Talk:Nicki Minaj/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Protected edit request on 30 December 2021

https://www.billboard.com/index.php/articles/business/chart-beat/8544328/karol-g-nicki-minaj-debut-numb → https://www.billboard.com/pro/karol-g-nicki-minaj-debut-number-one-latin-songs/

Billboard changed the URL. Muhandes (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Queen of Rap in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead refer to Nicki Minaj as the "Queen of Rap"? shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently in the Legacy section there are a total of 18 reliable sources that refer to Nicki as either the "Queen of Rap" or the "Queen of Hip Hop". Right now, ten for "Queen of Rap" and eight for "Queen of Hip Hop", all coming from well known reliable media sources such as Billboard, Time, BBC News, NBC News and GQ. etc. In addition, since the last RfC which happened in July, new articles from Billboard, NBC News and Bustle have continued to refer to Minaj as the "Queen of Rap". Given the notability of the honorific nickname with the amount of good sources (and new sources since the last RfC), I propose that "Queen of Rap" should be re-added to the lead, preferably in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. (being discussed down below) shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Sounds reasonable except "the first paragraph of the fourth sentence" doesn't make sense. I think you got those backward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Oops, apologies for that grammar mishap. Should I take this as an agreement WP:!VOTE? Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. It's reasonable to include it in the lead given the number of independent sources that give her a "queen of rap" or "queen of hiphop" moniker. It remains something WP should attriute, not a label applied in WP's own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support this is definitely something that should be included in the lead, given the sheer number of reputable sources that repeat it. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this year, there has been three discussions about this topic. All that can be found on Talk:Nicki_Minaj/Archive_5, where the majority of users voted against and opined that there has been multiple women the media have called "Queen of Rap". Particularly RfC:_Queen_of_Hip-Hop. Not much has changed since then. Btw, Bustle is among non-reliable sources. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Cornerstonepicker: Actually the main reason most people voted against was at the time because there weren't enough sources to cement "Queen of Rap", but time has passed. As @FormalDude: said, there's a sheer number of reputable sources (and new sources from Billboard, NBC, NME) calling her the "Queen of Rap." Other women are called the "Queen of Pop" but you don't see the title being removed from Madonna.

  Also, oppose this year? There's only 16 days left in the year, by the time this RfC is procedurally going to end it will be 2022 anyways, so opposing this year doesn't make sense. shanghai.^{talk to me} 14:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Those RFC happened in August/September, three moths ago...

The argument would be, you don't see other female artists, called Queen of Pop by several media artcles, with such nickname in their wikipedia lead section. Quoting @Binksternet: Too many conflicting sources can be found naming others as the Queen of Rap or the Queen of Hip-Hop. Cornerstonepicker (talk)

@Cornerstonepicker: Pinging a previously uninvolved editor in an RfC discussion may once again constitute WP:CANVASSING. Even so, that outdated reply was made when there weren't enough articles calling Minaj the "Queen of Rap". But now, time has clearly passed and there are more top tier (Billboard, NBC, NME) sources (ten total) calling Minaj the "Queen of Rap." and (eight total) calling her the "Queen of Hip Hop." You are only citing previous outdated RfCs (that once again started in July) as a reason to oppose the honorific nickname in the lead. Once again, that seems to be WP:SQS. shanghai.^{talk to me} 14:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It actually isn't, I'm quoting the editor that participated on those discussions, WP talk page is not a secret place to hide from others. Previous discussions started July 31 and finished late September. Including the RFC consensus you're reverting. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support After looking at the nature of the sources presented by the proposer as well as the number of sources, I think it makes sense to mention it in the lead. However, in regards to Hip Hop vs Rap, I noticed that Rap is not listed as one of her genres in the infobox, so I wonder if it might be confusing for her to be named as the Queen of Rap? Perhaps rap should be added into that list as well. Coolcactus04 (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Coolcactus04, I think this can be explained through MOS:Music#Usage point 4: "Hip hop music is a music genre. The act of rapping is performed by rappers. When referring to a genre, 'hip hop' should be used, except in circumstances such as 'gangsta rap'". AshMusique (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for pointing that out to me, AshMusique! Coolcactus04 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - in the lead, very brief mention in the body with attribution. Superfluous labels like this aren't that important and tend to quickly change over time, making it obsolete. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway: Honorific nicknames are actually pretty important given that we have an entire list dedicated to them. Also, Minaj has been called the "Queen of Rap" for six years now and the "Queen of Hip Hop" for an entire decade.

  It won't be obsolete any time soon given that articles still continue to call her the "Queen of Rap" to this day. shanghai.^{talk to me} 11:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

One of those debates is the “Queen of Rap,” which has been going on for years. Women from all different eras have been considered the greatest, such as MC Lyte, Queen Latifah, Lil Kim and more. The list identifies Cardi B, Missy Elliott, Ivy Queen and Lil' Kim as the Queen of Rap. It's not that important when that many artists are also the Queen of Rap, that's why I said not in the lead, in the body. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Meh, that's a weak example given that other artists in the same list such as Lady Gaga and Beyonce are considered the "Queen of Pop", but you see it in Madonna's lead. I'm proposing the same for Minaj's article because there is overwhelming notability (10 sources) attached to Minaj for the name. shanghai.^{talk to me} 05:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The support arguments are not the least bit compelling. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't always mean it is suitable for inclusion. I did get a giggle snort out of your name drop of Madonna though, like Nicki is even remotely comparable to a legend like Madonna. No need to ping me any further, I'm not changing my mind based on such flaccid support arguments. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Plenty of reliable sources using the term. Also, I'm sure I must have said this in one of the previous discussions on the topic, but I can't see why terms like "Queen of Pop" or "Godfather of Rap" being used about several people would discredit them from appearing on their Wikipedia page. That's just how these sort of cognomens work. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Per overwhelming sourcing establishing notability of the term, over a long enough time period to show it isn't the kind of flash-in-the-pan thing which is easily forgotten. Fieari (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This is not an obscure title which sources have bestowed on Minaj, it is reliably, and widely sourced, and as mentioned above, has been given to her for the most part of her mainstream career. AshMusique (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Queen of Rap should be something indisputable. It’s now disputed in the media (not just stan Twitter) what with Cardi's 5 number ones and 1 Grammy, and Megan's two number ones and 3 Grammys. Nicki only has one number one as of last year and 0 Grammys, even with her decade head start. Seniority doesn’t make the queen. Trillfendi (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Source that it is "indisputable" in the media? Either way, even if that's the case, I don't think that's of relevance and it clearly is not defining factors as it doesn't take away from the fact that reliable sources have majorly referred to Minaj by that title. AshMusique (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: When did commercial success mean that you were bestowed the title "Queen of Rap"? If that were true, then there would be arguably as much recent articles or sources calling either Cardi or Megan the "Queen of Rap" but the fact is Nicki still gets called "Queen of Rap" in reliable articles to this day. Using the Grammys as a metric is a slippery slope as well given the accusations of racial bias, a former CEO calling the process "rigged", in addition, Cardi B's grammy recieved widespread backlash that was covered by mainstream media. shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: It’s well known that the Grammys have made egregious decisions regarding the most popular musical artists in recent years (see Abel The Weeknd Tesfaye and Kendrick Lamar for examples). But if a rap newcomer, i.e. somebody who has only had a professional career for a few short years, can make it all the way to winning one of the biggest Grammys, to me that would indicate a changing of the guard. I mean, even Lil’ Kim is still fighting with Minaj about the Queen title. Trillfendi (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: But this grammy mess absolutely extends beyond just rap. There's more going on behind closed doors. As previously mentioned, the former CEO accused the Academy of favoring certain artists over others (blatant examples being Taylor Swift winning over Kendrick Lamar, as you mentioned, or Adele winning over Beyonce, which even Adele herself disagreed with).

There are many examples that prove the Grammys alone are a dangerous metric to base artists off of. Besides Minaj, highly influential artists like Katy Perry, Ariana Grande, and Zayn Malik have been treated poorly by the Grammys seemingly because of behind-the-scenes drama, despite all three of them being highly influential musicians of the 2010s.

Awards and commercial success do not indicate someone's talent or deserving of an honorific nickname. No one says Rihanna is better over Beyonce because Rihanna has more number one songs than Beyonce. Even if that were the case, the media would surely notice it, but no. My point is, unlike Minaj, reliable sources have not consistently, reliably, widely and called Cardi or Megan the "Queen of Rap" or the "Queen of Hip-Hop" and for good reason. Nicki Minaj is still going strong, being one of the most-streamed female rappers globally on Spotify despite having no album or lead single out. shanghai.^{talk to me} 10:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support – The label can evolve and change hands over time, but a significant number of reliable sources make clear it currently applies to Minaj, and has for some time. Even when that changes, it will still remain a significant label worth mentioning in past tense within the lead. The way to avoid neglecting past (and future) icons is through editing and/or discussion at their respective articles. The absence of their recognition front and center in the leads shouldn't have any bearing here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support – I don't always reply to rfc's but I agree it is something which has become a pop culture reference. Therefore, it would be prudent to add this in. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 10:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but with attribution. LondonIP (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

"Queen of Rap" location

I'm inclined to change my position on the location of the "Queen of Rap" in the lead, given that honorific nicknames are usually located in the first paragraph / lead sentence, not the fourth. Examples of this are Mariah Carey and Madonna. I originally suggested the fourth paragraph given that that was the position of the former nickname a couple of months ago. However, this is something I am pretty unsure on, and would like comments from other editors to form a wider policy-based consensus. In short, if the "Queen of Rap" consensus does pass, please comment accordingly using the following:

• Option A - The "Queen of Rap" nickname should be mentioned in the lead sentence.
• Option B - The "Queen of Rap" nickname should be mentioned in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph.
• Option C - Other (Please explain)

Inviting everyone who voted on the discussion to vote in this sub-discussion, except for User:Isaidnoway given his request to not be pinged further. @SMcCandlish, FormalDude, Cornerstonepicker, Coolcactus04, PraiseVivec, Fieari, AshMusique, Trillfendi, and GoneIn60: shanghai.^{talk to me} 08:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• B. It's not key to her notability, but an effect of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• B. Agree with the above, I think the Madonna and Mariah Carey articles do it well by providing a succinct description in the first sentence and then elaborating in the second sentence and beyond in the lead. Coolcactus04 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• B - The 4th paragraph is the one that talks about her awards and accolades, and this would be chief among those, so it should go there. Fieari (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• A or B Haven't edited this page in a while but I agree with all these ideas. Worth having mentioned in the lead somewhere. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 10:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rationale

@Black Kite and FMSky:, Alright, here's my rationales for all the edits instead of just an "rv".

• The current lead consensus per the RfC dictates to state Minaj as a rapper, singer, and songwriter. This is a well-sourced claim, given that The New York Times has called her the "top" female songwriter in regards to songwriting credits in 2020.
• The linked vibe.com source does not mention "decline in radio play"; it is just an example of ONE DJ refusing to play her music; this is WP:OR. Also, mixed critical response goes against the "generally positive" sentence a few sentences earlier.
• As I already mentioned, featured articles like Taylor Swift don't mention her drop from number one with Willow; why should it be different for Minaj, given WP:OTHERCONTENT? Comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case.
• Call a spade a spade- it's better to mention that the media has referred to Minaj as a fashion icon instead of simply stating that x outlet called her yz. As I'm typing this, I found another reliable source that calls Minaj a "fashion icon."
• "Personal life and legal issues" is an easy target for fancruft, gossip, and otherwise speculations. shanghai.^{talk to me} 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• I have restored part of what you removed as I believe it is well-sourced. The Trollz chart placing stuff is just trivia IMO, although given the level of trivia in the article it's probably not out of place. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Come on y'all.. I couldn't give less of a flying anything about this Minaj-erie, but I do care about people trying to work together. RogueShanghai is trying, maybe they're not getting it right all the time (I know in the past there has been issues), but I honestly feel they're good-faith giving it a darn good go. Can we try to work together here? I don't want to be the admin who pops in, sees a dispute and drops "Remember to WP:BRD!" but there's some real basics that's not happening here. ~TheresNoTime ^{(to chat)} 15:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker:, here's my reasons for all the edits I have made/changed:

• The current lead consensus that was decided by your RfC dictates to state Minaj as a "rapper, singer, and songwriter." You will need consensus to change this.
• No one has tried to discuss the relevancy of the "Trollz" paragraph on the talk page, despite that I've been trying to start discussion on this since last September.
• Beam Me Up Scotty being the highest charting hip hop rereleased mixtape in history is reliably sourced.
• In the 2017 image, Minaj is looking face forward at the camera; "recentism" isn't really a reason for one image over the other (among reasonable boundaries); see Mariah Carey and Kelly Clarkson for examples. (Both have had more recent images of them come out, but the current lead image is chosen because it is a higher quality well-lit photo.)
• "Despite not entering the US Hot 100" How is this relevant to include on a song by a British singer?
• GQ did not refer to Minaj as the "Queen of Hip Hop." It referred to her as the "Queen of Rap" in the article. Minaj’s verse contains multitudes, underlining exactly why she remains the indisputable Queen of Rap.
• "and revamp her legendary bars" is part of the original quote from XXL, why remove it? That's what the magazine said. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• just checked and it was NPR Radio, not GQ; just edited it.
• the reissue record: Upprox and Revolt cite her Instagram post, but Billboard didn't mention it at all. Is there a reliable/major source?
• the "Despite...": since it is mentionting charts, this is an article about an American-based act.
• the quote: "revamp her legendary bars" is very puff. the other sentence, "has helped...", is a similar idea.
• occupation "songwriter" is in infobox (cc: @ChicagoWikiEditor:, they may have an opinion on this part)
• for the image I agree with @Theknine2: edit. Additionally, looking at the camera is not a priority; the image is just better. the 2017 pic looks over-filtered and over-edited.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I should have better elaborated my rationale on why I changed the image, thank you for notifying me. Aside from recency, the 2018 image is better-lit and higher resolution. It is also a better portrait shot of Minaj, as she is in a standing position. Theknine2 (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker:

• "Occupation songwriter is in infobox" however the current consensus that was decided in the RfC is to call her a "rapper, singer, and songwriter." in the lead sentence.
• Revolt, HipHopDX and Uproxx are reliable sources; if all three of them corrobate that BMUS was the highest debuting hip hop mixtape on the BB200, then that's notable coverage of said achievement.
• Per MOS:PUFFERY, "revamp her legendary bars" is not peacock due to the reliable source itself saying that about Minaj.
• Given that the only changes to the 2017 pic were brightness and exposure, I have a hard time seeing how "overfiltered" it is given that it is a raw screenshot with minor edits. shanghai.^{talk to me} 05:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Those three pages are mirroring her Instagram post; Billboard didn't mention it, nor any major source. Regarding the "legendary bars", or words like "legendary", "record-breaking", "renowned", per the puff viewpoint (here): "A more neutral tone and the provision of factual information, cited to a reliable source, on the other hand, is the appropriate style". Additionally, the image, as the other user said, is better in all aspects, including the edits you're mentioning. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: They are still reliable sources. If four major reliable sources are saying the exact same thing, then that is enough coverage for said achievement- there is no policy that states chart achievements may ONLY be mentioned by Billboard as one source. Look at MOS:PUFFERY, to see what I mean, look at the given "correct" example:

• Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.

Look at how there is emphasis on "in which he was called (positive word here)"'in a top tier reliable source. It is okay to keep "revamp her legendary bars" because it is what the reliable source said. In regards to the Trollz paragraph, featured articles like Taylor Swift do not mention her drop from Willow; there is no policy based reason why this information is necessary to be included in the main Minaj article, and WP:ONUS is on you to prove that it is. Also, the 2018 image was also taken when Minaj was moving- it is not a still screenshot and looks quite blurry close up. shanghai.^{talk to me} 01:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a notable source that directly states that her mixtape became the highest debut female rap mixtape in the Billboard 200's history; with no mention or link to said Instagram post. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Uhmm you're comparing a Time 100 list tribute with an XXL article... how important is "legendary bars" to the article? This is where you should apply verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. About "Trollz", you're free to add it in the mentioned article if you want, but using the what about the other articles? argument isn't helping. As other user said, it shares the level of trivia of other charts facts written in the article. why are we pick and choosing chart records? I don't find anything wrong with the recent picture, as the other user said. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: The XXL article is still a reliable source, the information is the same (that a journalist described Minaj's bars as "legendary"), whether or not the source is more "notable" is irrelevant given that XXL is still a reliable source. MOS:PUFFERY does not mention that "praises can only be sourced to big lists such as Time 100". A journalist called Minaj's bars legendary, and that is the full quote of said journalist- it still stays neutral when you attribute that "legendary bars" quote to said journalist.

Also, why do you keep using WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument even though it does not apply here? That argument has to deal with the existence of articles and deleting one or keeping one based on other articles- however, here, we are talking about the content in an article. In this discussion, I have been repeatedly citing WP:OTHERCONTENT, because it actually deals with content in an article; however, you have seemed to not notice that WP:OTHERCONTENT says:

• Comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case, if the review does not pre-date policy changes that affect the material.

So, in this case since we are dealing with content in an article, this applies. Good articles should be modeled after featured articles, not the other way around. "You're free to add it in the article" is not a good solution, given that Taylor Swift is a featured article and if they have decided there that the Willow drop is not worthy of note, then there is no reason for you to keep insisting that the Trollz drop belongs to the main Nicki Minaj article as well. The "recent" 2018 photo is only one year older than the 2017 photo- it is still a four year old picture. Recency is a weak argument in this case, given that they are from similar timeframes- the argument boils down to quality, which, I think that the 2017 image is better at due to being a close up still face forward portrait shot of Minaj, and the 2018 one is a screenshot of her moving in a live performance. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You have also failed to explain why you consistently remove "impact" from Minaj's "Legacy" section, despite featured articles like Lady Gaga have an "impact" section and have had as long a career as Minaj. Your edit summary uses WP:OTHERSTUFF as a reason, but I have just told you that that does not apply here. We are talking about content, not the existence or deletion of actual articles, so WP:OTHERCONTENT applies here, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, these are the four things you're asking for:

• to add the "legendary bars" quote from XXL: since you're citing FA articles, have you noticed the editors avoid legendary, highly-influential, renowned? even though it's not hard to find sources stating that. "Legendary" is among the words to avoid. I think it's not hard to understand the difference between the Time 100 quote you mentioned, and "legendary bars".
• to remove chart record for biggest fall: the wp:OTHERCONTENT you're citing applies here. Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either; it's exactly this same case. and why are we pick and choosing chart records?
• to use the picture you found and edited for the infobox: recency is not a weak argument, and the picture you posted is also a SC from a video, per the link provided as source. I agree with Theknine2's words; 2017 is the better pic.
• to rename "legacy" to "legacy and impact": I'm wondering if you would name it "legacy, impact and influence". Both titles house the same content. There are two things happening in your argument: it's again "that has it, so this should too"; but the content is there... it's named "legacy". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Cornerstonepicker:
  • The legendary bars quote is neutral as long as it is attributed to the source. Look at Taylor Swift#Impact and how quotes praising the artist are only attributed to the source and the source alone- "Taylor Swift is the most legendary singer ever" is puffery, "Quartz called Taylor Swift the most important artist of the millenial era" is not.
  • The essay says point blank that using high quality articles like Featured Articles make a more convincing argument and credible case. You have used featured articles before as reasoning to remove certain content from the Minaj article, so the credibility of comparing with featured articles per WP:OTHERCONTENT does apply here.
  • The photos are one year apart- that is why I stated that recency is a weak argument. Both are images that are relatively recent, the quality of the image is more important.
  • Impact is important given the amount of artists Minaj has influenced. "Legacy and impact" is fine- because the content both details the legacy of her career and her impact on newer artists such as Doja Cat and Lil Nas X. shanghai.^{talk to me} 14:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• For the argument 'look at this article', you're still failing to realize there's a big gap between calling someone "the most important" (valid) and the word (that should be avoided) "legendary".
• It is a chart record that shares the same level of other chart facts written all over the article. Honestly it just seems it bothers you.
• But the 2018 photo isn't low quality. I'd even say the 2017 photo looks retouched in a photo editing app on a cellphone. the retouching is obvious.
• "Legacy" includes the influences you're mentioning. All legacies, literally, include influences. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Here's my thoughts.

  • Cornerstonepicker is right that the word legendary should be avoided.
  • This is questionable, but the content about the Trollz song's biggest fall does appear to be undue weight.
  • Haven't seen the photos. Perhaps an RfC could answer this question, that's not unusual for infobox lead images.
  • Cornerstonepicker, are you arguing that "impact" is redundent? The definition of legacy does not include influences or impacts. ––FormalDude talk 04:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I see

As it dropped to 34, "Trollz" became the first single to fall over 30 positions in its second week after debuting at number one, breaking the record for largest fall from number one in the country at the time, the record was later broken by Taylor Swift's "Willow" which dropped to 38 after debuting atop of the chart.

should be trimmed to

As it dropped to number 34 in its second week, "Trollz" broke the record for largest fall from number one at the time. The mentioned record was later broken by Taylor Swift's "Willow".

As I've been reading many of these Legacy / Impact / Influence sections in entertainment, for which the normal content is honorific nickname by news outlets - credited for this and that - artists influenced, I notice these titles are used indistinctly. I believe it should be either called legacy or impact. Maybe the latter fits. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The topic of discussion here isn't how to minimize the information- it is that such information does not belong in the main Minaj article at all. FormalDude is right that the information about Trollz appears to be undue weight. Our entire argument is that such information is not exhibited in FA-class articles at all, such as Taylor Swift and therefore does not belong in Minaj's article.

Also, given that the media has discussed her music's legacy, "Legacy" definitely applies to the section- and given that there are also numerous artists whomst have named Minaj as an influence- that is an example of impact. Therefore, given the prose of the section, both "Legacy and impact" apply as a title.

Also, "Despite the mixed critical reception and decline in radio play" being WP:OR has still not been discussed yet. The source does not say there is a mixed critical response or decline in radio play during the Queen era; to add in this sentence would be WP:OR and WP:SYNT. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

But it does belong; editor FormalDude points out the undueweight, which does not mean removing it entirely as you are asking. Regarding "legacy and impact", my previous comment responds this. what you're describing is "influence". Unless you're suggesting we should rename the Legacy categories to "Legacy, impact and influence". if choosing "legacy" i don't see why the artists influenced 'by her legacy' don't fit there. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: It's still undue weight in Minaj's article- it belongs in the main song article, yes, but not her article. Taylor Swift's drop from #1 is also reliably sourced- it's mentioned in the Willow article, but not her article. And again, Swift's article is a featured article after all. And impact is easily included by infleunced. Impact is defined as A significant or strong influence; an effect. So yes, the definition of impact also includes influence. "Legacy and impact" perfectly describes the prose of the section. shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not what the undue weight issue, pointed out, means at all. And "what about this other article" is not an argument here. Legacy sections have always included influenced artists; both titles don't cancel each other nor are mutually exclusive. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cornerstonepicker, by all accounts it has been several days since the discussion has received any activity and yet you continue to exhibit edit warring behavior. You seem to only participate in discussion on the talk page after you revert all of my changes to your preferred version. I have tried working collaboratively with you and attempted new edits per WP:BRD to satisfy everyone's concerns, yet none of them seemed fruitful in building consensus. Third-party neutral editors have:

• agreed that the Trollz chart information is irrelevant in Minaj's article
• agreed that the "legendary bars" quote is peacockery
• agreed that "Legacy and impact" describes the prose of the section.

I advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:ROWN and stop edit-warring before it escalates further. Thank you. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretations are oddly off. The "undue weight" argument does not mean it is irrelevant and should be removed, it means it may need a trim. The other conversation is "Legacy" (just that) encapsulates the section. I know this is a tiring talk page, and a long section, but @Binksternet: please could you give an opinion on the section titles "legacy and impact" vs "legacy". tl;dr: User RS suggest "As it dropped to 34, "Trollz" became the first single to fall over 30 positions in its second week after debuting at number one, breaking the record for largest fall from number one in the country at the time, the record was later broken by Taylor Swift's "Willow" which dropped to 38 after debuting atop of the chart." should be enterily removed from the article, and "legacy" section should be renamed "legacy and impact". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Legacy" means the things that she will be known for after she dies. "Impact" means influence and power. Both legacy and impact can be summarized as "Influence". I hate seeing legacy in an article about a living person, and I hate the overused word impact. "Influence" is my preference.

Regarding the steep chart drop, it should stay in the article as it has two strong Billboard mentions. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going with "influence" too, it makes sense. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: The discussion has clearly ended by all accounts and your revert is clearly WP:BATTLE type behavior. In addition, pinging Binksternet specifically to this discussion may constitute WP:CANVASSING. I was attempting new edits to the lead per WP:BRD; with that mindset, the WP:CITELEAD edit with 17 citations in the lead that is obviously against policy is "going against consensus." I have tried to create edits that satisfy all editors involved again per WP:BRD yet you have reverted most if not all of them.

In addition, the way you go about it is also peculiar, given that you are reverting the edit first and then using the talk page. You are not using the talk page first and then making edits based on the discussion on the talk page, instead, you are reverting to your preferred version of the article and then making a comment about why you think your version is the "best". Cornerstonepicker, I advise you to read WP:DTS and WP:ROWN as this behavior is uncooperative. Thank you. shanghai.^{talk to me} 15:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

wp:statusquo. And there isn't a deadline for the talkpage, some of us have responsabilities to attend. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: If you have responsibilities to attend to then I highly suggest dropping the stick once again to stop trying to continue this when by all accounts it has already ended.

Also, that policy you linked does not support your claim. If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it seems to be the exact opposite of what you are doing, given that you continue to revert and not discuss. Also, that essay links another essay, WP:SQS which seems to draw similarities to your behavior at this article. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

RogueShangai, there have been two long RFC conversations a couple of months ago to clean the lead section from overstuffing and pov:pushing, just for you to re-add all of that. And why are you deleting authors/attribution? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

There are two items being discussed in the previous section. tl;dr: User:RogueShanghai suggests the text "As it dropped to 34, "Trollz" became the first single to fall over 30 positions in its second week after debuting at number one, breaking the record for largest fall from number one in the country at the time;[1][2][3] the record was later broken by Taylor Swift's "Willow" which dropped to 38 after debuting atop of the chart.[4]" should be enterily removed from the article, and the "Legacy" section should be renamed "Legacy and impact".

(Editors Binksternet, Black Kite, FormalDude expressed opinions above). Also, @ CAMERAwMUSTACHE, ChicagoWikiEditor, FMSky if they have time for suggestions, would be welcome. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the text should stay, it received strong media coverage; also it shares the same level of 'chart facts' presented in the article. And the word "Legacy" is enough to encapsulate the section, or "Influence" is also ok, as suggested by editor above. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the steep chart drop. It received enough media attention, and it shows a minor failure among the achievements. It makes the biography grounded in reality. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Keep the text as it gained coverage by multiple RSes. Neutral on section rename. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep It is notable and presents a good view of what happened for perspective.Tepkunset (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Covered by multiple RSs, don't see any reason why the text should be removed. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Before any uninvolved editor votes, I would like to point out that the validity of this RfC is questionable, given that Cornerstonepicker is pinging previously uninvolved editors who have a history of similar opinions to them in this RfC to vote in it. That is WP:CANVASSING. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI going on about his previous patterns of canvassing.shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • ? why would it be questionable. None of the three I @ed have answered (if they three are reading this, I invite them to not give opinions this time(?)). There are currently four opinions: one that already gave his suggestion previously, and three others new in the talk page. None of whom I interact with. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Recieved notable attention and is covered by RS so I see no reason to not include it. –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Remove as unencyclopedic trivia. On the second matter, use "Legacy and impact" to better reflect the content in the section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC for misc stuff in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As @SMcCandlish: said, a set of RfCs to make certain changes to the lead might be the best approach to avoid edit wars and such. However, since some of these changes are very small and minor, I'm instead putting them in a singular RfC, but where you can support or oppose certain changes. ("Support all", "Support A/B but Oppose C", "Oppose all") I'm hoping this won't run too long (maximum of 2 weeks maybe?) given that these changes don't seem too contentious in general. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Proposed change A: In the lead, "She is known for her animated flow in her rapping and versatility as an artist." should be merged with "Early in her career, Minaj became known for her colorful costumes and wigs, her distinct flow, and the use of alter egos and accents." to form: "She is known for her animated flow and lyricism in her rapping, her usage of alter egos and accents, and her versatility as an artist."

Comments: Minaj continues to use alter egos in her work; she never stopped. Her lyricism in her verses has received much mainstream coverage from many publications, such as the Evening Standard, Billboard, Complex, Entertainment Weekly, GQ, and Yahoo News. Remember, the sentence here is "She is known for," and all these multiple articles from notable sources purely revolving around her songwriting do show that she is known for her pen. Merging the two sentences makes sense per MOS:REDUNDANCY.

• Proposed change B: "Minaj's first top-five single "Super Bass" reached number three on the Hot 100. At the time, it was the highest-charting solo song by a female rapper since 2002, and it was certified diamond by RIAA in 2021." can be simplified as "The fifth single from [Pink Friday], "Super Bass", reached number three on the Hot 100, became the highest charting solo song by a female rapper since 2002 and in 2021 became the second female rap song to be diamond-certified."

Comments: Not much to say here, this just seems like a basic change that makes sense but has invited contention from some editors in the past. It'd be better off to just merge the entire thing here.

• Proposed change C: "Her feature on the remix of Doja Cat's "Say So" and her collaboration with 6ix9ine, "Trollz", both released in 2020, marked her first and second number-one singles on the Hot 100, respectively, with the latter making her the second female rapper to debut at number one, following Lauryn Hill in 1998. Including features, Minaj is the female artist with the second-most entries on the Hot 100, behind singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, with each accumulating over 100."

This can be cleaned up and more info can be added a bit into:

Minaj spawned her first and second U.S number-one singles with her remix of "Say So" with Doja Cat and her collaboration with 6ix9ine, "Trollz" in 2020. With "Trollz", she became the first female rapper since 1998 to debut at number one on the chart. Minaj became the first female artist of any genre to hold one hundred Hot 100 entries and currently has the second-most entries on the Hot 100 for a female artist.

Comments: Minaj being the first female artist to hold 100 entries on the Hot 100 is a notable record covered by both Complex and Billboard itself. This is a pretty notable achievement in her career, why hasn't it been covered here?

shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support all changes as proposer. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support All these changes as they seem good and encyclopaedic! Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 11:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support A and C (with minor changes), Oppose B – Proposal A can be worded a bit better by stating "versatility" and the beginning of the sentence, and then describing the rest as examples of her versatility. Make that adjustment, and it has my support. C seems like a necessary improvement, as long as you keep the context "Including features", so I support that one as well. She was the first to top 100, though Taylor Swift leads by a good margin (137 to 119 as of September 2021). B, on the other hand, doesn't seem simplified at all, and in fact, seems clunkier than the current 2-sentence form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  @GoneIn60: Agree with proposal A, versatility as an artist makes sense to put first. For C, I don't understand however the reason to keep the context "including features" given that artists like Lil Wayne and Future who are known for their featured verses (and who have featured songs topping no. 1 on the Hot 100) don't mention it either. It doesn't seem like important context.

  B is important because it is one of the few solo female rap songs to be diamond certified (and Minaj is the first black female rapper to have a solo diamond certified song.) B is simpler because the current form is redundant- why mention that it's her first top five single, and then say "it reached top 3" at the same time? The sentence prior to B already talks about Pink Friday- it makes sense to basically join the sentences together so that the flow is logical, rather than having it weirdly seperated. However I should probably move "in 2021" to the end of the sentence, my bad.

  The only reason Taylor Swift has more Hot 100 entries than Minaj is that Minaj hasn't really been putting out any music since Queen whilst Swift put out two albums in quarantine, two rerecorded albums with new tracks that also count as new chart entries and such. Anyways, thank you for your comment! shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"The sentence prior to B already talks about Pink Friday..."

I wasn't looking at the article, just reading your suggestion verbatim and making a judgement call based on the context you provided. Since the previous sentence already mentions Pink Friday, then your suggestion actually falls into the same trap of redundancy by restating Pink Friday. Instead, why not write something like, "The album's fifth single, "Super Bass", reached number three on the Hot 100 and became the highest-charting solo song by a female rapper since 2002. It was also the second female rap song to become diamond-certified."

Aside from being slightly more concise, it doesn't try to cram too much into one sentence, which I think doesn't work well in your proposal. You're on the right track though with trying to be less repetitive. I left 2021 out of that suggestion, as it didn't really seem crucial to the lead. You can try to work it in if preferred, but the year can probably be relegated to the article body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Actually agree with your suggestion, that crying to cram too much into a single sentence is a bad idea. I'll replace B with your suggestion which is just better all around. Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close as RFCBEFORE has not been completed. Please start a discussion on the talk page before opening a request for comment. If necessary, you can make a THIRDOPINION request. ––FormalDude talk 19:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

I have two proposed changes for the article:

• In the lead section, it is claimed that "She is known for her versatility as an artist, her animated flow and lyricism in her rapping and her usage of alter egos and accents." However, not a single reliable source claims that lyricism is what she is known for, the word should be removed to avoid pov pushing. while every artist is known for their song lyrics, there's not a difference to make here.
• The July mid-year critics lists on the body: the article features the following lists: "[the song] appeared on the mid-year "Best Hip Hop Songs of 2021 (So Far) critics list by HipHopDX.[228][229] Minaj's verse on "Fractions" from Beam Me Up Scotty appeared on the mid-year "Best Rap Verses of 2021 So Far" critics list from Complex.[230]. These lists published in July do not hold weight compared to the actual year-end lists, posting them is just fillers. while there isn't an specific policy to remove mid-year lists, it is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all. First of all, attempting to overturn recent consensus can be potentially disruptive, as per WP:RECENTCONSENSUS. To reiterate what I said in the RfC, in case you didn't see, her lyricism is consistently covered by notable publications such as The Evening Standard, Billboard, and Complex. Second of all, your argument to remove the mid year lists is not based in policy, using "it's unnecessary information that is not encyclopedic" as your only rationale isn't that strong per WP:UNENCYC.

Moving forward, I'd like to see progress made on other parts of the article, rather than making the same edits to the same content over and over again. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not suprised you automatically opposed everything lol. Btw, please don't sneak nicknames that weren't discussed or words that were unsourced like "lyricism", like I just explained. And for the next time, please, when you open RFC don't close it youself as soon as you get the answers you wanted. Give time to others to participate and let another user close it. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not surprised you're disruptively reverting everything I did in the article, like you have done for many months now consistently. And the nickname "Queen of Hip Hop" was discussed and supported in the RfC, an editor pointed out that there's many sources for it in addition to Queen of Rap. Furthermore, it seems you have failed to read any of the sources I linked in the RfC where I proposed that she be noted for her lyricism:

• The Evening Standard: Her huge commercial success and domination of the pop sphere, alongside her outspoken controversies, have sometimes overshadowed something that is undeniable: she's an incredible lyricist.

And there's more from sources that are already in the actual article:

• PopMatters: As a lyricist, her words are a firework display of sharp metaphors, humorous comebacks and putdowns, a rainbow of emotion backed up by a talent for wordplay.
• New York Times: She did the obvious, and then more. She became a nimble, evocative rapper. She became an intricate lyricist.

I sourced everything properly, with reasonable evidence of notability for the "lyricism" term. Additionally, the RfC ran with plenty of time for anyone to comment on it. No one is waiting around for you to comment on it. shanghai.^{talk to me} 11:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

Onika Tanya Maraj is a Trinidadian-American who was born in the Snaersky (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

change title of paragraph "fat nuts" to something more appropriate

124.169.128.206 (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Main page

Whoever did the writing for nicki on her main page why would you take off starships when that’s the biggest song of her career? Also why would you not add bang babg you guys have to do better with the writing and top songs from her era. 69.118.11.68 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discography

OK so nicki should have alot more on her main page where her albums and songs are STARSHIPS is nicki Minaj biggest song that song should be highlighted where pink Friday reloaded album is. Also BANG bang should be on there as well y’all need to do better with the writing when people is looking for nicki discography they need to see her biggest songs like it’s done with every artist. Amarah11 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

People looking for her discography can easily access the page Nicki Minaj discography. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

216.70.219.76 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section removal

Topics on that section were widely covered on the media (not here and there, but various mainstream websites). Why remove it entirely? This biography doesn't have controversy now, somehow.Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you want people to read about how Cardi B assaulted Nicki Minaj at a high fashion event and cyberbullied someone's child on Instagram? (Per the content in the section, that is.) I don't understand why you'd wanna keep that, and the Lil Kim and Remy Ma feuds can be moved to Roman's Revenge and No Frauds since those songs both revolve around their specific feuds.

Having all her feuds in her main article is undue negative weight. The only actual "controversy" that doesn't have to do with a feud is the vaccine controversy, which was moved to other activities by another editor, not me. shanghai.^{talk to me} 04:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So you removed the whole section, not even a summary of events? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy says that we need to have a summary of feuds in an artist's main article? shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

We all know there isn't a policy or guideline that explicitly says to put rapper feuds in their main article; policies and guidelines don't get that specific, nor should they. The question is whether or not the feuds (and other forms of controversy) are significant aspects of the artist's career and/or personal life. If the answer to that question is "yes", then there should be some mention of it here in the main article, even if only a brief summarization. The section containing the summary can use hatnotes like {{Main}} and {{Further}} to direct to articles with more in-depth coverage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

her public relationships with lil kim and remy ma can be summarized, and linked "further information on..." Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Nope and nope. Her feuds with other rappers aren't significant aspects of her career, and don't need a mention. If you want an example, the feud between Taylor Swift and Katy Perry (both featured articles) was huge in the 2010s, and yet there isn't a section or even a mention of the feud in either artists articles, because they weren't significant aspects. Now, if a feud of that magnitude wasn't covered in the articles, what reason is there to cover Nicki's? shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Shanghai, again I'm watching the page, so there's no need to ping me. I think this was mentioned in the other discussion, but it's important to remember that for hip hop artists, feuds are often a significant aspect of their careers. The only featured article I'm aware of in this genre is The Notorious B.I.G., and obviously his feud with Tupac is covered. They should be discussed on a case-by-case basis and included when necessary. I haven't weighed in on Nicki's feud(s), but in general, each article may vary and have a different need for that kind of coverage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Biggie's feud with Pac is covered, yes, but it doesn't even have a controversy/feud section of its own. It's mixed in with his life and career section. And Pac and Biggie's feud is important because their feud was so intense it potentially had deadly consequences. The gang war was intense at that time. The most Cardi's done is attempt to assault Nicki at a high fashion event. The Cardi and Nicki feud is much more comparable to the Katy and Taylor feud rather than the Pac and Biggie feud. shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I get it. I understand these are not the same kind of feuds, nor are they necessarily the same level of importance to their notoriety. Unfortunately, Biggie's article is the only featured hip hop example to compare to. The point I was making is that these need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. What works in one article may or may not work in another, and each case deserves its own scrutiny. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The PinkPrint reviews

a recent change was the addition of "the album (The PinkPrint) received acclaim"; however, per Metacritic, the website that aggregates reviews and used to avoid wp:synt, says that the album received "Generally favorable reviews based on 25 Critic Reviews (7/10)", not "critical acclaim". A second review aggregator used by wp, AnyDecentMusic? gave it 6.6/10 based on 19 reviews.

the statement "received acclaim" not only contradicts both review aggregators, but is pushing minority POV.

(user RogueShanghai, who is promoting this change, cites a TV show as a example of these aggregators not being relevant. However, that TV show had an exceptional score on RT.)

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Please actually see the talk page comment.

"The source literally states "critical acclaim", and there are multiple sources that describe the reception as "critical acclaim". Review aggregators' "consensus" are used when there is nothing else to use, basically."

Not a minority pov given it's been described outright by multiple notable media sources as critically acclaimed. It's not WP:SYNT either. The sources about The Pinkprint's critical reception say what they say, argue with the wall. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Each page is their own, don't quote the words like a guideline for this. Metacritic summarized 25+ reviews, and AnyDecentMusic, 19+. Idk why are you going against them. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

??? Just because they're different pages doesn't mean the guidelines don't work the same. You don't seem open to listening to any other opinions, it is already said by other editors that you use consensus from other media sources before aggregators. Why do you not listen to it? shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll be very clear about this "non-issue". It's very black and white. If a reliable source either an aggregator or another media source doesn't say "critical acclaim" then those words shouldn't be used. Wikiepedia editors deciding that positive reviews is critical acclaim is not the same thing and is definitely WP:SYNETHSIS. Agreed wording has always been "according to review aggregators, the album received generally positive reviews". If a reliable source such as Rollingstone later said "the album received critical acclaim" you can say "Rollingstone later remarked that the album received critical acclaim". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we need to attribute the source in-text for such claims. This is how it's often done for film reviews. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: You can see a list of all the sources that have remarked The Pinkprint as "critically acclaimed" here. They all said that the album was critically acclaimed, so there is no WP:SYNT here. And here, we're dealing with multiple reliable sources that have described the album as a critically acclaimed body of work. So there'd be a lot of quotations. This would be kind of hard to add all these attribution.

A compromise for both the issues could be saying it as "According to several media sources, the album received critical acclaim, with many praising its production, and personal lyrics. The review aggregator score Metacritic gave it a score of 70." This way, Metacritic is still accounted for, but it is also clear from multiple reliable sources that the reception was acclaim.

When it comes to the lead however (both this article's lead and TPP's lead) I think it's perfectly accurate to say it was critically acclaimed with the number of sources. I also started an RfC on The Pinkprint's talk page, so that this won't get potentially too messy and stalemate-y. shanghai.^{talk to me} 19:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Support the proposed text. I would make it clear that upon release it was "generally favourable" whereas a few years down the line, it was "critically acclaimed". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the next proposal below may encapsulate the same idea in chronological order. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My proposal: "According to Metacritic, the album received generally positive reviews with many praising its production, and personal lyrics. Other publications have described its reception as critically acclaimed.". This way, Metacritic isn't downsized as an afterthought, and the five sources cited there (Hyperallergic isn't notable) that came later are noted, but not pushed. It's in order because those came afterward.Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose this non-solution. The entire point is that media sources are more important than a "polarizing aggregator" (other editors words, not mine) such as Metacritic, which according to multiple editors is only used when media sources don't cite consensus for an article. For a lot of other media articles, such as Folklore Sessions by Taylor Swift, this is how it's done. The acclaim is noted first with the sources saying that it was acclaimed, and then the Metacritic score of positive reviews is noted after. It makes no sense to disrupt the way how other articles do it, and don't even pull out the "what about other articles" essay to avoid the sensible comparisons as it doesn't apply here. shanghai.^{talk to me} 07:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Idk what essay, however, this is not at all representative of my point. Responding to 'media sources don't cite consensus for an article': they do, for example:

• XXL says The Pinkprint received mostly positive reviews
• Business Standard says it got positive reviews
• Music Times says it was met with mostly positive reviews.

They align with the review aggregator. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

And you again deflected from my point that media sources are more important than an aggregator. The same XXL said that The Pinkprint was critically acclaimed, and your other sources are an Indian newspaper focused on India and a non-notable source that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article of its own, way less notable than something like Bustle (magazine). Your "proposal" is a non-solution as it misses the entire point. Why disrupt the way that other articles do this receiption section such as Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions? shanghai.^{talk to me} 08:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem the case you're describing at all. For example, the "Indian newspaper" Business Standard has a lot of traffic and hasn't been labeled as unreliable. the one that "doesn't have a wiki page" is featured as a Reliable source on the Wikiproject for music. These agree with the review aggregator. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a top tier source and you are consistently denying it favouring an Indian Newspaper (centered around India, not American music acts such as Minaj that hasn't been labeled as reliable OR unreliable. You are cherrypicking poor sources to fit your argument, when it should be the other way around (basing your argument on top tier sources). shanghai.^{talk to me} 08:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are other examples:

• NME says Recent LP ‘The Pinkprint’ might have received mixed reviews
• The Root says Following the cool reception of The Pink Print album, Nicki Minaj’s career appeared to be in jeopardy.
• Metro Times says The Pinkprint was released with mixed reviews

The point is, the 'critical acclaimed' claim from the five sources you posted were not universal. there are more sources we weren't seeing. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You're seriously trying to use a list of tours that only has TWO sentences, instead of an entire Rolling Stone article that delves into the Pinkprint era? Seriously? And the other two sources are unreliable, definitely lower level than even Bustle (magazine). The Root seems to be linked to sources like Jezebel and Lifehacker, websites that are considered to be widely unreliable. Hell, it's even linked to The Onion, a satirical site. And The Root article says cool, not mixed. WP:SYNT at its finest. How is Hyperallergic a "unreliable" source according to you but The Root and Metro Times are? Again with the cherrypicking which sources are "reliable" and which "aren't".shanghai.^{talk to me} 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

To summarize, we have publications going all places, describing "generally positive reviews", "acclaim", and "mixed reviews" (along with Metacritic considering "generally favorable reviews" and AnyDecentMusic giving the same average score). Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope, currently there's more sources from reliable publications that say its critically acclaimed. You're trying to lend undue weight to these non notable sources that have questionable reliability, but you're also picking at the Hyperallergic source for example saying that's not reliable. If Hyperallergic is unreliable than so is The Root, Metro Times, etc. Pick a side. shanghai.^{talk to me} 05:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – This is a great example of an issue that really deserves an RfC, and it looks like Shanghai created one here: Talk:The Pinkprint#RfC: Critical acclaim. Cornerstonepicker, I would suggest you weigh in with your !vote there, and it would probably be helpful to include a link to this discussion in your comments. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed that there's already a link to this discussion at the top of the RfC. FYI --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I've moved my proposal and made the wording more concrete there. I also said that the acclaim should be noted about in Minaj's lead because it is noteworthy to her, so that Cornerstonepicker removing any positive mention of The Pinkprint's acclaim in her lead may be avoided. This is done to avoid another "Queen of Hip Hop wasn't included in the original RfC" type problem. shanghai.^{talk to me} 15:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Starships

Hello. Who’s ever making and rewriting the Wikipedia pages don’t you think starships should be on Nicki main page of her Wikipedia page i mean that is her highest selling song overall and the biggest song from the pinkfriday reloaded album? That should be highlighted. 2601:86:200:7100:F1C8:8815:BB94:4F8C (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned prominently in the 2012–13 section. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply

No starships should be mentioned in the main discovery part of her Wikipedia because it was a bigger song than ananconda 2601:86:200:7100:152D:963F:93AA:F71 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Life and career" section

As this page for some reason has even more sections than an article like Madonna (an artist who's had a longer career and lots more coverage than Minaj), I think it would make sense to consolidate some of the most cluttered parts into a big "Life and career" section. I was inspired after looking at the lead and article of Madonna. Consolidating it all wouldn't be too hard, and I think it would just make sense. Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Pinkprint has an RFC

The Pinkprint has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. shanghai.^{talk to me} 01:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)