Talk:Vision of Love

message: The information about this song being written after Mariah was signed to Columbia is incorrect.  She and Ben wrote it before that; it was one of the ones on the demo she gave Tommy.
68.174.98.216 (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good information - do you have a source? Active Banana (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mistaken.  She wrote it right after she got signed.  See this article: http://www.mariahjournal.com/cgi-bin/iSay.cgi?Page=Comments&ID=EkZppuFEZVZGlgcQLe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.98.216 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of song being written

message: :I suppose Genre for this song could be Pop/R&B, because it does not focus mainly on pop I suppose, and since Carey wanted it to have a more R&B tone, it has to have an element to start with.
::Ok, Ive done some editing..anything else you think need any fixing?
:::I've added a bit more detail to some parts of the article, tidied up any spelling/grammar mistakes I could find and also sectioned the article. What do you think, is there too little to content to section? The Awards & Remixes sections obviously need more detail; for the latter it will be difficult to add anything more though. I'll try looking for the offical release dates; can you get the peak positions of the single on the sales and airplay charts, we could work that into the article. From the official Hot 100 chart run, instead of actually stating the positions each week, perhaps you could describe the run, i.e. if the single dropped one week, mention that. If it was just a steady climb (which I'm guessing it was), there probably isn't much more you can say than already is there. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 12:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've added airplay and sale stats. The run was gradual and theres not much to say about i think, but if youre intrested, heres the run...73-51-38-31-25-17-14-5-2-1-1-1-1-8-12-12-20-31-38-50-62-75. I think the content for now is good to section. It may seem not a lot here, but in later singles, where there is tons of info, it will be needed OmegaWikipedia 14:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some comprehensive charts..what do you think? OmegaWikipedia 19:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, I think this is a really good addition. Should we include charts from across the globe and omit the chart positions from the single table? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 00:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding the charts to the table is good, cause we want to make it stand out. 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From the table explaining the single, should we leave the 2 chart positions for US & UK and leave the comprehensive charts section or incorporate all world charts into the comprehensive charts  and get rid of the chart positions on the single explanation table. We could leave the table with a picture of the single, which we need to get from a source that is acceptable under the copyright laws for all singles and albums too and the information such as single formats, song length & chronology which isnt informed in the article. What do you think? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 17:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the UK and US positions the way they are. They are the major positions people look for and need to be a in a place that stands out. What about single format, song length, and chronology? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there, sorry. We should definitely gets single pics. What's acceptable under these laws? OmegaWikipedia 03:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: adding content and chart listings

message: The same changes keep being returned, and I keep reverting them, because they're almost entirely in strange English or non-Wikipedia style.  For exaple:
*We either use "USA" or "U.S."; the insistence on changing "USA" to "US" is difficult to understand.
** US is difficult? What? If you got confused, please come in here and say so. 
*"Carey had fought to co-produce but was denied the rights to for the most part on her debut album by Sony" is too vaguely and clumsily expressed to be fully understandable.
** Mel, you seem to be a very confused person. I don't think most people find that statment confused.
*"Science fiction-like" is correct; "sci-fi–like" isn't; first, we should avoid abbreviations like this, and secondly the en-rule is wrong, it should be a hyphen.
**It's alright... OmegaWikipedia 10:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: #Theme and influence - this is a widely used section in song articles across Wikipedia and therefore should be accepted. I renamed the section thinking that "The song" may have been a bit vague and therefore this sums it up nicer even though influence is only mildly touched upon. If you feel the introduction needs to be bigger, add a brief summary of that section or its success in general, but I do not think it needs a big section. The main basic questions that should be answered is who sang it, which album it was released from to give an idea of when during their career which should be noted by giving the ordinal number of album it was released from and the release date, which is different for so many countries that it is easier to just refer to it by a quarter of a year. Maybe genre should be addressed, so you may add an extra sentence about that. We could add "from American pop/R&B singer's xth album if you wanted and then all the information could be expanded upon in the section. Heavy introductions in my experience, are not a very clear method of presentation.
#:But, even if this short bit of text needed to be in a separate section (and I don't understand the need), it's mostly not about a theme and not at all about influences. Mel Etitis (<fontcolor="green">ΜελΕτητης</font>)
#::The need is because its too heavy for an introduction. Add a summarised version initially if you feel the need. What do you feel the section should be renamed to? "The song", while being slightly correct, is probably too vague, but seemed to work better. Id like to get other people's opinions on where this part of the article should go though. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we should make it go back to "The song". OmegaWikipedia 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your concern with album version? And usually if the remix titles are preserved the way they exactly are, otherwises people can get confused, so they should be the way they originally were. OmegaWikipedia 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ok, I guess you didn't have any objections about the issue when you responded, so I'm going to change back the remixes. OmegaWikipedia 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I prefer "U.K.", but Wikipedia style is to use "UK". --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion issues

message: Te text read like descriptions; you seem to be saying that we're dealing with actual titles  — is that right?  "(album version)", for example, doesn't look like a title, but like a description. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is a title. "Album Version" is the official title of the main version or the original version of a song. OmegaWikipedia 18:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel, once again you are showing your ignorance in a field you are trying to edit. No, album version is not comparable to first edition. If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't try to talk abotu it. It is a title to describe what version of a song you're listening to. OmegaWikipedia 23:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: These parenthetical descriptions should be capitalized.  In the first place, they are more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.  Second, they comprise part of the official naming conventions of these mixes and edits.  Putting them in lower-case letters is contrary to proper titling. Musiclover 17:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aesthetics is, of course, subjective; capitals or their lack here make no difference to me, for example.  The problem with saying that they're part of the title is that, first, across Wikipedia pop-related articles, there's no consistency in capitalisation; they're often uncapitalised, especially in the text.  Secondly, when I've Googled for them, I've again found no consistency of usage.  Wikipedia has a very clear convention (which most music Web sites don't, including the big recording companies, whose standard of English is often abysmal), and we have an obligation to stick to it in Wikipedia articles.  Editors can, of course, do whatever they want in their personal fan sites, but in writing for Wikipedia one must accept Wikipedia's Manual of style and other policies. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official remixes/versions list  

message: #:Chart positions - used everywhere in music articles as #, until it is written down in official Wikipedia policy that # shall NOT be used, or if it is simply considered bad practice, Id like to see all music articles stop using this before I can stop changing it here. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion issues 2 

message: Why do you think that the citation needs to go into the text in this case?  Aside from the general deprecation of embedded external links, the pop-music articles are full of references to records going gold, platinum, etc., but this is the only one to be given a citation; is there some special rason?  If so, couldn't it go at the end 9as usual for external links)? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-text citation 

message: Before you throw a tantrum and cause drama, I went through each edit since the unprotection and kept most of your prose and grammer fixes and wikilinking and all that stuff. The chart section was lacking a lot of detail so I added that back in and Ultimate Star Wars Fans had a better lead than you. But other than that, I didnt touch the grammar, so dont you dare accuse me of that. And I deconverted the conversion. OmegaWikipedia 06:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another locked page? What's the dispute about this time? Winnermario 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an edit war (on this and a number of other articles) between Extraordinary Machine and OmegaWikpedia over the style of infobox. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: This article has been protected forever and ever, and there's no discussion for ages and ages and ages, so I unprotected. Be nice. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: It should say "bikini" rather than swimsuit because of her nickname, Bikini Girl.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labellesanslebete (talk • contribs) 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina Darrell (Bikini Girl) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vision of Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061207220803/http://www.ew.com:80/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1048283_4_0_,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1048283_4_0_,00.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mtv.co.uk/shows/mtv-official-countdowns/episode/mariah-carey-official-top-20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Vision of Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/release.php?release=17676
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66Bq295lq?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/1990-09-15/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/1990-09-15/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229103904/http://www.bet.com/Music/photos/msc_bestalbumsofthedecade_12.24.09.htm?i=3 to http://www.bet.com/Music/photos/msc_bestalbumsofthedecade_12.24.09.htm?i=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916080043/http://mariahcarey.com/news/awards.php to http://mariahcarey.com/news/awards.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's no section on Covers of this song.  I know Mariah Carey has done numerous live versions herself but its interesting to see and hear other artists' interpretations/renditions. It could be thats it's not a heavily covered song but it would be nice to catalog the ones out there.
For example recently in  or  around December 2023, Jennifer Hudson did a gospel tinged cover of the song during the Grio? awards. 71.178.185.35 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar. Many cover versions don't get past it. Basically, the cover version needs to chart, or it needs to be described as remarkable in WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers