Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 2

message: When are we gonna finally complement the article?; It looks really messy Journalist 6 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)
I'm trying to eliminate a lot of duplicate material and unnecessary subsections.  That should help a bit.   Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
:There!  I've eliminated the Trivia section as well.  If you think about it, encyclopedias should not have Trivia sections.  If an item is really trivial, it doesn't belong.  If an item does have some meaning, it should be put in the proper regular section.   
:In all of this recent batch of shuffling I've done, I haven't fully deleted anything except that silly item about her being vain regarding a mole.  Everything else was either moved to one of the other articles, or moved within the main article, or was a duplication to begin with.   Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
In my view, the article has three major problems at this point:
# A system of heavy inline citations was started by Extraordinary Machine, but not followed up on by either him/her or anyone else;
# A lot of important biographical information that was previously in the article is currently absent, as pointed out by Wasted Time R above;
# There are NPOV concerns and a pending request for comment by FuriousFreddy from two weeks ago that hasn't been acted upon.   
My personal vote is to remove the first, restore the second, and wait and see what happens on the third.  Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
The numerous references are not required and the article does need to be more biographical. The album articles are coming along much nicer now and everything in them and the single articles shouldn't be in here other than a few short words. I think a good example could be:
Music Box was released in 1993 and became Carey's largest selling LP worldwide. It yielded two of her signature songs, "Hero" in the US and "Without You" internationally. From lead single "Dreamlover" onwards, Carey began a string of successful international hits.
As "Anytime You Need A Friend" had little impact anywhere in the world, there is no need to mention it. Yes, many people in the US believed her career to be in decline because it didnt make the Top 5, but that is for the single article and not for the Carey article. Sales and chart figures are of no use, because all the information is in the article. Signature songs are important because they are what Carey will be remembered for and considered her best works. "Dreamlover" marked a new stage in Carey's career where her hits were massive across the globe and not just in North America, so this is also worthy of note. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 8 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
:Hmmm.  I think your version is a little too terse.  It should be possible to read just the main article, without reading any of the subarticles, and still get a good idea of what Mariah's career has been about.  So it's worth it to state here that "Dreamlover" found as easy, appealing rhythm that she reused in later works, while "Hero" is an inspirational ballad that has been her most-played old song on (US at least) radio.  In other words, describe the musical path of her career.  The singles articles generally don't convey this, since they focus more on chart action, remixes, etc.  But yes, I agree you we can omit mention of minor singles like "Anytime You Need a Friend".   Wasted Time R 8 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
::RL commitments and activities prevented me from completing the inline citations work, but I will try and finish it in due course. In addition to the biographical and NPOV problems you listed, I think that the article has other problems, such as:
::*Too many images. Pictures of every single album cover are not necessary.
::*Too much emphasis on how many singles and albums she has sold and their chart positions, and not enough ground covered on what critics think of her sound.
::*Closely related to the above point, Mariah's charity work and her career as an actress have barely been touched upon. I'm eager to improve the filmography (her performance in Wisegirls was how I first became a fan of hers), but I don't really know enough about what else she does outside her music career to start anything new. Extraordinary Machine 9 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
Honestly, is there a need for so much reference on the page? Mind you, some of them are needed, but not virtually after every sentence in the article. I have deleted some statements that I think were POV eg "she has a 5 octave range, possibly the greatest range of any pop singer". I dont think we need statements like that. Also, I changed the statement that said 'she was the best selling artist of of the 90s' to 'she was the most successful artist of the 90s according to Billboard Magazine' (Artist of the decade thingie). I'm working on references to put in the article. Hopefully, we can get it to comform to the normative Wikipedia standard posthaste. Journalist 9 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
Guess what? I found a site with a database that contains alot of info about Mariah Carey. I'm sure that that site can prove any statement made in the article. The only problem with the database is that each page does not have its own url address, so a link cannot be provided to a specific page. Check it out nontheless. When you access the link, click menu, then news etc and you know the way from there. http://www.mcarchives.com/. Journalist 20:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said you were trying to sabotage the article because you removed the remaining inline citations, a reference which was not an inline citation, added POV words, and took away the  tag. All Wikipedia articles should have references, as explained at Wikipedia:Cite sources. This article had very few, hence the need for the  tag. It's interesting how you complain of people asking you to stop editing the article, when you yourself have told people to "Leave the article alone", called people who edit it in ways you dislike "fools", and called one other user a "dumb animal" when they commented on your Mariah/Madonna comparisons (see here, here, here and here). Despite what you may think, I am glad so many people are contibuting to Wikipedia, and this article in particular. In order to work effectively as a collaborative project, however, there are rules which users are requested to follow. You are supposed to contribute to articles from a neutral point of view, rather than allow your own opinion of the article's subject to severely influence your contributions. I hope that everybody here can work together constructively to improve articles such as this one.  However, if you continue to add POV-orientated words and statements, remove important article content, and dismiss the attempts of other Wikipedians to engage with you as personal attacks, then you may be banned from editing for a period of time. Extraordinary Machine 23:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the Article

message: *C#7 - "LoverBoy Remix", Glitter, 2001 
*G#6 - "I Miss You", Charmbracelet, 2003 
:After listening to the C8's clip I still don't find the C8 note and It's highly doubt that she can go that high because from what I have heard,every source said that the highest note she can hit is G#7.And again NO ONE can hit those notes(C#7/G#6) in chest voice.It's totally fake except the G#7.And the note in My all is B2 not A2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.90.85.245 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 July 2005  (UTC)
I have all of Careys Cd and I have never heard that alleged C8 note and believe me, Ive been listening for it quite meticulously. I doubt that she can hit a C8-today. Back in the 90s when her voice was in its peak, she probably could hit it. The highest note she HAS hit is G#7, but that does not mean that it is the highest note she COULD hit!
Also, I beg to differ with 61.90.85.245's comment that no one can hit G6 in full voice. I agree that C7 might be impossible, but Patti Labelle has come quite close to G6 hitting D6 on stage, and I've seen many sources that say that Tamar Braxton, Toni Braxton's younger sister, has belted a G#6 in full voice!
Concerning the note in 'My all'. People have always been saying its A2, C3, some even say E3. That note is infact A#2, Im almost certain and she has hit A2 on stage while adlibbing and 'showing off'. 
Journalist 21:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Patti always use mixed voice/strong head voice to hit the note C6/D6(not pure chest voice).No one hit the note above C6 with chest voice(When I say chest voice I mean pure chest voice not that mixed voice or strong head voice).From what I've heard the highest note in chest voice may be C6 from the spanish singer named Monica Naranjo.So,let's alone the notes G#6 and C#7. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.90.85.245 (talk • contribs) 21 July 2005  (UTC)
OK, if someone will post the appropriate sound clip(s) I can definitely tell you what the correct values are, as I have perfect pitch.  The g#7 is definitely correct, as I've heard that clip.  Where is the c8 sample?  Someone please post the "My All" section and I'll verify that as well.  As for the chest voice complaint, I rather doubt that anyone can hit g#6 in chest voice; from what i've heard, even highly trained sopranos like mariah and pat benatar who belt out popular music tend to switch to head voice around f5 or g5.  Journalist, you may be confusing chest voice with "full head voice" or something like that. Benwing 22:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, guys. This is getting slightly out of hand, so I would like to suggest that you all did what we did on Death metal. There was a list of bands there which kept causing long revert wars due to the fact that there are no reliable sources on which band does or does not belong to the genre. To solve that, we created List of Death metal bands and linked it from the main article. There, people can post whatever band they think belongs to the genre and sincerely, it does not harm the main article nearly as much as the previous list did. Why not create Voice of Mariah Carey and make it a short-medium article containing all reliable information you can find and then create a section with her possible highest/lowest notes etc? --Sn0wflake 02:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mariah has sung death metal!?  Are you sure?  Do you have a reference for that?  :-) Wasted Time R 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought her masterful use of death grunts made that implicit. :P --Sn0wflake 04:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, now that I think about it, you're right!  And I heard that in 1995 while ad libbing during a soundcheck with a headcold she did pitchshifted vocals but all on her own, without any help!  She got down to A(-4)!  That makes her range, like, 12 octaves at least!   Wasted Time R 16:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  You're absolutely right. I forgot all about "I Wish You Knew." Thanks. 69.160.116.44 03:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought she hasn't simply lost her voice power, i thought she sounds much better these days than the early 90's. She sounds like an alto but now she can belt with more ease and can reach high notes with her chest voice. Concerning with her middle voice, she sounds more 'mariah' now compare to her early careers where she sounds like whitney. And if you watched her charmbracelet tour, she can really hit the same high notes (or even higher like the keyboard thing someone mentioned)like she used to be. I'll stick to that c8 in "your girl" no matter what it's obvious that it sounds sharper than her g7# in "emotions" i've been listening to them right now simultaneously. i've downloaded the musebook thing and it sounds higher.  
Circles overyou 23:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I've had Mimi since the first week it came out. Im Mariah's biggest fan, but Ive listen to Your girl and I still can't hear those alleged C8s. All I've heard are some squeaks and piercing whistle sounds in the background that obviously are mechanical. The piercings sounds do not sound like they are sung. There are squeaky voices in the background when the song starts (even of her in full voice), so whose to say that the 'whistle notes' are not made higher by the studio? Believe me, I know Carey's voice and I havent detected any sung C8 notes. Maybe Im mistaken, however. Ill listen again. Could you tell me exactly where she hits this note?
Journalist 03:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chest Voice High Notes

message: As I mentioned above the description of the first album and especially Music Box had become a little terse ... especially so in light of recent in-depth article additions regarding songs written for others, fallings out with others, and acting.  (The well-referenced Acting section is now almost as long as the 1990-1996 sections combined!)  So, I've expanded those album discussions, with the idea of explicitly mentioning all of her #1 singles (almost all WP articles do this, Carey shouldn't be penalized just because she has so many) while leaving the lesser singles unmentioned, and expanding the discussion of a couple of her really notable singles.   Wasted Time R 03:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untersifying

message: Well, at 61,606 bytes, this article has become one of the five hundred largest articles on Wikipedia (see , which includes lists), and I think that it might be worth considering spinning the "Sales and charts achievements" section off into its own daughter article to reduce the size. Trying to merge the facts into the main text would create a mess, and simply deleting the section wouldn't be fair, as a lot of the facts presented in it are notable (and people have put a lot of effort into researching them). Also, the list of Carey's awards have been separated from the main article, and I think it works well. Extraordinary Machine 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to create [[Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey]] subarticle 

message: I can't see the top pic--60.226.17.162 09:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top pic

message: The intro says her middle name is Angela but in the early life section it says she has no middle name. Which is right? Everyking 05:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I did change it earlier (see IMDB database - which states it as her middle birth name; also noted on my prev edit).  However, some of the info in IMDB is somewhat unreliable and I have yet to see another other source replicating this notion.  Also I'm not sure if she still has a middle name if ever.  Only Mariah or someone close to her will. Since I don't know Mariah or anyone close to her, then we can leave it as is for now.  Sorry Journalist; didn't mean to leave you THAT excited. Drdr1989 23:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Name 

message: ...a very good way to describe this article. Is it at all possible to trim this down so that someone who doesn't know the first thing about Mariah Carey, and would like to learn, isn't scared away by the extreme (over) detail present here? Do we really need to know what reviewers thought of her walk-on part in State Property 2? The plethora of external links doesn't help, either. At 62 (!) kilobytes, the article is twice as long as the reccomended legnth for a Wikipedia article. A little bit over is understandable, this is, like, too much, man. --FuriousFreddy 04:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you add a clean up tag to the article?  Even if you think it needs to be shorter, it definitely does not require "clean up".  --Musicpvm 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to be shortened, and the several dozen (mostly pointless) external links need to be leaned up. The qualities of the images used need to be improved. And there are still plenty of POV issues. --FuriousFreddy 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with Freddy. This article is a mess for all the reasons he's mentioned -- AND there's redundant information. Please refer to Wikipedia's Featured Articles in Music for examples of the ideal we're shooting for here. --C-squared 14:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I hadn't read the whole article through in a while, so I give it a try in light of this criticism.  It does indeed read kind of slow, but that's due to the reviews and the external links that were added to satisfy previous POV critics, and that far exceeed the referencing given to almost any other popular music topic.  If Freddy still thinks there are POV issues, he needs to supply some specifics.  The Acting section does seem excessively long and detailed; maybe it could be moved to a separate article, with brief discussion of Glitter and Wisegirls (the only two roles of significance) inserted into the main sections.  Another thing that causes drag is the discussion of Mariah's work for others – Lorenz, Penny Ford, 7 Mile, Blaque, etc.  Did any of these become hits?  They don't seem to be of much significance compared to her own work.  The duplicate album discography also seems pointless, given that it exists in a separate article.  But in general I  think the article is what it is and does not deserve a cleanup tag.  And if Freddy is bothered by the level of detail here, he'll change his mind once he reads the articles on her singles!    Wasted Time R 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Freddy's already read the articles on her singles, and has nominated several non-neccessary articles for deletion (resulting in the editors here ganging up to have them kept). As far as specific examples, the level of detail in and of itself is not-NPOV. All of these articles could very easily be cut down, and become not only more impactful, but far better. There is POV language used i nthe prose throughout; I will pick some examples out when I have time later. More is not always better, and especially not in this case. Common sense facts do not need ot be referenced; no page on one person should have dozens of reference links like this. It would be recommended that, if you want to cover Mariah Carey in this level of detail, a MAriah Carey wiki should be started at WikiCities or someplace. As far as her coverage (and the coverage of a few others) here is concerned, this is excessive. I know peple don't like the term "fancruft", but it definitely applies here. --FuriousFreddy 16:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive detail does in this case imply fancruft, but it does not imply NPOV.  The material here and in her early 2000s singles articles spells out in elaborate detail how badly her records were flopping.  The many inline references are here because of demand at the time; the Hillary Rodham Clinton article looks the same way and for the same reason.  I agree wholeheartedly that less is often more, but I think that's a losing battle in Wikipedia; without centralized editing, popular culture topics will always grow longer and longer.  Relocation to WikiCities is likely to be unpopular since no one's heard of it or read it.  Wikipedia articles often show up in the first screen or two of Google hits, so people with something to say are going to write on Wikipedia, not elsewhere.    Wasted Time R 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand that an encyclopedia article is never about "elaborate detail". An encyclopedia's roel as a reference is to provide a concise, neutral, and accurate starting point for deep research on a subject. Encyclopedia articles are about general overviews rather than minute detail; note the lack of exacting detail in the Encyclopedia Britannica and other professional encyclopedias. As far as topic growing longer and longer, there must be some discresion involved. I cut down the Michael Jackson article once every two weeks or so, because it keeps getting larger and larger with excessive over-detail. As it stands, it's already going ot be very long, and it certainly doesn't need to be longer. Just because someone adds something doesn't mean that it's to be kept, and often times, whole paragraphs of text can be boiled down to sentences, once unneeded detail is removed. Are you going to clip your hedges, or allow them to grow out of control? --FuriousFreddy 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Has Mariah Care really had enough acting roles to warrant a seperate page describing each of her roles? The only acting role that should be mentioned in anything more than one sentence is Glitter, the rest need only a passing mention. --FuriousFreddy 16:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could copy and paste the article as it is, right now, to Talk:Mariah Carey/temp, and then start editing down the main article. Then, we could set up a Mariah Carey Wikicity, move the old article there, and then create various subarticles at that Wikicity such as "Acting career", "Voice", "Charity work" etc. The overwhelming fangush and detail of the Wikipedia articles on her singles and albums may find a home there also. Additionally, we could compare the article with the featured article about Kylie Minogue, another contemporary pop singer. Just my two cents... Extraordinary Machine 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I read of that Kylie Minogue article, it's pretty good (the "image and celebrity status" section could be shaved down some, but otherwise the article covers its subject in just the right amount of detail). I have nominated this article for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive, in hopes of (guess) improving the article. I wholeheartedly agree with porting the articles as they stand to a Wiki on WikiCities, and then revising the WIkipedia versions to cut down on the fan-gush. I wouldn't want ot undermine anyone's work (it would be preserved at WikiCities), but it should be obvious that encyclopedic standards are not present in most of these articles. --FuriousFreddy 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Can't see the forest for the trees" 

message: Is it true that she is half black/ african american? My friend said she is.
Well, actually Mariah has tells the media that she is "Mixed," This is not true by a long shot, mixed race is one race equal to another like 50% black 50% white. Mariah however is multiracial with black being one of her many races.  Mariah's mother is Irish/American (White) and her dad is Hispanic/Black so if any one is "Mixed/Biracial" its her dad.  
Breaking it down to its truest form Mariah is 50% white 25% Hispanic 25% black, that's why a lot of people don't know she's multiracial and think she is of Caucasian background only, because in all honesty she is more Caucasian than anything else.  And to me she looks like she is Italian.  
I don't see any Minority ethnicity when I look at her. Now they way she tries to look is a different story. I'm all about everyone being themselves and if changing you name to Mimi, darkening your skin with make-up and recording R&B songs makes you feel more "black" I'm all for it no hate here, but one question wasn't she raised by her mother????  So who is Mariah .. Really?  She is the only one who truly knows that
:Read the article!    Wasted Time R 11:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Half african-american/black

message: An issue involving the number of Mariah Carey songs with articles has become thorny. Too thorny. There are articles for "So Lonely" and "Mine Again" despite the fact that they won't be released for another few months. Is it really necessary to have these articles when their release has not even been confirmed? I feel not. --Winnermario 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue over number of Carey singles

message: Not too sure of the current one.:( Oran e  (t) (c) (@) 23:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's public domain, while the other one was copyrighted, though I agree with you that it isn't the best. Apparently, Wikipedia prefers public domain or free license images as opposed to copyrighted fair use images; in fact from what I've been told in the past, one of the criterion for fair use is that there are no free alternatives available, which is no longer the case here (that doesn't mean all fair use images have to be trimmed from this article, just the top one I think). There was a similar discussion over at Talk:Britney Spears#Top photo. If this seems confusing, don't worry, I was extremely baffled by all this talk of "fair use" and whatnot when I first encountered it, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use page is quite helpful in explaining about image copyrights (also the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use is quite interesting to read). Also, I sent an email to the official Island Records website a while ago asking them if they could donate an image of Carey under a free license, but unfortunately I got no response. Extraordinary Machine 00:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, there are others photos of Carey somebody uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons that I listed at :Category:Mariah Carey, and the one at the top of the article was the best of the bunch (in one of them Carey looked green :)). Extraordinary Machine 00:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top pic

message: Having trouble playing the .ogg files, I can normally play .ogg files, so I'm not sure if these are corrupted somehow or otherwise.
--Jen Duane 00:16, 15 November 2005
:They have been deleted by User:Zzyzx11, as he discovered that they contained executable Microsoft Windows code. See User talk:Paulfajardo. Extraordinary Machine 20:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: .ogg files

message: I can understand the time and effort that went into these edits made by 195.167.118.100 today, as well as previous similar edits made in the past few weeks by (I'm assuming) the same user here and here. On those two previous occasions I undid most of his/her edits because I felt that they violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and am about to revert again, for the following reasons: 
#You have radically changed the tone of the article. For example, Charmbracelet was a critical and commercial failure, Glitter was more panned than your tweaks make it out to be, and while reviews for Music Box and #1's were quite good, they certainly weren't excellent. Also, Carey's career decline began with Rainbow (not her breakdown and the release of Glitter in 2001), which received mixed reviews.
#You have referred to Carey as "Mariah" in the article, which is not only inconsistent with how the rest of the article is written, but introduces a "fanzine"-esque style to the article that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
#Carey is moderately well-known for her acting work, and an entire section of this article is dedicated to her career as an actress. It seems odd not to mention this in the lead section of the article.
#You may not have realised, but this article has been previously tagged for ,  and , was the subject of a request for comment, and less than a month ago went through an article improvement drive. Several editors (including myself) have been working quite hard over the past few months to de-POV, reference, refine and trim this article, and they will not appreciate attempts made by individuals to revise the article according to their own personal opinions of Carey. Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and also consider creating an account here. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 12:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of edits by [[Special:Contributions/195.167.118.100|195.167.118.100]] 

message: The article is much-improved now...although would a short, simple list of albums and number-one hits be too much for the main page? --FuriousFreddy 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I think you were exactly right about the ref/notes and external links cluttering up the text of the article. It looks much cleaner now, and the trimming of a lot of the critical quotes (many of which, especially in the acting career section, were added by me, I'm ashamed to say) has also helped a lot, as well as cutting away some of the detail about the sales and chart positions of her records. While the article certainly isn't the best it can be, it's gradually getting there (you were instrumental in this, Freddy), and I think it now provides a relatively succinct overview of Carey's life and career while steering clear of trivial information. I've just inserted a slightly modified version of the number one singles table you originally created for the article a month ago, as well as a simple list of albums. Also, I recently tried uploading uncropped versions of :Image:IBT.jpg and :Image:OSD.jpg, but the images on Wikipedia have been acting up lately (for me, anyway) and they aren't loading properly on the page. :-( Extraordinary Machine 19:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great cleanup job. 

message: Regarding this statement, "The strain on the family led to the divorce of Carey's parents when she was three years old," I think a source should be provided.  How does anyone know what led to the divorce?  Did Cary or one of her parents say it?     Logophile 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was confirmed in a CNN People in the News segment that aired last April, which I have included in the references section. You can read a transcript of it here. The specific quote is: "Her parents struggled tremendously with prejudice. They would move into a neighborhood and discover that their dogs were poisoned. That created a lot of tension between the parents so that they split by the time Mariah was three years old." Extraordinary Machine 02:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV?/Source needed 

message: Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links.
This should mean excluding offical web sites of an artist or their fan club.
If an external lyrics site is included, it should be found on the page that discusses songs for a specific album. The link should only contain lyrics for the specific album.
Example the following site has lyrics for each separate Mariah album
(link removed)
65.95.127.85 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right in stating that Wikipedia is not a repository of links; however, per Wikipedia:External links, official websites should be linked to, as well as sites that are used as references. In fact, Wikipedia has specific templates for the formatting of links to IMDb and TV.com. The Live 8 and lyrics links may be stretching it a little, but there's little reason to exclude the others. Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... I'm getting so frustrated at the fact that MC is always getting deleted from this category, especially when you consider the fact that this category contains such questionable entries like Christopher Meloni, Rose McGowan, and Richard Cromwell. Anyone who has even stepped foot in a gay club or talked to a gay man would be a good enough source, but for those who live their life by print:
*http://www.gay.com/entertainment/news/?sernum=398
*http://accept.ong.ro/buletin6eng.html#enter
These are just the first two pages that popped up in a Google search, there are PLENTY more where they came from.
RobbieNomi 21:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icons 

message: When are we gonna nominate this article for FA status :) Oran e  (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the references still need formatting properly, and I think there are too many quotes from All Music Guide reviews. I don't believe that it's ready yet. Extraordinary Machine 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for FA

message: Here are some references off of Proquest.  Sorry there isn't more material for her early work; for some reason Proquest isn't letting me access many newspaper reports from before the late 90s. If you have reference requests for a specific album or song, I may be able to oblige, but here is a rather random assortment:
*Re Don't Forget About Us: "We Belong Together" certainly restored Mariah Carey's A-level status at radio." "On its own, "Forget" is a soulful, satisfying track, but it suggests that Carey has hit a creative wall. Even so, radio does not seem to mind." (MARIAH CAREY: Don't Forget About Us Chuck Taylor. Billboard. New York: Oct 29, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 44;  pg. 69, 1 pgs)
*Re Emancipation of Mimi re-release: "It has been a liberating and lucrative year for Mariah Carey, whose latest CD, The Emancipation of Mimi, has gone platinum four times over since its April release. Not one to rest on her laurels, the diva is releasing The Emancipation of Mimi: Platinum Edition on Nov. 15 in two separate formats. The CD version will include all 14 tunes on the original Mimi, along with four additional tracks: fast-rising new single Don't Forget About Us; So Lonely (One and Only Part 2), a collaboration with Twista with a new verse penned by Carey; What It Look Like and a remix of We Belong Together featuring Jadakiss and Styles P., previously available only digitally online." " A limited-edition CD/DVD version also will include videos for It's Like That, We Belong Together, Shake It Off and, in its U.S. debut, Get Your Number with longtime Carey colleague Jermaine Dupri, plus a link to access the just-shot video for Don't Forget About Us. " (Carey is looking golden with 'Mimi: Platinum'; [FIRST Edition] Elysa Gardner,  Gary Levin,  Donna Freydkin. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Oct 14, 2005. pg. E.1)
*Re Shake it off: "The bouncy midtempo single finds the resuscitated diva dumping her disrespectful, cheating man while name-checking Louis Vuitton and Calgon. The tune is straightforward and simple-and the sparse thumping beat wisely doesn't distract from Carey's unmistakable vocals." "After "We Belong Together" brought her back to radio big time, "Shake It Off" will take Carey's good fortune to the next step." (MARIAH CAREY: Shake It Off (3:54) Keith Caulfield. Billboard. New York: Jul 16, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 29;  pg. 62, 1 pgs) 
*Re Emancipation of Mimi: "Former top songbird Mariah Carey has sent fans scrambling away with the movie-CD debacle "Glitter," the failed comeback of "Charmbracelet" and an abundance of overall wackiness."  "Although ridiculously titled, Carey's 10th and latest CD, "The Emancipation of Mimi," is easily her least generic and most consistent CD since her over-rated debut" "Carey's comeback actually feels genuine this time around, thanks to two out-of-the-box hit singles in "It's Like That" and "We Belong Together,"" "It's Like That" is an immediate club track, [...] The beat is sparse but potent, and she sings an immortal dis line: "Them chickens is ash and I'm lotion." "We Belong Together" is a more traditional romp that succeeds despite crossing Usher's "Confessions" with Lil' Jon/ Usher's "Lovers & Friends."" "On much of "The Emancipation of Mimi," Carey finally discovers her soul -- and her old soul at that. Perhaps this newfound emancipation is allowing her to dip her toes into retro R&B/neo-soul waters, where Carey sounds more comfortable than she has in years. Carey even seems to have finally realized that she doesn't have to scream the paint off the walls on every track to prove she can sing." "Carey is certainly more at home here than she had been with some of the hip-hop slop she had immersed herself in."" (Forget Mimi, Mariah is emancipated; [Five Star Late Lift Edition] Kevin C. Johnson. St. Louis Post - Dispatch. St. Louis, Mo.: Apr 21, 2005. pg. F.3)
*Re Emancipation of Mimi: "Carey's new album is, at heart, a pleasing return to the midtempo R&B and powerhouse ballads that made her the biggest-selling female artist of the '90s. The disc is front-loaded with the requisite handful of edgy club numbers boasting ego-stroking cameos from Twista, Jermaine Dupri, Snoop Dog, and Nelly." "Carey is a limo-loving superstar who sounds a lot more like herself dropping product placements for Bacardi and Louis Vuitton, and singing the praises of her house on Capri and her sick hot tub, than she did on the cheesy personal remembrances of "Rainbow," or the faux hip-hop, plastic funk, and adult contemporary shlock she's investigated during the last half-decade." (MARIAH CAREY SOUNDS LIKE HER OLD SELF; [THIRD Edition] Joan Anderman GLOBE STAFF. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Apr 12, 2005. pg. E.1)
*Re We Belong Together: "Mariah Carey is on the comeback trail. With new single "We Belong Together." she builds on the momentum of recent hit "It's Like That."" "On "We Belong Together," Carey delivers a return-to-form R&B groove ballad. It's a stellar I-shoulda-known-better-please-come-back-to-me song, with her vocals taking center stage" (MARIAH CAREY: We Belong Together Keith Caulfield. Billboard. New York: Apr 2, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 14;  pg. 30, 1 pgs)
*Re It's like that: "After years of underwhelming singles, Mariah Carey finally returns with a certifiably hot track. "It's Like That" is a sparse, bass-heavy, beat-driven cut that is primed for radio and dancefloors. For too long now, Carey's vocals have shifted between breathy near-mumbles ("Boy [I Need You]") and overwrought multilayered wails ("Through the Rain"). With "It's Like That," she goes back to basics. With a mostly straight-ahead delivery, Carey reminds us why we fell for her pipes in the first place." (MARIAH CAREY: It's Like That Keith Caulfield. Billboard. New York: Feb 5, 2005.Vol.117, Iss. 6;  pg. 33, 1 pgs)
*Re Charmbraclet: ""Charmbracelet," Carey's ninth disc and the album she's touring behind, is the worst of her career, revealing a voice no longer capable of either gravity-defying gymnastics or soft coos. Carey's still got the superhuman high note - which she produced right out of the gate Monday during set opener "Heartbreaker" - but frankly it sounded more like she was whistling through her ear than singing music." (FOR CAREY, THE GLORY'S GONE BUT THE GLITTER LIVES ON; [THIRD Edition] Joan Anderman, Globe Staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Sep 10, 2003. pg. D.4)
*Re United Center Concert: " The closest Carey came to something soulful was Def Leppard's "Bringin' on the Heartbreak." Other than that, the show was as rote and dispiriting as the ramshackle roadside circus the stage sometimes resembled. Maybe that's what once mighty Mariah gets for picking a butterfly as her personal mascot: nice to look at, but not the best harbinger of longevity." (Stylish Carey strains in search of soul; [North Final Edition] Joshua Klein Special to the Tribune. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Jul 31, 2003. pg. 4)
*Re Charmbraclet: "While fans of her early-'90s material will find much to embrace here, those that rallied 'round the singer during her hip-hop days may feel lost and abandoned." (Charmbracelet Michael Paoletta. Billboard. New York: Dec 14, 2002.Vol.114, Iss. 50;  pg. 29, 1 pgs)
*Re Charmbraclet: "The rest of the album is strangely muddy: On songs such as "Yours," Carey's lead vocals blend into choruses of overdubbed Mariahs cooing overlapping phrases." "Charmbracelet is nearly wall-to-wall Mariah. Tempos plod, and hooks are few. Carey needs bold songs that help her use the power and range for which she is famous. Charmbracelet is like a stream of watercolors that bleed into a puddle of brown." (Charmbracelet Barry Walters. Rolling Stone. New York: Dec 12, 2002., Iss. 911;  pg. 93, 1 pgs)
*Re Glitter: "When employed correctly, Carey's pipes can convey a range of colors: earthy indigos, sun-dappled golds and blinding, ethereal whites. And her phrasing, which draws from pop, R&B and gospel, gets sharper with each release. Indeed, the main problem with the "Glitter" soundtrack was that she didn't sing enough. There were too many guest rappers taking up valuable song space." (Voice puts Mariah back on right track; [Home Edition] CRAIG SEYMOUR. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Atlanta, Ga.: Dec 3, 2002. pg. E.1)
*Re Glitter: " "Glitter" is also an absolute mess that'll go down as an annoying blemish on a career that, while not always critically heralded, was at least nearly consistently successful."" (MARIAH CAREY'S NEW "GLITTER" IS A FAR CRY FROM GOLDEN; [FIVE STAR LIFT Edition] Kevin C. Johnson Post-Dispatch Pop Music Critic. St. Louis Post - Dispatch. St. Louis, Mo.: Sep 16, 2001. pg. F.5)
*Re Rainbow: "Overall, the new album is a major disappointment. " (Mariah Carey's Lackluster 'Rainbow'; [FINAL Edition] Richard Harrington. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nov 3, 1999. pg. C.01)
*Re Butterfly: "Released in the wake of her marital estrangement from Sony Music Entertainment mogul Tommy Mottola, this album is easily the most personal, confessional-sounding record she's ever done. "  "Carey gets most adventurous on a gorgeous, soulful version of Prince's "The Beautiful Ones." The lyrics are even more intimate and telling in her hands. If this track is representative of what we can expect from her, Carey-bashing just might become a thing of the past." (POP MUSIC; Carey Gets Personal in Her Latest Release; *** MARIAH CAREY, "Butterfly," Columbia; [Home Edition] Connie Johnson. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 14, 1997. pg. 58) 
*Re Music Box: "after hearing her heart-piercing "Music Box" album..." ""Music Box" is easily the most elemental of Carey's releases, her vocal eurythmics in natural sync with the songs that examine the personal ferment of faith, particularly fidelity to one's most private emotional ideals". (Mariah Carey's stirring 'Music Box' White, Timothy. Billboard. New York: Aug 28, 1993. Vol. 105, Iss. 35; p. 5 (1 page) )
--Spangineeres (háblame) 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much! The quotes you found will help improve the article, as well as the relevant album and single articles. Thank you once again! Extraordinary Machine 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is time I pitched in to improve Mariah Carey's article. In its current state, it isn't going to the nomination house for some time. Is there anything in particular that I could be useful for? —Hollow Wilerding 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well okay. I suppose I'll be fine. —Hollow Wilerding 01:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible references  

message: Per WP:CITE#When_there_is_a_factual_dispute, I have trimmed this unsourced and possibly untrue sentence from the article ahd moved it here: Carey continues to collaborate with hip-hop artists, and is a featured artist on singles by Damizza, Twista, N.O.R.E. and Da Brat. Is this true? I mean, has she recently (i.e., in the last year or so) been a featured artist on singles by these artists? Any help in clearing this issue up would be appreciated. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and possibly untrue sentence removed 

message: I have cited a source for Carey's peak positions in Canada. I'd like to ask why the chart exhibited in the article is limited to her number-one singles? I understand how her singles discography is quite lengthy, but I'm stumped over the matter of displaying her number-ones if we are incapable of showcasing her entire chronology. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Mariah Carey singles discography. Carey's released far too many singles, and the article is big enough as it is with her number one hits included. And this edit you just made is borderline vandalism; please do not disrupt an article just because you haven't received a response to a comment you made on the talk page. Extraordinary Machine 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not vandalism because I did not remove the chart from the article; I merely excluded its presence until I received a reply. Honestly though, Extraordinary Machine, I'm sure you have this talk page on your watchlist if you have Carey's single "Hero" watched. Also, I would appreciate it if you did not restore "Huntington, New York" in Carey's template. If Carey were German, I highly doubt the template would read "Greiz, Thuringia, Germany". We cannot just assume that someone in Australia is going to know where New York is located. See the Céline Dion article if you're not quite sure what I'm talking about. The lead section can include the city, province (or state), country. The template should include the city and country. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have almost four hundred other pages on my watchlist, some of which are subject to frequent vandalism, so I apologise if I didn't notice your comment being left here. That said, it's absolutely unacceptable to disrupt the article "until [you] received a reply". At the very least, you should have left a second message inviting other users to participate in the discussion. "Greiz, Thuringia, Germany" may be obscure, but "Greiz, Germany" is, in my opinion, even more so. With all due respect, we also shouldn't assume that someone will know where Huntington is either (especially as there are some two dozen communities by that same name in the United States); however, they may be more likely to know where New York state is. Extraordinary Machine 23:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I did not disrupt the article. After all, I did receive a reply, did I not? Attention, attention. Just learn how to play your cards right. You bring up a very good point regarding the cities and provinces (states). I'm not sure if I'm overly fond of it though. However, I'm not asking for an edit war, so I'll just leave the template the way it is for now. You're doing a good job on the article, by the way (everyone who has contributed that is). Comparing the article to what it was in July 2005... I'd say we've come to an excellent conclusion. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Extraordinary Machine, does Berlin, Germany sound unusual? How about "Berlin", [province or state], "Germany"? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing or obscuring content from the article for no reason other than to attract comment on the talk page is simply unacceptable. I don't think "Berlin, Brandenburg, Germany" sounds strange. Extraordinary Machine 15:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your first comment yet again. If you find including the province (or state) that Berlin is located in strange, then why should it be acceptable to add the states of the United States or the provinces of Canada? This places emphasis on the U.S. and Canada as their specific territories are included in the biographies. Also, I believe that this is a violation—well, no, not a violation—but I believe this interferes with the neutral point of view policy. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I said that mentioning the state or province in the infobox doesn't sound strange. Extraordinary Machine 18:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're right, pardon my... error. However, that does not excuse the fact that it violates the NPOV. The template requires three separate wikilinks. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please ignore my above comment. I don't believe that I read your comment properly yet again. Excuse my foolishness. All is clear EM, thanks. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The charts 

message: The wire story on Carey's 17th, picked up by multiple media outlets, included the Whitburn 18th fact.  See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051222/en_nm/singles_dc
and
http://channels.netscape.ca/entertainment/article.adp?id=20051223085909990001
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201166.html
A fuller explanation may be found on Billboard's own site:
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/chart_beat/bonus_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001736670
The various year-end statistics (Top Artists/Airplay/Ringtones/etc.) come straight from the magazine's December 24 issue.
:Billboard magazine themselves state that Presley's "Don't Be Cruel"/"Hound Dog" counts as one single and not two (as mentioned in the Washington Post article you linked to above), though it's probably worth mentioning on the Don't Forget About Us article (if not here). As for the reams of information about Carey's standings on the year-end charts and sales tabulations, I think that it's unneeded excess, which is what we've been cutting down on for the past several weeks. The section on The Emancipation of Mimi, which isn't even her most successful or well-received album, is now about as long as the whole of the section covering Carey's first three albums. If we dedicated equal amounts of text to her other albums, the article would become bloated beyond belief, even more so than before. I've reverted again, and I suggest that the information be moved to the We Belong Together and The Emancipation of Mimi articles (as well as the aforementioned page for Don't Forget About Us). Extraordinary Machine 23:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis Presley's' 18th #1 single? 

message: Now does anyone care to address my concern of the chart? If it continues to expand, this article will be filled with hundreds of ones, which I'm sure are already present. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone should delete the number ones, we already have a discography of Mariah and it's on there, it's just a fan thing.--Hotwiki 03:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the opinion that it's not worth mentioning her most notable hit singles (in fact, user:FuriousFreddy requested this), but the number-ones chart has completely spiralled out of control. Singapore? Israel? Is there a lot of point including information on such minor markets in the main article? I'm trimming them all except for the U.S., Canadian, UK, Australian and Japanese charts. If anybody thinks that a different set of countries should be listed (e.g., if one of the five I just listed is not notable enough), please say so. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now removed the Japanese positions as they were not referenced. Extraordinary Machine 14:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then again, are the UK and Australian positions referenced? It doesn't appear so, unless I am blind as a bat. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have sourced the Japanese chart positions with two references. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the list of number one's is out of control.  Maybe a separate page for the list should be made? - (ThisIsMyName 09:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The number-ones

message: *According to imdb.com as well as other sources, Mariah's middle name is "Angela". I have inserted it to the page several times only for someone else to come behind me and delete it. Who ever is doing this contact me and tell me why you are doing so. Lesanichelle 14:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Carey has no middle name, and this fact is supported by references. Like Wikipedia, IMDb runs almost entirely on user contributions. Unlike Wikipedia, false information is notoriously hard to correct as IMDb isn't a "wiki" and everything has to be processed manually by a handful of paid workers, resulting in numerous delays (I myself have submissions still pending from last August and earlier, and some important sections of the database are backlogged from July 2004). I'd hazard a guess that most other sources to list her non-existent middle name as "Angela" took their information from IMDb. In any case, they seem to have finally got around to updating her biography as it no longer says anything about her having a middle name, be it "Angela" or "Ashlee" or anything else. Extraordinary Machine 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mariah's Middle Name

message: Is the birthplace of Mariah Carey no longer to be included in the article itself and solely in the template? —Empty Wallow | Wollaw Ytpme 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiography birthplace

message: Why has the Carey trivia section been removed from the article? I've been looking at some of the music articles in Wikipedia's Featured Articles in Music, and many feature a lengthy 'Trivia' section (ex. the Beatles). I think the trivia section that had been deleted from the article be put back, its obviously not violating Wikipedia standards to the point where it could no longer be considered a 'good' article or anything more. - Grey Pursuit January 8, 2005 (UTC)
:It was removed some time ago as I recall, with the relevant material being integrated into the body of the article. I personally am opposed to trivia sections, as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. If there isn't a way to work a trivia item into another section of the article, then it really doesn't belong here. Extraordinary Machine 17:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia?

message: The recent work on this page is brilliant, however, I feel that the layout of the 'Biography and music career' should be more structured -- at the moment it doesn't appear from it's layout that she has been in the music business for over 16 years.
   1.1 Early life and discovery
   1.2 Early commercial success
        1.2.1 1990-1991: Mariah Carey
        1.2.2 1991-1992: Emotions
        1.2.3 1992-1993: MTV Unplugged EP
   1.3 Worldwide success
        1.3.1 1993-1994: Music Box
        1.3.2 1995-1996: Daydream
   1.4 Independence and a new image
        1.4.1 1997-1998: Butterfly
        1.4.2 1999-2000: Rainbow
   1.5 Personal and career struggles
        1.5.1 2001-2002: Glitter
        1.5.2 2002-2004: Charmbracelet
        1.5.3 2005-present: The Emancipation of Mimi
I'm no Wikipedia expert, so is it possible that if people agree with it, then a 'proper' Wikipedia editor could do it -- I'd probably just mess it up! Got Soul Not Solider 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a good idea to order sections in articles based on the titles of the musician's albums. Another user who suggested this said that they thought it worked on the Madonna (entertainer) article, but that's only because it is bloated enough with excess detail (and is in need of an overhaul/rewrite) that there is enough material on each album for its own section without making it look too choppy. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article, "sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow". Additionally, the second section header under "Biography and music career" begins with 1990 and the last one begins with 2005, so the reader does learn that she has been in the music industry for so long. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of 'Biography and music career' section