# Talk:Madame X (album)

Should this be considered to add on to the Madame X (album) page as Alternative Artwork/Standard Edition Artwork? https://www.drownedmadonna.com/2019/04/17/madonnas-madame-x-standard-edition-cover/ Rblxhrt (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the deluxe edition cover is most widely recognized as the cover of the album, in Spotify, Youtube And other platforms Raising hell1999 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we only include one cover, per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover? The template states: "[p]er WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternative cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included. The only significant difference between the standard and deluxe is the text and pose, etc. Surely, one of the images is in violation of WP:NFCC#3. livelikemusic talk! 12:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, probably eventually, one will be removed when more information becomes available, including a legitimate pre-order instead of a mostly blanked out album that pops up in Apple Music. However, this is a bit of an unusual circumstance because the deluxe edition became available first, then the standard came later, and I think more people recognise the deluxe cover, although that's just how it seems to me. Ss112 14:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
To me, it seems to be the same patterns that followed MDNA and Rebel Heart, in that the deluxe editions are more recognized, while other editions could be described within the article's body text. livelikemusic talk! 14:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, like her last two relaeses, the deluxe edition became prevalent more and I can see it being used in third party sources also. Nip it in the bud while we still have time? :P —IB [ Poke ] 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, Madonna's official site sent me an email about the album, which shows the deluxe album artwork only. —IB [ Poke ] 15:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If it comes down to it, I definitely support the deluxe edition cover being used, as it's still being used more widely. I do see a lot of people commenting that they think the sewed-lip look of the standard version represents something significant as well though, so maybe time will tell which will become more widely recognised. Anyway, it's not a big deal to me if one is removed; I didn't research too thoroughly where the standard edition cover came from, perhaps against my better judgement as it's still not unheard of at this point for fans to fabricate things. I spent a good hour or so yesterday thinking the track list and cover art for the deluxe were fake and fan creations. I just assumed the source provided for the other, uploaded by Shakiraeldorado, was correct and replaced it because it was oversized (750×750) and a JPG. Ss112 15:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether it is nipped or not, it's still going to be problematic based on past experiences, and some current ones at different articles! But, at this point, it seems like the deluxe is the one to use, and if history proves anything, the standard will be phased out (like Rebel Heart). Also, in regards to what the other user uploaded, I warn you to use caution; they've been known to upload images that violate the fair-use policies, repeatedly, with fan made artworks uploaded. livelikemusic talk! 15:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Can some one see if they can access this link? There seems to be a Bluray now :O —IB [ Poke ] 15:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I can, and it does not state much. Release date is Release Date: 5/28/2019. Runtime is 100 minutes, and is produced by Kino International. livelikemusic talk! 15:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I meant in terms of the artwork. And I agree, never go by what Shakiraeldorado uploads. Pretty much false images most of the time. —IB [ Poke ] 15:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I just found this online, and I'm not sure how real it is. Plus, I'm continually seeing the "standard" artwork without "Madonna" written on it, proving that the image Shakiraeldorado uploaded was, as per before, edited (likely by the uploader). livelikemusic talk! 15:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the above was also present in Amazon UK before it was removed by Interscope. Seems like a Super Deluxe version. —IB [ Poke ] 15:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm finding that it's a deluxe box set, planned for release alongside the album. livelikemusic talk! 15:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case even the Deluxe box set is using the image of Madonna with blond hair rather than the brunette one. Ugh, we need to wait till official links are available. But for the time being we have to remove that standard image as its a clear case of fan-upload. —IB [ Poke ] 15:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the official press release is coming, since the single is premiering.... NOW! livelikemusic talk! 16:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Update, the album is up for pre-order on her website Madonna.com which shows the brunette version for most of the Formats. *Facepalm*. —IB [ Poke ] 16:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Admittedly, it does feature both. livelikemusic talk! 16:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but mostly the brunette version for maximum of the formats. The blonde version is only on the Deluxe Digital album that's what I can see (not considering T-shirts and tote bags lol). —IB [ Poke ] 16:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Mess. It also seems like the deluxe is digital only, based on her official website. livelikemusic talk! 16:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
In Madonna's official store, one brunette cover image is used for the Standard CD and all vinyl versions, whereas another brunette cover image is used for the Deluxe 2CD and cassette versions. The blonde cover image is used only for the Deluxe Digital album and the boxset. MsigDK (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Deluxe physical also uses the brunette one. So it's pretty clear which picture is more widely used. Bluesatellite (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I definitely agree that this will probably be a MDNA and Rebel Heart situation, where the deluxe is considered. The page on her site for the album uses the deluxe / blonde one. — Status (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not the same at all. The brunette cover is used for nearly all formats (except two: the deluxe digital and boxset). Like I said, even the deluxe physical used the brunette one. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
(→) I agree with Bluesatellite too. Currently it seems like the brunette cover is the one being used in most formats, rather than the blonde cover. We should stick with that one as the default and unless the blonde one has enough notability, it can be removed. —IB [ Poke ] 08:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That sounds ace; glad we were able to resolve so swiftly. Let's hope it does not spiral, and people continue to try and re-add the deluxe. livelikemusic talk! 13:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
SO what if the deluxe edition gains enough notability? Are we gonna remove the standard one then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KARANSUTTA (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey guys, after the album release, I feel that the deluxe edition cover (the blonde one) has gained more notability than the standard edition cover. Don't you guys think that we should replace the standard edition cover with the deluxe edition cover?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KARANSUTTA (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No sources reviewed that blonde artwork, so the notability is unproven. The brunette cover is used for many releases incl. standard CD, digital download, and various vinyl releases. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
However, none of the streaming services (Apple Music, YouTube music, Spotify, Deezer) contain the version with the brunette hair. All of them contain the deluxe version with the blonde hair.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KARANSUTTA (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC) 

Guys I really think we should show the blonde cover as the alternate cover, I mean blonde cover is present on all the streaming platforms and streaming is the major music consumption mode nowadays. There are several album articles for other musicians, where they often show alternate covers (Rihanna, Ciara). So I don't understand why these rules are so rigid here.
Hey GUys, please can anyone discuss this ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KARANSUTTA (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Deluxe cover could be added as an alternate cover as it is significantly different from the original, and is the main album artwork used on all digital platforms. Other articles for studio albums such as Folklore (Taylor Swift album) and Good Girl Gone Bad also add in alternate covers. The k nine 2 (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there no further discussion about this? The alternate deluxe cover is significantly different from the standard cover and is the more recognised cover because of digital and streaming platforms, and hence I think it should be featured as an alternative cover on the article. The k nine 2 (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The YouTube upload seems to have May 2nd as I Rise's release date, but I definitely remember it being released at 00:00 on May 3rd. The release was at midnight across the globe. Maybe the YouTube video date differs because it was uploaded on the 2nd but not made public until the 3rd, or due to time zone differences. It was definitely released on iTunes on May 3rd.
Also, how do we know for definite whether I Rise is actually an "official" single, and not just a pre-released album track?Samrp45 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Few days ago someone changed “Beautiful Game” into “Dark Ballet” – it was confirmed that those songs are the same? infsai (dyskusja) 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Madame X (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "metacritic":
From Music (Madonna album): "Music by Madonna". Metacritic. Retrieved April 2, 2009.
From Rebel Heart: "Reviews for Rebel Heart". Metacritic. Archived from the original on March 15, 2015. Retrieved March 20, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Hard Candy (Madonna album): "Hard Candy". MetaCritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved July 8, 2011.
From MDNA (album): "Reviews and Tracks for MDNA by Madonna". Metacritic. Archived from the original on March 24, 2012. Retrieved March 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From American Life: "American Life". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved February 8, 2009.
From Confessions on a Dance Floor: "Confessions on a Dance Floor: Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved July 7, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Not neutral tone. Reads like a fan blog, not an encyclopedic description.
Hyperbolic language.  "met with highly positive reviews", "response from fans and listeners was overwhelmingly positive".  (Just say positive)
The latter - "response from fans and listeners was overwhelmingly positive" - also requires citations

Madame X is the new #01 in Portuguese Official Album Charts
https://blitz.pt/principal/update/2019-06-25-Madonna-entra-para-a-lideranca-do-Top-Nacional?fbclid=IwAR0GabS_kWV__UBbNdzf-Y1uPl5vVGhax4Xp_PpOpQL1wb2wTolX9Uobips  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno gouv (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC) 

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Madame X (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rollingstone":
From Madonna Studies: Mastering Madonna, Rolling Stone
From American Life: Ratliff, Ben (April 22, 2003). "Madonna American Life". Rolling Stone. Retrieved April 14, 2012.
From I'm Breathless: Coleman, Mark (June 14, 1990). "I'm Breathless by Madonna". Rolling Stone. Retrieved August 10, 2011.
From True Blue (Madonna album): Sigerson, Davitt (June 17, 1986). "Madonna: True Blue Album review". Rolling Stone. Retrieved April 7, 2009.
From Sticky & Sweet Tour (album): "Madonna: Album Guide". Rolling Stone. Retrieved September 21, 2011.
From Crave (song): Zemler, Emily (May 10, 2019). "Hear Madonna And Swae Lee Team Up for 'Crave'". Rolling Stone. Retrieved May 10, 2019.
From Erotica (Madonna album): Berger, Arion (November 26, 1992). "Erotica". Rolling Stone. Retrieved July 4, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is “I Rise” now included on this page as a single when I was turned down when I tried to add this song after it was released. In fact, “I Rise” was released prior to “Crave.” And if you include the PROMO single on the album, why isn’t “Future” and “Dark Ballet” also included as singles on the page? I thought promo singles were not shown on the album page in the chronological listing of songs released from the album? Slater619 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that I Rise was a promo single until July 19, when it became an official single; as a promo single it couldn't be included in the infobox Blueberry72 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
What sources support that "I Rise" is an official single? A remix EP alone is not enough evidence to say that it is a single imo. Wouldn't it be preferable to get some sort of official announcement from either Madonna or her label to support this information? Or a source about it being sent to radio at least? Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to keep considering it a promotional single and remove it from the infobox. Blueberry72 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems more like a promotional single to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"Singles" term for this album is quite confusing. The clear single releases were only for "Medellin" (obviously lead single) and "Crave" which got an official "radio adds" in the United States. "I Rise" status as a "single" is still disputable IMO. It did receive airplay on dance radio but I couldn't find its official radio add. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. It seems like the separation between "single" and "promotional single" is becoming increasingly blurred lately. I personally do not know whether it is or is not a single, but I just think it is important to have a citation if it is going to described as a single here. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
A citation would also be needed to support whether or not "God Control" is a single, because a music video by itself does not establish it as a single imo. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You mean like the one I added from Rolling Stone stating as the third single specifically but that you removed anyway? --Librious (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Librious: Apologies for the late response. Thank you for the source as Rolling Stone does explicitly call it a single. I am not sure if a singular source is enough, but it is at least one piece of evidence. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Official sources (Madonna.com, Interscope, Universal), official radio adds, and/or physical single release are the indicators of "single" release IMO. See also WP:PROMOSINGLE Bluesatellite (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Bluesatellite and Aoba47 – I agree with everything that has been stated so far. What are your thoughts on changing "I Rise"'s article back as a promo single until further sources can be found and/or created? Carbrera (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC).
I think that is the best course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I want to hear Status's 2cents for this edit. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I am pinging @MadonnaFan: since they undid this edit on the "I Rise" page. I do not believe "I Rise" has been confirmed as a single since I would like to see their opinion on it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems as if iTunes is the only source being used for evidence; the " – Single" attachment is automatically produced when a singer/group releases a singular song or remix EP to iTunes so IMO we still need something more. Carbrera (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC).
I agree with you about that. Thank you for the comment. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

When it was announced to be a single??? Johnny Gnecco (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Gold certification in Portugal (nearly Platinum) — Jenesaispop (sp)
--Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and it’s made me wonder if it is actually considered a single from Madame X? The song is featured on the album but just a different version. I believe it should be added as a single from Madame X as the remix of “What It Feels Like For A Girl” was released as a single off of Music even though that mix wasn’t featured on the album. 2A02:C7E:2902:FD00:1DBD:E84A:B808:FB0D (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The album version of "What It Feels Like for a Girl" was released as single, only that the remix was promoted in radio and TV. The released version of "Back That Up to the Beat" is just a demo that was released as a stand-alone single with no intentions to promote this album. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Its not even a standalone single as there is no associated news announcing it as such ala "Hey You" or like "Bloody Mary" which got sent to radio. —IB [ Poke ] 19:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Madame X (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: 11JORN (talk · contribs) 07:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
First I'm going to jump around, looking at various parts and commenting. After that I'll make sure I hit all the formal GA criteria. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Springsteen photo and mention, I don't think his album is important enough for this topic. Is there a source specifically comparing his chart presence as preventing Madame X from reaching number 1? Because chart success is not a zero-sum game. People buying Springsteen's album simply outnumbered people buying Madonna's. There would be very little crossover between them; that is, the money spent on Springsteen's rock music would hardly be considered taken away from Madonna's Latin/trap/pop/world music. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Removed. Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What is the source for the sample of Tchaikovsky in "Dark Ballet"? Is it in the liner notes? If so, let's throw a named ref on it.
Ref 64 cites this info. Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The table of release history has no references. Do we need such a table? Can it be replaced by the prose descriptions already present? Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Removed! Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The guideline WP:NOEXEC isn't clear about whether we list Mike Dean in the infobox as "also exec", but the executive producers are not named in the article, so there isn't a backup source if the infobox is removed. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that removing the infobox should not take information away from the article, with a few exceptions. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find any source mentioning Mike Dean as an executive producer, so I removed this bit. Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the ToolForge link analyzer called Yahoo News "potentially spammy". The citation supports the idea that Madonna was criticized for her rose-pierces-nipple early version of the album artwork. If we keep the Yahoo source we should list Whitney Vasquez as the author, as seen in the Malaysian page for Yahoo. Other sources published similar stories, for instance ET Online, Metro UK, and NME magazine. I don't really have a problem with Yahoo News, especially since it's not alone in publishing the criticism. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't the augmented reality performance of "Medellín" be mentioned in the lead section? Seems like it made a splash in the media. Maybe a bit more could be added to the article body about how Madonna and the AR people worked to create the four avatars. Maybe a link to volumetric capture. Just a suggestion.
Done! Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I made a bunch of reading flow changes along with manual of style and grammar tweaks. It was faster than listing them all here.
Thanks! Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I removed Madonna's concert film Madame X from being described as a Paramount+ original production. Sources don't support that.
I think we need to mention the Amazon Prime documentary The World of Madame X, released in July 2019. We already cite an MTV source mentioning the project, and there's also a Rolling Stone source which can be cited. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It is cited on the "Release and promotion" section already. Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Formal review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Review is on hold for minor improvements as described above. Major article contributors Chrishm21 and Apoxyomenus should feel free to complete the GA requirements if 11JORN continues being inactive. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Binksternet Issues addressed. Thank you for the review! Alex reach me! 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations to 11JORN , Chrishm21 and Apoxyomenus. The article passes GA! Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thumbs up. Congratulations. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the alternate covers (digital and phsyical 'deluxe', as well as 'super deluxe') be added? If so, the same should apply to both MDNA and Rebel Heart? what do you think @IndianBio:? Christian (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)