Talk:Relapse (Eminem album)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

It has sold 608,000 copies according to billboard. Not 601,000 and change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.68.225 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The singles listed in the infobox

Ok, we obviously have a problem here. Everyday the single's list keeps changing and we obviously do not have an agreement on this. The page will be unlocked in a few days, so I strongly feel we need to have a solid agreement. At this point, since the majority of music media appears not to be anymore consistent with their usage of the term "single", I suggest that anything that is released for sale and is confirmed as a single by WP:RS, then we should treat it as one. I believe this would be the easiest solution to the issue and would also allow us to keep from making sticky distinctions from "official singles" and "promotional singles" which are often borderline of WP:OR. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.eminem.com/blog/default.aspx?nid=21315

Can it get any more definite then his OWN web site?

KtWTupac (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, iTunes always releases "singles" that are actually promotional singles. The blog is simply repeating what iTunes is offering. I think those singles are simply promotional singles, similar in a way to the past albums like "Tha Carter III" (with "Mr. Carter" and "You Ain't Got Nuthin'") and "Paper Trail" (with "No Matter What" "What Up, What's Haapnin'" and "Swing Ya Rag"). They have an article because they charted but they were mainly promotional singles. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can write every track on the album in the infobox. Beautiful and Old Time's Sake are not even real singles, they're just getting released before the album as a kind of preview, also no one releases 4 singles within a few weeks. I think the first three singles are enough for now. Let's just wait how the situation develops. If (what won't happen) they really get attention or a music video or recognizable chart positions we can react. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So, "Crack a Bottle", "We Made You" and "3am" and that's it? Just to make it clear and unambiguous... Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those three tracks as "Singles". --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm also very close from removing the guest section...why are we dedicating an entire section to a list of people that had absolutely nothing to do with the album? That is a pretty gross violation of WP:Undue weight, and I think there is enough consensus for this from the few sections above... Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The guest appearances should at least be concluded in the text. But all the other speculative stuff is unnecessary and as the album doesn't rely heavily on guest appearances, I guess the section is not that necessary. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's perfectly fine. At the end it won't really matter anyway, since when we start writing about the songs based on the published reviews we will surely include information about this and that features. My problem was just that we were dedicating too much space to people that had no importance to the album. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 10:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. "Crack a Bottle" is a promotional single also, yet it is included in the infobox. Oh and provide proof that "Old Time's Sake" is a promotional single and that promotional singles should not be included in the infobox. I personally don't care if you invent new unwritten policies. I will be reverting everything that doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC) I am gonna put another section in the infobox it's a list of promo singles - crack a bottle and old times sake - nikmek99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikmek99 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Popsomp Hills Pics

Im not sure if any one can use them but I took some pics my self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Popsomp_Hills_1.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Popsomp_Hills_2.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Popsomp_Hills_3.JPG

--KtWTupac (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Time's Sake

Old Time's Sake has been leaked. Removed url —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's already mentioned on the tracklist. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is THE IT moment of the album man! this is THE track!aagh! can't wait!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It was released today on itunes, it should be considered a single now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorx9395 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it has yet to become a commercial single. See the above argument. Digitelle (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its still a single...Toonamiguy (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, consensus here is promo singles don't count. Digitelle (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Punisher

Well, Eminem's appearing on the cover of the XXL magazine. Apparently, he's a reference to The Punisher, which is supported by an issue Marvel Comics just digitally released today (source). -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

His appearance in The Punisher seems notable to me, but I think it would be better suited for the Eminem article. I just can't see how it's related to the Relapse promotional campaign. Digitelle (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first article refers to this as Marvel and Eminem's team up to promote Relapse. While were on the topic, does anyone think the release and promotion is getting large enough to be split in their own sections? Particularily because there's enough information for promotion. Just a suggestion. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it does have some relevance to album promotion, especially considering the product placement in the digital second half of the comic (the icefisher listening to Relapse on his iPod Touch, with the cover art clearly visible). Anybody else have thoughts on this? Digitelle (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, it's just a normal tool of promotion. It has no really significance for the actual album and we have already listed some parts of the promotional campaign. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I find it significant to point out that Marvel Comics has teamed up with Eminem in order to promote this album. Noted in first source. -- A ^talk/_contribs 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be seen as something special, but it has not a real impact on the actual album as it doesn't clearly refer to Relapse as such. It is just one of the various promo gags, just like the video game. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IGN says otherwise. Article cameout today. -- A ^talk/_contribs 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All Dr. Dre production

The reason why I reverted L Trey edit which had an interview as a source is that it's less reliable than what we had before that (MTV). Traditionally, artists themselves are not reliable sources. So I put some info in the text, but the kept track listing the same. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Underground & Stay Wide Awake Snippets

i found snippets of underground & staw wide awake from relapse, listen to them here (removed url)
what say?, btw check out em's new pic (Url Removed by P-Real DA deal 02:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC))....UNDERGROUND sounds like a MONSTER! ;) also my mom and insane and mr.west have linked onto youtube (Url Removed by P-Real DA deal 02:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)) thats a link with all three songs

Protection

I don't know who you feel about this, but this page needs to be semi-protected again. Everybody is writing unsourced bullshit or breaks the links, links to dubious sites claiming that the album is leaked. I think the main problem is that the album comes out in less then two weeks and that everybody writes speculations on the page or people use it to link to dubious websites. So let's just ask for protection again. To save the high quality standard of our article and preserve internet crimes. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It was leaked tho -KtWTupac (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? What is with this phenomenon where people think Wikipedia is a place where you can report to everybody that an album can now be found online? Digitelle (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just letting him now that it isnt a lie. That the album has been released. When Crack a Bottle was leaked it was put on the wiki. --KtWTupac (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sorry. Still, I don't think it's necessay to blemish this pretty good article with leak notices. Digitelle (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that stating the album has leaked on P2P sites and torrent sites is important. How is it not? And how exactly does it blemish a "pretty good article" It is only a fact about the album. You talk about leaked songs but won't talk about a fully leaked album. This is stupid. Google news it, its not a lie, its been leaked since the 8th of May 2009.

"Crack a Bottle" leak was included in the article per WP:LEAK. Eminem himself responded to the song leak so it was worth including it. Unless Eminem responds to the album leak, it shouldn't be included. By the way, I agree that the page needs to be protected. 130.216.30.234 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If a source with some reliable response to the leak surfaces then it's notable. But insertions of just plain "On May 7, 2007, the album leaked" shouldn't last. Well I don't even need to say it, since this article has a pretty good community backing it. Digitelle (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And we shouldn't forget that if someone posts a download link he comforts people to download it and as we all know, illegal downloading is a crime...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Viral marketing

I haven't read anything about this so here it is:
(It was on his Twitter)

http://www.therelapse.com/#/?room=entrance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullmetal Ink (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi protect

This page needs to be locked people are posting "relapse has leaked look hard to find it on rapid share and z file" right at the top of the page just lock it down dont know how that works i just think it should be done P-Real DA deal (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Leak confirmed

For anyone that doesn't know, it leaked on May 7 (today). Does this need to be mentioned in the article? 71.49.156.226 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't. It goes against WP:LEAK. Information of leaked material is non-notable unless it has received media attention for being leaked. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Leak official, it can be found on numerous torrent websites, demonoid.com, Piratebay.org, ect...

I understand what you meant but any album gets leaked. Heck, even released albums are already located on torrents. However, they are not notable to be in the article. If the leakage gets media attention and/or controversy, then i would be notable to include into the page. Otherwise, WP:LEAK doesn't allow any information about album leaks. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 06:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaking

Crack a Bottle was leaked in late 2008, and Old Time's Sake was leaked a day before it's scheduled release. Thursday, May 7th, 2009, the entire Relapse album was leaked online, on such sites as ThePirateBay.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okushar (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that info, although I must say it feels Deja Vu because this has already come to everybody's attention. Leak mentions add nothing to an article unless they've been notably responded to. Besides, a day after the leak you don't have to spell it out like you're the first to enlighten us; it only takes an hour for everybody to be fully aware of the situation. Digitelle (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious if Interscope puts the album on itunes the next few days. This would minimize the damage...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The album's already a few days away from release anyways; well, a week. If anything, the album will be put up for streaming on MySpace. That's the most recurring response to leaks I've seen from major labels. Digitelle (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"I'm Having a Relapse"

What ever happened to this song? It's not on the official track list. All we know is that Eminem just sang a song called "I'm Having a Relapse". -- A ^talk/_contribs 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that song wasn't very good in my opinion... But you can still easily get it if u want —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraisgod666 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - what I meant though, was it it worth mentioning here on the article if it has nothing to actually do with the album? -- A ^talk/_contribs 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a freestyle, never meant for release. 66.57.20.114 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your right about that. Is a freestyle rap worth mentioning in this article if it has no relation to the album? Besides the title. -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is that relevant, but we could still mention it in the release and promotion session, because after all, it helped crating the hype around the album..--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyrical Content

"In November 2008, 50 Cent stated that the death of Eminem's close friend and fellow rapper Proof, in 2006, would be an inspiration for 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."[26] Eminem too confirmed in January 2009 that the departed artist would be a theme on the album, with at least one song dealing with Proof's death."

Well, we've all heard the album... and there is nothing about Proof's death. this section needs some editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okushar (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's better to wait with bigger edits until the actual album comes out, but I guess we can move that section to Talk:Relapse (album)/Resources, as it apparently isn't on the album. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're also wrong. "Deja Vu" references Proof's death as the reason for his relapse, thus literally providing the inspiration for the album. -MegaKN (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But there isn't a song entirely dedicated to Proof, as mentioned in the article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says that song isn't being prepared for Relapse 2, considering both albums will feature songs from the same sessions. Digitelle (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

True - I had, however, always assumed "3am" was the Proof tribute after several articles pointed out Proof died at "3am in the morning". -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You see, that's why we move it to Talk:Relapse (album)/Resources, so we can use it for the Relapse 2 article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he does mention Proof in "Deja Vu" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraisgod666 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Proof's mentioned in "Beautiful" too. Digitelle (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The song about Proof is mentioned in the liner notes of Relapse, where Eminem writes a foreword in his honor: "I tried to write a song for you but nothing was good enough, so I'm dedicating them all to you [...]" Digitelle (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

it actually says on the back of the cd cover that he couldnt write any songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.243.115 (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit

the part about his divorce with kim in the beginning of the article needs to be removed nowhere in his interview does he talk about kim we dont need to mention it so some body who can edit it take it off--P-Real DA deal 20:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Real DA deal (talk • contribs)

Well yes but the divorce was mentioned by The Observer in an article about Relapse so I think it should stay. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Only Eminem and Dre having the album

Should the fact it leaked a few days ago be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.66.98 (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

People keep adding this fact but other users keep deleting it citing WP:LEAK however, as the release has received significant media coverage, i think that it should be allowed, especially considering there is already a part of the article which talks about Eminem's efforts to prevent leaks.--Cartman005 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Eminem hasn't commented on the leak so it isn't notable. It was like a one day thing. Significant media coverage would be like with Tha Carter III where the DJ's leaked the album and other DJ's commented and stuff or Thr33 Ringz because iTunes made it for sale early. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 17:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Audio Sample

I uploaded a 30 sec. sample of 3am, for this page, and it has a correct lisence, and I put it on the page, so I don't see why someone deleted it. If you deleted it, please tell me why. Kiraisgod666 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Scroll down lol. Digitelle (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the term "darker atmosphere" and it creates the impression that 3am would be a representative song for the entire album's atmosphere. Relapse is much more upbeat than his previous releases so it's best to change this part. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

whoops Kiraisgod666 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the following songs after 3am are about how drugs have always been part of his family, about childhood abuse and incest, personifications of drugs that "rape" and kill people, partying to drugs "one more time for old time's sake", passing out and going to the hospital, realizing the consequences of his drug abuse and following depression...well, I wouldn't say it's a "happy feel good" type of album. Still, we'll be able to better decide what use to make of it when the reviews are in and how they perceive the album's content. For now, that's the best we have I guess. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's leaked already and it's not a "happy feel good" type of album at all. --Parasitic Swarm (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea it's definitely not an upbeat album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.54.114 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page should be archived

I was going to do it myself, but I figured I'd probably do it wrong, and some people may have arguements, so...? Kiraisgod666 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Anything before May is pretty much useless right now, while there still might be some activity in the new sections. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Production credits...

Where have all these credits suddenly come from? What's the RS being used? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

L Trey claimed he possesses the album and made those changes, so I guess they come from the actual albu, though I don't where he got it from... --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Although it would've been nice if he had explain how he had got in touch with it. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the album. DasallmächtigeJ, how do you take it? Production credits are available in the Internet. They have not been confirmed, but a very plausible... Sorry for my English, I'm from Russia L Trey (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You said you got the back cover so i figured you might have an album...sorry --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I don't think it's appropriate to have them up if there is so source for them ("The Internet" isn't really one). I think they will have to be removed for now. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, I was right about that L Trey (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong when you don't have a reliable source. As a matter of fact, everyone without a reliable source is wrong. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Professional reviews

I think we obviously got a problem concerning those reviews. I don't think they are reliable or clearly professional, besides the fact they can rarely be found on other album sites. I've checked the websites and "The Koalition" is a video game website and I couldn't figure out if they are even professional journalists. Same goes for "Addictive Thoughts". As long as no one can clearly prove that they are really professional they will get deleted. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DasallmächtigeJ, you've been told this multiple times, now: Wikipedia clearly states on their criteria for professional album reviews that a site may be listed if they are professional journalists or - *OR* - a website with a full paid OR volunteer staff. Addictive Thoughts has multiple authors and a staff page. It clearly qualifies as the latter. Until more noteworthy publications begin listing reviews, Addictive Thoughts' review will be displayed. Please do not remove it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.67.179 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well actually their staff page is still under construction, but as there are several different authors I guess it can stay until there are better reviews. But the other review is not notable. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not questioning Rolling Stone as a reliable source for reviews.. Digitelle (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. There was a third review from "The Koalition", which couldn't be considered as a professional review. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with the link being removed once other reviews are posted (e.g. AllMusicGuide), but in the meantime I do think it qualifies as a legitimate source, especially since Rolling Stone is the only other website listed! Feel free to remove the link once nine other more reputable sources become available! And sorry if my tone was a bit strict earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.67.179 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind! --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with that Addictive Thoughts review. I think it's non-notable. Why? Well, the website looks shady. I want to know more about their staff. If I set up a website, make it look more or less reliable and put a "Staff" section which upon clicking says "Under Construction", would that be a website to get notable reviews from? I don't think so. Therefore, I'm going to remove that unless someone convinces me not to do so. Oh and by the way, the website won't work for me. I even tried different browsers. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my point exactly. We cannot surely say if they are truly professional. But as we will soon have 10 reviews from the professional reviews list, we can remove it in a few days anyway. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

These are your personal, subjective reactions to the site; the WP:ALBUM guidelines say nothing about this. The fact remains that according to the aforementioned guidelines, any website "with a volunteer or paid staff of writers" is considered notable. And I browsed the site when it was online yesterday and there were articles written by different people. But obviously other highly reputable sources - AllMusicGuide, Rolling Stone, etc. - have higher priority, because they are more reputable and well-known, and owing to Wiki's 10-reviews-max rule, the AT review would be pushed aside once other sources publish articles. That being said, you're right; the AT website seems to be down right now, so I won't re-post the link. --71.225.67.179 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And that comment of yours makes me think you are affiliated. Promote your website somewhere else please. Thanks. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You have little grounds to make such accusations. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

True, I've forgotten about the good faith policy. Thanks for reminding. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering I wasn't even the one who posted the review to begin with, and it's been re-posted numerous times by other people, I'd say your accusations were a bit off-base. I've also re-posted the Spin review at least two times after it was deleted by other users, and left a comment about its vandalism on the Discussion page; I guess I'm promoting them, too.--71.225.67.179 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah it's just the fact that I didn't realise you are the same person who put Chicago review back. Please consider registering, you seem to be bold, that's rare nowadays. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, when the bigger reviews such as All Music Guide and XXL or Pitchfork Media are released, the random Chicago papers have to go, in my opinion there is no need to have random papers reviews included, the only ones that should be included are major reviewers such as Rolling Stone etc. and the ones I mentioned earlier and why did HipHopDX ge deleted, that is a reliable source, whuch meets all the requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R3Lap53 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we're going to replace random reviews with more notable ones as they surface. HipHopDX.com is less notable than the other websites and the limit is 10 reviews so it was deleted as the least notable. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Onion A.V. Club just posted their review: http://www.avclub.com/articles/eminem,28275/ --Bulbler (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but we already have ten notable reviews so I think they'll stay that way forever. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Spin article

Can people STOP removing this article from the reviews section? Spin is a perfectly accepted review site and that the review was negative should not be grounds for its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.29 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting annoying. I have to keep re-adding it. --71.225.67.179 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Samples

I've got a question concerning the samples. A user claimed that they belong in the song's article, but when a song isn't released as a single it hasn't an article so nobody will know about the samples. So I think it would be better to keep a samples section and include them in the article and most album articles feature such a section. Should we keep it or not? --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you think the information is really required in the article? If yes, feel free to put it, but reference it accordingly. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to elaborate: adding just one sample for a song which is a single is unneeded, because the information belongs to the single's article. But adding samples for songs without articles is justified. However, unsourced claims will be deleted, leaving only one sourced sample, which is "Beautiful"'s. Please keep that in mind. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not consequent to me. This article deals with the albums as a whole and this means that we need to list all samples or none. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just do whatever you feel is right and what doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. What I said is that having just one sample is kinda odd. But more than one is fine. Oh and unsourced things will be deleted. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get the album this afternoon, so don't worry about that...;) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Other Reviews

Can This be added or should i find the sites and add this to the reviews? "Music.IGN.com calls the album “infectious and catchy beyond belief” and undercover.com calls “Relapse” “his best album ever.”"

from http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x1993050558/Nancy-Hall-Eminem-ready-to-make-another-big-splash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Add this review too, http://www.djbooth.net/index/albums/review/eminem-relapse-05140901/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by King John830 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are the ratings so sporatic, just put reviews by people who actually know hip hop, chicago sun times wtf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.241.45 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Put in reviews from Hip Hop sites and wot not. The album was great btw.

totally agree that, why add reviews by pop sites like Chicago times, i mean they don't even know the name of any other eminem album!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to remind you that but Wikipedia is not just another website; Wikipedia has its own policies. This means that there are criteria for professional reviews, which some of the above mentioned hip hop websites fail. I myself am an Eminem fan and honestly I don't care that not everybody is excited by Relapse. So let's just be bold. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the Chicago Tribune review, the author is only an e-mail address and we can't say if it's 1 star out of 4, 5 or 10, so I think it's best to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasallmächtigeJ (talk • contribs) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with reason about star rating, however, agree with "e-mail" reason. Notability of the review is in question. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's best to remove the Chicago Tribune review from the article, seeing as how the author is only an e-mail address and wikipedia clearly states it should be a journalist. Plus I have never heard of the Chicago Tribune, and if it's just a random local Chicago paper then there's no need to have it on the site when the bigger reviewers should be the ones on here. R3Lap53 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Check this review too http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2009/05/15/daily-disc-relapse-eminem.aspx. Dvivid13

I think you should put in the reception now. As more than enough professional reviews are up. In my opinion, I think critical reception for this album has been positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J0hnone (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just added a reception. NEED EXPANDING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J0hnone (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Put my reception back in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J0hnone (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

German Release: May 15th

The Release for Germany has been pushed forward to May 15th. Please change this in the Release history section. If you don't believe me, check this (in German): http://eminem.blogs.universal-music.de/2009/05/14/relapse-schon-ab-morgen-im-handel/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.235.115 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Prevention

As the album comes out on May, 15th in Germany, I'll have one by tomorrow. So if I make changes in the track listing, add producers, samples or something like that, please avoid deletions. Thanks! --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please create a reference for the new information you'll be adding in the following format: (2007) Album notes for Relapse by Eminem. Shady/Aftermath/Interscope (001286302). Thanks. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Album release date is wrong

Drops the 19th, not the 15th of may —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.195.44 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the whole article. --Zimbabweed (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The review section

All of the newspaper articles seem biased. Come on, 1 star? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.156.226 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't concern us. We just need to put notable professional reviews. Think of it differently, though: Eminem gets negative reviews for a good album, which means he does his job (pissing people off) very well. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, 4 stars is just as biased as 1 star.--Bulbler (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Eminem ft T.I.

I remember reading that there was supose to be a song were they were talking about there alter egos? T.i. talking about Tip and Eminem talking about Slim Shady... whatever happened to that song? I was looking forward to that song the most lol... Maybe I just didn't see or hear it but I'm bummed about that. 216.186.5.3 (talk) KiD

Well, as you can easily see, it isn't featured on this album. May be it's included on Relapse 2, who knows...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, That's "Touchdown", That was released in 2007... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.132.235 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually "Touchdown" is one of three songs Eminem and T.I. recorded together. "Touchdown" for T.I. vs. T.I.P., a second song that was intended for Relapse about T.I. and Eminem's respectfully alter-egos, and a third song that wasn't decided. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

bonus tracks

why do yall keep removing "my darling" and "careful what you wish for"?? these songs have been confirmed and have even leaked. what more proof do u want?

Personally, I want the alleged "confirmation" from a reliable source (which also means it must be of non-blog nature). If you say it's confirmed, where was it confirmed? Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

lol hold up they deleted the myspace one i'm lookin for another source--Lilboogie (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the link above and read what a reliable source is. What I want to say is MySpace is not one of them. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

aight bro u win, i'll just wait til something pop up cuz his website talks about the two tracks but no names. all i got was this: http://www.hiphopchronic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1625:eminems-relapse-deluxe-edition-with-2-bonus-tracks&catid=3:news&Itemid=4 but i dont think it works--Lilboogie (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha-ha keep in mind I'm not opposing the idea of adding them bonus tracks. I just say that everything should be sourced. And yes, that website obviously fails WP:RS criteria, especially with phrases like "I heard" and "can't confirm it 100%". Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

bonus tracks

{{editsemiprotected}}

Eminem - Careful What You Wish For

Eminem - My Darling

Um, don't want to sound like a dick, but is it that hard to look just above of what you wrote? Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ok yes i was wrong but done some reserch and the 2 songs are defo... I'm still on the run, my darling it says on his twitter and eminem.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylewallace4 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC) it also says on rolling stones http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/05/14/eminem-reveals-rehab-confidant-was-elton-john-relapse-bonus/

Unfortunately, Twitter cannot be treated as a reliable source, especially since Eminem didn't explicitly state the names of the tracks. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

but it says it on eminem.com too so surely this is good enough source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylewallace4 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I think I'm going to add the info. But does the website say the names of the tracks? Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

it says the same as on twitter so yes it says it come its right i say garunted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylewallace4 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

These tracks are already out on the German iTunes when you buy the deluxe version of the album --Shadygeneral (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonus/Extra Tracks

Someone should remove these bonus tracks until the album is released and the tracks are confirmed. As of right now, there is no source confirming it; they're only rumors. Also there are two extra tracks being provided on iTunes in the Netherlands & Italy (where its already out). They are Crack a Bottle (Single Version) & We Made You (Single Version). Here is the source: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=315993251&s=143443 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.23.135 (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how they're fake if they leaked and everyone's heard them. SlimShady6135 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The bonus tracks aren't unfounded rumors? I (as well as countless others) have them sitting on my computer right now. Digitelle (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The album has already been released in a couple of countries and I've checked all those tracklists. None of them include these two bonus tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.23.135 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are itunes bonus tracks. I possess the CD and it has no bonus tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasallmächtigeJ (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The songs aren't on any album pressings, they're digital bonus tracks. Digitelle (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess we could keep those tracks but i think we should add the single version of Crack a Bottle & We Made You to the tracklist since they are being offered on the German, Italian, and The Netherlands versions of iTunes. Buddha12 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Things we should do

Well, as the album is out right now, this article has to undergo some bigger changes. I think it's best to wait until everybody working on this article has the CD, so we can discuss the changes here. I've listed some of them here, if someone has other ideas, or wants to improve some of mine, please feel free to do so!

• The CaB video: when the last part is out, we need to write that it was released in several parts in May or something like that...
• We totally need to rewrite the "Music and lyrical content" section, because most informations are wrong or not up-to-date anymore. We must also enlarge it I guess...
  • Working on it... (User:Udonknome/Sandbox) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• We need to establish a "Repsonse" section for the critical and commercial response. As for the latter, we need to wait until it debutet on several charts and as for the critical response, it's best to wait until we have more reviews from music critics...
• Review section: To my mind, it's best to exchange the newspaper reviews with reviews from professional music critics. I know, newspaper are also professional journalists reviews, but the latter are more representative...
  • I think we need to check which reviews are actually the more helpful to write the article, one's that have more content and details. For example, The Spin review is completely useless. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess it's best if someone who intends to expand this section picks out the best articles... --

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Maybe I'm going to do that, but not within next week, so if someone wants to volunteer...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I expanded the section a bit. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I have rewrote it now, and I hope it includes all facts, if not, someone can enlarge it. I will take out a review in favor for the Sputnik review. If domeone disagrees, he can remove it..--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• When the time comes, we need to include the chart positions o the singles and of the album in several countries
• We should remove the release history section at the end of this month, because when the album is out in all countries on the list, it's unnecessary...
• we should include "Popsomp Hills" in the "release and promotion" section, as it must be considered as a special tool of promotion
• even if we don't include i think we could include a photo of it in the article

So, think about the points listed here and please give me a feedback! Thanks! --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• The CaB vid can be dealt with in the CaB article;
• Music and lyrical content section will need references;
• Do not remove release history, it is for reference; and
• Don't include a photo unless mentioning it.
  • I am going to include it into the article, so this shouldn't be a problem...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Andre666 (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to download them offline when you buy the CD but yes there are 2 bonus tracks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.54.114 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Album Sales

i know they did the first day sales for wayne anybody have first day sales for Em? in my opinion it should do a mil and do internet sales count first week? because then he mite do double platinum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.170.247 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Eminem sold 211,000 copies second week according to billboard so add that to the 608,000 and it's added up to 819,000 sold. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/eminem-stays-atop-billboard-200-grizzly-1003979230.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAUspartan (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

HipHopDX report: Documents have been revealed to HipHopDX suggesting that Best Buy retailers have reported over 6,000 physical units of Eminem's Relapse sold by 10 am, this morning (May 19th). By these projections, the day will see an estimated 133,000 units sold of the Shady/Aftermath/Interscope Records star. According to these figures, the album will be on pace to sell approximately 288,000 units at the mega-retailer alone.Toonamiguy (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither me, nor anyone else should care about projections. Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ive read the hiphopdx and rapbasement reports tho and projections of the album is just as important as the album im just wanting to know how its doing so far and if we cant find any info on this cd majorly then how did they know about the carter 3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.156.95 (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Credits

I've bought the album and am going to correct track listing. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed skits writers because they are not credited in the album's booklet. Now what I'd like to know is, where does the information on bonus tracks writers come from? Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is stupid; skit writers are Em and Rosenberg, check again! It is not on the main credits page, but on the next one near the back it says "All skits written by Eminem and Paul Rosenberg" or something. Geez. Andre666 (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. I must've been really excited when reading the booklet and the information just skipped through me. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I also want to integrate the bonus tracks into the original track listing with a note (digital bonus track). Does anybody mind? You get the bonus tracks when purchase the album from eminem.com. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done that since no one opposed. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide sales are at 1850000 source [[1]]

Steve Berman link for the Steve Berman skit is pointing to the wrong Steve Berman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.3.5 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But how often is the albus sold to NOW ??? (inkl. internet downloads) ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.176 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"3 A.M."

The name's "3 A.M.". Why? Per liner notes and back cover, it's "3 a.m.", but per WP:NAME it should be "3 A.M.". So if someone says "Check back cover, it's lowercase!", I'll respond with "Check "Crack A Bottle" and "Bagpipes From Baghdad" on the back cover, they are also capitalized incorrectly. We at Wikipedia have our own policies and should not use other sources' capitalzation as canonical". Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific as to what section of WP:NAME you're sourcing? --Zimbabweed (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about capitalization guideline. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed my stance. For some reason I believed A.M. is the conventional way of spelling that. It turns out it's not (read about it in 12-hour clock article). Thus the name is "3 a.m.". Sorry! Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested updates to Charts section

I dont have edit access to the page but wanted an area to suggest chart position updates from various official sources over the next few days as they are released..

The album has debuted at #1 on the official Irish albums chart - This should be added to the chart position section with the following reference: http://acharts.us/ireland_albums_top_75 Ainzbowker (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Highest Chart Positions should also be added for:

Dutch Albums Chart - Peak Position: 3

Belgium Albums Chart - Peak Position: 26

both with existing reference [79] http://acharts.us/album/43706

Ainzbowker (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Charts are being updated as they are released; don't worry. Andre666 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Single Version Extra Tracks

I am going to add the Crack a Bottle (Single Version) and the We Made You (Single Version) to the tracklist as bonus tracks since they are available on the digital version of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddha12 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm going to revert. Please make it properly. "My Darling" is not 23rd track. Nor is "Careful What You Wish For" 24th. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is the 23rd and 24th track, check on iTunes. http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=316025393&s=143441 Buddha12 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh all right then. I don't have iTunes. I downloaded Premium Digital from eminem.com, which is 22 tracks long. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have excluded the bonus tracks, they don't belong to the actual tracklist and are confusing...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chart procession and succession

Can someone add the Chart procession and succession box, it touched no.1 in
U.S Billboard 200,Australian Albums Chart, New Zealand Albums Chart, Irish Albums Chart, Norwegian Albums Chart, Korean Albums Chart, UK Albums Chart, Japanese Albums Chart, Canadian Albums Chart & Hong Kong Albums Chart, still a few more to come but can the procession box be added now, since it's been a week since it's US release?
I would have done it but, i'm not really sure how to make a chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway i made the changes after working for half an hour, any more changes to be made..please keep editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk (UTC)

Genres

"Horrorcore" is sourced. Please do not remove it or any other genre from the Infobox, in spite of whatever opinions you may have. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

There are also reviews certifying it as an horrorcore album. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My Darling

This track is also downloadable from eminem.com if you have the original CD, someone should mention it in the article --Dr Demagor (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it that notable, really? Andre666 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be mentioned in the release section, since that was an actual release format...Much of that section needs a re-write and to follow the normal order of things. BTW, I'm back from my unofficial wikibreak. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Insane & Underground

Insane & Underground have charted on the Hot 100, in the US please add to article..maybe a separate page for insane... what say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvivid13 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be included in the article, but I don't think they're worth an own article..--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Relapse (album)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Relapse (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "allmusic":

• From Hardcore hip hop: Hardcore Rap. Allmusic. Accessed May 22, 2008.
• From 21st Century Breakdown: Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "21st Century Breakdown > Overview". Allmusic. Retrieved 2009-05-27.
• From The Marshall Mathers LP: "AllMusic Review". Retrieved December 24, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Another To-Do list

Well, the album is out for a month now, so we need another small changes.

• The chart "positions and succession" should be cleaned up a little, there is no need to name the Green Day album every time, we should enlarge the rowspan
• it is time to enlarge the reception section, both the critical and commercial part
• someone could clean up the sections with the scales, they're a mess right now, everything is in disorder
• in future, when informations for Relapse 2 are available we need to establish a section which deals with the connection between the two album's and the impact they have on each other

If you have something to add, please do so!

I'm sadly quite busy at the moment, so it would be great if some of you could do that, aside from the fact that I'm not the best writer... --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the best writer either. So thats why i try to post suggestions in the discussion because when i try to update i make way to many errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAUspartan (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should update the number sold to 1,049,000. The numbers should be as specific as possible on the page for the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAUspartan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The singles?

I know we've already discussed this but MTV is claiming that "Crack A Bottle" is actually the 3rd single -- http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1613507/20090609/eminem.jhtml Its in the 8th paragraph.

Also, I think if anything, we should demote "Old Time's Sake" to a promotional single because we have no actual confirmation that it is an official single, citing WP:V.

I just want to point out that the exact same thing has happened with The Black Eyed Peas The E.N.D. They decided that the promotional singles didn't qualify as real singles. Also I want to say that Crack A Bottle is not a single, and never was a single... Don't mind this one all that much, but if you could get rid of 3 A.M. and Old Time's Sake, that would be great.

I believe they count as singles – they have their own release dates, they charted, they have artwork (this is the clinching factor for me) and some (at least "3am" and "Beautiful" [upcoming]) have videos. I know these are shit reasons, but I'm tired. "Crack a Bottle" isn't technically an 'official' single, but I think counts as one. As do the rest. Andre666 (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could resolve this the way they have T.I.'s Paper Trail page set up, where they have a singles box for the official singles and then a seperate singles box for the promotional singles. So the official singles would be We Made You, 3 a.m. and Beautiful (confirmed as the next official single by multiple sources) and the promo singles would be Crack A Bottle and Old Time's Sake.

Why Are The Reviews So Harsh?

I mean, wow, 1 out of 5? i actually liked the album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.96.231 (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Because, surprisingly enough, not everybody agrees with you. Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss these things. Andre666 (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I blame the backlash against sexism and homophobia. It ain't the '50s any more.--Bulbler (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some haters just wont let me change the reviews. Relapse has been weel accepted by the critics . But the haters want the negative reviews to be shown . Same is the case with 50 cent's new album. Asid12345678 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Only those reviews from the most reliable sources are included; if they happen to be the negative ones, then that's too bad for fans. See WP:ALBUM for extended details. Andre666 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Underground - Music and lyrical content

I think it might be useful to mention that Underground is in a time signature of 5/4. That's very rare for Hip Hop which is mainly in 4/4 and is an interesting musical feature to the album.

Same Song and Dance Sample

5. Same Song & Dance samples Metallica’s One (1988) – The guitar riff is pretty much lifted off the song that broke Metallica into the mainsteam [contributed by bari13]

http://whosampled.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/guess-whos-back-eminem-relapse-sample-sources/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsnight228 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's similar, but it isn't a fucking sample. Do you even know what sampling is?! It isn't copying; that is different. The riff isn't even the same! Andre666 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounding similar is not what a sample is Jp0291 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Relapse: Refill

Relapse 2 pushed back, new album in place of it, Relapse: Refill, which is a re-release of relapse with 7 new songs, heres source - http://2dopeboyz.okayplayer.com/2009/11/18/eminem-orders-another-dose-of-relapse/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.61.140 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the Tracklist with the correct link . But for some reason some hater keeps deleting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asid12345678 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol... You used a blog source. Which is a not reliable. I know you're new according to your profile, so please read Wikipedia's reliable source policy before adding new information. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 08:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put new sources alrightAsid12345678 (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix this

The album has sold over 1,533,000 million copies in the United States alone.

last time i checked there werent 1,533,000,000,000 ppl in the us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.228.122 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

lol. Fixed and added citatian needed template. Andre666 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell Breaks Loose, Elevator & Till i Collapse

These all need pages as the two refill songs are singles and till i collapse from the 2002 album eminem show is charting because of advertisements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless they are charted by Billboard, they do not need articles. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 05:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

okay well save that thought for one more week because they will chart in the billboard 100 next week, and are doing so this weekend in australia, new zeland etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ok so they have all charted on the billboard chart now if you check, so whos making the page?? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor issue

In the "Refill" section, it refers to "Itunes". The correct spelling is iTunes. 35.13.164.229 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Commercial

There seems to be a reference error, or some other formatting error in this section. I don't know exactly how to fix it. It says "This record was broken when Susan Boyle's album I Dreamed A Dream was released selling 704,000 copies tis first week.ref name=bbsales>Eminem's 'Relapse' Tops Billboard 200 Retrieved: May 27, 2009</ref>" which is obviously wrong. Just letting anyone who can fix it know 199.185.96.5 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Album sales

On the Eminem wiki page it sayys relapse has been certified double platinum by the RIAA and 5 million worldwide sales..

If someone could change on this page that it has sold 3.2 Mill worldwide and 1.7 in the US it is 2 Mill in the US (Or a bit more now) and over 5 Mill worldwide.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.98.197 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge Relapse: Refill to here

Acting on recommendation from an editor here. Proposing merge of Relapse: Refill to here because the article on the re-release contains little information that would not be better here as items of historical interest. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Relapse: Refill should be on the Relapse page, its not an album its a deluxe album. If your going to make a seperate page for Relapse: Refill then you may aswell make one for Encore: Deluxe, its stupid its the same album place it back on the Relapse page. A nice idea though, just shouldnt have its own page. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that the text about Refill is the same on both pages, so by default the merge is done. If anyone cares, I am redirecting the Refill article to here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"over 11 million copies worldwide"

Check the reference. (Eminem’s filler album out Dec 21) I believe the author is referring to Encore as having sold "over 11 million copies worldwide" and not Relapse. How do you read it? Alex Douglas (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To me its pretty clear it's talking about "Encore" when mentioning the 11 million claim.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the 11 million is referred to Encore. But I would not use that source anywhere as the reliability of it seems questionable.--Harout72 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

it has been certified double platinum

The RIAA has certified Relapse double platinum.. So can anyone say it has sold over 2 million worldwide.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.109.43 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see here that RIAA has certified Relapse 2 x platinum? In fact, I don't even see the first platinum-certification for Relapse.--Harout72 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Album's label

The second picture from the top at Discogs shows the Interscope (i) trademark (lower right corner where the small print is and the other trademarks of Aftermath and Shady Records). The sources in the release history section also support that Interscope is the main label with Aftermath. While Eminem may not be directly signed to that label, it did help release the album. Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

genre

u shuld add horror core to the genre cuz i mean the album is pretty much bout downin a bottle of meds and killin ppl lol so yea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.201.31 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Refill Cover

why isnt the refill cover on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.207.85 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Refill

Why is there no mention of Refill in here at all??? I know there used to be I dont know what the fuck happened to it. O_o STAT -Verse 04:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

3 MIllion worldwide?! What evidence? Sold more?

What evidence is there that Relapse has sold 3 Million worldwide? What references from Jonathon Ross or something? RETARDED! Evidence required! not just some lousy quote that is irrelevant.. This used to be 5 Million? Evidence?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.97.134 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

REFIL is a re-release! sales count towards Relapse

REFILL WAS A RE-RELEASE.. Not a seperate LP or a EP as it is longer than 30 minutes anyway! Someone re-add this.. WHERE HAS REFERENCES TO 'Relapse: The Refill' GONE FROM THIS PAGE?!

Double Platinum

Relapse went double platinum this week. http://www.theboombox.com/2010/07/14/eminem-rules-the-summer-music-charts/ 96.3.54.138 (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, when a blog post by Some Guy says it "silently crossed the double platinum mark," it's not the same as finding it in the RIAA's searchable DB. And the RIAA hasn't listed Relapse yet (not at double-platinum, nor at platinum, not even at gold), so we'll just have to wait. Silently, I guess. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Eminem's Disgust of this Album

In several songs in Recovery Eminem criticizes this album. Is that enough to make a section about it? --Iamjp180 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a section, but it could be put in somewhere in the article, but ONLY if you could find a reliable source to back it up. Andre666 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Eminem criticizes the content of the album in songs such as "Not Afraid" and "Going Through Changes", perhaps a few others. There's a televised interview on some show (I forget which) about Recovery in which he said "I feel that the content on Relapse was innapropriate for a comeback album, especially after going to rehab ... Recovery is more serious about what happened and what I went through, while when I came back to do Relapse I just kept doing the same thing I did for years, but this album changes it up a bit..." This could be added once someone finds the video or an article about it. TomUSA 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rehab (Quiet Riot) album

There must be a link between the artwork of Relapse (in the word relapse) and the one of the album Rehad by the rock band Quiet Riot. Rehab came out in 2006. Since my english is bad i let somebody else include this element in the article, if you think there is a link.

1. REDIRECT [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.22.170.227 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deluxe edition singles

It is important to add the singles from Relapse: Refill. I added "Elevator" and "Hell Breaks Loose" to the singles chronology of the album. Because I'm stating this, I hope this edit stays on the page because it is an important contribution to add. Both singles are iTunes digital releases that were released on December 15, 2009. TomUSA 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The singles I listed were removed. Could someone explain why? TomUSA 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

His Voice.

--GH200 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)On most of the songs his voice is diferent why.--GH200 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

They are just accents he's experimenting with, began doing it on Encore, with sons like "Ass Like That". I dont think it needs to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green-Halcyon (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Release singles.

--GH200 (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Hell Breaks Loose, Old Time Sake, and Elevator were released they should be named under the spot where all the other songs say they were released.

--Easy4me (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I'm going to add the singles from Refill on there.

They keep on getting removed by the user Dan56, because they apparently conflict with the guidelines that singles should not be listed off a re-release album. I have not been able to find these guidelines, and also agree that the singles should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green-Halcyon (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox_album#Template:Singles, "1.Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." Dan56 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Relapse (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MuZemike (talk · contribs) 18:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead issues

• ...by American rapper Eminem, released May 15, 2009, on Interscope Records. → Should be ...by American rapper Eminem and was released on May 15, 2009,... Shouldn't the last part be by Interscope Records instead of on Interscope Records, as the record company has officially released it? (I mean, I don't know much about record company terminology, but I've never seen on <record company> before).
• It is his first album of original material since Encore (2004),... → He released it in 2009, so it should be It was....
• ...due to his addiction to sleeping pills and issues with writer's block. → Eminem also has an addiction to issues with writer's block? (That's what it reads like.) Please tweak that.
• ...and production was handled primarily by Dr. Dre, Mark Batson, and Eminem. → You can easily make that into active voice instead of the current passive voice.
• It earned him two Grammy Awards and has sold 2.2 million copies in the United States. Worldwide the album has sold 4.5 million copies. → You can easily combine them into one sentence, i.e. ...and has sold 2.2 million copies in the United States and 4.5 million copies worldwide.

Should be fixed by now.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• One more thing: Why is the last sentence in the lead have citations, and why isn't that last sentence not mentioned in the article's body? (i.e. if you mention that in the article's body, then the citations aren't necessary in the lead)
  • Fixed.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose issues

• Please go through your usages of "due to" (an adjective) and "because of" (an adverb) and make sure they are right. An incorrect usage in the article includes this example:

• However, in December 2007, he was hospitalized due to an overdose of methadone.
• However, in December 2007, he was hospitalized because of an overdose of methadone. ("because of" modifies the verb "was hospitalized", describing how he was hospitalized)

• However, Eminem entered his hiatus after cancelling the European leg of the Anger Management Tour in the summer of 2005 due to exhaustion and an addiction to sleeping pills.
• However, Eminem entered his hiatus after cancelling the European leg of the Anger Management Tour in the summer of 2005 because of exhaustion and an addiction to sleeping pills. ("because of" modifies the verb "entered", describing why he entered his hiatus)

• In the initial recording stages of Relapse, record producer and long-time Detroit collaborator Jeff Bass of the Bass Brothers worked with Eminem on 25 tracks, for two years after the rapper had received treatment for his sleeping pill addiction in 2005. → The second part of that sentence seems out of place. It sounds like Eminem's work on the 25 tracks caused his sleeping pill addiction, which I know you didn't mean. I would tweak that, preferably separating that into two sentences so that it more naturally goes into how he got into his writer's block.
• At the same time,... but end up with tracks he really liked. → It's a rather longwinded sentence and should be broken into two separate sentences that express different thoughts.
• He then continued recording the album with producer Dr. Dre, who in September 2007 stated his intention... → The prepositional phrase (in red) seems out of place, should probably be moved to a better place in the sentence.

Still not done: recording the album with producer In September 2007 Dr. Dre stated his intention.... --MuZemike 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The song-writing process would start by Dr. Dre giving a number of his beats on a CD to Eminem... → Not a very good noun + -ing there. Perhaps a way to change could be Dr. Dre would start the song-writing process by giving...
• The song was then finished in January 2009 with additional vocals from Dr. Dre and 50 Cent. → So, the song was finished with additional vocals? I would replace that prepositional phrase with another verb such as and featured additional vocals. Moreover, "then" is not needed there.

Not only is there a misspelling in your correction, but you made the sentence worse: The song was finished in January 2009 faturing vocals from Dr. Dre and 50 Cent. --MuZemike 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Despite the leak, in February 2009 the album was being completed in a state of near-total secrecy, according to the British newspaper The Independent. → Again, the date seems out of place, but so does that last part. It needs to be rearranged to make more sense.

After taking another look, that last part looks fine. --MuZemike 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• ...added even Eminem's record labels were not in possession of the music at less than one month from the release date... → That's rather ugly. I would rewrite that part to sound less wordy; to say the least "in possession of" can be replaced with a single word.

bfore... --MuZemike 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• On "My Mom", the rapper traces his addictive tendencies to his mother, and thus to have turned out to be a drug addict just like her. → The red part is not very good prose at all and should be changed. How about something like and shows how he became or something that makes more sense gramatically.

Good, except there is no comma between "mother" and "shows", i.e. it should be ...traces his addictive tendencies to his mother and shows... --MuZemike 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• with him and Dre rapping back and forth between each other → Again with the noun + -ing and not very good pronoun usage. Change to in which he and Dre rap back and forth between each other.
• No other official statement was made for over a year,... → It looks like you're trying to say too much in that sentence. I'd split that first part of the sentence and keep the rest as-is.
• ...coincidentally on Thanksgiving in the United States. → Is this necessary to have in the article? That is, does it add anything relevant to readers about the album's release?
• the second of which was created by a deal struck with Eminem and Marvel Comics, where the rapper would pose as Marvel's main vigilante The Punisher if Marvel created an issue starring him and The Punisher in order to promote Relapse. → This is not a complete sentence (note that this whole part is proceeding a semicolon).

Still not good. After reading that snippet, it still doesn't make sense. Perhaps, ...where the rapper would pose as Marvel's main vigilante, The Punisher, if Marvel created an issue that starred him. → Basically, I eliminated a lot of redundant stuff (I think it's safe to imply that Eminem will star as The Punisher, and that he would be featured to promote the album.) to make it a little more concise. --MuZemike 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• ...but none were good enough therefore he dedicates the whole album to him. → It reads like either there is some missing punctuation or missing words. Please fix this.

Still not fixed: ...didn't found one of them good enough therefore he dedicates the whole album to him. → First off, "found" is not the proper past-tense verb to use. Second, you don't use "therefore" in this fashion. Third, you're going from past-tense at the beginning of the snippet (didn't) to present tense at the end (dedicates). Almost everything in that snippet is grammatically incorrect. --MuZemike 21:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Relapse had sold more than two million copies in the US. → The previous sentence said that it sold 1,986,000 copies as of June 2010. At what point did it break 2 million? Please clarify.
• Upon its release, the album received mixed reviews from most music critics, based on an aggregate score of 59 based on 27 reviews from Metacritic. → I don't think the album's score on Metacritic means that the album got mixed reviews; I would rather see that second part of the sentence removed.
• It doesn't seem like there is much coherence in the "Critical response" section; the first two paragraphs contain both positive and negative reviews. I would think it would make more sense to dedicate one paragraph to positive reviews and another to negative reviews so that the reader is not forced to jump back and forth on perceptions.

Shoulb be fixed so far.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• One more thing I just noticed in the very last sentence in the article: He expresses further criticism of the album... → If he said it in the past, then it should be expressed.

MoS issues

• You have two references (one that says MTVMay19 and the other that says recovery) that are broken and need to be fixed.
• Please consistently format your citations. Some use the {{cite xxx}} templates, while others don't.

Still not fixed. Refs 1, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 69 (still dead), 70, 83 (still dead), 96, 97, 99, 106, 107, 108, 111, 113, 126, 127, 132, 144, 148, 161 still do not use any template of any kind. --MuZemike 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please consistently format your dates in all of your citations. Some of them are YYYY-MM-DD, while others are fully-spelled out. Use only one style in the citations and stick with that.
• Ref #79: Please fix the "author" and "date" fields.
• Refs #80 and #95: Please place the date in the "date" field (I looked at the sources; they are there).

Verifiability issues

• Deadlinks found (I count 22 deadlinks total): refs #73, #92, #93, #94, #95, #98, #138, #157, #19
• Ref #9 from XXL: There is no article titled "Vengeance is Eminem" when clicking on the URL; I get "Eminem Speaks On Drugs, The Death Of Proof & Praises T.I. & Lil Wayne On New XXL Cover". Did you accidentally use the wrong URL, put the wrong citation in there, or what?
• Refs #68 and #69 from iTunes: Accessing them (at least on my part) is only possible through having iTunes, which not everybody has. However, I have found this online from itunes.apple.com, but I see slightly different information on the release date and nothing on availability. This should be rectified.
• Ref #83 is dead; there are mirrors of the list out there, but personally I find it hard to believe that Wired News would completely delete that article from its own site.
• Ref #87 is no longer accessible, but you can easily do a search and find press releases of that announcement that was on his website.
• Ref #155 is no longer accessible, though you may still be able to find it on the site somewhere.
• Ref #166 is not the correct reference that the URL gives.
• Refs #156 and #159 (the latter is recorded as a deadlink) are virtually the same source but in different languages, probably the same release from Universal Music Group.
• Ref #39 has apparently been made private by the YouTube account (likely a copyvio link anyways). I tried to search for the same video online on the web, and I get lots of hits of an interview on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Is this that video?
• Refs #19 and #21 are dead, but you can access certain articles (all of which are behind paywalls, now) at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/freep/advancedsearch.html, as the Detroit Free Press has hidden all their archived material behind paywalls (kind of contradicts the same of their newspaper IMO). However, I looked at the archive list, and while I find articles on the dates those two citations give, I see different articles about Eminem, i.e. different article titles.

Conclusions

In progress. –MuZemike 18:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not making any progress on the review so far. I have placed some more prose issues that I have seen in the rest of the article; I'll hopefully go through MoS and verifiability later on. –MuZemike 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On hold – Mainly the prose and the verifiability issues above need to be addressed. I went through the content, and most of the stuff I could verify (AGFing on the print-only sources and the one radio interview from Shade 45), except obviously the stuff I noted above. I'll give the standard 1 week to work on them; I'll have this page and the article watchlisted in the meantime, and I'll strike those issues that have been resolved. --MuZemike 05:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Failed – I'm sorry, I think I've given enough time on this to allow for improvements to the issues above, which has not happened. Please look at the issues above, fix the verifiability and linking issues as well as the prose and formatting, and feel free to re-nominate when they have all been addressed. --MuZemike 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

article must be renamed to Relapse (Eminem album)

because, there's Ministry's album of the same name --82.139.5.13 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Harsh2580 ^(talk) 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Horrorcore

Look, horrorcore is a shitty term. If you don't want it removed, that's fine, but please add "Hip-Hop" before it, which is a more fair classification for this album. In fact, I would argue that not having "Hip-Hop" listed is a lack of important information. Plenty albums which deal with similar subject matter (rape, murder, sociopathy, what have you) and which are equally eerie, unsettling, etc, which, aside from not bearing the label of "Horrorcore" also bear more meaningful labels like "Hip-Hop," or "Alternative hip-hop" or "hardcore hip-hop." Goblin comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.53.218 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Review scores

Under "review scores", the citation to Spin's review isn't working. http://m.spin.com/entry/view/id/1639/pn/all/p/0/?KSID=9fef51399ce600d1de274708a4582342 --108.211.193.185 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been fixed. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Horrorcore versus Hip Hop

As with a previous statement from above, I believe that Hip Hop should be listed before Horrorcore as the genre. Horrorcore styles are implemented into this album, and the term should be listed under the genre. However, like all Eminem albums, he mixes many styles throughout the entire album. I am going to edit to put Hip Hop before Horrorcore. NewJibaJabba (talk) 05:39, 08 August 2014 (UTC)

Several sources--critics in the #Music section--write that this album is "horrorcore" (also another critic mentions it in #Critical reception. @NewJibaJabba:, which critics write that this album is "hip hop"? Wikipedia's policy on due weight requires us to give prominence to more common viewpoints, which appear here to be "horrorcore". Dan56 (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Cant it be seen that not all songs on the album emulate horrorcore styles? For example the songs We Made You, Beautiful, and Old Time's Sake, are not horrorcore. Songs on this album are horrorcore and i do believe that it should be included as a genre, but a broad genre of hip hop should be included i believe. NewJibaJabba (talk) 21:02 , 8 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Those songs (for the most part) have their own articles with their own infoboxes (and their own genre fields)--We Made You, Beautiful (Eminem song), Old Time's Sake. This article's infobox is based on what is cited in the article (WP:INFOBOXREF). Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, that answers my concern for the genre. NewJibaJabba (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I just changed the genre under Relapse: Refill to match the change that you made earlier. NewJibaJabba (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 3

I just created a third archive for the talk page for i felt the article was becoming to long with 72 different headings NewJibaJabba (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Relapse (Eminem album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140217124007/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYMk1LItfRw to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYMk1LItfRw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113041331/http://www.dashadyspot.com:80/2010/03/18/cashis-is-working-with-rikanatti-for-eminems-album/ to http://www.dashadyspot.com/2010/03/18/cashis-is-working-with-rikanatti-for-eminems-album/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)