Jump to content

Talk:Madonna/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Requested move 11 July 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

– Madonna (entertainer) is the primary topic. There is no article listed at the disambiguation page that doesn't use a modifier. If Adele and Beyoncé can have their mononyms they why can't the Queen of Pop have hers? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

So what? Carry on hounding all the ones who disagree with your piss-poor move rationale. It puts you in a great light. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, the primary at least for the next couple of decades. And, I suppose, she's like a virgin. Randy Kryn 11:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support By all means the hits in google as well as Wikipedia itself trumps it up as the primary topic. —IB [ Poke ] 12:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has a two-pronged test: usage and long-term significance. Where these criteria lead to significantly different conclusions (the entertainer wins on usage, but the appellation and art figure win on long-term significance), the best solution is usually not to have a primary topic. The status quo is the best option. Nothing significant ha changed since the last move proposal.--Trystan (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: No reason and not a democracy. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as before. The art term has been around for a very long time and is very notable. We don't just judge this on current popularity, but on long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The art term caters to a niche audience (Catholics, Orthodox, medieval art ethusiasts) and lacks notability outside Christendom. It is a far stretch to consider the art as more notable because it is older since the entertainer herself is ancient. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • By that argument, it would be anywhere European-style Christian art had penetrated. So also North America, Africa, Asia, Australasia...wait, that's everywhere! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Where in Asia? Armenia, Cyprus, East Timor, Georgia, the Philippines, and Russia. That's barely Asia. Maybe in Africa. But not in North America. The singer is definitely the primary topic there. Protestants are not known for their iconography nor their veneration of the Blessed Virgin. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Drivel. Are you really saying that traditional Christian art and its study hasn't penetrated North America? Or India (with its vast Christian population)? Or China? Or Japan? Or the Middle East? Are you also, with your comments about Protestantism, suggesting that there aren't many Catholics (or indeed Anglicans, who also tend to use traditional iconography, despite usually being classified as Protestants) in North America? Really? I'm beginning to think you know absolutely bugger all about this subject. To reiterate, nobody is saying that the Christian art term should be the primary topic. We are saying there isn't a primary topic. There doesn't have to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I disagree that Madonna (art) has more long-term significance. In 100 years, I still think people are going to be talking about Madonna (entertainer) a lot more than Madonna (art). Just because Madonna (art) is older doesn't mean it has more long-term significance. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Really? I think not. I honestly doubt whether anyone will remember her after everyone who actually remembers her when she was alive is themselves dead. Such is the fate of popular entertainers from time immemorial (I expect everyone thought their memory would live forever too). Whereas the long-term significance of the art term is already long-established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That's at least 3 billion people. People who knew Beethoven and Mozart are probably dead yet they continue to be notable. Death is not an obstacle for some. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We can always make the art form primary topic after the singer dies. (-: Gulangyu (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that I said "popular entertainers", not "classical composers". How many popular singers from the 18th century do you think most people have heard of now, however wildly popular they may have been in their time? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Same thing. Barely anyone remembers pop singers of the 17th century because the phonoautograph has yet to be invented. It is just easier to encode a bunch of notes as oppose to the human voice. Madonna's longevity is ultimately linked on how long voice recording lasts. Apart from that, her impact in terms of fashion, film, and literature, also permeates. If this was just any other female singer, the primary topic argument is weak but she is no doubt the most successful female musician in two centuries. And she isn't even done yet. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, how many popular singers from the early 20th century, for whom we do have recordings, can the average person name? None, that's how many. She's popular now, but popular music tastes, far more than classical, change enormously and quickly. While she's alive she can move with those tastes; when she's gone her music will stagnate and in a century nobody will know what we ever saw in her. It's what has always happened. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kaldari's argument sounds too WP:CRYSTAL for my taste. The Madonna as a genre of art currently has long-term significance as a genre/iconographical tradition which has been a part of Western art history for over 1500 years; it is of course possible that this long term significance will disappear in the coming centuries, but if that happens (and if the entertainer Madonna retains her significance), Wikipedia can move the articles then. As it is, no convincing evidence has been given in ten move proposals that Madonna (entertainer) has enough long-term significance to be the undisputed primary topic, and I can't see that any more has been given in this proposal. Beyonce is an entirely different case: there, the dispute was about whether "Beyonce" or "Beyonce Knowles" was the subject's common name: here, no one is disputing that "Madonna" is the entertainer's common name; simply that she is the undisputed primary topic. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on. Madonna is an American singer; that doesn't meant that she is of interest only to Americans. Likewise, the Madonna is a western/Christian trope, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is of interest only to people in the west/Christians. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If you are relying on "consensus can change" then you need to tell all the editors who commented/!voted in previous RMs there is another RM here to prove your point. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If the art form has greater long term significance, as it surely does, shouldn't it be primary topic? I'm fine with either the singer or the art form as primary. If no one is supporting primary topic for the art form, the long term significance issue is a red herring. Gulangyu (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Not at all. There is no obligation for any one topic to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Rock is billions of years older than rock. Why is it not the primary topic? Age ≠ long-term significance. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Probably because rock music wins on usage? There, as here, where the two criteria of usage and long-term significance point in two different directions, the best solution is not to have a primary topic.--Trystan (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't think this interpretation makes sense if you know how the guideline was written. At one time, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC had only a usage criteria. The long-significance criteria was added later to create an alternative way to designate a primary topic. It was never intended to make designating primary topics more difficult! In other words, the guideline authorizes us to designate a primary topic based on either the usage criteria or the long term significance criteria. According to your spin, the two criteria would ordinarily cancel each other out. What would be the point of writing a self-canceling guideline? Gulangyu (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Gulangyu, as a participant in the sometimes contentious discussions associated with adding the usage criteria, I think it WAS deliberately intended as a balance to the usage criteria in cases where there are very well known historical or cultural references as well as popular recent topics. older ≠ wiser 22:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
              • The discussion from 2011 is here if editors want to judge for themselves. The examples cited to support the additional criteria are Nirvana (repeatedly), Titanic, and Avatar. These are all cases where something or other was designated primary. Gulangyu (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
                • Yes, thanks for digging up the link. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the entire discussion (as well as earlier ones on the same page). There are many dozens of other examples and counter-examples and diverse opinions. But I know I and at last some other some others advocated for using long term notability as a balance to recentism. older ≠ wiser 03:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • At one point it was an "educational value exception." That is to say, it was a fast track for educational subjects to receive primary topic status. Editors who thought this approach short changed educational value got it promoted to a criteria that has equal status to the usage criteria. In other words, each step of the rule-making process was intended to make it easier to designate a primary topic. Yet at the end of it we're left with a "cult of the disambiguation page" that makes it difficult to designate any article primary, educational or otherwise. Gulangyu (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
                    • While it doesn't matter much now and this is not the best place to discuss it, I don't agree with your characterization each step of the rule-making process was intended to make it easier to designate a primary topic. There was always a strong component in those discussions to make it easier to place a disambiguation page at the base name where there were competing considerations for primary topic besides page views. older ≠ wiser 08:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Enough Shhhhwwww!! You've made your case. Wandering way off into the weeds of incivility along with bludgeoning, badgering, and nonsense arguments (using geology as a retort, really?) ... none of this is doing you or your RfC any favors. Further, your behavior here will likely poison the well for any future RfCs you bring forth. Not to mention it's just really bad form. Knock it off. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that Shhhhwwww!! has been at ANI several times about disruption on page move requests, which have lead to blocks in the past. Or for them to "retire"/go off in a huff. I wonder how this will pan out. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I think for all concerned lets have a non-involved admin/editor close this RM. Faulty nomination plus the precedence of disruptive nominations from the nominator and lets face it, this is just a waste of time. —IB [ Poke ] 19:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's nothing that has changed from the multitude of previous move requests and the fundamental ambiguity remains. older ≠ wiser 18:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Madonna the singer is obviously leveraging the well-known long-term significance of this name. No primary topic, or different primary topic, but certainly not this one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose this is RECENTISM and historical ignorance at its most extreme. The entertainer was named for the historic/theologic figure. It's a derivative name. I mean, are you doing this a joke or something? This is absurd. Snow close this ridiculous RfC. Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The original definition has lasted 2,000 years, but I doubt this singer will last that long... White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox musical artist vs. person

Madonna is a musical artist, if infobox person allows more parameters then embed it towards the bottom, but musical artist should be first. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not how it works; the Infobox person is more flexible and allows for embedding musical artist (as well as other things), not the other way around. The person Infobox is more useful because it includes parameters for things like spouse, cause of death, children, residence, and net worth. The fact that she is a musical artist isn't by itself a good reason to not use Infobox person. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You'd have to ask whoever made that, though I personally fail to see the need for multiple types of infoboxes when one type can serve just about any type of person. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: OK, then seems you need to have some parameters added to Infobox musical artist, because that is what she is. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't have access to such templates as a non-admin, and don't really know how to do the right coding, but there still is no good reason to use something more limited when a flexible template is available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I second Snuggums' comments. Infobox person allows access to parameters which for some reason are restricted in Infobox musical artist. This is particularly useful where the musical artist is known widely for other aspects of their life. Take Ariana Grande for example, which uses Infobox person and lists her television roles for which she was widely known before her singing career. Or Katy Perry and Beyoncé who have had high-profile marriages. Its commonplace for people to come to Wikipedia for this exact info. As someone who worked a lot on the latter article, users were persistently adding "|spouse = Jay Z" to the Infobox not realizing that the parameters would not work under Infobox musical artist. —JennKR | ☎ 20:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jenn! Glad I'm not alone on this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@JennKR: One small fact is there was never any discussion or consensus to change to "person" in the first place, Please return it to "musical artist" until consensus is reached. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
This article (and many others) have in fact had the person Infobox for quite some time. YOU are the one who unilaterally decided to change that today and deprive readers of useful Infobox data from here and Michael Jackson for no good reason, and if anything are actually the one who needs to seek consensus. By no means was that a benefit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Diastema

Is it worth mentioning that Madonna has Diastema, as supported by this source? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No. That page advertises dental services. Not a reliable source I'm afraid. Karst (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Well then? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Now for a rationale. I do not see it mentioned in the articles for Elton John or Vanessa Paradis, which poses the question why it should be included here? Karst (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I revoke my decision. Since Diastema has not had any adverse effect on her (unlike Roger Moore, who cannot drink martinis anymore due to Type 2 diabetes), it is not worth mentioning in this article. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This article needs a 'Personal Life' section

Many, if not most, articles on notable celebrities include a 'personal life' section with details of who the person has dated and married. I'm very surprised to see that there is no such section here, given her long history of relationships. Instead, there are scattered references to her marriages and a few of her past boyfriends throughout the article. I can find no information on who she has dated since she split up with Guy Ritchie, which is frankly ridiculous. It would be helpful if this information could be brought together into its own section and expanded (who is her current or most recent boyfriend, for example? the article doesn't say). --Viennese Waltz 15:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the purpose of discussion, I found the below from www.frisky.com To give an idea how big the section could be if created.
"Late 1970s: Dates Dan Gilroy; they form the band Breakfast Club together.
Early 1980s: Dates her collaborator Stephen Bray, who still holds master recordings to many unreleased Madonna songs; dates painter Jean-Michel Basquiat; dates DJ and record producer Mark Kamins, who helped launch her career by presenting a demo of “Everybody” to Seymour Stein of Sire Records; dates musician John “Jellybean” Benitez, who produced “Holiday.”
1985: Meets and marries Sean Penn.
December 1987: Penn and Madonna file and then withdraw divorce papers.
1987-1988: Dates John F. Kennedy, Jr.
December 31, 1988: Madonna and Penn separate.
1988-1989: Dates Sandra Bernhard.
September 1989: Madonna and Penn divorce.
1989-1990: Dates Warren Beatty, who is notoriously jealous and suspicious that she’s cheating.
1990: Dates Antonio Banderas and Lenny Kravitz.
Late 1990: Dates Tony Ward, a bisexual model and porn star who starred in the videos for “Cherish” and “Justify My Love.”
Early 1991: Madonna breaks up with Ward and starts an eight-month relationship with Vanilla Ice, who appears in her Sex book.
1992: Dates Willem Dafoe, rapper Big Daddy Kane, and baseball player Jose Canseco.
1992-1994: Dates James Albright and nightclub owner Ingrid Casares.
Mid-1990s: Dates basketball player Dennis Rodman, who later says that she wanted him to be the father of her children.
September 1994: Madonna meets fitness trainer Carlos Leon, who becomes her trainer and lover.
October 14, 1996: Madonna gives birth to their daughter, Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon, in Los Angeles.
1997: Madonna breaks up with Leon.
1998: Dates Andy Bird, a penniless and aspiring screenwriter. She was supposedly pregnant with his child after dating for three months and aborted the baby. They broke up after 18 months; he then sold the story of their romance to a tabloid.
1999: Madonna meets Guy Ritchie through Sting and Trudie Styler.
August 11, 2000: Madonna gives birth to their son Rocco in Los Angeles.
December 22, 2000: Madonna and Ritchie marry in Scotland.
October 15, 2008: Madonna and Ritchie confirm their split because they “can’t bear to live with the pretense any longer.” Madonna is rumored — and then confirmed — to be entangled in a romantic relationship with baseball player Alex Rodriguez.
December 2008/January 2009-Present: Madonna begins dating model Jesus Luz after meeting him at a photo shoot and the two have been virtually inseparable ever since"
Cllgbksr (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. And that only goes up to 2009 lol. Given a track record like that, I'd be very surprised if she were still dating Luz (I haven't checked). Anyway, the relationships would all need to be sourced of course, which would no doubt make the section shorter (I doubt frisky.com is a reliable source). --Viennese Waltz 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
lol...Yep... my first thought was finding credible sources for each relationship. I'm guessing the majority of sources will be tabloid magazines, etc. I forgot she had dated Sandra Bernhard Cllgbksr (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose personal life section that's basically asking to be bloated with fancruft, gossip, and trivia. Absolutely not worth the risk. Her high-profile relationships are also largely intertwined with her career. For example, she co-starred with Sean Penn in Shanghai Surprise as well as with Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy while Guy Ritchie directed her film Swept Away. Frisky.com isn't viable as it leads to "fuck.com", which is a hook-up site. Also, not every relationship she is involved with is worth mentioning per WP:NOTADIARY. It's best to stick with high-profile partners. I'm not saying we can't include post-Ritchie relationships, but this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of the men in her life. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose for everything Snuggums wrote above. —IB [ Poke ] 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Snuggums Fyi the content was only added to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and the visual on how big that section could be if created. Also I never considered frisky to be a credible source for sourcing.Cllgbksr (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't really care whether the section gets "bloated with fancruft, gossip, and trivia", such material can always be removed. I just basically want a list of her relationships, those that can be reliably sourced that is. You sound as though that is beneath the tone of this article, well it isn't. This article is about the life not just the work. As for Penn, Beatty and Ritchie, that accounts for three of her 20-odd relationships. There are many more which are not intertwined with her career. --Viennese Waltz 13:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You should care whether or not it gets bloated. The risk isn't worth taking when the negatives of such a section here would outweigh any potential positives. As for a list of relationships, like I said before, this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive collection per WP:NOTADIARY. Carlos Leon might not have been involved with her professional career, but I'd say he fits in pretty well during the Evita period. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, you win. I give up. --Viennese Waltz 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If Madonna were to honor her October 19th announcement she made at Madison Square Garden, her words "If You Vote for Hillary Clinton, I Will Give You a Blowj*b"...would that be considered a relationship?Cllgbksr (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
She was only offering a business opportunity. --Light show (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't fucking believe people are even bringing that up. —IB [ Poke ] 04:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
What can't you believe IndianBio, that Madonna offered "favors" for votes? Cllgbksr (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Some of us can't believe that anyone took M literally. --Light show (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Moral of the story is anyone who has followed Madonna for years knows she's unhinged and will say anything to get a reaction. Cllgbksr (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
So can we all agree that WP is not the place to be memorializing attention-getting hyperbolic drivel? Light show (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah and after the statement "will say anything to get a reaction" I'm definitely opposing any such section given the general sentiment with which it is being presented. —IB [ Poke ] 08:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Light show and IndianBio. Cllgbksr (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Robert M Grant linked

Hey guys, quick note, the Robert M Grant linked as the author of contemporary strategy analysis is the wrong one. Go ahead and fix that link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.108.237 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Input requested on creating a "Politics section" for Madonna's article

Thoughts yay or nay on whether a Politics section should be created for her article like Cher has, for news articles that have covered Madonna's past/current views on the Trump candidacy/presidency? Cllgbksr (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The thought is a viable idea, but I'm not sure where it would go within the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it's a poor idea, unless she is also a political activist, and then it would go in a "political activism" section. --Light show (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, but not in this article. Better, separate article. I can help with academic material and reliable sources about that. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Whatever amount of political activity she's been involved with doesn't warrant a separate article if you ask me. It's nowhere near as prominent as her work in music (which has both a singles discography and an albums discography) or even in film (which has a filmography page). She also isn't a politician anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
But she can really act like one. --Light show (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Is your point of view :). I don't asked, and yeah Madonna is an artist, but she is an cultural icon as well and the result is more than artist. Possible in the future, because this article is long also (please read this essay). I mean, this not exactly like Cher's article, because there is other context for Madonna and even if she isn't a politician. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely no point in creating a separate article on her political agenda and views and supports. Every musician, actor, starlet nowadays are into politics and has their own views. Doesn't make it notable unless her views and actions have directly influenced the said political workflow itself. —IB [ Poke ] 12:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking at 4+ well sourced articles (Huffington Post, The Guardian, New York Daily News, USA Today) that were generated in the news cycle in last 24 hours regarding her fundraising event in Miami where she was extremely vocal on her political views of Trump. She also stated at that fundraising event she's "ashamed to be an American". She's putting herself front and center in the public eye with her political views and opinion. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah so? She had been equally vocal if I remember about Sarah Palin on the Sticky & Sweet Tour, Marine le Pen on The MDNA Tour etc. Every artist who shares their political views puts them on the forefront of social media for the world to see and judge. But that does not make it important or notable enough to warrant a separate section or article. Unless you are Arnold S., and have actually changed careers to be a politician, or maybe someone like Paul Robeson whose views themselves caused a great turmoil and concern during the cold wars. What exactly has Madonna achieved by blasting Trump? —IB [ Poke ] 15:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You just made my point IndianBio. Thank you. Madonna has shown a consistent pattern of voicing her opinion on various political matters and figures. Makes her an artist and a political activist. Warrants a Politics section or separate article. It's not what she has achieved by blasting Trump so much as the notoriety of her making the blast. Otherwise she wouldn't be in the news cycles for those blasts. Her political views should be memorialized. Both past and present.Cllgbksr (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A section is fine, an article would be too much per my above comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Section makes more sense. Cllgbksr (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A section, or even a paragraph, would be bonkers IMO. She doesn't even have a personal life section. She's been outspoken at various times about religion, childbirth, illnesses, etc. A sentence in a relevant section would be reasonable, but there's no section relevant to a singer giving an opinion about something unrelated to their notability. It would undermine the bio and set a very bad precedent that some would use to add similar off-topic personal opinions about anything to other bios. Would we give a section, paragraph, or even a sentence, to other singers who tweeted their opinion about life on other planets, global warming, nuclear arms, Zika viruses, or Olympic drug-users? --Light show (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Light Show, Cher is a singer. She has a Politics section in her WP article. Seems to me you want Madonna to have her cake and eat it too. She can't have it both ways. No pun intended.Cllgbksr (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right. Except by using Cher's section to justify one here, you simply proved my point about setting bad precedents. --Light show (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a Politics subsection under "Other Interests". I just reviewed the Cher article again and it doesn't break up the flow of the article. It actually fits nicely. As to precedents, I think the bad precedent was set by Madonna when she stepped outside being an entertainer into politics. She went there not me. So if she's going to talk politics might as memorialize it on WP. Just a matter of format.Cllgbksr (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You keep giving reasons why it's actually inappropriate to be included. Saying "She went there not me," implies celebrities don't have a right of free speech for giving personal opinions, or else they've "stepped outside of being an entertainer." Anyone should have a right to state their opinion about current events or politics at home, to fans or the media. WP shouldn't be "memorializing" celebrity opinions into an encyclopedic format unless the person has achieved notability as an activist, for example DiCaprio's. --Light show (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Madonna has the right to free speech, but she's using a very big, celebrity microphone. When she talks politics it makes the news cycle. Seems you want to parse what is relevant she says or not based on her status as an entertainer and thus what should be memorialized in WP. If you want to keep her Madonna WP article tight with material that solely focuses on her works as a singer and the fluff stuff just say so. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: I think that you're taking lightly. IndianBio said something true, that now: "Every artist who shares their political views puts them on the forefront of social media for the world to see and judge". But Madonna did before social networks, talking about social-political issues and received thousands of comments from popular opinion as well, theorics and critics and now is a division from Madonna Studies. Academics from Pontifical Xavierian University said that she is "more a media figure than a musician". We know that she debuted as an artist, but she is a global cultural icon. This is a illustration that we can add in the possible future section. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Please note, my comments are vehemently against a separate article, as its strongly WP:UNDUE and fails WP:N. Regarding a small section? Not sure, maybe a sandbox version we can use and see how best it can be merged. —IB [ Poke ] 05:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Madonna will be on social security by the time something is created on WP. I have a feeling this is going to get a lot of pushback from her protectors on WP. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Protector? Just because me and Snuggums are against adding this content or creating a page, we are suddenly "protectors"? Lol. Ok then you are a Madonna vandal. See how that works? :P —IB [ Poke ] 05:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
lol.... that's funny IndianBio. If I was going to vandalize her page I wouldn't have started a talk section on whether a Politics section should be created or not. See how that works? Cllgbksr (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Pulling you legs.... —IB [ Poke ] 12:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
lol...good to know you have a sense of humor...Cllgbksr (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
well, today Madonna told hundreds of thousands of people at the Women's march in D.C. she's thought about blowing up the White House... does that qualify as news for a political section? just asking... Cllgbksr (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

madonna about playing in Iran

She made announcement about her interest to play in Iran.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsala111 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

How is that relevant here? —IB [ Poke ] 05:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Well that is one of her dreams what she likes. So it adds some information to the article plus it makes the article unbiased and interesting to people of other countries.And it is a fact its true. Because most of the English Wikipedia is so biased and all talks about whether U.S or western countries and nothing about Asia.lets say when they talk about laundry room they only talk about what and how it designed in USA or Britannia not the other countries so that makes most of the English articles so biased and not complete.Anyway from sport to entertainment and from health to education most of the English Wikipedia doesn't cover anything but information about U.S.ASimsala111 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If a performance in Iran or any nation gathers significant attention, then it would be worth including, but merely expressing interest isn't. See WP:NOTADIARY for more. Its inclusion (or lack thereof) doesn't really in itself affect whether the article is biased. Saying that the English Wikipedia mostly doesn't cover things outside of the US is also highly exaggerated given how people from countless nations have articles and include lots of activity from their respective homelands. In Madonna's case, much of her career success is based in America, so the article includes lots of detail of activity there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
well performance in that country is impossible right now. But I think the news definitely was important and worthy that credible websites such as Hollywood reporter ,Huffingtonposts ,cbsnews and many more wrote about it and that news included her opinion about that country and her fans in that country and her political view. But just for making becoming biased not saying its Intentionally but like having covered all soccer players from 3rd division of a western country and not having a page for a national players of the other Countries makes it look like that. And eventually makes reader to get harder time to conclude if any needed with one side full Information in details and the other side not even main articles.Simsala111 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Simsala111: you have been answered that this is not notable information for this article, and maybe we can include it in The MDNA Tour since it pertained to that era. —IB [ Poke ] 06:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@IndianBio: OK then maybe you can add it there if needed cause I am not expert in English Wikipedia and that article is also protected.Simsala111 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Name

Her first name is Marie. I remember watching a documentary in the 90s about how she adopted Madonna as a stage name to respect her mother or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.163.20 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah --Jennica✿ / talk 03:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Net Worth

Is actually, just a random question and I don't take care completely about this. There are two articles by Forbes in the same day but from two different authors. One say that is 550 million and the other one that is 560. Is not a big difference, because is only 10 million and after all, is an "estimated". But it makes me think about the accuracy of the media and how we handle those things to put in an article of Wikipedia. So, which reference would be most feasible to use?.

Probably Forbes is the most-recognizable business magazine in the world, or at least in the West countries, but is necessary use exclusively them to refer this parameter in the article?. There is other business magazines, also I mean. And an example of differences that we can see is with Donald Trump that himself claims over $10 billion net worth and Forbes, that is only $4.5 billion (2016). We don't know exactly how rich are celebrities, and sources take many factors. In the Madonna's situation there is other business magazines or sources that gives other different amount, Business Insider for example, recognizes in a list an figure as high like 910 million. I know that they based on the estimate of Wealth-X page (and they say that their information is quoted by other sources like CNN, Wall Street Journal...etc), but I guess that the cycle of information sometimes came from a source, and the other one confirm the information. In this case, is necessary this parameter in the infobox?. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • IP, it largely depends on the author. If the piece is from a Forbes staff member like both links Chrishonduras has provided, then they're safe to use since staff members are overall known to be pretty accurate. On the other hand, pieces from guest members like the link you gave are less credible, particularly when the authors have no known credentials. As for the situation here, I'm not sure which 2016 piece is more accurate when both from trusted staff members. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal

Why is there no personal section? So much to report. (I did not go thru the 20 archives of Talk)Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

1) That's basically asking for trouble since such sections are frequent magnets of trivia, fancruft, and gossip. Not a risk worth taking. 2) All of the relationships worth adding have already been incorporated throughout "life and career", and she's known to have worked with partners professionally in the past (i.e. Co-starred with Sean Penn in Shanghai Surprise and with Warren Beaty in Dick Tracy, Guy Ritchie directed the film Swept Away that she starred in). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't need a specific "Personal life" section because the information about Madonna's personal life has been incorporated chronologically, mixed together with her professional career. I think it's a better presentation. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I came across a letter Tupac had written describing a 3 year relationship with her; shouldn't it find way into this page? Couldn't find a spot for it.Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't seem relevant since as far as I know, they weren't together for 3 straight years but sporadically. --Jennica✿ / talk 00:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems like big news; all the major media outlets are into it; from letter seemed intense. I recommend we find a spot for it; what do the others suggest. I suspect that someone will add it, not someone who necessarily is into Talk pages. Mwinog2777 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
If Tupac is in fact worth adding, then it's probably best to mention him within the 1992–1997 section when it covers the time period where they dated and he wrote the letter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe I'm in the minority, I don't think it's relevant. here is another quote from 2Pac where he talks about how he let people dictate who he should be friends with, thinking he was some "black panther type" and how a relationship with Madonna was frowned upon because of her race. I don't know if it is really relevant to include.--Jennica✿ / talk 02:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Is relevant because Tupac is famous. I don't understand how trash articles like Taylor Swift or Beyonce can have a entire section and here is irrelevant because is already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.28.48 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

But then you could argue that Sean Penn is also famous and he doesn't have his own section. This article is just different and the consensus for years has been that this article doesn't require a Personal life section. --Jennica✿ / talk 03:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

And there is the problem, consensus are generally made by users that don't know her career and how to create a good article. Sean Penn is famous and Madonna too but her career is a entire definition of celebrity and pop star.

This article just has a little inclusion of her husbands or boyfriend and there is more relevant content. But not because is Madonna. It's ok with Elizabeth Taylor or other entertainers but not with her. Songwriter "skills" in Taylor Swift can be named in several sections and is ok. The same for Beyonce with her celebrity or Mariah Carey with her "voice skill" can be named in other sections and in a entire section but with Madonna not. Just a comparative. - 190.92.28.48

I have recently come to study Madonna's career as part of Uni media and culture impact on music work at Sussex. I can really vouch in terms of the content writing and personal life are just a bunch load of rubbish. And IP user, I really do not see your point. Madonna has huge subsections dedicated to her musical aspects, video influences etc, as well as her songwriting skills also. Problem is that content regarding Madonna is so huge, that if we start including each and every subset of her celebrity life in separate sections as you are looking for currently, we will be in a soup. —IB [ Poke ] 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
190.92.28.48 - The fact that you put "skills" and "voice skill" in quotes says it all. It's all according to your opinion. Most of the people who participate in such consensus discussions do know how to make good articles.. this article is well-policed and contains the pertinent information, in chronological order. It doesn't need a personal life section. --Jennica✿ / talk 04:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I added 20 words to the end of the 1992-1997 section about the relationship. I believe this did not go against any consensus. Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it. It doesn't seem like it fits, but that's just me. Especially since the section ends on 1997. Also, don't do double spaces. --Jennica✿ / talk 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Moved it without double spaces; if consensus doesn't want, will delete. Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I don't know if they broke up in 1995. The letter was written while Tupac was in prison in 1995. The timeline is kind of vague. --Jennica✿ / talk 05:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct @Jennica:. I am actually kind of against mentioning any timeline here, until I can check J. Randy Taraborrelli's biography which talks about Madonna dating Tupac and might mention the year when they broke up. —IB [ Poke ] 05:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I got it. The source says 93-94. I was able to snag the portuguese version of the J. Tamborelli book (because I, too, wanted to verify this info) and ctrl+F'd "Tupac" and all of its variations and nothing came up. Maybe the English version has something different. --Jennica✿ / talk 05:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Lol then I dont think the English version would be any better. —IB [ Poke ] 05:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

rough-edged beginning

The intro section is significantly overlong, and packed with unsupported claims and fannish editorializing. I mean, regarded as BY WHOM? known for pushing the boundaries BY WHOM? has also frequently reinvented SAYS WHO? Her musical productions ... have often by acclaimed by music critics. NAME ONE.

Easily half of the section more properly belongs in the following Life and career, and in fact is pretty much made redundant by it.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Even of the lead does need revising, it's not exactly "redundant" since it should summarize the whole article per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png relisted the second time at FFD

The alternative image File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png is relisted for the second time at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 5#File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Invasion of Privacy and auction

What do you guys think about this news Auction of Intimate Madonna Memorabilia Is Halted by Judge as reported by multiple news media. Some very personal items were stolen from her and ended up in an auction, including letter by Tupac Shakur. The way this is attaining steam I believe we have to include it but which would be a better place can anyone suggest? —IB [ Poke ] 08:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, Bluesatellite what do you guys think? —IB [ Poke ] 06:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
If only focusing on Tupac letter, then I'd include it in the section mentioning him (assuming their relationship is in fact worth including). Otherwise, probably in the most recent section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Article violates neutrality guidelines, reads like it was written by Madonna's press agent

Why is there no section on criticism? In fact, the whole damn article reads like it could've been written by her press agent. What gives?! You'd think the whole pretentious fake British accent thing would garner at least a mention.

This article borders on violating Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and I'm tempted to add the template. The writing quality is good but it's currently WAY too one-sided and needs to be fixed. 68.189.139.242 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

All controversies and criticism are well documented throughout the article. We don't need specific section about criticism. Who gives a damn about her fake British accent? This is an encyclopedia, just go to the Daily Mail and those tabloid/forums for such trivial commentary. And anyway, don't preach about guidelines when you don't even bother to create a user account here :) Bluesatellite (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if the article does need more detail on controversy/criticism, it shouldn't all be lumped into one section as that would create undue negative weight. Better interspersed throughout the page instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Forget whether a person has a user account or not, focus on what they're saying. A person can talk about guidelines without creating a user account, that's why it's possible to do so.

lead image

Just a horrible lead image. Image 101....dont use images that obscure the face. No way was this GA reviewed pic.--Moxy (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

well, I think that the old image of Madonna was better, maybe we can not agree , but at least the old was very clear and she also was smiling. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The smiling and clear view are definitely pluses, but the one used now had been agreed upon a while ago and it was established that we needed something more recent than 2008 when decent images were available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You sure on that reading the archive looks like this image was rejected outright Look like a fan just added it.
I definitely remember people saying that we couldn't use the 2008 image forever, and even if people didn't initially favor the 2015 pic, it certainly wasn't "just added" by a fan; whoever inserted it definitely had their reasons. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
ok, I find this image of Madonna very nice, I will miss the other one, but you're right, this image is more modern!. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Guitar as a primary instrument in the infobox

A short discussion has lead me here. Madonna is a vocalist, always has been. Now, in no way am I saying that she does not play guitar, I have found a few discussions in the archives [2], [3] and [4] that substantiate that fact, my concern is, should guitar be listed as a primary instrument in the infobox considering the parameters' documentation. The way I see it guitar is secondary and should be mentioned in the article body (and it is 13 times along with drums). I wonder why no arguments for including drums. Madonna is a vocalist, a singer, she is not known, even remotely, as a guitar player. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I second with Bluesatellite in this one. Guitar for Madonna currently constitutes and comes within one of her primary instrument along with being a vocalist. Regarding drums, although it is well-documented that she learnt it and played it, but she has ceased it from usage anymore following her attaining fame. We cannot use it as a primary instrument per documentation. —IB [ Poke ] 17:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Why no arguments for including drums? Because drum is not her notable instrument. She only played drum in her very early, pre-fame Breakfast Club (There isn't even a recording archive of her playing drum). She isn't a gifted guitar player (if not a mediocre guitar player), but it has become her essential instrument for the last 17 years. Lots of pictures and videos of her with that instrument. She played it on concert tours and studio albums. She even played guitar on random performances, such as Hillary Clinton campaign. She doesn't have to be on Jimi Hendrix level to have "guitar" listed on her infobox. The same goes to Lady Gaga with her piano, or Katy Perry with her guitar. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Her skill level or how often she plays the guitar is not the issue, the issue is what she's most known for, which is her voice. Nevermind you guys just don't get it. By the way, my mention of drums was just a failed attempt at sarcasm. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Please, don't forget that English Wikipedia is a source for other languages. And usually people list all the instruments. Adele with guitar, etc. I don't think it's a great idea to change that just because Madonna is not as relevant (as a guitar player or in general) in the US (and anglosphere) as she is in other countries. As you can see, her iTunes top 10 list is Russia is very different from US one or others. She's known and loved here for playing guitar. Madonna is known for being the first (and only) really cool looking examplary rock woman with guitar since 2001. Her Pantera riff in "Hung Up" made guitar a lot more female-friendly instrument and will be remembered. And she was (according to these calculations) the second most successful artist in the world in the decade of 00s, so it's not only about retarded countries like Russia. I don't see the reason why her 4 world tours of the decade where she played guitar minumum in 20% of songs are not important. She's not a vocalist, for G-d's sake! She's a singer-songwriter, even according to her ex-record company full of sexists and common sense: (78% or 28 out of 34 hits on her Celebration compilation album were written by her alone or as a main co-writer plus she has additional lyrics credits on another two = 30 out of 34.). She was writing her songs on guitar since 1978: her early skills from 1981 are on Pre-Madonna and more than dozen of her early recordings are on YouTube for almost 10 years now as is her 1980 live concert with Madonna on guitar. She's not Beyonce, a vocalist at first who "has written" even Bee Gees' song later in her career (deep down inside I have nothing against Beyonce's desire to have credits for Bee Gees' song, she's a Queen and slavery in US makes her forever innocent). It's strange her people'd rather think Madonna's a "bad vocalist and good entertainer" than "great singer-songwriter-producer and so-so vocalist". It's a choice not to give woman credit for her work and make laugh at her international fame. Pretty arrogant approach, IMHO. Younger female musician isn't equals to better.Tintin-tintine (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Heritage Matters SNUGGUMS

"Madonna's Italian-Catholic background and her relationship with her parents are reflected in the album Like a Prayer"

Add timestamp. —IB [ Poke ] 03:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Early Singles

In the article it states: "After Madonna signed a singles deal with Sire, her debut single, "Everybody", was released in October 1982, and the second, "Burning Up", in March 1983. After this success, she started developing her eponymous debut album, Madonna, which was primarily produced by Reggie Lucas of Warner Bros".

If I remember correctly, she signed a singles deal with Sire Records and the first single was "Everybody" and the second single was "Physical Attraction". There was no album. "Everybody" was a hit in the UK, but both singles failed to chart on the US Hot 100, however, both were Club Hits in the US. This success motivated Sire to give the green light for a full-length album by Madonna. After the album was released (Sire included the first two songs "Everybody" and "Physical Attraction"), the first single from the newly released album was "Burning Up". The next single was "Holiday", then "Borderline", and finally "Lucky Star". The single after "Everybody" was not "Burning Up", it was "Physical Attraction", then "Burning Up" as the third single, but first single after the album was released. The article needs to be updated to correct any possible errors.

Add timestamp. —IB [ Poke ] 03:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark up

A lot of pictures, including main photo, contradict basic rule of text-picture markup. If there's one person it should look at the side of text, not outside. Otherwise it's diffucult for people to concentrate on reading. So, main picture needs to be replaced and some others to switch sides. Thank you.Tintin-tintine (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What "basic rule" are you referring to? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Most of the photos show people facing straight out or facing into the text. Not a huge problem. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That's correct, as long as the images identify the context in which they have been used, and is not just a decorative piece (albeit being free). —IB [ Poke ] 14:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/madonna-guy-oseary-israel-iran-syria-307469
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_20&oldid=1140145588"