Talk:The Marshall Mathers LP/Archive 3

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

Can We Please Lock This Page to prevent vandalism?

it would be really helpful to some people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.118.100 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Genres

I think rap rock, experimental, and industrial should be removed as the genres as there are no sources and they are very inaccurate for obvious reasons.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

You say Mediatraffik is not a reliable source

So why is it used here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_%28Eminem_album%29 for worldwide sales ? Just asking ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.120.171 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

one of the fastest selling albums ever ?

I added a link to the page of the worldwide fastest selling albums in which The Marshall Mathers LP is a pertinent reference. I understand someone removed it cause we must keep the article clean, but i think it is a topic that has a place on the article. I didn't added reference because the references of this statement are the other fastest selling albums, lower or bigger, and these references are so many, they are better findable in the fastest selling albums article itself, better than in the Marshall Mathers article. It would have been impossible to make direct references of this statement in the article cause it's a statement relative to other albums ! The only thing is to make a link to the article who contain all the references. But I might be wrong with this, I agree if you tell me it doesn't respect wikipedia policy. More experienced users can do what you think is right.

Covers

Since there has been some controversy about this, this cover is the alternate cover for the UK edition, while this shows the original/main cover. Both webpages clarify this at their respective "Product Description" section. Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Covers

All US retailers show this image as the album's cover: Amazon.com ([1]), CD Universe ([2]), Best Buy ([3]), etc. UK retailers show the other cover: HMV ([4]) Amazon.co.uk ([5]) Dan56 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify things further, Tower.com's entries for both US (May 23, 2000; Interscope) and UK (September 11, 2000; Polydor) releases. Barring an argument against this, the revision shouldnt be changed. Dan56 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like you checked a few random places (although some are major retailers) and used that as your only support. How do you know for sure all retailers have that image? I think some more official research needs to be done to establish once and for all what the main cover of the album is. Banan14kab (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
What "random" places? Which arent major retailers? You have yet to present your "support", so careful with the tone. "Official research"? It's pretty clear cut. Did you bother to check any of the links out before you sneezed at my rationale? Try looking at the product descriptions at Tower Records, both US and UK. I've proven my argument. I'm not going to go fishing around for retailers that dont have that image to satisfy you. That burden is on you. I just checked out the most common retailers used as sources for these articles, specifically their "release history" sections. Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok so they aren't so random, but like you said "I just checked out the most common retailers used as sources for these articles...". And though all are major retailers you've proven my point about the research. It's like a student going to wikipedia (how ironic lol) and one source on google for a research paper. How are you sure all retailers in the US have that as the image? You're making an assumption. I'm questioning the whole validity of all of this because I myself have seen the other cover as the most recognized and used (not including retailers). And I never needed any satisfaction from you so you should also watch your tone. Also it's not merely my "burden" I'm just trying to prove the point that you said all US retailers had that as the image. And yes of course I checked out all the links. This isn't my first disagreement on the internet you know. If I manage to find sure fire proof of course I'll show it to you. It is support, so you don't have to mock me. e.e Banan14kab (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
If all US retailers dont show it, then which dont? What point? You said "more official research", like it's not clearcut. I dont see where you're getting this "most recognized and used" bit. What sources have you been looking at to assume that? Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know for sure if any don't show it, BUT like I've been saying do you know for a fact that all (as in every single one; no exceptions) has the other cover. And I'm sorry for confusing you. I guess by official I meant more through. Your content is clearcut, but I don't think just because all the retailers you looked at had one cover that it is the official one and not the alternate one, but whatever. And mostly where I've seen the other cover is on the internet on various sites, but I do not have them to show. Anyway If I ever see a concrete answer I will bring it back up on this page. We can keep it the way it is for now. Banan14kab (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"Official" is not applicable here; infobox guidelines at Template:Infobox album recommend the information of the original (first, earliest, etc.) release to be included; #released, #label. Tower.com had both covers, distinguished as US and UK releases, respectively. The earliest, original release was the US, so that cover should be used, rather than the most popular one that shows up elsewhere. The release information has to match the cover shown, otherwise it doesnt verify which was the original. I dont know how many more major CD retailers are left to check, but CD retailers that have that information accompanying the cover shown seem to be the most reliable source. Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
OK you've made your point a lot clearer now. I understand where you're coming from. Glad we could settle this. Banan14kab (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Would you agree that The MMLP is worthy of a "Legacy" section? -- A quick look at AcclaimedMusic proves that the album is one of the most often-"top"-listed hip hop records in history (ranked on the site higher than Nas's Illmatic), has gained acclaim from other rappers, and is probably the best-selling hip hop record ever... So... yes? --Khanassassin ☪ 11:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems that it should have. I mean how many albums have gone Diamond in the last decade? Not considering how well it was received critically. STATic message me! 20:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New SEQUEL section

Its safe to say now that The Marshall Mathers LP 2 is on the way, so lets get a sequel section going.

reference???... www.eminem.com 189.245.187.52 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment

I think the article should be re-assessed for B-Class rating. The assessment page shows that the assessment was done in 2009. I wasn't around in 2009 so i don't know how the article looked back then but now it looks good enough to be reassessed for B-class. So, i request that it should be reassessed.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed, merged "Singles" section

Abhinav0908, since you're doing a lot for this article recently, would you agree with a massive cut down of the Singles section? Most of it repeats what the respective song/single articles already cover, which is a poor application of summary-style article writing and has led to content forking in this article. Perhaps remove everything except how each single performed on the charts, which can be moved to "Commercial performance" since it is now this article's shortest section? Otherwise, anything that isn't already in the single articles should be moved there. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 Actually i was thinking to cut it down too but i thought some other editors may not find it right. SO, instead i thought of providing citations to the content. I'm okay with your suggestion.Abhinav0908 (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of the content is already cited in the song articles The Real Slim Shady, The Way I Am (Eminem song), and Stan (song), where I assume the editor(s) who added the "Singles" section material had gotten in from. Also, such sections should be created when "there is rarely enough information for songs and singles to all have their own individual articles (see WP:NSONGS)." (MOS:ALBUM) Otherwise, the article is harder to read because there's this huge section that's basically regurgitating material that it already covered in separate articles made accessible to readers through links, like in the Infobox Album's Singles template. Dan56 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over Source Rating

Nothing is going to be written about the original 2/5 rating from The Source that was bumped up to 4/5 and has been cited as being a big part of the "beef" between Eminem and Benzino? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.134.163 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Marshall Mathers LP. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sales

Did “ The Marshall Mathers LP” Really Sold 32 Million Copies? .The Total certified copies of TMM LP from availble market is 15.1M it doesnt even have half of the 32m claimed sale.It looks Inflated. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

UK release date

September 11, 2000? It reached the top of the charts in June.. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Marshall Mathers LP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Marshall_Mathers_LP/Archive_3&oldid=1125506071"