# Talk:Rebel Heart

The article was fully protected due to removal and addition of an alternative album cover.  Now that the album cover is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 7#File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png it would be helpful if the deletion caption, {{ffdc|1=Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png|log=2017 May 7}}, could be added the alternative album cover's caption to alert readers and editors to the discussion. Aspects (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done clpo13(talk) 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Can an administrator please link Rebel Heart (song) to the first instance of mentioning the word "Rebel Heart" and in the track list? —IB [ Poke ] 05:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done clpo13(talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170207200650/http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691 to http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ariacharts.com.au/news/40998/30-years-of-the-aria-charts----u2%2C-madonna-and-kylie-have-most-
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160526024125/http://www.5music.com.tw/CDTop.asp?top=6 to http://www.5music.com.tw/CDTop.asp?top=6
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621042110/http://www.madonna.com/newalbum to http://www.madonna.com/newalbum
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there is not a legacy but a kind of "Impact" in Madonna own career and in other things. Like recent albums of pop stars like Lemonade (Beyonce) or Anti (Rihanna) have a section named "impact" because theirs albums impacted in anyway in their careers, generated references in popular culture and bringed "new things" in this industry of the digital era, I think that there is a huge percent in Rebel Heart to justify a section. There is a possible example of this in the spanish article. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 08:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chrisonduras, I will have to disagree with you. The impact section for those articles spoke about the album's sociological, political, musical prowess in setting off a dialogue in the media. Plus the accomplishments. For Rebel Heart I fail to see such a dialogue being established in the media, except the general consensus that it was an underperformer in Madonna's level. The snapchat release, album cover etc are mainly covered and are too specific for the song articles. —IB [ Poke ] 12:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, IndianBio I expected this answer. Primarily was and still just a random idea. I mean, the album divided the critics for the commercial reason and was looked as a flop in Madonna's career compared with her background of successive success. Nothing surprise when this is being common now in the music industry when the media calling "flops" albums of virtually every [mainstream] "diva" (Unlike bands/male artists) like Lady Gaga, Britney Spears or Katy Perry. And for example is already mentioned what happened in the process and the leak problem and how was resolved but it doesn't contain the analysis of the media about this, the impact, consequences and solutions that they extracted about the "Madonna problem" that is considered the biggest in the music by several publishers around the world. Is compared with the repetetive case of the "surprise" release of self-title album Beyonce, same that is mentioned in several sections during the article and again in the impact section. I mean, the leak analysis is just an example. Even with the commercial performance there is analysis in her and alongisde be a number one in several countries is not something to try lightly and the media noted this, specially when newer artists or contemporary reach so different places with "flops" or "successful" albums. Just look an example with the Unbreakable album tablet. The current status of this version is great and balanced. Now, I just thought in the extra mile with Rebel Heart beyond the general consensus that is "her best album since..."/"underperformer in Madonna's level" and look it as a FA. Every Wikipedia article are never complete. I saw here for example, that she broke other digital record with iTunes when her 6 songs topped the charts in 48 countries and is not mentioned in the article. The album was released in digital format, so is supposed to be a good information. Even after that explanation, I don't care about the section. It was just a random idea and Wikipedia is not a democracy, so no problem. Best regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The alternative image File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png is relisted for the second time at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 5#File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, so please forgive/enlighten me: the personnel section lists "performers" and "musicians". Performers lists the vocalists, musicians everybody else. However, vocalists shouldn't be conflated with performers nor should they be excluded from being musicians (they can get quite mad if you do). I guess what's meant here are "vocalists" and "instrumentalists". However, there are quite a few "programmers" in there and those could also go to the "technical" section. But the latter is a difficult topic, I just wanted to mention that singers are musicians, too, and that musicians are also performing. If my understanding of the English language is correct, that is. 
--77.179.112.229 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Musician could be considered performer as well. I think the subsections could be removed and merged. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I checked the gaon chart, and while here on Wikipedia it says that the album was N.1 in his standard edition and N.7 on the Deluxe, It is actually wrong. The N.1 version was the latter, while the standard was N.7 158.148.80.134 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)