Talk:The Marshall Mathers LP 2

Albums Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Eminem Unassessed Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eminem, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eminem on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EminemWikipedia:WikiProject EminemTemplate:WikiProject EminemEminem articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on October 20 2012. The result of the discussion was delete.

"Survival" just became the second single to be released by the album, you can look for it on iTunes. Is anyone going to create an article for that? --79.13.227.6 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Survival".—Iknow23 (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/10/eminems-tracklist-for-the-marshall-mathers-lp-2-features-kendrick-lamar-and-rihanna/

From his Instagram post:

1. Bad Guy

2. Parking Lot (Skit)

3. Rhyme or Reason

4. So Much Better

5. Survival

6. Legacy

7. Asshole (Feat. Skylar Grey)

8. Berzerk

9. Rap God

10. Brainless

11. Stronger Than I Was

12. The Monster (Feat. Rihanna)

13. So Far

14. Love Game (Feat. Kendrick Lamar)

15. Headlights (Feat. Nate Ruess)

16. Evil Twin

70.15.29.127 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2009 and then in 2011, during the BET Cyphers, DJ Premier did state that there had been plans for an Premier / Em collabo, but he himself confirmed on Twitter that the Beats Per Minute-fueled rumor is not true - they didn't record anything in early 2012. Who knows, it maybe happened afterwards, or he sent him a beat prior to the whole thing, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem that they did. Too bad though, one of the greatest producers plus one of the greatest rappers would have been awesome. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who'd be ready to give this article a big clean-up and source it up, format it up, all of that, so we can bring it to GA-Class? I've added a considerable amount of references today and fixed some of the ref templates up, plus contributors such as STATicVerseatide consistently and constantly clean up the article as well. Of course, it can't be promoted prior to its release, but polishing it up as much as possible before the reviews come in wouldn't be bad thing to do. So, who's willing to collaborate on a large-scale fix up? --Khanassassin ☪ 18:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am always willing to lend a hand, it just sucks that the reason it looks not that good for the most part, is due to the horrible condition the Eminem's eighth studio album article was in. I wish I could have started it from scratch when it was announced, but Em is one of the few artists people want to create "____ number studio album" articles for the second they announce they are working on their untitled next album. Not much press this time around either, considering the amount of promotion he did for Recovery. We might want to hold off a little bit, because since now that the tracklist is revealed and we are less than a month out a lot of information is sure to be pouring in. I will try to expand it in the coming days though. It definitely is a long way away from GA status at the moment, so there is no rush at all. Even after its release there is normally a wait time of at least six months before an article should be nominated for GA status. STATic message me! 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for GA (and potentially FA) status then I'm in, although I think we should go through a peer review sometime in late November before nominating it in early 2014. As I've learned from the iPhone 5S's FA nomination, nominating articles right after release doesn't go over too well. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, noticeable progress is already being made. STAT, you're right about that once an article is already created, and is in a messy state, it's hard to get it cleaned up. It should START off clean. And Zach, thanks for the barnstar. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STAT, I completely understand what you're saying about writing about everything chronologically, but I placed the 50 Cent info towards the end because it didn't actually happen and the first thing that a reader would find out shouldn't be how Fifty said that he'll be on the album and he actually wasn't just because he said it before Rihanna's tweet, etc. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 10:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just makes it easier to read with things being stated in the order that the events happened, then by the time they get to the end of the section they find out who Eminem actually decided to have featured on the album. STATic message me! 13:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a chart with the position and sales of the two currently released singles. Zach Vega (talk to me) 14:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are generally discouraged in GAs and FAs, they are one of the reasons Recovery failed a recent GAN, as they were advised against there. That kind of information is easily found on the singles articles, and in the discography. It becomes redundant having it in the album article too, you know? STATic message me! 14:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no objection to the singles chart in Recovery's GA review. It was referring to chart succession (e.g. Album 1 charts before Main Album then Album 2 succeeds it). Zach Vega (talk to me) 15:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh your right, an editor completely changed the article before he/she nominated, my mistake. However, my other points still remain the same, and other GAs such as MBDTF, Thank Me Later, and Watch the Throne do not include them. I was also under the impression that they are generally discouraged. STATic message me! 16:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the singles chart being discouraged in any article. The chart also provides a more encompassing view on the album's commercial reception. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it gives a view of the singles commercial reception, when the article is about the album. If anyone wants to know more information about the singles, we link to their articles three times in this article. That is why we just have a summary of them on this page, and not the entire article copied into the Singles section. Major chart positions can always be mentioned in the Singles section, and unless something changed that information is already there. STATic message me! 16:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commercial reception of the singles is directly related to the commercial reception to the album. Proving the singles chart in the article would provide easier access and a more in-depth look at reception and sales data. Zach Vega (talk to me) 17:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, MCHG and Yeezus did not have a single precede their releases and both sold 500,000 and 300,000 copies in their first weeks. Same thing with My Name Is My Name, none of its singles charted on any chart including Bubbling Under charts, and it is projected to sell 80-90 thousand copies first week, single sales are not relevant to the album's sale performance. As I said, any significant chart positions/certifications can always be mentioned in the "Singles" section as they already are. Anything additional is trivial in this article and can be easily found in the discography article, and in the single's articles. STATic message me! 17:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Holy Grail" charted in the top 10 of the US Billboard 200. But that's not really the point. We don't have a reason to not include the singles chart - it's notable, it can easily be sourced, it's more convenient than going to the singles and articles pages, and it adds to the article overall. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer not adding it. The references will be filled with just some Billboard bullshit and we'll just be re-sourcing what's written in the discography and single articles. Most album GAs and FAs don't usually include single charts anymore, anyways. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with sourcing charts websites? We're going to be sourcing them in the prose anyways. Album chart positions and sales are included, and they are in the artist's discography. Just because many GAs and FAs don't feature singles charts doesn't mean this one can't. Zach Vega (talk to me) 13:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it, it's just that 50% of the references will be dedicated to some numbers that can easily be found with a click on a wikilink. I just like to keep single information a bit brief in the main article, rather in prose, and expand in the single's article, rather than filling this one with needles chart tables. And this, again, seems to be a preferred system for music articles. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. It makes sense to include the majority of singles information in the article itself. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why no one has added them yet, they are on the Eminem website for sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.223.233 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see them there, could you provide a link? STATic message me! 19:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are on the site, however the pre-order bundles confirm that there are 5 bonus tracks (which doesn't include the Call of Duty: Ghosts promotional bonus track). But Amazon.fr provides a list with five tracks (three of the tracks are repeated a few times, lol) and HipHop-N-More re-posted it as well. It should perhaps get a mention, but I'm not sure about listing a full template in the track listing section yet, because Amazon does occasionally provide false information (not always, but it has happened). --Khanassassin ☪ 19:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

98% of the time Amazon is right, we should just add them and if it ends up being a little different we can fix it in a second. Koala15 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HipHop-N-More along with Amazon are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCES. HHNM is a blog that reports rumors a lot, and Amazon is not reliable when it comes to track listings, Dave Matthews on Wolf or the four non-existent bonus tracks on Yeezus anyone? Both rumors started on Amazon, ended up on Wikipedia, ended up not being true. This is why Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCES specifically says Amazon is not reliable, the French Amazon is the one that reported that too. Because it is dubious and we have not gone any official word on this, we should just leave it off until we get that, rather than have incorrect information on the page. The mention in the "release and promotion" section is enough for now. STATic message me! 20:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says it on the MMLP2 preorder page ("includes 5 bonus tracks"), however it doesn't name them. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

don't make such a big deal, just post them. its real.., whats the difference of writing them now than tomorrow or in 2 days when more websites start to provide them?