Talk:Madonna (disambiguation)

==Move==la la la Content of this page was moved to Talk:Madonna (singer) after disambiguation.

This page is linked from 7 user pages and 11 other articles. I think they're all about the pop singer. I'm gonna resolve any double links I find. --Uncle Ed 15:26, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now only 7 user pages link here. My job is done. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Proposed move

Madonna (disambiguation) → Madonna. Madonna currently redirects to Madonna (entertainer); it should be used for the disambig page. —tregoweth 00:11, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think 90pc of people are looking for the singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.93.51 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• I support this. Thryduulf
• Support, so long as no one messes with Madge. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest support. Of course "Madonna" should be a disambiguation page, as it long was. -- Infrogmation 03:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Bah! I can't speak for the rest of the English speaking world, but strongly doubt that there are any US English-speaking folks, with the possible exception of a few little old ladies who spend all their time in church, who would think that "Madonna" referred to anybody other than the singer. Yes, I think that most such people would recognize that, in other languages, "Madonna" is used to refer to the Virgin Mary, but that's not the usage in American English. Stories like this one http://www.catholic-homeschool.com/Library/Greetings/Gr_Dec_01/gr_dec_01.htm only make sense because in the US, "Madonna" means the singer to almost everyone. --Rkstafford 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Note, it was already moved, as noted below. BTW, Wikipedia is global, not just "US English"-- and doubt anynone in the US still knows what the singer's name is a reference to, you might wish to spend some time with some Catholics or people interested in art history. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that I'm arguing about a done deal, and I'm not suggesting going through the trouble of changing it back, but I think this was a bad choice. I understand that this is en.wikipedia.org, not us.wikipedia.org, but something like 340 million individuals speak English as their first language, and my best guess is that around two-thirds of those individuals are US residents. Considering more broadly all speakers, rather those with English as their first language, the numbers are approximately 500 million total English speakers, of which well more than half are US residents. And, since the singer now lives in London, I'm guessing that most UK English speakers use "Madonna" to refer to the singer. As for Catholics' use of the term, the ones I know under 50 mean the singer when they talk about "Madonna". --38.112.11.10 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This "disambiguation page" is ridiculous... I cannot see that Madonna should be the 8th option... we are talking about the most successful popstar of the last 25 years... arguably the most famous woman in the world (was going to add "english speaking" but thats possibly also not necessary)... this link has been sabotaged as has "madonna(entertainer)"'s main page on a regular basis by some people with certain agendas... this kind of thing undermines's Wikipedia's authority... This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categories on disambiguation page

The following should be moved out of the People category and into another, perhaps new, (Things?) category:

   * Madonna (Madonna album), a 1983 album by the American pop singer
   * Madonna (Trail of Dead), a 1999 album by the band …And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead
   * Lady Madonna, a song by The Beatles

Hmmm...

Sorry to bring this up all over again, but I tried to remove links to this page, and my job was done very quickly. About 20 were namespace links, while the remaining 200 or so were from WP or user pages which think that Madonna goes here. I'd propose reviving Madonna (disambiguation), and leading this straight to Madge's page... but I'm scared of getting yelled at... — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 12:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Ms Ciccone's article should be here, with a dab template at the top. --kingboyk 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Madonna's entertainer to artiste

The term 'artiste' is definitely more appropriate to describe Madonna Louise Ciccone than 'entertainer', which is used for circus clowns, cabaret shows, etc, which is absolutely ridiculous. Madonna is an artiste not an entertainer - she is pop star! Do not use words like idiosyncratic, sure you jest, but the term 'entertainer' is more idiosyncratic than artiste which is a more appropriate term... If there are any alternative choice of words, prefably it would be (Singer/Actress), (Performer) or (Artiste).

'Entertainer' is an insult to the Madonna whom u classified her amongst circus clowns, cabaret show girls, magicians, stand-up comedians and game-show hosts... Madonna is not in the same category as them! Stealthusa 06:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us not talk about merit hierarchies. I pointed out long ago that entertainer doesn't seem appropriate (and not for the reasons you list, just because it is a different thing than what she is) but artiste is a little too generic. 'Singer', I suppose, would be just fine. She has written books, acted, etc. but I don't believe she can fairly referred to as a writer or actor. These latter activities are mentioned in the article, but that doesn't mean we should generalize the article title to cover all of them or every single thing she has done in life, with the risk to get to something like "Madonna (human being)" (no offense intended). Also, I don't think artiste is the term used in other similar cases. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 12:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Second revert. --Htmlism 16:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "entertainer" as in anyway demeaning as implied, but what are other options? Clearly calling her "Queen" as an anon editor wishes to do is promotional and in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What do other people think? -- Infrogmation 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "entertainer" is fine - it sums her up perfectly. "Artiste" is bizarre and as far as I can see doesn't mean anything. Vashti 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

She is also a musician (she produce, rearrange, collaboration, play guitar and remixing voices.!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musician —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.78.99 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated listing

If there is to be a listing of people with the given name Madonna, the entertainer should be listed both in the main list (as an article with the dab title and a parenthetical) and in the given name list (in case someone jumps straight to it), for ease of use. Similar rule-breaking occurs with the Patton disambiguation page, and was discussed in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 26. The other option (which I am fine with too), is to remove the list of people by given name from this dab page altogether. -- JHunterJ 15:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Your version is a hopeless jumble, which contains various inaccuracies. I have nothing against such a scheme in normal cases, but it breaks down completely here. Johnbod 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear jumbled. What specific inaccuracies are you talking about? -- JHunterJ 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consistent difference I can between see between the first two groups - why is Madonna lily in the second and Madonna Inn in the first? It's all a nonsense. What are the two groups supposed to be? Far better to classify by type. The mistakes are those I corrected and you have reverted. Johnbod 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The first group might be known as just "Madonna", the second group is not; if the Inn is not likely to be known as just "Madonna", it should be moved; if the lily is likely to be known as just "Madonna", it should be moved. However, neither of those potential problems will be solved by moving given-name holders up or separating Madonna (the singer) from Madonna (her album). -- JHunterJ 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that both the "given name" Madonna's use it only as a stage name, and in clear reference to the religious Madonna, the latest grouping is not acceptable either. Actually nobody seems to be really called Madonna, and to restrict the person the two entertainers have taken the name from to the second section is absurd. Johnbod 22:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The entertainer Madonna is 'really called just Madonna with great frequency. That's why that entry is in the top section. (And, BTW, it's not a stage name, it's her given [birth] name. But that doesn't matter for arrangement.) -- JHunterJ 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSDAB and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy for more on lists of name holders. This is not a human name disambig. Given name holders who are not typically known by just the single name are listed after things that a reader might be expected to search for with the term "madonna". -- JHunterJ 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the page as it is now. Btw there about 50 other Madonna articles on paintings, but I think I will hold off on these for now. Johnbod 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Warring edits, solution page

I have changed the page to this version, which seems most neutral. Any objections? • Lawrence Cohen 21:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Added the blurb that anon editor wanted. That factual statement with the ordering there now should be fine. Thoughts? • Lawrence Cohen 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Most successful entertainer

This is a disambiguation page. The merits of Madonna should be pointed out at her own page. A disamiguation page is only to disamiguate, to give the reader a choice what article to look for. The information on a disambiguation page should be kept at a minimum. There is only one entertainer with the name Madonna, so the information that she is the best is superfluous. There is a single, anonymous editor that wanted Madonnas merits mentioned here. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is wise to look for a compromise just to avoid an edit war.  Andreas  ^(T) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'm also not sure what the point of "known as" re the other Madonna is. Johnbod 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Madonna owns

The edit war will continue until "The most successful female artist by record sales" is allowed to stay on the disambiguation page. There are other disambiguation pages with this kind of information. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28disambiguation%29 gives this kind of information. Anyone who objects to stating that Madonna is the most successful female artist by record sales is a biased idiot. It is not subjective. -UnbiasedMadonnaFan 74.75.89.122 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As I expect you know, that goes in her article, not a disam page. Free free to use your energies removing that sort of stuff from any other disam pages - if done in good faith. I can't see what you mean about C. What do you think some editors would add about the other Madonna, if allowed! Johnbod 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree..Ifpi.com, Ifop, Guiness World Book and Billboard named MADONNA; is the biggest selling female artist few times!

Here is the list of the estimated biggest selling artist ever based on shipments:

01. The Beatles : 40 albums - 400 000 000 albums sold (UK 1962-1970) 02. Michael Jackson : 14 albums - 350 000 000 albums sold (USA 1979-) 03. Elvis Presley : 150 albums - 300 000 000 albums sold (US 1956-1977) 04. Madonna : 16 albums - 275 000 000 albums sold (US 1984-) 05. Nana Mouskouri : 450 albums - 250 000 000 albums sold (Greece 1959-) 06. Cliff Richard : 60 albums - 250 000 000 albums sold (UK 1959-1999) 07.The Rolling Stones : 54 albums -~250 000 000 albums sold (UK 1964-) 08. Mariah Carey : 14 albums - 230 000 000 albums sold (US 1990-) 09. Elton John : 43 albums -~220 000 000 albums sold (UK 1972-) 10.Celine Dion : 21 albums - 220 000 000 albums sold (Canada 1990-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan20s (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Official surrender - The Great Edit War has ended

I'll get an account so I can make the Madonna (entertainer) page better. The thesis "Madonna is the best" will be supported by the page. --UnbiasedMadonnaFan 74.75.89.122 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting!

I have it set up so that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna redirects to Madonna's page. A disambiguation page for the most successful and best woman in the world is offensive and rude. -- Anon Coward

No, it is appropriate to have a disambiguation page for this because of the number of things which Madonna could mean. Dozols 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This was the consensus reached on previous discussion history. Madonna means many different things to many others, not just the entertainer. In fact your favourite entertainer took her name from the virgin mother herself and many others many find it as equally offensive and rude that we ignore the other meanings of Madonna. --Nuttycoconut 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Of course; you are being silly and disruptive. I don't mean to offend, but what exactly have her sales been in the last five years anyway? Johnbod 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Madonna didn't take her name (from anywhere) - it has been her name all her life. Seeing as her mother was also called Madonna, it is a fair assumption that her mother named her after herself. The mother was probably named after Jesus' mother, though. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus agreed upon, this will not direct to Madonna the singer

Does everyone agree the page ought to stay at a version such as this? If you disagree, why? • Lawrence Cohen 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes Count the people reverting the edit warring of a single editor. As mentioned above, there must be over fifty other articles, like those in Category:Raphael Madonnas that really should be here too. Johnbod 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Of course this should stay a disambiguation page. I thought that had been settled some time ago. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wished to clarify, in case that IP user came back. As there is consensus this would stay a disambig page. • Lawrence Cohen 16:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - Some users are pushing a huge POV ("most successful and best woman in the world", "Madonna is the best"), of which a redirect is one of them. Historically speaking, the original Madonna is hugely more significant, so I expect a stronger argument could be made to redirect it there and we'd have a colossal POV edit war on our hands as to where it should go. Having 'Madonna' as a disambiguation page is an appropriate and sensible compromise. Benea 11:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been quiet for some time now, so hopefully they got bored. • Lawrence Cohen 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see discussion at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)#Requested move 199.125.109.104 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/Archive 7#Requested move. Propaniac (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism + slight modification

Modified a revision created by User:194.63.235.157 that violated Wikipedia's spam and vandalism policies . In this modification, I added to Madonna's album named Madonna by adding the phrase, "the entertainer's first self-titled album." --KadratisVelevere (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Mother of Jesus clarification

Does anyone object to me adding something like "in the Christian bible's New Testament"? It presents it as fact, otherwise. 135.196.2.145 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do it. This is an encyclopaedia and it should make clear that mythical characters like Jesus and Madonna are fictional. The Santa Claus article offers the best example.--Xania ^talk 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

It only makes sense that the list be sorted into alphabetical order, rather than the current random order that seems to be promoting certain variations above others. Unless someone has a reason why alphabetical order isn't the best option? ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation from a passer-by, but the current order seems quite odd, given that it doesn't give any emphasis to the most likely destination articles. WP:MOSDAB suggests ordering articles with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below. As it currently stands, the first article linked has very few incoming links other than song-title redirects and is only 3 sentences long, compared to much more popular and extensive articles on the singer Madonna, Mary, and Madonna in art.--Trystan (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why an arbitrary alphabetical order for this page is preferable to following the WP:MOSDAB guideline and ordering articles by usage. Page views and incoming links form an objective standard, so NPOV doesn't come into it; it's simply a matter of helping users find the art9cles that they are most likely looking for.

It also doesn't make sense in this case to place derivative uses ahead of the uses from which they derive. We currently lead off with "Madonna (art), a portrait of Mary," first without explaining who Mary is or why the article about portraits of her would be titled "Madonna." "Mary (mother of Jesus), from which other uses generally derive" clarifies this, but comes almost last.--Trystan (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trystan, the current solution is not the best one. Yes, it solves the issue of the Mother of God vs. Queen of Pop, but it creates more problems than it solves. The article will have more utility with the more important things at the top. We just need to agree on an order, and keep it that way, with either indef semi-pp or long-term protection. I see no problem with protection; a dab page shouldn't need to be changed at all often. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is something of a difficult case, as Madonna (entertainer) is by far the most visited article, and therefore it would certainly be helpful to put it first, or very near the top. At the same time, we want to break down the articles by category and present them in an order that will be meaningful. To make sense of many of the entries, the reader will need to be familiar with the "Mary (mother of Jesus)" meaning. Perhaps we could list the entertainer and Mary without category headings, then start category headings for all following entries?--Trystan (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'd say put Madonna first, and then Our Lady. I'd list all the things relating to Madonna under her entry, as sub-entries, and then the same for Our Lady. Then, put the other, unrelated to these two entries, in categories the way they are now. But also, looking at these, how many need to be on a dab page? Aren't we just directing people to what they're looking for when they've typed in "madonna"? Many of these I think could be removed, as people aren't going to be looking for them by typing in nothing but "madonna". Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mary first

The page is much more dignified if she is first. I know that most people are more interested in reading about the singer, however putting the other section first explains why she calls herself Madonna. Besides that, a reader will have learned something by reading the background information, and that's what an encyclopedia is all about. Borock (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done for 2 reasons: 1. alphabetical subject list, 2. order of importance. Although I think it should go to Madonna (not the singer), with a tag on the top to disambiguate.Lihaas (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)