Talk:Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Va Va Voom

The article says it will be the lead single, but the citation it uses says nothing about the song being the lead single. In fact, the citation does not look reliable at all; the "official casting call" doesn't even spell Nicki Minaj correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.188.30 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Album moved to April 3rd

http://www.rap-up.com/2012/01/20/nicki-minaj-pushes-pink-friday-roman-reloaded-to-april/ http://www.facebook.com/nickiminaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.149.188 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Twitter

I know Twitter is not a reliable source, but I figure we could at least use it as a heads up.68.161.161.160 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "Jizzes on Lessors" is a track that is supposedly on the album.
  • Another confirmed track is initialed COAC (rumored to be titled "Choke on a Cock").
  • She revealed on January 24, that "Turn Me On" would be on the album, officially.
  • Roman Reloaded is a confirmed track — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.150.74 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

However, Twitter CAN be a reliable source when the one tweeting is a relaible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapfan45 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed Tracks

Ok, everyone is getting me annoyed. This article is about Nicki Minaj's album, right? So if she says "Jizzes On Lessors", "Turn Me On (with David Guetta)", and "COAC" are tracks on the album, why is it not reliable? The whole ALBUM was announced through Twitter. If the songs being announced from Twitter from Nicki Minaj herself aren't being put in the article, then why even have an article about an album that was announced from an unreliable source? p.s. Va Va Voom was NEVER announced but Nicki did aknowledge the song on twitter by saying she wouldn't perform it at the upcoming Grammys. And "Muthafucka Up" will be on Tyga's album, not her's. Also any rumors about songs featuring Britney Spears, Drake, Lady Gaga, or Lil Wayne should be treated as such... RUMORS. The confirmed tracks are 'Roman in Moscow', 'Stupid Hoe', 'Roman Holiday' & 'Starships'. 'Va Va Voom', 'Masquerade' & 'Forever' were confirmed by one of the albums producers 'Dr. Luke'.

Cosign what this guy just said. He's right in every sense of the word. 74.72.98.53 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman Reloaded is a track it comes out today at 7pm est — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.150.74 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 1. Roman Holiday 2. Come On A Cone 3. I Am Your Leader Feat. Cam’ron & Rick Ross 4. Beez In The Trap Feat. 2 Chainz 5. HOV Lane 6. Roman Reloaded Feat. Lil Wayne 7. Champion Feat. NAS, Drake & Young Jeezy 8. Right By My Side Feat. Chris Brown 9. Sex In the Lounge Feat. Lil Wayne & Bobby V 10. Starships 11. Pound The Alarm 12. Whip It 13. Automatic 14. Beautiful Sinner 15. Marilyn Monroe 16. Young Forever 17. Fire Burns 18. Gun Shot Feat. Beenie Man 19. Stupid Hoe


Deluxe Edition

20. Turn Me On 21. Va Va Voom 22. Masquerade

RUMORS

I made a section for rumors concerning upcoming tracks. Va Va Voom is a rumored track so it shall be discussed here, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapfan45 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Va Va Voom" is confirmed by Allaccess (America's legally released radio singles sent to them by labels) and is sourced. Stop content blanking, adding "rumored" because this falls under WP:ICANTHEARYOU and blanking sourced, reliable content is not acceptable; the fact that Nicki hasn't mentioned it is irrelevant.. Your points above, no reliable sources have confirmed these songs, so they're not being added. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

reissued

this is not a second studio album, it an re release, reissued album of pink friday, just like rihanna, good girls gone bad: reloaded. --91.154.110.124 (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. Nicki herself has said it's her sophomore album. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It most definitely is a new album because it has all new tracks, she confirmed that she plans to make 5 albums, all which start with the words 'Pink Friday' 87.201.157.156 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Starships

Starships was just released today on itunes. The cover artwork was released along with it- why no page? DONT TRUST ME :O Kalestorm (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NSONG - No charting? No page. We have no WP:DEADLINE so wait until it charts. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Young Forever, Marilyn Monroe (Possibilities)

The recently two leaked tracks, Young Forever and Marilyn Monroe, are NOT confirmed tracks! Although they could possibly be on the deluxe version, it has not been confirmed/denied by Nicki Minaj! & Also the song, Tragedy, could possibly be a track on the album — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.224.40.117 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Once the tracklist was revealed, both Marilyn Monroe and Young Forever were on it, and nothing about Tragedy, it was just a buzz single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.157.156 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

to add album artwork 75.48.228.146 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You would need to upload the artwaork and deal with the fair use policy, then ask someone to add the link to the uploaded artwork to the article. Celestra (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman Reloaded is the Second Single

Source from YM website: http://www.youngmoneyhq.com/2012/02/24/nicki-minaj-roman-reloaded-feat-lil-wayne/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome444a444 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable fan site that fails WP:RS. They're also wrong but that's irrelevant. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Confirmed Tracks Section

I thought Stupid Hoe and Roman in Moscow were just buzz singles/teasers? Is it confirmed that they will appear on the album given that the first actual single is Starships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankmelater18 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that they will appear on Nicki's album, although they weren't released over the radio like Starships was. This is why that only Starships and Roman Reloaded appear in the infobox. --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed Track Listing

1. Roman Holiday 2. Come On A Cone 3. I Am Your Leader Feat. Cam’ron & Rick Ross 4. Beez In The Trap Feat. 2 Chainz 5. HOV Lane 6. Roman Reloaded Feat. Lil Wayne 7. Champion Feat. NAS, Drake & Young Jeezy 8. Right By My Side Feat. Chris Brown 9. Sex In the Lounge Feat. Lil Wayne & Bobby V 10. Starships 11. Pound The Alarm 12. Whip It 13. Automatic 14. Beautiful Sinner 15. Marilyn Monroe 16. Young Forever 17. Fire Burns 18. Gun Shot Feat. Beenie Man 19. Stupid Hoe

Deluxe Edition

20. Turn Me On 21. Va Va Voom 22. Masquerade

Source- http://mypinkfriday.com/news/66501 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJeffJay (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2012

The Track "Gun Shot" is really featuring Beenie Man !!!

FabyoFenty (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2012

No.TitleWriter(s)Producer(s)Length
1."Roman Holiday"Onika Maraj, Nicholas Warwar, Raymond Diaz, Mike Aiello, Safaree Samuels, Bryan WilliamsStreetRunner, Sarom 
2."Come on a Cone" Hit-Boy 
3."I Am Your Leader" (featuring Cam’ron and Rick Ross) Hit-Boy 
4."Beez in the Trap" (featuring 2 Chainz) Charlamagne 
5."HOV Lane"   
6."Roman Reloaded" (featuring Lil Wayne)Maraj, Samuels, Dwayne Carter, Ricardo LamarreRico Beats3:17
7."Champion" (featuring Nas, Drake, and Young Jeezy)   
8."Right by My Side" (featuring Chris Brown)   
9."Sex in the Lounge" (featuring Lil Wayne and Bobby V)   
10."Starships"Maraj, Carl Falk, Rami Yacoub, Wayne HectorRedOne, Falk, Yacoub3:31
11."Pound The Alarm"   
12."Whip It"   
13."Automatic"   
14."Beautiful Sinner" Alex Da Kid 
15."Marilyn Monroe" Dr. Luke[1] 
16."Young Forever" Dr. Luke[2] 
17."Fire Burns"   
18."Gun Shot" Kane Beatz 
19."Stupid Hoe"Maraj, Tina DunhamT. Dunham3:17
Deluxe edition bonus tracks
No.TitleWriter(s)Producer(s)Length
20."Turn Me On" (with David Guetta)Maraj, Guetta, Ester Dean, Giorgio TuinfortGuetta, Tuinfort, Black Raw3:19
21."Va Va Voom" Kool Kojak, Cirkut, Dr. Luke[3] 
22."Bitchez want cuchi" Dr. Luke[4] 

Ester Dean Wrote 2 Songs and Have a featuring with Beenie Man

Ester Dean wrote Right By My Side and Beautiful Sinner! Beenie Man was featured on Gun Shot!

FabyoFenty (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wipe It???

C'mon guys, it's Whip It, not Wipe It, is she on the toilet or something? Spell it right. Plus Beenie Man is the feature on Gun Shot, source: http://mypinkfriday.com/news/66501

Edit request on 19 March 2012

"Gun Shots" is produced by Kane Beatz, co prod by The Mad Violinist & Roahn Hylton Source : https://twitter.com/#!/KaneBeatz/status/181170226749128704 https://twitter.com/#!/KaneBeatz/status/181174847269908480

"Beez in the trap" feat. 2 Chainz is apparently produced by Charlamagne, judging by his tweets https://twitter.com/#!/cthagod/status/180861311775809538 https://twitter.com/#!/cthagod/status/180862812896231424 https://twitter.com/#!/cthagod/status/180865317071896576 Westkos (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Partly. The first tweet is ok (I guess) for Kane Beatz as producer. The rest of the sources require too much interpretation. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

iTunes Bonus Track?

http://itunes.apple.com/us/preorder/pink-friday-...-roman-reloaded/id512366531

According to this iTunes link, there is a bonus track? Should it be noted or should we wait until we're sure? 75.21.107.46 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm adding it now, there's a title for it.Samlikeswiki (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The page, Right by My Side, is for a song from this album. I think it should be merged here based on the fact that it has "minimal content that could be covered within a page about a broader topic," which is stated on the Wikipedia:Merging page. The song hasn't been released yet. Comatmebro (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Same reason as above. We might reinstate the page if and only if the song shows some significance, as Wikipedia should not list every song by all the notable artists. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Hasn't been released, little is known about it and theres no chart history. When the time comes we can give it it's own page, but right now it doesn't have enough info.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think Beez in the trap or Right by my side should be merged into here. It is just as much as a single as Roman in Moscow and Stupid Hoe. It diserves it's own page. Bluedog311 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Although it may be a single, it certainly doesn't have enough information, once we get more information on it we can give it dedicated pages :)--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But don't you agree that in just a few days it's going to start coming on radios, live performances will begin, a video will be released, it's going to start charting and such, so it needs it's separate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.157.156 (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Against Right by My Side will be officially released in a few days. Merging it now will only mean returning it to its own page in three days time. A pointless move! Beez In The Trap doesn't deserve its own page YET. It will soon have a video and charting information and only then should it be re-instated. Bbbnbbb (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess we might as well wait a little bit to see if it can be improved since the song supposedly came out today. I don't really care too much about the artist or song so I'm not gonna be the one to work on the page. Comatmebro (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Right by My Side page a little and added the billboard number it got. Is there enough info to keep it or should it still be merged? Comatmebro (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's great! So anyone here reached a consensus yet? Bleubeatle (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on a new page right now, almost done, and completely restructured :)--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"champion" produced by T-Minus & Nikhil S

"Champion" is produced by T-Minus & Nikhil S. source: https://twitter.com/#!/ProducerTMinus/status/183587652413558786 Westkos (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Twitter is not a great source, especially since the twitter account isn't for this album or its author, but another guy claiming to have been involved. Surely there is some other source we can use to back this up? If so, that would be a great addition. I can look around later, but if you know of one, please link to it here. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tour Name

It's no big thing but what is the Tour Name? A lot of places seem to say Pink Friday Tour but Nicki's website says Roman Reloaded European Tour 2012. Check it out: http://mypinkfriday.com/events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.159.152 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Roman In Moscow renamed "Come On A Cone" in the album?

I was just listening to her new album and I realised that "Come On A Cone" sounded a little similar to Roman In Moscow. Could it be that these two tracks are related somehow? Bleubeatle (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be plausible if you find a source, but IMO there are only minor similarities that all her "Roman" tracks share.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok I guess we'll have to wait for Nicki to say something about it. She hasn't replied to any tweets about it yet. I'll try or hopefully a fan of her's tries to ask her about it. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you guys crack me up.....Roman in Moscow and Come On A Cone are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT songs.........yall are trippin, they sound nothing alike... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.222.70 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Psssh! One can only wonder why that masterpiece didn't make the final cut, we need something to believe in that it somehow made it onto the album LOL--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well you need to get your ears cleaned. It has some similar chords and tone but has different lyrics. Also I said "sounded" not exactly alike. Duh! Bleubeatle (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Minaj revealed on Twitter at some point last week than "Roman in Moscow" simply didn't make the album because she wasn't "feeling it" when the tracklisting selection process began. I doubt she would've gone through the effort to 'disguise' the track as another for the purpose of the album, especially when there's nothing wrong with 'Roman in Moscow' in the first place. AlligatorSky (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal Take 2

Since the last discussion, the song has been released, and according to a Billboard search, it has never been charted as a single. On the wikipage, it says it charted at 52, which isn't exactly high. It has no notability worthy of a page of its own. I would like to close the discussion, but since the majority of the support in the last discussion was because "it has not been released yet", I would like to be fair and open this discussion again, to see if a new consensus can be reached. This discussion is for the merging of Right by My Side to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 08:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose The song has charted, no matter at what position. It's a stub at its current state. Someone just has to expand it. — Statυs (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Every charted song does not all have a Wikipedia article. And the fact that it has charted does not imply it has significance. See WP:NSONG, more specifically, the line which says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 23:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
How about this, if someone can expand the article enough to make it a suffice page, than it can remain on it's own. If someone fails to do so, than it shall be merged?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the article. I can write a million words on my life, doesn't make me notable. It is not significant enough to be an article by itself. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 11:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems you have a vested interest in Minaj, but objectively speaking, that song is not significant enough, it is just released and it hasn't won any awards. There are other articles about not so notable songs, but that's only because there are other crap in wikipedia. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 11:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think that they should merge, I was just throwing options out there in case someone wanted to do something about it. But on the contrary, it doesn't matter how many awards it's won, if it has many sources and has charted, it can be expanded from a stub. I was simply stating that if someone wanted to invest time into doing that (which I most likely won't) then it can remain if it is done properly? But that's just my two cents.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - both articles have established notability outside the parent album, if they were just albums tracks it would be different. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Okay I've updated "Right by My Side" with enough sufficient information that it should be able to stay as it's own page.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly review

Entertainment Weekly gave Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded the grade B and 8/12.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.193.157 (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC) http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20584367,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.193.157 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

Metacritic shows more Mixed reviews than favorable or unfavorable, respectively. And they themselves admit their scores are weighted with respect to the "prestige and respect" certain publications have in the "industry" (Metacritic help) The other sources also support "mixed". So unless Metacritic includes another review that brings their borderline 61 score, how about comprimising on "mixed to favorable reviews"? Dan56 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Genre removal

I recently removed certain genres, Eurodance, electro, and R&B, b/c they werent sourced in the article or the infobox. But I left hip hop and pop, as nearly all critics' reviews mention them as the album's genres, so I left them with a couple of citations of reviews. An editor has challenged my removal, but he claims they were sourced, so I'm starting this post. Dan56 (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

They were sourced in the article in critical reception but someone had changed them, then you just jumped in assuming they were unsourced. I added in europop with a source but there are plenty of others that can be added in too? What would you like? Dance-pop? Techno-pop? EDM? Eurodance? There all there, just give me a shout and I'll add them in!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I only see that section noting "pop" and "hip hop"/"rap". Dan56 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It says "the second half relies on Gaga-esque europop" but theres so many different genres on this album, or at least to critics? Where should we source them because it looks messy in the info box? But for now I'll add them in and then move the source out once we decide where to put it? I've been working on a composition, so maybe we could put it in there?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget the notality of those sources you included, this isn't a disco, Euro-whatever album. Critics' consensus (meaning what every professional review says) is part hip hop, part dance/pop. We're not giving undue weight to what a minority of writers, sparingly, say of the music. I replaced the genres with those most mentioned, most general, and added it in prose in the lead, with note of the other styles noted by some of the critics. All cited sufficiently. Dan56 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)n

Pop is too broad of a genre, similarly what happened to Born This Way which said "Electronic", it was decided that was too broad of a genre to cover the album in. I think Hip-hop, dance, pop, should be fine fine since it covers most of it. But it is not your job to decide whether or not you feel that it is "influenced", Rolling Stone called it a hip hop, disco, and teen pop record, which states the entire album not just half or a quarter, the WHOLE album. Adding in 50 different sources for pop won't help your argument, it just makes the article look insanely messy, and makes you look like a childish editor. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone's sentence about disco and teenpop isn't direct, and it's the only source that mentions those two. And it sounds like the writer is phrasing that sentence that way for rhetorical effect. And it's Rolling Stone, so what do those rockists know, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I restored my prose. It's not "too messy", and it happens to be the most appropriate way here. You say pop is too broad... so? EDM is also broad (see electronic dance music#genres). Hip hop also has numerous subgenres/styles. While there is no guidelines for this, Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre says to aim for generality and uses "pop music" as an acceptable genre to include, if it's the case for that album. And it is here when every writer (as clarified by the undisputably sourced statement I added) says so. Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd go through the sources you've selected and pick at max 3 that are the most notable. According to WP:REF only 3 are allowed in a row, otherwise it looks cluttered and messy. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Content/Composition

If we're to discuss which name is more appropriate, composition defines how parts/elements are combined/mixed, and content ([1] [2]) seems to be what is contained. I think even "Songs" would be a better name than composition, as the section is basically running through about each song. Dan56 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Must you make a big deal about EVERYTHING? I swear all you do here is challenge and change everything, and try to start drama, stop it, it's getting ridiculous.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. Next time I'll just let EVERYTHING I propose be shot down without a legitimate explanation. Dan56 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You want an explanation? Go look at any major article, FA, GA or any other freaking article about an album. Tell me how many that you see "content" instead of composition? You purposely do these things when there was NO problem before it, JUST to start something. Why? What else have you done for this article besides challenge other editors, and mess up the lead? --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not an explanation. I don't see anything in WP:MOS about what you're talking about. You have to consider what's best for an individual article, not all of them. For instance, when I wrote Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty, I had a composition section about its musical components and lyrics/themes. For Fear of a Black Planet, I had a similar section and another, "Content", discussing its songs. As for this, there's nothing wrong with being bold and the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but you're not offering a reasonable objection to my change. Only preference. Dan56 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
1) You never answered my question 2) Your giving undue weight to 2 articles, when the majority of Wikipedia uses composition. After all I know how much you just love using the undue weight card, so there's my argument, the general consensus is to use composition. So there ya go, we'll be using composition since you're giving undue weight to 2 articles instead of thousands of articles using composition instead of content. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
1) What question was that? 2) You're sorely misinterpreting what WP:UNDUE applies to; please actually read the guideline. 3) Don't remove content b/c of your personal preference. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
1) I asked you what actual contributions you've made to her articles besides your pointless edits and I constructive edits to the lead? 2) The whole WP:UNDUE is about going with what the majority of critics use instead of a select few. Let's pretend articles are critics shall we? 98% of critics use "composition", 2% use "content". Now by following those guidelines, you would have to use composition? If you want, I have plenty of other users that will agree with me here. Using content might work on relatively unknown articles, but all the articles that millions of people see, and that actually matter, we use composition. 3) That little content section you made was a shitty copy and paste job from compositions that I've created (every single one of them, from pages which I've also written the majority of if not all of them), you didn't even include the others or put a construction banner to show you were still working on it. Also, you divided it from 1-9 and 10-19? What in the world were you thinking? Even for double disk articles we don't do that, articles are treated as a single body of work. So no, I didn't remove your content section becaus of the title, I removed it because it was messy, incoherent, uncompleted mess that shone a bad light onto the article.
  • Note: Your entire reason behind your proposed title is your own opinion, so you'd be advised to drop that argument. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1) I wrote the critical reception section and corrected the genres listed in the infobox 2) WP Guidelines arent metaphors and don't apply here; since you wont read it... the guideline is majority/minority viewpoints attributed to reliable sources. It's not abstract, it's concrete and concerns the neutrality of the article; this discussion over section header is subject to editorial judgement, which you are not showing. I explained why the change I proposed is a more accurate header, hence better for the article. You on the other hand are policing a certain layout style you observed to be predominant among albums articles. 3) I didnt make that content section. Check the article's history. I only changed the main header and added subheaders b/c it seemed to bloated to have w/out some seperation (which I explained; check the article history). Since you brought it up, the division seems suitable for this article: Every critic has noted a stylistic division on the album. And you still speak like you police MOS and layout edits: "We don't do that"? Please check out Wikipedia:Editorial discretion. 4) If you had said that it was a "shitty copy/paste job" when removing the content, I would have understood. Dan56 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So is your entire reason; your opinion is that there is a layout policy that reflects your apprehension at my changes, but there isnt. Dan56 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1) Since you seem to think you did a good thing by adding in the infobox's, I don't think you read WP:LEAD, which says no ref's in the lead...which you did... 2) I've read the guidlines many times. My issue is that you want to rename it "content" and put in the EXACT same thing that would be under composition, why? It won't help, improve, or benifit the article in any way, it would look the exact same as the composition? So now we have that established, why would you want to change something that is an unwritten rule in Wikipedia? Also, since you think that the composition should be for instruments and what not, and virtually every album article on here uses composition to put in what you want to put in content? So basically, everyone else and album article is wrong and you are right? Or could it simply be that you are wrong? 3)Please, show me and article that does that. An album is ONE PIECE OF MATERIAL, is should be treated as such. 4) If you bothered to read my summary, its just a nicer way of saying that.
  • My reason is that it won't benifit, help, or improve the article what so ever. It's just editing for the sake of editing, and going against what has been done by every article. I propose that we open this up as a discussion to choose either "composition" or "content", and let other members see what theire opinions are on this, and when we reach a consensus then this will be done. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1) I dont know what you're reading but the Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations I read was to avoid redundant citations if repeating info already in the body, otherwise it conforms to the same verifiability standard. 2) I still dont know what guideline you read that says a section in an album article that is about the songs must be named "composition". And again, stop calling them "rules"; these are all guidelines, and what's best for an article usually supersedes that. We're trying to be encyclopedic, not conformist. 3) Where are you getting "instruments" from? "One piece of material" is also confusing. What do you mean by that, and how does it fit into this? Do you mean that an album's "composition" is the songs? If so, then by definition you're wrong. That's why I started this post with the above links. I figured it would come up. 4) How so? This addition wasnt mine to begin with. I started this discussion after you removed my contribution, the header change.

For god sakes stop shoving it down my throat I've already read it. The reason I want consensus is because I've been creating a composition section, and when I add it in I don't want any un-necessary drama that seems to plauge every article you visit. Also, the articles you've listed, there a quite a few things I want to address. The Green Day article was a concept album, and the section tells the story? Please, explain to me how this is a concept album? Thats right, it isn't. It's an album like any other pop girl out there right now. The pearl jam article the section was fine, music and lyrics is also used often. The other article you listed I have absolutley NO idea how that passed GA? Since when was themes, lyrics, and styles under the background section? At leats provide some good articles--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no drama. Either the name for the header is accurate or not. I've got a point about it. Can't even consider it? Take for example one of my articles Fear of a Black Planet, which has a "composition" section of prose about the album's music and lyrics, and a subsequent "content" section that deals with individual songs, and both section names fit the prose. Is this layout flawed? If so, how would you change it to be better? It's all about how information available from sources is handled and layed out. But accordingly, this article could be different and may require a different layout. That's all I wanted to express. No drama intended. Your remarks at the end confuse me; that article was passed as a good article, but not if you were reviewing it? Dan56 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think "Music & Lyrics" would be best as it encompases both our views on it. If there's enough info, then sure we can add both! But there isn't that much about content other than the genres and little things like that. As much as I love Nicki, I can't say this album has a deep meaning or concept, and she hasn't given us enough info to build a section specifically on it. What I meant about the article, was a background section is supposed to be what happened before the album was recordered, like when they give interviews about what it will sound like, who they want to work with etc. I didn't understand why something that had to do about the lyrics, sounds, and themes of the album were put under that section. Although it looked well written, just that small slip up.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. You could change it, though. Propose it, like I tried a change for Loud. I would agree as part of a consensus for that messy background sec., and I think it would surely be agreed with by other editors. I really dont care about this, since you told me that it was a copy/paste job, so whatever you're working can be shaped/layed out anyway you see fit. I personally thought that way the album has its first 9, 10 songs being hip hop, and the other half being notably different would be one way of laying a track-by-track anaylsis out. But it's your editorial judgement, and I trust it'll be better than what the other editor did before. Dan56 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 May 2012

As of May 20th 2012 the album has sold 475,000 copies.

Source: http://www.ballerstatus.com/2012/05/24/album-charts-krizz-kaliko-opens-10k-sold-kickin-screamin/

Veasey2 (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Mdann52 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In the singles section.......remove Pound the Alarm...........the next single has not been chosen yet......There is currently a poll on Nicki's official website asking the fans to help choose the next official single Source..........so that is proof that Pound the Alarm is not the next single ............so, remove info of Pound the Alarm, and add this instead:

On May 24, 2012; A poll was posted on Minaj's official website asking the fans to choose the next single(s). The poll is divided into three categories: The first category asks to choose between "Marilyn Monroe", "Fire Burns", "Young Forever", and "Gunshot". The second category asks to choose between "Champion", "HOV Lane", and "I Am Your Leader". The third and final category asks to choose between "Pound The Alarm", "Whip It", and "Va Va Voom".[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.20.158 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

| Single 4 = Pound the Alarm

173.67.16.202 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You can't use Wikipedia as a source!!! Mdann52 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Certifications

Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded sales - US: 522,000 (Gold) | UK: 128,000 (Gold) | JAPAN: 41,710 | WORLDWIDE: 900,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.167.37 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Greece

Please add that Pink Friday reached No. 32 in Greece! http://www.ifpi.gr/chart01.htm --79.199.48.51 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Turn Me On

Turn Me On is on the deluxe version of the album as well as David Guetta's Nothing but the Beat. Why don't we have it as the lead single? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A similar issue was discussed on Pink Friday talk page about Check It Out(a joint single with will.i.am) being listed as a lead single for the album right here. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I Am Your Leader

this song isnt a single.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky Minaj (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Stupid Hoe

Isn't Stupid Hoe also a single?--Nikinikolananov (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was launched as a promotional single before the album's release. --Lxhizy! (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://twitter.com/#!/TheDoctorLuke/status/169352593653514240
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/#!/TheDoctorLuke/status/169352593653514240
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/#!/TheDoctorLuke/status/169352593653514240
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/#!/TheDoctorLuke/status/169352593653514240
  5. ^ http://mypinkfriday.com/news/80383
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Friday:_Roman_Reloaded/Archive_1&oldid=1058082058"