Talk:Madonna

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...". [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. 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)

RfC regarding wording in lede

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.

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."

Poll

Choice 2

• Support 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)