Talk:MDNA (album)

Promotion

Please someone change this: In December 2011, it was announced that Madonna would perform at the Super Bowl XLVI Halftime Show at the Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana. Madonna collaborated with Cirque du Soleil in producing the show, and was chosen in lieu of American recording artist Lady Gaga.[45] Rehearsal for the halftime performance accumulated to an estimated 320 hours;

I don't know how to do it. And protect the article. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.146.2 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Album title

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by Everything Is Beautiful (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

M.D.N.A → M.D.N.A. –The article's current title is "M.D.N.A", this is not the correct album title. "M.D.N.A." is the correct album title as per Madonna's official website, the article's name should be changed accordingly. Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support The site is kinda explicit -> "M.D.N.A.". <- Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. Okay then I'll change it to the correct title. Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:10, 12 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speaking of the album title, I had started the article "Luv (album)" after reading this was the likely title of the album. If this is not accurate, would someone mind deleting the article I created? Right now it serves no purpose except as a re-direct to the main Madonna article or a placeholder for a future album titled "Luv". Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Already done by Bluesatellite. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Title controversity

IN THE ARTICLE?

Madonna new album title 'MDNA' criticised by anti-drugs group

Madonna has received criticism from anti-drugs campaigners over her new album's title. The singer has confirmed that her 12th studio LP will be called MDNA, which is an abbreviation of her name.

However, an anti-drugs group has now slammed the star for using the title, saying it is too similar to the class A drug MDMA. Lucy Dawe from Cannabis Skunk Sense told The Sun that Madonna has made "an ill-advised decision" regarding the album name.

The tabloid also reports that Madonna revealed the release date for MDNA as March 12 during her interview on The Graham Norton Show, but this has yet to be confirmed.

The star has announced that she plans to embark on a new world tour later this year to support the release of her new music.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/ ... group.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.182.16.5 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been added. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed tracks

Was Bang Bang also a confirmed track or just a rumor? I don't remember... 87.182.43.41 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumor since no reliable sources report on its confirmation. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Bang Bang. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

I think this should be re-directed back to Madonna. There is hardly any info and no (specific) release date. Artwork sections talk about artwork when there is no artwork in the info box. When a specific date is given, then I think it should be opened. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Passes WP:N. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Explain. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 03:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be redirected, there are information backed up by highly reliable sources. Unlike Rihanna's Talk That Talk, which started as "Rihanna's sixth album", the name has been confirmed by Madonna herself. We have an "artwork" section, meaning that the album cover will be released sometime in the future. If we don't have an album cover is not our problem it depends on Madonna's camp to release it, not us. If it has not a release date now, that is not a requeriment to have an article. Detox (Dr. Dre album) has been here since 2004 and the album will be (perhaps) released someday, or Chinese Democracy which stayed four years in the same position that Detox. The purposes of redirects are here, and I see no reason for redirect a page with 21 RS. Merging is neither a solution. Sending content to Madonna (a biography) is not appropiate because a)"Madonna" is that, a biography; b)"Madonna" is quite long. And deleting it is an overused "soution" here. Information will come every day until the album is released, and even after that. In resume: M.D.N.A. is a notable future album by an A-list artist, regardless if it is short or it has no release date, the article passes WP:N. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said it should be deleted, I said re-directed. There is no release date, so I don't see how it passes notability. And it is a little bit favouritism to say that "M.D.N.A. is a notable future album by an A-list artist, regardless if it is short or it has no release date", because you're basically saying that if it was anyone else, you would re-direct it. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 04:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You're usual steps are always deletions. Even if I like Madonna or not (which is not) is irrelevant to the page or Wikipedia. If you don't see how it passes WP:N click here and many other users will tell you the same. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-direct is not a delete. And without a release date, I just don't see notability. March 2012 is so vague and could be easily changed. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Re-direct is not a delete." but is hide content under a "vague" reasoning. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this article! He's great. I don't wanna wait for an article until the release date like the german wikipedia! 87.182.45.130 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

With 5 confirmed tracks, a title, controversy, tentative release date (month if you prefer), and a lead single coming in a couple of weeks, the article surely passes notably. It may not be a huge article, but it has enough to justify its existence. — Status {^talk_contribs 01:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It passes WP:GNG. Charts are not the only factors that matter. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Calvin leaned a lesson here... He knows what i'm talking about. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

M.D.N.A. is a tetragrammaton

The title "M.D.N.A." is a tetragrammaton used in Judaism. Madonna has been involved in Kabbalah since 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.80.157 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, she has already confirmed it means "Madonna" and it is a pseudo-blend of her name. She has not mentioned anything regarding Religion, Judaism nor Kabbalah. That's opinion and not a fact. If it was a tetragram it would be "M.D.N.N." 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "tetragram" as you said, it's a tetragrammaton (at least read the article!). It's as tetragrammaton as well as MLVC (her real name Madonna Louisa Veronica Cicconne). Madonna is just obssessed with occult Kabbalah studies, including tetragrammatons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.9.33 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, nonsense and completely your opinion. I wish we all knew Madonna as personally as you as you seemed to be very knowledgeable of her being "obsessed with occult Kabbalah studies" which itself is very ignorant. For your information MLVC is an acronym of Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, not a tetragrammaton. Also for your information a "tetragram" is another name for tetragrammaton, so I suggest you get your information correct and do some reading yourself. Madonna herself has confirmed that MDNA stands for "Madonna" and she has not mentioned anything about it being a tetragrammaton and just because she studies Kabbalah does not meaning it has any hidden meaning. She has already said that she likes the triple entendre the name suggests but she has officially confirmed that it means is all but her forename. I hope this clears things up. 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Either provide very reliable sources, else don't post bullshit like this IP. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Production Credits

Madonna is listed as co-producer of "Masterpiece", which is listed as a track from M.D.N.A. in its separate entry. I tried several times to list Madonna as one of the producers before the article was locked, but it was always immediately reverted.220.236.254.54 (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Added. Madonna has always been the producer of all her albums since True Blue (1986). Bluesatellite (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Background info

" Well I did a good majority of the record with Martin Solveig, who is a DJ/producer. I love his sound, it’s really fresh. It doesn’t sound like anybody else’s. He’s brilliantly talented. Happy, I would say his music is happy. It puts a smile on your face and I hope my record does that too. I collaborated again with William Orbit who tends to make me more introspective and a bit… I don’t know… His songs tend to be… I don’t want to say dark, but more thoughtful and introspective. It’s a good combination of the light and the dark. Oh yes, lots of dancing, cheerleading, football players… you name it! " From this official Golden Globe YouTube account video. Also can be found posted here .

I think it is the kind of material that goes to that section of the article, no? I just don't know if the link suffice as reliable sources by wikipedia's terms...Hope I didn't do something wrong. Chrisjcxa (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Album Title

The album title does not have periods, it is called MDNA, confirmed by her record label and manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.222.176.146 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

madonna.com has updated the reference [1] and the album title is now called simply MDNA with no points inbetween (before it was written as M.D.N.A.) Its the same for "Give Me All Your Luvin" (the original madonna.com link stated the single as "Gimme All Your Luvin") - they have updated both links with their new titles. Even Madonna's official youtube account has released an MDNA Teaser video here [2] 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 21:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets see what the press release on 2nd Feb states it to be, then we can move., — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

But they still call it M.D.N.A. everywhere. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The official press release, issued by Interscope/Universal a few minutes ago and posted by fansite MadonnaTribe.com refers to the album as MDNA, with no punctuation marks. The press release further states that iTunes will offer an exclusive pre-order of an 18-track Deluxe Edition from 3-6 February. Apart from William Orbit, Martin Solveig and Madonna herself, officially confirmed co-producers include The Demolition Crew, Benny Benassi, Alle Benassi, Hardy 'Indiigo' Muanza and Michael Malih.MsigDK (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but fansite is unacceptable here. But I have found a reliable source Bluesatellite (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I added Benny Benassi days ago when Metacritic named him as one of the producers along William Orbit, Martin Solveig and Madonna, but someone removed it and wrote that he denied working with her with no source. I knew Metacritic wouldn't make mistakes like this but i couldn't say no more. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Benny Benassi denied any involvement in Madonna's new album (via Twitter), but obviously, he was lying.MsigDK (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not lying, but he may not have contributed any new material to the album and instead older, existing signed-over music that he wrote may have been used. 12.162.122.5 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

MDNA (album) → MDNA – The album's official title, per press release and the trailer posted on Madonna's official YouTube account. No need for the disamb. A "for, see" at the top of the article would work perfectly fine. The other article is "Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)". Confusion may arise, but the titles aren't the same thing. — Status {^talk_contribs 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but I don't see why the album is the primary topic here. Mitochondrial DNA is regularly referred to as MDNA (see gscholar search) and is therefore a very plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Have to agree with everything Jenks24 said, Zach. MtDNA is widely, vastly referred as MdNA than to have this one be renamed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support As long as 'Mitochondrial DNA' article is not titled MDNA, I see no reason to have disambiguation. FYI, there's not even one word 'MDNA' on the article Mitochondrial DNA itself, check it! Bluesatellite (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what I was thinking... It says mtDNA. — Status {^talk_contribs 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Jenks24 explained it. there's no more good reason to do it. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 11:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Jenks and Leoglas. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support – exactly what Bluesatellite and Status said, Mitochondrial DNA is referred only as MtDNA in the article. Why can't we just put a link to this album page on the Mitochondrial DNA and vice versa, before the lead intro? Its funny no-one seemed to have a problem with this page when it was named M.D.N.A. with the points inbetween, but take them away and it seems to cause problems! 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 23:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are over 2,940,000 Ghits for the drug and 2,090,000 for the acronym itself. There's no real meaning on this. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agreed with Jenks24 - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jenks24 worded it perfectly. Saying it in my own words would be redundant. Wait a few months then reconsider the move with Wikipedia page hits in mind. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: please add the information the DNA being known as MDNA or mDNA to the article. It will help avoid future churn. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Live Nation

I hope you realize that Live Nation is not a record label. She signed a so called 360 degree deal with Live Nation, but that doesn't mean her albums are going to be released on Live Nation (simply because, LN is not a label). We don't know the details of the contract, but most likely Live Nation chooses the record label to release and distribute albums and singles - in this case Interscope Records.--z33k (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Live Nation Entertainment is an entertainment company which operates more than one thing, one of which is Live Nation itself. LN Entertainment contains Artist Nation and Front Line Management Group, both of which would be used to release and manage her album. There has been a lot of confusion with this deal, and we're just gonna have to wait and see how the label's are formally listed. But for now, we know she has a deal with Live Nation/Interscope, so that's how it is for now. — Status {^talk_contribs 20:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

On the "Give Me All Your Luvin'" single credits it states "℗2012 Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. under exclusive license to Interscope Records", so they should be actually classed as a label as Interscope are only a label licensee. 2012 ^{Communicate|Nicely} 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clearing this up. :) — Status {^talk_contribs 17:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true. P+C only means the copyright belongs to the company that is Live Nation. Interscope is the label that releases and distributes the album and singles. But this is a never-ending discussion, as most people on Wikipedia does not know how the record business works. So i won't even bother arguing further. It's your loss with false information.--z33k (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please enlighten us then. — Status {^talk_contribs 08:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Z33k, holding copyright doesn't make it "label". As previously I said, Live Nation is an entertainment company, but not a record company. http://www.livenationentertainment.com/about_us/ Bluesatellite (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

editprotected

Please add

"M.D.N.A." redirects here. For other uses, see MDNA.

65.92.181.120 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Album cover

Reports are beginning to surface that the current cover is actually the deluxe edition cover. Should we remove the current cover or just keep an eye out for any valid reports? —Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

When reliable sources or Madonna's own publicist confirms another image as the standard edition, then we can change it, else it stays. Also, the deluxe edition needs to be significantly different from the standard one to be included, ala The Fame Monster and Talk That Talk. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking of the album cover, MTV wrote a lil' bit about it here - http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1678197/madonna-mdna-album.jhtml

Number one in 51 countries

If anyone can find a reliable source for the album being number one in all 51 iTunes stores in the world, it would be great for the article! — Status {^talk_contribs 17:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It actually topped 50 iTunes charts out of 51 countries, only in Australia the album peaked at #2. But, I can't find a reliable source for that. Yahoo France wrote it reached #1 in 49 countries within 12 hours, excluding Japan and Australia. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of commercial performance in itunes should, appropriately, note that it was offered at a reduced price in most(?) countries. It could then be noted that this did not occur in all countries - for example Australia. JKW111 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go: http://www.billboard.com/#/news/madonna-sets-2012-world-tour-dates-1006110152.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.169.25 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Interscope confirmed this. As I said before, the album topped 50 iTunes Store out of 51 countries (Australia is the only country where it failed to reach #1). Bluesatellite (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Martin Solveig tracks

Martin Solveig revealed in an interview with French newspaper Le Parisien that he co-wrote and co-produced 6 songs for the album: "Give Me All Your Luvin'", "Turn Up the Radio" "I Don't Give A", "I Fucked Up", "Beautiful Killer" and "B-Day Song". During the same interview, he said it was he and Guy Oseary who first thought about including M.I.A. in "Give Me All Your Luvin'", while it was Madonna's idea to include Nicki Minaj. Both are featured on more than one song.--MsigDK (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Triple Entendre

Madonna unveiled the triple entendre of her album title on Tonight Show with Jay Leno, when Leno asked her if it represents both her name and “Madonna DNA,” she replied in the affirmative. She then implied that it’s also a reference to the drug MDMA, or ecstasy, which provides “euphoric feelings of love.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/01/madonna-talks-new-album-and-super-bowl-performance-on-the-tonight-show/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.137.179 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Madonna.com 12-track edition?

While the title of the post reads: "MDNA - 12 Track Album Cover Revealed", its link says: "mdna-15-track-album-cover-revealed". As the 15 tracks before were confirmed for the standard, I say we wait until there is confirmation from another source on this. Seeing as how her official website hasn't been exactly accurate as of release (the album title, single title, etc.) — Status {^talk_contribs 04:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see iTunes has updated to show this change. This era has been pretty messy and confusing... — Status {^talk_contribs 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

cover art

the album cover art is wrong here, the deluxe edition is the one where they show full body image, while the main/standard edition is the head close up, can somone change it???

--91.154.110.124 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. You're wrong. The deluxe was released first and the standard cover was released at a later date. The way it is now is correct. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Britney Spears on Girls Gone Wild?

i don't know if it's true or not but i saw a link on Madonna's last.fm page that posted by a fan... this page is in Portuguese. here it is Link. i wonder if you like to do a research about it. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 02:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Girls Gone Wild lawsuit

Should this be included? 8.30.154.130 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetizing the Producers list

This discussion will further be discussed here — Status {^talk_contribs 01:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

There is not a rule for alphabetizing the Producers list. 'Alle Benassi' did not Produce nearly as much of the album as William Orbit or Martin Solveig. If you go to other Madonna album pages, Madonna is always first, then the other Main producers. It is NEVER alphabetical. Putting Alle Benassi's name first makes it seem like that person did the most Producing, which is completely incorrect and confusing for a Reader of the page. This page should be in correlation with Madonna's other album pages.

Thegirlieshow (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's no rule for alphabetizing, see Template:Infobox album#Producer. As far as I see in album articles of WP:MADONNA, the producer names are putted by their involvement. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lame edit war over a fancrufty change. "Madonna should be listed first because is her album" is the only thing I've been reading on this page for a day, Really? Do we need the "main producers", the template is for the inclusion of the producers not to order them in an order that suits you POVs. According to what or who Madonna, Solveig and B. Benassi are the most important producers, and according to who or what the "main producers" are listed first. Did any reader is confused because Madonna is not listed first? As now, in this page, I see that no one is "confused" because she is not listed first. Just because it is in all other albums doesn't mean that is correct. The "see release history" label that appears in many pages is incorrect and it still being added. Stop being so fans and start being professional. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not POV, not fancrufty at all. I mean, we have to be consistent, if the producers are listed alphabetically, then all WP:MADONNA articles should follow it. There's no rule for "main producers", but no rule for alphabetizing either. This is what this discussion for, so let's decide it here. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to who?? Go look at the TRACK LIST. William Orbit and Martin Solveig produced 12 of the tracks, 6 each (on the deluxe edition). How do you know if Readers are confused or not? Most people don't edit, they just READ the article, and BELIEVE what they see. Yes, Madonna's name should be first because it is MADONNA'S ALBUM. Madonna co-produced all of the tracks, Madonna wrote/co-wrote all of the tracks, the vocals are Madonna's... it is Madonna's album. And YES, every page that is about Madonna should be in correlation with the rest. I am a 'fan', obviously, and that is why I want the page to be easy for new readers.. so they are correctly informed. Thegirlieshow (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you know if Readers are confused or not? Most people don't edit, they just READ the article, and BELIEVE what they see. What are you, God? And are you the voice of the "confused people" (I still seeing no evidence to claim that they exist)? TGS gave me the reason why I'm saying that this is pure fancruft, BlueSat. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Choosing which person you choose to be listed first is a single person's opinion. ABC order is the way to go, whether it is or isn't in the guidelines. In which, I highly suggest it be added, as in EVERY CASE (expect for Madonna, for some strange reason) the producers are labelled in ABC order. You have provided no real reason for an order other than "it's Madonna's album, thus she has to be listed first". — Status {^talk_contribs 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you overlooked what I wrote. Madonna co-produced all tracks, the other producers only did a few.. and those other producers should be listed by how involved they were on the album. William Orbit co-produced 6, Martin Solveig co-produced 6.. with Madonna as a co-producer on each of them. If Madonna had done no producing, then her name would not be there at all, nor would it be listed on the track list. If you care so much about alphabetizing this certain article, then go correct the rest of them.. all of Madonna's album and single pages. Alphabetical order is confusing and distracting.. if I was a new viewer of the page, I would want to know Exactly who produced most of it.. not having to go look at the track list. Thegirlieshow (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The producers section has no relevance to who produced most of the album. It's about WHO produced it. Doesn't matter how many songs each person did on the album. ABC order is not confusing nor distracting. It's clean, and ceases edit wars over an order. You can't fight over a position when it's in ABC order. —Status{^talk_contribs RIP Whitney ♥ 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

You've forgot to include Moment factory in this article at the SuperBowl section. Here is how it should appear: The show was visualized by Cirque Du Soleil, Moment Factory and Jamie King.

Olymp87 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is true but not sourced. Let me find one. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Deluxe edition album cover

Is there any mention of the 12 bars on the deluxe edition cover? I believe it may represent this being Madonna's 12th studio album. Samlikeswiki (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm Addicted

The song is produced by Madonna, Benny Benassi & Alle Benassi. It has been revealed in this BILLBOARD article:

http://www.billboard.com/#/news/how-madonna-s-second-mdna-single-girls-gone-1006241352.story?utm_source=most_recent

Please make the necessary changes to add Madonna, Benny Benassi & Alle Benassi as producers of the song "I'm Addicted". Thank you! 76.189.253.72 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Two problems: you need to be explicit about "the necessary changes" and the source doesn't support the claim. Celestra (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Second single is Girls Gone Wild

It has been revealed by the BILLBOARD article here:

http://www.billboard.com/#/news/how-madonna-s-second-mdna-single-girls-gone-1006241352.story?utm_source=most_recent

Please add "Girls Gone Wild" as the second single from MDNA. Thank you! 76.189.253.72 (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Already done There is info about this already in the article. Celestra (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First Single

I've seen quite a few sites call "Give Me All Your Luvin'" a buzz single, not an official single, what should we do?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Giacobbe. Could you provide some sources that say so? This press from Interscope Records says it is in fact the first single from MDNA. Again, some links would be vastly appreciated. Thank you! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.andpop.com/2012/02/27/madonnas-new-girl-gone-wild-song/ Here's the link that reminded me of it, but I remember seeing it somewhere else on a more reliable site, I'll try and search for it!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Titling

Madonna unveiled the triple entendre of her album title on Tonight Show with Jay Leno, when Leno asked her if it represents both her name and “Madonna DNA,” she replied in the affirmative. She then implied that it’s also a reference to the drug MDMA, or ecstasy, which provides “euphoric feelings of love.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/01/madonna-talks-new-album-and-super-bowl-performance-on-the-tonight-show/

Please add this to the Titling section, Madonna herself confirms that title has a reference to the drug. Thank you!

78.167.248.80 (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' amount of detail. Also, please be careful about extending what is in the source; "implied" and "confirmed" are not the same thing. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Singles section

Does the 'Singles' section needs a bit of cleaning up? Don't we usually a brief on the chart performance of the single in this section? Or don't we do that? —Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Second single in UK is "Masterpiece"

According to BBC Radio 2 "Masterpiece" is their "Record of the Week" and the single release date (possibly radio date) is April 2, 2012. [3] This maybe the reason "Girl Gone Wild" is only available in North America and has not been released outside. jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 13:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense, as BBC Radio 2 is the most listened to radio station in The U.K, and Give Me All Your Luvin' had 75% of it's radio airplay (according to UK Airplay Chart) from BBC Radio 2, with only 5% on BBC Radio 1, and the remainder on commerical radio. Redlight79 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Masterpiece has been confirmed to be Madonna's UK single. BBC Radio 2 [4] have A-Listed the single and also been playlisted on Heart as well [5]. A digital download will be avaliable in April. [6] Redlight79 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Being played on radio doesn't make the song a single. There's no confirmation whether it will be released or not, although it has significant airplay in UK. So far, "Masterpiece" only available as album's track on iTunes, not as a separate single. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

German Release Date: Friday, March 23, 2012!

The new German Release Date: Friday, March 23! Standard and Special Edition will be released on this date!

http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B007FOV0QW/ref=s9_simh_gw_p15_d0_g15_i3?pf_rd_m=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=12N9Z21FPXGJCVY867Z3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=463375173&pf_rd_i=301128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.182.18.130 (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Added to article. Thank you! — Status {^talk_contribs 04:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is also being released on the 23rd of March in Australia. [7] Maybe we should create a Release History section? —Sticky&Sweet12 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think so, yes. — Status {^talk_contribs 02:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I think the Critical Reception section could do with being a little more balanced. It currently only covers articles that have given the album four out of five stars. I know several reviews that haven't been so generous, an example being the UK's Mail on Sunday which awarded it two out of five. Remember it's an encyclopedia, not an advert. Chicago and UK Magazines loves Madonna (11/12 under 60 score)78.143.204.176 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC). I sugest Reviews only from Metacritic.

Please provide links. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Professional ratings"

Thus far, the so-called "Professional Ratings" box include reviews from sources that are hardly even a slight authority on music, especially that half-witted rag "The Daily Mirror". Compare this ratings box with Hard Candy and previous albums; it gives a false impression of critical acclaim from quality sources. Remove the review box from MDNA until reviews from half-way decent sources filter through. Hamburger Abendblatt? Are You Kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidod87 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC) authority on music? who certifies theses authorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.42.116 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Release Dates

Please could someone assist with adding release dates for South Africa. The page is semi protected and I dont want to mess up the blocks. Here is the details and referencing:

Region: South Africa. Release date: 23 March 2012. Standard and Deluxe Edition release on the 23 March 2012

Ref: http://www.takealot.com/all/?type=&qsearch=madonna+mdna

Removed reviewers

I've removed content from the reception section, prose about reviews by the Daily Mirror and Attitude (magazine). One is a tabloid magazine, the other a lifestyle magazine, and neither of them are considered professional reviewers by Metacritic (list) or Wikipedia:ALBUMS/REVSITE. They shouldn't be included here as there will be plenty of professional, more notable reviewers, which as WP:ALBUMSEL says, should be considered. Dan56 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic is not only the indicator of professional reviews. For example USA Today is a major publication but not in Metacritic. If you find more professional, more notable reviewers then you can add them, but please don't remove content supported by WP:RS. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned by WP:Albums, which I linked above. Daily Mirror and Attitude are mentioned by neither. I'd like to add that an album by a major artist like Madonna is bound to get extensive critical assessments, so there will be a range of reviews to include. The reception section should be exclusive for the most notable/professional reviewers so it can be concise and not undue. If the Daily Mirror and Attitude were one of the few reviewing it, then sure, but like I mentioned before, there one of the least notable that available. The album has not been released yet either, and there will be atleast 20, 25 reviews available to pick from, that will be one of the notable ones mentioned by Metacritic and WP:Albums. That goes for those track-by-track reviews too, if it's secondary to the publication's official review. In this case, Petridis' Guardian review, rather than Cragg's track-by-track for The Guardian. Here's the diff. Dan56 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE: "Additional sites and sources may also be used, provided they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources [...]"

WP:ALBUMSEL: "A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT [...]", remember it's 'some', not all. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you have an appreciation for the process, reverting me like that. Now, I'll cite WP:RS, which shouldn't have any bearing on notability, but herego: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." The context here is a notability. I don't see how a tabloid magazine and a lifestyle magazine are worthy of being included as music critics. Another issue I'll take is how you flood the section not only with reviewers that shouldnt be included when there are professional ones available, but that you give undue weight to them, with 2 or 3 sentences from each. Not concise. Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There's one thing you can't argue. Which reviewers will be removed when this section get's too long? Dan56 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The section currently looks fine. If it gets too long in future, then we remove least notable reviews. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL... actually, it looks like a bloated mess. Dan56 (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Keep them, as long as they don't violate the WP:IRS/WP:COPYRIGHT policies. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • After the second thought, I think Dan56 is right. There will be a lot of more notable reviews to come, and major professional publications should be the first priority. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, with agreement here. Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Love Spent (acoustic)

According to track listing section of the article, the acoustic version of "Love Spent" is an iTunes Store Australia deluxe edition bonus track. This is inaccurate, as the acoustic version of "Love Spent" is exclusive to customers who pre-ordered the Deluxe Edition of album in the period from 3-6 February 2012. This version of the Deluxe Edition, which was available worldwide, has been colloquially dubbed the 'Super Bowl Deluxe Edition'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsigDK (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Release/Record Label section

Currently the release box at the bottom says that Live Nation/Interscope/Universal is the label for MDNA but the sources provided says otherwise. I normally don't edit music articles but based on the sources provided the table should read like this:

Region	Date	Format(s)	Label(s)	Edition(s)
Australia	March 23, 2012	CD, digital download	Interscope, Live Nation, Universal	Standard, deluxe
Germany			Interscope, Universal
Canada	March 26, 2012		Universal
Colombia			Interscope, Live Nation
United Kingdom			Polydor
United States			Boy Toy, Inc., Live Nation, Interscope
United States	April 10, 2012	LP		Deluxe

If the sources say Polydor for the UK release then Polydor should be in the United Kingdom row. This is the same for the United States release where Boy Toy, Inc. is indicated as a label. Now if there is a source saying that MDNA was released on the same label (Interscope, Live Nation, Universal) in all countries that are mentioned then please provide. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Table is wrong

This table is wrong. The release Internationally is on the labels Interscope/Live Nation. What your listing above is regional distributor who sell the records to record shops, not labels. Madonna is not on Polydor in the UK! Throughout the entire EU there is one release and its on Interscope/Live Nation. Online music suppliers are not accurate with listing, i.e. on HMV some of Madonna's most recent releases have been listed as Maverick Records and she has had nothing to do with them since 2003. Boy Toy Inc. is not a label but copyright holder for the record, the labels are Interscope/Live Nation on every single release in every single territory. Please stop changing this!--jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 17:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If so, I don't see how the section is even necessary if it's all the same label. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2012

Deluxe edition lenght: 68:53 not 60:09

PBT2 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The length is accurate. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not #1 in Japan

The album is listed as being #1 in Japan, when it only topped Tuesday's Daily Chart. The official chart will not be published until next week, when its official position will become known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.115.195 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clearing that up. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Parental Advisory label

The album DOES have the Parental Advisory label, as the iTunes album cover has this + i have the iTunes version on my iPod Touch. plus Amazon put the album under "Explicit" [8].--Cheetah255 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your willing to contribute, but the information is hardly important nor is it relevant. It has been removed for now. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

German cert

Please add Gold as the German certification for Mdna! http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch --79.199.56.184 (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It has been added to the article! — Status {^talk_contribs 03:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And also please add Gold for Australia http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1G50 --93.229.106.36 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Added, thanks Bluesatellite (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

High-resolution artwork

Here's a link to higher resolution artwork from the iTunes store, I'm not sure if this is allowed to be used? http://a1.mzstatic.com/us/r2000/012/Music/v4/a4/6a/e3/a46ae348-da2a-af62-1cc9-5b8e2d222d49/12UMGIM09750.600x600-75.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgreen1986 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Girl Gone Wild Video

It's important to remark that the video is very similar to Lady Gaga's Alejandro, for the black and white scenes, the homosexuals, and the erotic + explicit material founded on the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.143.187.202 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, seeing as you have not provided a source for such, and Madonna has done that quite often in her previous music videos. — Status {^talk_contribs 03:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How does your reply make it not important to remark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.165.74 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Madonna has done all of the things you have named before. She has had homosexuals in her video since "Vogue", she put men in heels on the Rolling Stone magazine cover in 1991, don't even get me started on the black and white scale that Madonna has been doing since the 80's, and the erotically explicit material has been done since "Justify My Love". Even the homosexually erotic material has been done on that same video which also had a black and white scale so your point has no leg to stand on considering Madonna has done all of which before Gaga was even in middle school. (98.181.62.167 (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

"Shit" is a word

Not a lyric. A song has a lyric, made up of words.

Thank you. Corrected. — Statυs (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Q magazine review

Q magazine gave the album 4/5 stars: http://www.madonnalicious.com/images/extra/2012/qmagazine_0512_page3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.66.83 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Commercial performance

"However, Madonna faced strong competition from two German bands, Unheilig and Silbermond, resulting MDNA's debut at number three on the Media Control albums chart." this part ain't neutral to me. — 109.10.104.152 (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

India

Please add that MDNA is Gold in India http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/Madonnas-MDNA-certified-gold-status-in-India/5391786323#.T4KfoE4LOaQ.twitter --79.199.43.90 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Y Added, thanks. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

MDNA sales figures

Please add sales figures for MDNA's third tracking week of 19,000 for a three week total of 426,000. The previous two week total was 407,000. The proof of the third week sales week are here:

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi

So the Commercial performance in the US would be up from the two week total of 407,000 to the three week total of 426,000. Thank You! 76.189.253.72 (talk)

{ESp|n}} I'm not convinced that the stats are to be updated on a weekly basis like this. Either way, the article is no longer semi-protected. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)