Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Journalist (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 5 April 2006 (this shit about sales is over). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:AIDnom

Template:FormerFA Template:Omnimusica-style

See also: Talk:Madonna (singer).

Archives:

1. 01 (July 26 2005 to March 1 2006)
2. 02 (March 1 2005 to April 6 2006)

Poorly written article

In reviewing the Madonna article, I have to say that it is poorly written. Chop full of unnecessary little tidbits and fan-giggly commentary. I would clean it up, but there appears to be a swat team of editors patrolling this article, who would undoubtedly revert my edits.

BTW, before anyone accuses me of being otherwise -- I AM a Madonna fan, but this is still an encyclopedia…not a tribute site. — NwDavis 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Isopropyl 23:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is poor - very poor in parts and needs major work - even a complete re-write it seems. Madonna should be a featured article - but the state its in at the moment its got no chance! Rimmers 16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh--hottie 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are improvements that can be made to make the article better i am for that. I think the problem is that alot of Madonna fans (including myself) are "protective" of this article for the simple fact that it seems to be a target for alot of vandalism on an almost weekly basis. I had to edit or revert several things myself on here including the photo that was once replaced by a picture of male genitalia and the header at top that was changed to "suck my ****" and other profanities that were placed throughout the article on various occasions over the past few months. That is one of the main reasons why i set up a user name on here. Not only because i would like to contribute but also because my IP address on AOL had often been blocked because of other AOL users posting negative things on various articles. MJW 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)MikeinrdgpaMJW 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

She is not "commonly" referred to as the Queen of Pop

I edited this comment a while ago, only to see it reverted. She is is occasionally referred to as the Queen of Pop, not "commonly." For the most part, it seems that she is referred to as the Queen of Pop in the English press. In the US, the term is relatively rare, and it seems to be increasingly rare in the UK as well. I wish someone would allow me to edit that bit. But working on this article is almost futile because, as the person above said, everything is reverted rather quickly. -- Andrew Parodi 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

She's bheen called the Queen of Pop since 1985. SHE IS

I just think we might have to write the whole article all over or at least vote for what it relevant in an encyclopedia and what is not. And do that section by section. Ramonojo 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists