Talk:Madonna/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Photos

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.

madonna and her French-canadian roots

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

She's relative with Gwen Stefani to.

Question

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)

Maddona's name: A question

This sounds like a daft queston, but how do you pronounce "Ciccone"? Thanks St91 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft

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)

In reading the article, I do not agree. If anything, there is a mix of good and bad statements on her career. Not flattering at all in some places, but she has had periods of bad publicity. The reason why it was demoted as a feature article is here: [[1]] back in 2005 and not relevant now. It would still not meet the criteria. Maggott2000 09:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When someone fixes the intro, then we can think about discussing the rest of the article. The intro is supposed to set the tone for the rest of the article. It does not, and should not, list all of her accomplishments (including incorrect, manual addition of sales). Orane (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to enforce you own pov, and in looking at other sites you assist in editing, your pov is inconsistant specifically towards this article. I will now also look into these other articles(i.e. Celine Dion, Whitney Houston). However I will amend the introduction to make it set the tone of the article (and where does it specify this is the case? Rather than being pov). As for the sales data, you are incorrect in your assessment as you have been told. For yourself and other editors, I will expand why it is wrong. The sources quoted are stating two separate facts one for albums one for singles. It is NOT combining them, nor is the article. Your issue is that one article states 175m for albums, whilst the other 200m. Note that the one that quotes 175m is older than the IFPI reference, and before her sales of her last 3 albums, as well as continues sales for the older albums. Although known sales for these 3 equate to just over 10 million, this would still be 185m. IFPI is the main authority on sales, so their figure has to be considered as a verified source. Then let us assume that the IFPI article is a 'combined total' then subtracking the 75m singles, this gives Madonna 125m album sales. This is totally below any reported sales. Therefore your assumption and reasoning is also incorrect. Maggott2000 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a whole lot to learn about how Wikipedia operates. First and foremost, you are not supposed to "assume," "subtract," "add," or "reason" anything. You are not an authority figure on who has sold what. That is called original research, and it is against our policies (read No original research, and especially Do not synthesize). Second, feel free to look into "Whitney Houston" and "Celine Dion." I really don't care about the first article. "Whitney Houston" is poorly written, in my opinion. The only reason I edit it is to try to maintain a sense of neutrality, when people refer to her as "pop icon" or a "pop diva", or that she is the "most influential" singer of all time proof, proof, proof. I'm sure "Celine Dion" is stable. And the introduction focuses more on summarizing her career (as it should), than listing every record she holds.

Agreed, that is why it is not in the article. Wikipedia is encyclopedic - that you have to agree on. What constitutes acceptance into an article is that it is verifiable. Both these links are, so you are not enforcing wikipedia policy, you are enforcing your own pov. Maggott2000 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

btw. from your talkpape: "Actually, it is your assessment of sales data that is incorrect. It is well-known that "album sales" are often taken to mean total worldwide sales; not every source will specify x amount of albums and x amount of singles. What many editors are doing (the Madonna article being the most-potent example) is to combine two different sources, using the highest figures of each source to suit their purpose." The first assessment is pov, and/or original rsearch. The second comment is incorrect, as the articles are not a combination, do not imply combination, and although I am now specifying my own pov, IFPI certainly knows the difference between albums and singles. Refer to what constitutes album. Therefore to date you have not provided any non pov why this should be removed. If you can so, please add and it can be debated. Please do NOT remove until agreement is reached. Maggott2000 15:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, as soon as I have time, I will be nominating List of best-selling music artists for deletion, as per our policies on original research. Orane (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. Feel free to nominate. All lists and discographies would fit into this catagory, so feel free to be consistant and ask them all to be deleted. Pleased at least be consistant in your approach, as this is sounding more vendictive than acting as a professional editor. Maggott2000 05:55, 9 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.

I disagree! Madonna is the best!

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)

Then get one! It's easy.

Create an account now

(secure server)

 Andreas  ^(T) 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

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)

The lead paragraph

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)

Leave it be. I reverted it. It was FINE AS WAS - it does NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT need any extra stuffing, or talk about singles sales, or ANYTHING. LEAVE THE INTRO ALONE NOW PLEASE!! PatrickJ83 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Patrick, calm down. Please behave yourself if you want to have a productive discussion. You don't have to shout to make your point. I really don't believe that I have to explain anything further. All you have to do is read the excerpt presented by Maggott2000 (as well as my edit summary here). Orane (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

shut up orane. i dont care what 'maggot' said. he is wrong. PatrickJ83 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

# 3.1 Religion, Ethnicity and Family

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 MESSING UP THE INTRO!

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)

Stop putting the singles sales??? But why are you putting the figures of her "unverifiable 75 million singles sales" in the intro??? 75 million looks like a small figure... Stop claiming your a Madonna fan as we believe you're an anti-Madonna person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.173.195 (talk) 23:00, 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)

new picture... again

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)

acount

I have an acount but I still can't edit the article.why? Alecsdaniel 06:08, 05 october 2007 (UTC)

Name

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)

Fair use images

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)

The article is very long,so this number of pictures is good.There was a time when there were only 4 pictures(from everybody, erotica ,bedtime story and american life) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecsdaniel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Genres of Music

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)

Yep. Tvoz |talk 03:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Impact on science" section

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 think if there;s nothing to back it up it should go. JKW111 (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox lay out

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)

Your edit also undid over 2 dozen repairs to inconsistent double spacing in the article... which was in bad form. 156.34.236.16 00:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK my bad, it wasn't clearly visible in the diff. You should know there certainly is no "general consensus" on comma delimiting, please read the templates talk page and search for "genre delimiter". There is consensus on the use of capitalization, which I have fixed. Kameejl ^(Talk) 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Milly?

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)

What the hell?!

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)

updating the External Links

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)

Oricon International

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)

Grammar

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.

Video images

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)