Talk:Music to Be Murdered By/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020
The Album incorporates various styles such as hardcore hip hop, Trap, and horrorcore. 64.254.71.210 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The album tracklist formatting is messed up and done incorrectly.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020
Hey, I wanted to add some new sections about the Ariana Grande Manchester Arena bombing controversy and a reception section. Please let me edit! Ackner2 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change x to y", citing a reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wanted to add some new sections Ackner2 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can post your new sections here on this talk page and request that someone adds them in. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2020
Hy I would like to edit the genre tag there are many genres in the album. Darkness is Conscious rap. Marsh is Trap. Leaving Heaven is Pop. Those Kind of Nights is Dancehall pop. Yah Yah is hood rap Lwezi (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Has that been mentioned in reliable sources? – Thjarkur (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone fix this sentence please?
"The album was produced by Dr. Dre, Eminem along with additional producers, ..."

yeah that's not english. I guess it should be "The album was produced by Dr. Dre and Eminem along with additional producers, ..." or "The album was produced by Dr. Dre, Eminem, and additional producers, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymk1234 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, It Should Be "The album was produced by Dr. Dre and Slim Shady along with 16 additional producers, . . ." - Preceding unsigned comment added by User:John_JBeatZ_Boyd (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User score
The user-generated scores of Metacritic are never included in album articles, and don't belong here. They say nothing about critical reception. Please self-revert and bring the discussion for inclusion to the talk page per WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 12:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The user-generated scores may not have been included in previous album articles. However, I don't see any problem in including this information, especially when it is just a note. This information is actually as important as or even more important than "professional" critic reviews. The average user score is currently at 9.1/10 based on more than 1400 reviews (and the number of user reviews will keep on increasing at least in the next days), against the 11 "professional" critic reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbro (talk • contribs)


 * As it's not the norm, please self-revert and gain a consensus to have it included in the article. User-generated content is usually excluded since anybody can make as many reviews as they please so long as they keep registering accounts. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Everybody...
Please remember we are all on the same team and comport yourselves accordingly. Thank you all for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Why should there be a limit to the number of reviews?
There's no need to limit the number of reviews, provided they do not affect the reading of the article, which isn't the case. Nbro (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The template has a hard limit of 10 (in addition to aggregators): those should be from a variety of sources that reflect what is generally true of the critical consensus. The accompanying text shouldn't have any kind of hard limit and can easily run to four or five paragraphs with a few dozen sources, especially for an artist who is high profile. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph about "The Darkness" in critical reception area
This isn't a critical reception page for every single released off this album, it's kind of weird to put it here unless it's in the context of a broader review, which it isn't. The cited source doesn't provide the "critical acclaim" as the article claims it does, it just reports on the song because it's a single, and, looking through a few reviews, it seems like it actually received pretty mixed reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMoodle123 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fastest rap verse
This likely won't be included because he's not a household name, but Tonedeff's "Crispy (192)"'s third verse is faster than anything Eminem does on this album. The problem is that because he's not extensively covered in the press, there's not all that much that I can cite to show that. -@sirkh1 15:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable source, that can't be added to the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we include the AnyDecentMusic review?
The AnyDecentMusic does not include certain important reviews, such as the one by The Daily Telegraph (which gives a 5/5 score to this album) and the one by HipHopDX (which gives a 3.8/5 score), therefore, their average score is lower than Metacritic's one, which apparently includes all critic reviews by AnyDecentMusic, apart from the review by The Arts Desk (which already in the list of reviews of this article) and XS Noize (which I will not include only because it doesn't even have a Wikipedia related article, so that journal or website may not even be important). Should we really include AnyDecentMusic's average score, which is misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbro (talk • contribs)
 * It's not misleading, I think you might just be a bit unfamiliar with ADM. ADM uses a weighted score instead of Metacritic's strict average score. From their site:
 * "It's not a straight average, ie the total ratings divided by the number of reviews. We have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews. So an album which receives five 8/10 reviews will have a lower rating than an album with 25 8/10 reviews, which seems right to us. And an album would need more than 30 8/10 reviews to get a straight ADM rating of 8.0 (although it could achieve that rating with a range of 10/10, 9/10, 8/10, 7/10 etc reviews). All clear? Good."


 * Also, don't forget to sign your talk page posts with . Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Who cares about that? I am not talking about that! I am talking about the fact that ADM does not take into account certain important reviews (i.e. it does not even include them in their "weighted" average)!!! Have you simply decided to ignore them because they are too good? I will remove ADM average until they include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbro (talk • contribs)
 * It's not up to YOUR OPINION to decide whether to include ADM or not. Self-revert and continue to discuss, that's how Wikipedia works and that's how we avoid edit wars. It is ADM's editing board that decides which critic reviews to use, it's not up to you to deem what is an "important" review or not. Again, please don't forget to sign the end of your posts with . Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 11:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also NOT UP TO YOUR OPINION to decide to include ADM in this article or not. I removed it, in the same vein that you included it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbro (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, you're right that it's not up to my opinion. It's been an ongoing consensus to include ADM. If you want to change that, you bring it to the talk page and we discuss to avoid an edit war. Wikipedia is made for tit-for-tat edit disputes. I would suggest you self-revert or risk getting banned from editing for edit warring. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 12:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't give a fuck about your threats. Go threatening your pet. Nbro (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting the opinions of other editors who support/oppose the inclusion of AnyDecentMusic? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 12:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors, I would like to note that AnyDecentMusic (which only exists since 2009) does not include 2 very important reviews by 2 important journals (HipHopDX, which exists since 1999 and it is clearly a very important journal for hip hop music, as the name clearly suggests, and The Daily Telegraph, which exists since 1855 and it was maybe the first magazine to publish a review of the album). How can AnyDecentMusic be reliable and not misleading and biased if it does include very important reviews by professional critics? AnyDecentMusic's average should only be included in this article if it respects the reviews of way more important magazines/journals. Nbro (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Common sense should tell you there's a reason why the parameter  even exists within the template for reviews. Maybe read the discussion on how there was a consensus to include ADM. I would like to note that it's not up to us to decide ADM's criteria for including certain reviews over others, and that ADM is included in a multitude of articles: Room 25, To Pimp A Butterfly, Pop 2, Channel Orange, and even Eminem's last album Kamikaze. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Include: it's a reliable source. If it's not a reliable source, remove it from all articles. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true, thank you. Should've been one of my first points. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

ALSO, this is an AVERAGE and not a review. What kind of average is the one that, ON PURPOSE, does not include certain IMPORTANT reviews? ADM does not reflect the facts at all. Nbro (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on what's considered an "important review" may be different than theirs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you're kidding. They don't include the The Daily Telegraph's review, which, according to the related Wikipedia article, "The Telegraph has been described as a newspaper of record and has generally had an international reputation for quality, having been described by Amol Rajan as "one of the world's great titles"". Please, stop finding excuses to include their HIGHLY BIASED "average". I am not against a single review (in fact, I personally added the review by Exclaim!, which isn't good, 6/10), but I am against an aggregation of reviews that, ON PURPOSE, does not include some of them. Nbro (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If ADM has never included The Daily Telegraph in their eight-year history, there is no bias against this particular Eminem album. Bring your concerns about ADM to the template talk. That's where you make your case that ADM is unreliable and we should remove its parameter. Until then, ADM belongs on this album article as it appears in any other album article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think ADM belongs to this article only because people have been including it in other articles. If you want Wikipedia to be a source of reliable information, then you should not include ADM. In fact, I believe ADM should be removed from ALL articles, until they decide to include the reviews of WIDELY KNOWN and RESPECTED journals/magazines. Nbro (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's already been a discussion awhile ago and most people agreed that the source is reliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I quickly looked at that discussion and the people that support the inclusion ADM have really bad arguments (e.g. "Why not?") and do not take into account the most important factor: ADM is biased, so unreliable. This is supposed to be an average! Do you understand that? Also, not sure WHY they even exist or have existed for so long, given the existence of Metacritic, which is way more reliable than that actually unpresentable website. They even ask for donations on their website. Please, let's stop this discussion and remove ADM from ALL Wikipedia articles. Nbro (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only person who is being biased is you, your argument is terrible. All I hearing is I don't like because ADM give my favorite rapper's new album a low score. That stuff don't work here on Wikipedia. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said that Eminem is my favorite rapper. You're insinuating things. How is my argument terrible? They are biased because they don't include certain important reviews (and here important means that it is widely considered important and not me saying it is important), on their website, they ask for donations, etc. How is this a terrible argument? The terrible argument is "Why not including it?". That's a really poor argument. Nbro (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to realize that this is you versus an established consensus, so it's up to you to propose a change and not unilaterally push your opinion on ADM onto this article, no matter how right you think your opinion on ADM is. Again, I would suggest self-reverting and bringing your concerns to the template talk to show that you're willing to discuss with other editors and reach a consensus instead of edit war. Want ADM completely taken off Wikipedia? Bring it to WP:RSP. Until then, ADM will be included and you need to suck up your pride for Eminem. End discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What consensus are you talking about? Are you talking about people that say "Why not?". No, you need to suck it up, because I will keep reverting the addition of this ADM average bullshit. And I will also remove it from all other Wikipedia articles I am interested in. Nbro (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason Nbro is against ADM because it didn't include the Daily Telegraph review, which gives the album a very positive review. This guy is a Eminem fan, this edit clearly shows.
 * Can you restore the website? Nbro is just making poor arguments against the website for not including an review. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For not including TWO IMPORTANT reviews. Your "best" arguments are that my arguments are poor, but you do not really explain WHY. Nbro (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can explain why are you ignoring this RfC? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring it. I think it was a mistake to include ADM from the beginning, so I am discussing it again to remove it. How long will ADM live, anyway? Nbro (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is not consensus to remove ADM; it is commonly used and this article is not obviously different from 125,000 other album articles. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me be more precise. What are the pros and cons of having ADM?


 * * The cons are that
 * ** it is biased (so it is misleading and consequently unreliable) and
 * ** partially redundant (given that Metacritic includes, if not all, almost all ADM reviews, plus those that ADM does not include)
 * * The pros are that
 * ** it is another source of information, albeit a redundant and misleading one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbro (talk • contribs)

ADM does not always have the same sources as MC and additionally, they may weight them differently, with a different outcome of how they score the album. Including both ensures a higher degree of neutrality. And all sources are "biased": not sure what you're going for here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, dictator, of course, you and all your puppies are right. I won't lose more time with you. Have a fucking nice day! Nbro (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you gonna keep making uncivil comments like you just did there, then you have no business to be on Wikipedia. We editors just follow the guidelines like everyone else, you can't just have it in your way. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You said above " If ADM has never included The Daily Telegraph in their eight-year history, there is no bias against this particular Eminem album", but this is NOT true, when The Daily Telegraph gave a non-full score to an Eminem's album. See http://www.anydecentmusic.com/review/1911/Eminem-Recovery.aspx. So, yes, ADM is HIGHLY BIASED, so it should not be included in any Wikipedia article, if you want Wikipedia to be reliable. Nbro (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you were blocked again for disruptive editing, but if you come back to editing, bring your concerns here. Don't feel discouraged from editing, just be sure to verse yourself in Wikipedia's policies first! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Themes
Someone add a section on the themes of the album musically? I would but I haven't listened properly yet --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was planning on expanding the background with more information about the Hitchcock theme. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of the 1950s album cover
Is there enough critical content to discuss how the covers for this album were styled after the 1950s album that can justify the inclusion of that non-free media in this article? Thoughts? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bring your issue with included a non-free image here. Don't edit war. Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, don't. I started the thread above. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion because it adds no further context to a one-sentence mention in the "Artwork and title" section. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with a condition that the alternative cover that's part of the infobox be made into a picture or gallery side by side with the Hitchcock version to show a comparison. I don't think on its own there the alternative Eminem cover in the same pose passes fair use, but if we have a bit more in the prose about the alternative cover art alongside Hitchcock's it might be fine as a bit of commentary to show the inspiration.  Ss  112   08:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Who added the alt cover? Please read up on fair use and and also Template:Infobox album, which states:
 * ""...use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information...""


 * ""Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included""


 * Three album covers don't belong on this page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 12:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is this a reply to my message? You can just as easily click on the files to see who uploaded them as I can; Koavf uploaded the Hitchcock one, and added the alternate of the Eminem cover. So thanks, but you don't need to quote that at me as I didn't upload any alternates and I'm well aware of what the guidelines around fair use of images say. However, you'll notice that I didn't say the alternate cover should remain in the infobox which what you're quoting pertains to, I said it should be added alongside the Hitchcock cover as either a gallery or edited into one picture with the images side by side in the prose if there is (more) commentary on it.  Ss   112   05:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mean for you to take it personally. Pinging and  in regards to the quoted alternative cover art policy. There is no significant critical analysis of the alternative cover and its nearly identical to the main cover other than "differences in poses", so there's no reason under fair use that we can display it. Without that alternative cover, why keep the Hitchcock one? I suggest we replace it with a free image of Hitchcock and place a caption that states that he inspired the album (and maybe expand the "Background and recording" section). Example provided. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you searched to see whether there is any commentary on the covers? I really doubt that you have. Questioning why you seemed to assume I uploaded said covers even though I was not involved in reverting you to retain them is not "taking it personally". If anything, I would say you having a back-and-forth with Koavf in reverts and your extensive involvement on the article and its talk page means you took it more personally than I have or ever will. But really, I don't care to prove that you are nor have these arguments where we claim the other is "offended", "taking it personally" or God forbid, using the word "triggered". It's a tired way of dismissing people and their opinions. Thanks for the courtesy ping but I don't need to be pinged; I created this article. Thanks.  Ss  112   12:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This sort of discussion adds nothing, so I'm collapsing it. Saying "why you seemed to assume I uploaded said covers" is funny considering my message started with "Who added the alt cover?". You missed the point, which was if the alternative cover fails fair use, then the Hitchcock cover misses its purpose. I'd rather we discuss the merits of including a free image instead. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 12:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, you don't get to refactor other users' replies and where they appear just because you think it's going off-topic; see WP:TALK. I don't want my replies in any sort of collapsed section whatsoever. You don't own this page, so stop acting like you do and thinking you get final say on what happens to other users' replies. I'm well aware of what you said, but then you went on to quote the infobox guidelines at me as if I had uploaded the covers, which is what I was referring to. You'll also notice I pointed out you could just as easily have clicked on the images (instead of asking the question).  Ss  112   20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Calm down, I collapsed the comments out of good faith because the conversation was off-topic. Bring this issue to my talk page. You're missing my point. No need to link WP:OWN lol. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am calm, and that's yet another way of you trying to dismiss what I'm saying. Regardless, I don't have to come to your talk page to raise any issue; I'll raise it wherever I feel is appropriate. I mean, you've had a back-and-forth with basically every user who's commented on this talk page, including one extensive one in a thread beneath this, so I find it rather funny that you're apparently concerned about "saving space" (even when there's no size limit on talk pages), and I also still think there absolutely is a need to point out it looks like WP:OWN to you or anybody else reading. This seems to be a recurring issue on whatever article, primarily those in the hip hop music sphere, that you're into at the time, and the common thread is you. Instead, no, to you, everybody else seems to be the problem. Looks like a huge lack of self-awareness of your own apparent need to exert ownership or argue over every aspect of an article, because that's what it looks like to me and what it should look like to anybody else. You're the common thread in all these arguments. I think you need to take your own advice: calm down, take a step back, and realise you can't exert control over articles you like, so stop trying to. But having said that, I'm sure we'll be seeing another reply from you continuing on the argument despite you thinking it's off-topic and wanting to save space.  Ss  112   05:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about the use of non-free images. The one below was about a disruptive editor. These are legitimate discussions. They don't all relate to me just because I decide to partake in the talk page. I say calm down because you feel the need to flex that you can discuss on any page you want. Great! I meant saving space because you're making personal remarks against me rather than staying on-topic. 2020 is a new year so open your eyes to peace. End discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not done, and you can't make me be done. So no, it's not "end discussion". Me saying I don't need to go to your talk page to raise an issue is "flexing"? That makes precisely no sense. I think you just wanted to try to work the word "flex" in there. Whatever you want to try to paint this as, I'm not making baseless personal attacks here. In my experience, you have been frequently wrong and misinformed with the way you go about things here, and in this very discussion where you continue to argue back-and-forth with me, you are proving that you will put up a fight over every aspect of an article and have learnt exactly nothing. So much for a new year, you can't move on or change or develop any self-awareness on how you try to shout every little thing you disagree with down. Hopefully your having said "end discussion" means you're done—I doubt it though, since you've proven you can't leave anything alone.  Ss  112   19:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried taking this to your talk page, but we both know that doesn't work. Sorry that "End discussion" couldn't just end there. You're coming off as aggressive, as is apparent in many of your edit summaries. Saying "" and then complaining about going back-and-forth is what makes this funny. Yes, wow, I could continue as well if you want to be petty! Saying you want to avoid me goes against the point of collaborating together on Wikipedia, and our interest in albums/music certainly intersect. Realize this: This subsection is for discussing whether an image merits inclusion under fair use. Realize this: You got upset that I replied to you and took it personally that I "assumed" you were the one uploading the image, missing the point of this discussion. Realize this: You can keep trying to get the last word, but it's your inability to cooperate that's going to cause future problems between us. I can quote WP:OWN every time you feel the need to bring up that you created an article. Both of us have been wrong in our previous edit disputes as well. Get over it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 20:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I typed out a whole reply you can view in the edit history, but you know what? I realised I actually am done now. However, I did want to clarify that I pointed out I created the article because that means it's on my watchlist, and I don't need to be pinged on its talk page—it does not mean that I have some claim of ownership over it, which is what you believed I was saying that for. If you're so desperate for the final word and it makes you feel a big man to get it and helps you sleep better at night because you got the last word in that Internet argument today, then by all means, go ahead. I tried to get you to realise you are just as "upset, petty and aggressive" as I am by continuing to reply, but trying to get you to realise anything is trying to draw blood from a stone, so this is my final reply here. Arguments with you are a fundamental waste of time and I'm bearing this in mind going ahead.  Ss  112   23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The section that reads "Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included" refers to things like completely identical covers that are otherwise different only by having a red background for one store and a blue one for a different one or gold foil on the title for the special edition, etc. Comparing and contrasting two entirely different photographs is a different story. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also for differing poses for pictures too, which is the only difference between these two covers. See Dangerous Woman and Bangerz, which include a note in the infobox and/or links to external images of the alternate covers. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, those would be good examples of very different artwork and I don't think there would be any critical commentary to compare and contrast them with the standard editions of those albums. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With consideration that the "use of non-free content is to be minimal" and the artwork/title section hasn't been greatly expanded, I think it'd make sense to remove the nearly-identical alternative cover and the Hitchcock cover and to instead replace it with my example free image used above. The only critical analysis that can be made between the two covers is that the main cover is meant for "clean" retail sales. We could further explain that Hitchcock's voice is sampled twice and the closing lines on the album were written by him. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am removing the contentious content for now since it's been nearly a week. The album cover can be readded if a consensus is reached. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternate album cover for MtBMB was listed at FfD
The alternate album cover of Music to Be Murdered By was listed at Files for Discussion. Discussion currently has gone to a standstill.

Therefore, You are invited to join the discussion at. – Toxi  Boi!  (contribs) 06:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020
Rajvansh Singh Chauhan (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)It has more than 650 million streams on Spotify
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    08:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020
EMINEM MUSIC TO BE MURDERED Y HAS GOT GOLD CERTIFICATION GOLD IN NEW ZEALAND Rajvansh Singh Chauhan (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  JTP (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020
music to be murdered by has gone gold in new Zealand(rmnz) Rajvansh Singh Chauhan (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
Why are they still there? There's nothing being done about them, and it's been there for damn near 4+ months. Can we please remove those notifications? Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020
The producer of this album is Eminem but it has been written "Slim Shady", which is his alter ago but not another person. Eminem&#39;s Biggest Fan (Stan) (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is credited as such, here for example. Are you asking for something to be changed?  Rob van  vee  08:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)