This category is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
The category was moved without discussion (a cut and paste move) which shouldn't have happened per C2D which says that even if the article is stable or moved as a result of express consensus the category can't be moved under C2D. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the addition of the entertainer to the base name category (which is once again a DAB) the entertainer's category is still at Category:Madonna (entertainer). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all these. As Oculi rightly notes, Madonna (disambiguation) is quite obviously ambiguous so C2D does not apply. I am surprised that Justin made such a clearly flawed nomination. Substantively, I oppose creating avoidable ambiguity in category titles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm surpised that you think the Theotokos may have directed films or that we have an audio samples of the Queen of Angels. I think that categoris and articles should have the same names and that if these should ever differ, it should be in extraordinary cirucmstances (e.g. with titles that are plurals). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin, I accept with great regret that some editors think that popular culture trumps 2000 years of history, which is why the article has been renamed in a move more appropriate for a fanzine than an encyclopedia. That's no surprise to me; it's just another part of the growing trend of en.wp diverging from the scholarly sources which are the gold standard of WP:RS, as the editor base become increasingly dominated by editors with little interest in scholarly rigour. I also acknowledge that some editors have so little regard for history that they think that Category:Books about Madonna, Category:Cultural depictions of Madonna, Category:Images of Madonna etc should refer to a living entertainer rather than 2000 years of history and a mountain of notable religious literature and art. But that against the encyclopedia's capture by tabloid culture is an argument for a full discussion. The surprise which I expressed above is at a much narrower pint: the fact that a highly-experienced Justin made a nomination based on WP:C2D when C2D clearly does not apply. That is not a good use of anyone's time. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still "open"? — Support I dont see any "ambiguity" tbh. Madonna/Mary are semantically linkedbut haven't the same "name" in most articles, except her WP:PARTIAL names on some "madonnas". The entertainer as the user above defined isn't a "popular culture" topic at all. Is not even WP:RECENTISM or a WP:OBSCURE topic. That article has been identified as a Level 4 in en.wiki among a couple vital articles, even an essential one in all Wikipedias. Additionally, the entertainer has been an academic topic since 1980s to our days, so aren't "old news" and not only in English sources. BTW, Mary is a 2000 + year figure but the term "Madonna + Mary" has around a couple of centuries (is a medieval term) not two millenniums and please be advised WP:DAB says "historical age is not determinative". WP:C2D clearly applies here, unless you don't like it and "play cultural gatekeeper or minder" with abstract ideas. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
