(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Madonna/Archive 22 - Wikipedia
Wikipedia

Talk:Madonna/Archive 22

< Talk:Madonna
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Tbhotch in topic List of people Madonna has influenced
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madonna (entertainer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WFM (some talk page archive bots insist on a signed reply.) –2A03:2267:2:0:6DB3:30E3:27EF:135D (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Culture of the United States

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There is no Madonna on Culture of the United States and nobody wants a {{Globalize/US}} (US centric) head note here as on Second-wave feminism. Please remove… 

* [[Culture of the United States]]

…in #See also. While at it and if you have admin rights, maybe replace the semi-protection here by the simpler "edit review" scheme, it works like a charm on Sasha Grey. –2A03:2267:2:0:8955:BF05:FDF2:3A35 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done agree it's an odd link to see... just passing mention.--Moxy (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

charlotteobserver

The missing ref name=charlotteobserver near American Dance Festival in 1958–1981: Early life and career beginnings appears in the next paragraph of this section, please update…

old
<ref name= charlotteobserver
new
<ref name="charlotteobserver"

…twice (use + definition). –2A03:2267:2:0:B8D4:2338:B18B:C250 (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Influences

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The influences section sadly again seems to be a tad bit too long. probably needs pruning. —IB [ Poke ] 09:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course it should be influences for the L in BLP, legacy is for obituaries. She mentioned that women are not supposed to get older in her woman of the year 2016 speech 26 months ago:
Madonna Woman of The Year Full Speech | Billboard Women in Music 2016 on YouTube.
BTW, this edit could go to some hall of shame, are folks here stuck in the freaking '60s? –2A03:2267:2:0:D502:8D94:1861:2F2F (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
(Same user, other ISP from Hamburg):  Possibly maybe  (Björk, not Madonna) #Legacy and influence on another page could also work here (until old farts like me disgusted by "legacy" for living people die out, and that won't take too long.) –84.46.52.2 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Taraborrelli references

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This article has much chunk of content derived from the book Madonna: An Intimate Biography by J. Randy Taraborrelli, whose 2002 US edition is listed here. I have noticed that Taraborrelli has released an updated version in July 2018, with Madonna's life uptill that point. In the 2018 edition preface, the author notes that there have been some minor corrections to the existing content, based on the author's change of mind, interpretation of Madonna's life and new research material. So I believe we should be using the 2018 edition and comb through the article and see if there is any change in the supporting content. I have myself removed some bits from whatever I can see from Google books. Anyone opposed to the idea? —IB [ Poke ] 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Fully support :) Bluesatellite (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
As do I; we should by all means strive to make this page as accurate as possible. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I wish I had this book then could have combed through all the pages. However, its not listed in any library in UK :( —IB [ Poke ] 11:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Right so @Bluesatellite: and @SNUGGUMS: the book was released in UK and I got a copy from library. I will start working on the article. —IB [ Poke ] 12:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Go for it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Former featured article

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The archive link is hard to find, you have to know something in the direction of… 

Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Madonna

…by heart. Any chance to get this class=B GA back to class=A for a fresh attempt with FA? Apparently there's only one major obstacle, all references have to be checked (and fixed if broken), bad references were the reason for the demotion to GA in 2012. Just in case, I'm not volunteering to check 390 references here before Emma Blackery (nominated) + Sasha Grey (WIP) are stamped as GA, but I use the Madonna page as example elsewhere.  –84.46.52.31 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tested the process on "Sasha Grey", checking and fixing 134 references took me more than 13 hours, the same procedure here for 390 references requires at least two contributors, e.g., one working top-down, the other bottom-up. Logged-in for the semi-protection, and IMNSHO this is not more state of the art, "required review" is good enough against random IP vandalism. Intentional vandalism is another story. –84.46.52.75 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Madonna at Eurovision Song Contest 2019 in Tel-Aviv, Israel

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add information on this event: https://eurovisionworld.com/esc/madonna-will-perform-in-eurovision-2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:500:A2E:65F2:C572:399E:C3DA (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

She's really far beyond the point in her career where announced appearances have to be noted before the fact, cf. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NORUSH. If you insist on it please present it in a form ready for copy and paste, complete with an indication of the place where you want the info, a {{semi-protected edit request}} for the request, and a ~~~~ signature. –84.46.52.110 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Verb error

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the phrase, "Madonna has recorded songs which has reached the top of record charts" the word has should be changed to "have". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8400:1EE1:D106:21CE:297:DFFB (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done now reads "have reached the top". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

15 Films About Madonna listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 15 Films About Madonna. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Resolved
 – by Amory e.a., thanks. 84.46.52.110 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Née

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please use an [[internal link]] for the term née. Or use a word that does not require C2 proficiency. 188.206.103.60 (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it even English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.206.103.60 (talk • contribs) 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, just follow the wikilink: The French and English-adopted terms née and né… or try wikt:née. My DEnglish isn't good enough to suggest born, what is usual if married pairs adopt the family name of one partner? Please add a {{semi-protected edit request}} for your suggestion. –84.46.53.102 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Her Achievement Section

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Most of the information in here is inaccurate or false. She is not the wealthiest female in the music industry and Rihanna has been nominated for that position since her Fenty line crossed a financial threshold. She is not a "rock" musician as virtually all her albums are pop. There are an unbelievable amount of inaccuracies on this page and it is nothing but promotional in her favor. I would like people's thoughts on this issue before I begin editing. Also I would like to know how many of these editors are sockpuppets for her PR agencies or her representation, and how many are being paid to edit. 73.52.3.139 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia disallows WP:ADVOCACY, and a PR person would have WP:CONFLICT. Editors try to do their best with sources. I think Taraborrelli is very inconsistent, but he has written books on celebrities and people tend to cite him. Partytemple (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Instruments

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ukulele should be added to list of instruments she plays, since she's played in a fair amount of times, especially during the Rebel Heart Tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortal Aphrodite (talk • contribs) 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, {{sofixit}}, e.g., instruments = {{hlist|Vocals|guitar|[[ukulele]]}} as used on Emma Blackery—I used Madonna (entertainer) for inspirations there. –84.46.52.203 (talk)
Nope. Secondary instruments are not listed in the infobox, per Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument. Secondary instruments are meant to be brought up in the article body. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The OP explained why they consider the ukulele as relevant, I can't judge it here. On Emma Blackery it is important, one of her four most viewed videos (over 4M views) is "My thoughts on Google+", also available as single, where she plays an ukulele, and again in 2018 after she finally killed the beast (insider-joke for "G+ is dead"). –84.46.52.203 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Touring Artist Statistic

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the 4th Paragraph- “She is also the highest-grossing solo touring artist of all time, accumulating U.S. $1.4 billion from her concert tickets” is no longer true. As of 01.2020 she is second behind Celine Dion. It must be edited please. Timmytacgn (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

100 Women of the Year

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Like Beyonce's article lead we may include her mention from the magazine and their series "TIME’s list of the most influential women of the past century" representing 1989. --Chrishonduras (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Subtitle of article

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why this article’s subtitle is “Madonna (entertainer)? She is an artist not entertainer. Entertainer is a part of being artist. Can we write Madonna (artist) please? Navyiconer (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That parenthetical was most likely implemented because "artist" and "singer" don't fully encompass all she's known for. If you'd like the title to be changed, then see WP:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves as there have been many previous move requests that led to lots of debating, none of which have gathered enough consensus to move this title to anything else. I personally doubt enough people would agree on "artist" for that to become the new title. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think entertainer looking funny not serious like I said her job is artist I think it it should not be discussed I mean she write songs and sing them this is not “entertainer”? It’s all about being artist and don’t we all called these people as an “artist” ? First time I saw on wikipedia as an “entertainer” seriously why? Navyiconer (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

She works in entertainment industry, of course she's an entertainer. Funny or not, it's all just a matter of personal taste. To me, "artist" sounds even more ambiguous. Honestly, it's not worth discussion anymore, there have been tons of debates in the past already. This page should be titled either Madonna or Madonna (entertainer). That's it, and I won't reply no more, cheers. Bluesatellite (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago100 comments41 people in discussion
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: Moved Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually close these RM discussions and was asked to do this by another user I've been involved with recently on something else, since no other admin seemed interested in closing it and the discussion was increasingly boiling over.

I spent time reading over all the previous discussions, the relevant policy pages and this instant discussion before reaching this decision. I know that nothing I can do can keep it from being controversial with at least some people who opposed it. But I feel the community is owed more than a sentence or two here by way of explanation, given that this is the sixth time the issue has been discussed in the last 12 years.

Previous discussions ended with either a strong consensus against this move, or no consensus. And those were the proper closures at those times. Attempts in two of the other logged discussions to more firmly establish Mary as the primary topic also failed (The remaining three concern either the disambiguation term for this article or an attempt to settle this whole issue by including the singer's last name; they as a result have no bearing on this discussion).

During one of the 2013 discussions, Johnbod, a user who I have had the pleasure of briefly meeting in person at Wikimania 2012 and have tremendous respect for (he did not participate in this particular discussion, alas), observed that the case for picking Mary or the singer as the primary topic for "Madonna" might grow with time. He threw out a decade; it's been seven years.

The mere existence of multiple previous discussions with the same result does not prejudice future iterations. We had 13 AfDs on Daniel Brandt that all closed as keeps or no consensus, but then the 14th one resulted in a delete and merge that still stands.

And like that discussion, this time consensus has changed.

On purely numerical grounds, there are about 25 or so supports against 12 opposes—about the 2:1 ratio that we seem to universally consider as indicating some consensus has been reached. But we do not just count votes, we must look at and consider the reasoning behind those !votes.

The supports, here as in more recent iterations of this discussion, generally rely on metrics like page views and search results to support their claim that most readers who type in "Madonna" are expecting to find information on the singer rather than the religious figure. They also demur as to whether the word "Madonna" alone, when used in the English-speaking world, is seen and has always been seen as referring to Mary.

The opposes assert the long-term significance of "Madonna" as a reference to Mary trumps any passing interest in a singer/actress whose biggest hits and most successful tours are, for most English speakers anyway, 20–40 years in the past. They say that a century from now, it is likelier that Ms. Ciccone will be forgotten but the Madonnas of art and religion will endure as they have for a few centuries, so the singer cannot be the primary topic of "Madonna".

Those arguments are legitimate and colorable and no disrepute attaches to those who advanced them. Nonetheless I find the supports more convincing.

The three general principles bullet-pointed at DPT are all extremely pertinent here. Being older and being the source of the name can certainly be considered, but they are not dispositive. There are, no doubt, some Catholics for whom "Madonna" will always be Mary ... but a general worldwide audience will think of the singer first. If we assume that pageviews are indicative of that tendency, we can find support in those numbers: Madonna, the current disambiguation page, gets a mere 407 average daily views, Mary, mother of Jesus draws 2,603, but Madonna (entertainer) draws 11,331. If readers were going to the dab page, I'd hazard, it would have a lot more views. What this suggests to me is that a lot of readers are either coming from external search results or seeing the "(entertainer)" pop up in the drop-downs on our search results. They're not bothering with any extra clicks, regardless if someone here thinks that they should have to be.

Indeed, the "long-term significance" argument here, aside from attracting repeated and IMO deserved responses of "WP:CRYSTAL" (a refusal to assume the singer will be forgotten by 2120, say, does not automatically translate into a presumption that she will be as notable then as now), also seems to some supporters to rest on the idea that some sort of unspoken greater value system must govern how we apply our editorial policies. This most commonly manifests(ed) itself in AfDs on trendy topics that have easily met our notability criteria where someone, or a few someones, make really picayune objections that eventually boil down to "OK, it's notable ... BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE!!!!! IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE!!! WE HAVE TO TAKE A STAND HERE!!!" (Sometimes, if you're lucky, they actually say that out loud).

Wikipedia's purpose is to be a free online encyclopedia for everyone. It is not to play cultural gatekeeper or minder, whatever one may think of the values of the culture that it is reflecting and/or arose from.

I should just add before I conclude that personal experience supports, for me, the notion that "Madonna" does not denote Mary to a wide group of Catholics. I am not Catholic, but I've lived in a few very Catholic places and gotten to know many Catholics, including my in-laws. I have heard far more references to "Madonna" the singer from them than "Madonna" the mother of Christ. I know of many "Blessed Virgin Mary" or "Our Lady of ..." schools and churches; I've yet to hear anyone say that they went to Mass at a Madonna church, or that their kids go/went to Madonna school. (Honestly I think the art meaning has a stronger (but only relatively stronger) claim to primary-topic status.

Lastly let us remember that this decision is not final, not for all time. If in, say, 2080 or 2100 (Hi, future, if you're reading!), we decide that the career of Madonna Louise Ciccone is by then of purely historical and arcane interest, everyone can get on their brain implants and reverse this move. Or sooner than that, of course, if we haven't developed brain-implant computing by then. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

--

– The singer is by far the most common usage. Also, if somebody was searching for Mary, mother of Jesus, they would most probably enter "Mary" into the search box. Mary is known by many different titles, pseudonyms, and nicknames and only one could be the primary topic in the English Wikipedia, according to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:UCRN; moreover, the Google Search, brings the singer as the result of the word, Madonna.

And, besides, when Wikipedians and users are creating articles, adding contents and editing pages regarding the singer, they are not going to type "entertainer" in a bracket next to the word Madonna! therefore, all of the hundreds of links directed to Madonna, that are all for the singer, are now being directed to the disambiguation page. Bionic (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support - I'm aware of all previous consensus in the past and I know were almost the same result over and over again with IPs, admins & other users passionately opposed to that change. Although "Madonna" as a title/nickname/term for Mary is still used (always have more a Catholic-usage than the arts or entirely irrelevant in other Christian religions, except Orthodox/Anglicans maybe; but not mention others non-Christian), the association in the rest of the world, including English speaking countries was complety changed with the singer since 1980s. Sources not only came from social media, music references and popular culture, that's include politics, academic world, and even she has a place in the arts as well. Sure, Mary could be universally loved and known in all religions, but is not the same with this term. She could be a 2000 year figure, but no that title. The first real usage of this title came from late of 1500s and for her, associated since mid 1600s. But times changes, and in today life, religion + christian (catholic) art isn't omnipresent like in the Renaissance era. And we can see it everywhere, just see Google as a clear example ([1]). This is Wikipedia, not a religion site and as an encyclopedia isn't only for arts/religion topics, it's about music and everything in human knowledge. I could agree with the oppositors if we are talking about an obscure person, but Madonna is one of the most notorious person/biographies/page in Wikipedia history and commonly associated with globalization, American/"global" culture and other cultural/social/academic topics in academic research and comments in our today arts. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support while I do know of the affiliation that "Madonna" has with Jesus's mother Mary and both women are highly famous, I have no doubt that the term is more closely associated with the singer here, especially among people who don't observe Catholicism or any other form of Christianity. On another note, if we do rename this article to simply "Madonna", then the Madonna disambiguation page will have to be moved to "Madonna (disambiguation)". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I would say that 'Madonna' is a term used for Mary that is more old school than contemporary. At least, in Romania, not even the prayers at the Catholic Church mention her by that name (if it's done, it's to a really small degree that I haven't noticed), instead using "Saint Mary" or "Virgin Mary", among others. The artistic representation of the Virgin Mary in my country is called 'Madona' (one N), but even a quick Google search shows articles and images misspelling Madonna (the entertainer's) name and not focusing on the religious figure. Even on the article about Mary, mother of Jesus, the only mentions of the name Madonna are when using images from the Middle Ages that were called "Madonna". It may still be used in Italy and Italian diaspora, but that is only a small percentage of the world's population. Checking out other versions of Wikipedia, the vast majority of them have the page of the artist names as just "Madonna" (including countries with big Catholic communities like Spain and France). Basically, internationally speaking, Madonna is Madonna and Mary is Mary, and the English-speaking world is no exception. She is not called Madonna in Islam, either. It is time that Wikipedia moved on with the times. As of now (and as it has been for quite some time), when somebody says Madonna, they most certainly mean the artist. If in 2100 people revert to using Madonna for the saint more, the page can be moved, but, as of the XXIst century, I would say that the number of people who use Madonna for Mary is quite small. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per all the above comments. — Tom(T2ME) 21:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: When it comes to the term "Madonna", I have rarely heard Mary being referred to as such a name, and I'm not even religious. Google Search clearly favors the entertainer, not the religious figure, and I agree with all the comments stated above. ResPM come to my window 12:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I've never heard a person referred Mary as "Madonna". And yes, I'm Catholic and I studied in a Catholic school. She is universally known as "Mary, mother of God" since even Bible is the universal book and didn't mention that name ("Madonna"). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Your comment also could be a WP:CHERRYPICKED. French, Spanish or Portuguese Wikipedia e.g, three of the biggest Wikipedia and regions mostly predominant by Catholics (Spanish countries are nearly 40% of the total world population of Catholics, not mention those who lives in United States and in the rest of the world) have many of these articles about Marians art representations. However, they didn't have an equivalent of "entertainer"/"singer"/"artist" to the American Madonna since it's a word nothing related to the religion figure within the general population. Also, smaller Wikipedias sometimes just follow the English version, that's why we could see it in others smallest Wikipedias. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think We need to wait at least a couple of days since bot (RMCD) has notified till today in some talk pages about this request move. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support My gut wants to oppose this -- maybe it's just because of familiarity with art, but Madonna feels like it should primarily refer to Mary. But the extensive evidence indicates that this is the option that is most beneficial to readers, and as always that should go above anyone's gut feeling. We sometimes refer to a Ten Year Test: in this case, for the entire life of Wikipedia -- and likely for the entire life of the majority of those in this discussion -- use of the word "Madonna" has most commonly referred to the singer. We would have to make an active decision that we should be directing readers to a page we know they are not looking for to reject this. Long term notability is helpful when we want to avoid brief bursts of interest in a subject, but it isn't really very helpful for our readers if we are arguing it should be used to ignore readers for what may very well be the entire lifetime of Wikipedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think I've ever heard Mary referred to as "Madonna" other than on Wikipedia though I'm not religious and thus have little understanding on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
It's lead by your familiarity with art after all. However, I can show this reference from an art museum and how the principle of least astonishment is in support with the Madonna (the entertainer) and not with Mary. That's an external opinion and yes, Wikipedia is oriented to a worldwide reader audience, not just for religion/art readers. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that the entertainer gets 233,650 compared to only 6,721 for the art article and 52,752 for the Mary, mother of Jesus article, even the self titled album gets more (13,985)[2] which could be viewed as a sub topic anyway. It seems quite clear that the entertainer is primary by usage but its less clear by long-term significance. I'd note that this proposal is for making the entertainer primary rather than not having the religion/art topic primary though which might be best for a general audience. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yaksar It's a good idea, and it's common sense because consensus can change. In our present century, there is a lot of evidence how is more appropiate the article with the entertainer, but if isn't in 10 or 50 years could be easily change. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and is not democracy or burocracy. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The entertainer is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I frequently disambiguate links to Madonna, and they are always meant to link to the entertainer. GoingBatty (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per the extreme long-term significance (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) of the term used to refer to the religious figure (2000+ years) and the large number of items on the DAB page which are named for it (another indication of that long-term significance), including the entertainer herself. This exact move to primary has been suggested 6 times, and there is nothing new being added here. This move to replace the primary DAB will prevent automated mechanisms when people link to the DAB accidentally, like bot notifications which inform them to correct their links. This will lead to additional, manual long-term maintenance of incoming links. I find it unlikely that the entertainer's popularity today is more than it was up to 12 years ago when prior RMs where held, and that popularity will likely reduce over time at a faster rate than the religious figure. -- Netoholic @ 14:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
No your comment is basically "more of the same". Let me show you in a moment. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC) (see below)
Lets see. Yes, the relation of "Madonna = Mary" have an history of many centuries ago. But looks awkwardly how you're one of these many many users confusing the fact Mary is a 2000+ year figure to justify the usage of the term/title/name, that have less than 2 millenniums itself. First, is a good time to explain the first primary use of this word actually was an Italian neologism (now archaic). This shows you how times changes. In her case, according to several dictionaries and other sources is used at least since the late of Middle Ages (medieval) with the transition of the of the Renaissance era (1500s-1600s) (1, 2). We may have older art representations for her with that name before that period, but virtually it's because they were renamed centuries later.
Now, I see you're using the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to justify the long-term significance. Seems appropriate but isn't after all the most correct application for her. Just to let you know, in the same policy you've used says: "being the original source of the name is also not determinative" and "historical age is not determinative" (WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY). Your comment would be more than appropriate before the 1980s, but after the worldwide audience knew who is Madonna (the entertainer) this game has abruptly changed. What are you saying is just an appeal to tradition. I don't wanna myself make a hasty generalization and an association fallacy, so we can perfectly see it in many sources ([3] or [4]).
I also don't wanna cherry pick just one part of that policy you have used whom indicates the "educational value". There is a lot of evidence she isn't an "obscure person/topic" and not to mention she has a notable scientific attention as a "text" in many topics (sexuality, feminism, psychology, sociology and a large etc). We can see it not just in academic research, also with courses, classes, conferences etc (1, 2 or 3) and not only in the English speaking world (1, 2 & 3). Also, aren't "old news" because this is continues and have even an "overwhelming excess" ([5]). The fact she hasn't an appropriately development here within these matters in (English) Wikipedia, is just irrelevant and an argument from ignorance.
Honestly, I don't see how a person could probably link "Madonna" to any other topic like Madonna di Campiglio e.g rather than the singer, who has a single name. Anyway, seems there's not authority control problems like that. And to prevent it a hatnote could perfectly works in the main space "Madonna" once the request move has favorable changed to the entertainer. Virtually, bots works for almost anything, I guess. And once again, your last statement its just a crystal ball. Popular, irrelevant or not, doesn't matters at all. We can see it everywhere in real-time (media, Internet -Google or any other web search-, literature, academic texts etc).
Finally, as with any other "oppose" comment could just be appropriate if Wikipedia develops only religion/art topics. But this is a "general" encyclopedia and not matter how some Wikipedians know and love the arts/religion, since this is a site for our readers (general/global audience, not for a particular one as well). And statistics just prove it over and over again since this site has been open. As the policy says: "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience". --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, things have changed since years ago when such nominations took place and more people have realized that the term "Madonna" only caters to a small group of individuals who are Catholic and probably Italian. Mary is also a part of Islam / Mary in Islam and she is not mentioned as "Madonna" there, nor is she in Orthodox countries. Not even the main article about Mary is titled Madonna (Mother of Jesus). You say Madonna's relevancy will reduce as time goes by, but we still talk about Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Janis Joplin, so how would someone with Madonna's legacy be transformed into a footnote? You are making predictions which is something different from an opinion. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
"Historical age is not determinative" (WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY) --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
All of your examples, except Madonna-whore complex are derived from the Madonna (art), which are all the Marian art depictions (then, is basically the same). Most of them are best known or referred in encyclopedias mostly as "The Madonna" or "Madonnas" (plural) when is the case. We may have more examples, but they are like to mention entertainer's depictions: "Madonna (Drake song)" or other "more encyclopedic" like the honorific title "Madonna" after her. If the entertainer hasn't been the subject in both centuries (XX and XXI) as a topic in encyclopedias, I could definitely agree with you but is not her case. Also, as the Madonna-whore complex, the entertainer has some linguistic expressions/terms derived after her ([6]). And you can see in all of your examples, how them are named also "Virgin"/"Our Lady of..." etc, because "Madonna" is mostly predominant in Italian (Italian Americans too) and not in other cultures/languages. Just look at the list of Black Madonnas, we have just a couple of examples in some countries using "Madonna", but in the rest of the world mostly are called "Virgin"/"Our Lady of..." with their translation (Notre Dame for French, Nuestra Señora for Spanish etc). Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Surely you have noticed that the vast majority of the page names you've mentioned don't even start with the name Madonna. Also, as it was mentioned above, many of them are called "Virgin/Our Lady of". Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
There are numerous Wikipedia main title headers that do start with the name Madonna of... or The Madonna of... as well as film titles that pre-date the entertainer and imply variations upon the Madonna–whore complex, such as The Madonna of the Slums (1913), Madonna of the Storm (1913), A Madonna of the Poor (1914), My Madonna (1915), The Madonna of the Night (1916), The Madonna of the Slums (1919), Madonna of the Streets (1924 film), A Madonna of the Cells (1925), Madonna of the Sleeping Cars (1928 film), Madonna of Avenue A (1929), Madonna of the Streets (1930 film), Madonna of the Seven Moons (1945), Madonna of the Desert (1948) or Madonna of the Sleeping Cars (1955 film). I would, however, join like-minded Wikipedians in supporting Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna (singer). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I completely understand your all references. Both Mary and the entertainer have tons of derivated works with "Madonna" name and we can add more examples in both sides. Mostly of your examples are films from 1920s up to 1950s/1960s. Although tenier isn't a problem, even if almost all 'em started with "the" ("The Madonna") or "Madonna of", "A Madonna", "Madona", "Madonna del (di)". However, that's no the case and we can perfectly put a hatnote in "Madonna", with something like "For other uses, see "Madonna (disambiguation)" or "For the term also associated with Mary, Mother of God... see blah blah" because that's true, we don't need to hide all of these articles as well. We have many references with others big Wikipedias, with a devoted Catholic population and inmense Christian art background of centuries, like French & Spanish. Both of them works with the disambiguation and is not a matter that "they don't have articles with those names", sure, they have it and there is not any authority control issue. They aren't hidden anything. The request move to Madonna (singer) has been discussed in the past, and "entertainer" despite sounds unatural, seems more appropriate rather than "singer". You can see how many authors (Annalee Newitz 1; et alii) look her beyond music industry and not only as a musician/singer. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course, Madonna (entertainer) is perfectly fine and I would also agree with a parenthetical qualifier which proclaimed something uniquely exalted such as "Madonna (cultural icon)" or "Madonna (world-renowned personality)". Even Britannica Online now, or starting at some point in the relatively recent past, has been listing her as the primary use for "Madonna". However, as far as Wikipedia's encyclopedic standing is concerned, I still feel that WP:NOPRIMARY is the most apt fit for the Madonna disambiguation page and find (what may be minority) support in the text under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Perhaps the superstardom that she has attained over the past 37 years, starting in 1983, does qualify as "long-term significance" (Madonna (entertainer)#Legacy, Cultural impact of Madonna) or only as "short-term long-term significance". As for "enduring notability and educational value", Wikipedia consensus (likely to be dated about the first of August in this year of our life), will have as always the final word. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree, consensus will determine it (everything). And it's fine, any kind of a constructive participation is appreciated (oppose/support comments) and their responses as well. After all and personally, I just feel it like a cyclic of learning. At the same time, about your mention of WP:NOPRIMARY, my 2 cents tends to decline it, since as the example mentioned there, almost any non-avid reader will would not be able to identify both people or it could be "block" search of one of them + probably we don't know who of them are the primary. It feels isn't that case here. Contrary, I tend to support in 100% other's users suggestion about having a hatnote in which we don't deny any type of readers the others articles with similar names (and related articles) and how there are many factors and evidence supporting a move to the entertainer. As many, including outside of this version, like French/Spanish/Portuguese will not be an authority control issue (We've the benefits this is online encyclopedia). Madonna (disambiguation) could be perfectly restored and transfer the "Madonna" curent page information to the first one (disambiguation). Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – when they average reader would search Madonna, they certainly would be looking for the singer. Only in the field of art and western art history would Madonna refer to Mary of Nazareth. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unfortunately, and as a huge Madonna fan. It's sad for me the Occam's razor can't be applied here because the English-language version is often read/checked by the international community, and for the majority of "Madonna as Mary" readers, it's, highly likely, still almost impossible not to be offended by the fact Madonna, in their Universe, a kind of "stealing" a title from Mary. It's not like that in the reality of fact-checking but a misunderstanding might cause a lot of problems for Madonna fans, e. g. minorities in Russia and other places with high functional illiteracy (these gaps are harder to fix). On the contrary, people looking for Madge might have no problem and harm by clicking one more time. ALL the Western paintings with Virgin Mary are called Madonna... in Russia, including Our Lady of the Rocks.
Thus, IT-logically speaking, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The renaming has "minus 1 click" UX effect for an average user and possible "minus 1 human life" for a newly religious person who's looking forward to being sainted as a martyr, hates the Western world and perceives Madonna as Satan's servant (the bad one, not to be confused with the good Ossetian female mythological figure Satana). The example of Caucasian folklore figure Satana is here to demonstrate the possibility of redirecting the English-language page "Satan" to "Satana" disambiguation page ('Satan' is another example of Occam's razor not working the best way). The percentage of people looking for "Mary is Madonna" is significantly lower but the level of toxic they can possibly cause, because of the redirect, is 10-times more.
Also, it's better to avoid a potential vulnerability that might cause a lot of vandals to edit both pages and cause an additional hatred towards the intellectuals. Maybe even a future renaming to "Madonna Ciccone" would be possible because Madge has done much more to the world than selling her first name, contrary to a popular belief of her haters. You can find a lot of "death threats" to Madonna in Russian Wikipedia where she was intentionally presented by the state media as Louise Ciccone who took a pseudonym "Madonna". I just assume the renaming of English-language Wikipedia might cause a similar effect on those downward people who worship the name "Madonna" as sacred, not Virgin Mary, and might decide Virgin Mary will praise them for killing "the enemies of God". Deep down inside, I'm two hands up for renaming the page to 'Madonna' and adding two notifications from it, one to the Marian titles page and another disambiguation page. Sorry for being long. Tintin-tintine (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Sounds more like a speech, Tintin (BTW, I see your Russian point of view in the cultural impact of Madonna). Personally, I understang your points, but you're based mostly in your experience and by your local Wikipedia (Russia). That country haven't many of "Western traditions" rather than some religions one. I'm aware she was condemned there by her acts in support the LGBT rights (and there is a Russian gay propaganda law). And as I mentioned above, in my "support" comment this term is used by some Anglicans/Orthodoxes (sometimes very extreme and radicals), and Russia is a country with a strong observance for both religions. After all, Russians aren't the worldwide population or the "majority" of the world point of view. You mentioned "ALL the Western paintings with Virgin Mary are called Madonna..." (that's not true after all, sometimes are simply and mostly called "Virgin of.../Our Lady of..."). Also, see with this external opinion from an art museum how the WP:LEAST could easily apply in favor with Madonna (entertainer) rather than Mary.
And I don't know how can contributes in this survey an opinion from a Russian orthodox (Andrey Kuraev) on Madonna. I mean, "everyone has an opinion on Madonna" (Georges Claude Guilbert). That's not a surprise how she is even called a "slut", professional prostitute, a Medusa, the Whore of Babylon by many prominent authors. But in the contrary, there is a lot positive comments from Christian authors (1 or 2), art critics (John A. Walker e.g) or others intellectuals who called her "the greatest female living artist" (Norman Mailer) and so on. We can continue with both sides even among Wikipedians, but i don't know how constructive could be these point and comments. There is an opposition with everything (short & tall, ugly-beautiful), even anti-Jesus, anti-Christians or criticism in many reputable theories etc.
"I just assume the renaming of English-language Wikipedia might cause a similar effect on those downward people who worship the name "Madonna" as sacred, not Virgin Mary, and might decide Virgin Mary will praise them for killing "the enemies of God". What I understand this is a "general" encyclopedia, not only focused in a specific topic (religion or art). Also, we are not censored (e.g nudism in many appropiates topics and so on that many people could be easily offended). IMHO, a hatnote could perfectly works with your concern who "could offends" the others readers. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Tintin-tintine, your speech is clearly biased and not represent international community at all. Wikpedia is supposed to be neutral in all of perspectives. Whether the entertainer is a Satan worshiper or being a toxic figure is totally irrelevant in this very website. It's not Wikipedia job to satisfy the hardcore Catholic perspective. The percentage of Wikipedia readers who refer to Mary as "Madonna" is really small, as proven by statistics and tons of reliable academic sources posted by User:Apoxyomenus. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  Disagree, @Apoxyomenus: and @Bluesatellite:. Russia is the biggest European country with ethnically European population and European culture, including classical music still loved/understood by 22% of local population because of the unique children music education system. Even its enemy-turned-friend, the notorious Chechnya republic, was a cradle of Western civilization. And ALL the Western (Catholic/Orthodox) paintings of Mary are really called Madonna IN RUSSIA. Byzantine paintings are Eastern (Orthodox). Only racists and Kipling fans, perceive Russia as an Oriental country. In The Man Who Was (1890, never translated to Russian), he wrote: "Let it be clearly understood that the Russian is a delightful person till he tucks in his shirt. As an Oriental he is charming. It is only when he insists upon being treated as the most easterly of western peoples instead of the most westerly of easterns that he becomes a racial anomaly extremely difficult to handle. The host never knows which side of his nature is going to turn up next". Russia was one of the first countries to give women equal voting rights. The first woman in space was Tereshkova. Your ad hominem try (perceiving me as Russian, and not my arguments) doesn't help the West to deal with Muslim (Arabian culture influenced) Chechnya. Insulting me for being "Oriental" is also not-Western ("for all good against all evil") values. Eastern Europe doesn't mean "Easterners". Respecting the international community is important, as Russian language views of Madonna (entertainer) article net/en/Madonna%20(entertainer) are 3rd overall place among the world, and a lot of Russians know English. I'm not expecting you to change your opinion is based on Red Sparrow, just like your ancestor's opinion was formed by Comrade X propaganda movie.
Russians were Ok to be ruled by woman back even more than 1000+ years ago, and they ahead of time claiming women are humans with their own bodies. Russians gave 5 points to Conchita Wurst in 2014. Hating Russians because of the Communism or current administration who wants to please Chechnya after the end of the recent war and achieve sainthood is the same as denial of Russia's significant input in Western civilization. And Kuraev wasn't just a usual person who had smth to say. He lobbied the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to officially label Madonna an illegal guest worker. He encouraged people to call the police about a terrorist attack on her concert and get away with it because of his connection to FSB (like many ROC priests). And last but not the least, 'Madonna' is also a traditional Cucausian name which is still often used, not like in Italy and the rest of Europe. BTW, the whole mix of facts about Americans demonizing Russians for gender-equality first and then accepting it, and, on a contrary, Russian governing classes accepting the American propaganda message about the traditional role of women and turning into fascist conservatives... it's a fundamental key to the understanding of the different roots of Soviet and Russian homophobia. Soviet state-sponsored homophobia was based on GULAG experience (don't forget Stalin was Georgian from the Caucasus), probably that's why lesbians weren't criminalized. Current Russian state homophobia is based on the humiliation of the Chechen war and Putin's Judo-fueled desire to be sainted as his hero Alexander Nevsky.
The whole Madonna Ciccone's interference into the local narrative is enough to immortalize her name, at least here. For ages. She's one of the most admired women in Russia. Russia is a major key to Madonna's timeless legacy because "artist is more than an artist in Russia", and she was perceived seriously here. Not so much in the English-speaking world that's concentrated on her age. Moreover, her intentional Basic English lyrics imply her target audience was international. So, consider my vote, please. Madonna Ciccone's legacy is more than what could be achieved by renaming her to "Madonna" article (and her enemies would definitely use 'their universe' fact she 'has stolen" the Marian title against her). Kuraev has blamed ALL Russian Madonna fans as extremists back in 2006. The whole 'traditional values' turn was fueled by a blatant lie about her, including her 'pseudonym', right after Putin was spotted publicly kissing little boy's stomach. Just check Google Trends from 2004 in comparison with Michael Jackson to get a level of her popularity in Russia before 2006. Even if you're renaming the article to "Madonna" I think it's important to add a link to the Marian titles page, e. g. 'for other usages including the non-dogmatic Marian title see Madonna (disambiguation)". It's evidently more educational than a reference to 'Mary, mother of Jesus' article or just and a link to the disambiguation page. Madonna Ciccone's Catholic background was one of the essential reasons for her dehumanization in Russia, a long time before 2012, so it's important to point out, the Catholic minority and LGBTQ+ community have more in common in Russia than it's thought, and Catholics were dehumanized by the Russian priest-funded media for allowing Ciccone to exist. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating because of choice-supportive bias. And again, many people don't get that Madonna is a real name and what's a point of connection of 'Madonna' term to 'Mary, mother of Jesus' (e. g. Dolores O'Riordan wasn't demonized of using another Marian title as her name). Please, consider high-context cultures where my (Russian) arguments might also apply. Tintin-tintine (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Tintin-tintine I'm not argued Russia is small, just that doesn't reflects the total of a worldwide point of view. And about yours comments, it was just a matter of an opinion based in your local experience and things nothing related to that discussion. Sure, everyone has a background, including me and after all, I can't change it. My point on your message was only: doesn't matter how Madonna, the entertainer is perceived (and this by itself is an academic topic in how she polarized opinions): bad or good, ugly or beutiful. After all, we can see haters, fans, anti-Madonna sentiments, LGBT community, scientifics, presidents, etc... that they know there is a singer called Madonna. The last three popes know it and her relationship with the Vatican surely was archived in the Vatican Apostolic Archive for the eternity. About your concerns on Catholicism sentiments or how they could found it offensive, Wikipedia isn't the site to support their feelings as BlueSatellite pointed out. Have you ever thought based on your opinion if someone could be offended just because the entertainer "has stolen" Mary's nickname, would be logic since the 1980s press/encyclopedias or Christian and arts articles about her could called her something like "The Artist Formerly Known Madonna"? or petitions and laws like: buy and sells Madonna-related stuff only as the "The Artist Formerly Known Madonna" and similars?. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Apoxyomenus:, as you might have noticed, I'm only against the redirect without the addition of <nowikiki>
For other uses, see Madonna/Archive 22 (disambiguation).
</nowiki> template with a reference to Marian titles, not just to disambiguation page. Madonna doesn't have a lot of listeners in Anglosphere now but her YouTube views are the largest in Latin America and Eastern Europe (ex-USSR and Eastern Block), see also her YouTube Charts by countries where US and UK combined had only 15% of her view. Sorry, it seems like your statement about me (Eastern European) not reflecting the worldwide opinion is not correct. Unfortunately, she's mostly a marginal LGBTQ+ and shrinking academic topic-related item in Anglosphere while her left-wing political statements and Kabbalah (in its similarity to Communism) make her a source of wider interest elsewhere. These people don't know about the tons of Marian titles, and this article is a rare opportunity to enlighten them about the Western perception of Mary and answer their question (why weren't the Italians offended and haven't made it to the court) with 'non-dogmatic title'. I'm basically just proposing a compromise, so you can count my vote as Support IF you're accepting the addition of template. Thank you. Tintin-tintine (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP is supposed to be educational and not merely reflective of internet searchers' preferences. That is why "long-term significance" is there. The dab page serves a useful function with its first line: Madonna (from medieval Italian ma donna, meaning "my lady") most commonly refers to... If you don't know that Madonna is just Ms Ciccone's first name, that it is Italian for 'my lady' and that it is a term for the Virgin Mary, we are here to inform you. These are basic facts. Srnec (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be educational and have all possible relevant human knowledge. Articles includes Mary, mother of God, Madonna, United States etc. And see above, Madonna has been also part of academic courses, studies about tons of topics, educational texts etc. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Srnec, Yes. WP is supposed to be educational but we also have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:UCRN that's why It's Friends not Friends (TV series) and it is not Other stuff exists since Friends is a WP:GA and Featured/Good articles are WP's superior articles and could be referred as a pattern. Bionic (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
But what makes pictures depicting Mary the primary topic? It is for art enthusiasts, but it's clearly not for the general population. When was the last time you've heard someone outside of an art circle talk about "Madonna" and mean the Virgin Mary? The "Friends" example is very much a bad example since even one of the most popular TV shows can't be the primary topic when we compare it to ... basic human interaction. Alecsdaniel (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I also wouldn't apply the "Friends" case. Or maybe. More ad hoc examples we can see it with "Spanish flu" (most common term) rather the more "1918 flu pandemic" (more "scientific") or Blue whale rather than Balaenoptera musculus and so on. And I think he couldn't demonstrate the opposite about Madonna courses, classes and all of these "educational" attention or value she has received/made. We can choose tons entertainers' examples by nationality, and surely more than 97% will be unknown for the rest of the world. But Madonna case is very different, since her presence is beyond music & entertainment (Janice Min 1) After all, the "long-term signficance" doesn't fully apply to Mary since 1980s to the entire world population. "[...] Not merely reflective of internet searchers' preferences" also doesn't fully apply. We can see it everywhere: literature, TV, movies etc is not a matter exclusively of the Internet. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
That's maybe a contradictory usage for both point of the policy. While I don't know if we can set a percentage like that, at least common sense could apply all beyond 51%. #2: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". I've demonstrated at least that's not completely true at all. Mary doesn't have more than Madonna, since she has been subject of these type of notability/educational as a topic as well. So I guess "[...] value than any other topic associated with that term" isn't appropriate and is not related only with Mary. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
75% actually sounds quite right, since it is way over half the page views. There is no consent that a page must have "90-95% or higher". Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I think that even in international countries to call Jesus's mother of Madonna is unthinkable. As an exemple I never heard or read Brazilian magazines or journals refer to "Maria" ou "Maria de Nazaré" (as she is called in Brazil) as Madonna.--88marcus (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - even searching Madonna without disambiguator makes it a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 180.245.102.72 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I hold the longview looking at centuries of art references to the Madonna, and also looking to a future in which Ms. Ciccone will be a distant memory. I don't mind that a bunch of pop music readers will be inconvenienced now versus a measurably smaller number of art and religion readers. It builds character. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Can I borrow your crystal ball? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
A primary benefit of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit like Wikipedia is that it can change and evolve as circumstances do. Neither you nor I have any idea what will happen in 50 or 100 years, but if what you are predicting comes true, then the article can simply be moved again when the primary topic changes. But there is no good reason to inconvenience our readers for decades in the meantime. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
We have no idea what the future holds, but, as of now, Madonna, the entertainer, is the one people are looking for when searching "Madonna". If things change in the future, it's ok, the page can always be renamed - it's not paper. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Do we not hold to a principle of "least surprise? As a 60 plus yr old US person, I seem to have "always thought" that the term Madonna was originally, and mainly, associated with Italian paintings, and that it is an archaic "Italian title of formal address to a woman". My comprehension is/was that it translates as "My Lady". My 1991 edition print(!) dictionary confirms my translation, with a date of 1575 to 1585. The mother of Jesus has a name, Mary, Maria, with various language permutations, etc. I can't imagine that many people who wish to find Mary, mother of Jesus, look her by searching for a 400-plus year old term of address, that doesn't contain her name. This would be like searching for someone by the formal terms of Mrs. or Miss., Madame, or Mademoiselle. Here we have a very famous singer whose birth name is "Madonna." It is her very own name, not an appellation/title. (In 16th century Italian, would she have been addressed as "Madonna Madonna?) Cher is Cher, Bono is Bono, and Mary is Mary, not my lady Mary.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - With so much historical art and religious overtones, reflecting the Virgin Mary, and the fact that every year the entertainer gets less and less popular and less-known to younger generations, I would keep this article exactly where it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
No at all. See below Bob not snob. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
You know... it looks like you have responded to every single oppose. That is for the comment section, otherwise it makes you look desperate. We all have our opinions on this and the closing admin will look at everything. I'm a huge Madonna (entertainer) fan, but I don't feel she is the primary topic. Please try and refrain from adding something after every single oppose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click) thanks for your response and feedback. I'm relax, and quick responses are just a matter if i'm available. I'm aware that consensus aren't a "vote process" and the reason why you can see a comment below the "opposes" are just simply the same feeling you have (in the opposite way). I'm not talking as a "Madonna fan", just simple as a Catholic, and someone who knows about at least a little for three of these current topics (including art). And that's why I'm trying always to use the same policies they have used when is available + all possible references, to at least demonstrate with facts and not "why are my feelings". Or is a sin use them?. I though about the "comment section" even that I've created, but honestly is just a matter of having a fluent reading. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In 30 years the entertainer will be remembered by old timers, while the religious figure will still be strong. The long term significance of Mary (and art based on her) outweighs a modern entertainer.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
"he entertainer gets less and less popular and less-known to younger generations" ... As opposed to the artistic representations of Mary which are all the rage with today's youth? Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Popularity after all could be just an ambiguous factor. And in perspective, I could demonstrate how we have any type of these comments like your since 1980s (and since then in each decade): if she is "over" or if she is "old" (since her 35-years) and even if she was an one-hit wonder artist. However, itself became a development topic among academics/marketers/economists and others authors, with derived topics in discussion about ageism, durability, notability, even death etc. e,g Jennifer Egan ([7] or [8]). Is not even also a matter of a bias from WP:GOOGLEHITS or Internet. Books also counts (Maura Johnston; 1) for example. Also, we may took note on a "historical decrease" in Catholic observation (as both pointed out on Madonna), including Europe, Latin America, United States (including among "Latinos"), young people. Don't forget they are millions of Lapsed Catholics (non-active; personally I'm active). And not mention art [market] has been changed a lot from USA/Europe as to China e.g ([9], [10]). And there is not evidence they don't and didn't have an usage of (Catholic)-Christian art in their history as well, at least for the "majority".
For both of you guys, maybe could be great know fully our policy about a "historical age is not determinative" (WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY) and "in 30 years ("this will happens")" is just inappropriate since nobody knows the future (WP:CRYSTAL). Sure, for art lovers/historians/critics should be a common word, but they aren't the whole world population (or they're?). Also, most people is not use to know words in an etymological way.
Saying what will be remembered in 30 years is a guess, not an argument. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. To address the nom's points: The singer is by far the most common usage.. Yes, but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is also determined with respect to long-term significance. if somebody was searching for Mary, mother of Jesus, they would most probably enter "Mary" into the search box. Maybe, but this isn't about somebody searching for Mary, mother of Jesus knowing she's Madonna: it's about somebody searching for "Madonna", not knowing what it means. all of the hundreds of links directed to Madonna, that are all for the singer, are now being directed to the disambiguation page. There are no links pointing to Madonna. If a new link was created to Madonna it would be detected by DPLbot and fixed in due course. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Your concern is about (probably) any authority control issues. That's why a hatnote in "Madonna" if is redirected to the entertainer would be added and "Madonna (disambiguation)" needs to be restored (transfer the current information, like the archaic Italian meaning). And a BOT issue (WP:BOTISSUE, maybe?). We have proof that works, at least we may point out French & Spanish Wikipedia. Both of them have also tons of "Madonna" similar pages & bots. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because many people searching for Madonna in search engine refers to singer than Mary of Jesus. Even when people in modern times think Madonna would refer to singer. only many historian thinks Madonna is a Virgin Mary, that is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 110.137.184.3 (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the 1920s, Al Jolson was America's most famous and highest-paid entertainer. Yet today, very few people have heard his name. In a few decades, few will remember or search for Madonna, the singer, whereas Madonna, Mary, mother of Jesus, will still remain as popular a topic as ever. LK (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a point at which, when we know a subject is the intended page for the overwhelming majority of readers, and has been for the entire life of wikipedia, and odds are has been for the entire life of most people involved in the discussion, that discussions of long term notability become entirely disconnected from what disambiguation is meant to do -- aid the readers -- and instead becomes a nebulous "who knows what it will be like when many of us are dead in the future..."--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Nobody knows the future. We may have an opposite prediction that yours from reliables perspectives in her case: [11] (Alina Simone). Or how is working even since in an ageing time. Many music historians or cultural theorists as well, compared Madonna in terms of longevity/sales/influence as The Beatles, Elvis Presley (or Michael Jackson), from authors like John Tobler (1991; pag. 1999). The last three acts stopped to be unknown/sell?, we can see also their annual earnings. Maybe, we may found contradictory predictions. But once again, nobody knows the future. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, can you cite something to back up this spurious claim that it's just as important? 'cause it's not Secondly, the argument is not about whether they are equally important or not. Discussion is about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC not a comparison of the level of importance. Bionic (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I am well aware of the meaning of primary topic, given the length of time I've been here, but thank you so much for explaining it to me! Are you really claiming that the singer has as much long-term significance as the religious/artistic term? Yes, she's very well-known now, but in a century? I think not. Whereas the other has been around for centuries and will be around for centuries after everyone has forgotten there was ever a singer by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Let's not jump the gun; it currently is far too soon to say whether the singer will be forgotten in a century. Making such claims now is overly presumptuous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty presumptuous to claim that she won't be forgotten in a century. What isn't presumptuous is to state that the other primary meaning hasn't been forgotten in several centuries! Nobody is claiming the latter is the primary topic, so I feel the presumption is on the part of those claiming that the singer is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we all meet back here in exactly one century to find out who was right. Station1 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The real first primary usage of this word was an Italian meaning (now archaic and rarely used by natives for "nostalgia"). This has been changed and has been eclipsed by itself, by Mary. During centuries was only associated with Mary. But this perception has been change since late 20th and in our current 21st century by the entertainer born, Madonna. I guess with this background we can't even makes presumptions like if "hasn't been forgotten in several centuries", then will not be forgotten in the future: just put it simple, the entertainer changed that game abruptly. For users/readers with an extended passion in arts (or religion), obviously their feelings will tends always to support anything with Mary, due a "historical appreciation" or if "the religious meaning is still just as important". And that point, I don't will never understand benefits a selected group rather than the majority of worldwide population. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The debate is largely about "long-term significance." Obviously, the art and religious term has been in use longer, but the singer isn't a one-hit wonder who will be forgotten in a few months, so both usages have long-term significance, and we can certainly revisit this debate in 50 or 100 years time: while notability isn't temporary, primary-topicness can change over time and the encyclopedia can adapt as it does. The older meaning is primarily used among art historians, whereas the singer is more familiar to a general audience, and is therefore the primary topic. pburka (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I was raised Catholic in a very religious family and have never heard personally anymore referring to Mary mother of Jesus as "Madonna". Someone has told me that in Italy they refer to Virgin Mary as "La Madonna" so I do believe that is true but when it comes to who should be the primary topic it should be Madonna the singer (at least in the English version of Wikipedia). Mary mother of Jesus can be primary in the Italian wikipedia but here on the English version of wikipedia it should be the singer. FanDePopLatino (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Just to reinforce, if is necessary I've references to demonstrate as possible how the all previous "oppose" comments in the past are cherry picking statements about policies they used or how are even their own biased analysis. A notorious percent of all of these admins and other users with the "oppose" comments have "public interest" in arts (Catholic arts), religion etc. Sure, I don't wanna falls myself with an ad hominem, but this talks about a bias and determined in a way the bandwagon effect. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you hate a liberal arts education and the state of being well-informed. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm just trying to do my best, in order to reduce my self-bias as all of us we have. Sorry if i'm look like or I sounds like i'm "well-informed" (or if "i pretend) but references + policies (not cherry picking interpretations) is a must and I don't know why I would hide them. I don't hate any kind of liberal arts, religion topics etc. I'm neutral and I like read and I understand one of the Wikipedia's goal will be our readers. Also, don't take personal my comment about "public interest" for others users, but it was just a case of study. Just in good faith after all. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
You have made a great many responses in the survey section. Have you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process? The appearance of pushiness can make people resist more. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Binksternet: sorry for being a bête noire for some of y'll. I understand this is not a winning process and I know, non of them will change the vote (after all, a consensus isn't a "vote process" as well). In each response, I just try show references since is not only a matter of my "feelings" or because "I have the reason". Just it, all in good faith. Anyway, thanks for your comments/feedback. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Only if they are biased. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The entertainer is clearly the primary topic here. If it is suggested that mononyms without a bracket of info are problematic for a BLP then this should be a broader discussion in a larger forum, given that we have numerous articles written so. Bionic (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2020 (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.

Bracket of info

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

As it was mentioned above, "mononyms without a bracket of info are problematic for a BLP". I suggest {{about|an entertainer named after the non-dogmatic [[Marian titles|Marian title]]|other uses}} or smth like that mentions the non-dogmatic nature and the existence of 73+ of Marian titles as names to the international non-Catholic readers who net/ru/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_(%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0) prefer the English-language article. It's still relevant to protect her fans from dehumanization based on her name alone. Right-click in Google Chrome and click 'Translate to English" to see the links in her good Russian Wikipedia article to fact-check my statement. Tintin-tintine (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Would this be for the hatnote? I don't see why it would be more helpful than what we currently have.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Refer to WP:HATNOTE. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Personally, i'm neutral. The current one description in "Madonna" seems simpliest and fine. Your suggestion looks fine in the disambiguation as you did. Remember there is something called "Wikitionary" and an article called Marian titles. Your reference talks about most common names derivated from Mary, and almost all are in Spanish/Italian/Portuguese. Madonna as a name is very uncommon, even after the entertainer. However, the entertainer by ifself is recognized as one of the best-known names worlwide (and not only in the music world) and one of best known examples of a "single name" (Doug Cooper; pag 127 2013, et all), which is fine for a worldwide audience using the English Wikipedia. You can see also most popular given names or Spanish naming customs, almost all are "Mary" and other derivates. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The theme was started before this edit. Now it's irrelevant because it's   Done. @Apoxyomenus: it looks like the precautions ('non-dogmatic Marian titles' link from disamb. page) are working just fine and gonna stay. There's no additional vandalism or Crusades so far. I just hope you understand my point about 'Madonna the name' not being exclusively (Roman) Catholic culture 'commodity' by popularity distribution. There're at least two serious Russian-language academicians named Madonna, both of them of Georgian origin. The name is common there[12]. And this name is becoming more popular because of Madge, not only in the Northern Caucasus region[13][14]). So, haters gonna hate but she's using "the power of music to bring people together" a lot more effectively than many officials, ecclesiastical and secular[15]. Sincerely, Tintin-tintine (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Philanthropy paragraph

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've noticed that almost every famous person on Wikipedia (singers, actors etc) have a Philanthropy paragraph in their main page. I wonder why Madonna haven't one yet since she's one of the most charitable celebrities out there since the beginning of her career. I wish i was able to create it but my english aren't the best to do it. Is anyone interested? Johnny Gnecco (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Most likely because her charitable endeavors such as Ray of Light Foundation and Raising Malawi are already interspersed within the "Life and career section". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
How about adding a philanthropy paragraph and just link the Ray of Light Foundation and Raising Malawi pages? So it will be easier to find? We could also add info about other important charities and foundations support, to Covid-19, American Foundation for AIDS Research, Greenpeace etc. Johnny Gnecco (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Change the article’s name back to Madonna (entertainer)

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Why has Madonna’s article been moved to just “Madonna”? There are other references to ‘Madonna’ other than the singer, most notably the name being used for Mary, the mother of Jesus. Changing the article’s name to just Madonna rather than the general consensus of Madonna (entertainer) seems a bit strange to me.--EsotericJoe (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@EsotericJoe: There was a requested move at #Requested move 18 July 2020 which concluded that "Madonna" on its own usually means the entertainer, it you're looking for Mary you're surely far more likely to type "Saint Mary" or "Saint Mary the Virgin" or "Mary, mother of Jesus" or even "Mary", as someone in England I can say that we have lots of Saint Mary churches here but I've never heard Mary referred to as "Madonna". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
But, it is not about whether or not someone would type in “Mary” rather than “Madonna”. I don’t think anyone would dispute that the singer is the first person people will think of when the name is mentioned. But, even “Madonna (singer)” seems more appropriate than just “Madonna” as the article’s name. There are so many other references to the name and many of them have a further description using brackets that the singer should be no exception. I think that the users Roman Spinner and IJBall hit the nail on the head - there are many other articles that begin with “Madonna” and changing “Madonna (entertainer)” to “Madonna (singer)” seems to be much more appropriate and reasonable.--EsotericJoe (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whether other subjects are referred to as "Madonna", let's not downplay how people above all else tend to mean the singer here. Other subjects exisiting doesn't negate how she's the main thing under this name that comes to mind. Any change to the article title would require a new requested move. Starting another one up now would be far too soon when the last one was closed just 9 days ago. I'd at minimum wait another year. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. As you can see, request move has been closed few days ago. And about your concern based in previosly user's comments ("many other articles being with Madonna") the current article "Madonna" uses a hatnote ("other uses"), where a disambiguation fulfills its function guiding readers to find the "other uses", including the first usage of that word, an Italian expression. Even, inside there is a Wikitionary's template and at least one WP:PARTIAL name. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I report a typo?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is protected, so I can't just fix this myself -- but at one point there's a reference to "I'm Breatless" instead of "I'm Breathless." Is this how I let an editor know? 96.55.138.213 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It's corrected. Thank you Bluesatellite (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Billboard: Madonna is the greatest music video artist of all time.

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/list/9440075/100-best-music-video-artists Can we add this to article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyiconer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

In two weeks if someone can’t site documentation of claims made on this page, I will removed the unsourced claims. The sleepwalker (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@The sleepwalker: could be helpful if you indicate what sentences you "think" are "unsourced claims", because you removed a content with references just few days ago. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

“Straight-A student” The reference didn’t substantiate the claim. Despite the reference not substantiating the cheerleader part of the sentence either, there are photos of her as a student in her cheerleading uniform online verifying the claim. The sleepwalker (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@The sleepwalker: I agree with you that verifiability is a must and has not negotiation. But in this case that sentence meets verifiability and is supported by references. You can check out in a preview online in Google Books. Additionally, online libraries like Archive.org helps. And did you also read this edit summary? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I did. The reference isn’t documentation of the claim. It’s just another unverified claim. The sleepwalker (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh. You removed my edit. Okay. Let me put it this way. Does a college accept a biography or autobiography in place of transcripts as documentation? Obviously we know it doesn’t. A biography in this case is not documentation. The sleepwalker (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand how this encyclopedia works. A biography from a notable author is a reliable source and can be used to verify content in Wikipedia. If that is the case, you should remove all the content about her birth date, bith place, her parents and all her family information, because it's not directly sourced from the official certificates from the government. lol Bluesatellite (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand what verifiability mean bluesatellite. True, maybe without verification, it should be removed. You two have been underwhelming. The sleepwalker (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Look up the word, verify. Discussion over. The sleepwalker (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


I won’t change it but ONLY because you would continue to put in the same unverified information. The sleepwalker (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So many sources: Madonna has sold 335 million records

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can we update her record sales? —Navyiconer (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


Anybody here?—Navyiconer (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Harout72, someone who is well-versed in whether figures are likely to be inflated based on certification levels. Sorry you didn't get a response sooner. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead of the article

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The lead of Lady Gaga's article (a featured article) says: "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (/ˈstɛfəni ˌdʒɜːrməˈnɒtə/ STEF-ən-ee JUR-mə-NOT-ə) (born March 28, 1986), known professionally as Lady Gaga, is an American singer, songwriter, record producer, actress and businesswoman."

The lead sentence of the Madonna article should also include "record producer" and "businesswoman", just as notable in the sense Madonna's produced the vast majority of her songs, executive produced most of her records and is very well known for being a businesswoman. Israell (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, "record producer" and "dancer" are quite notable in her case (trained decades-long dancer). Israell (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
These are record producers. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

chess?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

am i correct to say that so far there are no credible sources that say madonna used to be rated 2000+ in online chess apparently at the ICC? Thewriter006 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I've even heard of such a claim at all. Not sure where you came across that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

1992 Record Deal

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Quoting Wikipedia: The deal was a joint venture with Time Warner and paid Madonna an advance of $60 million. ???

Not at all. The $60-million Time Warner seven-album contract she signed in 1992, came with approx. a $5-million advance on each of her next seven albums (ie. $35 mil. in total), and of course with others strings attached.[1][2]Evernit (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

List of people Madonna has influenced

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It goes beyond the few artists mentioned in this article. Lady Gaga, Rihanna & Christina Aguilera, Robbie Williams, J-Lo, Beyonce all cite Madonna as a major influence. The person whom Madonna first had a major impact on, and continues to do so is Kylie Minogue. She looked to Madonna not only for inspiration but also career guidance. She has employed many producers, writers, directors & designers from Madonna's inner circle, in a bid to elevate her career and gain credibility on a level consistent with Madonna's. She continues to use the touring blueprint Madonna forged with Blond Ambition on her own touring ventures. Amacth (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists influenced by Madonna. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ [16]
  2. ^ [17]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_22&oldid=1041058832"