Talk:Madonna/Archive 23

Personal Relationships and Children
Where is this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1180:259B:5801:D968:5B:E8C7 (talk • contribs)
 * These details are already interspersed throughout "Life and career", with 1992–1997 even containing "motherhood" as part of its title. They don't necessarily need a separate section and that would probably get bloated with excess detail anyway. Not a risk worth taking. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

List: The 6 Greatest Entertainers Of All Time
https://www.therichest.com/rich-powerful/greatest-entertainers-all-time/ should this get included in her legacy/impact section? Johnny Gnecco (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't because therichest.com (what you linked) has repeatedly been rejected as a subpar reference that cannot be trusted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021
In Section 1.2, the last paragraph, immediately after reference #70: Change "In July, Penthouse and Playboy magazines published..." to "in September, Penthouse and Playboy magazines published...".

Penthouse and Playboy magazines first published nude photos of Madonna in their respective September issues. This can be verified by searching each magazine's online archives, as well as numerous online selling listings (such as ebay).

Respectfully,

Cannonball967Cannonball967 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Cannonball967 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Were the issues called "September" but published in July? Many periodicals post-date their editions in that way.  Certes (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's likely the case. Closing. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Madame X film
Hello, I just created an article for the upcoming Madame X film. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You could add some info about the re-shooting of some performances in early/mid 2021 Johnny Gnecco (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Madonna, Rotterdam, 26-8-1987.jpg

Why no "personal life" section?
Almost every notable person on Wikipedia has a "personal life" section separate from their career. I came to this article to find out the names of Madonna's children... I shouldn't have to read her entire career history to know this. Doesn't seem like "good article" material to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8992:C100:A135:E49F:C047:F4EC (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguably, unless the children are notable, the names shouldn't even be in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to quote the policy that extends 'notability' from article subjects out to the entire content of the same? SAMBLAman (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Children don't have to be notable to be named, but "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." – WP:BLPNAME. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's perfectly fine to name them when such details are already public knowledge and it's not like they or Madonna have tried to conceal such information. To not identify any (especially when there are many appropriate sources to use) would be a disservice to our readers. As for the idea of a "personal life" section, that idea has previously been rejected and I strongly oppose implementing one as it could easily become a magnet for gossip, speculation, and trivia. Not a risk worth taking as it pretty much would be asking for trouble. Either way, having relationship/child tidbits interspersed throughout life and career helps prevent needless repetition of career details that overlap with exes (e.g. co-starred with Sean Penn in Shanghai Surprise and with Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy plus appeared in Guy Ritchie's remake of Swept Away). SNUGGUMS (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Guinness World Records figures
According to Guinness World Records, “Since 1983, Madonna (USA, b. Madonna Ciccone) has sold an estimated 335 million albums and singles (including digital tracks) worldwide.” Link: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-female-recording-artist Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Filmography is missing die another Day, 2002
She played Verity, from the fencing scene. 82.24.153.140 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Minor roles are listed at Madonna filmography. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 03:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

1979–1985 section; Conflicting info in Desperately Seeking Susan behind-the-scenes interview.
Conflicting info in Desperately Seeking Susan behind-the-scenes interview. Wiki says she spent 3 months combined time in France + Tunisia? at 26:20 timestamp she says she was in France for 6 months. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acpXWH0YAtM&t=1580s EDIT: Also during her first interview with Molly Meldrum, she also says she was there for 6 months. 2:55 ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMyiCHVqnys  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwat1234 thesecond (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Legally speaking, these YouTube videos are unauthorized and fail WP:ELNEVER (the videos are, however, legitimate). However, I tagged the sentence as the current source doesn't say anything about this. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is she still here
Is she alive in 2022? 2603:9000:6C00:3C4A:2402:8DC2:60B8:B7E2 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most definitely yes. I haven't seen anything that credibly indicates Madonna has died. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 14:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Madonna's controversies" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Madonna& and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Queen of Controversy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Queen of Controversy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus in favour of a move is impossible to achieve anyhow. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Madonna → Madonna (entertainer) – Does Madonna Ciccone really triumph the Mary, mother of Jesus when it comes to the name Madonna? I think Madonna Ciccone should not be used as the article simply "Madonna" but rather "Madonna (entertainer)" (as before) or "Madonna (singer)" should be used to refer to the singer. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC) FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment See previous discussions, most recently Talk:Madonna/Archive 22. Certes (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That was two years ago. I think people should reconsider whether Ciccone really should be simply "Madonna". I disagree fundamentally.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: Per our policies that are more applied to the singer, that Mary (linked in the section "commentaries"), including key aspects of the zeitgeist:
 * This is not an encyclopedia of art or for religious people, is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Before Mary, mother of Jesus the meaning of the word "Madonna" was of the ideal woman, not Mary herself. Mary can be semantically related to the word until our world today, but its meanings has expanded since the 1980s or even before; clearly with a key curve because of Madonna Ciccone. Some of her depictions are called "Lady" or "Our Lady of" instead of "Madonna of". And we can't also pretend that education is the same in all countries, even in the English-speaking area, nor even that most people are interested in art/religious art or they are "art experts"; music has larger accessibility to all human in this aspect even if the singer isn't the "center". Nor even, for those million of people the figure/word "Mary" is visually the same as the word "Madonna" and in regards the universal book of the Bible, the word "Madonna", eg, does not appears. Put it simpler: Most people actually can relate Madonna to the singer, instead of Mary. Everyday forms of our lives, including Google, YouTube or other popular websites/apps, like TikTok, newspapers of record or even in our world of Wikipedia (statistics) is a reminder of this. We no longer lives in the era of Catholicism/religious art (or even, the pre-1980s/pre-Madonna Ciccone world), that's an old hat. Those periods seems to be more appropriate for Mary in that context, but not in this one.
 * The singer can be viewed by some Wikipedian, variously, as a whore, an old woman, underwhelming, untalented etc as it happens with criticisms of other modern or historical cultural figures (even, Mother Teresa isn't safe of criticisms, nor Catholics, or Mary herself) . In her case appears that those are tags to attack that she doesn't have a "value". Nevertheless, beyond that and the argument of "just another singer", she has an entire meaning in the academia world. (Sic) academic Camille Paglia (2017): "She's a major historical figure and when she passes, the retrospectives will loom larger and larger in history". So, even if she's aging, or she will die, academics will not stop writing about the singer, or people will not stop buying her records. We don't have a crystal ball, but its a corollary that her likeness will still seeing a variety of depictions, such as music covers, tributes, name-droppings from lesser-known or widely known figures of their time and to their audiences, or even references in the contemporary art that are and will be present. Of course, Mary as well, her figure, but not entirely her Madonna-word association which is eclipsed in many ways in the zeitgeist because the life of Ciccone. Simple. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Madonna the word and name has massive tradition unassociated with the entertainer, and the entertainer’s name (given name) connects to that tradition. A popular entertainer (ie a commercial business, even if culturally and a person) should not be allowed to usurp tradition. Appending “(entertainer)” is in no way a disparagement or degradation, but actually better serves readers wanting the entertainer, as well as readers who don’t want the page on the entertainer. The base name should redirect to Madonna (disambiguation) (repudiate MALPLACED), unless it is considered to be better as a WP:DABCONCEPT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is nonsense to say "repudiate MALPLACED"; if the proposition is that there is no primary topic, then the title should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect to itself. BD2412  T 01:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412. The proposition is that that there is no primarytopic.  The basis for this is that there is a group of readers who would expect the primary topic to be something else (the religious figure or the art of the religious figure), and so they will be astonished to arrive at the popular entertainer, a major disservice because it is a heavy loading page.
 * By "repudiate MALPLACED" I mean repudiate the very old practice of always moving foo (disambiguation) to foo if foo was a redirect to foo (disambiguation).
 * Madonna should be a disambiguation page, but as a disambiguation page, it should be at Madonna (disambiguation) so that everyone considering going there, downloading that page, know it is a disambiguation. i.e apply recognizability to disambiguation pages.  i.e leave Madonna (disambiguation) and have Madonna be a redirect to it.  The unqualified "Madonna" should not be in the dropdown list, and this is well achieved by it being a redirect.  "Madonna (disambiguation)" should be in the dropdown list, as it is something that readers sometimes want, and usually don't want. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Madonna" functions right now as the page to what most people usually will likely to search for based in our century/culture, and according to our recommendations of Disambiguation. It is demonstrated even with the statistics, that facts/numbers also means and matters. As you can notice, despite several appearances of trends, popular topics, memes etc every year, the singer has always stayed among the 500-700 pages (among articles) with most traffic in our Wikipedia every month, even if she doesn't release anything. Her accumulative views has been enough to appears in our base of all-time popular pages. Something that Mary, or every of her depictions of "the Madonnas" or other meaning of the word is no where, not even monthly. From that science/application/view, you can notice what you or others are discussing. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it seems that what you mean to propose is that disambiguation pages generally should be at their "Foo (disambiguation)" title, rather than their "Foo" title. I see no argument for "Madonna" receiving unique treatment among all disambiguation pages in this regard. BD2412  T 02:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I have proposed, repeatedly, for years. The failure to do this, to generally place disambiguation pages generally at their "Foo (disambiguation)" title, puts pressure on erring on over-generous assignments of "primarytopic", as the disambiguation page at the base name is a serious problem to many readers, it being not the page that most want.
 * Madonna is nowhere near unique in this. The titling of disambiguation pages is well made for mercury.
 * The question here is whether the entertainer is the primarytopic, which I argue it is not, but note that fixing that error makes the situation worse because MALPLACED is a stupid old practice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because, yes, in fact, the singer topic does "triumph" the topic of Mary, mother of Jesus. The singer attracts more Wikipedia readers. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citing Common Name here, the mother of Jesus is more commonly referred to as Mary in the English language, and Madonna Ciccone is more commonly referred to as Madonna. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The word "Madonna" does not even appear in the lead section of Mary, mother of Jesus, and is mentioned fleetingly later on as a medieval Italian term for "our lady". The singer is clearly the primary topic in late late 20th and early 21st centuries. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose there was already an extensive discussion on the matter which decided to title this page as just "Madonna". The term more often than not is used to refer to the singer as opposed to Jesus' mother, and there are also many religious folks who mean Ms. Ciconne here when using the first name instead of Mary. Contrary to what SmokeyJoe asserts, we aren't actually defying any traditions here. No need to beat a dead horse with another RM. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:SNUGGUMS, what traditions do I assert is being defied? I don't think I do.  There is a tradition of the madonna referring primarily to the art, and I argue a small subset of readers hold to that with poor awareness of the entertainer.  I wish to repudiate (like defy?) the Wikipedia tradition of the MALPLACED practice of making disambiguation pages themselves ambiguously titled if there is no primarytopic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was talking about your sentence "A popular entertainer (ie a commercial business, even if culturally and a person) should not be allowed to usurp tradition." Having the singer at the base "Madonna" title without any parentheticals doesn't usurp any traditions I can think of. She's a much more likely search term for this name than anyone else, which makes her the primary topic. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have written "usurp the older tradition, even though the numbers holding to the older tradition (madonna is in the field of religious art is a primary topic for people in that field) are small. My counterpoint to you last sentence that that where there is a reader subset with a different primarytopic, they should not be ignored.  Readers searching for the entertainer will have no inconvenience if the entertainer has an unambiguous title.  The status quo is a case of the dominant culture squeezing out others, with no advantage for anyone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sigh, not this tiring discussion again. "Madonna" is an medieval Italian term for "my lady", and it was not exclusivelly invented nor originally used for the mother of Jesus, it could be used to refer any woman. Jesus' mother has many different nicknames/titles, and "Madonna" is just one of the very least used ones for her worldwide. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Ciconne is the primary topic for Madonna with respect to usage.  As for long-term significance, Mary and the art form probably mean there is no PT, and the dab belongs at the base name.  However, the status quo has strong support and works well in practice.  (Madonna gets only a couple of new links a year intended for the art genre, and the dab isn't in the top 20 next-clicked pages.)  Whether to reverse WP:MALPLACED is a separate debate for another page, which would not be influenced significantly by putting one more dab at the base name.  Note that this is a multi-move; if supported then we need to put something at the title Madonna.  I'm assuming that would be the dab (or a redirect to it if MALPLACED were overturned). Certes (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Certes, although my personal non-policy-based preference would be for Madonna Ciccone as the title. I think it takes a lot for a derivative usage to become primary. We do not even recognize a primary topic for Cheddar. —Srnec (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * She is not known by her last name. She is mononymous; known just as Madonna. cookie monster   755  05:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Apoxyomenus and the information on page traffic. Clearly this is what Wikipedia readers are looking for. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The singer has more long-term notability than one of the Bible's minor characters. Mary barely appears in the Gospels. Dimadick (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Madonna, the singer is obviously the main topic here, while Jesus' mother is known more as Mary than Madonna. Tom (T2ME) 11:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agreed with Apoxyomenus, Bluesatellite and Tomica thoughts. Vera (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above discussion. I agree that the singer is the main topic and has more long-term notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose – we already hashed this out in the last move request. The singer is absolutely the primary topic for the base name. See Cultural impact of Madonna: . Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not the primary topic for Madonna. The only time you hear Madonna refer to Jesus is in the study of Western art history. cookie monster   755  05:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:IFITAINTBROKE. cookie monster   755  05:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose – Everybody knows who Madonna is and it is the most common usage. The most common usage should get the preference of having the main page, specially when it is a celebrity of this magnitude. Omranduk (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Commentaries

 * '''To the closing admin: A guideline with policies & references. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Madonna revistapelo 1985.jpg

unnecessary citation
Why is a citation necessary regarding her given name? The third citation should be removed. Junius Cursus (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the one used for "Madonna Louise Ciccone was born on August 16, 1958, in Bay City, Michigan, to Catholic parents Madonna Louise (née Fortin) and Silvio Anthony 'Tony' Ciccone" under the "Early life" section? It's needed because that is the first mention of her full name within the article body. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Madonna (entertainer)
There's currently a WP:CFD discussion about Category:Madonna (entertainer). Bluesatellite (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

400 million records sold
Madonna has just revealed on ‘Jimmy Fallon’ that she actually sold over 400 million records and that the 300 million records figure is incorrect. She must have her sources, so that is worth looking into for the encyclopedia. It’s been awhile since the 300 million figure was issued, and there are all those digital sales, etc. Israell (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Madonna is fine where she is at the moment with the 300M claim, based in our de facto guidelines at the List of best-selling artists. While there no exists accuracy in record sales, the most authored source in global sales, IFPI reported 200 million albums in 2006, and she has sold dozen of million singles as well in the report of other industry sources (100 million). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2022
Voguemi (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

During her August 10 2022 appearance on the US show "Jimmy Fallon", Madonna stated that her updated sales to date are over 400 million.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide sources independent of Madonna. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Needs a "personal life" section
I came here looking for information about Madonna's family and children. I'm sure it's somewhere in the article, but without a separate section, one doesn't know where to look. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This idea has already been rejected; it would put the article at risk for being cluttered with fancruft, gossip, and trivia. Not a chance worth taking. You'll find such details within "Life and career". <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is better in this form, unlike many celebrities/artists even with GA/FA status with that specific section that looks like a teenager magazine column. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How about we make a new page just for that: "Madonna personal life" like we do with discography pages. This can be huge article, so I agree that it would clutter the main page, but there is so much info that we can easily have a page for that. The main sections would be:
 * - Madonna's dating life - She has had dozens of relationships
 * - Madonna's kids.
 * - Where she lives and has lived. Omranduk (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm working in something like that. Beyond the stereotype of tabloid journalism, Madonna's life has generated vast academic views. Including that her personal relationship have impacted sectors. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes there is something oddly inconsistent about this article. Almost an attempt to bury her personal life, number of biological children vs adopted and the rest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:C010:8470:26C4:79BC:2FEE (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's that important, but a section talking about her adoptions and why she did them would be nice, since there's a lot of misinformation about it Johnny Gnecco (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To be blunt, that sounds like it would be a bloated content fork, and not everything that goes on in her life is worth mentioning. See WP:NOTADIARY for more. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I too am wondering why this article, in contrast to every other celebrity biography on Wikipedia, pointedly has nothing on Madonna's personal life, family, and relationships. I can understand keeoing out anything that's poorly sourced, speculative, or just not notable - that's admirable and in keeping with the best practices of WP:BLP. But what's been done with this article goes WAY beyond that. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this article DOES talk about her family and relationships. It's been interspersed throughout "Life and career". Not every personal life detail is worth mentioning as going into that could get gossipy and/or bloated with trivia. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the big deal for me, but I'm working in an user-draft about this, with academic-focus and without (perhaps) WP:CFORK and following WP:BLP guidelines. The draft later can be submitted to a review; it can took me months/years because to be honest, it's not a priority. I'm just seeing if this works, because there are a lot of commentaries like y'll about this matter regarding the article over the years, and as was pointed out it contrasted by virtually almost every celebrity here, in which a subsection about these details are vigorously detailed (FA and GAs), that on the contrary, many of them looks like a gossip column. Specific categories like Category:Personal life and relationships of individuals even exists. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image
I don't know when the infobox image was changed, was there any consensus for it? If not should we look into getting one? — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 06:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any consensus for the change. And honestly, it's not an improvement over the previous infobox picture :p Bluesatellite (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was changed without consensus. Talking about profile images, more than once I tried to search better ones. I tried this one eg. The Madonna at 2015 MET Gala looks fine too. Y'll could considering take a tour finding profile pics. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What you've linked is a fine choice,, and I would have no objections to implementing it. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This one cannot be sourced since not in Commons. I still don't understand what is wrong with the original picture? — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 04:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also support the original photo, which was actually the result of a previous consensus as far I remember. I didn't specify my point above, sorry. Just giving the idea to find other images with contacting their authors and ask change their license in order to have even better photos for her infobox. I successfully did with photos like this one, used now for other articles. I tried with this photo for her infobox image, but with no responses from the author. In gettyimages, like these results shows their authors, that might can be contacted in FB/their website/other outlet. Run the extra mile. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One problem Apoxy for the pre-2015 images are that Madonna's face has changed, and I say this with respect quite a lot, because of her affinity to plastic surgery. I would have been happy if we got something from the Madame X Tour, but we all know how that tour had a Hitleresque rule for photography. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 03:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Not in commons? My bad; I was basing my comment on the linked image said "This photo is safe". By no means is the 2015 tour pic bad either. Can't remember who swapped it out or why. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 05:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this one? I've seen so much articles using screencaps from interviews/youtube as infobox pictures; why don't we get one for Madonna? --Christian (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because its blurry? Lol reason enough. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 11:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not search for a good youtube screencap? :) --Christian (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Madonna Accused of Child Trafficking
Updated: https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/madonna-accused-of-child-trafficking-pornography-551439 https://www.startribune.com/madonna-accused-of-child-trafficking/42323582/ 95.24.46.222 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If a blogger from 2009 and no one else says it, anyways Johnny Gnecco (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023
https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/madonna-accused-of-child-trafficking-pornography-551439 204.237.2.10 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, see above Cannolis (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * this is fake news from Breitbart. The country it is originating from Ethiopia is one of the countries with the most violations against children and civil rights.  This fake news is an attack against madonna because of her ties with the lgbt community and allowing david to have artistic freedrom to dress as he wishes.  Please stop peddling this fake news this is not real 2600:1700:4038:8000:1CAB:BF46:4928:ACCF (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction
Her father didn’t work at General Motors. It’s General Dynamics. I was his colleague there. 2601:40A:8203:7900:4011:C10D:7E7E:AE4D (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Fixed now. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Why no separate personal life section?
I'm just putting it out there however this article is swamped when it comes to the "Life and career" section by Madonna's career. It makes it hard to find the personal life details about Madonna - except her pre-1979 life - and one can't easily find critical details about her marriages, children, divorces etc. without trawling through a litany of career focused material. AprilHare (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Both marriages actually are listed within headings: Sean Penn under 1984-1987 and Guy Ritchie under 1998-2002. You can also find Lourdes's birth in 1992–1997 (keyword being "motherhood"). As for why there isn't a separate "Personal life" section, I oppose implementing that when it would basically be asking for trouble here when that's easily susceptible becoming bloated with gossip, trivia, and fancruft. Not a risk worth taking and such an idea has already been rejected before. Furthermore, both ex-husbands and some other partners have had some overlap with Ms. Ciccone's professional endeavors (e.g. starring with Penn in Shanghai Surprise and Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy while appearing in Ritchie's remake of Swept Away), so having them in one cumulative "Life and career" section helps avoid redundancies for what she did with them. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you SNUGGUMS on Life and Career being generally superior to personal life, but I will say as an experienced reader it was hard to find the sentences where the article mentions her adoption of David & Mercy etc. Is it possible we can move those sentences to the first sentence of the paragraph, or at least add additional descriptors denoting that she adopted kids around that time?
 * Ergo:
 * 2003-2006 - American Life, Confessions on a Dance Floor and first adoption
 * 2007–2011: Hard Candy, filmmaking, business ventures and personal events (this includes divorce and second adoption)
 * PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with implementing adoptions into the section headings. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Veronica"
Legally we may not be able to find documents finding her true legal name as of today, but she continues to use "Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone" as her full name as recent as 2022. In comparison, the reference used for her legal name in the article dates back to 1992. After an entire marriage, are you sure that reference still can be trusted?

Thank you. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, one's confirmation name doesn't formally become part of legal identity unless they submit forms for name changes or they use what already was their middle name, so it would help to find evidence of her doing the former. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Madonna vs. Maradona
Should the hatnote linking to Maradona be returned? (see below for example) I removed it since no one will confuse Madonna with football legend Diego Maradona. EVER.

 RM X Y  (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't. They are completely two different article topics and it is extremely unlikely someone will mispell Madonna for Maradona. It's not a one letter change. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article in 2023
It has been about 10 years since Madonna's article was demoted from Featured Article. What's preventing her article from getting back to FA? If possible, I would like to contribute to upgrade the article to FA as my next big project. Thank you.

Paging, if interested, as a connoisseur of featured articles about female pop stars. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When she has an upcoming tour, it's probably best for the sake of stability to wait until that concludes (in case it brings any big changes for her career). I also don't know whether the article is comprehensive enough or uses all the best possible citations. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Add section for references to her in popular culture
I've noticed they isn't a section listing references to her in shows like The Simpsons and movies like Weird: The Al Yankovic Story. Shouldn't one be added? CaptainBlackSaber (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Age controversy cat
Madonna used to peg her age to a 1960 birthdate. In publications from the early to mid 1980s, two years were routinely shaved off (see, and ). As late as 1991, Good Morning America gave her age as 30 when she was actually turning 33 that year (see ). PromQueenCarrie (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems in her first years, press/scholars created a little "controversy" around her age, according to this D Magazine 1986 reportage: "Like hens on June bugs, scholars and reporters have pounced upon the fact that two different dates are given for Madonna’s birth... Is V-Day August 16, 1959, as some biographers maintain, or August 16, 1960?". Back in 1985, the singer told Michael Gross, when he asked When were you born? and her answer was: "1958. I’m actually born in several different years, depending on what you read". No opinion about the category added; although this topic received little attention and only in the 20th century unlike fellow such as Mariah Carey (from 1990s to present) whom has a definitive proof even before she became famous. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's actually never been considered "controversial". Unlike Mariah Carey or Anastacia Bluesatellite (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd never seen that interview before. Interesting how she says she came to NYC in the summer of 1976 and moved in the summer of '77 officially. I always heard it was 1978? The Early life section says 1978. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023
Madonna's name is actually Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone 92.29.159.219 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  —  Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * cc ; Madonna's legal name as far as we know is "Madonna Louise Ciccone", however, she uses the full "Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone" in public as recently as 2022. Is there a precedent specifically to only have legal names in public? PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @PHShanghai I deem this edit request as a controversial changes hence the above answer. If you disagree, you may overwrite it.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Photos from the Celebration Tour?
Fans are already publishing their photos from the Celebration Tour and some of them looked really good. Since they are private individuals who have no interest in selling these photos, would it be crazy to ask them to donate their photos for her Wikipedia article? How would I exactly go about this? PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * User:PHShanghai For future reference, you could ask them directly. Here are examples and this could be helpful maybe. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023
Guinness Book's updated sales of Madonna, over 400 million records Alarinaticos (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023
Change caption of the image under "2018–present: Madame X, catalog reissues, and the Celebration Tour": Madonna performing at the Madame X Tour in 2020 (Photo taken in February 2020) 219.77.73.137 (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for highlighting this. Karst (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023
Change “she sold 300 milioni records, to 400 millions”.

According with Guinness world records.

Source: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/10/madonna-cements-status-as-biggest-selling-female-recording-artist-of-all-time-760147 5.90.133.121 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌. Better quality sources say 300 million. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-female-recording-artist#:~:text=In%20her%20homeland%2C%20Madonna%20has,2%20multi%2Dplatinum%20singles%20awards.
 * you can see it here 5.90.133.121 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that Guinness published this. All I'm saying is that it's not as reliable as the many other sources saying 300 million. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023
Change “she sold 300 milioni records, to 400 millions”.

According with Guinness world records.

Source: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/10/madonna-cements-status-as-biggest-selling-female-recording-artist-of-all-time-760147 5.90.133.121 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that that source only supports the claim that Madonna CLAIMS to have sold 400 million records, not that she has actually done so. PianoDan (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌. Guinness is contradicted by much more reliable sources—ones that have significant statistical backing to prove their point. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

New Infobox picture
I believe one of these could work :)

Christian (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe this other example could be useful too. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The third one should be cropped and used in my opinion, she looks stunning! Johnny Gnecco (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My preference definitely is the third one (and I agree with Johnny Gnecco about cropping it) since that doesn't have a microphone in front of her face like the other options do. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually think that this photo (File:MadonnaO2171023 (115 of 133) (53269593417).jpg) is a better option too, cropped ofc Johnny Gnecco (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely have a preference for the fifth one; I don't really like the third one because she's pointing her head up and her nose looks kind of weird.
 * Having a microphone in front of her face isn't the worst, the current lead image has a microphone in front of her face. I think fifth has better hair and her makeup looks better because the lighting is warmer. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is what a cropped version of image six may look like. I quite like it! I think she looks great.
 * PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally like 1, 3 and 5 --Christian (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Update, there are far more choices actually than just these images. If you go on Flickr, there are two photographers who basically were able to take pictures of the entire concert. I think this one is my favorite and I'll test it on the infobox right now; however, as we're still building consensus I think we can probably sift through the rest of the Flickr uploads and keep looking for the best one. It's just a lot of images to look through, like, a lot. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG I like the one you uploaded :D it works really well --Christian (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from the microphone, I don't have any qualms with File:MadonnaO2171023 (5 of 133) (53270847219) (cropped).jpg myself, and yes indeed there are tons of pics available from Flickr! <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to find another photo that doesn't have the microphone blocking some of her face.
 * The only qualm I could have is some of the pics from the Ray of Light segment, she's higher up in her flying platform so the photos taken from that low angle make her look a little funny.
 * I'm afk right now but when I get more time I can find an alternative, microphone-less picture on Flickr. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I changed it to a photo that has better lighting and that doesn't have the microphone as prominently in her face. I really like the lighting on it, but can someone tell me how to remove the ugly purple lighting bleeding in? Where can I consult someone on WM commons to help with that? PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can request here those changes. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(→) Guys, late response here but I definitely feel merit in File:Madonna - The Celebration Tour live London14 10 2023 (53272334700).jpg and with a little editing in Graphics Lab. thanks for uploading these pics. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 14:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dating history
https://people.com/music/madonna-dating-history/

Quite a lot. Not sure how many are included in the article. Her latest, Popper, is not there. -- Green  C  07:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That piece openly calls it a rumored relationship, and certainly doesn't warrant a mention without confirmation. That would feel too gossipy. Per WP:NOTADIARY, not every aspect of a celebrity's life is worth adding, and it would feel excessive to add all romances. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024
Madonna has been officially certified at over 400 million records sold now. 216.243.57.249 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:

— Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 17:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where should this information be added?
 * What is/are your source/sources?

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024
One studio album is missing/listed as a soundtrack. I'm Breathless (1990) is a full-length studio album, with music from/inspired by the film Dick Tracy. An actual soundtrack for the movie is also available. 216.187.38.170 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The album is listed in her discography here and is a Soundtrack. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024
Add an "ED"

Madonna learn the finer techniques of dance under the guidance of her dance teacher Sandip Soparrkar[4][5] Sydneyjuliette (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ it now reads "learned", thanks for pointing out the mistake. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
Need to talk about Back That Up To The Beat and Frozen Remix trending on tiktok, Popular making her first top 10 single in 15 years in her collab with the weeknd, and the celebration tour being more sucsessfull then the previous madame x and rebel heart tours XMadame (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Controversies
Should there be a section about controversies Madonna has been involved in? Like accusations of child trafficking and stuff. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * the information is actually present in one of her articles, philantrophy and activism. Seems it was a claim made by the EWF and later by Candace Owens and met a bit of popularity in Twitter or some platforms. A demand for a "controversy" section seems have been requested here since mid '00s by some IPs and active users of their time. The lack of the section might be comparable to the absence of other sections like "public image", a bit common section in some pop stars and other public figures articles. But her public image/controversies are fragmented by areas (like Donald Trump), because she has "many" public image(s)/reception(s), evidenced by areas such as her gay icon status, fashion and more plus denoted by a response from multiple ideologies/interests and decades/clichés from popular press and other sectors. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Lets not use drivel by a despicable piece of shit like Candace Owens to try to engage an accusation piece on Madonna, when everything has proven to be the opposite of.
 * — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, how about you look up "Madonna sex trafficking" on Google and see what you can find. Analyze the information available and then we go from there to determine whether this is notable to be included in this article. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless if the info is later deleted or synthetized (now or posthumously), what you request is found under the circunstances of the above article. About Google searches, seems those are circular reports with roots from the mentioned organization. Maybe we can compare it to request conservative reactions regarding Nintendo in their main's article, though Madonna generates a more "obvious" reaction due to her known polarized figure xD. Although are not untypical reactions from sectors like religious/conservatives/sociological reviews towards even superstars of "friendly"/"nice" image within popular press/public collective. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. There has undoubtedly been criticism throughout her career (similarly with many public figures) and I was very much expecting to find one in Wiki. Its absence seems to suggest an effort to keep the entry clean fbow. 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:8980:6397:490C:72B0 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about trafficking accusations to comment on those, but lumping controversies into separate sections/subsections within bio pages is frowned upon as that would create undue negative weight. We're better off interspersing such details throughout the article instead. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 00:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that makes sense. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this is not a reliable source, I heard about this from watching this YouTube video titled "Madonna Investigated for Human Trafficking Her Own Children" by SLOAN NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)