This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discographies This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles Hip hop Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Trinidad and Tobago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the country of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Trinidad and TobagoWikipedia:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTemplate:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTrinidad and Tobago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in hip hop music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip hop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip hop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip hop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicWomen in hip hop music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Annvarie: "Boo'd Up (Remix)" is a song by Ella Mai, Nicki Minaj and Quavo, which means that Minaj is not a featured artist on it, and can't be placed in "Guest appearances" section. In addition, the song was independently released on iTunes and other music platforms. So, I guess, it is either a single or a promotional single. What do you suggest? Lichtt (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This song is most definitely a single, it should be moved to the "as featured artist" section for sure.--Ottamieh (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, I moved the entry for the song "Anybody" from the 'Other charted songs' section of the article, to the 'As featured artist' section of the article, due to the fact that the song had a standalone release on streaming and purchasing platforms (reference), (reference), and was referred to as a single by multiple respected music publications (reference), (reference) (reference), more than enough evidence that the song is indeed classified as such. This was recently altered by another user, Annvarie, who moved the entry to the 'Promotional singles' section of the article under the pretense that "This song was released a day before its parent album for promo -- no mention of it being serviced as a proper single. Moved section." Given that this revert was merely from an editors own opinion and did nothing to counteract the sources stated, I added more sources to back-up my position and re-moved the entry back to the 'As featured artist' section of the article. Unfortunately, this edit was once again reverted by the same user, who asserted this time that "Release on streaming and purchasing platforms? So are all the other promo singles in the section. Where is the source for a radio release though? All the other proper singles can be backed up with a source for a radio release."

Annvarie, you have twice reverted an edit with half a dozen sources based purely on your own opinion of what classifies a song to be a single. One of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:BURDEN, which states the editor adding content to an article must be the one to source their edit. I sourced the song's move to the singles section with five credible sources, so I would appreciate it if you could provide us with any source that names the song as a 'promotional single', as opposed to relying on your supposed knowledge of singles classifications. Azealia911 _talk 00:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to engage in an edit war with you, Azealia911. I'm not arguing that the song shouldn't have been moved from 'Other Charted Songs' but I do think it doesn't meet the criteria of the other proper singles on the article. To counter your arguments:

1. You're using an itunes/streaming release as a source/proof that the song should be classified as a proper single. Note that every song (especially modern ones) are released commercially. So that factor alone can't determine a 'single' classification. Example: "Yikes" by Nicki Minaj was released tradionally as a standalone single on Itunes and on streaming platforms at the same time. Minaj specifically mentioned that the song was not a proper single upon announcing it (and it wasn't serviced to radios). Therefore, if we go by Itunes/Spotify for 'source of single release', then "Yikes" and all those other songs would technically be classified as singles.

2. Using blogs to classify a song as a 'proper single' isn't really credible either as the terms 'Song/Single' are used interchangably. But for listings like discographies, there is a more defined distinction. Using "Yikes" as an example again, many publications have referred to it as a single. (Like here), (and here) when again, Minaj stated it wasn't a proper single even before release. You said in your edit summary on the article that I should "provide sources that contradict the ones given", well, there are many sources that don't classify "Anybody" as single (Like here), (and here). Even your own Pitchfork source didn't mention it being a single.

So all in all, like with other discograhy pages, a radio release is the factor that can help to differentiate what is/isn't a proper single and I think it's best to stick by that. Otherwise, when other editors add any random single to the section, there won't be an argument against it considering we used 'itunes/spotify' sources for reference before. I'd like to hear if you have another point of view and engage in discussion further if necessary. Annvarie (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion for clarity here. Feel free to comment ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding "Seeing Green", "Fractions" and "Crocodile Teeth (Remix)" as promotion singles from Beam Me Up Scotty as they are available as "digital singles" on Nicki's website. Source here for "Seeing Green", "Fractions" and "Crocodile Teeth (Remix)". Thanks. --NXL1997 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Annvarie and @Muhandes please stop removing my edits to this page. Digital song charts are components of their "Hot" genre chart and therefore have every right to be listed as a note in that chart's column. There is no good reason to remove something on this page that Wikipedia policy very clearly allows. As for the edit summary that Muhandes seems to have such an issue with, I apologize for the language I used, though I do not apologize for the edits or reversions, which I believe are justifiable and necessary. Gagaluv1 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start off by saying that I have no interest in warring over this. Like I've said, the footnotes just seem way too excessive. I've given reasonings before and upon reviewing WP:Charts, I've also noted that it advises on finding ways to 'save on footnotes'. Minaj obviously has a larger song discography than most and that only amplifies how excessive the footnotes are. Also, as stated previously, without a consensus on this, now any random chart note can be added, making it even more excessive. WP:Charts also states that <<<Genre-specific digital song sales and streaming songs charts should not be included unless a song did not chart on the respective all-genre Digital Song Sales or Streaming Songs charts and the genre's "hot" chart>>>. Now that could be referring to the song article but if WP considers it excessive for a song article; it's def too excessive for a discog article. With the recent edits, a single song has up to three notes across a singular row detailing the chart placement in Digital Sales + R&B/HipHop Sales + Rap Sales. Surely that should be considered too excessive? Annvarie (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started my involvement here with no horse in the race, only because of WP:CIV and WP:EW concerns, but now that I look at the article I find Annvarie's argument very convincing. The number of footnotes on this article is WP:TMI. I understand footnotes when the chart is an extension chart like the bubbling under chart, but not with component charts. Also, TMI concerns are why the number of charts is limited to ten, and this is practically bypassing the limit. I think the discography is better without these footnotes. Muhandes (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You two make some good points, the article is incredibly long as it is, and the policy you mention (about not including genre-specific digital charts if they charted on the all-genre digital songs chart) makes sense. I could agree to a compromise where we include the all-genre Digital Song Sales and genre-specific airplay component charts (like R&B/HH Airplay) and perhaps limit the genre-specific digital components to singles only and not the "other charted songs" section? That way the singles' chart runs can be presented with the full relevant details, but we're not clogging up the Notes section with songs that don't even have their own articles. Would that be agreeable?Gagaluv1 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following some parts of your suggestion. Are you suggesting we include the Digital Sales Chart in the 'Other Charted' section? That would work better and it's what I was initially suggesting be done to reduce notes. Currently, the 'Other Charted Songs' section only has 9 chart columns and the limit is 10; so a column for the Digital Chart can be included in that section and that way, we have no need for the notes for the songs there. For the singles, I think the fact that they have their own articles is enough to not include notes about Digital/Streaming/Airplay component charting. I mean, most (if not all) of those singles have charted on the Digital Chart at some point so including notes for some and not the others seem pointless and 'inconsistent'. Also, a quick check showed that only about 12 or so of the actual singles never charted on the H100 nor the Bubbling Under H100, which means that all those 100+ other singles either charted or already has a note. Annvarie (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This change is something I'd like to discuss to reach a consensus on. As we all know, standards in the music industry change all the time and recently it has become more common for an artist to be credited on another artist's track as 'with X artist' as opposed to the formerly common 'featuring X artist'. You can notice this change on this very article with how many of Minaj's recent singles are no longer credited with a 'ft' tag on streaming/purchase sites compared to before, even when her contribution on the track is similar to that of 'just a feature'. I think it would be great if we could separate her own lead artist singles from the others because there is a difference. Her singles as a primary artist are singles that are from her own projects/albums and furthermore it'll always be easy to distinguish what are her own singles considering she'd be credited first.

Like I said, it's a change in industry trends, and with that means finding new approaches that could help improve articles. So as of now, there's no point of reference in Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style that would suggest that "this is not the way it works here". Also, my recent edit wasn't to prevent the recent constant edit wars about lead vs feature (since that will probably continue with the co-lead vs feature section anyway) but more so to highlight singles that are Minaj's own as the primary artist. Let me know what you all think. Annvarie (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Annvarie: I don't think this change benefits the article. It isn't clearer, it's more confusing. "Co-lead artist" implies she isn't still a primary artist on those songs when she is. There can be more than one primary artist on a song. You've assumed readers and editors are going to know "primary" here means "only lead artist". It just makes it look like gaps in information are present unless somebody scrolls a bit further. Also, just because there's nothing explicitly forbidding in a style guide doesn't mean it should be done either. You should have proposed the change first, rather than inviting dissenting opinions to start a thread on the talk page, which implies all changes to the article have to go through you (and yes, I know you'll say that wasn't your intent, but that's how it seems—I have seen this type of edit summary all too often from editors like yourself who've worked extensively on articles. "Disagree? Let's discuss"). If somebody reverts you, that doesn't mean reinstate your edit and also start a discussion. It means per [{WP:BRD]] you should have let @Jakubik.v:'s revert of you stay, as by reverting it, you technically began an edit war. That's not good practice and this arbitrary, unexplained (to readers) separation should not have been made. Ss112 10:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Just to expand on some points:

What initially gave me the idea to have separate sections was an ongoing edit war with the track "Alone" regarding whether or not it was a feature or lead artist credit. I don't think the separated sections would make it look like gaps in information for readers or editors since there is an undisputed difference between tracks that are her own (like Super Bass, Moment 4 Life, Do We Have A Problem, Super Freaky Girl, etc VS tracks like Bang Bang, Alone, Princess Diana--which she wasn't even on originally-- etc) So what's potentially more confusing for readers is why is, for example, Alone a 'lead artist track' while Boyz is a 'feature' even though both are structured the same way with regard to the output from Minaj (a 30 second rap verse). It all comes down to the confusing way artists are credited on tracks nowadays (ex: Spotify tags her as a 'featuring Nicki Minaj' while Apple credits the same track as 'with Nicki Minaj'). But what's undeniable is all her actual singles compiled in their own section and as you can see now majority of the tracks in that section are linked only to her actual projects (instead of for example: Pills N Potions (PinkPrint) then Bang Bang (Sweet Talker) then Anaconda (back to PinkPrint again). That would seem more confusing (and more of a gap) especially now with her doing features (credited as lead) while also releasing tracks from her own upcoming album. So hopefully this better helps to explain how there are three very different distinctions to all the singles that have been released throughout her career. Maybe primary artist should be changed to main artist or something else that presents the idea more clearly? A name change for co-lead as well?

Another thing, I only reverted that user's edit in the first place because they restored the page to a previous version and consequently undid a lot of other useful edits from me and other editors. You even caught one of them with the Girls Fall Like Twin Towers vandalism that was there for a good while before I originally fixed it and then it was reverted back to the vandalism. I stated this same reason for revert in my edit summary when I reverted it, it was not done to start an edit war. Annvarie (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why to create whole new section because of one song where people were confused if it was lead or featured (Alone).

I 100% agree with user Ss112. First of all, you should bring the discussion then create the change. The way you did is more confusing to be honest and it is not only with the naming “primary” and “co-lead”. As you can see users are now removing songs from primary to co-lead and vice versa, for example “Barbie World” is now stated as co-lead but clearly Nicki is the lead artist here so this way is more confusing. I admit that when I reverted it I didn’t notice that there was vandalism edit, that’s my fault so now I will manually bring the old version back and lets discuss is first. Jakubik.v (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Annvarie: Your issue seems moreso to be the order in which Minaj released singles herself. The fact she released a single from her own project then a collaboration not on her then-next project sounds like a problem you have with what business decisions she chooses to make. I don't see why we have to draw distinctions when she herself chose to release singles in that order. What's the benefit? A nicer look for the album being able to have a rowspan? As I said, the terminology is confusing. I don't know what wording would make it less confusing, because I don't agree with separating singles on which an artist the "main" or "lead" or a "co-lead" artist in the first place. Ss112 07:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the first major hit she was featured in? Jonolds (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]