Talk:The Pinkprint

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014
112.200.88.230 (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Pink Print or Pinkprint?
There's been two variations of the album title being tossed around. Which one is the correct one, though? "The Pink Print", where "Pink" and "Print" are separate words, or "The Pinkprint", where it's all one word? RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In my general observation from news released, more reliable sources have separated Pink from Print. STATic message me!   17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I can second what STATic   has said. Minaj herself, along with her label, have used both Pink Print and Pinkprint, so we won't actually know until an official release date and pre-order comes about, until then either of the two will be ok. KaneZolanski (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014
2601:4:500:1013:B1D2:150A:55C3:C043 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (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. Nici  Vampire  Heart  11:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 06 August 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Closing early as it looks conclusive. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Pink Print → The Pinkprint – It has been confirmed from a verified source. KaneZolanski (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support (as nom), now that it has been officially confirmed there is no logical reason to keep the article named incorrectly. KaneZolanski (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose since searching the album online will give results that is read as "The Pink Print", not "The Pinkprint". If we can clarify this, we must have a source other than Twitter. IPadPerson (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Honestly if you still think it shouldn't be changed you're an idiot cause Nicki Minaj HERSELF* said it will be named the "The Pinkprint". So stupid. (Isaacdas11 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not be rude and resort to name calling. We are not children, we are having a discussion in which people are entitled to different opinions. If you decide to leave any further comments, please take into consideration that rude, abrasive behaviour isn't tolerated or welcomed. KaneZolanski (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support — Due to the confirmation by Minaj on Twitter of it being "The Pinkprint". The media may have called it The Pink Print more often as that was origionally reported however, we should use what will be the official album name. STATic message me!   06:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm on the fence here. I've found many results from reliable sources calling it "The Pink Print", but there is Minaj herself calling it "The Pinkprint". Maybe "The Pinkprint" is a stylization.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 10:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment reply Snuggums, Minaj has been directly quoted saying that this is her "The Blueprint", an ode to Jay-Z. Also, it's not that Nicki Minaj just tweeted with this spelling, she was diametrically clearing up that it is called "The Pinkprint" and not "The Pink Print". KaneZolanski (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a link with that quote?  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 11:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Snuggums, http://www.mtv.com/news/1852006/nicki-minaj-pink-print-jayz-blueprint/ ; http://www.complex.com/music/2014/06/nicki-minaj-dj-semtex-interview-the-pink-print-female-rappers KaneZolanski (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking through both links, it seems more like she was suggesting that this album would be as successful and/or musically similar to Jay-Z's album The Blueprint. The Complex link has her mentioning the album by name, though quotes her as calling it The Pink Print. It would probably be better to have a link where she more explicitly indicates that it is Pinkprint rather than Pink Print.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 12:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Snuggums, The links were quoting her from a spoken interview, where she made the link and reference to it being the Jay-Z "The Blueprint" for female rappers. She clarified the spelling with her tweet. KaneZolanski (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the links Jenn provided below, I now support the move.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 22:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: I've seen this happen before with albums/films, wherein an artist announces what their project is called, but discusses it in an interview and does not announce it in print media, leaving media (and fans) unsure or to assume by themselves how it is stylized. Subsequent mentions of the album in reliable sources will likely align to the correct title given time. See LDR's Ultraviolence (2014) as a working example. —JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The artist specifically confirmed the spelling on Twitter. Also it makes sense to me that it will be stylized the same as The Blueprint, as the artist has compared the two. Most sources have probably spelled it only from spoken interviews she has done. 2Flows (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Minaj's tweet. When the album is officially announced by her record label with the proper title (ie, a press release or the like), RSes should follow. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support; Given that Nicki has called it more or less the female equivalent of The Blueprint, and considering the way she intentionally tweeted (in all-caps let's note) The Pinkprint, it can be reasonably assumed that the one-word version is the preferred title. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Rolling Stone link below. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Nicki Minaj directly responded to a question as to whether it was spelt "The Pink Print" or "The Pinkprint". (https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/497117375712329728)KaneZolanski (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a source other than Minaj, but it's a pretty good start. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone, Spin and AllHipHop have used the stylization The Pinkprint. —JennKR | ☎ 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is a space.
I moved The Pinkprint to The Pink Print. Twitter, Nicki Minaj said that they MIGHT be using "Pinkprint" but not "Pink Print", but valid sources say it is "Pink Print". I understand that Josep Vinaixa might not be a valid source, but the others are all. Even if I searched, "The Pinkprint", the results all came out with a space. Even Minaj's Instagram account name have a space. You know, we might not know whether Minaj is really naming it "Pinkprint" due to a Twitter post. It has a space, and we must keep it this way until the official name comes out.
 * Billboard
 * MTV
 * Idolator
 * Music Times
 * Josep Vinaixa
 * E! Online
 * Capital FM

What do you guys think? As well as, I hope you guys can say, and other users are welcomed too. DEW.  Adrenaline  ( Nahnah4 ) 03:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of The Pinkprint, simply because of the said allusion to Jay Z's The Blueprint, but I have to sit on the fence, because a) the album hasn't been formally announced, hence, there's no correct version of the title as of yet and b) third party sources can easily mistake something like the formatting of an album title. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until the official album release. Simon (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely leave it as is until otherwise. IPadPerson (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was just discussed above with clear consensus for "The Pinkprint". Please do not move it unless there is an official source stating a different name. 2Flows (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Tour
Today The Pinkprint Tour was announced. A little information about it should probably be incorporated into this article. Sources: MTV, Capital Xtra, Rap-Up ThirdWard (Lolcakes25) (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Target & UK exclusive deluxe version
Firstly, I edited the total length of the standard version to 67:00 because that's what the total length of the standard version is. Not 64 minutes something like it was before.

Anyway, the length of the Target & UK exclusive deluxe version with the 5 bonus tracks is listed on this page at the moment as "Total length: 81:06"

This makes very little sense since a CD can only fit 80 minutes of music at the most.

I actually have the CD and the real total length is 79:24. This is because half of the tracks on this version of the album have actually been edited to make them shorter, removing sections of the songs.

I don't have any official source for this at the moment. All I have is my own knowledge from comparing the tracks.

If someone could find somewhere official that lists the actual lengths of the tracks on the Target & UK exclusive deluxe version of the CD, that would be really helpful. It seems pretty significant that many of the songs have been shortened by ten seconds or more... Anaconda is less than 3 minutes long on this version.27.252.206.182 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it definitely needs to be added to the article that many of the songs on the deluxe edition are shortened to fit on the CD (the 21-track Target/UK/worldwide deluxe edition is over 84 minutes, while the 20-track normal deluxe edition is 81 minutes). The "Anaconda" error has been more widely addressed, so I added that to the article already. I also adjusted the total lengths, as they had been changed again by somebody.  Ss 112  03:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. That's interesting, the New Zealand deluxe version didn't have that error with Anaconda but it is still much shorter.27.252.217.73 (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding full protection
I've full protected this article for a week due to what was fast-moving prevalent edit warring. (Not necessarily 3rr vios, but the general nature of edits in the last few days) I have something to attend to right now, and do not have the time to fully address this. It would be ideal if a party would file a WP:AN3 report, as I noted at WP:ANI. I also note that the administrator that processes the request has my permission to modify the protection on this page as they see fit. Until this page is unprotected, please discuss changes on the talk page. NativeForeigner Talk 08:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed introduction
My proposal for a revised introduction when protection on the article is lifted, feel free to leave comments or make suggestions! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Needs some re-tooling, as numbers ten and under should be written out (one instead of 1, two instead of 2, etc.). Other than that, it's a decent introductionary to the page once it re-opens.  Plus  a few grammatically errors.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that when giving a list of numbers less than and greater than ten, it is best to list them all numerically. I made some grammatical fixes and reworked the last couple sentences in the third paragraph, hopefully it works a little better! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope; numbers nine and below are to be written out (sorry, originally believed it was ten). It's spelt out at the manual of style for numbers.  There are still a few errors within the body from my viewing that would require just a tad bit more fixing.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 17:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "In the United Kingdom, however, it became Minaj's lowest-charting project after debuting at number 22 on the UK Albums Chart." This counts as original research, it may be Minaj's lowest-charting project but if there isn't a reliable source stating that claim then it shouldn't be included in the ledge. Also, the first Billboard article mistakenly stated 194,000 copies. In the second week Billboard reported that the album moved 105k totalling 303k overall, this would mean that the album sold 198k in its first week - as reported by HipHopDX. I can provide all these links if you do not wish to find them yourself. Kane (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you already have those links on hand then yes that would be lovely! If you don't I don't want to inconvenience you, and I'll just adjust the introduction accordingly until I get the sources lol WikiRedactor (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This Billboard article used the updated numbers of 198k: http://m.billboard.com/entry/view/id/111176

Billboard: 105k (down 47 percent); 53% of 198k = 105k http://m.billboard.com/entry/view/id/111353

HipHopDX: first week sales of 198,142. http://www.hiphopdx.com/m/index.php?s=news&id=31870 Kane (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Am I abusing this article?
I told the editor whoever added the "Top Rap Albums" chart section over the "Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums" chart section that the editor cannot add "Rap Albums" or "R&B Albums" if that albums had charted on the Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart. Both charts had since been merged with Urban Albums chart. I removed the "Rap Albums" section from the Chart list and now I'm afraid that I've been abusing this article. I think that I've used this page wrongfully. Can you tell me if I did this article wrong? Please and thank you. DBrown SPS 04:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBrown SPS (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015
The album charted in ARIA Urban Album Chart, at position #2. Please add the information in the Charts section.

Artur.badino (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Singles?
I know Pills n Potions, Anaconda, Only, and Bed of Lies were singles. Feeling Myself is confirmed. Truffle Butter though..it has shown up on Billboard charts like this one. Is there any source confirming Truffle Butter and The Night Is Still Young? I don't recall Minaj promoting those, but I'm unsure. Rockstar324 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Truffle Butter was released on iTunes and Spotify after not being available due to it being an iTunes 'album only' exclusive. It went top 20 on Urban and Rhythmic radio forcing a single release. Bed of Lies was pulled as a single due to lack of success and it's radio adds date was revoked, as well as the video being scrapped. So the status of singles at the moment is pretty blurred and unknown. Kane (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The constant edit-warring of what's the next single or not needs to end, effective immediately. Her official website is not the final selection, nor is Spotify. According to Take 40 (which cites her label as confirmation) that "Truffle Butter" is the next pop release, scrapping "The Night is Still Young". Official confirmation is only found for "Truffle", not for "Feeling Myself" or "Night" concerning Minaj's label. Continuing to re-add without citing third-party sources is completely disruptive.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 23:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have seen that all those three songs (audio only) has been uploaded to her official Vevo Channel on YouTube, and I bet it is for a reason. Nevertheless, proper promotion needs to be done before concluding. - Thewormsplayer (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding music to a YouTube or Soundcloud page, even Spotify does not constitute a single release; in today's age, many artists put up songs to give a preview of their album, or to see what could be well received as a future single.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Feeling Myself
Reasons why Feeling Myself is a single:
 * Confirmed as single by Minaj in December 2014 (http://www.idolator.com/7574796/nicki-minaj-beyonce-collaboration-feelin-myself-next-single-the-pinkprint)
 * Possibly: Nowhere in the article does it give any mention of Minaj confirming it, "like I’m guessing ‘Feelin’ Myself’ is the next urban song,” this is merely an interpretation of words by Idolater, upon reading it, I interpreted it as her saying it was the "next urban song" like it was a "hot" song that people liked? But I guess this one's just down to point of view.  Azealia 911  talk  22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Official audio video uploaded to Vevo in February 2015 (http://mypinkfriday.com/news/239663)
 * Not really: A song being uploaded to VEVO isn't confirmation of single release, artists upload entire albums to VEVO to advertise to customers.  Azealia 911  talk  22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Official music video released to Tidal in May 2015 (http://mypinkfriday.com/news/248493)
 * Not really: A song being given a music video also isn't a confirmation of it being a single.  Azealia 911  talk  22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Referred to as a hit single on Minaj's website (http://mypinkfriday.com/news/249613)
 * Not really: MyPinkFriday.com is a user-submitted forum site, note the "SUBMITTED BY USER" at the top of the post. Besides that, you're kinda lying here, it says "She performs several of her hits" not "She performs several of her hit singles" a song can indeed be considered a "hit" without getting a single release.  Azealia 911  talk  22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Multiple other sources referring to the song as a single (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/18/beyonce-and-nicki-minaj-s-feeling-myself-video-upstages-taylor-swift.html) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/watch-nicki-minaj-beyonce-have-796657) (http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/beyonce-and-nicki-minaj-have-just-dropped-their-video-for-feeling-myself-on-tidal-27360/)
 * Possibly: Again, all perspective of the writers. They could have seen that the song got a video and interpreted that as a single. Note that Ice Princess by Azealia Banks got a music video, and was refereed to as single by reliable news sources, but doesn't meet the criteria to be a "single"  Azealia 911  talk  22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Take note, both Minaj's website AND other sources have cited it as a single. Minaj confirmed its release on December 18, 2014, therefore that date should be used as its official release date. ---User:Kworbi — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Overall, you seem to have bundled together a few weak sources/reasons in hopes that all of them put together will constitute a viable reasoning to name it a single, and the release date, really? Let's say at the end of this discussion we decide the song is indeed a single, why on earth should it be given the release date that Nicki mentioned it? What if the interview was a day later/earlier? Why not use a radio release (if it has one), the music videos release? I'd go with "December 2014" if we eventually decide it's a single.  Azealia 911  talk  22:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * MyPinkFriday.com is considered Minaj's wesbite, so no false information would be posted to her official wesbite. And all of the other sources provided are credible sources. Just because there are some off-cases where songs aren't singles and recieve music videos doesn't mean all cases are. Singles usually recieve this type of treatment by the artist, so I think that it is safe to call this song a single. ---User:Kworbi — Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * MyPinkFriday.com has been considered unreliable multiple times, especially at Nicki Minaj discography, in which sales of Pink Friday are changed, with IP's citing the site as reliable, due to one two-year old post saying how the album sold 2 million copies. It's nothing to do with weather the site is official, it's how it's user-submitted, which you seemed to ignore. "Off-cases"? there's usually always one or two songs on albums that receive music videos without being singles, quick examples off the top of my head being songs from Froot, Sucker, Broke with Expensive Taste, Dirty Gold, Warrior, Born Naked. Please don't brush off my points as "safe to call this song a single" without addressing a single point I've made.  Azealia 911  talk  22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Further points to discourage this form being labeled a single:
 * Music video was a TIDAL-exclusive release. The video for The Night Is Still Young was also initially a TIDAL-exclusive, but was carried over to YouTube as it's a single
 * Has had no individual release or album cover. All other singles were either released independently as one-song albums, or received an album artwork. PNP, Anaconda, Only, BOL, and Truffle Butter all got individual iTunes/Spotify release, while TNISY got an album artwork, FM got neither.  Azealia 911  talk  22:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2015
The Pinkprint peaked at #5 on the Swedish Hip-Hop Albums Chart. Please add it on the "Charts" section.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Trini Dem Girls?
I noticed it was denounced as being on a single on the article. Wasn’t it released on September 1, 2015 (much later after the previous singles) as a radio-only single? Gavin the Otter (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Is "Trini Dem Girls" a single?
This article from Republic Playbook (a Republic Records) site is being used in the article to claim that "Trini Dem Girls" was released as the 7th single from The Pinkprint. Note that the site is speaking in future terms that the song would impact Rhythmic radio on 1st Sep but there is no post-release date evidence that it was actually released. It didn't chart - unusual given the number of other songs she released around a similar time that had music videos, were spoken about in interviews etc and charted. In essence, it's called a single on the basis of the record label saying it would be released but there's little evidence to suggest it was actually released. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"retrospectively been acclaimed"
An example of this is critics publishing, years later, a new review of the album from another perspective. In this case, article editors (not reviewers) refer to the album as "critical acclaimed", as if Metacritic doesn't already have a score. That of course isn't the same.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This isn't necessarily the case, if you actually read my edit summaries you'd know that I added "retrospective critical acclaim" as there is another album, Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album), that mentions the album being critically acclaimed by critics years after the release of the album. Following that, it would be fair to say the same of The Pinkprint. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 07:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, do you get my point that a Review aggregator like Metacritic, with an score averaged from 25 reviews is in no way equal to three editors looking back at it can calling it 'acclaimed'?. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then bring that up with the editors at the Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album, article. Multiple magazines stated that The Pinkprint has been acclaimed years after it release. WP:NPOV

RfC: Critical acclaim
(WP:RFCBEFORE was already completed at Talk:Nicki_Minaj)

With the amount of reliable media sources that describe it as such, should The Pinkprint be described as critically acclaimed? shanghai. talk to me 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Amount of sources that describe The Pinkprint as critically acclaimed:

 * Rolling Stone: [Minaj] capitalized on the album's commercial success and ''
 * Vibe: The Pinkprint remains the most of [her albums.]
 * Idolator: A lot has changed since Minaj dropped her The Pinkprint in 2014.
 * Irish Independent: Queen, due to be released on August 10, is Minaj’s first studio album since 2014’s The Pinkprint.
 * Bustle: Minaj's album The Pinkprint came out a year ago, and she is still killing it.
 * Hyperallergic: The Pinkprint has been her most album by far.

As is done in many other articles relating to media or a body of work, it's perfectly reasonable to cite consensus to other sources. Squid Game, one of the biggest shows of 2021, was described as a critically acclaimed show per the many sources. (A talk page discussion about that, you can find here. Editors in that talk page discussion said that review aggregators consensus is only used when there is nothing else to use. And The Pinkprint's "critical acclaim" can be sourced to many articles, I can even find more if needed.

I was unsure about this and therefore asked a similar question in the teahouse, and again an editor there said that there's no issue citing consensus to reliable sources. This seems like a pretty easy and obvious edit to make. The metacritic number score can still be noted, but otherwise it makes more sense to describe the album as acclaimed given the sources. shanghai. talk to me 07:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's already an ongoing discussion about the same topic on Talk:Nicki Minaj. There I left my proposal. The amount of sources are five, Hyperallergic is non-notable; MC summarized 25 sources and called it only "generally favorable". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

New proposed wording
Per GoneIn60's reply, I think it would be best to put my proposal from Talk:Nicki Minaj onto here.

Given the sheer number of sources that support and describe it as such, The Pinkprint (2014) by Nicki Minaj should be described as critically acclaimed. Specifically, it should be described as such: The acclaim should also be noted of in Nicki Minaj's lead.

This is already widely common practice for other articles that have sources calling the reception as critically acclaimed, such as Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions and Squid Game, with lesser sources. It would make sense for The Pinkprint to be referred to as a critically acclaimed body of work, given the sheer amount of sources that support it. shanghai. talk to me 15:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. shanghai. talk to me 15:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Music publications gave a variety of synthesis to the matter:
 * NME says Recent LP ‘The Pinkprint’ might have received mixed reviews
 * XXL says The Pinkprint received mostly positive reviews
 * Business Standard says it got positive reviews
 * Music Times says it was met with mostly positive reviews.
 * The Root says Following the cool reception of The Pink Print album, Nicki Minaj’s career appeared to be in jeopardy.
 * Metro Times says The Pinkprint was released with mixed reviews
 * overlooking them for the "critical acclaim" claim would be cherrypicking. I recommend to just stay with "positive reviews" (that btw aligns with the review aggregators). I don't see the reason to push the 'acclaim' synth. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * XXL already says critical acclaim as well in one of the sources, and The Root, Metro Times, and Business Standard are unreliable non-notable sources. In the case of Business Standard, you're using an Indian newspaper not centered around American music acts, to counter American music magazines such as Rolling Stone.. Meanwhile, editors at the RS noticeboard have approved the source of Hyperallergic for Minaj's article. You're cherrypicking low quality sources to try to downplay The Pinkprint's noted critical acclaim. shanghai. talk to me 16:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cornerstonepicker shows multiple good sources that say other things. "Generally positive reviews" seems more neutral, less WP:SYNTH. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:SYNTH if the actual sources say it... that's confusing shanghai. talk to me 00:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Release date for album - December 12 or December 15 - Also about if one should disregard a reliable source
There is some back and forth article edits recently about the release date for The Pinkprint, and a request has been made to bring to the discussion to the talk page. Here it is now for discussion. There appears to be two issues, and I am not sure if the competing editors are arguing about the same issues, or if there is a disconnect between the issues. First issue would be when was the album released. By far the majority of sources states the album was released on December 15, 2014. There is only one source, a primary source, that states December 12, for the German market. There is no supporting sources that agree with the one primary source. Second issue is what weight to give to the primary source from the German market. This is the issue I have been focusing on, that an inconvenient source cannot be ignored because it does not align with the majority of the narrative.

I hope that I have stated the issues fairly and somewhat neutrally, because now I am going to pivot to my opinions, and my arguments.

There is always the possibility that the German source for the release date is a typo, but I am not sure how one determines that. Choosing to reject a source appears to be original research (No original research). That is not exactly how it is phrased, as the article states one cannot post material for which no reliable published source exists, but that pivots to the point that if a reliable published source exists, one should not throw it out.

Then the next issue is if a reliable published source exists. The source is a primary source by Universal Music Group, https://www.universal-music.de/nicki-minaj/musik/the-pinkprint-229108, and I don't see how a music label can be anything less than reliable, barring a typo on the page. This is not a blog, or a commercial sales website, this is a music publisher. Per the company's website, https://www.universalmusic.com/label/republic-records/, UMG is the publisher of Republic Records, which makes the corporation that posted the German release date the same corporation that is the known label of the album. Wikipedia is not opposed to the use of primary sources per No original research. Per Wikipedia policy, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Release date is a statement of fact, not attempting to make any interpretation of fact.

So this debate comes down to the issue that I could not care less when the album was released, either December 12 or December 15, but I care very much about any attempt to reject a source just because it provides an inconvenient listing that is not in agreement with 99.9% of the other sources.

Pinging the interested parties per the album article edit summary page:, ,. I will also take this to WP:ALBUM in an attempt to increase coverage of this discussion. Mburrell (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the conflict at hand comes down to, just as you said, editors ignoring one perfectly valid source which says something different than expected. Albums releasing early in specific markets is not unheard of, and we have been consistent about how we handle such discrepancies. It's not like we're removing the main release date; that information is still available. But when there's an earlier release date, consensus says that date should be recognized. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 22:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To confirm that December 12 was actually the release date of TPP in Germany, I would suggest a German national to refer to the official release date listed on streaming platforms. While it is true that the already-listed source is from Universal Music Group, December 12 does not seem to be the date TPP was published to any streaming platform in any country according to literally any other reputable source on the internet (of course this could be proven wrong). Also in response to @QuietHere - I am not ignoring the source, I am simply stating a better source should be found because having December 12 as a release date in a singular market in the first line of the article is frankly unnecessary. By that logic, you may as well add every release date to every other album article. Abcdehe (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I never said to add "every release date", just the earliest. And again, that's not my logic, that's established consensus. WP:RELEASEHISTORY says "the infobox should only include the first release date and label", and infobox album says "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section."
 * As for your suggestion regarding streaming platforms, that's not gonna be the best option. Those dates can be changed after the fact, and may not always be accurate, especially with releases which came out before the streamer launched. In this case, The Pinkprint is three years older than Apple Music, so I wouldn't assume it to be trustworthy. And there are other issues with sourcing from commercial sites, as mentioned at WP:ALBUMAVOID. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 23:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinions. After conducting further research I now think the release date of December 12 is mostly correct and is worthy of being mentioned in the infobox. Abcdehe (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention - The Pinkprint was actually released on December 15 on Apple Music in Germany. Abcdehe (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)