Talk:Nicki Minaj/Archive 5

RfC: lead section
I'm trying to reach consensus for a cleaner, polished, and not over-stuffed lead section for this good article. Comparing to music articles like Rihanna, Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga, Beyoncé, and Taylor Swift, where phrases like "best selling" are included once and later in the introduction, honorific nicknames are avoided per wp:global, and peacocky terms are not repeated over and over again like here. This is my proposal; open to comments. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If they want to comment, pinging experienced users, , , . Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I brought Rihanna to good article status, one you pointed out, I think we can tell the problem on Nicki's lead is that it cherry picks accomplishments to suit her audience instead of summarizing the article as it's supposed to. And useless trivia about how she reportedly charges $500,000 for a feature should be as far away from the lead as possible. Trillfendi (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Missy Elliot, Lil' Kim and Mary J. Blige have been called Queen of Rap, so let's not have that in the lead section about Minaj. The sources are horrible, anyway, with "Queen of Rap" only appearing in the Rolling Stone headline, not explained anywhere in the article body. Obviously an editorial intrusion.
 * I am in favor of a straightforward lead section that quickly and succinctly tells the reader why the person is important. Leaner is meaner. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Binksternet, Cornerstonepicker, and Trillfendi in this matter. Popular music comes up with an endless stream of "big stars" ever since my parents were teenagers 75 years ago, every one of which deserves serious coverage in an encyclopedia with 6.3 million articles. But all this "king" or "queen" or "prince" or "duke" or "princess" of pop, rock, rap, soul, gospel, folk, country, bluegrass or whatever is a diversion from these artist's genuine accomplishments, which should be described neutrally so that readers not editors can draw their own conclusions. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All four sources in the current article mention Minaj as the queen of rap, queen of hip hop, hip hop royalty, etc. I don't know what you're getting at. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 05:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposed revision is definitely cleaner and much more succinct than the current wording which includes a lot of positive wording that feels weighted heavier than it should. The Queen of Rap thing is definitely not sourced enough to be in the lead and I feel like four sources (one of which is Genius and one is NPR) is not exactly “several Western media outlets”.  I mean, she’s good but she’s not exactly King of Pop good in terms of sourcing that nickname.  The proposed revision gives a better summary of her career and stays neutral.  CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * - Oppose. I'm all up for reworking or changing the lead to better fit policy, but the "Queen of Rap" honorific title has been sourced multiple times by so many articles, and you can't just spam the policy of WP:GLOBAL to get rid of it. Minaj is referred to as the Queen of Rap by both American and European journalists, so to remove it otherwise, like User:Cybertrip said, can distinguish the relevance and impact of Minaj within their world specifically. Also, you didn't really ping the people that actually consistently edit this article, interestingly enough. paging for their thoughts.  "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 05:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, those titles such as Queen or king of this or that can be used while covered by reliable sources such as NPR, USA Today, and RS (already in the article), if more are available even better, I don't consider Genius the best source around. However, I would implement that tile somewhere in the article along with the reasoning for that, why is RS, USA Today, and NPR called her that? Most followed rappers on Instagram could only be included in the article, if so. I do believe the second paragraph needs to be summarised a bit. I would also remove the documentary bit on HBO, unless of course, it receives high praise from media outlets and awards, otherwise only in the main article. I do believe the biggest problem here is a lack of summarisation in the lead and some "unnecessary" info as well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think all points here are valid. However, "honorific names" are not "peacocky terms" as they are used on most celebrity pages but in their "legacy" sections. Including them in Minaj's lead seems premature as other prominent artists such as Beyoncé, Taylor Swift or Rihanna do not include them. However it would be worth keeping it in the legacy section. On that same note, there seems to be way too many Billboard achievements in the lead which is not needed here and is basically taken from the "Achievements" section. I agree that the biggest problem here is "a lack of summarisation in the lead".  Maxwell King 123321 12:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think anyone is advocating for the nickname to be removed entirely. Just that it does not belong in the lead and should be in legacy instead. Genius isn’t exactly the best source for this kind of thing especially since the headline is written in what feels like peacocky way, and the Rolling Stone article only uses the phrase (and technically they say Queen of Hip-Hop not Queen of Rap) in the headline, not the body.  Either way, calling four sources, not all of which are 100% reliable for this, “several Western media outlets” feels like a slight exaggeration at least for the lead.  Considering much larger artists with much better covered nicknames don’t even have this in the lead, there shouldn’t be any issue moving it to legacy.  CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with MarioSoulTruthFan, there's been no news on the documentary since 2020 and I doubt it's lead-worthy material. However, I definitely do think that the "Queen of Rap" title should be in the lead. Interestingly enough, cornerstonepicker seems to have no problem with calling other female rappers "The Queen of Rap", So why is it only bad when it comes to Nicki? I just find it interesting. The "Queen of Rap" title should be in the lead in my opinion, since there's plenty of sources that again call her the Queen of Rap, especially in the mentioned Legacy section. So there's no problem sourcing it, or whatever, I just think that it deserves to be in the lead since it is a notable title for Minaj.  "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 19:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As I understand that's an equal issue, so in that other article I moved it to legacy section. offtopic, but "already stated in the article" (?) was a logic used once for that type of removal. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with artists such as Elliott and Kim having the "Queen of Rap" title in their leads, since they are seasoned rap veterans who have gotten a lot of praise. However, I don't see why people are so against it with Minaj specifically if several western media outlets have called her the "Queen of Rap" multiple times. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous comment. While flowerily language and puffery should be avoided in the lead. However, if one is recognized by multiple reputable sources regularly by such terms such as "Queen of Rap", then such a term belongs in the lead. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 01:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also believe that saying something like "she has occasionally been referred to as the "Queen of Rap" in the lede and then hyperlink that to Honorific nicknames in popular music isn't that detrimental to the prose, nor is it in any way incorrect. Yes, those kind of honorifics often overlap and are applied to several people in the same genre, but that's just how they work and there's no reason to exclude them from this article and not others. Besides, there are plenty of other things that could be improved in this lede. PraiseVivec (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with praisevivec that this is common practice in this industry. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support and make even more concise Even the proposed alternative is far too long in my opinion. We should also cut down on references in the lead per WP:LEDECITE. If it's sourced in the body and not controversial, no reason to clutter the lead with references. ~ HAL  333  20:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honorific nicknames seem to be a standard, however, for lots of musicians articles, including but not limited to Justin Bieber and Chris Brown.  "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 01:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say it is an improvement but could probably do with more trimming, but both versions have MOS:CITELEAD issues. Neutral on the "Queen of Rap" question, can understand it is a bit more dubious than say MJ's "King of Pop" but I am not so informed on this issue. Not watching please ping. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from some minor things that could be fixed, the lede is perfectly fine to me, although the Instagram thing should definitely not be in the lede. The "Queen of rap" title/reference is a good introduction to the article, and is sourced appropriately, and is for sure not "peacocky" or even used in that sense. AshMusique (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

New proposed lead
I've compiled ideas and suggestions of this RfC per majority, so I'm proposing this entry. cc:. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for agree/disagree/or any extra suggestion, tagging, , , , , , , , et al. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree. Bringing in the first billion views was a good move, along with the trimmed first paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. I’d change “second female artist with the most entries” to “female artist with the second-most entries” but other than that it looks fine. Definitely a lot more trim and I like the inclusion of her breaking the record in Argentina as that shows a notable achievement outside the US as well as the inclusion of her acting career as that gives a look into what she’s done outside of music.  CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree I am far from an expert on Nicki Minaj, and watch this page mostly to nip disruption in the bud. But this proposed new lead seems to do a very good job of summarizing her career to date. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose / change some things Again, lead does not seem to mention that multiple news sources have called her the current Queen of Rap. I would suggest adding it in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph: If multiple news sources have called her the Queen of Rap, omitting this from the lead is simply a bad idea. And again, interestingly, you didn't ping the people that actually consistently edit this article. Pinging experienced editors for their thoughts.  "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 06:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping . Apologies  "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 05:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Light oppose. No need to remove the "Queen of Rap" line completely. Apart from the uneven paragraphs and the eyesore that is the piles of messy refs, its good! I'm willing to improve on that part (and hopefully prevent the oncoming risk of WP:GAR). — cybertrip👽 ( 💬 • 📝)  09:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks much better. If that all that information is included in the body of the article, then all the sources can be removed. As we try to avoid them as much as possible in the lead. Regarding the most controversial topic "Queen of Rap". Maybe a mention since RS, NPR, and USA Today call her that. Something in the vein of "Minaj has been mention as the "Queen of Rap" by RS, USA Today and NPR". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record RS (at least the article cited) calls her the Queen of Hip-Hop, not the Queen of Rap, and doesn't use either phrase in the body of the article, just the headline (see WP:HEADLINE). If the Queen of Rap thing goes in the lead it should be phrased like "her success in the United States has led some publications to dub her the Queen of Rap".  Again, I don't think this belongs the lead, though, as I'm not sure this nickname is used as much by other sources as it is by Minaj herself and her fanbase.  I'm trying to find more sources and it's pretty mixed (with a lot of tabloid nonsense thrown in).  A lot of results for Queen of Rap use the phrase in a direct quote from Minaj.  Complex and HipHopDX even refer to her as the "self-proclaimed Queen of Rap."  That's not to say I came up empty, either, there's some better sources such as BBC, Uproxx, and Rap-Up.  Of course they could be using that as the nickname she gives herself.  Like I said, there's a lot of sources where Queen of Rap only appears in a quote from Minaj herself.  Still unsure if this is lead-worthy but not nearly as opposed to it as I was when the only sources included Genius and a RS headline.  CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone is intended as an interview article with her, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be mentioned, since it's an interview. Another reliable source is USA Today, "Here are photos of the queen of rap through the years." The Conversation, "The queen of rap’s response is perfectly on brand." and I think this NME article can also apply, although I'm a bit more meh on this since it's not an outright quote: "Whether you insist that she can’t be the Queen of Rap [..] you cannot deny that the queen from Queens has single-handedly refreshed the idea of what a rapping woman is."
 * Another great source is GQ. "Since that day, I have never been the same. Minaj’s verse contains multitudes, underlining exactly why she remains the indisputable Queen of Rap." So yes, multiple prominent news sources do consistently call her the Queen of Rap for her talent and flow. I think it's fair to put this in the lead, with all these sources in the current article and all the other sources I linked in this reply.  "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 05:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with . In the lead section, let the artist's accomplishments speak for themselves. These are examples when a name/a nickname is indisputable, widely, and not a push:


 * Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you love quoting NYT so much: "Nicki Minaj, Always in Control — The queen of hip-hop has fought her way to the top of the music industry and never made compromises." If GQ, NYT, BBC and RS all state Minaj as the queen of hip-hop and the queen of rap, what's your issue with calling her the queen of rap then?  "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 07:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify that my point was the multiple publications from the same top-tier sources, repeating the nickname. Btw that link is Style Magazine, not The New York Times staff: T is not a supplement of The New York Times Magazine, but a distinct publication with its own staff. It's not about pushing it. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's some reputable western news sources that call her the "Queen of Rap", or "Queen of Hip-Hop" as an honorable nickname


 * 1) BBC: "Nicki Minaj: is the Queen of Rap's crown fading?
 * 2) LA Times: "The rapper has further cemented herself as the reigning queen of hip-hop."
 * 3) Rolling Stone: "The new queen of hip-hop also discusses her five-year plan."
 * 4) MTV: "The Queen of hip-hop addresses situations with a specificity.."
 * 5) GQ: "Minaj’s verse contains multitudes, underlining exactly why she remains the indisputable Queen of Rap."
 * 6) The Daily Beast: "As Nicki began her full-time reign as the queen of hip-hop..."
 * 7) The Daily Beast: "Hip-hop’s reigning queen enlists Lil Wayne, Drake, and even Remy Ma’s ex-best friend.."
 * 8) XXL: "In short, Nicki is the undisputed Queen of Hip-Hop."
 * 9) Mic: "[Minaj had critical success with pop songs like "Super Bass" and "The Night Is Still Young," but what makes her the Queen of Rap are her more hip-hop focused anthems.." ]
 * 10) Mic: "...there have also been calls for the queen of rap to locate the nearest grip and hold it with all of her might."
 * 11) The Source: "Just in case you needed a reminder why [Minaj is the current reigning Queen of Hip Hop." ]
 * 12) Uproxx: "[Minaj racked up ten Grammy nominations during the 2010s and has been dubbed by many as the “queen of rap.” ]
 * 13) Uproxx: "After spending a decade as the queen of hip-hop, Nicki Minaj has apparently decided to abdicate her throne"
 * 14) Nylon: "Minaj dominated for years consecutively, as the reigning Queen of Rap, a title proudly boasted throughout her discography."
 * 15) The New Yorker: "The album’s first expletive belonged to the then-reigning queen of hip-hop, Nicki Minaj, on “Side to Side,”
 * 16) Interview: "The queen of rap has emerged like a dungeon dragon via an Instagram post."
 * 17) The Conversation: "The queen of rap’s response is perfectly on brand: Minaj wields rap’s hypermasculinity to emasculate and scorn the men who continue to benefit from hip hop’s everyday misogyny."
 * 18) Bustle: "No one does pink quite like the queen of rap."
 * 19) HipHopDX: "On Tuesday, the Queen of Hip Hop cast her vote in the age-old debate.."
 * 20) NY Daily News: The reigning queen of hip hop, who has carved herself a well-defined niche in the male-dominated rap game, explained she took lessons from other artists and simply put in the hustle to get where she is now.

With this many publications and sources calling her this honorable nickname of "Queen of Rap", I think it's fair to say that the nickname is very much prominent enough for inclusion. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 05:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of those sources cited are either weak or blogs. Then, you have BBC report "is the queen of rap's crown fading?", LAT and Rolling Stone using "New Queen of Hip Hop", which is not the same, as rap and hip hop aren't interchangeable (important point you're missing, and others editors already pointed it out here), and The New Yorker saying "the then-queen of hip hop". The point of my previous posts were "top-tier sources using the nickname again and again." This wasn't the case. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How is Mic, Uproxx, Nylon and Bustle "blogs?" There are so many reputable media websites that state her as the Queen of Rap, so for you to completely ignore this is very suspicious. Mic and Uproxx are not "blogs" or "weak sources". Period. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 07:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Short and concise. I like it. ~ HAL  333  02:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support My only caveat is one that others have already mentioned: We should include a quote about her being considered the "Queen of rap" somewhere, but only if directly attributed and not in Wiki-voice. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  03:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support It's an improvement but it still contains too many specific details about chart peaks and certifications that would overwhelm most readers. ili (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge a redundant sentence in the first paragraph and second paragraph.
I noticed that there's a pretty redundant // conflicting sentence in the lead: The lead sentence makes note of Minaj being known for her flow and versatility, but the second sentence of the second paragraph also makes note of her being known for her alter egos and accents. Why don't we just merge them together so that we don't have two "Minaj is known for" sentences in the lead? So:


 * She is known for her animated flow in her rapping and versatility as a recording artist.

will become


 * She is known for her animated flow in her rapping, versatility as a recording artist, and her usage of alter egos and accents.

And the second sentence of the second paragraph about her early career can be removed. It should also be noted that Nicki does still use accents occasionally in her verses, but this time she uses Jamaican Patois more than British cockney. And it should also be noted, most if not all of her verses from 2020 feature a new alter ego, "Queen Sleaze"; this is explicitly stated on the Whole Lotta Choppas Remix. I think that this is notable enough to add it to the lead sentence, and at the same time we can cut down on stuff in the lead that is unnecessary and make it slimmer. Thanks. Pinging for their thoughts. shanghai. talk to me 04:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyone here? Thanks shanghai. talk to me 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained removals & additions
I cited featured articles (best on Wikipedia and commonly used as examples for editors) as reasons why information about songs "falling from the chart" is not article body worthy and that the Brit awards are notable enough to be used in leads; you said "Add it in the featured articles" which doesn't make sense as featured articles are gold standard; to "add it in" said article so that you can add this other irrelevant to the article chart information goes against Wikipedia policy. There is no reason that this belongs in the main Minaj article if a featured article like Taylor Swift doesn't mention her drop from number one at all. And yes, the Brit Awards are notable enough to be in leads if they're used in featured articles like Katy Perry. Cc  shanghai. talk to me 02:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The advise they gave you to not write a long list of award shows in the lead section, when you asked in this talk page. Is that award (for a fan-voted 'best British-singer video' notable for the lead?; she was featured artist). The article you mentions has that, for a main category.
 * That chart performance received media coverage; it was the first to drop like that. You previously removed another chart performance that was also covered, and again after another user re-added it. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Long list of award shows" is not a good reason seeing as the featured article I cited has five, and the edit I'm proposing will make the total list of awards six. Same amount as the awards list on Cardi B yet I don't see you complaining about that article. A notable award is a notable award regardless if it was fan-voted or not; there's no policy stating that fan voted awards don't mean as much as normal awards; then the VMAs would be useless (which is included in MULTIPLE featured article leads)
 * Also, you're failing WP:ONUS. Media also covered Taylor's drop from number one on the Hot 100, and yet it's not in the article because it does not need to be included; you somehow keep skirting around the fact that I'm citing featured articlesfor my edits and your edit summaries don't actually cite any examples or policies. Please stop the edit warring.  shanghai. talk to me 07:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask editors here to give their opinions on if you add or not award shows to the lead, get an answer, and you not take such advise? On that other article you're mentioning, you're free to add that fact. Each article is different. You are the one an admin suggested should be banned from wikipedia for this behavior. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Trollz drop
I think you may have misunderstood me. I used a featured article as an example on why the content doesn't belong. Taylor Swift currently holds the record for the biggest drop to number one with her lead single, Willow, and yet the Taylor article doesn't mention her drop from number one, because it is not really relevant in the main Taylor article; if you want more examples, the BTS article does not mention their drop from number one with Life Goes On, and neither the Travis Scott, Young Thug, or M.I.A articles mention their drop from number one with Franchise. Why should it be different for Minaj? shanghai. talk to me 10:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Breakthrough with Pink Friday release date
With all due respect please write the right information on nicki minaj for instance on the "Breakthrough with Pink Friday" section it's written that the album was released on November 19 while the real date is November 22 please rectify Harajuku Sleeze (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Wikipedia would need a reliable source for that change, not just someone's say-so. Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine misinformation
Does anyone have a reliable sources of Nicki Minaj vaccine misinformation. Recently, the White House discussed about the vaccine after her Twitter account was temporary suspended for COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. --49.150.116.127 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the government of Trinidad & Tobago said they wasted their time investigating what they called false claims made by her so, take that for what it is. Then there’s the head honcho himself disputing it. Trillfendi (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking the 'invitation' to the white house, and the 'suspended' twitter claim, both denied, could be included. did it receive enough coverage? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Both Minaj and the White House said that a meeting was underway per the New York Times. shanghai. talk to me 02:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * May I ask what you intend to insinuate with "make of that what you will". If officials and reliable sources say her claims were false, then they were false and that's that. Also, what's the deal with the tongue-in-cheek designation of Dr Antony Fauci as "the head honcho"? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Eliminating the remaining Forbes sources on this page
The removal of one of my recent edits is justified as Forbes sources are not reliable; I am making this talk section to announce my intent to remove all content this article based on Forbes sources. SALLY 9000 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed all content based on Forbes.com sources except for the comments of the Infobox. I recommend changing the Infobox sources as well, but there is an existing comment in the Infobox requesting that no changes be made to it without opening discussion in the Talk page. SALLY 9000 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you check to ensure you've only removed "Forbes contributor articles" (WP:FORBESCON) and not "Forbes staff articles" (WP:FORBES)? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Valid point; because Forbes no longer makes the distinction clear in their links, that may have slipped my attention. I see that you have [correction: has] begun reverting my edits; to avoid the appearance of edit warring, please take care to check that only Forbes staff articles are reverted. Apologies! SALLY 9000 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That caught me out too to be honest! Cheers Forbes.... ( please do check to make sure you're only reinstating the staff articles ) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just realised that some of the FORBESCON references can be swapped with other sources, instead of outright deletion of the reference and its accompanying content as well. A search on Google with some of the keywords from the articles should show you alternative sources. – robertsky (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenation
I'm noticing that throughout the article a hyphen is used in "number-[...]" whenever it is used as a noun when referring to chart positions. I can't find a corresponding style guideline at MOS and most dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Macmillian, Collins, and Dictionary.com do not hyphenate the two words. Should we remove the hyphen in these cases? Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 21:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021
http://www.nickiminajofficial.com/ Is her website. When her name is Googled it shows a site that doesn’t exist mypinkprint.com. After it is corrected to her correct site, hours lately it reverts back to the wrong site again for her. So this means someone is correcting the wrong site, but someone else keeps changing it back to the wrong one. 47.200.7.239 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What does any of this have to do with this Wikipedia article? Cannolis (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Queen of Hip-Hop
How do we correctly mention that Nicki Minaj has been called the "Queen of Hip-Hop" by reputable publications such as The New York Times, Billboard, T Magazine NPR, LA Times, MTV, XXL, and The Daily Beast, whilst keeping it balanced and not over-puffed? In my opinion, it's perfectly possible to make note of in the lead that she's been called the "Queen of Hip-Hop" and the "Queen of Rap" by reputable news sources while still following WP:NPOV and being fair, minimalist, and concise. I'm pinging some people of note in the earlier discussion and also those who can comment:

Here is my proposed biography (open to suggestions and changes, and implemented some ideas in the earlier RfC discussion) that tries to keep a balance between this moniker and keeping the lead balanced. Thank you. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 11:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

(invited by the bot)  I have no expertise in this area, but "queen of hip hop" seems like something that would be debated. The extra safe route would be to simply list which prominent publications said that. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, the proposed biography says: Minaj has been referred to as the "Queen of Hip-Hop" by some western publications such as The New York Times, Billboard, NPR, and XXL. Along with sources for said publications referring to her as the "Queen of Hip-Hop." "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 13:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the current lead is fine and going off of what I said in the previous RfC a couple of sources that I linked above said the nickname was self-proclaimed, which is enough to give me hesitancy in adding it to the lead.  Add it to legacy, sure, but there’s too much inconsistency in the nicknames for me to be good with adding it to the lead.  Besides, her notable achievements are there already.  I feel like being one of the top female rappers and one of the top selling female artists is way more notable and lead-worthy than a nickname.  If the nickname does get added to the lead, I think it should be added after the Billboard sentence so it would read “She has received numerous accolades, and ranked as Billboard's top female rapper of the 2010s, as well as seventh among the top female artists of the decade.  Her notable achievements have led some publications such as The New York Times and NPR to call her the Queen of Hip-Hop.”  But, again, it’s not really something I’m not 100% sure goes in the lead.  Being one of the greatest female rappers of all time is much less disputed and already there.  CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Minaj has called herself the "Queen of Rap" in verses, but there have been instances of genuine publications referring to her as the Queen of Hip Hop. Prominence is a huge factor here. If this was a one off, i.e only one publication has called her the Queen of Hip Hop, I'd understand better, but in all honesty there's way too many reputable sources consistently referring to her as the Queen of Hip Hop again and again- all the sources I linked branch off for multiple years, some in 2015 and some in 2017. Also, Minaj is not called one of the "greatest female rapper" in the lead, I don't know where you got that. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 18:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Several valid reasons why from editors in previous rfc, no point in me echoing them. Current lead is better than previous version(s). ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Well its kinda obvious she's not the only the female who referred as "Queen of Hip Hop", like Missy Elliot, Lil' Kim and Mary J. Blige, they're all referred as the same nickname. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 16:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Minaj's nickname, as sourced above, has the most prominence. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current lead is fine and balanced; reasons to not include nickname there were already explained multiple times in the previous talk. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If the publication goes "the selfed claimed queen of rap", then it's not valid whether is Genius or TNYT. However, if the publication has written "the queen of rap, Minaj has...", then it's valid if the publication is reliable. However, I do think the biggest question here is adding or not to the lead. Despite being a nickname, it should be added. Leads have to grab the attention of a reader and a nickname does that, the reader will think "oh she is..why?" and search for more in the article. Of course, it should be mention in the body of the article the publication along with the achievements that grant her that title. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources I linked make no mention of any self-claim whatsoever. For example, the New York Times says: "Following her “Anaconda” performance last year, which set social media ablaze, the reigning queen of hip-hop takes the stage once more, fresh off her “The Pinkprint” tour." "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 06:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose whatever is being proposed by RogueShanghai. Too many conflicting sources can be found naming others as the Queen of Rap or the Queen of Hip-Hop. Missy Elliott, Mary J. Blige and Queen Latifah keep coming up in the searches. Certainly Blige is more often called the Queen of Hip-Hop Soul, perhaps leaving the non-soul throne to someone else. Roxanne Shante was called the first Queen of Rap by Tricia Rose. Queen Latifah was profiled as the Queen of Rap in New York magazine by Dinitia Smith in 1990. Millie Jackson was called the Queen of Rap, and others continued the moniker. Even Sylvia Robinson was Queen of Rap back in the day. Whatever we say about these titles laid on Minaj should be attributed to every source, and kept down in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those haven't been called the "Queen of Hip-Hop", at least by contemporaries. Overwhelmingly, media sources have called her the Queen of Hip Hop in contemporary times. Maybe this would be worth mentioning, such as "she has been called the Queen of Hip Hop by contemporary media outlets etc etc." But in general, there are far too many prominent sources to avoid mentioning of the "Queen of Hip-Hop" lead. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose for reasons given by Binksternet. This is worth mentioning in the article body, as similar appellations/claims are at the articles on Elliott, Blige, Latifah, Shante, Robinson, etc., and ascribed to particular sources. These things do not belong in the lead, as they are clearly non-defining and even contradictory claims, and entirely subjective.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple people being called a similar nickname does not warrant the person being called the said nickname the most to not be called it at all; for example, Lady Gaga is often hailed by critics as the "Queen of Pop," but Madonna is the one called the "Queen of Pop" the most. Both *are* called the Queen of Pop, but Madonna is much more prominent in being called the Queen of Pop. This is a similar situation to Nicki: while others can also be called the Queen of Hip-Hop, such as Missy, Nicki is the one usually most called the Queen of Hip-Hop. If you search "Queen of Rap" on Google, her name and infobox is the one that automatically pops up. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 08:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the comments above, the lead looks okay as it is. Sea Ane (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please fix her intro the one available on mentions one thing about her!! That's disrespectful, fix her associated acts by removing 6ix9ine, Chris Brown put beyonce Drake Lil Wayne Birdman Madonna and Ariana Grande and also the 'Breakthrough with Pink Friday' is incorrect it says the album was released In November 19 where else the real date is November 22. Pinkprint Publishing (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Madonna I Don't Give A.jpg

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 Doja Cat. Isnt this enough to call her one of the world's greatest Rap queens? Mela5556 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Rap queen
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. talk to me 09:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am looking for the "Queen of Rap" formulation from the sources because it is explicitly a title. Binksternet (talk) 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. talk to me 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021
Change the default photo of Nicki Minaj to a photo of her from the year 2021 173.73.59.184 (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The most recent free image we have is from 2018. See here. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Rfc: lead image
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. For more examples of these type of lead image discussions, please look at Talk:Kelly_Clarkson as an example. Thank you. shanghai. talk to me 06:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Support A (2017) image as proposer. It's a face forward centered head shot, it fits the biography much more. shanghai. talk to me 06:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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  talk  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. Coolcactus04 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A Forward-facing and with a neutral expression compared to the other two images. Some1 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * B --FMSky (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote; you need to explain your reasoning if you want to potentially influence the consensus. –– FormalDude  talk  05:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Invited by the bot) A More flattering, and the others are somewhat unflattering North8000 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * B, bc the picture you posted (A) is heavily edited and retouched. Inviting editor since he left a comment about this in the other section. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. talk to me 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. talk to me 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? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. talk to me 02:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. talk to me 04:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , try the Village pump/Copyright at Commons. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I opened a new section in Commons looking for an admin, currently waiting for a response. shanghai. talk to me 09:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. talk to me 16:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for following through on that. Well done. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  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. Trillfendi (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , do I read this as a WP:!VOTE supporting A? Or just a passing comment? Thank you. shanghai. talk to me 07:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Take it as a vote, I suppose. Trillfendi (talk) 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. 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)
 * KittyHawkFlyer, I would just like to point out that the image is not touched up. Only lighting and color temperature changes have been made. Thank you. shanghai. talk to me 05:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please tag me!  14:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

More detail
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.

shanghai. talk to me 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC) 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. talk to me 02:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You want to expand an already grotesquely long lead section even more? Black Kite (talk)
 * long introduction does not need more details at all. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur that the lead is already excessive. More detail about particular albums belongs in the main article body.  And re-issues don't belong in the lead of this or any other bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI
As the consensus reached after two RFCs during August/September 2021 keeps being ignored by an user:
 * This is the ultimate proposed lead, following a RFC to point out the issues: overstuffing, POV pushing, "cherry picks accomplishments".
 * These sentences were added later to the lead section:
 * "Her accolades include eight American Music Awards, five MTV Video Music Awards..."
 * "("Super Bass") was certified diamond by RIAA in 2021.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SQS & other comments

 * Billboard has mentioned that Say So has paved the way for other female rap collabs. Both Trollz drop and Say So paving the way were both mentioned by Billboard, so why are you choosing to keep one but remove the other?
 * How is it even overstuffing when the lead you are frequently reverting to has more characters?
 * Insisting to keep this version of the lead that you created is WP:SQS and may additionally constitute WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Multiple times I have attempted new edits that combine talk page suggestions to form an idea of consensus, and usually they are just reverted to your version which again may constitute WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.
 * Mid year lists are used in many articles, if they are strictly attributed as a mid year list (which they currently are) it doesn't make sense for you to keep removing it constantly again and again.
 * Please read WP:BRD instead of just continually reverting content to how you want it to be. Multiple times I have said I am willing to discuss and create new edits, yet your consistent stonewalling (that has been noticed by admins) is uncooperative and unencyclopedic. shanghai. talk to me 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * RogueShangai, two RFCs happened three moths ago Talk:Nicki_Minaj/Archive_5 during August/September, to discuss the lead section. You voted Oppose in all, but the majority agreed on the ultimate proposed lead, in order to remove the pov pushing and overtstuffing. Respect the decision that took several editors. The lead you wrote once was full of those issues, and you are trying to return to that point. then, you wanted to add more stuff to the lead, and editors told you no again, yet to are overtuffing it again. Ignoring these long RFCs is not "cooperating", is blatantly disrespectful to others that create consensus. ·Cornerstonepicker (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep on insisting to keep an older version of the RfC because of outdated conversations from months ago when at the time there weren't enough sources to support the nickname. But that has clearly changed with the new sources. Additionally, I don't even have to bring up that you went to specific editor's talk pages and asked them to vote on your RfC, so the "majority" you are talking about here again is vague. I already pointed out that the changes I have proposed to the lead cause the lead to have less characters, not more.
 * Are we still going to avoid talking about how you are removing properly sourced information about Say So paving the way? (Per Billboard) Your consistent stonewalling has been noticed by admins, please stop this WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. shanghai. talk to me 15:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * why are you trying to invalidate other editors? this can't be serious. Discussions happened August/September and were long conversations. Edits like the list of awards and the certification were ok to add, and were added later. But you are overstuffing it yet again. Just because you didn't like the result does not mean you're gonna wait a couple of months to re-write the lead section gradually, going against the exact points that were discussed. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems that you are personally choosing what edits to the lead can or can't be done based on your opinion. Specifically, these two points from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR:
 * Also, press CTRL+F in the archives of those RfCs you are talking about. Neither the terms "pov push" or "overstuff" appear in any form. You continue to consistently stonewall any edits I try to make to reach a compromise per WP:BRD. shanghai. talk to me 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, press CTRL+F in the archives of those RfCs you are talking about. Neither the terms "pov push" or "overstuff" appear in any form. You continue to consistently stonewall any edits I try to make to reach a compromise per WP:BRD. shanghai. talk to me 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, press CTRL+F in the archives of those RfCs you are talking about. Neither the terms "pov push" or "overstuff" appear in any form. You continue to consistently stonewall any edits I try to make to reach a compromise per WP:BRD. shanghai. talk to me 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj information
Hello I’m making a suggestion for nicki Minaj Wikipedia page and i feel like there’s more information that needs to be covered from the front part where nicki albums and sales are like for one where the pink print album is and highlight songs from that era should be Bang Bang nicki is a lead artist on that song and it’s a huge song that went to number 3. Also where the queen album is chun li should be the highlight song because it went to number 10. I’m just saying this needs to be spiced up more with her highlights and hits 69.118.11.68 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

More information
Hello so i just wanted to add a notice i been noticing so when you click on nicki Minaj Wikipedia and you go to the highlights where the albums and songs and records sold worldwide is I’ve notice that there’s important information missing like for one bang bang was durning the pink print era and a huge hit song that went to number 3 nicki was a lead artist on so it should be hightlighted where startships is also chun li was from the queen album that debuted at number 10 so that should be highlighted. Also i just feel it’s a little lazy write up of nicki and that should be added treat her like a legend please Raynard1.2 (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Chun-Li, while important, is kind of overshadowed by her number one hits, Tusa being the longest running number one song on the Argentina Hot 100, and being one of the best selling female artists of all time. The lead is not allowed to be too long per MOS:LEAD. And no, Wikipedia articles are not "lazy write-ups". shanghai. talk to me 05:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 December 2021
Change the genres from Rap/Hip hop, dance-pop and pop to Hip hop

R&B

pop

dance As the ones that were added do not mention what was said in the sources Sista II Sista (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. –– FormalDude  Emojione 1F427.svg talk 09:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Genres
As stated in the article, some of the sources for Minaj's genres including:
 * Rap/Hip hop
 * dance-pop
 * pop

Are not sourced, I pose that we change them to:
 * Hip hop
 * R&B
 * pop
 * dance as the ones that were added do not mention what was said in the sources Sista II Sista (talk)

Poll

 * 1) Support as per my statement Sista II Sista (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that Sista II Sista has been suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned editor, MariaJaydHicky, via Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky at this time. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Edit seems fine to me, well sourced enough.  shanghai. talk to me 12:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I didn't know the user was a banned sock, apologies. I agree that the poll should be closed immediately. shanghai. talk to me 05:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) This "poll" should be closed. Opened by a banned editor: Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: This poll was opened by someone who was on an indefinite ban, and must be closed immediately. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:GAR
Just a note: as this article clearly currently fails the Good Article criteria (and has done for a while now, due to the incessant edit warring), I intend to sbmit it to GAR very shortly. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Queen of Rap
queen of rap 106.215.80.28 (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That is currently being discussed. Please see Talk:Nicki_Minaj, thank you. shanghai. talk to me 13:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 December 2021
I’ve been working on Nicki Minaj pages for quite a few time. I wanted to add City Girls at the people she has inspired. Blarb48 (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Full protected
Due to the ongoing edit war, I have full protected the article. Ping me once an RfC is started or and  mutually agree to stop edit warring and I will downgrade it back to semi-protection --  Guerillero  Parlez Moi 18:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree to stop edit-warring on this article. Talk page discussions with Cornerstonepicker have been unproductive in reaching consensus (as seen above) and I've tried to make new edits using WP:BRD that refine the content based on the talk page discussions. However, they have been reverted by Cornerstonepicker every single time to the same exact version of the content with almost no changes. This constant stonewalling on this article has been noticed by other admins.  shanghai. talk to me 06:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , FYI, I would also recommend against starting an RfC, because the edits that are getting stonewalled deal with multiple things in the article (such as sourced content being removed without any explanation, critics lists, breaking records, section titles, etc.) An RfC to tackle all of these things might merit a null outcome / "procedural close" given that trying to tackle all of these things may be too broad when RfCs are supposed to be concise.
 * Seperating it into multiple RfCs would not be a solution either, that's more of a band aid solution that makes it even more complicated than it has to be. shanghai. talk to me 05:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just the equivalent of saying "there is no imaginable solution". The actually appropriate solution is a series of concise RfCs. We do this all the time, tedious as it may be, and they are most frequent on BLP pages. There's nothing unusual or impractical about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this article still fully protected over a week later? If Cornerstonepicker is not willing to agree to cease edit warring as RogueShanghai has, they should be blocked from editing this article. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 20:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm edit warring (reverting) to the RFC consensus of the lead section, as I summarized on Talk:Nicki_Minaj. Idk why that part is being left out. Then, the user is adding stuff like the subject "has fought for artists' rights", cherry picking comments to satisfy an specific audience, adding July mid-year lists... this shouldn't be a ghost town when is time to check on fans writing articles. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, I no longer care. Sorry. Discard my comments if you want. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 10:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)