Talk:Relapse (Eminem album)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Crack a Bottle

The final version of crack a bottle featuring Dr. Dre and 50 Cent is out. Its for relapse and it IS called crack a bottle. its not called number one like i said before.. Source: http://www.rapbasement.com/audio/eminem-ft.-dr-dre-crack-a-bottle-final.html --Shadygeneral (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not 100% confirmed for Relapse, but MTV said it is "most likely" to be on the album.[1] SE KinG. User page. Talk. 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to MTV, "Crack A Bottle" will be included on 50 Cent's "Before I Self Destruct," but the article did not mention whether or not it will be absent on "Relapse." (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1604490/20090206/50_cent.jhtml) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proverbialwisdom (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well,now that it's out i think it will be the 1st Single off Eminem's album(Reason- Lots of websites say it, 50's trying to cash in on Em's hit (Pure 50 Centish thing to do!,Look at its SUCCESS usually a promo single or a normal song doesn't do this,It Features Some other good artists (Dr.Dre) and (50 Cent)!) Please explain the Three Headed Monster Story,really confused,or is just some Shit that 50 cent said for attention?

No its not going to be the single off of the album and there is nothing that even suggests it. It was only a promo song. It is assumed at the moment in the "eminem fan community" that the single will be called "We Made You". It is suggested on his twitter account. twitter.com/eminem. But nothing should be posted until confirmed 100%. ---MoneyPitch

The second half needs a re-work.

The second half of the article is currently a mess. All sorts of junks, irrelevant quotes and POV content are present and read like a blog rather than an encyclopedia. I've tried to do this and initially included the following version directly into the article. Perhaps it was a bit too rushed of a decision and needs more discussion here. I'd like to see what you guys think of the following section replacing the current "Music" section and how it can be improved otherwise. Please bear in mind that not every trivial information found should be included in the article, but only what is relevant for the album Relapse. Thanks! Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Recording and production

Various record producers have associated themselves with the recording of Relapse. Dr. Dre, executive producer for Eminem's last five studio albums, had originally stated in September 2007 his intention to dedicate two months in the production of the album. Other producers who have claimed to be involved with the project include Focus and DJ Premier, who also stated that a song named "Keys to the City" would appear on the upcoming album. In November 2008, Swizz Beatz claimed too that he had worked with Eminem over a sequel to the song "Stan". Nonetheless, the rapper would later deny this during an interview for Billboard, stating that Swizz Beatz was not involved in the production of Relapse. In the same interview, Eminem affirmed that Dr. Dre would end up producing for much of the album as rapper 50 Cent announced in November 2008. 50 Cent also stated that the death of Eminem's close friend and fellow rapper Proof in 2006 was an inspiration on the record's material, adding that Eminem "has some really serious things to write about that he didn't quite get a chance to express". Eminem too confirmed that the departed rapper would be a theme to the album, with at least one song dealing with Proof's death. Otherwise, Eminem described the music as "definitely more upbeat" than before, adding that he had become a happier person and had learn to cope with the friend's loss.

Although neither record label Interscope Records or Eminem have confirmed any recordings to be set on Relapse as of January 2009, some songs have received coverage from the media as being reported as possible tracks for the album. During a party for the release of the rapper's autobiography The Way I Am, Eminem previewed to the audience a song called "I'm Having a Relapse". As well, an unfinished version of the song "Crack a Bottle" leaked in December 2008, while the complete version, featuring Dr. Dre and 50 Cent, surfaced on January 6 of the following year. While various reports suggested that both tracks may be included on Relapse, other ones indicated that unclear if either song is destined for the album.

Early indications of guest appearances came in May 2007, when rapper T.I. stated that he and Eminem had recorded together three songs, one of which being a song dealing with the two rappers' respective alter egos T.I.P. and Slim Shady. Such song was intended to be used by Eminem. Other possible appearances include 50 Cent, who in an interview with Loaded stated he too had recorded a track with Eminem for Relapse. In addition, according to Stat Quo, rapper Jay-Z will also feature on Relapse in a song titled "My Syllielable".

That's good but, how about something like this:

Recording and production

Various producers have associated themselves with the recording of Relapse. Dr. Dre, executive producer for Eminem's last five studio albums, had originally stated in September 2007 his intention to dedicate two months in the production of the album. Other producers who have claimed to be involved with the project include Focus... and DJ Premier, the latter of whom also stated that a song named "Keys to the City" would appear on the upcoming album.

In November 2008, Swizz Beatz also claimed that he had worked with Eminem on a sequel to the song "Stan". Nonetheless, the rapper would later deny this during an interview for Billboard, stating that Swizz Beatz was not involved in the production of Relapse. In the same interview, Eminem affirmed that Dr. Dre would end up producing for much of the album as rapper 50 Cent announced in November 2008. 50 Cent also stated that the death of Eminem's close friend and fellow rapper Proof, in 2006, was an inspiration on the record's material, adding that Eminem "has some really serious things to write about that he didn't quite get a chance to express". Eminem too confirmed that the departed rapper would be a theme to the album, with at least one song dealing with Proof's death. Otherwise, Eminem described the music as "definitely more upbeat" than before, adding that he had become a happier person and had learn to cope with the friend's loss.

Although neither record label Interscope nor Eminem have confirmed any recordings to be set on Relapse as of January 2009, some songs have received coverage from the media as being possible tracks for the album. During a party for the release of the rapper's autobiography The Way I Am, Eminem previewed to the audience a song called "I'm Having a Relapse". As well, an unfinished version of the song "Crack a Bottle" leaked in December 2008, while the complete version, featuring Dr. Dre and 50 Cent, surfaced on January 6 of the following year. While various reports suggested that both tracks may be included on Relapse, others indicated it is unclear if either song is destined for the album.

Early indications of guest appearances came in May 2007, when rapper T.I. stated that he and Eminem had recorded together three songs, one of which being a song dealing with the two rappers' respective alter egos T.I.P. and Slim Shady. Such song was intended to be used by Eminem. Other possible appearances include 50 Cent, who in an interview with Loaded stated he too had recorded a track with Eminem for Relapse. In addition, according to former labelmate Stat Quo, rapper Jay-Z will also feature on Relapse in a song titled "My Syllielable".

I just did a few fixes, but I think there was more here that could be a little more relevant, like I do think "Music" was a good heading, with "Production", then "Guest" below. Obie Trice and DMX's possible track might be of importance, just as Bishop Lamont's quote of being featured. Just my opinions. But the rest, Bizarre's statements, the "health" concerns and such, not needed, as you said. But overall, it looks pretty good. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your changes and I agree with most of them except a couple. First, I don't think piping record producer is appropriate in this case, as the term producer can be ambiguous even in the field of music (for example, it may refer to executive producer, record producer, hip hop producer). As well, I don't understand the reason for breaking up the paragraph, as they both fit the theme of production. In fact, the first paragraph ends with DJ Premier talking about a possible song "Keys to the City", while the other one begins with Swizz Beatz claiming a so-called "Stan 2".

In regards to your comments, I don't think "Music" is a good header as it's very generic, since the whole article is about a music album. If we were to have a "guest" subheading, this would be only a mere paragraph short, which isn't recommended per WP:MOS. As well, the presence of any guests should be included in the recording section. For the Obie Trice and DMX's possible track, I don't think that this can be considered very much reliable per WP:RS. Finally for Bishop Lamont is an obvious violation of our neutral point of view policy.

Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I can agree with most of that. The only reason I pipe linked was because no matter what it says it links to the correct place, you know? And the only reason I broke up the paragraph was because it seemed to run on. but overall I seem to agree, the only thing I don't understand is the Lamont thing? --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the quote itself doesn't really state he might appear on Relapse. All he seems to be talking about is a possible collaboration between him and Eminem for Lamont's album The Reformation, so I do not think it is anyway relevant for this article. In addition, statements like "Em's got a crazy album, I can say that!" are not appropriate as they are bias, since Bishop Lamont is Eminem's employee after all, and clearly not in the position to make a neutral judgement. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's MUCH better written than the current article. The only thing that you messed up on was the line "Dr. Dre, executive producer for Eminem's last five studio albums...". He was executive producer for Eminem's last four albums actually.--Swellman (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct, I don't know how we both missed that. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So is this good to go? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, and I can understand about the Bishop quote, although, if it were for Em's album, you're aware we don't have to add the entire quote ha ha. But yes, I believe it's good to go. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it look good now? Or should we move the "album title" section lower down? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think so since album titles aren't very important. I just hope no one messes with the article now that it's fixed. Could this possibly get re-rated on the quality scale to get good article status? 71.2.13.217 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't really have a rating until it is released and we can add things like reception, chart performance, track listing, credits etc.. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

True. 71.2.13.217 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It Has To Be From The Album

There must be so sources to prove that this on the album Relapse, It's number one on the charts right now, no single that's just a promotional recording would be a worldwie hit. It just has to be true, we need to find some sources proving this. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the decision to feature a particular song on an album is that black-and-white.. Kraid (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "Crack a Bottle" is that reliable sources often seem to contradict each other every other day. Many sources say it will be on this album, while other recent ones that it will be on 50 Cent's album Before I Self Destruct. Now some say that it will be on both. There clearly is confusion on the matter, so until then the scenario is crystal clear I don't think feeding on one side of the speculation is appropriate. The article does mention the song and I believe for that is fine. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

September Release?

Found these two sources regarding this statement. Thoughts? http://punk.bz/2009/02/12/both-eminem-and-nas-are-coming-out-with-new-albums/ AND http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489885,00.html ~~planes~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.232.147 (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

From the Fox News source: "I’m told he will release two new albums come September. They are tentatively titled “Relapse” and “Relapse 2.”" Wow that rumor comes literally out of nowhere -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New tweaks for body article.

As Interscope announced their plans for the album, I felt that a bit of work was needed for the article, especially to standardize it with most albums. Please feel free to check it out the new version at my sandbox and feel free to make some comments here on whether it's an improvement to the current version and also feel free to edit the page yourself to do any corrections so that we can add this to the article. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm having a relapse" and "Crack a bottle" confirmed?

On http://www.eminem.com/ you can listen to "I'm having a relapse" and "Crack a bottle" right under the lettering "Relapse". I think that this is a clear sign for those tracks to be on the album, even a confirmation. Should we add those to a possible track list or include them in the article? What do you guys think about this? --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are confirmed, two or three tracks should not constitute a "tracklist" section. We've discussed it previously. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an argument, but IF they are confirmed, we should list them somewhere or atleast give them another status then tracks such as "My Syllielable". --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure they are mentioned at some point in the article. They at least were at one point. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I ment that we should at least give them an own section. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe an entire section is needed for a couple songs. That's why they would have their own article, such as CaB. And if they are released as singles, we'll have a "singles" section, and talk more in depth about them there. But for now, the fact that they're just confirmed, they don't warrant their own section. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, is four songs enough to create a table? "Crack a Bottle", "I'm Having a Relapse", "Keys to the City", and "My Sillyable". 130.216.30.234 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the section below. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a track listing, it would be "Confirmed tracks" section. 130.216.30.234 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But, as stated below, what is a "reliable source"? One producer has said his song will be on, with no one else confirming it. You say it appears that they're confirmed through this website, but not 100% confirmed. And that only leaves one track after that. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hip hop is small and we aren't going to have as many reliable sources as pop or rock albumbs and I think we need to accept what we have. At least the tracks are mentioned in the body. 130.216.30.234 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several dozens of websites dedicated to hip-hop, so I don't know how it's "small". Even Rolling Stone magazine covers hip hop music. But yes, they are in the body, which is fine for now. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No tracklist table until album is released or it is entirely published by a reliable source

I just hoped to get consensus on this before it gets out of hand. I've seen way to many of these kind of articles where users try to group a dozen of sources to come up with a track listing. And, they often end up being wrong too. What often happens is that an artist may announce a song, but then he and the record label will review and select other tracks for the album, often right at the end. By putting our "confirmed songs" table, it makes look like that is something definite when it often is not. We can simply mention, elaborate these songs in prose in a "Songs" section. This will also help to build that section. So, what are your opinions? Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The queation is what we define as a "reliable source". You've said that even the artist himself is not that reliable, because he or the label can overthrow his tracklist, and if we can't thrust Em, who should we thrust instead? --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS deals with those matters. I very much agree with User:Udonknome. Songs should not be in a tracklist format until all songs are confirmed to be in some type of order. Even look at the Before I Self Destruct article. A tracklist was released, then several other songs became "confirmed". --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Couldn't agree more! :) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

The album is going to be released on May 15, 2009 in Italy, and May 19, global. Considering that most Wikipedia users are american, we should keep it as May 19, unless we list both. Whoever keeps changing to May 15, either list both, or stop. Kiraisgod666 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we're going by WP policy. Which clearly states, the first release date be listed. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Template:Infobox_Album#Released, as JpGrB stated. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen both original release dates for one country AND global release dates both listed many times. Kiraisgod666 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you just read the link I posted? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, those pages are incorrect. I know I myself have "discussed" this several times with other users. I know in one such instance, we decided to use the first release in the infobox, then in the lead put both the first followed by the U.S. I did not like this, so I would not support it here. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I didn't see that link, but I think that Wikipedia's policy should be to list both, or multiple, It's confusing to people who don't live in the country, and it pisses me off. Sorry, I just wanted to make Wikipedia more helpful to everyone, not just dirty Italians... Damn. Kiraisgod666 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a horrible thing to say. It's Wikipedia policy, not "American citizen policy". We are here to serve the world, not just Americans. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And plus, it's also useful for Americans. For example, a guy from New York could simply go to the Italian iTunes Store and purchase the album on the 15th rather than four days later. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should put 5/19/09, with one of those little American flags. And put 5/15/09 with an Italian flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zypo (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure on that guideline, but I'm fairly certain flag icons have become depreciated. In the infobox template it clearly states to only use the first release date. I don't know why people are having such a hard time with this. This isn't the "American Wikipedia", it's the "English Wikipedia", as in, anyone that speaks the English language. Not British, not american, but what is considered English. And that is many nations around the world, not just America. --HELLØ ŦHERE 10:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Even the OFFICIAL eminem website says 5/19/09. If we put 15th, we just look stupid. It will be released to more people on the 19th than it will be on the 15th, and it's on Eminem's OFFICIAL website. How much more back-up do you need? Thedevilspoon (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "looking stupid"? The fact is that the album will be released into the world on May 15, 2009; it comes out worldwide on the 19th, but it will verifiably be available beforehand. Following Wikipedia's guidelines (see the documentation for album Infoboxes), the earliest known release date is the one used by the Infobox. Kraid (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that the album that this album will be pushed back. It's Aftermath... SE KinG. User page. Talk. 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. That is very true SE. I don't necessarily wanna believe it, but it probably will happen. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the sense behind this discussion. The worldwide release date stands in the second line of the article, where every idiot can read it. So it is not necessary to put it in the infobox. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's there now because I added it after posting here earlier. Kraid (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees we should either put the worldwide release date, or both. We should probably do that (srry about my italians comment earlier, i just want wiki to be accessible to everyone) 71.171.66.90 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking in the infobox? Because if that's the case, I do not agree with that. The rules and guidelines are there for a reason. If we maybe put a "release date" section within the article once more become known, that could be good. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just saying that the page should be helpful to everyone quickly, and newcomers to wikipedia wouldn't understand all that crap 72.73.35.144 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really a question of whether the viewer reads the Infobox or the lead first. If they read the Infobox, they'll see the earliest known release date for the album, cited; if they read the lead, they'll see prose of the earliest known release date, followed by the date it is released worldwide. The lead is no longer than two lines; it's pretty tough not to skim through it. Kraid (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the link saying it comes out May 15th in Italy is wrong. Why the hell would an American made album come out in Italy first? And why Italy of all countries? It even says on Eminem.com "May 19th". SlimShady6135 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Most albums, no matter "American" or not, come out in Europe or other parts of the world before they come out in America. That's tradition. Because they're distribution, in this case UMG, may be an American company, but it still distributes internationally, and, with the way time works, Europe is usually around a day or so before. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for confirming that. But every other album I've seen that got released on different dates had a release history to tell you each country's date. SlimShady6135 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the rule should be brought up somewhere other than here, and I'm about 90% sure flag icons have been depreciated in most cases. As I've said, I know some articles that have done some type of "released" section, where, with reliable sources, it lists what dates the album came out on in different countries. Problem is, we only have two as of now, do two really deserve an entire section, or even sub-section? I personally don't believe so. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A few things I wanted to clear out:

• It's not only one link to state Italy's release date. I've personally found at least 5 sources confirming this, I just picked two I felt were the most extensive.
• The reason why there are different release dates by country is mainly due to the first day of the week when sales are recorded. In most European countries, record sales are tracked from Friday to Thursday, while in the United States Nielsen SoundScan tracks sales from Tuesday. Because of this, a distributing company will tend to modify the release dates per country in order to have a greater opening week sales and higher chart positions.
• Because of the point stated above, it is very likely that more national release dates will be made available as we closer to May. There probably are already more than the two we currently have, as I actually found the Italian source almost by accident. Nonetheless, the reason for agreeing to use only the earliest dates on the Infobox is because it indicates when the album was first made available to humanity (not intended to sound epic, but that is the main point). If we started to use flags, by the time the album is released we will probably end up having filled of a dozen flags. Hence, it's recommended to crease a "Released date" section.

Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It ain't a stupid rule. Thinking that for American albums we should only include American release dates is stupid and ignorant. Think of it in a broader sense, without countries and nations. The album becomes available in a certain place on May 15, so we write May 15, not the date where it becomes available in bigger quantity. 130.216.30.234 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree Udonknome, which is what I've been trying to state, some people just don't understand. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to forget, we would probably also get whacked by our friends at WP:BIAS. ;) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know about this great project. Thanks! 130.216.30.234 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I get it, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's confusing for Americans. SlimShady6135 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the users who must adapt, not the Wikipedia. It's not our fault that most Americans only think about themselves. 130.216.30.234 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the release date into a bold text. If it confuses Americans, then it is easier to read now, so that nobody can mistake. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but it violates MOS:BOLD. And again, we have our own policies and it's not our fault that some people are too narrow-minded to understand them. 130.216.30.234 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does the release date now say June? source please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.206.142 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) This makes no sense why he would release it in italy first before america. He also says may 19th on his official webstie and what source says it is coming out may 15th because i went to itunes and switched to italy and it still said may 19 so i think we should just write may 19th considering it is coming out then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.59.28 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

April 27, 2009 in UK?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Relapse-Eminem/dp/B001O3XKMW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1237221697&sr=8-1

This is what I found on amazon.co.uk. Is this just a mistake becuase April 27th seems way early too me.--94.220.232.148 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On amazon.de, I have found May 18th. I think yours is a mistake. And I don't know if amazon is a relieable source, because everyone can post his offer with any date there...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Amazon.co.uk, Before I Self Destruct will be released on April 20, 2009, ha-ha. Retailers are not reliable sources, period. 130.216.30.234 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually found quite a few sources confirming May 18 for Germany: [2] [3]. Oh, and Eminem's official German website has a big "18/5/09 New Album". Nuff said. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan Release

[4]

There it sais 2009.05.20, meaning May 20th rather than May 13th.--94.220.235.56 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Crack a bottle confirmation?

At the Japanese Site, I found this:

[5]

I don't speak that language but I guess it is a site about the album (Relapse). There is a WMP audio link underneath that linking to Crack A Bottle. What does the Japanese text say? It is the tracklist maybe or rather list of confirmed tracks? --88.78.118.22 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have founf this [6] on universalmusic.com. Crack a Bottle is CONFIRMED. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Is 'Crack a Bottle' a single?

As most of you know, Crack a Bottle was released in digital format in February. Initially, I was against referring to it as a single, however I eventually gave in due to general consensus. My rationale was that every song can be individually downloaded digitally from iTunes and that if we considered Crack a Bottle a single, then every song from Relapse should be a single as well. As it turns out, Universal also seems not to consider it a single, as they according to them the first one will come out in April 7. So, what should we do? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was released as a single when it was unclear wether it would appear on the album or not. Now it is confirmed that is on the album, we should consider it as a single, not as the lead single, but as a single still. And as it was still unknown if it is on the album when it was provided for download, your argument that everey song on the album could be considered as a single does not count I guess. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I guess I agree. Single, yet not lead single. Thanks! Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not the single. I just removed an entry on this page that said it was. Right now it is looking more like the single will be called "We Made You". It is suggested on Eminem's Twitter account. (http://www.twitter.com/eminem). But nothing should be posted until confirmed. ---MoneyPitch

I think nowadays what determines if a song is a single or not is the way is mainly the way a record label intends to promote it. CD singles are rapidly becoming a thing of the past so there really isn't anymore an objective method to determine whether a song is a single or not. Hence, I think we should stick along to what the record label and third published sources agree upon. And, as it seems for now, the upcoming single is considered Relapse's first official single, rather than "crack a Bottle". If you think about it, "Crack a Bottle" was originally a street leak, and eventually released for download just because there was a lot of bootlegging going on. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the "Album title" section go?

I was having a look at the article, after fixing and doing some edits. After doing some considerations, I feel that the album title section adds very little to the article. For starters, it doesn't even address the reader's first question when he/she sees such section heading: the meaning of the title Relapse—which is pretty obvious anyway, given that Eminem hasn't released a studio album since 2004, and would still not be enough to cover a fully built section. Nonetheless, here's my evaluation of what is currently written in that section:

• The first two sentences, about Cashis's King Mathers and Dennis Dennehy's "rebuttal" are almost the copy from the first two sentences in the "Release and Promotion" section.
• The whole The Empack/The Empact fuss is based on blogs or otherwise self-published sources–an obvious violation of WP:SPS.
• The last part about the book-release party is also explained in the first paragraph of "Release and promotion". Also, the fact that Eminem himself calls them "bullshit album titles" gives an insight to their importance.

Given these points, I think there is no purpose for having a separate "album title' section. Opinions? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this section was helpful when it was created, before the article had really been touched up, and at a time when all these titles were floating around. But Eminem announced the Relapse title months ago and by this time King Mathers, The Empack and The Empact are old news. So in short, I agree that this section can be abandoned. Kraid (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the information is important and should be merged into other sections of the article. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 02:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, But as most of the facts already stand there, this should be little work. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I did some inclusions (although there wasn't much to do anyway). I think it's good to go. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, there should be an album title section if explains why he called it that. Not how it came to be named that. SlimShady6135 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We Made You

Apparently this is the first single from the album, can't exactly find a source right now but here are some pics from the video.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2rrp5w4.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.70.74 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Was just about to say this. http://www.rapbasement.com/eminem/eminem-new-single-we-made-you-produced-by-dr.-dre.html Here is the link confirming the name and video. Someone should add it to the article. SlimShady6135 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between "We made You" and "Crack a Bottle"

As we have discussed earlier, Crack a Bottle has to be seen as the albums first single, though it is not the lead single. But many users just delete it from the single list, claiming it is not the first single. We have to point out clearer in the text that crack a bottle has to be seen as a single, so that I does not get deleted 100 times a day. my proposal would be to make a small "(unofficial)" or something comparable in the infobox and change the article a little so that it is easier to understand that Crack a Bottle is a single from this album. Opinions? --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. As of now, there really is no clear consensus either way. As I commented above, the distinction between a single and a regular song is so thin nowadays, I think we should wait for when "We Made You" is released and how the media coverage defines it as the first or second single. It's really only one week away and we have page protection for the next two weeks, so there is no need to hurry. ;) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to MTV, "We Made You" is "the first single from Em's Relapse album". Couldn't be any clearer. I personally do not agree with some of the things they do and their impact on music, but one thing for sure is that they sure know their singles. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I have thought would happen. This means, that Crack a Bottle gets left behind, which is quite sad, as it is an number one hit. Everybody declares We made you as the first single, universal states that ,too. That's why I proposed to declare CaB as an "unofficial single", to be able to declare We made you as the first official single, but to make sure crack a bottle does not get left behind, because I have a big problem with seeing an number one hit not as a single...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but what is an "unofficial single"? I think we should not start adding stuff without clear consensus. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone: "for the first single off the upcoming Relapse" Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On the Crack a Bottle article it is featured as a single and the last version is done by you but in this article you don't feature it in the infobox, which is actually a bit contradictory... should it stay in our infobox or not? --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be. Crack a Bottle has been confirmed for Relapse and its a single. SlimShady6135 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. It is a number one hit and we already discussed that it a single. And as it is on Relapse, it is the only place were it belongs, if it is the lead single or not, so there is no reason to put it out of the infobox, though - as I have already mentioned - we should find a way to show (in the infobox) that it is not seen as the "official" first single... --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that logic. If both Universal Music Group and much of the latest major music-related media reports "We Made You" as the the album's first single, we are compelled to do the same per WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Hence, "Crack a Bottle" cannot be the first single. In regards to the Crack a Bottle article, the reason why I didn't modify the page to be coherent with this one is because we never addressed what to do with that page in the first place. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it, but I think now that it is said that it was a very successful song, it is not thaaat necessary to put it in the infobox, even though I still think it's better to put it in there...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be posted until confirmed. Crack A Bottle has not been confirmed. It is a single, but not necessarily a single from Relapse. ---MoneyPitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.57.40 (talk) March 28, 2009

It's actually the complete opposite, if you read the article. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read on many sources that "Crack a Bottle" is NOT the first single, is not A single, and that "We Made You" is the album's first single. It's very clear, I don't see why we're debating it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraisgod666 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because things weren't too clear a week ago. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's never really been "very clear", to be honest, seeing as CaB was released as a single and is from the album. Not surprising there was some debate about it. It's still more ambiguous than most singles/songs as it's described as a "Single by Eminem, Dr. Dre and 50 Cent from the album Relapse" on the CaB article, but isn't "really" the album's first single. I agree that "We Made You" should be treated as the first proper single, but it's still murky as CaB was still an official single in most senses. ElijahReno (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good the way it is right now. It's said that cab was a successful song and not it's not neccessary to put it in the infobox anymore (though I wanted it to be there about two weeks ago =P). Even his own label does not consider it as a single and if it would be one, Em wouldn't play it as the background music of his website...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I might be late in replying to this, but I really agree with your analysis, ElijahReno. I think it ultimately comes down to one's interpretation of the word "single". The more traditional meaning is a single song that is pressed on a CD or disk and distributed for sale to the public with often a "B-side" or more, indicating an effective physical release. I think that is the only difference between Crack a Bottle and We Made You, and most of the music industry media seems to be considering it this way as well. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 10:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If "Crap a Bottle" is on the album, it should be considered the first single. If the record label had confirmed the songs inclusion on the album before it started getting airplay we would all be calling it the lead single. But because the record label were late to confirm this inclusion on the album there is a dispute? — R² 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In the article for the song, it cites this^[7] as saying that "Crack A Bottle" is NOT considered the album's first single. Kiraisgod666 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"We Made You" and another song have just leaked

The song somehow got in the "wrong hands" and has been posted on Youtube along another song: link. Expect soon a massive flow of media coverage. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that suppose to be a joke or something? Talk pages are meant for the development of articles... unless this was your (effective) April fool's joke. -- A ^talk/_contribs 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! Good one Udonknome. SlimShady6135 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was true, but I still sorta fell for it... lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraisgod666 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dre's involvement in Relapse

In this new interview Eminem says that Dr. Dre produced every song on the album except for 1 or 2 songs:

http://www.rapradar.com/focus/rr-exclusive-eminem-speaks-on-qwe-made-youq.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadygeneral (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. -- A ^talk/_contribs 01:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Premiere

I dunno if its important but the video and single are premiering on MTV at 6AM on April 7th. SlimShady6135 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For this article...meh, it seems quite trivial and almost promotional. For the song article itself however, I guess it might be some useful information, especially given that there has been very limited news thus far. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Although thinking about it, it surely does fit the whole idea of promotion under the "Release and promotion" section. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Release history" vs. "Release schedule"

Just wondering: shouldn't the heading actually read "release schedule" rather than "history"? After all, the releases haven't occurred yet, and what we have is simply the dates on which the releases are planned. Hence, I think "schedule" makes much more sense than history. Opinions? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 01:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, it's the same as in the infobox on all album articles where it says "released" instead of any form of "planned release". "History" makes it much easier to not have to change later on once the album is released. And yes, I do agree they're just planned, but it's getting closer and closer, they can just be changed if need be. But, as I pointed out, it says even on the page "release history". It all basically comes back to my first point of the infobox "released". --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And I know I usually advocate away from this point but, just about every other page I've ever seen, has "history", even long before the albums release. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It should probably stay as "history". "Schedule" is more accurate since it's not out yet, but "history" seems to be the standard word. And it's hardly likely to cause confusion because everyone can see for themselves that it lists future dates, so people will realize "history" isn't used literally. Also, once it's released in Italy, say, it would have to be "history/schedule" to be accurate, since there'll still be places where it hasn't yet been released. I think "history" is best for simplicity's sake, even though it's not technically the right word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahReno (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It should stay as history, and a user pointed out a good reason why. Besides, the term history is (in some context) the same as schedule. We should follow the WikiProject's example. -- A ^talk/_contribs 03:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just changed the article without realizing this discussion was here (and got reverted in 1 minute w/o any comment on my talk page - it would be nice under 'assume good faith' to comment on a reversion if it's obviously not vandalism). Please just read my reasoning with good faith -- sorry for my bluntness in the following points, I'm just annoyed about the revert when I was 'being bold' and thinking I had a good line of reasoning (I usually really think through my edits, and when I justify them I quote heavily -- please do not take this offensively, I just have an undergraduate background in philosophy):

(1) Regarding statement '"History" makes it much easier to not have to change later on' -- This is absurd reasoning; should we write about any future event on Wikipedia in past tense because "it [is] much easier to not have to change later on"? Obviously not: "The United States presidential election of 2012 was held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 and was the 57th quadrennial United States presidential election, in which the popularly elected presidential electors selected the President and the Vice President of the United States."

(2) Regarding statement 'It's the same as in the infobox on all album articles where it says "released"' -- Simply because something is used incorrectly in terms of semantics, grammar, or tense in one location (or many) does not logically justify it being used likewise incorrectly somewhere else.

(3) Regarding statement "they can just be changed if need be" -- Interestingly enough, this defeats the point made in the same post in the sentence before it, which states the exact opposite, "it [is] much easier to not have to change later," ... wow.

(4) Regarding statement 'every other page I've ever seen, has "history"' -- Once again, as above in point (2) this does not stand; but, furthermore, I think Wikipedia's Ignore all Rules applies in an abstract way here (i.e., if it's done in a way that's incorrect everywhere else, you have two options - either consider it thus a rule, and ignore it because it's absurd; or don't consider it a rule... a lot of people write alot rather than a lot, but we don't use that as justification for it being correct).

(5) Regarding statement '"Schedule" is more accurate[.]" -- Spot on!; Regarding statement '"history" seems to be the standard word' -- See points (1) => (4), this is simply a reiteration of the same logic as above. The reasoning '"Schedule" is more accurate [...] but "history" seems to be the standard [therefore we should go with "history"]' is bizarre logic. George Orwell could have used this in 1984! The to use analogous logic as Orwell did in 1984: '"2 + 2 = 4" is more accurate but "2 + 2 = 5" seems to be the standard, therefore we'll go with it!'

(6) Regarding statement "It's hardly likely to cause confusion[.]" -- True, for a native English speaker who really doesn't care about accuracy. "Meet me b4 u go to c ur boyfriend." is "hardly likely to cause confusion" either. We understand the 4 in b4 "isn't used literally" in a numerical sense. But we still wouldn't use it on Wikipedia, regardless.

(7) Regarding statement 'once it's released in Italy, say, it would have to be "history/schedule"' -- Or, you could pick something like Release dates which would never have to be changed, regardless of any tense issue, instead of sticking to the previously discussed options (this is known as a false dilemma - think outside the presumed options). I must admit this defeats my edit, which was "Projected release dates," which would, at some point have to be modified.

(8) Regarding statement 'I think "history" is best for simplicity's sake' -- As with many of my above points, they're all really one and the same; 'I think "b4" is best for simplicity's sake... it takes less time to type, and still the same deep semantic meaning - who cares if the surface structure is different!' . . . but we're still not going to use it on Wikipedia!

(9) Regarding the "good reason why" provided by another editor -- this "reason" has two points provided, the first being 'Every other article I've ever seen lists it as "history".' This is the exact same argument reiterated again! I believe it have called its fallacious logic into question with points (1) to (8). Secondly, with what I was hoping was going to be a better logical foundation, "The WikiProject even lists it as history." Simply follow this link, you'll find it's out of context. The whole table is in past tense anyway, so it provides no data relevant to this debate whatsoever, nor can it be used to infer such. Maybe if there's something in the discussion page of Wikiproject Albums which relates to this (with 29 archives) then the poster can refer us to it, but it seems woefully unaddressed based on the link given.

(10) Regarding the statement "We should follow the WikiProject's example." -- Actually follow the link and read the section in its own context. It does not address this issue whatsoever (unless it does in one of the 29 archives and I'm missing it).

(11) Finally (sorry for my long rambling bullshit so far here), "Besides, the term history is (in some context) the same as schedule." -- This is the worst one here! I did an intense definition search on the word history. Please show me some academic or even otherwise usages (other than anything to do with Issac Asimov - that's a completely different issue) where this seems, "in [...] context," the same as schedule. I could offer my own points against this, but I'm getting tired of myself (and I'm sure you, the reader, are too, if any of you have even continued reading until this point).

I think: QED. Please counter any of my statements. I hope there's at least one person who read all the way through them. Chris b shanks (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I think you are taking this too out of contest. The reason why your edit was reverted was not because of vandalism, but probably rather because you edited against what seemed to be the consensus of this talk. I also don't think starting an argument over a section header is necessary nor useful; in fact all I had originally asked for was opinions on the matter. I don't think "Release dates" would be a proper interim header up to the album's release because that table will soon also include things like record labels, release formats and eventually catalog numbers. No need for point-by-point/quote-by-quote arguments, especially over something as marginal as this. Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about misunderstanding consensus. I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean when you say taking "this too out of contest." I do not intend to be starting an argument over the section header, I just thought it inappropriate as it was, changed it, and realized later that there was a need to justify my change on the talk page. I realized that there was more of an issue when it was mentioned that this was the standard practice for album articles. When I read the talk (afterwords), it did not appear to me as a consensus had truly been reached, as, when boiled down, there is one argument for and one argument against. I honestly did not think it a huge issue, but I felt it would be correct to explain my reasoning on the talk page? Sorry if it was long-winded, I just wanted to be thorough. When I see any debate, I like to break it down into (what I see as) its constituent points, and show how those logically stand on their own. Often they don't. I just like to show other wiki-editors that if they give a real, logical critique to each issue they come across, rather than figuring out what their opinion is, and then trying to justify it, they can come to a much more fruitful conclusion. I know I was not reverted because of vandalism - that was my point. If I was reverted for a justifiable reason (other than a throw-away one like vandalism) then it would be nice to have two-cents from the editor who did so added to my talk page. I do not mean to stir up a meaningless debate as you think I'm trying to do; my real question is, can you counter any of my points - I think they stand? (Oh, and finally, if this is so "marginal" of an issue, why was I reverted so ridiculously quickly?). Chris b shanks (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you seem to be so upset about this. Various editors made their points, I made mine and you made yours. We all seem to agree with the current header other than you. I just don't see why you have to go as far as removing your comments (and mine too) on this section claiming that "no one gives a shit" (edit diff) and do the same on my talk page. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 10:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"We Made You" Leak...for real this time?

Unless I got April fooled this time, this this should be the song...meh. Although it is catchy...other than that, it's whack as hell...kinda, good lyrics and flow, corny theme but that Encore accent... Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry - it is. See the music video here. Uploaded one hour ago... should take another hour for it to be cut off. Personally, I feel that it's one of those songs that will grow on you after a while. As for now, it's pretty whack. -- A ^talk/_contribs 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I already saw it. I actually found the video hilarious!!! The song really doesnt make sense until you see the video...I think it was meant to be that way. Hence Interscope was so strict in ensuring that they came out at the same time. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's whack. It's a good song, but Em starts to repeat himself. He always does the same songs for the lead single. If you know one you know all (though up to "Without Me" they were really creative and funny) and I'm not so sure if it won't bore the listeners, especially when it's on the "Just Lose It" niveau. He should do it like Kanye West does and try to be always 2 steps ahead and totally innovative...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This song grows on you, but I don't get the f***king accent! if you've heard I'm Having A Relapse (you can easily find the preview), he does an indian accent and it's really annoying. It's really the only thing stopping me from loving this song 72.73.36.168 (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Singles section

Something that just came in my mind hearing "We Made You": should we grant the singles an own section? I know it's a little early for that as there's only one single which is not in the charts so far. But it will and others will follow, so I guess we should discuss this matter as early as possible. To my mind, it would be of advantage to have one, because the article would be more detailed and we could hint at more matters concerning the album. Another reason is that the singles show the impact of an album very clearly. I don't want to rival the main articles of the singles, I think it would be enough to write a few sentences for each, name their chart positions and point at their main articles. Opinions? --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this, I personally am not sure if the singles deserve their own section. This article really has the potential to become GA-class in the near future, so I think we should attempt to follow the example of the best album articles. Most of our FA articles seem not to use a separate "Singles" section, and the general idea seems to be that singles really have no greater importance than any other song, other than they are used as promotional and marketing tools. For example, one of the most recent FA In Rainbows by Radiohead mentions the singles in their chart placings section. Even Thriller by Michael Jackson, which perhaps should deserve a "singles" section more than any other album doesn't do this, but instead moves it mainly to the Release and reception section. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I guess we could move it to the release and reception section, but we should still give them an subsection there. And I don't think that we should treat the singles as "normal album songs", due to the reason I've pointed out before. Maybe ours will be the first FA article with an singles section ;) (this article really deserves to be there) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) for example has one...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it ultimately depends in how this article will evolve into by the time the main content is mostly set and "done". Who knows what will happen. Most album articles really don't have a "release and promotion" either, yet since we've introduced to this page I've seen it on plenty of upcoming album articles. Quality is like a virus! Still, I really don't see the urgency of a singles' section right now, as you said, after only one single. ;) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dumpster for release dates from various universalmusic websites based on country.

If you find anything, YOU ADD IT!!! Thanks.

• France 18 mai 2009 Interscope/Aftermath/Shady
• Italy 15 Maggio 2009 Interscope/Aftermath/Shady
• Spain 19 de mayo (N/A label)
• Brazil 18 de maio
• Portugal 18 de maio Interscope/Aftermath/Shady (Apparently We Made You was released in Portugal on April 6...)
• India May 19 (I didn't expect to find this one...)
• Argentina 29 de Mayo Interscope/Aftermath/Shady HAHA

Other sites

• UK 18 May 2009 (HMV seems to pass WP:RS, as it is the biggest music retail store in the UK.) Polydor
• Russia May 15 (Lenta.Ru)
• Australia 19 May (The Daily Telegraph (Australia))
• Czech Republic 18 May 2009

Question, why does it still say the list is incomplete? For the time being, no it isn't. 76.5.118.15 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we still are missing major areas like China or Indonesia, Canada and Mexico. It;s just a way to invite people to add. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 19:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

i don't think that this album will appear in china =D --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't think India either...;) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh Well, India is pretty hyped about this album, truse me ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone add the release in Czech republic to the article? i don't have rights to do it... --Kumano

Pictures

I thought it would be an idea to integrate a few pictures in the article, because right now it looks a little poor, empty and grey and I want to know how you think about this idea. Here are a few suggestions: maybe one of the Effigy Studios and/or of Dr. Dre (maybe when he's working?) for the recording and production section, a picture of Em or Proof for the background. I don't have a good idea for the release and promotion section, so if you have one or suggestions for the other sections, feel free to speak your mind! ;) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not sure about this. According to WP:IMAGES, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." I don't see how adding an image of Dre, Eminem or any person adds anything informative to the article, other than for mere identification. I remember how not too long ago someone added a Dre photo to the Eminem article, but it was removed because it really didn't add anything to that article! In regards to Eminem and Proof, we really don't have a free image of either one of them that is half-decent in the first place. Personally, I don't see the "emptiness" as a problem. Ironically, it means there is a lot of text so it is a good thing. Unless we find an image that is really relevant, I think we should be fine with the cover art. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm..I see. At the moment, there are no article-relevant photos except one of Proof for the background, but if there are no decent one's it's difficult. Though I think that Dre on the turntables would match perfectly for the recording and production section...Maybe there will come pictures in time, for example one of the MTV awards or the introduction of Run DMC in the hall of fame...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind they likely can't be copyrighted. I doubt there is any image of Eminem with Run-D.M.C. that isn't. Same with Proof; the image currently present in his article is too copyrighted. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That indeed is a problem. But I'm looking forward to the MTV awards, there are so many people, one of them will hopefully shot a photo...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What we could do, if no one sees a relevance problem, is add a picture of a recording studio for the production section...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with DasallmächtigeJ but that would be a little imprecise, however we can put a couple of pictures related to the article like eminem with the new haircut and the issue of eminem as the punisher in the promotion section, what say?

I like the idea, but the question is if the cover is copyrighted, a picture of Em will hopefully be shot at the MTV awards...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We Made You - second single

Yes, yes - I know this might seem repetitive, seeing as this was discussed many times. However, Billboard's referred to the single as "the second single" - should we consider this a mistake? It's Billboard.com. -- A ^talk/_contribs 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think billboard considers any song that enters on their single charts as a single. By searching Google News, they seem to be the only ones considering it a second single, while there seems to be a greater overall support for "first single" Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone put it as the first single yet again, with Eminem's website as the source...how about it now???--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Album Cover

Is the album cover out? the cover that is put now, is it real?
btw check out the indian universal site its got the same picture, bu hten again it's not reliable enough...any thoughts?

Eminem posted the cover on his official twitter page. http://www.twitter.com/eminem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.8.76 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Great catch. I didn't know Eminem was a Twitter. I guess that's him as well, and not someone posing as him like the million Lady Gagas there are on Twitter. -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's his official one, MTV confirmed the account and the cover. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also on his official website and Entertainment Weekly. Ladys and gentlemen, we're getting closer to Relapse day by day....--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Artwork

Some Polish protals says that new Eminem's artwork shows Poland in the background > [8] - note the colors and Poland shype borders. --DumnyPolak (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is purpose...and poland looks different...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out the resemblence of Rockstar games logo and letter "R" on the album cover. Wasn't there some problem between the two a while ago? 80.221.43.118 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Popsomp Hills

Did anyone check that shit out? if was friggin Hilarious! lmfao!!
down to buisness shouldnt we add that stuff to the promotion section?
can anyone do it?
P.S. did anyone hear 3 A.M. ?, it's suppose to be the secone single, it's pretty serios and stuff, super cool.Definately better.

Is it a real sanatorium? Or just a promotion gag? And where can I find this song? Just heard it was on shade 45 but I can't find it..--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

no man it's just some really funny promotional thing.it's just sarcastic humor (We Remade You, getit?). BTW today around evening it should be out i kinda heard it first, but never mind just wait till night you're bound to hear it.Personally I really liked it! but hey, i Really like CaB & We made you , too, so who knows?..--Dvivid13 (talk • contribs)

thanks. Also found an article about it.http:.. [9] --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Im not 100% sure but I think the location is:

215 North Ave Mt Clemens, MI 48043

I use to live right by there and right when I saw the picture that is what it looked like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KtWTupac (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then shot a photo and we'll integrate it in the article.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I can get a ride over there or have some one I know over there get a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KtWTupac (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, because there would finally be a good picture for this article. Thanks! --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

3 am

Today, in the shade 45 interview, Eminem confirmed a song named "3 am" and said there is a video for it, but he did NOT said it was going to be a single. I guess it will be the second single, but there is no reliable source. I know you're all exited about the album, but as long as there is no third-party source confirming it as a single, please don't put it in the infobox. Thanks.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

S**t, I hate this accent... L Trey (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the release date: Can we really take a leak as a release date? I don't think so. For CaB we took the day it was made available for payable download as the release date. So we better don't put april 23 as the release date...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It was released by Eminem and premiered on Shade 45 and rapradar. According to the interview, it is the second single from Relapse. So it wasn't really "leaked" since Eminem himself sent the song to Shade 45 and rapradar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonamiguy (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed Tracks

We have three officially confirmed tracks: "3 A.M.", "We Made You", and "Crack a Bottle". I'm starting a list of confirmed tracks. Also, it's worth noting that "My Sillielabel" with Jay-Z will not be on the album, as Dre and 50 Cent are the only guests, as confirmed by Marshall himself today on Shade45. - unfinished_narrative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.168.209 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I can't edit the article. Can someone else please do it and add the three confirmed tracks? Thanks a lot and God bless. - unfinished_narrative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintjimmy273 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A list of confirmed tracks would be removed since all tracks are explained in the article. No list is needed until and official track listing is released. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you anyway for replying to my post, SE KinG. Off the record, what did you think of "3 A.M."? Personally, I think it is certainly one of his better singles. This is the first thing to truly come out and grab me and say "Eminem is back". Hopefully Relapse as a whole will be more of this and less of "We Made You". Also, do you have a clue when Marshall will release the tracklist? I haven't seen a date anywhere, and I've searched all over the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintjimmy273 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Dre and 50 are the only ones. He said this, because they are the only ones we know about, as he did the whole interview...bur we'll se it when the album comes out...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think every single song I've heard off this album is pure trash. He needs to go back to his MM LP style, rhymes and flow. Comment on the article: I do think that 50 and Dre will be the only features because they both have albums coming out that have lost their spark and they need to get their promotion back up. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever put it up, do not again. I removed it. If people agree that it should not be there, you have no right to put it there. Kiraisgod666 (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing needs done

Eminem has said the only people he worked with on the album are 50 Cent and Dr. Dre so anyone who said they worked with him besides those two should be removed from the article. 76.5.118.15 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we have sources that say Eminem's worked with others. Do you? -- A ^talk/_contribs 03:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact of him only having Dre and 50 on the album is sourced. However, the other content should not be removed because it is still useful to the background knowledge of the album. And some of it can be used for Relapse 2. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 03:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if you look at his behaviour throughout the whole interview, it might have been ironically. Let's just wait until the album comes out and let the other possibly guests appearances in the article...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The track list is now out and there's two guests on the whole album, Dr. Dre and 50 Cent. 76.5.118.15 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Concept"/Popsomp hills

I personally think that the concept section has to be removed, at least based on what we know right now. It reads as a very speculative material based sorely on an album cover and a bogus rehab center. ÈThe fictional "Popsomp Hills" ("Pop some Pills") rehab-center underlines those themes, which refers to Eminem's personal struggle throughout the last years, particularily his sleeping-pill addiction and several rehabs.[35] The album title refers to Eminem' relapse to rap music and even more to the one to sleeping-pills"...all of this according to who? I could easily say that Popsomp hills is a way to tell his critics to stop taking his lyrics of violence and drugs so seriously by creating a bogus rehab center. also, why are including information on Popsomp hills and photos that are uploaded on eminem's twitter in the first place? Let's remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so anything that Eminem does from today up to the album's release has to be notable and related enough to the album itself. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it just needs some improvements. I was in a hurry when I wrote this down and I actually expected someone would rewrite it...I think those themes can be seen clearly throughout the campaign and there are also sources dealing with that...and as for Popsomp Hills: I think it has to be seen as a tool of promotion and as it was launched only a few days ago, we'll have to wait a few days to see what function it will have...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but for now it's just speculation. I'm sure we can re-include a concept section whenever eminem, dre or anyone who worked closely on the album explains the purpose of it or at least a reviewer of sorts. Same for Popsomp hills. if it develops into something related to the album such as a relevant promotional tool then great, but until then it serves no purpose. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's just speculation. It has shown itself too clear in the promotional campaign. But we could say, that the promotional campaign built itself on pills and it is a theme in the album cover and don't make a conclusion to the album's content.

By the way, if this is speculative, then how about the T.I. appearance. Nobody ever said that Em would use the song on his album, just that he intended to use it...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said that wasn't speculative either. That entire "guest appearances" section is highly speculative in nature too, as a matter of fact. "Other possible guest appearances include Elton John, who in October 2008 spent half a week with Eminem at the Effigy Studio, leading to speculation of a possible collaboration between the two." Keeping in mind WP:SPECULATION, I personally suggest we moved all material that is speculative in nature or based on poor reliable sources to a subpage like Talk:Relapse (album)/Resources, just in case some of them may turn out to be useful after all. For example, Stat Quo saying that Jay-Z will appear on the album will really not RS (and the same for Primo, Swizz and Focus..), however in case that actually happens, then we can later include this material in the article. The same would apply for the concept section and Popsomp hills. In case it turns out to be something useful and notable, then we can simply move this back to the article and build upon it. This would really make our job easier, while keeping the article to a high standard of quality (which is of course what we all want...isn't it??) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, it would make sure that the facts don't get lost. But as the album comes out in about 3 weeks and the tracklist (with the guest appearances) are -usually- published one or two weeks before the actual release I don't know if this isn't a little bit too late for that. We can take those facts out if they prove themselves wrong quickly if we need to. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess we can still keep the possible collaboration thing for now, given that it will soon be replaced anyway. For now, I moved the concept and popsomp information for now, in hope it may turn out to be useful in the future. ;) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible singles?

On itunes in other countries there is a countdown to relapse and lists the release dates for the next singles:

4/28 3 am 5/5 Old Time's Sake (feat. Dr. Dre) 5/12 Beautiful

Here's a pic: http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3405/emm.png

Is itunes a credible source?--Shadygeneral (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually not a credible source. The talk page for 50's Curtis seemed to help drive that point home. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Every countdown iTunes has ever had, all the songs have made it onto the final track listing. However, they are not always singles, but they are confirmed songs. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 02:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall, when it comes to iTunes, as I said, I tend to go by things like this. It was all screwed up. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't as big as a track listing it is just songs that Eminem gave to iTunes to release from Relapse. T.I. did it with Paper Trail, Flo Rida did it with R.O.O.T.S., T-Pain did it with Thr33 Ringz, Ludacris did it with Theater of the Mind and many other artists have done it, and all the songs that were released got put onto the official album listing. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, even if it is true (an it just might be), what you want to do with them? Add the songs to the text? what does that add to the article? It would be just like listing confirmed tracks, which we already agreed not to do so. On the other hand, if this is considered a noteworthy promotional tool, then it may receive coverage and we will be able to write something about it. So I suggest we wait for now. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 04:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Track list confirmed

http://www.rapradar.com/true-story/eminems-relapse-tracklist-confirmed.html
And iTunes says "Old Time's Sake" May 5th and "Beautiful" May 12th.

01) Dr. West (Skit) 01:29
02) 3am - 05:20
03) My Mom - 05:20
04) Insane - 03:01
05) Bagpipes From Baghdad - 04:43
06) Hello - 04:08
07) Tonya (Skit) - 00:43
08) Same Song & Dance - 04:08
09) We Made You - 04:30
10) Medicine Ball - 03:57
11) Paul (Skit) - 00:19
12) Stay Wide Awake - 05:20
13) Old Time’s Sake ft. Dr. Dre - 04:35
14) Must Be The Ganja - 04:03
15) Mr. Mathers - 00:42
16) Deja Vu - 04:43
17) Beautiful - 06:32
18) Crack A Bottle f. Dr. Dre & 50 Cent - 04:58
19) Steve Berman (Skit) - 01:29
20) Underground/Ken Kaniff - 06:19
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullmetal Ink (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

that's some bullshit =// L Trey (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The source also claims (as Em's website) that CaB is a single, 3am an itunes exclusive promo-single and that beautiful is about to be the next single. Should we react to those facts? (esp CaB though we had this a hundred times, because if itunes and Em himself (=Universal) see it as a single, it is time to react) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The source does not list the producers. Those should be removed from the table. -Marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.160.2 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Eminem confirmed all tracks were produced by Dr. Dre, which is what the table shows. Why remove something that was previously stated? SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he said that he produced one track himself. We don't know which one that is, so we can't write the producers. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He produced "We Made You". (Well co-produced.) SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 21:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interview we actually made it clear there was another song on the album he produced by himself. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The guest appearances paragraph

At this point, I really don't see a purpose for that part of paragraph. Assuming that the track listing is correct, all those "possible collaborations"/speculation.. is irrelevant to the article, or at least to me. As User:DasallmächtigeJ and I had discussed already (see #"Concept"/Popsomp hills), my suggestion is to move this material to Talk:Relapse (album)/Resources in case any of this turns out to be useful for Relapse 2 or something else. Right now it really looks confusing, especially to the average reader who is not aware of the history of the article and reads of all these possible collaborations and then scrolls down to the track listing to find out none of this is true. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Though I think we should let that Amy Winehouse paragraph in the article. The part about the producers who claimed to be involved in the album can stay too, I think. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much disagree. It's part of the history to the album. But that's just my opinion. I know of many articles who keep things like this even after their found to not be included nor true. It was still heavily reported. As I said, just my opinion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That usually happens because no one bothers to see if the content is still relevant or correct. Just look the FA and recent GA albums. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and most facts in this paragraph are just speculation which is no longer of use, as we know the guest appearances now. And everything which Em hasn't denied (like the producers) or the Amy Winehouse part should go now to keep up our articles high standard. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can We Add This to the Article?

can we add this for the production page http://rap.soniquo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/eminem-studio-dr-dre-relapse.jpg
i guess it has no license so we can rite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.143.241 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are 100% sure it is unlicensed then we could use it, if nobody disagrees. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, about the license, but i think its free, so we'll see, maybe others can put it up, and wat about hte new "Vibe" magazine cover, can someone subscribe it and then post it up here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. That's obviously not free... Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What? Isn't that an old picture? 76.5.118.15 (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The pitucre is a photography from the Eminem Show's album cover. So it's obviously not free...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)