Talk:Madonna economy

What exactly is the topic of this article?
Is it (a) The term 'the Madonna economy', as used by certain scholars to characterise cultural aspects of 'globalisation', or (b) Madonna the performer, analysed through a 'cultural globalisation' lens? I ask, because this article (if it is actually an article, rather than an essay) seems to be unsure, skipping as it does between discussions of alternative earlier metaphors for the same process - e.g. that relating to Coca-Cola - and discussions of reactions to the singer herself, presented by the article as evidence for such globalisation. It seems to me that there is a fair bit of synthesis involved, either way.

We already have extensive coverage of the performer. We have an article on Cultural globalization. If there is a justification for an article covering a supposed intersection between the two, in my opinion it needs to be based around more than a metaphor taken a little too literally, supported by sources that aren't actually discussing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It can be both as social terms could have more than one definition/meaning/interpretation as well. The term, expression or whatever you take it as such has reliable sources (WP:RS). And has been cited by other academics. So is there anything wrong about it? Regarding related globalization discussion on Madonna aren't insolated themes, as add context if some one could seems her just as an entertainer of gossip and tabloid topic rather than a related-figure with many concepts of globalization. If we have already articles about cultural globalization and others, we also have expressions such as McWorld, McDonalization etc related to a specific symbol like with Madonna in this case. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * We have an article on McDonaldization, certainly. Cited, it would appear, almost entirely to sources which are themselves actually discussing the concept. The McWorld article though is less clear about whether it is discussing a term related to 'globalisation', the actual spread of McDonalds outlets worldwide, a website, or an advertising campaign. I wouldn't consider it a good example of anything much, beyond how Wikipedia contributors can cobble disparate subjects together based on nothing more than using the same word for different things. Dictionaries may do that, Wikipedia isn't supposed to.


 * A simple question for you: you say that 'the term has reliable sources'. I don't doubt that, but what proportion of the sources cited in this article actually use the term? And what proportion of them have been cited because you personally think they illustrate 'the Madonna economy', despite not actually use the phrase? I ask, because selecting examples of things to illustrate a concept is something we expect our sources to do. Selecting such illustrative sources ourselves, when they do not directly state that they concern the topic of the article, is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To whom interest: I have let the user AndyTheGrump know in their talk page (May 29, 2022) about the future improvements or content removal about unrelated information that is not using explicitly the term and bc I was requesting help for a similar situation about two other articles. A grouping of users questioned in the Help desk of science about the authenticity of the term (as a possible WP:HOAX) and the wording content, as well of the English grammar; mostly information here are based on quotes from sources cited, and every line already have references to re-verify the content given, including books via Google Books/Archive.org. Not sure about the deadline of this matters, and in the meantime, for the peeps or contributors in both WikiProjects tagged are welcome to provide solutions or comments as an informal third comment request. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2022

 * 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: moved. For clarity and following general standards on article titles with definite articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The Madonna economy → Madonna economy – Title can be easily confused with an economy of The Madonna iconography instead of an economy based on the singer Madonna. The “WP:The” is actually irrelevant. Shwcz (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The proposed new title seems to be solving a non-existent problem (has anyone ever actually confused this article with another one?), while not actually addressing the real issue - which is that this article is a giant heap of WP:OR concocted around a phrase occasionally used as a metaphor for cultural globalization. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing move on the article Madonna (art), if that is successful then there must be a way to distinguish those articles related to The Madonna iconography and Madonna the singer. The existence of this article as original research has no relevance on the title. Shwcz (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2022 (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.
 * Support. Per WP:THE, the definite article is unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, this is about the concept of a Madonna economy, not about a work titled "The Madonna Economy". J I P  &#124; Talk 14:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)