Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
* You want to expand an already grotesquely long lead section ''even more''? ]
* You want to expand an already grotesquely long lead section ''even more''? ]
{{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)
{{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)
*long introduction does not need more details at all. ] (]) 14:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 6, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the country of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Trinidad and TobagoWikipedia:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTemplate:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTrinidad and Tobago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip-hop, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip-hop on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip-hopWomen in hip-hop
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
Minaj's birthdate has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. The current consensus is to list 1982 as her year of birth. Please establish consensus before changing this information.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report5 times. The weeks in which this happened:
@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."
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. ~TheresNoTime15:02, 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.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.
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)
"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.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". 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.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.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.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.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)
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 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.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.
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.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 asA 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.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.
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 Doja Cat.
Isnt this enough to call her one of the world's greatest Rap queens? Mela5556 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Rfc: lead image
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.
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.
A.WP:RECENTISM, 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. ––FormalDude talk06:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cornerstonepicker: Please stop accusing me of retouching and "heavily editing" the image without any evidence. Here is a direct screenshot 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. shanghai.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 User:Cornerstonepicker! Theknine2 (talk) 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. shanghai.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? CullenLet's discuss it02:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328: This was brought up in a closed deletion discussion 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. shanghai.02:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
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. CullenLet's discuss it03:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@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 since September, but no administrator has checked it yet. Thanks! shanghai.04:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Update, a Commons reviewer had confirmed the licensing review of the 2017 image here. I was pleasantly surprised at how fast and easy it was. But anyways, just updating on the situation. Thanks! shanghai.16:12, 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. Trillfendi (talk) 18:24, 8 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. Nosferattus (talk) 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. Heartfox (talk) 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. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 19:18, 19 November 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.
Rap queen
@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: Britney Spears is widely regarded by many as the "Princess of Pop"- it's even mentioned in her lead article. Notable media outlets such as Vogue and Billboard use "pop princess", therefore, I would say that "rap queen" is surely applicable to Minaj in this context if said by notable media publications. shanghai.09:52, 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. Black Kite (talk)14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@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. shanghai.17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Pinkprint (2014) and Queen (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, The Pinkprint (2014) and Queen (2018), marked a departure from her previous style and a return to her hip hop roots. The former's second single "Anaconda" peaked at number two on the Hot 100.
To something like:
Minaj returned to her hip hop roots with her third album The Pinkprint (2014), exploring more personal topics such as relationships, family, and fame. The album's second single "Anaconda" peaked at number two on the Hot 100. Her fourth studio album, Queen (2018) is primarily a hip hop record with influences of trap, dancehall, reggae, pop, and R&B. Two initial singles were released at the same time to promote the album, those being "Chun-Li" (reaching top ten on the Hot 100) and "Barbie Tingz".
In addition, the reissue of her second album 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.
You want to expand an already grotesquely long lead section even more? Black Kite (talk)
@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. shanghai.02:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
B
C
