Wikipedia

Talk:Madonna/Archive 17

< Talk:Madonna
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 8
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Requested move 8

Latest comment: 10 years ago97 comments31 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. After 27 days, the majority of participants oppose a move. The most consistent argument is that the modern entertainer does not hold up to uses related to the Virgin Mary in terms of the "long-term significance" portion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, let alone surpass all other uses combined. Supporters argued that the page view statistics establish the entertainer as primary in terms of use, but when there's a conflict between use and long-term significance, consensus determines the way forward. In this case, the majority oppose the move. Additionally, as this is a perennial request, it needs to be judged in light of previous discussions, all of which have had the same result. Cúchullain t/c 19:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna – I'm aware that this is a perennial request and has been repeatedly shot down. The argument that frequently comes up is that Mary and Madonna (art) are more notable. However, the singer's page has been viewed 640,000 times in the last 90 days - about 4 times as much as Mary (where "Madonna" isn't even the common name, as shown by the title and the lead section of that article) and nearly 19 times as much as the art. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." And I think it's pretty obvious looking at the stats that most of our readers are looking for Madonna the singer.

PRIMARYTOPIC also mentions long-term notability and educational/cultural significance, which I'm sure will be brought up in opposition to this request, but given that the common name for the mother of Jesus, by far, is Mary, and the pageview stats, I think listing the singer as the primary topic with a hatnote at the top linking to Mary and a disambiguation page would be the most appropriate choice. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It is not appropriate to base primary topics on what some editors feel our readers should be educated on; it is appropriate to base it on what readers are most likely to search for. The cultural/educational significance part of PRIMARYTOPIC was addressed in the request. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The article for Madonna the singer was viewed 2.43 times more in the last 90 days than everything on the current disambiguation page combined. That increases to 2.64 times when you omit the Beatles song Lady Madonna (which is unlikely to be known as simply Madonna), and 2.84 when you also omit the other articles related to Madonna the singer (her debut album and the 2001 biography). So while the singer may not be more notable, she is clearly what people are searching for if they're searching for her page nearly 3 times as much as any other Madonna. And I requested the correct move; requesting Madonna be moved to Madonna (disambiguation) would make it unclear which "Madonna" should be moved to the primary topic. This move implies that the current Madonna page will be moved to Madonna (disambiguation). –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is clearly the most common term people are looking for when they search "Madonna". I agree with Bluesatellite on the DAB listing, though In ictu oculi has a point about informing WikiProjects about this. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You're comparing a short-lived, relatively unsuccessful band to a woman who is not just a pop star, but one of the most famous and well-known musicians (and women, for that matter) in history. Madonna is a name for Mary the mother of Jesus, but it's not her common name. Not even close. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you read what I wrote? I said the common name for the mother of Jesus is "Mary". I also said that the primary topic of "Madonna" is the mother of Jesus. The two factors, common name and primary topic are separate factors, hence the example with the United States, showing that the two factors are separate and why "Mary" isn't located at "Madonna" but why "Madonna" can mean "Mary". It's just like the Avatar decision, where the religious topic is taken as the primary topic, even though recentism says the James Cameron franchise would be, and popculturally, the anime franchise would be, and where in recent books the computer representation of a user would be. In comparison to this topic here, the computer representation of a user would be Madonna in art, the religious topic would be Mary, and the recent pop culture phenomenon would be the singer. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a malformed request. Unless the nominator wants to merge the entire disambiguation page into a massive hatnote, this is missing the move request for the disambiguation page located at Madonna -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not meant to be only for 2014 and a little longer. The Madonna is likely to be of interest much longer, as are Madonna and Child paintings. Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Madonna the pop artist is a derivative of the original Madonna and making her the primary topic is just caving in to WP:RECENTISM and pop culture. Maybe in 2,000 years time if the singer's still more popular, we should reconsider. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ordinarily, I think you would have a point. But this is a unique case where "Madonna" is the exclusive name for the artist, but only a very secondary (not particularly common in the English-speaking world, and almost exclusive to a particular denomination of Christianity) name of the religious figure. How likely is it that the majority of our readers are going to search "Madonna" explicitly hoping to reach Mary's article? Mary is most certainly more educationally significant, but no one has demonstrated how the term - not the woman herself, the specific reference to her by that name - Madonna (in reference to Jesus' mother) is the primary topic as opposed to the singer. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Jenks24. Pageview statistics are flatly irrelevant in this case. The "greater enduring notability and educational value" criterion weighs incredibly heavily in favor of the Virgin Mary and artistic depictions of her. Mary is the actual PRIMARYTOPIC of the term Madonna. (Since supporters have suggested religious bias might play a role here, I'll add that I am a Buddhist, with no devotional attachment to the religious figure. My only attachment is to a love of history, and it is for that reason alone that I find this request galling and wrongheaded.) Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt that Mary is more culturally and educationally significant than Madonna the Material Girl. But "Madonna" is not what she is commonly known by - Mary is by far her more common name amongst English speakers. Hence the proposal to mention Mary in a hatnote. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A subject may be a PRIMARYTOPIC for more than one word or phrase. (That is one reason among many for which Wikipedia uses redirects.) This is especially true for religious figures, who often bear many titles. Jesus is the PRIMARYTOPIC for the terms "Jesus", "Christ", "Prince of Peace", etc. The Buddha is the PRIMARYTOPIC for the terms Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni, etc. In much the same way, Mary is the PRIMARYTOPIC for both the terms Virgin Mary and Madonna. Being most commonly called "Mary" does not disqualify her from being the PRIMARYTOPIC for other terms and titles also. Xoloz (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But unlike the Jesus and Buddha examples, when someone says "Madonna", it's more likely than not that they're referring to the 1980s singer. When you type "Madonna" into a Google search, for instance, and look through the first several pages, nearly all of the results are about Ciccone. Google even suggests the singer, with her pictures, background information, link to her Wikipedia page, etc. on the right side of the results. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't dispute that the singer is more often mentioned in casual conversation. I don't even dispute pageview statistics. I argue that this is a case where long-term academic significance outweighs those factors. The heart of the argument here is whether the usage criterion of the PRIMARYTOPIC definition should predominate over the long-term significance criterion. I argue that it should not, in this case, because the Virgin Mary is so extraordinarily academically and educationally significant. Given that both your argument and mine are reasonably based in policy (different "prongs" of the PRIMARYTOPIC test), the result of this RM is probably going to be determined by strength in numbers. Xoloz (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The greater enduring notability is the mother of Jesus. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. "Madonna" is basically Mary's posthumous nickname. She doesn't get full primary topic status here. I ditto that this was a malformed move request. Red Slash 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; the page view counts are compelling. This is a text book case of why adding the historical importance criterion to PT was a big mistake - as it creates conflicting guidance as to what to do here. I say we go with the traditional definition of PT, and IAR the newer one. --В²C ☎ 06:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    So, your "good reason" for invoking IAR is that you've never liked the guideline, and still don't? Sounds like a textbook case of IDONTLIKEIT, which could easily result in your opinion being discounted. Xoloz (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's an interesting interpretation of my words. No, the good reason for invoking IAR on applying the historical importance criterion here is because it conflicts with the historical usage criterion. More people are looking for the article about the entertainer - the whole point of Primary Topic has always been to serve the most readers the article they're seeking when they search with the given term. --В²C ☎ 19:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    While "IAR" is often used as an (unconvincing) excuse to disregard guidelines and policies, I must agree with Born2cycle that the singer is unquestionably the most common term people have in mind when referring to or searching for "Madonna". SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I've never heard of anyone in their right mind refer to Mary as Madonna. It's not notable in the article (not even present in the lead) and is most certainly not what people will type when looking to read on Mary. Derived from whatever, Madonna is Madonna. A hatnote and/or a disembag note is more than sufficient.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are inherent problems comparing internet stats between somebody who made their mark 2000 years ago and somebody alive and in the news currently. WP:PT applies with "greater enduring notability and educational value." FWIW I am an atheist Madonna (entertainer) fan. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that the woman who made her mark 2000 years ago is not universally known as 'Madonna' and most people will not type "Madonna" on Google or Wikipedia search box to find information about her. Simple as that. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am also aware of her being called, inter alia, Blessed Virgin Mary, a redirect to Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism, Virgin Mary a redirect to Mary (mother of Jesus), Mary (a dab page), not forgetting the related Madonna (art).You could even consider which woman has more followers (1.8 billion catholics ("Madonna" is primarily used by catholics) alone -v- how many?)! If anybody is saying the singer is harder to find at the present title, that's a different argument, worthy of discussion, but primary topic? If anybody else has an earth-shattering revelation why I am wrong, please respond on my talkpage, I was already aware of Bluesatellite's opinion before I made my comments and do not wish to be dragged into, or create, an unnecessary line by line, word by word, debate on the actual RM. Thanks everybody. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Primary topic" is something of a misnomer. It's only meaningful with respect to a given name . That is, "primary topic" means "primary topic of a given name". So the question here is not whether the entertainer or the or the Virgin Mary is the "primary topic" - the question here is which is the primary topic of the name "Madonna". In particular, the most important question is about what topic people are most likely to be seeking when they type "Madonna" in the search box - the answer to that question is the primary topic of Madonna. The issue of which of these topics is more important or more historically significant is irrelevant. --В²C ☎ 06:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as [WP:RECENTISM], Mary has more historical significance, the only arguments for the move is that personally, most editors claim a lack of religious "Madonna" usage in their peer group, and the larger amounts of views on this page. Also, malformed page move, with the consensus across all of Wikipedia is that the historical significance is more important. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not about which use of "Madonna" is more historically significant; it's about which use is most likely to be sought when a user enters "Madonna". --В²C ☎ 06:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Madonna is an honorific, of considerbale historical and cutlural significance. "My Lady", it is a term of reverence for a major religion's most imporant woman. The singer, for commerical marketing reasons, has attempted to subsume/hijack the honoric. As a derivative use of a long term culturally significant terms should be disambiguated before a marketing re-use.
Wikipedia should not redefine these terms, be dumbed down, to match popular search term use. Wikipedia is not a search engine, but an historical and scholarly reference work.
To the extent that Wikipedia is a search engine, searchers should use the serach engine. The top five hits today, all well above the fold, are:
(1) Madonna ... my lady ... mother of Jesus
(2) Madonna (entertainer) ... Madonna Louise Ciccone.
(3) Madonna (art) ... a representation of Mary, either alone or with her child Jesus
(4) Madonna (Madonna album) ... self-titled debut studio album
(5) Madonna (book) ... a biography by ... Andrew Morton
The original most long term significant use should remain at the undisambiguated title, perhaps as a DABCONCEPT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Madonna is currently a disabmiguation page. Noting that all uses are derivative of the first, it would be better to convert it into a Wikipedia:DABCONCEPT. Page views should not be a decisive factor. Page view statistics bias to idle click-happy users with easy access. And shortening names doesn't help idle click-happy people get to the page, it's not as if they are typing the url. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be inappropriate because this discussion clearly shows that there are editors who disagree that Mary is the primary topic for the term "Madonna". There is no policy that says the original use takes precedent as primary topic, and an example showing otherwise is The Godfather, where the film derivative of the book is the primary topic. Even if this discussion ends in a consensus that Madonna the singer is not the primary topic (which it looks like it will), that does not automatically mean something else becomes the primary topic when consensus has shown time after time, and likely will again, to leave "Madonna" at a disambiguation page with no primary topic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I could see this ending in "no consensus". SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mary does not need to be accepted as the (Wikipedia jargon term) "PrimaryTopic" for the dab page to become a DABCONCEPT. Original use and derivative use, related to "long term significance", are important factors. The Godfather book vs film is a different sort of example because the two subjects are intimately related. No one is suggesting to move Mary_(mother_of_Jesus) to this title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - as per nomination. Recent-ism is more like this year... not someone who has been popular/notorious for 30-35 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, it is a perennial request, so why are we having the discussion again? Madonna is a very, very well-known term in religion and especially in art, it has been so for centuries, it will be so for centuries to come, it should not be trumped by an entertainer who may be very popular now but may well be forgotten in centuries to come. Is the art term any less common now than the last time we discussed it; is the entertainer any more popular? Clearly the answer in both cases is no. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not for any reason not already stated. The genre of art can not be discounted for further ambiguity. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as usual. Let's face it, Madge is getting steadily less famous, and the case for this is getting progressively weaker. See you all next year! Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly most notable use of "Madonna". Unreal7 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nom and Unreal7 above (and I suspect most if not all of the other support voters even if they do not say this) both make the mistake of arguing that the musician is the most notable topic. But that's not the issue at all; In order to move this article over the DAB as proposed (and this really should be a multi-move anyway, but let's just reject it rather than trying to format it properly) we would need to establish that this usage is more common than all others, taken together. There's no chance of that, in fact an argument could even be made that if there is a primary meaning at all (which the current setup assumes there isn't) then it's Mary (mother of Jesus) not the rock star... there are even more Roman Catholics in the world than there are Madonna fans, add to them the art lovers of the world, and it's no contest at all. See you all next year for RM 9 I guess. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your comment above shows you didn't even read the nomination or my other comments in this discussion. I have clearly said several times that Mary the mother of Jesus is more notable than Madonna the singer. However, the point I am making is that Madonna Ciccone is the primary topic for the specific term Madonna and is backed with Google results, Google book results, and Wiki page views, as seen throughout this thread. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wrong, I did read them. I just didn't think it was helpful to answer them in detail. Whether one topic or the other is more notable is irrelevant, however clearly or often you say it. Yes, the question is, what if anything is the primary topic for the specific term Madonna. And that is exactly the issue I address. Please read my post again, and consider this possible reading of it. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." There is no reason to suspect the pop star Madonna would qualify as the primary topic under this criteria, considering that the other topics include a major figure in a 2000 year old religion and a term referring to a type of art that's been in use for centuries. The argument about Mary's common name being Mary and not Madonna doesn't take Madonna (art) into account, where it wouldn't apply, since common name for the art is Madonna. Even were only the art topic and the singer under consideration, I would not think that Madonna the singer would have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" in the long term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Egsan Bacon: You seems to be completely ignoring the other half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Kaldari: Not at all. I'm noting that it has two aspects, which are in strong disagreement here. If I didn't explicitly mention usage, it's because I didn't think there was much to say on that front. The numbers are the numbers. But usage isn't everything here, and I didn't think the other issue was being addressed to the extent it should be. The nomination basically brushes off the "long-term significance" aspect, and does it in a way (Mary's common name) that doesn't address the long-term significance of Madonna (art). Of the eight "supports" prior to my comment, only one (Born2cycle) addresses long-term significance, and only to call the idea of the long-term significance aspect a "big mistake" that should never have been included in PRIMARYTOPIC. The others either go by the usage aspect alone, or by Ms. Ciccone vs. Mary. None of the eight mention the art term at all, which has a serious case for being the PRIMARYTOPIC as far as long-term significance is concerned.
It is true that, since my comment, both you and Czar have expressed an opinion on the long-term significance aspect. In response, I would say that I think it is just a difference of opinion between you and I as to how much weight should be given to the two aspects. As to the suggestion that the singer might have greater long-term significance, the centuries-old legacy of the art term, combined with the relatively ephemeral nature of pop culture in general, do not make me think this is likely to be the case.
Since the two aspects of PRIMARYTOPIC are in opposition, the best thing to do is to have neither be the primary, which is the status quo. Since this RM is proposing changing the status quo, I opposed it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Normally I would agree with you, but Madonna (entertainer) is one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia (#692 out of 4.5 million). It seems a disservice to our readers to hide it behind a disambiguation page when we know that it is 20 times more popular than the next closest article. Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Why do think that a more precise title hides the article? It's not as if readers type the title. If the page is popular, search engines will uprank it; search engines continuously, dynamically, analyse and optimise based upon searchers' choices as a function of their search query, and more. If the idea is that "most" want a certain page, then we should throw "all" at the page, this is a disservice to readers using an encyclopedia to find stuff they don't already know about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Given the history of move proposals here, I suggest the closer consider how the User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle might apply here. --В²C ☎ 17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. While I'd judge current and rough consensus (by body count) to be against renaming, I fully agree that most of those of that opinion have arguments that conflate Madonna (art) and Mary (mother of Jesus). The support arguments have been the most convincing and the most guided by policy. Under PRIMARYTOPIC, the entertainer is clearly the choice by the view count stats mentioned above, but I'd further argue that the entertainer has greater long-term significance under the name as well. Even considering the systemic bias against art topics (one of my areas) on enwp, the Special:WhatLinksHere listing for the entertainer dwarfs that of the art reference. Who knows what the next 100 years will bring, but those connections already laid show that the entertainer is far and away the expected topic to be found at "Madonna" over the art reference, over recentism, over every other usage. czar ♔ 02:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
    • Madonna (entertainer) has been viewed 204096 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 692 in traffic on en.wiki.x.io.
    • Mary (mother of Jesus) has been viewed 40593 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 9030 in traffic on en.wiki.x.io.
    • Madonna (art) has been viewed 8296 times in the last 30 days.
  • Madonna (entertainer) is the primary topic by an order of magnitude. While it is true that Mary (mother of Jesus) or Madonna (art) may have more enduring notability, the view statistics are so lopsided that there shouldn't be any question as to which we consider primary. Kaldari (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let's wait until the 80-year-old granny sings "Vogue"... or retires. --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I see no need to relist this, but no particular hurry to close it either. There have been at least seven previous, rejected move requests. There are no new arguments in this one. So why not just leave it open until and unless we get consensus to move? OK we don't really want it cluttering the RM backlog indefinitely, but it might even save us enough time in the long run to be worth considering.

And all we need to do to achieve this is for every admin lurking on RM to vote, one way or another. It's clearly not a candidate for non-admin closure, and we're rapidly running out of uninvolved admins, leaving no other choice as I see it. Neat idea?

(;-> Or maybe not... Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Leave it open until there is consensus to move ? Seems like bias in favor of moving it. What about consensus in favor of not moving? To me, it's clear that there is a consensus here, and it is not for moving the article. That wouldn't be a no-consensus closure, that'd be a consensus against the proposal. If we move request open until enough people want to move it, all the anti-move consensuses would be left open at the bottom of the RM listings. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You are aware that consensus isn't simply a head-count of who supports and who opposes, right? I would say there are too strong arguments on both sides for this discussion to simply be closed as an opposition to the request. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you think that, but curious as to what you think the way forward should now be. Surely you are not going to claim consensus above to move? If so, I guess you should thank the IP who posted the heads-up at talk:Madonna#"Madonna", which is what the multi-move that you should have raised (as others have pointed out above) would have done automatically. And so, if an uninvolved admin agrees with you, the moves will occur.
And that's a big if IMO. And then if it does happen we may well go to WP:MR. My suggestion above not to even close it this time around is looking better and better, but I still think maybe not... Andrewa (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say there was consensus to move the page either. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. And similarly, as far as I can see you haven't said that there is consensus not to move (as several of us have claimed), nor that there is no consensus and none likely (which would also result in no move of course), nor what we should do now. Or have I missed it?
And that's the elegance of my proposal. It would mean that nobody needs to decide these things. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Until or unless was what I said... I suspect you didn't see the intended humour of that phrase, and of the post as a whole. Agree that there is a rough consensus against moving the article, and I see no prospect of ever obtaining consensus to move as proposed, but a likelihood that we'll have more attempts. Agree that my proposal does shift the bias towards move, as opposed to the normal procedure which is biased against move, but I don't see any prospect of a move even given this shift of bias, and that's part of what I'm saying. Does that make more sense?
It's not intended as a serious suggestion, just a possibility that occurred to me and which I found amusing. Andrewa (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I chuckled. Sadly I think that eventually there would be enough complaints for closing at somewhere like WP:AN that eventually an admin would stumble over this and doesn't want to continue the fun and just vote himself/herself. Jenks24 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest a requirement, as a hurdle, that a future rename proposal must include a cursory review of the previous proposals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Amusing suggestion from Andrewa which deserves award of a cookie or kitten, but more seriously Seconded the minimum requirement per User:SmokeyJoe - One way to enforce that happening would be for the closer to add some distinction like proposal that has already been tried and rejected twice be subject to a 12/18 month wait, wheras one which hasn't been suggested once be subject to only a 3/6 month wait. That requirement would at least encourage looking at the previous RMs to find out what had already been proposed and what hadn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. But there's many a true word said in jest. The suggestion came about just because, before voting on this one, and looking at who had already voted, I worried what if all the other admins who lurk at RMB and might consider taking this one on also vote? I (obviously) decided that it was on balance better to involve myself, in the hope of reaching consensus of course. But the more I later reflected on it, the more appealing the outcome of having no qualified closers became. It has a pythonesque feel about it which I'm sure The Mikado would also love. Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I just want to question one point in this discussion. If the general argument is that Madonna has historical significance/relevancy as the name for Mary (mother of Jesus) then why is this not discussed in that article (there are only two minor instances of the term in the main body), or even included after the "also known as" in the first sentence? From this I infer it doesn't hold that much significance. —JennKR | ☎ 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
In response to the "there are more Catholics in the world than Madonna fans" point, I should note that many Christians—including Catholics—would never refer to Jesus' mother when using the term "Madonna". Fans or not, many Christians would concur that the singer is easily the most common term referred to by that name. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there isn't a Wikipedia policy that allows a page to be titled (or disambiguated) because it receives a name sometimes, this is contradictory to WP:COMMONNAME, which, in an egg-shell, instructs the use of the name most-known in English-language sources. If the term "Madonna" is so historically significant, so prolific among Catholics, Christians of other denomination and art enthusiasts as some have implied, then why does the lead not establish this? Mary is easily one of the most significant figures in Christianity, and despite thousands of edits to the page and being a level-4 vital article (a status which you would think would attract editors interested in Catholicism and history), it makes no effort to convey this and I'm astounded that if it is so significant that this has escaped so many people. —JennKR | ☎ 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It's also at least possible that many Madonna fans would concur that Mary is easily the most common term referred to by that name. I'm not quite sure how we would test either proposition... assuming we straighten out exactly what either means, it's an interesting piece of grammar. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Most common term that uses a certain name as an alternate (borderline obscure) name ≠ most common usage of said name. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Andrewa: I wouldn't doubt that, but what people choose to call something limitedly is something that generally doesn't trouble Wikipedia titling policies. The most basic policy of all (WP:COMMONNAME) instructs us to use the name most-used in English-language sources. I hold there is little doubt on either side of this debate that Madonna is not the most-used term to refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus, while Madonna certainly is the most-used term to refer to the American entertainer. It seems clear to me that WP:COMMONNAME heavily favours this page being moved, and thus people who believe it shouldn't must find ground in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I now ask those who are opposed to this move, why isn't the alleged historical significance demonstrated? —JennKR | ☎ 17:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Where to start... this just repeats in new words mistakes that I hoped we'd resolved. It's irrelevant whether or not Madonna is not the most-used term to refer to Mary. It's irrelevant whether or not Madonna certainly is the most-used term to refer to the American entertainer. Both of these propositions could be true, or both false, or one either way, and the entertainer could still fail to be the primary meaning of Madonna. Alternatively, both could be true, or both false, etc and the entertainer could be the primary meaning. They are not relevant either way, and just obscure the issue.
I agree with both statements, if that helps. But I don't see that it matters.
I agree we must find ground in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that ground has been explained above.
Similarly, the question of why isn't the alleged historical significance demonstrated is very simple, and you've said it. Mary mother of Jesus is sometimes called Madonna, but is far more often called Mary. But she's far more famous and culturally significant than Madonna the entertainer, and so even this less commonly used name is still applied to her relatively often (and particularly in the field of art). So even if Madonna the entertainer had no other names at all, Mary mother of Jesus could still be the primary meaning of Madonna. But that's not claimed here. All that is claimed is a lesser claim, that there is no primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
(Replying to Chasewc91 in case the stringing is unclear) Most common term that uses a certain name... What does that mean? I think the terminology and grammar here are important. Can you clarify? Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
"She's far more famous and culturally significant than Madonna the entertainer": I think that may be a viable proposition, but what is ignored is whether the term Madonna has more significance to Mary, than it has to page usage with respect to the entertainer. This is the conflict presented in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and from which we must decide has a greater need for the term. From what I can see from the article, where there is two minor mentions of the term in running prose, I don't believe it to be a substantially significant term to Mary mother of Jesus as its historical significance is never demonstrated. I think the lead sentence is particularly convincing: also known as Saint Mary or Virgin Mary. To list one thing is to exclude another, and when Madonna does get a mention later on, its exclusion from mention in the lead obviously leads to the inference it's not a name that Mary is most known by. We must then compare this to Madonna, the argument being it's the primary topic because it has greater usage. If we compare page views over the last 90 days using the [1] tool, Madonna (entertainer) has 629,015 views, Mary mother of Jesus has 159,151 views and Madonna (art) has 33,513. In my opinion, Madonna (entertainer) stakes a far higher claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as its substantially higher usage outweighs its significance as a term that has been used limitedly to refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus. To argue under long-term significance, it must be proven that there is substantially greater enduring notability—but this substantially greater notability is not demonstrated in the article (where "Madonna" is relegated to passing mention). —JennKR | ☎ 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think this is progress. You think that whether the term Madonna has more significance to Mary (your emphasis) is relevant, is that correct? Is there any existing policy or guideline that suggests this to you, or is this a new idea that you're proposing here?
The other points seems to be just repeating arguments already answered above. Andrewa (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the point of contention in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been discussed in terms of this guideline enough. As I said earlier, this is deciding which article greater demands the title through greater-usage or greater-significance. Some of the support votes here say Mary (mother of Jesus) is of greater historical significance than Madonna, but that is what should not be contended. It should be contended that the significance of the term Madonna has greater significance to Mary, than the page usage needs of Madonna, the entertainer (it hasn't often been). Bearing in mind that the guideline values usage and historical significance equally, I see Madonna's demand in usage as far greater than Mary's demand for the term in historical significance. What I wanted to know from the very beginning of this discussion is what historical significance the opposing editors of this move believed outweighed the significance of greater usage? The article fails to present the term as significant of Mary and therefore I'm finding it difficult to see how this can amount to substantially greater enduring notability (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). —JennKR | ☎ 22:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, when you say It should be contended that the significance of the term Madonna has greater significance to Mary, you seem to be suggesting a new criterion. No current policy or guideline mentions it.
And we still haven't escaped the basic logical problem... You still seem to be arguing that Madonna the entertainer has a greater claim to the title than Madonna the mother of Jesus. That's relevant only in the negative... If it's not true then obviously Madonna the entertainer isn't the primary topic. But even if it is true, it's still not enough. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not about who is more important or who deserves the title more... it's a matter of assisting readers, and when Madonna the singer gets significantly more pageviews than Mary as it is, and add in that Madonna is a rather uncommon name for Mary, and I think it's obvious what our readers are looking for when they type "Madonna" into the search bar. And helping our readers quickly find what they're looking for is kind of the reason PRIMARYTOPIC exists in the first place.
What is enough? According to policies and guidelines, a PRIMARYTOPIC exists when something is more likely to be searched for than any of the other subjects combined, which was demonstrated early into this RM - Madonna Ciccone got more than double the views than everything on the Madonna disambiguation page combined, including Mary. There is the historical/cultural significance part... but I believe JennKR has asked numerous times for other users to demonstrate the significance of the term "Madonna" in relation to Jesus' mother and how said significance (of the term, not the biblical figure) trumps that of a woman who is exclusively known by the name Madonna, and probably more recognized by the name Madonna than Mary by the average Wikipedian. And no one appears to have done so. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You are of course ignoring the fact that the most common use of Madonna in a "religious" sense is not in a direct reference to the Virgin Mary (I would agree that's not too common in English) but to depictions of her in art. And that is still very common. Look in any art gallery or book about art. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You are of course ignoring the fact that the most common use of Madonna in a "religious" sense is not in a direct reference to the Virgin Mary—but I think a lot of the opposing votes ignore this too! The running argument seems to be: Mary is known limitedly as Madonna → Mary is more historically/culturally significant than Madonna → Mary is the primary topic. But I believe this is the wrong reasoning when WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says a topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance. This means, as Chasewc91 says, those in opposition to the move must demonstrate the significance of the term "Madonna" in relation to Jesus' mother and how said significance (of the term, not the biblical figure) trumps that of a woman who is exclusively known by the name Madonna. I think those in opposition to the move are ignoring the wording of the guideline, as staking a claim by Madonna (art) has much less weight than staking a claim by way of Mary (mother of Jesus). —JennKR | ☎ 14:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Drive it home, Jenn! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The paraphrase of the opposing argument is inaccurate, and therefore a straw man. More serious, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is being misquoted. That guideline is very conservative, and goes to great lengths to avoid giving strict rules.
The onus of proof is very much on those who want to establish Madonna the entertainer as the primary topic. The very existence of these eight RMs is itself an indication that there is no primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madonna/Archive_17&oldid=1141546498"