Wikipedia

Talk:Cultural impact of Madonna

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PHShanghai (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 17 August 2024 (→Proper Article Trims: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 2 months ago by PHShanghai in topic Proper Article Trims
Learn more about this page
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural impact of Madonna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cultural impact of Madonna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

[+]

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector: + (Not sure where "redtri.com" came from. Displayed in that tool but no results with "control + f" inside art.)
  • Checklinks: +
  • Some of current sources cited in the body of article could have a hardvard style but I've use Cite web/Cite book/Cite Journal with links provided for a faster checking-info. When applicable, those with hardvard style ("Book sources") have the link in url=. Others are available via Google Books or if aren't longer available an alternative way to verify it would be via Worldcat and see what library have a copy (WP:REX could help).
  • Certain cases of "authors" with an entry in Wikipedia could have a different occupation attributed. This also could be a false impression since are generally backed in profiles/third-party sources externally. The same goes with those without an entry with us.
  • As a subjective topic of given a treatment for a person (whatever is a contemporary or a historical figure) prose have multiple quote attributions (intertextuality could be present but aren't "hoaxes"). Many or technically all points could be backed in large proportion by more multiple references either by English and non-English sources but I'm trying to reduce overcitation (such as in "cultural trends"). However, all sections are supposed to be part of a significant point of view. At the same time trying to maintain a generous ratio of an academic/intellectual point of views in all possible sections and using WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW.

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Size and possible split

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Article now contains more than 600 references (should be one of those with most references) and more than 20 sections. I'm currently working in the article mostly adding information instead removing content, tbh. At some point I would brought these issues here but an IP from California boosted that idea today. I also think part of that size came from the reference formatting, although I still maintaining what I said 11 months ago above, in regards the fast-checking process to anyone about online sources (books or other print sources).

As far I can tell from my own experience in this journey, the literature on Madonna is extensive on almost any topic. Someone could argues that some topics are very common in most artists in our present day, but virtually every Madonna's usage of something/topic reviewed here, can shows both impact for Madonna and beyond her own figure (because she is typified as a precursor, archetype etc). In contrast, her main article mostly shows a Madonna in her role as a singer (her primary known profession, indeed), but certainly her role as a musician became secondary in both popular and academic writings, as is repetitively described by multiple agents in their respective areas. Alongside with this and beyond a generalist reputation about her "scandals", there is a "different Madonna" in the view of group of authors: a Madonna for marketers/analysts, a Madonna for dance critics/oriented in this vein, a Madonna for the contemporary art critics, etc because her own career has a reference or she explored all of these areas, and/or by implication have had a certain impact in multiple ways. The "Cultural impact of Madonna" is a reflection of that and perhaps, beyond.

Perhaps, someone could argue there exists a repetitive superlatives in virtually all areas. Is not my guilt. I mean (and this is part of WP:WEIGHT as far I understand), because that treatment has been a constant in her own literature, from both positive and negative ways in any of her eras and in academic/press views. Almost all of these points are backed by a variety of authors, and shows that almost every topic is not a minor point of view, including those superlatives ("the first", "the most", "the biggest", "more than anyone"). Preferably to avoid WP:PEACOCK issues, additions/quote have author attributions. Also, almost everything is contextualized like any social-cultural topic, with date/time (including year, decades, and century as views usually changes, mainly in artists) and if possible in our recommendation of WP:WORLDWIDE (beyond American or British's dominant perspectives, or outside Anglosphere view).

Like it happened with many articles of The Beatles or Elvis Presley from a cultural sense (Madonna can be seen as a female equivalent), I'm a supporter that more than one of these topics can even have a separate article if is necessary, eg (randomly): Madonna as a feminist icon or Ageism in Madonna etc. Be advise, despite the current size of this article, each topic can be larger in their own forms. This means, if more than one of these article exists, it can be presented in the perspective through decades and even adding Madonna's own point of view (she has an opinion of everything; and this article barely contains less than 10 quotations from herself), and adding sections like contradictory perspective, counter-responses and a large etc without failing in a possible WP:CFORK. A concern outside this, could be WP:OTHERSTUFF in other artists, because Madonna's articles are often viewed to inspire other off-topics in many artists (see recent examples of Shakira), but Madonna's own literature is far away different or detailed by itself. I think, at least, current article coverage most part of the meaning of Madonna by other authors.

Pinging regular contributors to Madonna's articles @Bluesatellite:, @Johnny Gnecco:, @Chrishm21: for their inputs, or other involved users in this article @Twixister:, @SNUGGUMS:, @DuncanHill: or @SchreiberBike:, are welcome for a second opinion and suggestions.

Overall, I'm open and if for some, there exist a section or point to be reinforced. Identify possible bias, reorganization or everything to improve the article, will be appreciated. As well, fixing problems with grammar, wordy sentences, etc are more than welcome: English is not my primary language and also, researching has been enjoyable but exhausting and this one of the reasons why there exist overlinking and other things, because the constantly additions/reorganization. Thanks in advance, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

While I honestly have no idea how a split could be efficiently carried out, trimming this down wouldn't hurt. We can do without the "Honorific nicknames and epithets for Madonna" or "Critics' lists and polls" sections as those feel like filler above all else. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proper Article Trims

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page dosen't really look great, I get bored while reading it. it should be trimmed because lots of contents entered are too much based on one citation. And the cultural omnipresence and mordern culture section are saying the same thing to me, the critics are even saying the same thing which should have been entered once. It should be well composed for readers like, Cultural impact of the Beatles and Cultural impact of Taylor Swift. I know they aren't featured article, but they're well constructed. Since i'm not one of the page contributors your help will be needed. @Bluesatellite:, @Johnny Gnecco:, @Chrishm21: __Yotrages (talk)

As an involved user, I concur. An IP accurately described the article as "very long" in 2022. I hope I can now satisfy a reasonable size. I also did my best to divide the public perception of Madonna into distinct topics after that, which were initially covered here, and each of which, I assume, try to attempt to incorporate those popular reception/depictions/criticisms she faced. I also made an effort to be as cohesive as possible to incorporate here mainstream media/academic reception, and to address the spectrum of positive/negative reactions to a concise tone providing attributions/similar reactions. Perhaps, also significantly, now is focus more on the real "cultural" reception rather than the "musical impact" (chart records, etc). I tried to use high reliable sources, non-obscure publishers and well-recognized popular media (The New York Times, Billboard) etc. @SNUGGUMS: and @PHShanghai: so that perhaps you two can assist in correcting grammar/unnatural sentences, cohesiveness or fancruft after the effected changes. I also tried my best with the language. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, I would say maybe the lede could use a little summarizing but the article in it of itself is detailed and has accurate information. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_impact_of_Madonna&oldid=1240782468"