Talk:List of academic publishing works on Madonna

Redundancy

Ok, as much as I really like this list, there is lot of WP:UNDUE coverage of partial, secondary content, which to me makes this an excessive fancrufty list. An article or a list should be comprehensive enough to the subject in hand, but not become an excessive compendium of everything small ever written by Madonna. Also, what differentiates this list from Bibliography of works on Madonna? Because that also includes academic essays etc. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus please add your thought. We are possibly having lot of blurred lines between these two lists. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:IndianBio Sure, there are issues in the sense I didn't remove "the academic pieces" in the Bibliography of works on Madonna, mainly because I didn't want downgrade anything about a FL. My limitation was only the prose, to further distinguish the subject of both lists, which are relevant each other as we can see the reviewers comments/and lists itself. So, both lists should remains separately. This capture part of what meant "Madonna studies" in the 20th century, and the continued "academic interest" in Madonna, and the other is about biographies and generalized popular literature on Madonna (novels, comic books etc). Keep in mind, the books about Madonna will always exist, as well the scholarly articles in this and the future decades. Even, in the present time, there are dozens of English and non-English books that weren't add in the Bibliography of works on Madonna, and many are from "notable" authors/journalists, at least in their areas Australiasia, Latin America and so on.

This list is not perfect, as my main contributions/energies here were as a compiler to build something from 0. My suggestion is, transfer anything about academic pieces (essays/articles) from the bibliography article and move them here. And perhaps, remove the "partial and secondary" articles here to eliminate the "fancrufty" concern. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus OK I have had some chance to review the articles and this is honestly my conclusion that both the lists should be merged for a much better and crispier list. Ultimately all books about work on Madonna should encompass academic, journalistic, biographical works. One list should be where we collate it all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@User:IndianBio I like your idea to a certain degree. But one of my concerns with your idea, is having an overly list (like you mentioned with this one), if we merge both contents. As I similarly stated above, to me this list still a single-handle topic, considering there no exists "self-made" claims/conclusions: the prose alone really demonstrate throughout sources with competence the existence of tons of "Madonna's scholarly articles", or about the subject "Madonna on academy (and her bibliography)". The other topic/list, "books" and "biographies" about Madonna are much commented as a "whole topic" by authors, and more claims that weren't added but, that really exists. Perhaps rename lists could be better?. BTW, the only similar case I found in Wikipedia, is Wikipedia itself with its "scholarly" literature and "books".

If in your mind, the merge is accompanied with the possibility of trimming content in both sides, or whatever the reason is, you can consider wait. There exits irrelevant tons of e-books, sure, but as far as I remember, there exits published books (comics, biographies etc) by authors and publishers of enough "notability" or at least commented by one or more third-party sources that weren't added. Also, I'm still with the idea that we should consider the fact don't think too much in the present but in future, with other books that will be published, or once again, considering those that weren't added.

With the above statement about the "existence of other books", at the moment I don't have enough time to work and propose some of them (to see if meets inclusions), but overall I think there is no deadline and also we are not violating Wikipedia's policies (hoaxes or a serious matter) to rush things. A third-party opinion, or more comments could be helpful to define the course of both lists. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)