of views a day, one every seven seconds or so, and for the moment seems to be what readers search for, and directing them to a disamb page before finding what they've come to find seems unnecessary if a hatnote could fix the concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    Support that hatnote, which I've just reinstated: it seems a helpful compromise position which will help a lot of readers and keep a lot of editors happy (happier, anyway). PamD 14:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    Support it does what is needed — Iadmc♫talk  14:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm also okay with the addition of Mary in the hatnote. Although WikiNav metrics suggest people don't go to the disambiguation page, expanding the hatnote we already require to include the second-most plausible search term doesn't cause much harm. Sceptre (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    Support this hatnote. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    It could be last contentious option if the closer would decide that changing consensus is still too hard for now (even though new arguments in favour mary does appeared in that RM, at least on photographies of Ngrams I added) but I agree with Orchestrator sentence elsewhere: "Madonna" is just a different way of referring to Mary, it's unfair to compare the main article on the singer to a subtopic about how this clearly notable figure is portrayed in a specific type of art. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    As I mentioned in my revert, the DAB page already covers Mary along with other listings. To single her out comes off an attempt to push her closer into primary status than she previously was (at least for views). Doing so in the middle of an RM is also suspicious timing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    Strong oppose, A rehashed discussion of another rehashed discussion is laughable at this point. As per the closing of when the article title was moved to Madonna, if the status quo changes from Madonna the music artist being the primary topic to the religious figure of the same name, then it warrants a change. So far, not the status quo, nor the media, nor any academic sources have shifted to Madonna referring to the religious icon. From what I can see, every point here has already been brought up and debunked years before, nothing's new.
    What I find interesting is that many of the commenters here have never edited Madonna and/or articles relating to pop culture and music; it's a shame that people are squabbling the exact same arguments on a debate that was solved years ago; instead of contributing content and improving the article to its hopeful WP:FA status. While I do not think RfCs/requested moves have to necessarily be commented on by those who know a lot about the topic, it seems whatever the outcome is, it isn't going to improve in anyone actually improving the content of the article; not just the title. Unfortunate. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    I can just as easily say most of the oppose voters don't have an extensive edit history relating to religion or other scholarly topics, who's to say the decreased visibility of Mary, mother of Jesus isn't also damaging that article's prospects of moving past its own B-class designation?
    Just think about how Wikipedia would compare in this regard to other leading publications, how likely would any other historically significant encyclopedia be to consciously allow one of the most widely venerated figures in history to be conflated with a pop singer without immediate relevance outside of America? Orchastrattor (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with you half and half, as in this and all previous RMs there have been a varied of perspectives both for and against to Mary and Madonna. But some traditional encyclopedias have had the singer under the definition of the word. Mainstream media too with no [major] problems. Tintin put here that this is a "non-dogmatic" title. It is also true, and it is what it is: "open to new and different ideas, and not claiming that you are always right, especially in connection with religious beliefs" (Dictionary.cambridge.org). English dictionaries have included Mary, although they have varied to include "Madonna" as "archaic", and Mary as secondary definition, others have completely erased name's origins, or have included a similar continued definition to a "idealized woman". To my acknowledge, the whore-complex, Mary and Madonna all of them are mirror of name's origins, that still in usage, and all of them are mirrored to name's origins by different degrees by academic sources. Attitude toward the name has been varied until our present time, references speaks, so "Mary as Madonna" to be "the primary" is almost as non-dogmatic too, nor to denied that entire Catholic-centric countries don't have in their identities "Mary as Madonna", although others have. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    Your argument is deflecting my point at hand; this is not a RM on a page about the religious figure, this is an RM about the music icon. If this were an RM about the Virgin Mary, The way I see it, it seems that those voting support despite previous logical consensus otherwise seem to be doing it out of a harbored dislike for Madonna the singer, not necessarily because they are supporting the religious figure. In fact, Titles of Mary doesn't even mention "Madonna" as a prominent title of the Virgin Mary in the intro paragraph. Nor is there a decent argument that Mary, mother of Jesus is negatively affected by the Madonna page.
    If this were the Italian or Spanish wikipedia then maybe Madonna could be argued as a prominent part of the Catholic lexicon for those language speakers. But as it stands, this is the English wikipedia where most people will be using the name "Mary" to refer to the religious figure. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    One of the oppose voters above hyperlinked Mary to "fictional character" to support their position, so again it would be just as easy to accuse the other side of the discussion of harboring hostility towards invaluable biblical scholarship content and instead favoring WP:POPCULTURE-style celebrity fluff. It's disingenuous to claim the term has no religious significance in the English language when one can easily point to something like Black Madonna for an example of the title being used in English even without the explicit Romance connection that Madonna (art) has. "Madonna" as an overarching concept in anglophone Christianity is a demonstrably notable topic, the content that would apply to it is just forked between Mary, Madonna (art), and Marian titles, the pop singer should not be allowed to slot in ahead of a different topic simply because the information for that topic is split between different subtopics.
    Citing the previous RM is also completely nonsensical when it was the only such rm to succeed after a long list of discussions with consensus not to move. I would not be voting support if I hadn't read through the arguments here people explicitly brought up from the previous discussion and decided they left me unconvinced. That's just how consensus works. Orchastrattor (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    No, referencing the last RM is very relevant as it shows that the consensus has shifted after many years of previous RMs that resulted in no consensus for a move and the default outcome for an article title change when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS is not to move, which means that this prior no consensus burden was overcome in the last RM in 2022, meaning that a consensus was reached by the community that determined that Madonna the singer is the Primary Topic, and thus now for this new RM we are currently discussing, the same burden exists, which means that if no clear consensus is reached, the current status quo will be maintained (aka not moved). Raladic (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    There wasn't no consensus for a move previously: there was consensus against moving it specifically. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Which is an even stronger case that that previous consensus not to move was overcome in favor of the move, which landed the singer as clear consensus primary topic. Raladic (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    If this were Spanish wikipedia - nothing could be further from the truth. Term Madonna is more common in tradition of English language than in Spanish language especially in context of history of art for religious figure at least, what is evidenced by Google Books Ngram Viewer: [22][23]. I didn't expect this considering that the Spanish-speaking world is more Catholic, but Google Ngram Viewer statistics show otherwise, there is a greater disproportion between the Virgin-Madonna in the Spanish-speaking world than in the English-speaking world beetwen Virgin-Madonna, perhaps nobody said that at earleir RM as it is first discussion where Ngram Viewer has been used. The title although non-dogmatic then is still recognisable in academia and various places in the world just as Nirvana which somehow got primary over music band Nirvana despite fact English-speaking world generally is not Buddhist at all. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you PHShanghai, for pointing out that 'Madonna' was missing from the opening list of Titles of Mary. Have added it per such sourced articles as Madonna (art) - an entire genre of art named after a particular title for Mary. That genre is well represented in Wikipedia's Madonna art collection, (i.e. Category:Madonna and Child in art. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    Retroactively editing the article topic that you have claimed is far more important than Madonna (the music icon) emphasizes my point that this isn't a discussion about constructively improving content, but squabbling arguments that have been discussed over and over and over. See move archive for details. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    Where have I claimed that? I haven't even commented pro or con on this discussion (unless I'm wrong and not recalling something because of the length of the discussion) and my comments were about adding the hatnote, nothing more. All I did was thank you for pointing out that 'Madonna' was missing at the Titles of Mary page. It shouldn't have been missing, as I explain in my edit summary and above, and thank you for a good find. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    This user is just uncivilly accusing everyone who believes the singer isn't the primary topic of acting in bad faith because they haven't substantially edited articles on Mary/Madonna. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    My point was that I haven't commented in this discussion except about the hatnote, although for some reason the editor just made up words in my name. Possibly mixing me up with someone else? I'll just assume good faith and say a mistake was made, but would be nice if they struck the non-existent quote. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    Here is another image of Google Books Ngram Viewer which shows that religous context is by so far the most often mentioned in academic works, not the entertainer Dawid2009 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    • support IMO article about the performer never should have been moved here in the first place. Zero disrespect to the performer, but the name she uses is clearly a reference to the name famous centuries before her birth - making believe that she's the primary topic from an encyclopedic standpoint is recentism; reassess the performer's fame in a few hundred years, or 2,000. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    That's because no one refers to Madonna the singer by her full name, but by her stagefirst name, which is simply "Madonna", so you can't compare Apples and oranges.
    So if you wanted to compare them, you'd have to look at this which obviously shows that the lone standing term "Madonna" has much more than "Madonna and Child", by a factor of 10x. Raladic (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry to nitpick, but it's misleading to call one's own first name a stage name (a term that implies one goes by something not part of their legal identity), and there actually are times people use the singer's last name even when far less frequently than just "Madonna". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Raladic: Almost 99% of google ngram viewer go to the context of religious figure. Here and here are the most accurate google ngram viewer charts you can find, because sign "*" check what is most frequently used after word Madonna and what is most frequently used after second one further word Dawid2009 (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry yes I wasn’t trying to imply that it wasn’t her actual name. Corrected inline. Raladic (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment when people look for Madonna the artist they are likely to simply type in "Madonna". How ever if they are looking for the art or the Mother of God they will qualify it, e.g. "Madonna and Child" (see the graphic to the left), "Mary the Madonna" or even "The Madonna". This suggests that these searchers acknowlege the singer's precedence over all else— Iadmc♫talk  11:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding graph which I uploaded to the commons (on the left), are you suggestig that The Entertainer was born before 1900's (the peak for both Madonna was in 19-th cntury and for Madonna-like in early 20th century in academic database)? Anyway Iconography gets more ngrams than Popular music [24], and ngrams for Madonna are about Parallel to Our Lady [25] so is evidenced that scholar Madonna in context of translation as Our Lady [26]. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    No. I'm talking about now. I assume your graphic is recent and not pre-1900 which would make it irrelevent! We're not talking about art vs pop music but, to put it bluntly, Mary the mother of Jesus vs Madonna Chiccone: who gets searched for most as "madonna"? This will help inform our use of this term as the primary target for "Madonna" — Iadmc♫talk  11:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    put it bluntly, Mary the mother of Jesus vs Madonna Chiccone: who gets searched for most as "madonna"? Here you have unarguable reply: If someone goes to the Encyclopedia or Google Books there~, there is no clear primary topic, especially that religous contexgt got much more academic works, it is relevant per usances since 2011. If someone goes to the Google Internet search at all, then Madonna the singer at all, sure. The question however may be which is more determine but I will not repeat/interpretate whole discussion (it is for closer not for us, we both !voted). Thanks. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    I would say there are other things which need to inform our primary use of the term "Madonna" for the Madonna article, eg notability of each possibilty — Iadmc♫talk  11:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Prince (not the singer but the male ruler)? Queen (no clear primary topic)? Apple (the fruit rather than either company)? Orange (no clear primary topic)? It goes on. Primacy is simply not always clear-cut. Prehaps a dab page is better here as the main article and the singer would be Madonna (singer) or Madonna (entertainer) while the art is The Madonna or Madonna (art) and Mary is Madonna (religious figure). Though I'm not convinced of the last as people simply don't look for Mary (a dab I notice!) under the term Madonna. This is complicated! — Iadmc♫talk  02:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    That's subjective, I only know the title for this article isn't disambiguated because I, at multiple points, just typed "Madonna" into the search function with the expectation of being taken to the article on Mary instead of here. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    "Apple" is not a valid comparison in this case. Because (1) "apple" is a common English word that most peopple already know, while "Mary as Madonna" is NOT common for most people. (2) "Apple" is an original fruit-related term, while "Madonna" is NOT original for Mary. It was adopted as one of her titles much later. (3) "Apple" is not a disambiguation page, while this discussion is trying to push "Madonna" as a disambiguation, again not an equal comparison. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_23&oldid=1244588796"