![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
How come are only 5 pictures with Madonna?.Don't you think that a photo from Blond Ambition Tour,and a screen shot from Like a virgin;Frozen or Hung up videos should be added?Thank you! thesweetlamb.
On geneology.com it lists her french canadian lineage. she is celine dion's cousin. it would be useful to add it to a trivia section and a section for any cultural impact she has made, with references of course. but her page does need to be shortened. why not have just a list of names of past relationships? btw, her lesbian affairs with jenny shimizu and sandra bernhardt are missing, so the tag that she's bisexual is needed. 206.47.78.150 06:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)UputtheEMOinmylEMOnade
Are her political views really necessary on here? It would somewhat shorten her page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.47.78.150 ( talk) 06:22:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a daft queston, but how do you pronounce "Ciccone"? Thanks St91 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is more flattering than Madonna's own website. I'd advise people to clean it up. A kiss-ass article from start to finish, it's no surprise that it was demoted from featured article status. Orane (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because there are loads of overtly negative statements along with overtly positive ones, does not make the article neutral/unbiased. Many parts of the article have obviously been written by people who either love or hate her. These parts need to be chucked out so the article sticks to the facts and presents them in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's objectives.
What happened with the first picture?The one from Live 8.Somebody add a picture there please.Maybe U Drew17.
This article does not flatter Madonna enough. It needs more text about her being the Queen of Music and her unrivaled quality as a lyricist. I would add all of this but I don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 ( talk) 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Andreas (T) 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This tag has been added without reference in the discussion as required. Therefore adding it open for discussion. Creator of the neutrality tag has made some comments under 'fancruft' which I assume is the reason for the tag. I personally cannot comment on the reason for the neutrality tag, as I have no interest in what is written just that it is referenced and accurate. Other editors, please comment Maggott2000 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Lead section: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.. And as has been mentioned by Orane this can be improved, and needs to be improved. Can someoe take up this challenge? Maggott2000 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Section # 3.1 Religion, Ethnicity and Family
What is the point of this section? The few sentances which actually make much sense are filled with speculation and "weasil words". It hardly contributes much to the factuality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.104 ( talk) 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP putting her singles sales, tour grosses, soundtrack songs into the intro. It it not necessary and does NOT make the intro look better - it makes it look worse.
Apparently I am the ONLY one around here who wants this page to look professional. LEAVE THE INTRO ALONE!! PatrickJ83 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me that being either an ardent Madonna fan OR anti-Madonna would be a hindrance in producing a neutral, non-biased article. Perhaps that's the problem with the article. Wildhartlivie 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The image that is currently the main picture for Madonna is ridiculous. If I knew how to change it I would.... Bobbonew 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an acount but I still can't edit the article.why? Alecsdaniel 06:08, 05 october 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't Wikipedia include the Veronica in her name?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.14.239 ( talk) 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel the article has too many fair use images; it makes the article look cluttered and fan-siteish and contradicts one of our key principles, which is to minimise such nonfree image use. Could we select say the best four or five? For an article this length I think that would be plenty. -- John 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken she was also widely considered New Wave wasn't she? I thought that during the 80's she was classified as such... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgamer101 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This section has got to be vandalism, right? I went to the article about the water bear, and there is no mention of Madonna whatsoever. The external sources given as references do mention the use of the name "madonnea," but they make no mention of Madonna the singer. I think this is a joke. I was going to delete the whole section, but I decided to ask first. -- Andrew Parodi 07:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I now have fixed capitalization (as per WP:MUSTARD) and New wave is now on 1 line. If the genres would stay on 1 row I wouldn't see any problems, but as the last change made 1 genre (New wave) wrap over 2 rows (which honestly doesn't look really professional) and makes the use of genre capitalization ambiguous (should genres start with a capital after comma or not?). I reverted it to the former lay out.
Please note that there is no consensus on the lay out of genres. It's a topic that has been discussed quite a few times, and consensus has never been reached. Many musical artist infoboxes on featured articles have line break separated genre lists. These articles are not broken and don't need fixing.Kameejl ( Talk) 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What's this stuff,that she is called Milly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.9.6 ( talk) 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a link to some bizarre music video about Madonna (not of her, about her) in the external links section? I'm not all too familiar with Wikipedia, but I don't think that's what it's for. 70.157.21.248 12:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please update the external links? Here is my suggestion how it could be changed:
== External links == * [http://www.madonna.com/ Official Site] * {{ Discogs artist | artist = Madonna | name = Madonna }} * {{ MusicBrainz artist | id = 79239441-bfd5-4981-a70c-55c3f15c1287 | name = Madonna }} * {{ MySpace-music | id = madonna | name = Madonna }} * {{ imdb name | id = 0000187 | name = Madonna }}
-- 84.179.73.134 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a good suggestion. Why hasn't it been done? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.108.224.81 (
talk)
08:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do all of Madonna's single/discography pages list the position that her singles got on the Oricon international subchart as opposed to the full chart? Wouldn't this give a severely false impression of how popular she is in Japan? -- Quarrel of Lawyers ( talk) 07:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd make this change myself, but the page seems a bit too secure for minor changes like this.
1998-2002 section contains this sentence:
Later that year, she released the theme song to the James Bond film Die Another Day, which she also had a brief role in.
The sentence should end "... in which she also had a brief role."
Thanks.
Forgive me, but all the music video images on the page appear to be nothing more than decoration, and I propose they all be removed from this page accordingly. They do not substantially contribute to the article. Ejfetters ( talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There are way too many pictures on this article. It probably only needs 2 or 3 max. JKW111 ( talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use images should only be in the article if they are the subject of the article. If they aren't the subject then they should be removed Ejfetters ( talk) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
How come are only 5 pictures with Madonna?.Don't you think that a photo from Blond Ambition Tour,and a screen shot from Like a virgin;Frozen or Hung up videos should be added?Thank you! thesweetlamb.
On geneology.com it lists her french canadian lineage. she is celine dion's cousin. it would be useful to add it to a trivia section and a section for any cultural impact she has made, with references of course. but her page does need to be shortened. why not have just a list of names of past relationships? btw, her lesbian affairs with jenny shimizu and sandra bernhardt are missing, so the tag that she's bisexual is needed. 206.47.78.150 06:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)UputtheEMOinmylEMOnade
Are her political views really necessary on here? It would somewhat shorten her page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.47.78.150 ( talk) 06:22:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a daft queston, but how do you pronounce "Ciccone"? Thanks St91 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is more flattering than Madonna's own website. I'd advise people to clean it up. A kiss-ass article from start to finish, it's no surprise that it was demoted from featured article status. Orane (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because there are loads of overtly negative statements along with overtly positive ones, does not make the article neutral/unbiased. Many parts of the article have obviously been written by people who either love or hate her. These parts need to be chucked out so the article sticks to the facts and presents them in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's objectives.
What happened with the first picture?The one from Live 8.Somebody add a picture there please.Maybe U Drew17.
This article does not flatter Madonna enough. It needs more text about her being the Queen of Music and her unrivaled quality as a lyricist. I would add all of this but I don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 ( talk) 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Andreas (T) 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This tag has been added without reference in the discussion as required. Therefore adding it open for discussion. Creator of the neutrality tag has made some comments under 'fancruft' which I assume is the reason for the tag. I personally cannot comment on the reason for the neutrality tag, as I have no interest in what is written just that it is referenced and accurate. Other editors, please comment Maggott2000 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Lead section: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.. And as has been mentioned by Orane this can be improved, and needs to be improved. Can someoe take up this challenge? Maggott2000 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Section # 3.1 Religion, Ethnicity and Family
What is the point of this section? The few sentances which actually make much sense are filled with speculation and "weasil words". It hardly contributes much to the factuality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.104 ( talk) 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP putting her singles sales, tour grosses, soundtrack songs into the intro. It it not necessary and does NOT make the intro look better - it makes it look worse.
Apparently I am the ONLY one around here who wants this page to look professional. LEAVE THE INTRO ALONE!! PatrickJ83 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me that being either an ardent Madonna fan OR anti-Madonna would be a hindrance in producing a neutral, non-biased article. Perhaps that's the problem with the article. Wildhartlivie 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The image that is currently the main picture for Madonna is ridiculous. If I knew how to change it I would.... Bobbonew 04:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an acount but I still can't edit the article.why? Alecsdaniel 06:08, 05 october 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't Wikipedia include the Veronica in her name?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.14.239 ( talk) 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel the article has too many fair use images; it makes the article look cluttered and fan-siteish and contradicts one of our key principles, which is to minimise such nonfree image use. Could we select say the best four or five? For an article this length I think that would be plenty. -- John 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken she was also widely considered New Wave wasn't she? I thought that during the 80's she was classified as such... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgamer101 ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This section has got to be vandalism, right? I went to the article about the water bear, and there is no mention of Madonna whatsoever. The external sources given as references do mention the use of the name "madonnea," but they make no mention of Madonna the singer. I think this is a joke. I was going to delete the whole section, but I decided to ask first. -- Andrew Parodi 07:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I now have fixed capitalization (as per WP:MUSTARD) and New wave is now on 1 line. If the genres would stay on 1 row I wouldn't see any problems, but as the last change made 1 genre (New wave) wrap over 2 rows (which honestly doesn't look really professional) and makes the use of genre capitalization ambiguous (should genres start with a capital after comma or not?). I reverted it to the former lay out.
Please note that there is no consensus on the lay out of genres. It's a topic that has been discussed quite a few times, and consensus has never been reached. Many musical artist infoboxes on featured articles have line break separated genre lists. These articles are not broken and don't need fixing.Kameejl ( Talk) 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What's this stuff,that she is called Milly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.9.6 ( talk) 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a link to some bizarre music video about Madonna (not of her, about her) in the external links section? I'm not all too familiar with Wikipedia, but I don't think that's what it's for. 70.157.21.248 12:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please update the external links? Here is my suggestion how it could be changed:
== External links == * [http://www.madonna.com/ Official Site] * {{ Discogs artist | artist = Madonna | name = Madonna }} * {{ MusicBrainz artist | id = 79239441-bfd5-4981-a70c-55c3f15c1287 | name = Madonna }} * {{ MySpace-music | id = madonna | name = Madonna }} * {{ imdb name | id = 0000187 | name = Madonna }}
-- 84.179.73.134 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a good suggestion. Why hasn't it been done? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.108.224.81 (
talk)
08:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do all of Madonna's single/discography pages list the position that her singles got on the Oricon international subchart as opposed to the full chart? Wouldn't this give a severely false impression of how popular she is in Japan? -- Quarrel of Lawyers ( talk) 07:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd make this change myself, but the page seems a bit too secure for minor changes like this.
1998-2002 section contains this sentence:
Later that year, she released the theme song to the James Bond film Die Another Day, which she also had a brief role in.
The sentence should end "... in which she also had a brief role."
Thanks.
Forgive me, but all the music video images on the page appear to be nothing more than decoration, and I propose they all be removed from this page accordingly. They do not substantially contribute to the article. Ejfetters ( talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There are way too many pictures on this article. It probably only needs 2 or 3 max. JKW111 ( talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use images should only be in the article if they are the subject of the article. If they aren't the subject then they should be removed Ejfetters ( talk) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)