Talk:Madonna/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 23

Infobox image

The following discussion 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.

---

Option 1 (August 2012). The current, disputed infobox image that has been in place since approximately April 2014.

Option 2 (August 2012). The boldly added replacement for Option 1 that was reverted by IndianBio.

Option 3 (April 2008). Previously served as this article's lead image. Some editors argue that this is too old, but there are no policies or guidelines on how recent a lead image must be.

I boldly changed the infobox image from File:Madonna à Nice 30 2.jpg to File:Madonna à Nice 9.jpg – a photo of the same concert on the same date – feeling the former to be too grainy and low-quality. The change was immediately reverted, so here we are. Granted, the latter image is not the most flattering shot of Madonna (IMO, neither is the former/current image) but I do think it is noticeably better quality with less graininess.

In addition to the MDNA cheerleader outfit picture, I would also like editors to consider File:Madonna at the premiere of I Am Because We Are.jpg, which is a much more viable image as it is of excellent quality. This picture was shut down by a few editors during the last infobox image discussion for being "too old," though the picture is only from 2008 and Madonna has not drastically changed in appearance since then. Additionally, WP:LEADIMAGE does not make any point about using the most recent image available of a person. Its only requirements are that lead images serve as "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic." It also says that such images "should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works;" its higher quality puts it more in line with the type of image we would see in a high-quality reference work about Madonna.

Please state your preference below with reasoning as necessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 is my ultimate preference for reasons stated above, but Option 2 would be a massive upgrade from the current image. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 she looks happier and more natural in that then the others. I don't think Option 2 is a good idea due to the microphone in front of her face. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3, obviously. I can't believe someone's even asking. --Light show (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 until and unless something better comes up. That image is from 2008, is their anything grossly different from Madonna of 2008 to Madonna of now? I don't think so. If not option 3 then option 1 only. Can't believe option 2 is even under consideration. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 - While Madonna's appearance was once known for changing all the time, the third photo is the best quality, shows her in a neutral light as a normal person, and is recognisably her. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

... "a normal person"?! surely you mean "an international celebrity superstar"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Best quality, good head/shoulder aspect, good for recognition - still representative even if from 2008, normal facial expression. (Hohum ^@) 16:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3--Moxy (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(←) In the face of already-overwhelming preference for the third picture, I will go ahead and add a slightly cropped version of it to the infobox. Any further comments can be directed below. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And maybe cropping off the left white background, or even some more, would help center her face.--Light show (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I found the crop on Commons. Someone else may have to crop it more. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)::

The option #3 image already has it cropped. Can we use it instead? --Light show (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go ahead and replace it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3 is fine with me. As stated above, Option 2 is unsuitable because her face is obstructed by the mic. nagualdesign 20:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Good image, Madonna isn't only a singer anymore, therefore, the others are limiting in representation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What stuns me is the shortage of public domain Madonna images available. We're talking about the world's best-selling recording artist here, and it's all the choice we have? Could one please elaborate some more on what constitutes a public domain image? Madonna's been active since 1978, played in two bands, did some acting, then released her first single in 1982. There must be a lot more such images available for us to use. I'm personally sick of Option 3. It's a real nice picture, but we've seen it enough.

Shame we can't use official Madonna promo pics such as this one: http://images1.miaminewtimes.com/imager/u/original/7543458/madonna_rebel_heart_tour_dates_2015.jpg Israell (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Find images that would look good for the lead, but not of any famous shots from albums and the like; find out who owns it; send them an email asking if they'd like to allow it in WP under license, where they would still own the copyright, could limit the size, and have full credit given. That worked for Woody Allen, but another photographer said "no" to Stanley Kubrick. Or just contact her record companies, which probably have hundreds of unused images. --Light show (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried searching for an e-mail ID for Interscope records but could not find any, can someone guide? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:23, 28 April 2015 (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.

Successful and/or Best-selling

I have a question, what is the different between this official source by her record title: Most Sucessful Female vs Best-selling female. Are the same or different record?. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would think different. The text in Most Successful Female lists the number of albums sold and the number of her songs and albums on the top ten, while the latter only refers to number of records sold. |CanadianDude1| 20:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Legacy?

How can she have a legacy considering she's not, well, dead? Kirschkuchen (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Legacy does't mean the person has to be dead. People are noted for 'leaving a legacy' at their schools all the time. She has left legacy in art. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Mononym or stage name, use something please

OK, I just added this[1] and got reverted[2]. I'm not familiar with what happened here before, but no where in the article is it explained why we are referring to her using her first name throughout. No where is it said that she adopted 'Madonna' as her stage name. Can we PLEASE have something that indicates that she has adopted Madonna as her stage name? Instead we have just assumed that 'everyone knows', which is not OK for an encyclopedia. Darx9url (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this article contains "Madonna" in its title and not "Madonna Ciccone" by itself indicates she is known as "Madonna". Using one's legal first name (or even middle/last name) is not a stage name or alias. It isn't necessary to have "known professionally as" or "known monomymously as" when it's part of her legal identity. However, I have no prejudice against including text within article body about her deciding to just go by her first name. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well then please do so, since you've set your self up as final arbiter of what should be on this page. I don't want to write something only to be reverted again. Darx9url (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

lnfobox picture

I wanted to propose if we could switch (yet again) the infobox picture; don't think bad of me, I think the current one is fine but it's clearly been just cropped out of the full WTG one and is not the best resolution or quality. I I came across and uploaded these ones from flickr; and they're really good quality and Madonna looks good in them, so perhaps we can use one of these. Of course, we could also keep that one but crop it correctly from the parent picture. P: --Chrishm21 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Madonna infobox options

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4
• 
  Option 5
• 
  Option 6
• 
  Option 7

• Option 3 – I would say only option 3. The others have extremely unflattering moments of her performing, most of them with those awful duck lips. Then again, option three has a good portion of her lips covered by that microphone and I'm no sure if that can be removed by the photoshop editors. (Option 7 was not added when I commented this statement) —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"Awful duck lips"... That's body shaming. Madonna's lips are fine! We're not here to judge or critique her looks and physique but choose a suitable photo for the lead, and I don't see why as the previous photo (RHT-WTG performance) was just fine! Israell (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Option 7 1 through 6 are horrible..not one with a normal look. I still don't understand why we are not using File:Madonna by David Shankbone cropped.jpg (by our resident professional photographer)...nice head shot not obstructed by a microphone... a 2008 image is not that old consider she still looks the same. These "action" shots from concerts are not what we want for the lead WP:LEADIMAGE. -- Moxy (talk)
  • I have to disagree a bit with your last statement though Moxy. There is somewhat difference in Madonna's look from 2008 to that in 2015. Her face is more chiseled, hard and sharpened in the pictures of 2007, while the 2015 ones are more full and kind of smooth. Plastic surgery? Defintely, and its noticeable in my opinion. Hence I went with option 3. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 7 also. Not performing is the most natural image. --Light show (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• What about correctly cropping a close up of her of this image??; Personally I would pick Option 1. There are several pop singers articles whose infobox is them performing, so I don't really think that is a big issue--Chrishm21 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• By all means Option 7; I concur with Moxy. She looks more natural and happier in that than the other pics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • She looks happy in option 3 also. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• The one currently used is fine to me but if you really want to change it, I'd support #7 instead. The Shankbone photo is fairly recent and of great quality. We could use another photo of her during the tour to illustrate the 2013-present section. Amzer (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• This one's been recently uploaded, we should also consider it: --Chrishm21 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Madonna infobox options

• 
  Option 8

• God no, Chrishm, in the politest way, please go though WP:LEADIMAGE to understand why or what type of image is acceptable. Appreciate your efforts but most of these images are so awkward and plain downright humiliating. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "humiliating"? Israell (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's another one. Front view of her face in neutral expression. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Option 9

Excuse the wording bu she looks drunk here. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more from flickr; some of them are very good (IMO) all that'd be needed is for an user to crop them to an appropriate size. I'm particularly fond of Option 14

• 
  Option 10
• 
  Option 11
• 
  Option 12
• 
  Option 13
• 
  Option 14

--Chrishm21 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support- either 4 or 7 Mlpearc (open channel) 18:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support 7: Note that even the covers of her recent book biographies show her off stage: 2013, 2015 Encycopedia Madonnica, 2001, Intimate Biography, 2012, 2008, 2009,Madonna: Like an Icon. Even her album covers show her off-stage.--Light show (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I really don't get why it can't be an onstage picture; there are plenty articles from musicians whose infobox pictures are them performing (Lady Gaga, Michael and Janet Jackson to name a few). I think it'd be good to include a HQ recent one (not from 8 years ago) as Madonna's infobox picture.--Chrishm21 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This photo was fine! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madonna_%28entertainer%29&diff=697767597&oldid=697764478#/media/File:Rebel_Heart_WTG_%283%29.jpg Why wasn't it included in the poll? Aren't you editors sick of Option 7? Very nice picture, but is this the ONLY photo we can use??? Tell me it's a joke. Israell (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What about we redo the vote and include the WTG picture? Israell (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal life as separate section?

Having personal details (marriages, etc) scattered through professional career is unwieldy, and most celeb biographical articles have these split out.Dfoofnik (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily "unwieldy". There are cases (such as Madonna's) where one's personal relationships are intertwined with professional career. Personal life sections can often become bloated, and having one here would likely become a target for fancruft and gossip additions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dfoofnik. This massive 13,000-word article is mostly a discography and tour-ography with a mind-boggling amount of trivia and minutia about her albums and tours. No one wants to dig through all that to find out more about her relationships, marriages, children, divorces, religious beliefs, philanthropy, travels, business ventures or her friends. All of that is buried in the article. IMO, most readers want to know more about her, not the microscopic details about the albums. I'd guess that this article's value is lessened by half without a Personal life section. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both marriages are mentioned in section titles, where she had children from each. Maybe this could use less detail on albums and tours, but friends and travels tend to be too trivial to include. I am certain that a "personal life" section would become bloated with lots of needless details if included. It would be basically asking for trouble here. The value is certainly not "lessened" at all without one. Besides, all of her high-profile relationships (including both marriages) were involved with her career to some extent (i.e. Sean Penn was her co-star in Shanghai Surprise, and Guy Ritchie directed Swept Away), so it actually does makes sense to discuss them within career section as a "life and career" section. I would however have no prejudice against including her husbands' names in section titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's ironic, then, that having a section called "Life and career," which is the definition of "biography," adds little to a biography article. Yet one of the most useful aspects of celebrity biographies, a "Personal life" section, is missing. It needs one. Removing trivia from it is simple. BTW, in Hollywood, stars marrying or dating people they've worked with is not a novelty. It's assumed. --Light show (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Life and career" adds little to the bio!? You can't be serious when it takes up the bulk of the article and goes into a detailed description of her life. It doesn't "need" a "personal life" section. Those in many instances are anything but useful with frequent fancruft and gossip additions. Simply not worth the risk of trouble here. I also never said working with partners was a "novelty", just that Madonna's were involved in major parts of her career. It actually is not in fact automatically assumed that partners work together; in theory, celebs with completely different occupations might date without ever working together professionally. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to not needing a "section called," Life and career, obviously not the text within it. --Light show (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am absolutely appalled that the suggestion even arises of that pf a personal life section, which are basically target of fancrufts and page 3 gossip additions. Whatever important relation ship MAdonna has had is extremely entwined to her career, be it be Warren, or having baby during Evita or meeting Sean Penn on her music video. There is no good reason to separate them out. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 23:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

My two cents: I noted that this topic its a debate over the time. I believe that we can create a section of her personal life and relationships (even if its already mentioned in the articles' body, "apparently"). The reason its simple: there is lot of academic material with her life (most that any other celebrity or artist.... even these that have this section and are feature or good articles). So, in my case, I will work apart in my sandbox in Spanish Wiki and will back (if finally is validaty). Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

FA/GA rating not withstanding, I've said this before and I'll say it again: having a "personal life" section is just asking for fancruft, gossip, and trivia additions. Maintaining such a section would simply be a nightmare. Absolutely not worth the trouble or even the risk of trouble. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, its not gossip, trivia additions or fancruft, and will not be a section (it will be academic material). Its possible a separted article. However, I will try to create in Spanish wiki first. Dont worry. Chrishonduras (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A separate article isn't any better. That would be an unnecessary (and likely bloated) content fork since just about every meaningful detail is already included within the article regarding her personal life. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes for god's sake no separate article please, not withstanding that it would be WP:CFORK, it is a target of gossips, trivias, IP crufts. And I have been going through Madonna academic materials in Google books, their personal life material is not that strong enough to warranty separate sections or such. Only part where they strongly discuss is her mother's influence on how Madonna shaped up to be. Which I believe is wonderfully captured in this article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm will read your link with the Wikipedia's policy. However, I will search deeply materials (because there is a lot, and search just for one day its not enough) and I know Indian, that the basic is captured in this article. Like I said, I will work in Spanish Wikipedia, if finally this article is imperative, don't worry I don't will create in this Wikipedia (I need to verify with other users like sysop, etc in the other Wikipedia). And finally, I agree with you guys, that we don't need gossips, fancruft trivias, etc. I always think based on Madonna Studies that we can created separted articles with academic materials for basically, everything (Madonna like a sexual icon, Madonna like a fashion icon, etc) because she is the artist that pay the way for before and after musicians. Chrishonduras (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the two editors who hate personal life sections visit articles for other singers such as David Bowie, Adele, Elton John, Ringo Starr, Joe Cocker, Mick Jagger, Amy Winehouse or Rod Stewart, and warn their editors of the lurking danger of fancruft, gossip, and trivia soon to invade those articles. --Light show (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No mention of lawsuits???

Shouldn't we mention that she has been sued over a dozen times for copyright infringement? That's pretty serious stuff.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Case in point. [3] --Monochrome_Monitor 07:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the source ("15 plagiarism lawsuits to her credit"), that should be covered for sure. MiewEN (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexual assault of fan on stage during concert

I added the following to the article:

University of Queensland law expert Dr Paul Harper said that Madonna committed sexual assault when she pulled off the top of a female fan she had invited on stage during a March 17, 2016 concert. However, the 17 year old victim said she was not upset.

User:IndianBio removed it and commented "You people have no clue."

What do other editors think about including or not including this information?

Corn jabs 561 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE unless there is an actual case. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. See also WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. No reason to add it unless there is a case or its a major controversy (even so, WP:Weight should be discussed on talk). Lapadite (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"mononymously known as"

What is the consensus on Wikipedia for single-named artists? Usually, when an artist is mostly known under one name, the lead of an article mentions it, even if the mononym in question is already part of the artist's legal name (in bold characters). I noticed SNUGGUMS prefers leaving that information out; they may see it as redundant, but it's a formula used in biographies. For example: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Madonna-American-singer-and-actress .

I suggest the lead reads: "Madonna Louise Ciccone (/tʃɪˈkoʊni/; Italian: [tʃikˈkoːne]; born August 16, 1958), mononymously known as Madonna...". Israell (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any defined consensus at the manual of style or any guideline or policy I know of, and it seems to be left to editor choice/judgement on which way to present that. However, when already part of one's legal name, it is needlessly repetitive to use "monomymously known as" or anything along those lines. This is because it's not like she uses it as a legal alias or anything. The article title only containing "Madonna" rather than "Madonna Ciccone" also already indicates she is known as such anyway. What Britannica uses isn't really relevant, and even if it was, that's not a solid example since it doesn't use the form you mentioned. I'm also not the only one who finds such insertions to be needlessly repetitive. When the monomym isn't part of one's legal name, though, such as Eminem's legal name being Marshall Bruce Mathers III, one could use Marshall Bruce "Eminem" Mathers III if desired. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Britannica article says "Madonna, original name Madonna Louise Ciccone". The relevance of this example is clear; it cites the artist's professional name in addition to her full legal name; that's the point. In Wikipedia, we cite the full legal name first, then the mononym. Many editors have modified the lead so it reads "mononymously known as", so I'm not the only one in favour of that wording. Israell (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Britannica is obviously wrong because that phrasing suggests she changed her legal identity to simply "Madonna" when she never actually did that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Snuggums. She never changed her legal name to Madonna, still in court precedings its Madonna Louise Ciccone. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016

Substitute the following:

In May 2014, the magazine listed her as the fourth highest grossing touring act since 1990, with total earned revenue of $1.14 billion and 9.7 million attendance at her shows.

with:

In March 2016, the magazine listed her as the third highest grossing touring act and highest solo artist since 1990, with total earned revenue of $1.31 billion and 10.7 million attendance at her shows.

Edchuy (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Already present in List of Madonna live performances article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Is there a reason why the article for one of the most famous people in the world is eight years out of date? 92.24.151.79 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, it's the ONLY SINGLE fair use photo deemed quality enough (speaking of pixels & lighting)... All the other proposed photos (many of which from recent live concerts) were never good enough for some editors. The before-last photo ('Who's That Girl' at the 'Rebel Heart Tour') was just fine, looked nice, but it still wasn't good enough. I'm done debating it. Israell (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean "free" rather than "fair use", as fair use images cannot be used to illustrate articles of living people, as they fail WP:NFCC#1. (There's no problem here, as all of the photos mentioned earlier on this talk page are freely licensed.) – nyuszika7h (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Israell: Pinging here as changing the existing line won't trigger a notification, hopefully this works. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

nyuszika7h, my bad. I meant "free". Israell (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Commercial performance and critical reception for Rebel Heart

It would be great to have some info regarding the commercial performance and critical reception for Madonna's latest studio effort, Rebel Heart. The current version only cites the demo leaks and the release date, as well as naming three producers - which in my opinion is unnecessary detail for her main article. Lordelliott (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture (again)

We have these pictures from the concerts in Australia:

Madonna infobox options

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option1 cropped
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4

Option 4 has already been cropped. I believe it's appropriate for the infobox.--Chrishm21 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 is a great shot for the career sections. But as the lead gives her notability as "an American singer, songwriter, actress, and businesswoman," I think showing her in costume on stage focuses too much on her stage image. --Light show (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 is a great image for lead infobox and enough with the old image. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 4 can definitely be used for infobox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not one option here is good. Could we get more options that are not so horrible...or ll the same?. 4 is the worst one.. mic blocking her face. I will search for some real pics.-- Moxy (talk)

The mic's a problem. I added a cropped version of Option 1, since profile shots are often used (as in this one and this one. --Light show (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Light show after you cropped it, I really like option 1 cropped version now. :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• What we have here is an editor trying to get in one of there pics The quality of all of them are horrible. and are not recognizable as her at fitst glancs. As I said I will look for a fair use image that meets the basic requirements of the lead image. We have to hold up to the GA standardsMoxy (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No fair use image. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes many... such as from the stock above Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) --Moxy (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah sorry, I confused it with Fair use rationale for non-free images. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• None of these options is lead-worthy. Option 1 (cropped) would be a great choice to illustrate the "2013–present" subsection. Lordelliott (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Highly disagree that image is not for the section. It is so enlarged for the section. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

wrong categories

Madonna is not from Queens or Staten Island. Can we remove these categories- "People from Corona, Queens" "People from Queens, New York" "People from Staten Island" 69.86.6.150 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Madonna has sold 305.6 million albums

Madonna has sold 305.6 million in álbums as 2013 according to guinnes world records. Why you deleted The information ? What is The plan againt of madonna? Jjavier1978 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there is no "plan" against her. Secondly, I've never seen a 305.6 million figure in Guinness, only 300 million. Third, many previous talk page discussions have deduced that it is highly unlikely she sold 300+ albums when looking at the worldwide sales figures for her albums. 300 records (which includes both singles and albums) has been settled upon as the most credible representation of her sales. Guinness made a mistake when talking about album sales, likely by assuming records only meant albums. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Madonna has sold 305,600,000 albums

Guinness said two times Madonna (USA, b. Madonna Ciccone) has sold more than 300 million albums in her career since debuting with her self-titled release in 1983. As of October 2013, Madonna had sold an estimated 305,600,000 albums. Her best-sellers are The Immaculate Collection (1990, 30 million copies sold) and True Blue (1986, 25 million copies sold).

First link: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-female-recording-artist Second link: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2016/4/record-store-day-as-artists-like-madonna-and-david-bowie-release-exclusive-vinyl-424981

Clearly Guinness says Madonna has sold 305,600,000 albums not records(including singles) That's mean Madonna has sold more than 300 million albums since Madonna(1983) album.

So Guinness confirms two times, more than 300 million sales just album sales. And they give us exact number and explanation :305,600,000

We need add this information on that page. Beacuse Madonna is recognized as the best-selling female recording artist of all time by Guinness World Records. We have to add Guinness's information.

And they told me on Facebook Monitoring album sales is standard for the music industry and for this particular record category. This explanaiton telling this sales exactly album sales if you wonder you can send message to Official Guinness on Facebook

And Guinness can't made a mistake. This is the only Official World Records Company and they give us this information two times. Check out the links.

We have to add on Madonna (entertainer) like second link: According to Guinness World Records Madonna (USA, b. Madonna Ciccone) is the Best-selling female recording artist, having sold more than 300 million albums in her career since debuting with her self-titled release in 1983. Beacuse this is the official information by Guinness World Records and they confirms two times —Navyiconer (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

See above thread; highly unlikely when totaling up the worldwide figures for her albums. Guinness was mistaken in this instance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting crazy you and IndianBio never understand. Guinness can't made mistake this is the official record company and they explain clearly this sales album sales and confirms two times!! The other sources says 300 million records yes but the other sources are so irrelevant sources. Madonna is recognized as the best-selling female recording artist of all time by Guinness World Records. And we don't accept Guinness World Records's information and explanation. WTF? what's going on here? —Navyiconer (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny that Guinness gives such a figure or that it is a respected publication. It is possible for even the best sources to sometimes make mistakes. Not a frequent occurrence, but it can happen. This has been discussed many times in the past. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Madonna total records sales.

Her total album sales on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_albums_discography +232 million. And her singles sales on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_singles_discography 115 million. So her video album sales 12 million. 232+115+12 = +359 miilion. Her total records sales over 350 million. And how on Wikipedia her recods sales 300 million? —Navyiconer (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Navyiconer, just WP:DROPIT. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please can you explain me pretty please. i can't get it. dou you know math? 232+115 + and video sales = over 350 or over 340 million? —Navyiconer (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Taking the temperature RM, Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna (singer), Not moved, 31 July 2014

It's now nearly 2 years since the last RM, and only attempt to bring title in line with 3,100 results rather than 866 results. Has local feeling changed? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably not since "singer" is too narrow of a description given how she's prominently noted for more than just singing, even if singing is the most commonly known aspect of her fame. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Live Nation is not a record label

It was briefly disccussed when MDNA being released, and now I want to open the discussion and clear the things one for all. Live Nation is not a record label, hence it should not be included on every "Label" parameter on Madonna articles. After visiting their official website I'm getting sure about it, as none of their job descriptions relate to record/distribute musics. This interview with Live Nation CEO finally concludes that the company has never been a record label, as he said: "We're not in the rights business. Back then we didn't have any secret sauce on how to distribute that record than somebody else. That's why we thus sold Shakira and Madonna back to the label to recoup our record investment." So, it's clear that Interscope Records (of Universal Music Group) is Madonna's record label since 2011. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Live Nation got credit on every Madonna CDs since 2012, so it means they hold copyright of her music releases due to the 360 deal. But still, copyright holder =/= record label. See List of record labels, and Live Nation is nowhere. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for researching and finding this Blue. Its correct Live Nation should not be listed on the record label parameter anymore. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over wording

The following discussion 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.

---

Opening up discussion for the three editors involved in edit warring over wording the last several days. Discuss, rather than revert, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So far, the choice is continued edit warring rather than discussion. Fine, then - I'll start: The edit warring over poor wording should stop. Status quo is not a valid reason to keep poorly worded content lacking in encyclopedic tone. "Pushing the boundaries" is colloquialistic and likely vague and meaningless to a reader outside the U.S. I have improved the wording with the intent to clarify for all readers and keep with MOS policy regarding encyclopedic tone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You are involving in edit-warring yourself. You should wait for consensus before changing the WP:STABLE version. That sentence has stayed there after multiple reviews at WP:GAC, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, and again WP:GAC. No reviewers complained, until Anjax195 came here. Bluesatellite (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many reviewers passed it. Reviewers are not professional copy editors and many just skim or have a poor understanding of grammar and MOS. The fact remains: as it currently stands, the wording is terrible, and for the reasons I stated above. But, at least you are discussing now, although I note you chose to revert again to your preferred version first. I guess we will need an RfC to get more eyes and opinions on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I´m late, my duties absorbed me completely. Well, seems like the "Status Quo" and "fandom" won over the correct and neutral wording. OK, all well, but, thank god there are many administrators like Winkelvi with the power of reasoning. Ajax1995 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not an administrator, Ajax1995. Regardless, consensus needs to be sought on this. I will be starting an RfC to get more opinions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, accuse me of doing fandom for maintaining the thing which has been there for seven years and has been reviewed by a lot of people. Just go on with RfC, I don't mind. However, first of all, read your sentence carefully: She achieved popularity from the controversial lyrical content in her music. --> It's nowhere considered neutral, per WP:LABEL. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Just driving by and noticed the commotion. I haven't edited the article. But it seems that the "pushing the boundaries" phrasing, while somewhat vague, is still closer to accurate based on the body content. I found only a single mention of the lyrics causing what could be considered a "controversy," although that term wasn't used. So it could be misleading to imply "controversy" in the lead, twice, or even once in fact. Controversies should be explicit, not implied, to be accurate and lead-worthy.

I think Bob Dylan's lead uses a good compromise, since he was obviously also known for pushing boundaries: "Dylan's lyrics have incorporated various political, social, philosophical, and literary influences." I think a clear statement of facts would be OK if it's well supported. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A quick search online for Madonna, lyrics, videos, controversy yielded a ton of relevant results. This quote from one of the links I'm adding here says it all: "Madonna came, she saw, and she conquered back in the Eighties, blazing the trail for music divas like Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and M.I.A. Back in the day, her name became synonymous with controversy for her music and videos...". [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Madonna = controversy since the beginning of her pop career in the early 80s. If "controversial" is not in the article body, it should be. And the lede should reflect exactly that, not a compromise. Further, Dylan was not controversial, the protest songs of the 60s were. He "pushed boundaries" but was never controversial in and of himself and his music. Madonna = controversy. Always has. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I was only commenting on the edit war for lead's phrasing, which should be a summary of the existing content. --Light show (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"should be a summary of the existing content" No problem there. "Controversy/controversial" is mentioned five times in the article, one reference has the word "controversial" in the title. "Boundaries" is mentioned once in the context of the lede. Problem is, the use of the word in that context is only in the lede and nowhere else in the article. One other mention of "boundaries" exists, but not in the context the lede projects. Clearly, "controversy/controversial" is appropriate because, as you said, Light show, the lede needs to reflect text found in the body of the article. If I correctly recall MOS policy regarding the lede, if something there isn't reflecting what's in the article, it needs to be removed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, so according to you Bob Dylan did "pushed boundaries", while Madonna was just "controversial"? Oh okay. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversial defines the whole career of Madonna (Like a Virgin, Like a Prayer, Erotica....), "pushing the boundaries" is so vague, what are the established boundaries in mainstream music?, Controversial mainstream performers are Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison, SEx Pistols, Madonna, The Libertines.....lyrics, behaviour, music videos, they "pushed the boundaries" and the fandom could be happy with that expression, but the reader (in general) requires a more precise and formal term. See you later. Bye Ajax1995 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph entirely and carefully, the "controversy" thing has been addressed there for long long time. Don't be such ignorant. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, so your problem is only that the "boundaries" thing doesn't exist outside the lede? I can give you a ton of sources in the body of the article, if you want. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi 6:05. Two problems with your points. First, the term "boundaries" as used here is slang, as we're not talking about physical boundaries. But the term "controversy/-ies" is specific, and not slang. Therefore the direct comparison of words isn't helpful. The other problem is that most of those 5 mentions of the word "controversy" are unrelated to the lead issue here, which is whether her lyrics or music images were controversial. One of those related ones, about "controversial subjects such as violence," etc. lacked a source, so for something controversial it's only an opinion at this point. As I said, I only found a single mention of what could be a lyrics or imagery "controversy." So I don't think this undue focus on controversies in the lead is warranted. Without having more details in the body first, I'd leave it out as being misleading.--Light show (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (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.

Section has been archived/closed so that discussion can now move to the discussion section of the RfC below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2016

Can an admin please remove the links to Christopher Ciccone from the article? It was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Ciccone (2nd nomination). Also, remove his name from the infobox since if he has no article, his name is not notable to be included there.

—IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding wording in lede

There is a clear consensus for:

Choice 1: "She achieved popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV."

Cunard (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the wording currently in the lede "She achieved popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV." remain or be changed to "She achieved popularity from the controversial lyrical content in her music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV."? The former is not supported by content in the article body, the latter is supported by content in the article body. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC options

Choice 1: "She achieved popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV."

Choice 2: "She achieved popularity from the controversial lyrical content in her music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV."

Survey

Choice 1

• Support Choice 1: As choice 2 is only slightly supported, and mostly in contexts unrelated to lyrics or music imagery, a general phrasing is much preferred. I believe it is wrong to create or imply controversies in a BLP lead unless it's well supported in the body. --Light show (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's very well sourced in the article, per WP:V. There's nothing wrong with Choice 1. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • NOTE to those reading comments: It's now sourced because content has been added to the article after the RfC was opened that changes the parameters and points outlined in this RfC. This is a way to stack the deck in favor of one viewpoint, an action that is akin to stuffing the proverbial ballot box. I call foul. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Choice 1 Adding that it was controversial in the lead is not what the article body, the musical influence, the legacy etc sections actually mention. They talk about the lyrical and image related boundaries. Also as Snuggums said WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels like "controversy" should be avoided. Also the fact that it was the original decided lead in the FAC which it had passed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Choice 1. Sounds more encyclopedic and no real reason has been given to go with something else. 107.77.193.92 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Choice 1 - It's an apt description of how/why Madonna achieved popularity and the description is still supported by recent sourcing as well - The Daily Beast 2016, The Washington Post 2015, Daily Record 2014, USA Today 2013, NPR 2012.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Choice 1 It is better writing and fully supported by reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Choice 2

• Support Choice 2 My original objection to the wording in choice one had to do with what I see as unencyclopedic tone and use of an ambiguous colloquialism ("pushing the boundaries"). As Wikipedia is read the world over, I feel the use of an unclear American colloquialism might be unclear and confusing to those outside the United States. Upon further consideration and review, however, I find another glaring problem with the wording: it's not supported by content in the article body. "Controversial", however, is. Five times within the article. Further, one of the arguments presented during the talk page discussion above (and in reversion edit summaries) mention that the wording has been the long-standing status quo since the article was passed for GA and FA. Not so. The version of the article lede when passed as a GA in 2012 does not include the disputed wording. (see here) Which didn't surprise me. That the article would pass GA with the use of that wording in the lede/opening paragraph because of it being a colloquialism with unencyclopedic tone did surprise me. I stand by the second choice as it conforms with MOS policy for article ledes and encyclopedic tone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Dude, read the second paragraph of that GA version. *sigh Bluesatellite (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see it now. Didn't look for it elsewhere because, from what you said (obviously I should have known better than to take your word for it) the version we have now is exactly the same version we had when the article passed GA. Regardless, I stand by choice #2 based on encyclopedic tone and the colloquialistic ambiguity. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Further comments and discussion

• Comment we should be cautious with using "controversial" within prose per WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels. It's pretty common knowledge that Madonna's work has often been controversial, but it would probably be better to say something like created controversy or sparked controversy within a sentence. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but if the sources say it was controversial (and they pretty much all do), then that's certainly a green light to say the same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

and the "controversy" word has been being mentioned in the opening paragraph until now. So? Bluesatellite (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Attaching a label such as "controversial" to a person really needs solid support, not inferences, especially for a lead. The problem is that "controversial" is a loaded word which should be handled with extreme care. But I only found a few mentions of things controversial in the article: "breaking taboos and provoking controversies", but unexplained; and that her songs "featured controversial subjects," also not explained or even cited. That's nowhere close to having her lyrics or imagery be labeled as controversial. But I don't even think the word, with the given body content, should be included in the lead. --Light show (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

All for nothing, I think some Madonna fans have already cast their vote "the Status Quo", nothing changed at all, I expected (at least) a slight improvement in the lede; vague, ambiguous and non-encyclopedic language won. Ajax1995 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to add your voice to the RfC in the form of a !vote. I strongly advise, however, against making personal attacks on those who have supported a choice that doesn't match your own, Ajax1995. Let's keep this civil and on-topic, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Oh God, why do you insist on leading people to vote? Consensus is NOT voting WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:VOTE. Just let the damn discussion goes on, and let the administrator close it with consensus result! Bluesatellite (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC) I am not attempting to lead anyone to anything. I have set up an RfC, am not violating policy in the way it is set up. NOTADEMOCRACY and VOTE does not apply in this case as it is an RfC. Please read WP:RfC for an understanding of what is happening here and how this should not be tampered with. If you continue to do so and continue to attempt to sabotage this RfC, I will be forced to take a complaint about your disruptive behavior here to someone who can enforce policy in regard to the disruption. Please stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) Keep this discussion away from this RFC, you are both disrupting it. Winkelvi, just because you raised the RFC don't go ahead patronizing others if they have made a mistake, and Blue the rfc is progressing on its own and by vote here I'm sure Winkelvi did not mean vote in that sense. —IB [ Poke ] 21:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC) @Winkelvi: This is straight from WP:RfC: "Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely.". So not sure why you think it doesn't apply here. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC) There's no mention, anywhere in this RfC, of counting votes. Not sure why you think otherwise. Unless you read "!vote" and think that actually means "vote". Please see WP:!VOTE for an explanation as to what !vote means and doesn't mean. Further, if your are questioning it, the structure style of this RfC is not uncommon and is helpful in keeping things orderly for anyone reading the choices. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC) I am perfectly aware of what "!vote" means, but you claimed NOTDEMOCRACY and VOTE don't apply because it's an RfC. I don't have a problem with the structure of the RfC. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2016 (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.

Protected edit request on 10 July 2016

I want to request an update on Madonna's current worldwide records sales. According to the most recent update of her Guinness Record as the best-selling female artist of all time, she has sold over 305 million of pure album sales, excluding singles sales (approximate 145 millions singles sold) which would make her total sales equivalent to around 450 million. Please, take this into consideration.

How it should be replaced: "Madonna has sold an estimated of 450 million records worldwide"

Thank You.

OfficialM01 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No it has been established that Guinness made a mistake and its 305 million records. It is also hugely inflated if Madonna is said to have sold 305 million albums and the fact about singles is purely original research and bullshit. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)