Talk:Madonna (art)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus / Saints (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mona Lisa[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, how come Mona Lisa became Madonna? --maqs 14:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


There's an empty heading, and some rephrasing/grammar smoothing is needed. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Madonna (art) vs Madonna and Child[edit]

Is there a specific reason why Madonna and Child and Madonna (art) are two separate pages? It seems to me that Madonna and Child would make a good subsection for Madonna (art). But before I put a marge tag on these pages, I would like to hear from those who kno wmore about this field. Your comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes they should be merged really, as most Madonnas include the child. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok John, let us give it a week, i.e. until July 15th. If no one types anything here then we can say it was a merge decision. Do you want to do the merger, or shall I do it? History2007 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine - I can do it. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


There is a gallery of art on this page, but it is relatively small. John bod commented that the Madonna gallery on Roman Catholic Marian art was too large, and I agreed with that observation. Hence it seems to me to make sense to add some of those images to this page. The main motivation is to avoid the somewhat "less than organized" situation that persists within Wiki-commons. I will start to add more images here in a day or so unless there are good reasons for not doing so. This Madonna page has good text, but it really deserves a better gallery than what exists right now, e.g. the statues need to be separated from the paintings, etc. Then it will be a better page with both good text and images. History2007 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Images of the Madonna and Madonna and Child are one of the central icons.... Images plural, of two different subjects can hardly be "one" of anything. Unless we are talking about the Holy Trinity, but we are not. Amandajm (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

South America[edit]


Are the Lady of Guadalupe images usually considered Madonna? I have not seen that done, although by the definition here, she is the central image. Any idea about the reasoning therein? By the way, does this statue qualify as a Madonna? History2007 (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move: → Madonna[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

– In the spirit of the notorious avatar RM, I suggest that a 2,000-year-old art form is the primary topic for this term. "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," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We have two criteria for determining primary topic, "educational value" and "usage", and these have equal status in the guideline. Editors have discretion to follow one or the other. If you think that the singer is primary "with respect to usage", I don't necessarily disagree. But the singer has been overwhelmingly rejected as primary in discussions here, here, and here. If this proposal is approved, she would not be effected in any significant way, but rather stay where she is at Madonna (entertainer). As there would be a hat note on the primary topic article leading to her article, it would remain one click away from the base lemma in either setup. At the time to of the avatar RM, educational value was only an "exception" to the usage standard, so the guideline is now more favorable to this kind of move. Madonna gets 34,000 views a month, which is so much wasted readership since the page is currently just a list of uninformative entries. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate, so let's explain to readers that the Madonna is a form of divine art, "a depiction of the Virgin Mary," as Britannica defines it. Kauffner (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Support. Kauffner's reasoning is valid. And I would note that although in other languages the term may refer to the mother of Jesus, in English it almost always refers to the art form, so the rename is completely logical. History2007 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the primary topic is obviously Mary (mother of Jesus), so "Madonna" should redirect to Mary (mother of Jesus) -- (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that "may" have carried some small weight in some non-English Wikipedias, but this is English Wikipedia, and I have personally never heard of the mother of Jesus called Madonna in English conversation. So per WP:COMMONNAME the move is correct. History2007 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you've never heard that, then you've never seen the names of various churches named for the Mother of God either, or the various apparitions of her around the world. Are you sure you haven't heard of it because you never investigated what "Madonna" referred to when you did hear it? -- (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a bit weakly. In 10 years time the case might be stronger. With competition for "primary" status from the singer and the bio of Mary (mother of Jesus), it may be there is no primary topic. I'd certainly like to see the disam page reorganized though - this comes much too low down. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a DAB nightmare. I understand the intellectual appeal of giving more weight to the long-term significance criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but the usage criteria is there for a reason. I've been monitoring and disambiguating the incoming links of several disambiguation pages for a while now, including Madonna. It gets far more new links that need to be disambiguated than any other article I watch, pretty much on a daily basis; multiple people watch for and fix the links. These overwhelmingly are meant for Madonna (entertainer). (The entertainer has about ten times the incoming links that the art article has.) If the art article were moved to Madonna, there would be no easy way to monitor and correct these links. The art article would very quickly have a majority of incoming links that were actually looking for the entertainer.
The 34,000 views at Madonna are not "wasted readership," they are people being directed to the article they want; most of whom are looking for the entertainer. Our goal is to educate, yes, but we do that by letting the user find the article they are looking for, not foisting the article we think is a worthier topic on them. Madonna (entertainer) has had thirty times the page views of Madonna (art) this month. It's not our role to pass judgment on what people want to read, just to help them find it.--Trystan (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is basically an argument against the "educational value" criteria. This criteria was approved after a great deal of discussion, and was a response to criticism that Wikipedia places too much emphasis on popular culture. If the singer gets ten times as many links, is that not confirmation of the problem that the criteria is intended to address? To get to a secondary topic DAB, the reader has to click on a hat note. But in this case, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of readers going to Madonna are not seeking a DAB. From looking at the page views stats for similar pages, my sense is that this type of DAB does not have much impact on the articles it links to. Perhaps many readers take one look, say "What's this?", and back out. Kauffner (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The "long-term significance/educational value criteria" of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is important, and I am not arguing against it at all. If I didn't agree with it as a criteria, I would be arguing that the entertainer article is hands down the primary topic. I'm not. I've argued against proposed moves to that effect on precisely the grounds that the other Madonna articles have greater long-term significance.
But neither can we ignore the other main criteria of PRIMARYTOPIC, usage. We need to strike a balance between the two when they conflict. Here, where usage measures are so overwhelmingly in favour of one article, I think that means not elevating any other article to primary article status. To do so would make a terrible mess of incoming links. We can't fix WP's pop culture bias by having hundreds of links talking about the entertainer but leading to the art figure. That is what would happen if we can't easily identify and fix new links to Madonna to go to the appropriate article.--Trystan (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oic, you think a primary topic should meet both criteria. But if we accept that logic, it becomes very difficult to designate any topic as primary. Even terms that are unambiguous are often judged to be of insufficient educational value. From looking at the various discussions of the guideline, I don't think anyone involved expected such a result. Nirvana is cited, and that leads to the Buddhist concept, not to a DAB. Kauffner (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think every primary topic needs to succeed on both criteria. In my book, an article can fail one of the criteria and still make an appropriate primary topic if it is very strong on the other. Here, however, Madonna (art) doesn't just fail on the usage criteria, it fails so spectacularly that moving it to Madonna would cause significant, ongoing problems for managing the incoming links. I don't think any amount of relative strength in the long-term significance criteria could make up for the fact that its page views and incoming links are only a small fraction than those of that other Madonna article.--Trystan (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The historical significance criterion is important, but only to the extent already accounted for implicitly by the usage criterion. So, there is no need to mention the historical significance criterion explicitly at PRIMARYTOPIC. Doing so just confuses matters, as it has in this case. That is, for any case where historical significance is sufficient to make the topic the primary topic for a given term, then that topic will naturally be most sought by readers searching with that term, and thus it will be the primary topic by the usage criterion. So the usage criterion is all we should mention explicitly. Anyway, "historical significance" can only be measured subjectively, and is thus inherently subject to wild disagreement, while "usage", though not perfect, is at least based on objective criteria like page view counts, link counts, and google results. See this proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't subscribe to every argument put forward ("wasted readership"), but I do believe that Madonna (art) is the primary topic ("with respect to long-term significance"), which Johnbod hints at as well, I believe. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Note, after pondering First Light's comment: I also do not agree with a move to Mary. We're talking about an article on a representation, an enormously important topic with plenty of notability, and moving/merging that with a historical and religious figure is inappropriate (besides the problems of size). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Much like with the Avatar move, this religious figure is just as obviously of "greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic." Though I'm puzzled by some of the slam-dunk opposition to moving it to Mary (mother of Jesus), since some dictionaries give that primary or equal meaning, if not secondary (without getting into what I've personally heard). First Light (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If this were equivalent to the Avatar move, then you are supporting Computer Avatars as being the primary topic, but if it were "Avatara" (as was the case at Avatar), then Mary would be the primary topic. (Avatar the Movie would be Madonna the singer) -- (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Eh, a lot of people would be looking for Madonna (entertainer) on Wikipedia too. Since both usage of "Madonna" is vastly popular, it's best to keep it the way it is now. You MAY have argument for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I think it'll be more productive and less headache by simply ignoring the rules this time. Srsrox (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't see why popularity should override the rules ("lasting significance"). Same goes for Status's argument--one could easily argue that "Madonna" is representative of the best-selling mother of all time, metaphorically speaking, in addition to being a 2000-year old topic of great worldwide significance. It's not all about selling records. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • This isn't a discussion as to whether or not the entertainer is the primary topic. I wouldn't say she is. But clearly, both are such big things themselves in their own right. I think it's perfect the way it is now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no need to ignore any rules to reach the conclusion that there is no primary topic here. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has two criteria: usage and long-term significance, and usage is overwhelmingly in the favour of the entertainer.--Trystan (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Problem is, a lot of people here won't agree with you Trystan which is why I recommend ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since there is no clear primary topic. Instead, we could use the guideline to show that simply put, there is no conclusive answer. Therefore, ignore that and keep things the way they are now. Srsrox (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, the problem is that PRIMARYTOPIC now has two criteria, that often conflict, as they do in this case. The historical significance criterion was added relatively recently, and serves no purpose beneficial to readers so far as I can tell. The real fix is in removing that. See this proposal, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Between the best-selling female artist of all-time and portraits of Mary and Jesus, there is really no clear primary topic. It works perfectly fine the way it is now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Current title should remain. The artwork is more historically significant on a long-term scale but readers who use Wikipedia generally don't view this as the primary topic (not saying the pop artist is the primary topic). Having "(art)" is good enough. Arre 18:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I empathize with Kauffner's reasoning above, I believe that the current structure is the best for our users. Clearly the entertainer is an important Madonna and is likely to be the subject of a large number of Madonna searches, if not the in the majority of cases. Given that, a hatnote is definitely not the same as a disambiguation page. A user confronted with a disambiguation page has a clear and obvious path to the correct page while a user confronted with an article on the art or on the mother of jesus would need to decode the hat note, possibly deal with the confusion of deciphering the meaning of the word 'disambiguation', and then follow the link. That is a disservice to our readers. Best to leave it the way it is. --regentspark (comment) 19:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although I like the idea of weighting what has been around longer, it's hard to ignore the amount of pageviews to the Entertainer page. She has been around long enough to really show that it's not recentism on a grand scale too. Because both are so significant, I just don't think there's enough to back up this change. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The term "Madonna" predates the stereotypical art subject which is at any rate typically rendered as "Madonna and Child" rather than "Madonna". "Madonna" by itself means Mary, the mother of Jesus; a topic larger than artistic interpretations. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 2 Comments People comparing the "usage" should remember that both the singer and the art have dozens of subsidiary articles, on songs, albums, paintings etc, which complicates the matter, and probably reduces the case for a clear primary topic. I find the arguments for Madonna as a synonym for Mary surprising as this is far from a common term for Mary outside art in English, even within Roman Catholicism. If this were the Italian Wikipedia there might well be a case, but it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Trystan. I have had exactly the same experience with fixing incoming links. Almost all are intended for the entertainer. It would be a different story if the title we were talking about was "A Madonna" or "The Madonna". bd2412 T 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - and this illustrates the problem with having two sometimes-contradictory definitions and purposes of "primary topic". I don't even know what the purpose of the "historical significance" definition is, and strongly urge the community to ditch it. It serves no purpose that improves the encyclopedia for anyone. The purpose of "primary topic" is to serve our readers better by, in those cases where one use of a given term is much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined, to be the one people seek when they enter that term in the search box. Period. The consideration for "historical significance" only serves to muddy the waters, as it is in this case. Anyway, no case has been made that people searching with "Madonna" are most likely searching for this topic, and there is no such case to be made. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've proposed removing the explicit consideration for "historical significance" from the definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This proposal and discussion demonstrates how it only confuses matters, and does nothing to serve our readers well. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Example_of_why_.22historical_significance.22_consideration_in_PRIMARYTOPIC_is_a_problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Trystan. The significance/usage criteria are not mutually exclusive. Given the inherent ambiguity in the term, readers are best served by directing them to a disambiguation page. olderwiser 17:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While long-term significance would lean towards the art subject, usage seems to lean toward the entertainer. When two things are in conflict like that, calling one a primary topic is problematic. When there's no clear primary topic, a disambiguation page is the right solution for the undisambiguated name. oknazevad (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Primary topic" is not an evaluation of importance. It's our best reckoning of how likely it is that a Wikipedia user (either a reader typing in a search term, or an editor creating a link) will want a particular page of that name. In this case—and I feel this is an important point—the "historical significance" provision is what argues against giving the Madonna page to Madonna Ciccone, should the barbarians gather at that gate. Madonna is most useful as a dab. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree in principle that the historical usage seems to be primary, and certainly would have been uncontroversial prior to the mid-1980s; it probably will be again in a few more decades. I think that historical usage is important, and that if we had to choose which article should have an unqualified title, then Madonna Ciccone would be the article to disambiguate. But in this case a significant proportion of readers will be looking for her; perhaps even a large majority, for as long as Wikipedia's been around, and into the near future, at least. So while I don't think she should have the article without qualification, based on historical significance, I think that a disambiguation page at that title is the best solution. P Aculeius (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

Once again, there is a discussion at Talk:Madonna (entertainer) that seems to affect this page. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with San Lucchese Madonna[edit]

Not really enough coverage to warrant a separate page for the San Lucchese altarpiece. M. Caecilius (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Madonna is up for discussion at Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Requested_move_8 where it is requested that the singer's article be moved to "Madonna". -- (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I feel that many of the painting illustrating this article are not the most representative paintings on the subject. Many great paintings are left out and for example the modern section is not showing a modern Madomma, and so on. I will change the lead picture and the modern section picture, add some to gallery - and add some more later, if no objections are raised. Hafspajen (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Madonna (entertainer) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Section cleanup[edit]

Lead mentions modern artists, and some of their works are listed near the very end, but the "Modern images" section where they actually belong does not. The "Islamic view" section is misnamed (it has no content on Islamic views, only a historical story about Mohammed). Not sure what a good name for this section is.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The "Modern images" section rightly covers popular images by roadsides etc. Islamic views on this and everything else are vastly affected by any relevant comments recorded by the Prophet. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


This Talk page could really do with archiving. I am not currently able to set this up. Would some nice editor please consider doing so? Thanks 2A01:4C8:1039:89E4:3824:FCDE:A198:8EC (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


This is not my area at all so please feel free to tell me (politely) to shut up. I note that in our article European goldfinch we say in the lead The goldfinch is often depicted in Italian renaissance paintings of the Madonna and Child. with a link from Madonna and Child to this article. When you get here, though, there is no mention of the goldfinch, and there's no example (that I have yet found) of a painting with one, for example Madonna del cardellino. The European goldfinch article does have a nice bit about the religious symbolism, here, but it seems a little strange for a reader to follow the link from its lead and find nothing at all here. Should this be changed and a little bit added here? I'd be interested to know what you think. Best wishes to all 2A01:4C8:1039:89E4:3824:FCDE:A198:8EC (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Professor Google can help here - taking you to Madonna of the Goldfinch for a start. Or the Commons category which has others. Something could be added here, but there are so many variant image types of the M+C it's not surprising we have nothing. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)