Talk:Madonna (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madonna (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

Madonna (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
May 22, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
July 2, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 27, 2021, and July 27, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Albums

This article 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

Madonna Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MadonnaWikipedia:WikiProject MadonnaTemplate:WikiProject MadonnaMadonna
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 19 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Madonna (Madonna album) to Madonna (album). The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 19 June 2023

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. The supports cite WP:PDAB/WP:INCDAB and pageview counts to back it up, while the opposes cite no policy-based reason to oppose. As a local consensus cannot override community consensus, I am closing this as moved per WP:PDAB/WP:INCDAB. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (Madonna album) → Madonna (album) – This album is the most notable album with the title Madonna (by a wide margin). Similar to Reputation (album). Theknine2 (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose multiple albums called Madonna, see WP:TITLE In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support PRIMARYTOPIC among albums with the word "Madonna", even outside Wikipedia (popularity/recognition in music industry). One of the others albums was even inspired by the singer. Others relatively "common" English words have done in the past: Thriller (album) or Reputation (album). This word/name seems to be more "natural" and supported by other Wiki's policies like PRIMARYTOPIC. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apoxyomenus: How can an article with parenthetical disambiguation be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Do you mean PRIMARYALBUM? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this album has an astronomical lead over all the other contenders in terms of page views - [1] and the community has been clear that primary topics can exist for disambiguated terms, e.g. Thriller (album), only that the threshold is somewhat higher. Well this clearly meets any reasonable threshold you might choose to set. @In ictu oculi: I'm curious about your strong oppose above, is it just that you oppose this sort of disambiguated primary topic in all circumstances? — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user does appear in many discussions of this kind, and the guidelines do in fact oppose this sort of partial dab in all circumstances. WP:PDAB: If a page name containing a parenthetical qualifier is still ambiguous, it might not be a suitable article title. In such an instance, a more precise qualifier should be used. For example, Party (album) is insufficiently precise because Party (Iggy Pop album), Party (Nick Swardson album), and Party (Pet Shop Boys album) exist. Emphasis mine. Clearly there are cases where consensus has formed in opposition to the guideline (Thriller, the best selling album of all time, being an obvious one), but I think we should have a really good reason for doing that. WPscatter ^t/_c 16:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpscatter: Thriller (album) is a good example since it is an example of being far more noteworthy than other albums with the same name. This album has sold over 10 million copies, is recognised for its significant impact on pop music, and hence is also far more noteworthy than other albums with the title "Madonna". Another example is Crazy in Love being primary topic (as well as its redirect Crazy in Love (song)), even when there several other songs/albums/other articles with the same title. Theknine2 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per In ictu oculi. WPscatter ^t/_c 16:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note : This was closed as No Consensus, however, has been reopened per user request on my T/P. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: thanks for requesting the close be reopened, certainly there is no way this is a no consensus situation. The Oppose votes have no basis in policy when considering the strong evidence of a primary topic and the community's express decision to allow such partial disambiguation. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per In ictu oculi; and Madonna album should be converted to a disambiguation page for the various albums called "Madonna" and the list article Madonna albums discography -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wikipedia should be consistent and we should not do cherrypicking. If Reputation (album) and Graduation (album) are able to have partial dab, so is this page. This 10-million selling album is far more notable than the other three albums, as shown by its pageviews (per User:Amakuru above). Bluesatellite (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PDAB: the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator. It's absolutely clear that the Madonna's first album does surpasses that standard with flying colors, and that we're torturing our readers for no good reason. No such user (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user: What is the benefit to giving an already disambiguated page a less disambiguated title? WP:PDAB (as it itself says) is not Wikipedia policy or guideline and is primarily the work of one editor. Are these views expressed somewhere more official? –CWenger (^ • @) 01:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CWenger:, yes, it's recorded in WP:INCDAB, see below comment by Amakuru. And the benefit is simply to provide an intuitive title (anyone with basic knowledge of Wikipedia will look for that under "Madonna (album)" first), and to avoid that unwieldy repetition. No such user (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had found it myself soon after asking the question (as often happens). I did not realize this was in the guidelines. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just for clarity, the RFC that established the current guidelines for primary topics in partially disambiguated scenarios is here: RFC link. The chosen option was Option 2, "PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence over INCDAB", with the proviso set by the closer that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator"... so in general it's open to interpretation what the "tougher standard" in question might be. But, as I've shown in my !vote above, the page views for Madonna's album of this title are overwhelmingly higher than for any other album; and the "oppose" votes don't really address this point at all, or provide counterevidence, they simply assert that there are "multiple albums called Madonna". Per the RFC this is not a reason in itself to oppose, so I think this is a rare WP:NOTAVOTE case where consensus to move is evident even if the raw numbers suggest there's no consensus. — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.