Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 1

message: ==Vocal range==
===George questions vocal range claims===
I'm new at this, so feel free to ignore me if I'm being presumptuous. The mention at the top of the article of the extent of Carey's vocal range seems unsubstantiated and unbelievable. I say this for the following reasons.
First, while publicity material and various entertainment outlets have claimed a variety of impressive ranges for her, they tend to be inconsistent, ranging from 5 to 7 octaves. Given that the "default" range for an opera singer can be taken to be 2 - 2.5 octaves, any of those numbers would be utterly extraordinary, indeed perhaps unique in the known history of vocal music. Further, claims of impressively wide ranges are routine for female pop singers - witness the statement, easily discovered by a Google search, that Aretha Franklin has a four octave range, something she has never exhibited on recordings. In any case, since the claims tend to be both amazing and inconsistent, they should be viewed with suspicion.
Further evidence comes from her music. When I was younger I was a fan of hers, and I've read the published sheet music for all her albums. The highest note called for is the C above soprano high C (in "Emotions") and the lowest is the bottom G (below middle C). Though especially impressive on top, this is far short of five octaves. Given her partiality to the extremes of pitch, it seems exceedingly unlikely that she would have left an octave or more of her range unexplored by now.
Given this evidence, I modified the article slightly. I was reticent to do so myself without giving my reasons. Thanks.
George 06:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual disputes

message: ===George questions vocal range claims===
I'm new at this, so feel free to ignore me if I'm being presumptuous. The mention at the top of the article of the extent of Carey's vocal range seems unsubstantiated and unbelievable. I say this for the following reasons.
First, while publicity material and various entertainment outlets have claimed a variety of impressive ranges for her, they tend to be inconsistent, ranging from 5 to 7 octaves. Given that the "default" range for an opera singer can be taken to be 2 - 2.5 octaves, any of those numbers would be utterly extraordinary, indeed perhaps unique in the known history of vocal music. Further, claims of impressively wide ranges are routine for female pop singers - witness the statement, easily discovered by a Google search, that Aretha Franklin has a four octave range, something she has never exhibited on recordings. In any case, since the claims tend to be both amazing and inconsistent, they should be viewed with suspicion.
Further evidence comes from her music. When I was younger I was a fan of hers, and I've read the published sheet music for all her albums. The highest note called for is the C above soprano high C (in "Emotions") and the lowest is the bottom G (below middle C). Though especially impressive on top, this is far short of five octaves. Given her partiality to the extremes of pitch, it seems exceedingly unlikely that she would have left an octave or more of her range unexplored by now.
Given this evidence, I modified the article slightly. I was reticent to do so myself without giving my reasons. Thanks.
George 06:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocal range

message: I'm new at this, so feel free to ignore me if I'm being presumptuous. The mention at the top of the article of the extent of Carey's vocal range seems unsubstantiated and unbelievable. I say this for the following reasons.
First, while publicity material and various entertainment outlets have claimed a variety of impressive ranges for her, they tend to be inconsistent, ranging from 5 to 7 octaves. Given that the "default" range for an opera singer can be taken to be 2 - 2.5 octaves, any of those numbers would be utterly extraordinary, indeed perhaps unique in the known history of vocal music. Further, claims of impressively wide ranges are routine for female pop singers - witness the statement, easily discovered by a Google search, that Aretha Franklin has a four octave range, something she has never exhibited on recordings. In any case, since the claims tend to be both amazing and inconsistent, they should be viewed with suspicion.
Further evidence comes from her music. When I was younger I was a fan of hers, and I've read the published sheet music for all her albums. The highest note called for is the C above soprano high C (in "Emotions") and the lowest is the bottom G (below middle C). Though especially impressive on top, this is far short of five octaves. Given her partiality to the extremes of pitch, it seems exceedingly unlikely that she would have left an octave or more of her range unexplored by now.
Given this evidence, I modified the article slightly. I was reticent to do so myself without giving my reasons. Thanks.
George 06:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Antifamilymang|George]] questions vocal range claims

message: ===Alensha asks why Glitter is considered unsuccessful===
"her commercially unsuccessful album "Glitter" -- unsuccessful, compared to what? 3,5 million copies of Glitter were sold. Anastacia sold about 3 million of each of her albums. Alicia's, Christina's and Britney's recent albums are around 3 million too. Even the overexposed Beyonce sold only about 4 million. You can't say all artists are commercially unsuccessful just because in the age of p2p softwares it's impossible to sell as much as in the early 90s. Alensha 22:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other disputes

message: "her commercially unsuccessful album "Glitter" -- unsuccessful, compared to what? 3,5 million copies of Glitter were sold. Anastacia sold about 3 million of each of her albums. Alicia's, Christina's and Britney's recent albums are around 3 million too. Even the overexposed Beyonce sold only about 4 million. You can't say all artists are commercially unsuccessful just because in the age of p2p softwares it's impossible to sell as much as in the early 90s. Alensha 22:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Alensha|Alensha]] asks why [[Glitter (Mariah Carey album)|Glitter]] is considered unsuccessful

message: There are two inaccuaricies with chart positions. Mariah had 15 #1s on the Hot 100 from 1990 - 2000. They were
1) Vision Of Love
2) Love Takes Time
3) Someday
4) I Don't Wanna Cry
5) Emotions
6) I'll Be There
7) Dreamlover
8) Hero
9) Fantasy
10) One Sweet Day
11) Always Be My Baby
12) Honey
13) My All
14) Heartbreaker
15) Thank God I Found You
Why is "Whenever You Call" listed as a #1 US single?
Also, "Forever" in the Hit Singles section is listed as #9 (airplay). In the biography section, it says it made the Top 10, but makes it sound like it made the Top 10 of the Hot 100. Did it make #9 on the Top 100 Airplay Chart or on the Hot 100? A correction will either need to be made in the Hit Singles listing or a justification will need to be made in the biography. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak|Ultimate Star Wars Freak]] points out inaccuracies in chart positions

message: ===David Gerard complains about POV in article===
Grossly POV. Reads like a press release. - David Gerard 00:14, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
===Alai thinks article still reads like "promo-flak"===
Could do with being rewritten from top to bottom.  For starters, I've removed the "seven octaves" range the article seems to feel is the upper end of "accurate", which there's no basis cited for.  I also have my doubts whether anyone claiming "8 full octaves" is of encyclopedic notability, even as wild speculation.  Source?  (If anyone actually did say this, it might be cruel and unusual to quote that as saying so.)  That's greater than the range of a piano, or of any two people one cares to name.  Alai 06:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mariah Carey Conquers the Globe"?  Yeah... I guess I see that POV thing you were talking about.  I changed that section header to be a little less gushy. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
===M is impressed by DropDeadGorgias's changes===
Thanks, DDG. I like your changes. As you can see, I wasn't exaggerating. You should have read the article just 10 days ago—it was like something from Entertainment Tonight. Very lowbrow.  --M.
===jls comments on album sales for Carey and other female artists===
Take a look at (blocked website) from last year and keep scrolling.
Apparently some people spend their lives trying to add up 30 countries' worth of possibly accurate album sales info, to see if Mariah or Whitney or Celine or Madonna or god knows whom is the overall leader in female artist album sales.  These must be the same people who then edit WP articles back and forth with whatever figures match their agendas.
Get a life!  Who cares who has the most sales!?!?  These women are each tremendously successful and have each sold a mountain of records.  Isn't that enough?  Even if you could figure out who's top right now, it would change over time as new albums come out and as back catalog sales rates change.  --jls 22 Apr 2005
===Rick thinks POV language needs toning down===
The POV language really needs to be toned down.  All of the unsupported range comments and the "amazing voice" stuff needs to be cleaned up.  RickK 23:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
===Wasted Time R says Carey idolators will revert any changes===
Well, yes, it does.  Go ahead, do it yourself, then see how long it takes for it to get put back in.  The Mariah idolaters out there are greater in number and more fervent in purpose than the NPOV encyclopaedists.   This is one case where the WP model breaks down.   Wasted Time R 01:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops, "Vision of Love" isn't a title song.
Similarly, I believe it's often possible to tell when an artist really means something and when they're faking it.  In her Unplugged intro to "I'll Be There", she said it was always one of her favorite songs, and the way that she sang it (and the whole band arranged it, with care and taste) convinced me (and many listeners) that she meant it.  Hence "heartfelt".
As for "Hero"'s post-9/11 resonance, this I would also argue is objective. At least in the NYC area, it's the old song of hers that gets the most oldies airplay by far, and both it and Enrique Inglesias's unrelated "Hero" did pick up an added meaning to many listeners after 9/11.
I guess the bottom line for me is that full-blown NPOV concern can often drain the life out of an article.  But I realize this runs counter to WP dogma.   Wasted Time R 01:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Could do with being rewritten from top to bottom.  For starters, I've removed the "seven octaves" range the article seems to feel is the upper end of "accurate", which there's no basis cited for.  I also have my doubts whether anyone claiming "8 full octaves" is of encyclopedic notability, even as wild speculation.  Source?  (If anyone actually did say this, it might be cruel and unusual to quote that as saying so.)  That's greater than the range of a piano, or of any two people one cares to name.  Alai 06:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Alai|Alai]] thinks article still reads like "promo-flak"

message: Well, yes, it does.  Go ahead, do it yourself, then see how long it takes for it to get put back in.  The Mariah idolaters out there are greater in number and more fervent in purpose than the NPOV encyclopaedists.   This is one case where the WP model breaks down.   Wasted Time R 01:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] says Carey idolators will revert any changes

message: Um...I think this my be going overboard just a tad. We might need to file a RfC on this...it's getting rather out of hand. --FuriousFreddy 16:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] suggests a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|request for comment]]

message: Without making any effort to clear up this POV-laden and citation-less article, I see User:70.25.131.237 has chosen to remove the neutrality and factual accuracy dispute notice. I have since restored it. That notice actually made it clear to both readers and contributors that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and who knows, there might be somebody out there reading who can provide sources for the statements and facts presented in the article. To everybody else, please don't remove it again until the article is well on its way to becoming unbiased and verifiable. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] restores [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|Neutrality]]/[[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute|factual accuracy]] dispute notice

message: And once again, User:70.25.131.237 has removed the neutrality and factual accuracy dispute notice, all the while adding unverified statements to the article, such as "Carey has been classified as a 'Full Dramatic Coloratura'. This means that her voice is rangy enough to access more than one registers with equal ease. She can sing contralto very comfortably, sing over the orchestra, and execute vocal acrobatics and melismas." Carey's "lucrative career" isn't the issue here, it's the fact that many people (including you) have added countless figures and statements and who knows what else to the article without ever backing them up with a single reference or citation. I've restored the NPOV/factual accuracy notice again, please do not remove it until the problems pointed out on this talk page have been resolved. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 23:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] restores notice and responds to anonymous user

message: My judgement is that the intro and the history sections (up through Return of the Voice) are in reasonably good shape.  I think they are factual and while a little bit fannish in tone sometimes, are still fairly neutral, pointing out Carey's failures and limitations as well as her successes.   Does Extraordinary Machine concur with this, and if not, what in particular needs changing?
On the other hand, I think the Voice, Career Records and Achievements, and Trivia sections and subsections are a disaster, full of fawning Carey idolatory.  Ironically, the Records section actually does Carey a disservice, since it buries some truly oustanding achievements (16 #1 singles; secondmost cumulative #1 weeks) in the middle of a pile of trivia that only charts freaks could care about (one day listener figures, number of consecutive albums by a female that have sold more than 3 million, etc.).
One possibility would be to move the bad sections I named into the existing List of Mariah Carey Awards article (renamed to List of Mariah Carey Awards and Achievements, or something like that).  Then the idolators can fill that up to their hearts' content, while the main article stays in a reasonable shape.   Wasted Time R 00:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] comments on state of the article and makes a proposal

message: I have performed some work setting up inline citations so that people can start adding references. I only did this up until the Worldwide success, 1993–1996 section, for reasons I will explain below. Here are some of the POV statements (since changed to NPOV) that I weeded out:
* "Vision of Love" established the template for her best songs: a hint of swing; a melody and arrangement designed for her voice, such that her ornamented vocals seem part of the fabric of a song rather than an add-on; lyrics organized around themes of dreams, struggle, and self-help. (Early commercial success, 1990-1992)
* She premiered a heartfelt cover of the Jackson 5's "I'll Be There", featuring Trey Lorenz, which was subsequently released as a single and gave her a sixth #1 hit, returning her to form. (Early commercial success, 1990-1992)
* The latter gained an added resonance in the public mind when Carey performed it at the televised America: A Tribute to Heroes benefit in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. (Worldwide success, 1993-1996)
Now don't get me wrong: I am a Mariah fan (albeit a casual one), and would like to see her Wikipedia article in the best state possible. But looking at other people's comments on this talk page, I have a feeling the more devoted Mariah "lambs" will just revert any attempts to change POV in favour of Mariah to NPOV, and continue to claim that there is nothing wrong with the article as it is. I have had to restore the dispute notice four times since I first added it, while those who removed it in the first place continue to contribute to the article without providing references or toning down POV language. The number of "fill in!" messages I had to insert should tell anybody this article needs A LOT of work. And while I like your suggestion, I think that even if a separate article is created for the Mariah idolaters to POV to their hearts' content, there will still be words like "heartfelt" and "best" creeping in again on this one. I will try to finish the inline citations tomorrow, but after that, I'm not sure if I'll bother contributing significantly to this article any longer. Extraordinary Machine 21:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] restores notice and responds to [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]]

message: Extraordinary Machine is right.  The article could use improvement, and undoubtedly will be improved over time to address the slight POV and accuracy issues which creep in from fans and the like. Hall Monitor 21:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] disagrees with 70.25.131.237

message: Well, I gotta admit, the three NPOV wordings you object to all originated with me! (in my former incarnation), and not from any of the Mariah superfans.  (I'm a moderate Mariah fan, who got sucked into this article for reasons I can no longer remember or fathom :-)
I guess my NPOV definition isn't as strong as some WPians'.  In particular, I think it's possible to objectively say some works of art are "better" than others.  So, Dvorak's New World Symphony  is better than most of his earlier symphonies, and the Beatles' "Let It Be" is better than their "Mr. Moonlight", and Mariah's "Vision of Love" is better than many of her sappier other songs.  How can I prove this?  I can't, lacking some comprehensive critics' survey of the artist's work, which maybe exists for Dvorak and the Beatles but doesn't for Mariah. However, objectively, you can make the case that when a song is the title song and first single off an album, that means that the artist, producer, and record company all believe it's the best song on that album too.  Ditto for "Emotions" on her second album.  Both of these songs have a swing and a dynamism that her other work (even ones that made #1) often lack.
:Oops, "Vision of Love" isn't a title song.
Similarly, I believe it's often possible to tell when an artist really means something and when they're faking it.  In her Unplugged intro to "I'll Be There", she said it was always one of her favorite songs, and the way that she sang it (and the whole band arranged it, with care and taste) convinced me (and many listeners) that she meant it.  Hence "heartfelt".
As for "Hero"'s post-9/11 resonance, this I would also argue is objective. At least in the NYC area, it's the old song of hers that gets the most oldies airplay by far, and both it and Enrique Inglesias's unrelated "Hero" did pick up an added meaning to many listeners after 9/11.
I guess the bottom line for me is that full-blown NPOV concern can often drain the life out of an article.  But I realize this runs counter to WP dogma.   Wasted Time R 01:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wasted Time R responds to Extraordinary Machine's three NPOV examples

message: I realize what you're trying to get at here, but I think you went way overboard.  How many WP articles on any subject, much less popular music, have this many inline references?  The density of footnotes that you've established is something normally only seen in Law Review articles!
A lot of what you want footnoted can be verified by looking at the albums themselves (Mariah's writing and producing credits) and at any Billboard top hits reference book (which singles made #1).  That she co-writes and co-produces her material, and that she's had 16 Billboard Hot 100 #1 hits, are the kind of facts that aren't in dispute by anyone!  A lot of the basic biographical material is on Mariah's website and any number of other online websites.  That Mottola discovered her at a party, that they got involved, that they spent a ton of money on the wedding, that they got divorced, none of these facts are in dispute either.
Better would be to focus the references on the facts that are in dispute, such as her vocal range, her record sales, what criticisms have been made of her music, what's the highest note she's ever sung (it was G#9 in 1990 in her shower! dogs came running from three counties!), and so forth.  Wasted Time R 01:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wasted Time R responds to Extraordinary Machine's inline citations gambit

message: There is a whole separate article, Biggest-selling female musician, devoted to the who-has-sold-the-most-records argument.  Personally, I don't care!  Mariah and Madonna are apples and oranges, pointless to compare.  Technically Mariah is a much better singer, but Madonna has had a much
greater cultural impact.  Mariah is better at songwriting and producing, while Madonna has done more acting. Leave it be.  (FWIW, the quality of the Madonna article seems pretty good to me, although I haven't looked at it closely.)
70.25.131.237, are you from Germany?  English obviously isn't your first language, and I've been trying to figure out from your sentence structure and capitalization what is.   Wasted Time R 10:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasted Time R responds to 70.25.131.237's Madonna rant 

message: 70.25.131.237, I'd wager that most of us here are Mariah fans, that's why we want this article to be as factually accurate (i.e. verifiable and backed up by citations/references) and NPOV (in other words, no idolatry!) as possible. The Madonna article doesn't have anything to do with this. Why are you turning the development of a Wikipedia article on Mariah Carey into a "success" battle between her and other female singers? Oh, and insulting people instead of listening to them will not get you very far here. Extraordinary Machine 19:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] responds to 70.25.131.237

message: I think that statements and words like "her best songs", "heartfelt" and "added resonance" can be okay, as long as they include quotes from music critics and the like (e.g. She premiered a cover of the Jackson 5's "I'll Be There", featuring Trey Lorenz, which was described as "heartfelt" by Some Critic. It was subsequently released as a single and gave her a sixth #1 hit, returning her to form.) See characterizing opinions of people's work for more information. I don't want to drain the life out of the article, just make it sound less like an essay a Mariah fan wrote for school. 
As for the inline citations, I am in the mindset that no Wikipedia article can "over-reference". Many otherwise great articles have been criticised for having no references, and I want to make sure that facts presented on Wikipedia can be verified as just that, facts. See my reference work on the KaDee Strickland article, which I will be inserting inline citations into soon. See also Citing sources: When there is no factual dispute. The fact that she has had sixteen #1 Billboard Hot 100 hits may be common knowledge and listed on every other Mariah site now, but what about in ten, twenty or even fifty years? People reading this article then might like to know where the information came from. Extraordinary Machine 19:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] responds to [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]]

message: Well, E Machine, I admire your dedication to doing these articles The Right WP Way.  But it's a lot of work to do it so, and if I'm going to write an academic-quality article, then I'm better spending the time writing a couple of real-journal computer science articles I have on the back burner, not this.  
And the Right WP Way is also not very creative:  I can't say a Mariah performance is heartfelt, even if it's clear to me that it is and no other editors object, but rather I have to find someone else who said it was heartfelt and reference them.  That one other person's opinion thereby becomes more important than the collective opinion of all the WP editors.  I know this is the logical outgrowth of the WP "No original research" dictum, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me.
And the thing with WP is, even if you put all the research and writing and annotation work into writing a really good article, you've still got to put it on your watchlist and constantly fight against changes that will degrade the article and you have to maintain this fight indefinitely.  With the more obscure subjects you've maybe got a decent chance to be able to do this, but Mariah is anything but obscure.  Good luck nevertheless!    Wasted Time R 01:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wasted Time R acknowledges inability to meet WP requirements

message: Yes, the Mariah article is one of the worst articles in Wikipedia when it comes to objectivity. The only reason it seems "well written" to you is that many of us continue to monitor it for questionable facts and ESPECIALLY awful spelling and grammar. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should read like one. It is not ET; it is not People magazine; it should not glorify its subjects. The current article is still a piece of fluff and totally over-the-top.Mason.Jones 17:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Mason.Jones|Mason.Jones]] replies to 70.25.131.237

message: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or a promo site. There has to be nuetral tone of voice so that information is presented in an academic way. Your pledge, as it were ,to keep reverting any changes you don't like to the article violates both the NPOV regualation and the three-revert rule, and someone could end up banning you because of it. --FuriousFreddy 18:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FuriousFreddy replies to Wasted Time R and files the request for comment

message: I made no such pledge!!  You must have misunderstood.  My most recent statement was me saying I wasn't going to work on this article anymore, because I don't have the desire to do it the way Extraordinary Machine has structured it (which I concede is the right way to do it in WP practice).  Since then I did make a couple of edits to the 2004- section, which I believe streamlined the discussion of "We Belong Together"'s success, but I still have no intention of doing significant work on this.  I have not tried to restore any of my prose that Extraordinary Machine took out (see comments above), nor will I try to restore anything else of mine that the RfC process takes out.  Have at it.   Wasted Time R 22:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wasted Time R says FuriousFreddy has completely misunderstood

message: ===Wasted Time R thinks article needs images===
To have only one image/photo in an article this long is unusual.  Wasted Time R 10:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: To have only one image/photo in an article this long is unusual.  Wasted Time R 10:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] thinks article needs images

message: Now I think it has too many.  In particular too many CD cover images, which make the text too visually choppy.  Maybe just have one image per section?    Wasted Time R 14:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] says it now has too many

message: I actually think the album thing is quite a good idea, it gives a little visual display of the main concentration of the article. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak|Ultimate Star Wars Freak]] thinks album images are a good idea

message: ===Nicholas Lativy adds Sonic Youth track mention===
I added (although I stupidly wasn't logged in at the time) a mention of the Sonic Youth track about Mariah to the page, feel free to remove it if you don't feel it is relevant --Nicholas Lativy 16:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: I added (although I stupidly wasn't logged in at the time) a mention of the Sonic Youth track about Mariah to the page, feel free to remove it if you don't feel it is relevant --Nicholas Lativy 16:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Nrl|Nicholas Lativy]] adds [[Sonic Youth]] track mention

message: The reason I put "April 12, 2005 (tentative)" is because the release date MAY change again. Hopefully Emancipation of Mimi will be released, and not get cancelled. --KelisFan2K5 13:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:KelisFan2K5|KelisFan2K5]] enquiries about release of [[The Emancipation of Mimi]]

message: In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] adds article to Gay icons category

message: Whilst the article I believe is of good quality, I think the actual biography section lacks detail in some areas, and instead of being split into 2 sections, should be split into shorter time periods or even by album if enough relevant material can be found. I wasn't going to start doing this without thinking what other people thought. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak|Ultimate Star Wars Freak]] proposes re-structure

message: Agreed, yes, by album by album is rather silly. Perhaps something along the lines of this:-
* Early Life & Family (1970 - 1990)
* Early Commercial Success (1990 - 1992) - Chronicling the releases of her first 2 albums as they were slightly similar
* Mariah Goes Unplugged (1992) - Discussing her appearance of MTV unplugged and the success it was - album released and US #1 single with cover of "I'll Be There", also discuss the TV show they made about her showing she was a real person as well as a celebrity (I can't remember the name, but it featured her friends and family) 
* Global Fame (1993 - 1994) - Chronicling the massive success of Music Box and also the great success of Merry Christmas for simply a Christmas album
* Mega Stardom - Diva Status Established (1995 - 1998) - Chronicling the releases of Daydream, Butterfly, #1's (showing how a #1 album showed off her true stardom) - also showing her greater focus on image, presentation and sexuality
* Slow Decline (1999 - 2001) Chronicling the release of Rainbow, Glitter and Greatest Hits
* Waning Popularity (2002 - 2004) Chronicling the release of Charmbracelet & The Remixes, focusing on how she only made guest appearances in 2004
* Resurgence (2005 - Present) The Emancipation Of Mimi and thus forward
Obviously, some of the titles don't look that great, so please tell me what you think of this structure and change any title names. I won't go ahead with this plan until Im sure someone else approves. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak|Ultimate Star Wars Freak]] makes section title suggestions

message: Thank you very much. I thought it would be a good move as the article size was over 32Kb and it would prevent the endless edits trying to keep the article short. Plus the article is on her, this gives more room for detail in the biography section. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 17:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak|Ultimate Star Wars Freak]] says thanks

message: Yes.  Right now the overall theme of the Mariah Carey articles is:  She was put on earth to make #1 hits.  Every time she got a #1 it added to her incredible success as the best selling female something-or-other ever.  Every time she didn't get a #1 she and her record company plunged into despair because her career might be over.  If this is really what her life was like, it's a wonder she didn't have a breakdown long before 2001!    Wasted Time R 21:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] agrees the article only presents Carey as a musician

message: Another way of looking at this is to imagine someone is reading an article ten years from now, or fifty years from now.  What would be important to get across?  If you don't know much now about, say, Frank Sinatra, would you really care that "All The Way" only made #2 in 1957 and not #1?  I'm not sure anyone even remembers that record nowadays, whereas Sinatra signature songs like "My Way" and "Summer Wind" and "It Was A Very Good Year" never got into the top 20.  What will Mariah Carey be remembered for in the future?  Probably for her voice, and the way that she wrote and produced records that naturally took advantage of that voice, even though the substance of her songs was not always that deep.  Surely it will not matter in the future that some fourth single off a successful album in 1994 didn't make the top 10, or that in May 2005 she was in a charts battle with "Hollaback Girl"!    Wasted Time R 00:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] thinks record sales won't be as important in the future

message: Yo! There's already more info on Mariah singles and videos than you could possibly imagine.  See Mariah Carey discography, scroll down, and follow the singles links.    Wasted Time R 16:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] points out already existing article

message: See List Of Songs By Mariah Carey. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 08:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak|Ultimate Star Wars Freak]] refers [[User:Mseames|Mseames]] to already existing article