| Revision as of 15:35, 1 December 2021 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,987 edits comments← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:29, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Nicki Minaj/Archive 8) (bot |
| (638 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=30|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{RecurringThemes |
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Musicians|class=GA}} |
|
|
|
|Minaj's birthdate has been discussed ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. The current consensus is to list 1982 as her year of birth. Please establish consensus before changing this information. |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=covid}} |
|
|
|
|archives=no |
|
{{censor}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1 = AFD |
|
|action1 = AFD |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
|action2 = GAN |
|
|action2 = GAN |
|
|action2date = 08:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|action2date = 08:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|action2link = Talk:Nicki Minaj/GA2 |
|
|action2link = Talk:Nicki Minaj/GA1 |
|
|action2result = listed |
|
|action2result = listed |
|
|action2oldid = 508899558 |
|
|action2oldid = 508899558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus = GA |
|
|topic = music |
|
|
|otd1date=2023-12-08 |
|
|topic = music}} |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=1188761453 |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=GA|musician-priority=Mid|musician-work-group=yes|listas=Minaj, Nicki}} |
|
|
|
|action3 = GAR |
|
|
|action3date = 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Nicki Minaj/1 |
|
|
|action3result = delisted |
|
|
|action3oldid = 1253748499 |
|
|
|currentstatus = DGA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Minaj, Nicki|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-priority=Mid|musician-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=September 6, 2014}} |
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=September 6, 2014}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hip hop|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hip hop|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pop music|class=GA|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pop music|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject R&B and Soul Music|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject R&B and Soul Music|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=GA |importance=mid |AsianAmericans=yes |AsianAmericans-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid |AsianAmericans=yes |AsianAmericans-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women|class=GA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women in hip hop music|class=GA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women in hip hop music|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women music |class=GA |importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject Women in Music|importance=High }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|counter = 8 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Nicki Minaj/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Nicki Minaj/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
|
|from1 = Nicki Minaj |
|
|
|from_oldid1 = |
|
|
|to1 = Roman's Revenge |
|
|
|date1 = 2022-02-04 |
|
|
|diff1 = |
|
|
|to_diff1 = |
|
|
|to_oldid1 = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from2 = Nicki Minaj |
|
{{RecurringThemes |
|
|
|
|from_oldid2 = |
|
|Minaj's birthdate has been discussed ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. The current consensus is to list 1982 as her year of birth. Please establish consensus before changing this information. |
|
|
|
|to2 = No Frauds |
|
|archives=no |
|
|
|
|date2 = 2022-02-04 |
|
|
|diff2 = |
|
|
|to_diff2 = |
|
|
|to_oldid2 = |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|75}} |
|
{{Annual report|], ], and ]}} |
|
{{Annual report|], ], and ]}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|January 13, 2013|January 20, 2013|February 24, 2013|March 3, 2013|Sep 12 2021}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|January 13, 2013|January 20, 2013|February 24, 2013|March 3, 2013|Sep 12 2021}} |
|
|
}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Pinkprint Movie == |
|
== change title of paragraph "fat nuts" to something more appropriate == |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 03:45 |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rationale == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reply to|Black Kite|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 ] 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 ]. 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 ]? {{tpq|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, that calls Minaj a "fashion icon." |
|
|
* "Personal life and legal issues" is an easy target for fancruft, gossip, and otherwise speculations. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] 14:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
* Come on y'all.. I couldn't give less of a flying ''anything'' about this ], 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 ] 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 "{{tq|Remember to ]!}}" but there's some real basics that's not happening here. ~] <sup>(])</sup> 15:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reply to|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 ] |
|
|
* Beam Me Up Scotty being the highest charting hip hop rereleased mixtape in history is reliably sourced.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-05-27|title=Nicki Minaj Celebrates The Success Behind ’Beam Me Up Scotty’|url=https://uproxx.com/music/nicki-minaj-celebrates-success-beam-me-up-scotty/|access-date=2021-10-20|website=UPROXX|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Gunn|first=Tamantha|date=2021-05-26|title=Nicki Minaj celebrates the success of ‘Beam Me Up Scotty’|url=https://www.revolt.tv/news/2021/5/26/22455671/nicki-minaj-celebrates-beam-me-up-scotty|access-date=2021-10-20|website=REVOLT|language=en}}</ref> |
|
|
* 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 ] and ] 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. {{tpq|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. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
*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: {{reply to|ChicagoWikiEditor}}, they may have an opinion on this part) |
|
|
*for the image I agree with {{reply to|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. |
|
|
] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{reply to|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 ], "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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 (]): "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. ] (]) 00:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{reply to|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 ], 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". 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 ] 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 ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::I added a ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ]. About "Trollz", you're free to add it in the mentioned article if you want, but using the ] 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. ] (]) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{reply to|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. ] 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 ] 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 ], because it actually deals with '''content in''' an article; however, you have seemed to not notice that ] says: |
|
|
::* {{tpq|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 ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ] have an "impact" section and have had as long a career as Minaj. Your edit summary uses ] 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 ] applies here, not ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 {{tpq|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 ] you're citing applies here. {{tpq|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". ] (]) 07:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*{{reply to|Cornerstonepicker}} |
|
|
::::** The legendary bars quote is neutral as long as ''' it is attributed to the source.''' Look at ] 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. ] so the credibility of comparing with featured articles per ] 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 ] and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 ]. |
|
|
::::::*:*Haven't seen the photos. Perhaps an RfC could answer this question, that's not unusual for infobox lead images. |
|
|
::::::*:*{{U|Cornerstonepicker}}, are you arguing that "impact" is redundent? The definition of legacy does not include influences or impacts. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">]</span> 04:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::*I see |
|
|
:::::::{{quote|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 "]" which dropped to 38 after debuting atop of the chart.}} |
|
|
::::::::should be trimmed to |
|
|
:::::::{{quote|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 "]".}} |
|
|
:::::::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. ] (]) 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 ] and therefore does not belong in Minaj's article. |
|
|
::::::::Also, given that the media has discussed , "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 ] 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 ] and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 04:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{reply to|Cornerstonepicker}} It's still undue weight in Minaj's article- it belongs in the main song article, yes, but not her article. ]'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 ] after all. And impact is easily included by infleunced. ] {{tpq|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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ], ] and stop edit-warring before it escalates further. Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 {{reply to|Binksternet}} please could you give an opinion on the section titles "legacy and impact" vs "legacy". tl;dr: User RS suggest {{tq|"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". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why is Nicki said to be the Queen of Rap? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Although quite a few would deny it, Nicki Minaj remains one of the best female rappers of all time. |
|
|
Why it is so... Rapping is a form of Poetry and Art and the level of lyrical genius is what determines how great you are as a Rap artist. |
|
|
Nicki Minaj is gifted with outstanding lyrical and wordplay abilities that many Rap artists dont have. |
|
|
She is also the result of many greats today like singer and rapper ]. |
|
|
Isnt this enough to call her one of the world's greatest Rap queens? ] (]) 19:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rfc: lead image == |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- ] 07:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1638946877}} |
|
|
{{closed rfc top|result= Consensus was reached to use Photo A. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC) }} |
|
|
<gallery> |
|
|
File:Nicki_Minaj_Realize_NBA_Awards_2017.png|A |
|
|
File:Nicki_Minaj_MTV_VMAs_4.jpg|B |
|
|
File:Nicki Minaj 5, 2012.jpg|C |
|
|
</gallery> |
|
|
Given that there has been edit warring over the lead image, I think it's due time for an RfC. Two images are being considered for the lead- the former was taken in September 2017, while the latter was taken in August 2018. |
|
|
* Proponents of the 2017 image say it is better because Minaj is looking forward at the camera, the lighting is better centered on Minaj's face, and it is also a more flattering photo. |
|
|
* Proponents of the 2018 image say it is more recent, of a higher resolution, and Minaj is in a standing position. |
|
|
For more examples of these type of lead image discussions, please look at ] as an example. Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
* Support '''A (2017)''' image as proposer. It's a face forward centered head shot, it fits the biography much more. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''A.''' ], in my opinion, is only an applicable argument for infobox photos that are within the past five years. That places option A and B above option C. I place option A above B because it is clearer and the subject is viewed face-foward rather than from the side. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">]</span> 06:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*Agree with the above arguments in support of '''A''' due to forward-facing position, and the resolution is decent enough. ] (]) 20:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''A''' Forward-facing and with a neutral expression compared to the other two images. ] (]) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''B''' --] (]) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{Re|FMSky}} This is ]; you need to explain your reasoning if you want to potentially influence the ]. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">]</span> 05:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*(Invited by the bot) '''A''' More flattering, and the others are somewhat unflattering <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''B''' , bc the picture you posted (A) is heavily edited and retouched. Inviting editor {{reply to|Theknine2}} since he left a comment about this in the other section. ] (]) 23:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{reply to|Cornerstonepicker}} Please stop accusing me of retouching and "heavily editing" the image without any evidence. of the source video's timestamp that I got the screenshot from- if you compare the source and the current (A) image, you will only see lighting and color temperature differences. There is no retouching involved here. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''B''', as per what I had mentioned earlier, 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, instead of the tilted head position in the A (2017) image. Due to the odd lighting in the A image, in my opinion, the B image would be the more "flattering" of the two options. Thank you ]! ] (]) 01:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:While the 2018 image is higher res, the quality is still quite blurry- you can see it in the background, the texture quality of the photo looks quite smudged. The (A) image, in my opinion, looks more refined and "still." Not to mention the front face position that has been noted by other editors. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*The licensing status of image A looks dubious to me. Why should we assume that a screenshot from a video that somebody posted to Vimeo is actually freely licensed? Where is the evidence that this image and the video it came from are ''not'' copyright protected? ] ] 02:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{reply to|Cullen328}} This was brought up in a ] on Commons a couple of months ago. If you go to the source video link and click on "more" near "4 years ago", and hover over license, you can see that the video was uploaded by LightSpace Studios under a CC 3.0 license. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*::{{u|RogueShanghai}}, then it would be a good idea to work with a Commons administrator to update the image file's information page so that nobody doubts the licensing provenance of the image. Unless any further licensing problems emerge, I ''support'' image A then, as the image most compliant with our image standards. ] ] 03:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::{{reply to|Cullen328}} I am not knowledgable with this licensing image file process- where may I find a noticeboard or outlet where a Commons administrator can help me out? The image has been under license review but no administrator has checked it yet. Thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> 04:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::{{u|RogueShanghai}}, try the at Commons. ] ] 17:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::{{reply to|Cullen328}} I ] in Commons looking for an admin, currently waiting for a response. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::{{reply to|Cullen328}} Update, a Commons reviewer had confirmed the licensing review of the 2017 image I was pleasantly surprised at how fast and easy it was. But anyways, just updating on the situation. Thanks! ]<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::{{u|RogueShanghai}}, thank you for following through on that. Well done. ] ] 17:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*I’m uninvolved but I don’t see any reason to change it from A. An image that is looking away from the content isn’t suitable and the third image is too outdated to represent the subject when readers first see the article. ] (]) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{reply to|Trillfendi}}, do I read this as a ] supporting A? Or just a passing comment? Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{reply|RogueShanghai}} Take it as a vote, I suppose. ] (]) 23:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''A'''. The other two have funny facial expressions, plus B is looking away from the camera and C is dated, although I will admit the lighting is better on B and C. There are no licensing problems with A and it doesn't appear to have been significantly edited or altered, despite the claims above. ] (]) 20:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''A'''. None are perfect but I think A is better because she is looking straight toward the camera with a neutral expression, whereas in B she looks off to the side, almost annoyed. ] (]) 02:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''A'''. I think A is a better choice because it seems more fitting for a biography. Like many others have said her expression is more neutral and she is looking straight at you. Many bio images are touched up as this one is so I don't see a problem with this. ] (]) 19:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*:KittyHawkFlyer, I would just like to point out that the image Only lighting and color temperature changes have been made. Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''A'''. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> ]</span> 14:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rap queen == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reply to|Binksternet}} Hello! I was wondering what exactly makes "rap queen" different from "Queen of Rap?" They both mean the same thing. There are a couple of media examples that show that honorific nicknames are usually switched around grammatically like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example: ] is widely regarded by many as the "Princess of Pop"- it's even mentioned in her lead article. Notable media outlets such as and use "pop princess", therefore, I would say that "rap queen" is surely applicable to Minaj in this context if said by notable media publications. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am looking for the "Queen of Rap" formulation from the sources because it is explicitly a title. ] (]) 14:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, that's original research. If, for example, a few newspapers refer to a footballer as a "king of free-kicks" then we don't immediately call them "also known as the Free-Kick King" in their article. Also, stick "rap queen"+Cardi into a news search - lots of hits as well. That's not because CB or NM is specifically the "Queen of Rap", but because lazy journalists just stick "queen" or "king" onto the end of things when they can't think of anything better. "Fashion queen", "pop king", "social media queen" etc. "Guru" or "master" are other common ones. ] 14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{reply to|Black Kite}} Is there an applicable essay or page that covers this specific OR-type example? I'm looking to read up on it more to understand better. Thanks. I found another Time source that directly calls her the "Queen of Rap" anyways, so the issue at hand is solved. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021 == |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Nicki Minaj|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change the default photo of Nicki Minaj to a photo of her from the year 2021 ] (]) 12:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
* The most recent ] image we have is from 2018. See . ] 12:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== More detail == |
|
|
|
|
|
'']'' (2014) and ] (2018) are only given a passing mention in a single sentence, both being described as a "return to hip hop roots" despite both albums being completely different in terms of the lyrics, genres, and the production. To that end, I suggest adding more detail to that section to expand it further. It can be changed from: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Minaj's third and fourth studio albums, '']'' (2014) and '']'' (2018), marked a departure from her previous style and a return to her ] roots. The former's second single "]" peaked at number two on the Hot 100. |
|
|
|
|
|
To something like: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Minaj returned to her hip hop roots with her third album '']'' (2014), exploring more personal topics such as relationships, family, and fame. The album's second single "]" peaked at number two on the Hot 100. Her fourth studio album, ] (2018) is primarily a ] record with influences of ], ], ], ], and ]. Two initial singles were released at the same time to promote the album, those being "]" (reaching top ten on the Hot 100) and "]". |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, ] isn't mentioned at all in the lead. I think this can be added in pretty easily. I'm opening it on the talk page as a preventative measure to an edit war happening just in case. A discussion would be very much appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If any editor thinks it might make a viable article, please contribute to the abandoned ]. – ] ] 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Is it "Hip hop" or "Hip-hop" == |
|
]<sup>]</sup> 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hat|Ban evasion by ].}} |
|
* You want to expand an already grotesquely long lead section ''even more''? ] |
|
|
|
I've noticed that on many artists that record in the hip hop genre their pages (profile, singles, albums etc.) all call the genre '''hip hop''', yet just on Minaj's home page it calls her hip''-''hop, yet her albums: |
|
{{reply to|Black Kite}} I think your reply may be broken since I can't reply to it through the beta reply to function on talk pages. Anyways, actually some sentences or phrases can be cut back in the main lead to make room and this is a BLP about a musician. Expanding more on the albums/musical style of that musician makes sense. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'']'' |
|
|
*'']'' |
|
|
*'']'' |
|
|
*'']'' |
|
|
*'']'' |
|
|
*'']'' |
|
|
and |
|
|
*'']'' along with her singles all are labeled as just '''hip hop''' which one is the correct spelling and which one should be used as a rule of thumb as some reviewers on different hip hop related pages write it with the hyphen in their review but then the infobox, it is written without the hyphen? Seems a bit odd? |
|
|
] (]) 09:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*long introduction does not need more details at all. ] (]) 14:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Her article sources it w/o the hyphen ] (]) 04:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Changed it as it was <nowiki>]</nowiki> and not <nowiki>]</nowiki>, the other article is about the culture and not the music ] (A.K.A.) ] 20:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
