Talk:Nicki Minaj discography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Animales Discussion Cont'd

The song was not made available for purchase until the album came out. The source says the 24th but yet still there's no evidence of it being released separately from the album on any platform before the album release. So in what way can it be labelled as a promo single.

Not all promotional singles get their own independent release

What? Then how are they different from regular album tracks if there's no distinction between how they're treated/released.Annvarie (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a reliable source, and if they say that the song was a promotional recording, released on the 24th, then it was, there needs to be a certain level of trust in sources. There's no viable way of proving that a song was/wasn't independently released, as a lot of singles, promotional and full-blown ones, are merged into albums once they are deleted, Romeo's iTunes page doesn't list any singles, even ones released before the album came out. Azealia911 _talk 18:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And Rolling Stone could have easily made a typo as well. The song was available online (along with the rest of the album) before official release date but was officially available on the 25th. Other songs e.g. "Cancioncitas de Amor" were officially available before album release,</nowiki> but "Animales" was NOT officially available until the 25th.</nowiki> Annvarie (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Stone could have made a typo? How does someone accidentally type "A promo single from bachata superstar Romeo Santos' album Formula, Vol. 2," it should be noted that the article lists 19 songs, including other guest appearances, and none of them are labeled as promo singles, so this definitely isn't accidental labeling or puffery on RS's part. Azealia911 _talk 18:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the part where they labeled it as a promo single. That was just used misused in general. I was referring to the Feb 24th typo (should be 25th). As I previously mentioned (and sourced) above other songs were officially available (Amazon) before release date but "Animales" wasn't. But maybe you have a source showing an OFFICIAL release before the album came out?Annvarie (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is official. Just because you can't purchase from it doesn't make it any less authentic. You can stop SHOUTING! important words you want to highlight too, it just makes you sound angry. Azealia911 _talk 18:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The source is unreliable though because what is stated cannot be proved. Rolling Stone can mistakes, after all it's an online source. Highlighting something isn't shouting. I'm still waiting on you to give a more reliable source to contradict my source otherwise the info is inaccurate.Annvarie (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've given you my source, it's the one sat in the promotional singles section right now. Rolling Stone has been proven reliable in multiple instances [1], [2], let's not forget that Amazon is also an "online source" that's still capable of making mistakes like any other site, it should also be pointed out that nothing in the amazon links provided states that it's an official upload of his music, anyone can upload to Amazon, not everyone can upload to Rolling Stone. This isn't really getting anywhere, and I imagine your next reply will just to ask me for a different source or tell me it's unreliable again, so I suggest you request third-party involvement if you take such great issue with the Rolling Stone source. Azealia911 _talk 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You're relying on the credibility of Rolling Stone as a publication instead of actually proving that the single was treated as a promotional single. My source shows when it was officially available (all other official sources have the song being available on the 25th by the way). You're still not making your point. The dates listed on Amazon are the dates they were made available/uploaded so the dates aren't edited. The RS article is just a list, not something explaining what each release is regarded as so it should be taken with a grain of salt. RS editors aren't wiki editors so a promotional single to them is viewed differently compared to how promotional singles are viewed here.Annvarie (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide sales of The Pinkprint dispute

There is apparently a dispute on worldwide sales of The Pinkprint. I agree with the editor saying it shouldn't be there. According to sources, she is trying to count streams as well, which don't count here. Mixitnew and Gaga690, please discuss here instead of edit war, thank you. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm only trying to understand what the source is completely reliable and if you can be added to Wikipedia. But the user only appeared to Undo my edit without a valid argument. The streams are counted by biggest companies, like RIAA, ARIA among others to the certifications... It so that the streams are included has nothing wrong. --Mixitnew (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Mixitnew

Mixitnew, the problem with that is, only pure album sales are counted. Even in Billboard, they separate pure album sales from equivalent album sales. The policy on Wikipedia is to only include pure album sales in "sales" sections. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicki Minaj discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/documents/RIN2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Songs released on the same day should be listed alphabetically?

According to a scenario that occurred at Ed Sheeran discography, songs should be listed alphabetically if they are released on the same day. According to Francois1417 (talk · contribs) who made this edit had said, "When two songs are released as singles on the same date, they are listed alphabetically". Could someone please confirm this? I can't exactly find anything (Wikipedia guidelines/help pages) that explicitly state that they should be listed alphabetically. Thanks. (121.214.106.196 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)) @Fan4Life:, you may be interested in this.

Well this is rather unprecedented, so it is hardly surprising that there is no guideline. I don't think we should list them alphabetically, there is a clear order, they have been uploaded on each platform (Spotify, iTunes, YouTube, etc.) in the same order: "Regret in Your Tears", "No Frauds", "Changed It". Fan4Life (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

it's interesting how the user cherry picked Francois1417, instead of any number of more seasoned editors comments.

Think of it like twins. Ya know, I mean, a mother gives birth to two kids at the same time. But they aren't at the same time. One came first.

My recent edit summary stated that some websites update their information in specific intervals instead of in real-time. Again, with the kids, if using specific intervals, the kids would be born on March 19. Same day. No one is older. BUT, it is possible that the 5 minute difference between births results in them being born on different days - even different years (December 31, 2016 and January 1, 2017). So, even though they are born at the same time, they were born in different years. And you know that all through life that those kids are going to be saying things like "he's my younger brother".

There is always an order. One came first. One came next. It is a chronological order, which means the one that came first is the one that gets listed first. Someone may want to list alphabetically, but it isn't an alphabetical list. If we have a daily calendar of songs, then alphabetical is fine. But this is not "today's releases", this is the order of which songs were released. Kellymoat (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: Please tell me how you know they were released in this order. You still haven't provided some sort of source to verify what you're saying regarding the order of the releases. And your analogy makes no sense in this situation (because like what was stated before, there is no proof they were released in that order. Doctors/nurses can verify which of the twins came out first. You cannot, in this instance.) The fact that you're placing them in this order without some kind of verification says that you're just being disruptive without good cause. Looking through the archives of "Regret in Your Tears", another editor is claiming that they were released in a different order (they claim that "No Frauds" was released first). See why it's best to list them alphabetically now? Because different editors are making up their own order of release without any proof of order of release. So it's best to list them alphabetically to avoid edit wars. Annvarie (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Trini Dem Girls as a single?

Trini Dem Girls is listed as being a single, specifically her final one of 2015 before her break in 2016 (during which she released no official single with her as the lead artist), however, is Trini Dem Girls actually a single? I do know it was sent to radios in the US on September 1, 2015, however, it does not seem to have any status as a single other than that.

There are some points to dethrown it as a single:

• Received no cover artwork or singular album. Pills ‘n Potions, Anaconda, Only, Bed of Lies, and Truffle Butter all got singular albums on iTunes or Spotify (until the two services did away with most singular albums and used the general album of the song for avaiability), while The Night is Still Young received cover artwork. Trini Dem Girls received neither.

• No music video. Bed of Lies and Truffle Butter also lacked music videos, however, Trini Dem Girls received no official availability on video sharing websites - no lyric video, no audio video, nothing. Again, this was also the case for Bed of Lies, however, refer to my above point.

I’m not going to remove it as a single just yet, however, I’m dubious of it being considered a single. Gavin the Otter (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)