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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should this be taken into account: http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2013/03/28/why-madonna-isnt-on-the-forbes-billionaires-list/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.113.198 ( talk) 08:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"Wealth is their business, and they announce the richest celebs in the world each year". Clearly is a Argumentum ad verecundiam and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Forbes is a source "reliable", but also has capabilities to make mistakes (like everything in life) and copy of sites blogs and Wikipedia, also. MTV is a source specializing in the music industry, but also copy information from sites like Media Traffic (This site gives "alleged global sales" of albums every year; but when IFPI gives its official reports, the differences are many). One has to analyze each case separately and, in this specific case, the report of "Forbes" contains many misprints. Of course, all this is ambivalent, as there are "two truths". Why not include both versions of the information? Regards, Chrishonduras ( talk) 22:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. Exactly, allow the readers to judge by themselves what to believe. We don’t have to act as judges of the information, we have to present both realities and let the readers decide what to think and what to do with both facts. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with all its sides and shades, and to be truthful; especially when it comes from reliable and trustworthy sources. This has already been added: [1], [2]. Best regards, Chrishonduras ( talk) 02:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In the March 2013 issue of W magazine, Giovanna Battaglia revealed Madonna's current boyfriend, Brahim Zaibat, one of her backup dancers. One editor, a male one I might add, has dismissed this when I tried to add it claiming it's not an important information, even though all of Taylor Swift's 2-month-long relationships are listed. This is a clear example of ageism (whatever the Wiki code for that may be). Just because the mainstream media delves in it, does not mean Wikipedia should! With the listing of professional accomplishments and marriages, the Madonna article is quite dull and it makes her seem like a singing dancing machine. (Which she is to some extent but you know what I mean, what about the human side.) What does she sing about if not romance? Besides, nothing about her love life has been in the press since the divorce from Guy Richie, which was OVER FOUR YEARS AGO. Ageism. So listing awards and sales might feel impressive, the way this profile reads now she might as well be for a dull sports star. And a dull sports star she is not.-- Aichik ( talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
What about your tone, IndianBio? Hold up the mirror to your own language. Ageism is a real phenomena, you can't discount it or wish it away by saying it's bullshit, and with that bullying kind of language you perpetuate it. Binksternet, um, last time, I checked, the Taylor Swift article was considered a good article. You are letting your own bias taint your editing and should perhaps take a break from this article. Who are you to say Brahim is not an important boyfriend? I work in media so I know that that kind of information has to be cleared on a couple of levels: Madonna herself most likely doesn't want to embarrass herself with some one-night-stand type. Put yourself in other people's shoes!-- 38.98.107.82 ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't here to list everyone she dates; I believe there is a website for that. If the relationship has relevancy, it should be included. Do we know when they began dating, even? Zach 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, especially in that tone: he's "Nopes", "That's all," "we are all ageist, so we don't care", IndianBio? You think you can bully your way to your point? No, don't answer that please.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that everyone's had a chance to come down from their mountains, look at how Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, both also have their love lives completely chronicled and neither have married even once.-- Aichik ( talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I had never been through this discussion and me it catches the attention now. I've seen in several good and featured articles sections as "Public image"/"Stage and alter ego" (Beyoncé Knowles, Kylie Minogue, Rihanna) or example much greater: Michael Jackson with several separate articles that talk about their live ( Michael Jackson's health and appearance or Personal relationships of Michael Jackson). I don't know how if these sections or even articles are of encyclopedic relevance. The most logical is yes, but then I am surprised with Madonna that there are no such sections.
With more than three decade career, Madonna has received much media attention as Michael Jackson, who is 'Global Outreach (more, more and more than artists like Beyoncé, Minogue or other) with inclusions in lists of "gossip" as "The celebrity" ... etc, sex symbol, fashion icon... etc. Even, her diets, her relationship to the Kabbalah, her arms, her relationships (many of whom are artists or characters of the show business) all this has had a very extensive documentation by global media. My question Why not create a separate articles to talk about all this?. Regards, Chrishonduras ( talk) 00:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Since her divorce, Madonna is on record saying that her homebase in now New York City, it is no longer the UK. Do we still keep the expatriate category for her? Partyclams ( talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've recently uploaded photos taken during her MDNA Tour gigs in France (Olympia showcase and Nice concert) by a Belgian fan and photographer. Although they can't be used yet (they're still waiting for final OTRS approval), perhaps we could pick one that would fit for the infobox. Amzer ( talk) 22:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The only photograph I'd use is #6. It's the nicest and most flattering one. Israell ( talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Fellow editors, Madonna's armpit in pic #7 looks waaay too veiny... Come on! In pics #1, 3 and 5 (especially!!!) her neck looks waaay too veiny & skinny... Come on! You really wanna select any of those???
Mo looks quite older in pic #2... I'd never select it. M's armpit looks much better in pic #6 in which her face looks really nice & young. Pic #4 is okay but M's face looks smoother in #6 but a bit too pale.
Pic #8 is HOT as HELL, her face in it has a nice complexion, doesn't look as pale as it does in #6, the messy hair adds some drama but #8 shows lots of cleavage and part of a nipple; some might find it too sexy.
I'd still go with #6. Israell ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(→) The only reason I did not want to use it because Madonna's face appears too stern and severe in it. Fine, I will change the infobox image since the consensus says so. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
"she was dragged up an alleyway by a pair of men at knifepoint and forced to perform fellatio.[18] Madonna characterized the attack as rape;"
It seems strange to say she "characterized" the attack as rape - isn't that what it actually was? See Rape #Penetrative and non-penetrative. -- Chriswaterguy talk 17:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedian but, God almighty, that photo is atrocious. This is one of the most famous people on the planet and her article on one of the world's most used websites is five years out of date. Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.65 ( talk) 21:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 19:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna Ciccone – She is always referred as "Madonna" by many sources. However, should natural disambiguation overcome parenthetical one? Cassie Ventura is called "Cassie", but the title is still "Cassie Ventura" instead of (no longer) "Cassie (singer)". Brandy Norwood is called "Brandy", but title is always still "Brandy Norwood" instead of "Brandy (singer)". Why won't we give "Madonna" a proposed surname (or a birth name, Madonna Louise Ciccone? George Ho ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, "Madonna Ciccone" is used by books ( extensive results). -- George Ho ( talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not see expanded message. But answer this, as I already asked someone else: how is "Madonna (entertainer)" preferable to "Madonna Ciccone" if the article is currently NOT "Madonna"? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(→) She is called in media with both her singluar as well as surname also, Madonna is not. She is known everywhere as Madonna only. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I almost forgot to mention: prior requests to simply title this article into "Madonna" have failed over the years. Look at the history log of failures. Why requesting a rename to just "Madonna" (without disambiguation) again when it has failed and will fail again? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody particularly care which date format we use for the references in this article? They need to be consistent, and I used a script to tidy them to mdy format. I don't much care if there's a strong consensus to use a different format, but it should be consistent. -- John ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPSOURCES, we cannot use tabloid sources like the Daily Record on this article, or any other on a living person. Please do not add or restore any such. They will be removed and your editing privileges may be jeopardised. -- John ( talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Autochthony writes: Madonna is a star. The article - at 1832 Z 05 August 2013 - also lists her as a philanthropist; I don't doubt it, but saw nothing that hinted at that in the article. Can some one give evidence, here, of the lady's good works, please? Thanks. Autochthony wrote at 1837 Z 05 August 2103. 86.163.100.37 ( talk) 18:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The call-out boxes on the sides, with the quotes, should be eliminated. This is an encyclopedia entry, not the notes to her latest album or a vanity spread in People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.35.73 ( talk) 02:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This article needs it's Personal Life section back. Please see discussion here - thewolfchild 01:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that among the 7 RMs no-one has proposed (singer) as meeting WP:AT 2. Naturalness "..actually called" for this article. Google Books:
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Well-intended proposal executed badly, despite two "supports". George Ho ( talk) 15:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Madonna (entertainer) → ? – Now out with proposals to make this comtemporary person the primary topic and to use surname. This time, due to hooplah about improper use of "(entertainer)", shall we call her the "(singer)" or the "(musician)"? "Actress" is out of question, as her acting abilities are limited at best, and her film appearances are not as notable as her albums.
George Ho (
talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be ... consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. |
Sure, the above proposal was badly done. In effort to make up my mistake, I propose that all users be allowed to edit this article under one condition: pending changes by anonymous and new editors must be reviewed and then either accepted or rejected. I tried requesting it in the administrator's talk page, but wants a consensus first. Three years passed, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to edit. With semi-protection in the way, I see edits becoming less frequent recently. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In most biographies of actors and actresses in Wikipedia (of which Madonna is one, according to the opening line of her article) there is a section entitled "Filmography" which rather helpfully lists all the films they've appeared in. I didn't find any such thing here and was a little frustrated as I wanted to see the extent of her acting career. Can we remedy this?-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 11:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
According to several (good) source, Madonna is the most successful and influential female artist of all time. Please check references in several languages like English, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Portuguese.... (the most important languages around the world). So we can write this date in the lead. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.213.226 ( talk) 22:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Please, add this information in the lead. Thanks.
Contrary to some popular opinion, Madonna is not a billionaire. Back in March 2013, a little-known Madonna fan blog misinterpreted the fact that her MDNA tour grossed $300 million to mean that Madonna herself was $300 million richer and therefore a billionaire. First off, even if Madonna did somehow make $300 million, after taxes, she would only be worth $950 million which is not quite a billionaire. But more importantly, the claim that $300 million in gross concert revenue equates to a net $300 million increase in her personal wealth is grossly misinformed. That $300 million number is gross revenue, which means before costs are taken out. Madonna is lucky to take home 10-20% of her tour's profits after all expenses are removed. That would still be a very nice income, but nowhere near $300 million. Unfortunately, many reputable media outlets helped spread this false rumor by snowballing the story as fact across hundreds of websites, magazines and newspapers. The rumor has since been debunked by virtually every reputable wealth tracking media outlet including Forbes, CelebrityNetWorth, Bloomberg and more. CouplandForever ( talk) 07:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that while the article says the Superbowl performance was the highest rated halftime show in history, it does NOT point out that it was the highest rated event in US TV history. It's yet another record she has and should be pointed out. ( Djackson84 ( talk) 21:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
so the truth is considered, a "Peacock" term? She does hold the title, and she did set the record. It's two simple important additions. Neither is an exaggeration. ( 71.165.198.175 ( talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC))
As several fans have asked you before, you simply must include Madonna's official title as the Queen of Pop. Not only has she been referred to as this for the better portion of her 3-decade career, but she is the highest grossing female artist in history, has the two highest selling tours by a solo artist, and was officially given this title by Rolling Stone magazine, after they took a public poll, she won by a landslide. I beg that you put your personal issues with her aside ( as they have unfairly kept her from receiving this edit in the past) and consider adding this deeply important title to the article. If not next to her name, where it rightfully belongs, at least someone notable on the page. No other artist has been praised with this title with the frequency she has, over the amount of time she has, and by such notable sources. ( Djackson84 ( talk) 21:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
Who Officially gave the title to Michael Jackson? You include it on his page. She was bestowed this title by Rolling Stone magazine. Not sure what more you want. Obviously it's just a nickname, but no other artist has been praised as this so often, or earned it. There's no excuse to not include it other than your personal sexist opinion toward her. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.200.48 ( talk) 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Enough with this topic. First, I already fixed the problem.
It is not appropriate to indicate that "Queen of Pop" is a formal title, nor much less, as well others like "King of Pop" ( Michael Jackson's biography say that is a honorific nickname). Even, Guinness World Records says that "Queen of Pop" is a title, and suggests that is for Madonna, but we don't write that is a title, because is just a simple honorific nickname.
Regarding my edition, I think I've done all the "legal steps" to include and / or larger, specify, etc on the subject in the lead. What better to include (specifically) IFPI or Guinness World Record? To my knowledge, these means are the only global weight that have been referred as Queen of Pop to Madonna, simply. It is an issue that has been treated with even all sides and shadows before. So I hope, does not more create more problems. Best Regards and thanks, Chrishonduras ( talk) 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the comments became "inflammatory" because this has been such an egregious oversight for so long, and many fans feel that personal bias is what led to the exclusion. Finally this inclusion has been made. Thank goodness someone finally saw reason and truth. While I would personally say the name is equal to MJ, at least it's finally there. Thank god! 173.60.200.48 ( talk) 23:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Article says "While performing as a dancer for the French disco artist Patrick Hernandez on his 1979 world tour, Madonna became romantically involved with musician Dan Gilroy. Together, they formed her first rock band, the Breakfast Club, for which Madonna sang and played drums and guitar". Besides singing there is no proof of her playing any instrument, and in fact she started learning to play the guitar around 2007. I also believe that, despite her wide recognition as an artist at many levels, including her in the category "American female guitarists" is a bit of a stretch. 84.127.181.237 ( talk) 21:15, 5 January 2014 (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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should this be taken into account: http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2013/03/28/why-madonna-isnt-on-the-forbes-billionaires-list/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.113.198 ( talk) 08:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"Wealth is their business, and they announce the richest celebs in the world each year". Clearly is a Argumentum ad verecundiam and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Forbes is a source "reliable", but also has capabilities to make mistakes (like everything in life) and copy of sites blogs and Wikipedia, also. MTV is a source specializing in the music industry, but also copy information from sites like Media Traffic (This site gives "alleged global sales" of albums every year; but when IFPI gives its official reports, the differences are many). One has to analyze each case separately and, in this specific case, the report of "Forbes" contains many misprints. Of course, all this is ambivalent, as there are "two truths". Why not include both versions of the information? Regards, Chrishonduras ( talk) 22:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. Exactly, allow the readers to judge by themselves what to believe. We don’t have to act as judges of the information, we have to present both realities and let the readers decide what to think and what to do with both facts. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with all its sides and shades, and to be truthful; especially when it comes from reliable and trustworthy sources. This has already been added: [1], [2]. Best regards, Chrishonduras ( talk) 02:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In the March 2013 issue of W magazine, Giovanna Battaglia revealed Madonna's current boyfriend, Brahim Zaibat, one of her backup dancers. One editor, a male one I might add, has dismissed this when I tried to add it claiming it's not an important information, even though all of Taylor Swift's 2-month-long relationships are listed. This is a clear example of ageism (whatever the Wiki code for that may be). Just because the mainstream media delves in it, does not mean Wikipedia should! With the listing of professional accomplishments and marriages, the Madonna article is quite dull and it makes her seem like a singing dancing machine. (Which she is to some extent but you know what I mean, what about the human side.) What does she sing about if not romance? Besides, nothing about her love life has been in the press since the divorce from Guy Richie, which was OVER FOUR YEARS AGO. Ageism. So listing awards and sales might feel impressive, the way this profile reads now she might as well be for a dull sports star. And a dull sports star she is not.-- Aichik ( talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
What about your tone, IndianBio? Hold up the mirror to your own language. Ageism is a real phenomena, you can't discount it or wish it away by saying it's bullshit, and with that bullying kind of language you perpetuate it. Binksternet, um, last time, I checked, the Taylor Swift article was considered a good article. You are letting your own bias taint your editing and should perhaps take a break from this article. Who are you to say Brahim is not an important boyfriend? I work in media so I know that that kind of information has to be cleared on a couple of levels: Madonna herself most likely doesn't want to embarrass herself with some one-night-stand type. Put yourself in other people's shoes!-- 38.98.107.82 ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't here to list everyone she dates; I believe there is a website for that. If the relationship has relevancy, it should be included. Do we know when they began dating, even? Zach 00:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, especially in that tone: he's "Nopes", "That's all," "we are all ageist, so we don't care", IndianBio? You think you can bully your way to your point? No, don't answer that please.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that everyone's had a chance to come down from their mountains, look at how Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, both also have their love lives completely chronicled and neither have married even once.-- Aichik ( talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I had never been through this discussion and me it catches the attention now. I've seen in several good and featured articles sections as "Public image"/"Stage and alter ego" (Beyoncé Knowles, Kylie Minogue, Rihanna) or example much greater: Michael Jackson with several separate articles that talk about their live ( Michael Jackson's health and appearance or Personal relationships of Michael Jackson). I don't know how if these sections or even articles are of encyclopedic relevance. The most logical is yes, but then I am surprised with Madonna that there are no such sections.
With more than three decade career, Madonna has received much media attention as Michael Jackson, who is 'Global Outreach (more, more and more than artists like Beyoncé, Minogue or other) with inclusions in lists of "gossip" as "The celebrity" ... etc, sex symbol, fashion icon... etc. Even, her diets, her relationship to the Kabbalah, her arms, her relationships (many of whom are artists or characters of the show business) all this has had a very extensive documentation by global media. My question Why not create a separate articles to talk about all this?. Regards, Chrishonduras ( talk) 00:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Since her divorce, Madonna is on record saying that her homebase in now New York City, it is no longer the UK. Do we still keep the expatriate category for her? Partyclams ( talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've recently uploaded photos taken during her MDNA Tour gigs in France (Olympia showcase and Nice concert) by a Belgian fan and photographer. Although they can't be used yet (they're still waiting for final OTRS approval), perhaps we could pick one that would fit for the infobox. Amzer ( talk) 22:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The only photograph I'd use is #6. It's the nicest and most flattering one. Israell ( talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Fellow editors, Madonna's armpit in pic #7 looks waaay too veiny... Come on! In pics #1, 3 and 5 (especially!!!) her neck looks waaay too veiny & skinny... Come on! You really wanna select any of those???
Mo looks quite older in pic #2... I'd never select it. M's armpit looks much better in pic #6 in which her face looks really nice & young. Pic #4 is okay but M's face looks smoother in #6 but a bit too pale.
Pic #8 is HOT as HELL, her face in it has a nice complexion, doesn't look as pale as it does in #6, the messy hair adds some drama but #8 shows lots of cleavage and part of a nipple; some might find it too sexy.
I'd still go with #6. Israell ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(→) The only reason I did not want to use it because Madonna's face appears too stern and severe in it. Fine, I will change the infobox image since the consensus says so. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
"she was dragged up an alleyway by a pair of men at knifepoint and forced to perform fellatio.[18] Madonna characterized the attack as rape;"
It seems strange to say she "characterized" the attack as rape - isn't that what it actually was? See Rape #Penetrative and non-penetrative. -- Chriswaterguy talk 17:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedian but, God almighty, that photo is atrocious. This is one of the most famous people on the planet and her article on one of the world's most used websites is five years out of date. Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.65 ( talk) 21:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 19:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna Ciccone – She is always referred as "Madonna" by many sources. However, should natural disambiguation overcome parenthetical one? Cassie Ventura is called "Cassie", but the title is still "Cassie Ventura" instead of (no longer) "Cassie (singer)". Brandy Norwood is called "Brandy", but title is always still "Brandy Norwood" instead of "Brandy (singer)". Why won't we give "Madonna" a proposed surname (or a birth name, Madonna Louise Ciccone? George Ho ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, "Madonna Ciccone" is used by books ( extensive results). -- George Ho ( talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not see expanded message. But answer this, as I already asked someone else: how is "Madonna (entertainer)" preferable to "Madonna Ciccone" if the article is currently NOT "Madonna"? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(→) She is called in media with both her singluar as well as surname also, Madonna is not. She is known everywhere as Madonna only. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I almost forgot to mention: prior requests to simply title this article into "Madonna" have failed over the years. Look at the history log of failures. Why requesting a rename to just "Madonna" (without disambiguation) again when it has failed and will fail again? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody particularly care which date format we use for the references in this article? They need to be consistent, and I used a script to tidy them to mdy format. I don't much care if there's a strong consensus to use a different format, but it should be consistent. -- John ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPSOURCES, we cannot use tabloid sources like the Daily Record on this article, or any other on a living person. Please do not add or restore any such. They will be removed and your editing privileges may be jeopardised. -- John ( talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Autochthony writes: Madonna is a star. The article - at 1832 Z 05 August 2013 - also lists her as a philanthropist; I don't doubt it, but saw nothing that hinted at that in the article. Can some one give evidence, here, of the lady's good works, please? Thanks. Autochthony wrote at 1837 Z 05 August 2103. 86.163.100.37 ( talk) 18:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The call-out boxes on the sides, with the quotes, should be eliminated. This is an encyclopedia entry, not the notes to her latest album or a vanity spread in People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.35.73 ( talk) 02:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This article needs it's Personal Life section back. Please see discussion here - thewolfchild 01:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that among the 7 RMs no-one has proposed (singer) as meeting WP:AT 2. Naturalness "..actually called" for this article. Google Books:
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Well-intended proposal executed badly, despite two "supports". George Ho ( talk) 15:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Madonna (entertainer) → ? – Now out with proposals to make this comtemporary person the primary topic and to use surname. This time, due to hooplah about improper use of "(entertainer)", shall we call her the "(singer)" or the "(musician)"? "Actress" is out of question, as her acting abilities are limited at best, and her film appearances are not as notable as her albums.
George Ho (
talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be ... consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. |
Sure, the above proposal was badly done. In effort to make up my mistake, I propose that all users be allowed to edit this article under one condition: pending changes by anonymous and new editors must be reviewed and then either accepted or rejected. I tried requesting it in the administrator's talk page, but wants a consensus first. Three years passed, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to edit. With semi-protection in the way, I see edits becoming less frequent recently. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In most biographies of actors and actresses in Wikipedia (of which Madonna is one, according to the opening line of her article) there is a section entitled "Filmography" which rather helpfully lists all the films they've appeared in. I didn't find any such thing here and was a little frustrated as I wanted to see the extent of her acting career. Can we remedy this?-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 11:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
According to several (good) source, Madonna is the most successful and influential female artist of all time. Please check references in several languages like English, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Portuguese.... (the most important languages around the world). So we can write this date in the lead. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.213.226 ( talk) 22:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Please, add this information in the lead. Thanks.
Contrary to some popular opinion, Madonna is not a billionaire. Back in March 2013, a little-known Madonna fan blog misinterpreted the fact that her MDNA tour grossed $300 million to mean that Madonna herself was $300 million richer and therefore a billionaire. First off, even if Madonna did somehow make $300 million, after taxes, she would only be worth $950 million which is not quite a billionaire. But more importantly, the claim that $300 million in gross concert revenue equates to a net $300 million increase in her personal wealth is grossly misinformed. That $300 million number is gross revenue, which means before costs are taken out. Madonna is lucky to take home 10-20% of her tour's profits after all expenses are removed. That would still be a very nice income, but nowhere near $300 million. Unfortunately, many reputable media outlets helped spread this false rumor by snowballing the story as fact across hundreds of websites, magazines and newspapers. The rumor has since been debunked by virtually every reputable wealth tracking media outlet including Forbes, CelebrityNetWorth, Bloomberg and more. CouplandForever ( talk) 07:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that while the article says the Superbowl performance was the highest rated halftime show in history, it does NOT point out that it was the highest rated event in US TV history. It's yet another record she has and should be pointed out. ( Djackson84 ( talk) 21:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
so the truth is considered, a "Peacock" term? She does hold the title, and she did set the record. It's two simple important additions. Neither is an exaggeration. ( 71.165.198.175 ( talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC))
As several fans have asked you before, you simply must include Madonna's official title as the Queen of Pop. Not only has she been referred to as this for the better portion of her 3-decade career, but she is the highest grossing female artist in history, has the two highest selling tours by a solo artist, and was officially given this title by Rolling Stone magazine, after they took a public poll, she won by a landslide. I beg that you put your personal issues with her aside ( as they have unfairly kept her from receiving this edit in the past) and consider adding this deeply important title to the article. If not next to her name, where it rightfully belongs, at least someone notable on the page. No other artist has been praised with this title with the frequency she has, over the amount of time she has, and by such notable sources. ( Djackson84 ( talk) 21:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
Who Officially gave the title to Michael Jackson? You include it on his page. She was bestowed this title by Rolling Stone magazine. Not sure what more you want. Obviously it's just a nickname, but no other artist has been praised as this so often, or earned it. There's no excuse to not include it other than your personal sexist opinion toward her. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.200.48 ( talk) 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Enough with this topic. First, I already fixed the problem.
It is not appropriate to indicate that "Queen of Pop" is a formal title, nor much less, as well others like "King of Pop" ( Michael Jackson's biography say that is a honorific nickname). Even, Guinness World Records says that "Queen of Pop" is a title, and suggests that is for Madonna, but we don't write that is a title, because is just a simple honorific nickname.
Regarding my edition, I think I've done all the "legal steps" to include and / or larger, specify, etc on the subject in the lead. What better to include (specifically) IFPI or Guinness World Record? To my knowledge, these means are the only global weight that have been referred as Queen of Pop to Madonna, simply. It is an issue that has been treated with even all sides and shadows before. So I hope, does not more create more problems. Best Regards and thanks, Chrishonduras ( talk) 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the comments became "inflammatory" because this has been such an egregious oversight for so long, and many fans feel that personal bias is what led to the exclusion. Finally this inclusion has been made. Thank goodness someone finally saw reason and truth. While I would personally say the name is equal to MJ, at least it's finally there. Thank god! 173.60.200.48 ( talk) 23:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Article says "While performing as a dancer for the French disco artist Patrick Hernandez on his 1979 world tour, Madonna became romantically involved with musician Dan Gilroy. Together, they formed her first rock band, the Breakfast Club, for which Madonna sang and played drums and guitar". Besides singing there is no proof of her playing any instrument, and in fact she started learning to play the guitar around 2007. I also believe that, despite her wide recognition as an artist at many levels, including her in the category "American female guitarists" is a bit of a stretch. 84.127.181.237 ( talk) 21:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)