Jump to content

Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleE=MC² (Mariah Carey album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starE=MC² (Mariah Carey album) is the main article in the E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
January 6, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed
October 12, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article


E=mc2 Sales Worldwide

[edit]

According with "Media Traffic" (United World Chart) the album has sold 1,9 milion copies worldwide in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.66.24 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That Chick?"

[edit]

Oh you foolish Mariah fans. The title isn't even official yet and you already screwed up the Wikipedia article by calling it "That Chick" indefinitely. "That Chick" is really just a working project title sort of like "Blue Harvest" or "Paradox".

Titles of articles can be changed quite easily, as has just been demonstrated. Phoenix1304 (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

[edit]

According to this page the release date is set for some time in February of 2008; however, several Billboard articles are stating a springtime release, most recently referenced in an article concerning Janet Jackson's forthcoming album. Perhaps, the release date should be changed here as well.--71.192.212.187 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


that reference doesnt say anything about a june release date,please someone fix it..thats if that claim is true.Brexx (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Feel It

[edit]

We still dont now whether I feel It will be in the album You should put it on the possible tracks part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.179.168 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly removed

[edit]

Just removed this section from the article:

Nelly and Janet Jackson

[edit]

The linked MTV News article does not mention for which album this proposed collaboration would be recorded (it says Dupri is working on albums by Nelly, Carey and Jackson), and seems to imply that it would appear on Nelly's. Extraordinary Machine 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Streets Is Talking: News & Notes From The Underground". MTV. Retrieved May 28 2007.


Um...

[edit]

IT'S NOT CALLED SWEET SOUL ODYSSEY! —Preceding unsigned

the title hasnt even been released good one though........

comment added by 81.145.240.71 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

[edit]

Somebody return the actually with the information please. Charmed36 01:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Journal

[edit]

I know that they said that the song's called Heat, but for wikipedia a fansite like Mariah Journal isn't a reliable site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidlos (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself isn't reliable. Mariah Daily/Journal has an excellent track record, thus being reliable. They may get the news before its officially announced, but it is always correct. I believe they have access to Mariah's camp. Mariah has mentioned them before; she knows.

Not Enough Information

[edit]

This page should be deleted until there is adequate information on the album. I will be recomending it for being deleted until there is further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.222.72 (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumoured songs

[edit]

Please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS before adding any more song titles that you read about on unofficial fansites/blogs/message boards. As per WP:DEADLINE, there is no need to scoop anyone with 'facts' of questionable accuracy. We need to wait until the tracklisting or song titles have been officially announced by Carey or her people or have been referenced in a reliable, third-party source. It may very well be the case that the song titles are correct - but inclusion in WP requires concrete proof. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album title

[edit]

Has it been confirmed that the tile is That Chick? If so then the re-direction of Sweet Soul Odyssey needs to be moved.86.152.250.173 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also deleted three variations on "Illusions: The Butterfly Within" that redirected here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Real, For Real

[edit]

i think the song is "for real, for real", not only "for real". all the reviews said that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.97.59 (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ALBUM COVER

[edit]

The album cover with the title is a fan made !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by F9o0oly (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? I was looking at that myself the other day and wondering the same thing. Uploading fake covers for upcoming album releases does seem to be quite a common method of sneakily vandalizing WP. Do you have any actual proof that it's fake (like a link to the original picture that they photoshopped it from), or a link to the genuine cover? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A guy from FOMM made it (It's his signature), here is the real album cover —Preceding unsigned comment added by F9o0oly (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link me to a specific thread/post, if you could, please. I need to see this for myself. The user in question may have just used the WP image for his .sig... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't link you a thread, cause it was by PM. But you can see the source that was added with the cover ::::HERE isn't the one with the title!
By the way, there's no reliable sources for the one with the title, but the one without the title has some reliable sources for it. [1] [2] --F9o0oly (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that one is the album cover either (neither article states specifically that it is). It's just as likely that the image in question is just a publicity photo from a press kit. I think that we should wait until the album cover is officially revealed in an announcement from Carey's record label before we add any pictures. It's better to be cautious than to display information to the world that later proves to be false (as I have seen happen on many occasions with music-related articles). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


according to many sources,this is the album cover....and should stay for the time being.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example,about.com says its the cover...and its not the kind of website that puts untrue or unconfirmed information just like that[3]... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also,its shown here[4]


Isn't that the one that you claimed was fan-made? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


the cover with the title on it is not fan-made,its official...as you can see on the site.if it was fan made,it wouldnt be there...so that cover should be put instead of the one without the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was confusing you with the other user above (F9o0oly)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where did (about.com) get the picture (with title) from? none of the ones who attended the listening party posted that picture with the title, and I don't recall one of the posters in (about.com) went to the listening party. That happened to "TEOM", they told them in listening party that the album title is "Joyride" (if I remember correctly) and sorry for my bad English.--F9o0oly (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, lads - how about *no* album cover until there's a picture of the thing up on MC's own website? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you "Kurt Shaped Box" that the album title isn't "That Chick" and that image is a fan-made. --F9o0oly (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really Mariah on the album cover?

[edit]

Is that really Mariah on the album cover? She still looks like Ru Paul on that cover. Are you guys sure that it's gonna be the final cover?  :-( 24.225.92.93 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2008


Mariah Does Not look like ru paul u fool.........


I believe the unidentified person above who claims that Mariah looks like Rupaul is refering to the cover of Rupaul's Supermodel (You Better Work). Though I digress. Rupaul may look like Mariah in her No. 1s and Emincipation of Mimi album covers, but Mariah's definitely hotter! Diphosphate8 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


For real,For real & Heat

[edit]

Those 2 songs have been previously reported,so they will most likely be on the album and they should stay on this article....billboard only put the 10 songs that were played at the janet/mariah party....so,that doesnt mean that only the songs that billboard put are the only ones to be on the album......so please keep them for now.....

and its also mentioned on mariah daily.com,which is a reliable source,and they dont write anything thats untrue.

Fansites are not generally considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia articles - see Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. WP:V also states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It may be the case that mariahdaily.com is correct - but we need to wait for an *official* announcement or a write-up in a reliable publication. It's often the case that tracks are recorded (and leaked) that never actually see the light of day on the final album. There is no harm in omitting questionable information until its status is clarified. Writing WP articles is not a race. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please keep those 2 tracks for the time bieng,for the links i provided are more than enough evidence that they are confirmed and will be on the album....they were played on the janet/mariah listening party.....[5]

So says someone on a fan forum who read it on a fansite. That's not good enough, I'm afraid. Wikipedia reports solid, verified, verifiable *facts* - not internet rumours masquerading as facts. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok,whatever you say...........but when the album is released,those 2 songs will be on the album....i think by then you will realize your mistske of not keeping them...btw,by not putting them,readers will be confused;not vice versa...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think there should be a compromise.....i think they should be put...but as unconfirmed tracks...ok... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Everything written in WP has to be verifiable, as I have now explained several times. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". There is *never* any justification for adding lists of 'unconfirmed tracks' or 'stuff I read on some guy's forum' to WP album articles. WP is not, nor has it ever been a breaking news service. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell

[edit]

What the hell is wrong with wikipedia.....i created a page for "touch my body" and they say that its not accurate and that i need references that the info is true....its confirmed that its the first single,and i put references on the page,and they still are not satisfied...so they deleted it......unbelievable....im appalled....please someone with logic,recreate the page...somebody put some sense for wikipedia....sometimes wikipedia can be to strict,which makes it almost immpossible to edit....and they should ban the person who deleted touch my body article...cause obviously he/she is not wikipedia material..


The Runners

[edit]

Production Duo "The Runners" were supposed to be on this page as well,it's also been confirmed on several sources,including their official myspace page (that they are working on tracks for mariah), but several days ago someone deleted their name from the "producers" section,along with the reference. could someone add it back please?

is the title definite?

[edit]

there is absolutely no way that mariah carey would ever make an album titled "that chick"!! i mean her previous albums were titled "the emancupation of mimi", "butterfly", "Rainbow", "music box", "daydream", "emotions" and stuff... i dont think that we should believe that the album will be called that chick... BE SERIOUS!!! (I hope that it spawns 2-3 #1s so that she could tie The Beatles (thay have 20 #1s and she currently has 17 #1s) will it be as succesful as the "emancipation of mimi?" i hope that it will go 8-10xPlatinum.... —Preceding

--Mysterious Spy (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]


What's the big deal if she produces 3 more number one singles? I mean even if she ties the Beatles for the "singles only chart record," Mariah will never be in the same ballpark as the Beatles, Elvis, Madonna, and Michael Jackson. Though I hate to admit it, she may have 17 #1s now IN AMERICA, but that's it! She has never sold as many albums and singles as the 4 aforementioned artists, both in the U.S. and worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree... her sales cannot be compared with their sales but think about ! wont it be nice!? mariah carey: the artist with the most #1s in the us hot 100!!!

--Mysterious Spy (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah 17 No. 1 singles ONLY IN THE U.S. but up to now, Mariah has never made herself an icon despite being in the business for 18 years already. I wouldn't be surprised to know and see in 10 years that Beyonce would achieve an "icon" status way ahead of Mariah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what u said now is not logic. Mariahs debut went 9xPlatinum in the US and it shipped 17.5 millions(4 #1's 1990) then emotions went 4 times plat. and shipped 12.5 millions worldwide (#1,#2,#5 1991). mtv unplugged became the best selling mtv unplugged ever with 9-10 million copies worldwide (3 millions in the us + 1 #1 1992). Music box went Diamond in the us (10xPlat) and has sold an astonishing 30 million copies worldwide (a massive hit in europe and everywhere) (2 #1s 8 weeks and 4 weeks respectively 1993). Her merry christmas album became the best selling christmas album with 16 million copies shipped (5 millions in the us)(classic:all i want 4 christmas is u). her Daydream album sold well over 10 million copies in the us (diamond) and over 25 million copies WW (3 massive #1s, 8 wees, 16 weeks, 4 weeks the two first #1s debuted at the pole position!). Butterfly 1997) spawned two top 1 hits went 5xPlatinum in the US and sold over 15 million copies WW, #1's (1998) went on to become one of the best selling albums ever in japan with 17.5 million copies worldwide and 5 million of them in te us alone. rainbow (1999) produced two more #1's for carey sold 4 million copies in the us and sold over 10 million WW. OK then she released glitter (2001) with one #2 hit ( the rest of them flopped) sold about 1 million copies in the us and sold 4 millions ww, greatest hits (2001) went Platinum and sold 4 millions charmbarcelet (2003) also flopped with 1 million copies shipped in the us and 4 million ww which was followed by the unsuccesful remix album "the remixes" (2004) which sold some 1 million copies ww. in 2005 she released her massive comeback album the emancipation of mimi which went 6xplatinum in the us and sold 11 millions ww ( 2 #1s produced, 14 weeks, 3 weeks and one #2 which stayed there for 7 weeks behind her 14 week-#1 we belong together). Now beyonce sold 8 million copies ww with her debut album dangerously in love (4 millions in the us) numbers which cannot even be compared with mariah 30, 25 abd 17.5 million sellinf albums. her second album went 3 times Plat. in the us and has sold 7 millions ww going slightly worse than her debut. mimi also has enjoyed MASSIVE succes in japan (5 of her albums are in the best selling album list in japan) (three of them in the top 10) she has sold over 200 million copies through her succesful cerrer and has had 17 us #1s . she might never become as succesful as madonna or michael jackson or the beatles but she will NEVER be surpassed by the Beyonce whos sales never sirpass the 8 million mark. Mariah is an icon ok beyonce is NOT an icon!!! end of discussion

--Mysterious Spy (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


But hey, I agree with you! Mariah should not be compared to the young fresh Beyonce who's only 26 and has just started in the music business. Mariah is OLD and she's already near her 40s!!! So it's understood that she has sold more than Beyonce but I bet that in 10 years time, the real-looking lady Beyonce will outsell Mariah, not only in the U.S. but worldwide as well where Mariah hardly sells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.92.93 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Im a lamb! =D but why is everyone comparing mariah to beyonce or christina or whitney... even tho im a fanatical mariah fan i can still see that beyonce, christina and whitney and leona all have great voices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.45.218 (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Actually Beyoncé started in 1997 with "Destiny's Child", so that means she's been in the music business for a decade now. If you added Beyoncé + Destiny's Child album sales it will be less than half what Mariah's album sold in a decade. Mariah won't stop recording music, so that means, it's IMPOSSIBLE for Beyoncé to surpass Mariah's sales. By the way, Mariah's last album "The Emancipation of Mimi" sold approximately 5 million albums worldwide (without the U.S sales) and it's more than what Beyoncé's last album sold worldwide (without the U.S sales). so that means Mariah still sell well outside the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.242.53 (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touch My Body

[edit]

Anyone who thinks there should be a page created for touch my body,please say it here.....i think there should,there have been several sources,which are reliable..janet song Rock With U doesnt have any reliable sources and is not confirmed as a single,and is kept,and not bieng deleted....i dont get why touch my body is bieng deleted...all access confirms it and several radio stations and l.a reid said he asked the staff which song they want,and touch my body was the final choice...and also fmqb.com confirms its going to be released to radio airplay on feb 11.......i dont understand why its being deleted when its confirmed by many sources its the first single......why should rock with u stay,and both songs are in the same situation...if one stays the other should...and vice versa............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


E=MC²

[edit]

whats with that title written on the page???........is that the new title??.......has it been confirmed??......isnt "that Chick" the official title??


and if it is the official title,whats does the "E" stand for.....

E=MC² was announced today. "That Chick" was obviously fake or has been changed. Should be moved to E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's annouced on Mariah's officail website. See [6] BratBoyz (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stated origin of the title is incorrect. In an interview given to Oceanstyle magazine [7], Mariah is quoted as saying: "This album, it's so much about fun and freedom and just the continuation of me feeling emancipated. It's sort of like emancipation equals Mariah Carey times two.". I would argue for this being included in the article on the grounds that this quote contains a mathematical faux pas which led to many news stories around the end of 2008 based around the fact that Mariah was cited by the UK campaigning group Sense About Science as a celebrity who made a scientific gaffe in 2008. See [8] Robma (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going for adds?

[edit]

When speaking about the single being released, the article contains the line:

"Touch My Body" will officially go for adds on February 19th

I must admit that I don't know what going for adds means so I worry that there may be other readers scratching their heads over that line as well. Can someone explain on the talk page what that phrase means or maybe reword the particular sentence in the article so it's clearer for those of us who are not as hip with the music industry jargon as the editor who contributed that sentence.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it means it is released to radio stations, being added to their playlists. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect This Page

[edit]

Redirect this page to "E=MC²". E=MC² was free, so put all the information about the album there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.48.29 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cri$tyle

[edit]

I removed her name b/c it contradicts what Mariah's official press release says for who wrote and produced "Touch My Body".

I did read the article on which her name was mentioned and it was written as if Mariah doesn't write her own material (except for the alleged Mariah quote). That takes away credibility.

Also, reviewers have not mentioned her, but they mentioned everyone else. And again, Mariah's official press release contradicts Cri$tyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Like,Helooooooo

[edit]

Lovin' you long time and loving you too long are the same song...isn't it obvious.....its still not confirmed which one is the official title of the song... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin' You Long Time is confirmed. Who the hell put Loving you too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song is "Lovin' You Long Time", DJ Toomp (he produced the song) said that! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WGHYNUBPXA

Stop removing the producer and writer list

[edit]

Stop removing the producer and writer list. It is accurate, so what is the point. What needs to be removed are all the outdated facts from 6 months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeVante' (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

chart positions in europe

[edit]

Here is a great site page for finding chart positions in europe. Its blank at the minute but when the album starts selling it quichly fills up. Check it every few days as it continually updates itself. Realist2 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Touch my body" versions

[edit]

Who keeps putting that the current version of "touch my body" is a radio edit..is there any proof for that claim......for the time bieng i put a citation needed template until a reference is provieded to support the claim....if there is no reference in the coming days...the [radio edit] thats written will be removed......cause the song's lengh is 3:28,and it is the full album version of the song theres no longer album version...nobody mentioned anything about a radio edit.......Mimibianca (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think whoever is saying it's a radio edit is probably right. If you listen to the end of the song, you get the feeling that there is more to it and when she performed it live there was more substance.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


umm,ok....i dont know what u mean when u said "there was more substance"....u mean there were more lyrics when she sang it live???...if u want add it..but i think that we should wait till the album comes out for us to be sure 100%.....if we write it now,we wont be verifiable,and we dont have a reliable source,so we will confuse readers if it turn out to be false....we need 2 be 100% sure be4 we write something.............and when i listen to the end song i dont feel that theres more to it....i feel nothing more can be added....cause theres the verses and the hook and the chorus,and the belting...what more could there be?? ...Mimibianca (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...It is the radio edit and i have evidence: 3:27 [radio edit] http://www.mariahdaily.com/news.shtml#newsitemEkpVEVpuFueNWEYuWp Make Sure you look at the pictures of the CD single...um...whistle register notes!!! More!!! I like your name...Mimi vs. Bianca...lol---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE DONT REMOVE

[edit]

Who keeps removing bryan michael cox from the producer section of the song "For the record"....the source given is reliable...the radio that previewed the album clearly states that B.cox is the producer of the track... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.53 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


and,dont remove the "M" fragrance section..the radio that previewed the album also clearly states that the music used in the commercial is for the track "For the Record"...it is notable and should stay there.....


if u have a problem with the above,dicuss here FIRST,before taking action.......thats why theres a talk page,so u can discuss first...Mimibianca (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that an editor should discuss everything before removing it, as you suggest, I will also politely ask you to discuss everything before you add it into the article. Surely, you can agree that it wouldn't be fair that you can insert something if you feel that it does belong in the article without discussing it but somone else can't remove it without discussion if they feel that the same piece of information does not belong there. SWik78 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


AGAIN:Please don't remove Bryan Michael Cox from the producer section of the song "For the record"....the source given is reliable...the french radio station that exclusively previewed the album [9] clearly states that B.cox is the producer of the track...there is no reason what so ever for it to be removed.....


Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources!!!!!!!!! Reidlos (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Current album cover

[edit]

Is that the official album cover..i like it....but still,please put a reliable source.....form where did u get it from....cause if its not official then it should be removed......J.looo (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ... that cover screams fan-made. Phoenix1304 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not the official cover, the picture was taken from the Butterfly era (1997-1998). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.178.121 (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put it back up, stop it. Phoenix1304 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cover that was added today is the official cover! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.218.130 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second single

[edit]

As of yet, there seem to be no verifiable sources confirming a second single so please don't keep adding Migrate as a confirmed release just because she performed it on SNL. According to this interview, she expressly denies the song will be released as a single. Either way, until there is a reliable source verifying the release, please do not reinsert it. It's pure speculation at this point.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah stated in an interview on Ryan Seacrest's Radio show, in a conversation with Perez Hilton, that 'Migrate will not be the second single. She also stated that she is not dumb (for no apparent reason...probably because she is known for her vocal range being shown most in her ballads and because she was first known of as a 'ballad qeen' in the beginning of her career) and her second single will be a ballad. She then went on to say that she isn't even considering releasing 'Migrate' as a single.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E=MC²

[edit]

It should be mentioned in the intro that its a play on the famous formula by einstein. Realist2 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

JD is not featured on "Last Kiss" http://mariahcarey.com/news/news.php?uid=2118

Her site does not have him listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeVante' (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Rumours about a new single...again

[edit]

Please stop inserting rumours about a new single until it's confirmed by a reliable source which, by the way, MariahDaily.com isn't.
Thank you! SWik78 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah implied it herself. Mariah Daily just posted her saying it. She said a ballad she did with Johnta Austin and Stargate. Bye Bye is the only song that fits that description. Also, Mariah Daily may be a fan site, but they report like they are official. If something is uncertain or a rumor, they make that clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeVante' (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Bye Bye as the next single because it's the only song that fits that description qualifies as WP:OR and MariahDaily.com, no matter what they say is certain or uncertain, fails WP:RS. SWik78 (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link of Mariah saying that Bye Bye is the next single: http://www.zshare.net/audio/969663254eb3eb/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we need written, official confirmation. Say, if her official website announces it, or if Billboard mentions it, or something. At this point, her saying it isn't enough (although it IS something) to justify a page on Wikipedia. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is that? The artist making the songs saying what is it isn't enough? She is the first to know! Can you please justify why that isn't enough and not with b.s. rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There are no reliable sources for Bye Bye and no sources whatsoever for Migrate. This article is being treated as fan forum by many anonymous IP editors by posting these unconfirmed announcements. Wikipedia's purpose is not to be the primary source for announcements of when a song is being released or when the video is being shot or who Mariah Carey is dating. This is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not spread rumours or speculate. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bye Bye (Mariah Carey Song) and also WP:RS to see what constitutes a reliable source. SWik78 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also, the thing is that even when an artist (or band) says that a certain song is going to be a single, it may change down the road. With Emancipation, Mariah herself said that "Say Somethin'" would be the lead single from the album. However, it became its fifth. People change their minds and plans frequently, so until it's in writing somewhere, it should be considered unconfirmed. Please see Wikipedia's policy on "crystal balling" for more information. SKS2K6 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cri$tyle and Da Brat

[edit]

On many radio interviews, Mariah stated that she wrote OOC with Da Brat. She also said that she wrote Side Effects with Cri$tyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeVante' (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Date of release

[edit]

im not sure if the earliest release date of the album is April 11...cause i think the russian release date of the album is April 8, 2008......according to this site:[10]


now,here's whats confusing...there's 2 dates on the site above:April 8 and April 11

i dont know which one is the correct one.......can someone explain.......i dont know maybe someone who speaks russian,can explain and tell us which one is the correct one.....

and if the correct one is April 8,then it should be put as the start date of release instead of April 11.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.72 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The date of release was April 15th!!! It is wrong on the page! Someone edit it!!!

 Not done The North American release date was April 15. However, if you go to the release date section, you'll see that Russia got it first on April 8. That's why it's the "start" date, and we show all of the release date in a separate section. Hope that helps. SKS (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROMOTION

[edit]

I think we should delete the Promotion part.Reidlos (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why? It has to do with the success of the album and is a part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked on the Internet

[edit]

Why was this removed(and added then removed and then added then etc, etc, etc)? Does it have to be officially leaked onto the internet? This also relates to the release date, because I have seen pictures of the full album with people handling it. Somewhere it was released today, April 6th 2008. Sivart7555 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's such a shame that such an awesome album leaked...OMG I love the songs and I'll be sure to buy the physical release on April 15th...God Bless you Mimi.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting links to the album. that's illegal. Charmed36 (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is illegal so please stop it...---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not allowed to state that the album has leaked until the release date has passed. It is illegal to promote illegal spreading of Copyright music.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone being funny then, look under the SINGLES section and you find this squeezed in "The album leaked onto various peer to peer sharing sites on April 6th, 2008." I don't want to touch the article but someone should delete it. And Yes I have already pre-ordered the album through Amazon for about $9.00.Sivart7555 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! It is an ongoing War or people adding that it was leaked then me or someone else deleting it! People just listen, that does not belong on the page.Sivart7555 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow these simple steps and you can stop the problem yourself.
1) Identify who added the "leaked" text. (The last four were User:Juan 12 s, User:58.69.71.104, User:Jason Kleeberg and User:189.147.15.32)
2) Warn them that they are going against consensous.[11] Your first warning should be friendly, they might not know. The second warning should mention a block being a possible remedy. The third warning should threaten a block. Cite the guideline each time: WP:ALBUM#LEAK. (I have just warned the four mentioned above.)
3) If anyone goes past that third warning, notify WP:AIV for a block.
4) If the violations are from an ever changing list of IP addresses (rather than registered users, as for semi-protection on the article.
5) Registered users who don't stop end up blocked. If IPs are doing it, the article won't be editable by unregistered/newly-registered users. Problem solved. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm That Chick

[edit]

This song samples Michael Jackson's "Off the Wall". [12] PhoenixPrince (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm going to add it as soon as possible.Reidlos (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye has hit some radio stations

[edit]

Again, someone was stupid to delete it. It is being played on radio stations now and Mariah said it was the 2nd single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 April 2008

Why was the promotion section deleted?

[edit]

This album especially, has alot of big things happening promo wise and they should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

[edit]

Dont you guys/gals think its time to get a sales chart together soon, some big figures are gonna start adding up. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Definately and can someone put the promotional section back up. As long as they stay accurate, its fine. If you check her discography and individual album pages the sales listed are always changing by drastic numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.200.240 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Come

[edit]

How come nobody knows the writer(s) and the producer for the song "4real4real"........can someone find out that info and put it....213.42.23.71 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland release date

[edit]

The link you provided for the Ireland release date isn't very reliable as HMV is a UK shop. It is more likely to have been released on April 11, as that was a Friday, the day music records are usually released in the country.

666ph666 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing format

[edit]

From Wikipedia:ALBUMS

Track listing A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list.

"Complete song title" (John Doe, Brian Smith) – 4:23 First verse: Name of rapper Second verse: Name of rapper Samples: Name of sample source (preferably including artist, song, and album) "Complete song title" (Doe, Kelly Kalamazoo) – 3:24 "Complete song title" (Doe, Kalamazoo, Smith, David Whitman) – 2:34 Track names should be in quotes in the track listing and in the rest of the article. A track that is a medley of multiple songs should be inside one set of quotes, like this: "Song 1/Song 2". Untitled tracks should be listed as Untitled (without quotes). If a track has an article of its own, the track name should link to that article.

Note the standard method of attributing songwriters—write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name (unless the first initial is necessary to disambiguate it, as in the Gallagher brothers of Oasis). If all songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano." If several songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano, except where noted."

Track lengths should be included for each track. Use a spaced en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) as a dividing horizontal punctuation mark before the track length. (Note that they may both look the same in the edit box.) You can insert it from the special character list below the edit box (see Help:Special characters) or copy and paste it from here. You can also add it by writing – HTML entity to the edit box (like this "–") but this makes the code less readable. If you think that this is too difficult, you can still use a hyphen, and hope that someone is going to change it into a dash. This holds true both in "Track listing" and "Personnel" sections. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes.

Particularly for hip hop albums, it is helpful to list which members of a group (or guests) rap on which verses as well as mentioning sampling sources. This can be done in a nested list, as in the example above. Using a table is recommended in more complicated situations (see Before These Crowded Streets for example). If a table is used, it should be formatted using class="wikitable", using column headings "#", "Title" and "Length" for the track number, the track title and the track length, respectively.

The track listing should be under a primary heading named "Track listing". If there are significantly different track listings for different editions, these can be listed under sub-headings. If the album was released primarily on CD and spans multiple discs, these should be listed separately under sub-headings named "Disc one", "Disc two" and so on. Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two".


At no point in the above are producers notable as track by track information. Reqluce (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion section

[edit]

Can anybody explain to me why the promotion of this album is relevant. It's nothing outstanding. In my opinion there is no need for it and don't tell we should include it because people want it there. Reidlos (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some album pages do contain promotional sections, but not to this extent. It is ridiculous the amount of space it takes up on the page with subsections within the section, and definitely not in line with WP:ALBUMS. The editor who keeps adding it seems to be a fan who is intent on using Wikipedia as a publicity spot, evident from ignoring my previous messages to use "Carey" instead of "Mariah" as per WP:SONGS that I pointed out. Lines such as "performed in front of hundreds of fans" do not help either. It has to be condensed or removed completely.Reqluce (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like reading a list or information on a fan site. The sentences are weak and why is it important that she has performed on Oprah, American Idol etc. It's not like she's the first person promoting her singles/album on these kind of shows. Reidlos (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I have done my best to rectify the extremely poor writing. If you look at that user's "contributions", its a whole list of irrelevant orphaned images and fan info. I've also tagged the "E=MC2 promo tour" page they have created. Seems like a fan bent on their own promotional campaign here on wiki than actually creating a good wiki page.Reqluce (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to fix it. To be honest, I don't think it deserves more than a few sentences at best. But it seems as though a couple of editors really want this information in here.... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have to keep it, when the persons who want it in the article don't even argue? Reidlos (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the "editor" who wrote it in the first place has now been permanently blocked from Wiki for being a sock puppet of a banned user. Just as well, his/her edits were painfully childish and quite frankly s.h.i.t. Reqluce (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that section since it seems as though we're in agreement about its purpose (or lack thereof) in the article. Please let me know if you disagree. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empire State Building

[edit]

Mariah isn't the first singer to be honored with "their colors" lighting up the Empire State Building. I don't know if he's first, but Frank Sinatra definitely came before Mariah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.135.58.53 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Performance

[edit]

"Overall, E=MC2 has failed to have the commercial impact expected of it. Though it debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 with sales of 463,000 it fell short of other blockbuster albums."

POV, seeing as how the cd has been out for 3 months and has more then a million copies, and is one of only four albums released this year to sell more then a million copies. PhoenixPrince (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story

[edit]

Will "Love Story" be the official fourth single? It was suppost to be before it was switched to "I'll Be Loving U Long Time"

CRISTYLE'S INK

[edit]

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THE MUSIC INDUSTRY HAS A PROBLEM GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE I WAS ARGUING SOMEBODY DOWN ABOUT "CRISTYLE" AND THE FACT THAT NOBODY EVER MENTIONS HER NAME AS IT RELATES TO E=MC2, I PERSONALLY THOUGHT SHE WAS LYING ABOUT BEING APART OF THE ALBUM TIL I READ THE CREDITS, AND NOT ONLY IS SHE APART OF THE ALBUM...SHES A MAJOR PART APPARENTYL!!! SHE CO-WROTE THE FOLLOWING (WITH MARIAH)

  1. 1 SMASH SINGLE "TOUCH MY BODY" (wich she didnt recieve credit for)

LOVIN YOU LONG TIME

SIDE EFFECTS

CRUISE CONTROL

HEAT

NOW YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE ONLY PERSON TO HAVE 5 SONGS ON THE ALBUM (THREE OF THEM ARE SINGLES) WOULD BE MENTIONED ONCE IN A WHILE SHE DID MORE SONGS THAN JD, JOHNTA,THE DREAM, AND BRYAN MICHEAL COX!!! IM ONLY ANNOIED WITH THIS BECAUSE I FEEL STUPID FOR ACTUALLY BELIEVING WHAT THE INDUSTRY WANTED ME TO BELIEVE NOW I KNOW....IN THE FUTURE , DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.112.211 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Love Story" Promotion

[edit]

I donated some money to a charity at A&W recently, and they gave me a card with a code to download that song from fromhungertohope dot-com(so I thought it was the next single, but it wasn't..).

Anyway, should this promotion be mentioned in the article, or is it just too trivial? Thanks. --ChrisRJ (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 ~I think this should be mentioned in the article. I heared about this myself not too long ago

Page protected

[edit]

Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 22:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

[edit]
  • People need to stop adding unsourced information.
  • Peak positions of the album on international charts is trivia and shouldn't be included.

Reidlos (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. There is a never ending source and information battle, that shouldn't be a problem in the first place. Certifications for countries are false, and embellished sales are a major prblem. The biggest problem, though is the sourcing of fan based websites that seem to be on nearly every Mariah Carey article. It is a biased source and is not a reputable reference to use on an encyclopedic reference website like Wikipedia.Pat 20:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalticPat22 (talk • contribs)

Regarding the second point: the album's position on international charts wouldn't be trivial if said chart was for a major market (Japan, UK, Australia). (Also, Canada's gold status is clearly sourced. There's no need to remove it from the page.) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd understand adding the international chart if it was impossible/hard for international artist to enter the main chart. Reidlos (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so you mean other countries' "foreign music" charts. Sorry. It seemed as though you were saying US-only charts were acceptable. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clear up my obvious faux pas. E=MC2 is indeed certified as platinum in Canada. I was looking at the CRIA's searchable database, where the update for the album hasn't been added yet. My sincere apologies.Pat 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalticPat22 (talk • contribs)

Concerns Part 2

[edit]
  • I removed unsourced info, statements with unreliable/insufficient sources or put a "[citation needed]" behind the sentence.
  • I merged the "End of Year chart" section into the "Sales and impact" section, because we don't need more tables.
  • I put the awards into the Critical reception section, cause it's part of the critical response.

If anyone thinks that the changes don't follow the WikiRules then I'm eager to hear about it, otherwise please do not revert it like some users keep doing! Reidlos (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(This may have to be taken to arbitration, simply because of the fact that the editors who add extra material to the page don't exactly respond to talk pages or messages.) I agree with these changes, and removing any charts that are somewhat trivial/minor. For example, countries' "international albums" charts. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the current version to the version with the edits stated above. I forgot to include an edit summary, so I thought I would write it here. Reidlos (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Warning to Reidlos and SKS2K6

[edit]

Response

[edit]

I do not understand why are you assuming that we are "threatening" and are acting in bad faith. You can feel free to report us, but I don't see what that would do because this is clearly is a disputed matter. Yes, Reidlos had a 24-hour ban because he violated the 3-revert rule, and he has since learned from that. Although I have reverted many times in the past, I have not, as you imply, "vandalized" the page. Today, I have merely reverted once, and as far as I know, am not in violation of anything.

As you can see from the above notices, there is cleary a disagreement over what should, and should not, be included on this page. There are editors who feel that adding in tons of chart positions, including international-only album positions, violates WP:TRIVIA and WP:CHARTS. Also, adding in unsourced, or questionably sourced, material is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. So, if you feel that we are wrong, that is absolutely fine, but do not merely revert all the changes just because you want to. Please do not feel that we are trying to own the article. We are asking that we have a nice, pleasant discussion over what belongs, or doesn't belong, on this page, and therefore develop a consensus.

User:Reidlos has clearly attempted to do so, and I applaud him for trying to do this the right way. User:JuStar and User:LauraAndrade88, you have not joined in this conversation. Rather, you are just throwing in all the information that you feel is necessary on this page, and reverting and threatening others who go against you.

I will speak only for myself, but I am not randomly deleting large amounts of sourced information. By bringing this discussion here, I personally am trying to avoid an edit war. But there is absolutely nothing I can do if you refuse to join in the conversation.

I apologize if you feel that we are editing disruptively, but I assure you that I'm not merely removing material simply for the sake of doing so. I want to make this the best page possible, and I feel that this is only possible if we edit out some of the material that's on here. Like I said before, if you disagree, that's totally fine, but I request that we talk this out so that everyone can be happy.

Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there have been continued edits and reverts, without any sort of response from those who continue to do so. Please discuss any and all issues with the Wikipedia page on this talk page. Otherwise, editors will assume that what was discussed earlier is consensus (which, if you look at the edit history, isn't the case). SKS2K6 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article specifies the tables that are necessary. It does not matter whether two or five. This is irrelevant. "End Of Year Charts" section is more than important. Awards and nominations are an independent section. International albums charts are important in some countries such as Asian markets. Deleting information will be considered vandalism. Thank you. JuStar (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2009 (2009)

Thank you for finally stating your opinion, but please also state why you think international charts and "end of year" charts are necessary. Also, please note that deleting information that goes against someone else's opinion isn't necessary vandalism, but merely a difference in thought. There are at least a few others who do not feel the same way you do, so please do not automatically consider it vandalism. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would people feel about going to the next step in dispute resolution? Namely, informal or formal mediation? This only works if all parties on both "sides" agree to the outcome? It would be much more productive than the current edit war. If not, suggest something! (EhJJ)TALK 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Discussing on the talk page hasn't amounted to much.... SKS2K6 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys think this approach could actually help out of this dead end, I'm on it. Reidlos (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

[edit]

This edit warring has to stop! Reidlos (talk · contribs) has made several edits and explained them in the summary plus explained them on this talk page. Unless a there is discussion here to the contrary, his edits are in line with consensus. Please discuss your view here!! Further edit warring will be reported. (EhJJ)TALK 04:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reidlos, a breaker of rules as always. Deleting information is him favourite hobby, but not for long. There is no disrespect for the Wikipedia's rules. So who is wrong is he. Thanks. LauraAndrade88 (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which rule is Reidlos breaking? Certainly not Wikipedia:Consensus! Explain why this material should be kept and ask Reidlos to explain why it should be deleted. Get a discussion going so this can be resolved. Reverting without discussing can get you blocked! (EhJJ)TALK 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which rule is Reidlos breaking? Three-revert rule, for example. Deleting information is not correct because he wants to or because he thinks the material is not important. Not up to him decide that. His conduct is questionable. This material is real and true. LauraAndrade88 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

[edit]

I should explain myself: I'm definitively not trying to own this article, neither am I trying to exclude other users from editing, but we need people to discuss and find a way to agree together. So I will try to explain my suggestion and I really hope that some people here will respond.

  • The album remains in the U.S. Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart for 44 consecutive weeks.
    Is this really necessary. IMO this is trivial information that shouldn't be on this article.
  • In European Albums Chart, E=MC² debuted and peaked at number three recording the highest debut of the week. That's one place higher than the start made by The Emancipation Of Mimi in April 2005. It remained for 7 weeks on the chart.
    Trivial information again!
  • The album peaked at number six in France and sold more than 40,000 units.
    There is no (working) source for this statement!
  • In Japan, the album peaked at #7 on the Oricon Overall Chart, with 36,631 copies sold in the opening week. In its second week the album sold 21,295 units and in its third week sold 17,755 copies. The album has sold 150,000 units to date.
    It doesn't really matter how much she sold in her 2nd/3rd sales week in Japan. This is trivial information again. It would be nice to have total sales for Japan, but as long as it does not have a reliable source, it shouldn't be included too.
  • E=MC² stayed at #1 on the Taiwan International Albums Chart for two consecutive weeks.
    Taiwan is a small market for music and should maybe be mentioned in a sentence with Japan to show the general commercial reception in Asia (even if Carey is one of the best-selling international artists in Taiwan), but as long as there is no actual source (in English/translated) for this "assumption", we should remove it.
  • The song topped the Canadian Singles Chart and the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play.
    The Billboard Canadian Hot 100 is the offical chart for Canada and not the Canadian Singles Chart. This chart states the biggest selling PHYSICAL singles in that week and because the PHYSICAL single is almost dead everywhere, it doesn't really measure popularity of songs in Canada.
  • This charts shouldn't be included: Australian Urban Albums Chart, Japanese Oricon International Albums Chart, UK R&B Albums Chart and U.S. Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. What do we need them for when we already have the positions on the main chart. Just to have higher peak positions?
  • The "End of Year Charts" section should be merged with the "Sales" section.
  • The Chart procession and succession box should moved to the end of the article e.g. after References.

That's it. Feel free to discuss! Regards, Reidlos (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reidlos you're totally wrong. So basically what you are saying is: delete information, again. As always. I do not agree, obviously. Such information is part of the album and it is necessary. It is interesting, because I only see you deleting this article and disagree with everything and everyone. I hope that your contributions begin to be more productive. LauraAndrade88 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that unsourced, incorrect information is important to the article? Please explain why, when it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on verifiability and the need for reliable sources. All User:Reidlos is saying is, if you want this information to stay, demonstrate why. His points contain valid arguments against inclusion. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be removed too:

  • The album re-entered the Billboard 200 chart at #132 for the issue dated March 7, 2009.
    Trivial info!

Reidlos (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Im Requesting a Change

[edit]

{{editprotected}} I have a source from billboard about the united states sales,so i would like it to be updated, the source is [[13]] and it says 1,300,000 sold in us and the current article says 1,255,000 so if someone could plz change it...thanks!--Maester Seymour (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not that I need to or anything, but I second this, considering that 1.255m number isn't even right in the first place, and seems to have come from nowhere (the source is RIAA's gold/platinum listing, indicating only 1 million sold). SKS (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It is worth noting for when this article is unprotected that the sortability does not function properly due to "rowspan=" markup. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks to both of you guys!i appreciate the SKS2K6 for your support and Rambo's Revenge for your time and help..:)--Maester Seymour (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change

[edit]

I would like to change a few parts of this article. I already suggested some edits a few months ago. If you disagree please let me know! Reidlos (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox music styles

[edit]

IP's keep removing "Hip Hop." This album has Hip-Hip. Should it stay? Jayy008 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sauloviegas (talk · contribs) 01:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre review commments

[edit]
Thanks for taking the time to review it Saulo! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry it's taking me so long! I'll put the review up this weekend. :) - Saulo Talk to Me 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First look through

[edit]

Infobox

[edit]
  • The release date there is April 8, 2008, when the first date in the release history is April 4, 2008.

Lead

[edit]
  • Four singles were commission -> Four singles were commissioned
  • Avoid repeating "Carey" too much in the last paragraph. You've used it three times in a row.

Background and recording

[edit]
  • Carey spoke of her sentiments on the album -> Carey spoke of her sentiments on the album:

Critical reception

[edit]
  • 'It received a 64/100'. The "Professional ratings" box and source says 63/100.
  • Writing fir Entertainment Weekly -> Writing for Entertainment Weekly
  • Try to replace 'Carey' with 'the singer' and 'her' when appropriate. You repeated 'Carey' a lot.

Comments

[edit]
Saulo. It's been nearly two months. Please just post the full review so I can address it in an organized fashion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this either tonight or tomorrow. Either way, it'll be before the two-month mark. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

  • There are a few deadlinks that need fixing: see here.
  • "on April 15, 2008, by Island Records." no comma needed after 2008.
  • "and as of July 2009, achieved worldwide sales of over 3 million copies worldwide." That feels dated. do we have a more recent number? If not, it can just be shortened to "and achieved worldwide.."
  • pop music following her decline in 2001." - not sure why that quote is there after 2001; rm.
  • ""Its hard for me to sit here" It's
  • "experiencing strong success for the first time in the 2000s decade with Mimi,' rm decade, redundant since 2000s is already noted.
  • "song Carey wrote and co-produced alongside Danja," a song
  • "hops from "my car into the club ... from the bar to VIP ... from the party to the afterparty ... afterparty to hotel" with T-Pain, who urges her to "bounce, bounce, bounce." we have three left parenthesis and two right ones here; fix that.
  • "was written and produce by Carey," produced
  • "and finds her adapting to the genre, by imitating Jamaican phrases," no comma after genre
  • "and also the biggest opening album in 2008 for a female artist,[52] before matched by Taylor Swift's Fearless which sold 592,000 in its first week in November 2008." this feels a bit clunky; maybe just shorten it to "..and also one of the biggest," and cutting out the last chunk.
  • "and spent forty-seven weeks fluctuating with the top 100" within the top
  • ""Touch My Body" was released as the lead single from the album on February 12, 2008. The song received generally positive reviews from music critics, who complimented its hook and production, as well as its playful lyrics." cite preferred
  • "The song's accompanying music video was directed Justin Francis on " directed by
  • "On the seventh season of the popular talent competition American Idol," rm popular; for that matter, make sure those kinds of modifiers are not elsewhere in the article.
  • "Gil Kaufman fro MTV News" from
  • "and musical act on the fifth season of the popular British talent competition" as above, rm popular.
  • Overall, there are parts of this article that get into too much detail. We don't really need to know the outfits worn at every appearance, for example.
  • Due to some iffy prose modifiers added, a copyedit by an independent editor would be beneficial. The prose is okay, but just barely GA quality, and would definitely need work before an FAC takes place.

I'll put this article on hold for a week and will look over everything at that time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the changes have been made, I will now pass the article. If you're planning to go to PR or FAC next, here's a few things to tackle, since I'm sure they'll be brought up. First, as I noted, the article is overdetailed at times, and while comprehensiveness is good, tangents are not. Second, the article feels a little quote-heavy; use your own words where you can. Obvious the reception section will be quote-heavy naturally, but the other ones can be toned down. These are personal nitpicks rather than GA concerns though, hence why I'm just noting them now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop album source

[edit]

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/mariah-carey-bland-ambition-patently-obvious-article-1.280941  — Calvin999 10:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E%3DMC²_(Mariah_Carey_album)&oldid=1252117062"