Talk:Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse

"The Elusive Chantuese"

Mariah says in this just uploaded to her YouTube that "The Elusive Chanteuse" is just a nickname of late. She also says about "Me. I Am Mariah" and says about it being a simplistic title. The title is Me. I Am Mariah..., not Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse. It's not even on the artwork and she doesn't refer to the album as being called Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse. Thoughts?  — ₳aron 09:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it is indeed the title, even that YouTube video is titled "Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse. New Album 5/27". I think you have misunderstood her statement. It actually means that "Me. I Am Mariah" was created during her childhood, while "The Elusive Chanteuse" was discovered later. Please see iTunes, Billboard, Rap-Up and many other sources. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but the artwork doesn't say it, and she says it's a nickname. People are probably just assuming it's the full title then everyone takes it as fact. Mariah herself at no point says that it is the full title in the video.  — ₳aron 09:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's likely your personal assumption. the video is clearly titled Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse. New Album 5/27 The word "Butterfly" is not even on the cover of her sixth album, so? Bluesatellite (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm just reading from the facts. It's likely that everyone else is assuming. I don't really see how you can argue it. Everyone is calling it Me. I Am Mariah… The Elusive Chanteuse, but it's not on the artwork and Mariah didn't actually call it by this full title. Just because it's the title of the video on YouTube, it doesn't necessarily means its the full title of the album, too.  — ₳aron 09:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

'Reading the facts' is not how Wikipedia works, but providing reliable sources. Unless you find reliable sources saying "The Elusive Chanteuse" is not the title, this discussion is ponitless. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I know how Wikipedia works, I've made 4x the amount of edits you have and I have done far more work on here than you. I simply started a discussion about the accuracy of the title. If you can't engage in discussion, then don't get involved.  — ₳aron 10:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if you feel insulted, but I don't mean to say anything bad. And then, you don't need to show off your contributions :) Please check Mariah's official website --> "Mariah's new album Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse will be out on May 27. Pre-order the album on iTunes now!". What else to argue? Bluesatellite (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Per both of the iTunes listings, the title is Me. I Am Mariah… The Elusive Chanteuse. And using an editor's time of editing, and amount of articles against them, is not assuming good faith and should not impact a user's addition to an article, or their ability to edit. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In all third party coverage the album I called Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse, and this includes pressreleases and billboard. Also, as far as I am aware the first part of the title appears on the front cover whereas the second half appears on the back. Finally, I would like to add that we have never used album or single covers as an indication of titles. Covers use all forms of fonts, capitals and punctuapunctuation for stylistic purposes. Print media is our best source for things like this. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 19:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Given everything said, there is really absolutely no way the title is not The Elusive Chanteuse. It reminds me of "You're Mine" (Eternal). Eternal is in parenthesis and not part of the lyrical phrase repeated in the song, but it is in fact very much part of the title.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"The Art of Letting Go"

Are we supposed to list "The Art of Letting Go" as a single from this album or a promo release? Please discuss. This consensus would also reflect listing the song as a single in Mariah Carey album discography as well. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 00:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the song was never given a proper single release. Unlike "Beautiful" and "You're Mine", the song has no official radio release, no music video, never promoted properly (performed live, etc). In this HitFix interview, Mariah's manager Jermaine Dupri said that the song was never an official single. It's obvious that he's trying to write off the song's failure, but after all that's what her management say. For comparison, Alexandra Burke even said "The Silence" was a promo single, despite the fact that it received more proper single release (digital download, music video, remix treatment). Bluesatellite (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Bluesatellite's words, looks like it would be promo if anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We never listen to individual artists or labels regarding whether something was a single or not. Mariah once called "Obsessed" a 'summer single' and denounced "I Want to Know What Love Is" as a single because it was a cover. In her Billboard article, she refers to several unsuccessful singles from this era, Billboard calls it a trio. The thing is "You're Mine (Eternal)" is indisputably a single, but in the same interview you refer to by JD, he says neither "YM" and "TAOLG" are singles. If you are using that as a reference for the single then you would have to denounce both songs as singles. You cannot pick and choose. Songs don't have to be released to radio to be a single, nor do they have to have a music video. "Do What You Want" didn't have a music video but it is still a single, equally "I Luh Ya Papi" was not sent to radio but is still a single. "Overdose" did not have a music video but was sent to radio, it too is still a single. At the time of release and in independent coverage, "TAOLG" was released as a single. Downloads along can make a song a single. Its not like it was released exclusively to iTunes or as part of an album countdown. WP:Quack applies.→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It is overall irrelevant how the artist or label feels or wants to label the songs. If the song was released for retail sale as a single no matter the format, then it is a single. A music video is not required to make it a single, a radio release is not required, and live performances are not required. STATic message me! 03:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We aren't trying to denounce the fact that it was a single. I'm arguing the fact that it's an official release. If a song isn't serviced to radio, has no video etc. I call it a "promo single" which is where it belongs, not in the "Lead artist/singles" category. It is a "promotional single". PS. Let's not forget the song doesn't even appear on the standard edition of the album.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That is an incorrect assertion. Lots of songs do not get serviced to radio and are still classified as singles. Servicing by radio is a US-centric release format. In the UK (and much of Europe), songs are not serviced to radio, and so releasing digitally or as a CD single is the only way to release a song as single or by using an impact day (where a song is promoted by radio for a specific date but the only digital release is through album track downloads). Unless you can show me a specific source saying that songs must be released to radio to be singles I cannot agree with what you just said. At the end of the day if it was released as a single at the time, what the artist says afterwards because of its under-performance is irrelevant. On what basis do you think not releasing a song to radio makes it a promotional single? Promo singles have to be backed up by references calling it as such. I would add that including a song on the deluxe edition not the standard has nothing to do with the single's status, deluxe editions still sill more copies than standard editions and thus more people will see the deluxe edition. Also, calling the song promotional is original research. It has to be referenced. When JLo released "Same Girl" she specifically said at the time of release that it was not her new single and she produced a music video for the fabs. At the time of release, TAOLG was billed "Carey's new single". Its plastered all over third party coverage. If we called it a promo single then we'd be ignoring all of the third party coverage. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 11:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Listing "The Art of Letting Go" as a promo single is actually WP:OR isn't it? The record company or Mariah herself or third party media has not called the song a promo single, and Dupri's contradictory (read idiotic) statements cannot be considered. Unlike the case of "Venus" and "Dope" for Lady Gaga which were called promo singles, here there's no proof. WP:DUCK really applies and it should stay as a single. The argument of whether it is present in the standard of delux to determine a single status is not acceptable also. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a song is on the standard or deluxe edition. It's still on the album. It was released as a single, regardless of whether it was sent to radio or not. Nathan, it's not about what you call it. It's not a promotional single, it's not "other charted songs", it's the official second single from the album.  — ₳aron 12:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So it seems we are in agreement and coming to a consensus regarding the stance of "The Art of Letting Go" as the second single from the album. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus already says it's a single from the album due to it being on the album!  — ₳aron 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There absolutely isn't consensus. Also, read it correctly Aaron; "Promotional singles and other charted songs".--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a question: if an artist or label says a song was/wasn't a single, why would non-involved parties say otherwise? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case its a definite theory of artist / label saying that a single was not a single, after it flopped. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a promotional single. She hasn't said that, and promo singles can't chart. "The Silence (song)" is an exception to the rule because Alexandra explicitly said that it was to promote the re-release of her album and for Christmas. Mariah has never said it's a promo single. It's included on the album whether standard or deluxe. Deluxe is just a way of putting more songs on for a higher price. You can still download "The Art of Letting Go" on iTunes as a standalone single indicating it's release as a single. Fact is: "The Art of Letting Go" as a promo/non-single release is pure fabrication. Until Mariah says it is so, then...  — ₳aron 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

II'd like to summarise by saying promotional singles have to be released as singles in promotion of soemthing such as the album's countdown to release etc. At the time of release, Mariah and JD both said the new single from the album was its title song, TAOLG. It was subsequently released independently of the album and is featured on the album. Therefore regardless of what is said afterwards, it is still an official single from the album. In her own words in the billboard interview, the interview mentions a trio of unsuccessful singles and Mariah specifically acknowledges unsuccessful singles. The only one she denounced was Almost Home, which has never intended for the album. Also, JD saif you're mine was not a single either - you can't have ome as a single and not have the other a single based on JDs word or based on Mariah's word. I'll reiterate that nowhere does it say that song has to be released to radio to be considered a single. One should stop being US centric, because outside of the US everywhere refers to TAOLG as the albums second single particularly in.press coverage. This conversation is over because there has been no valid reason for stating that the song is a promo single, even if Mariah was to say in an interview tomorrow that it was a promo single we would have to reject that comment because its been said retrospectively and third party coverage calls it a single. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, everything points out / did from the first day that this was a single, however troll JD might be. I believe we have enough proof and consensus to not go around discussing this anymore. Thanks to all who participated and had "valid" points for proving the matter. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

Mariah has stated several times that "The Art of Letting Go" was not a single. It was just a promotional release to tide the fans over for the next long wait. Her manager, Jermaine Dupri, has said the same. Neither the label or Mariah consider it a single. It was never sent to radio. It should look more like Katy Perry's wikipedia page for Prism, where she had two "promotional singles" (one of which wound up being a single, but "Art of Letting Go" was never a full single because it did not go to radio nor did it have a music video. On the album, it's only a bonus track. Also, Mariah, NOT JUST JD, said it was never meant to be a full on single. Please remove it.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if third-party-sources didn't do their research. Mariah introduced it as "a new track from her album (which then, at the time, was called The Art of Letting Go"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.71.117 (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 198.23.71.117 (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussion. — Status (talk · contribs) 08:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Thirsty" release and premiere today

Is it single? Promo single? Buzz single? Mariah's posted the link for iTunes for the song and released the artwork.  — ₳aron 16:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to wait for more info to come in...... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mariah's posted a link to iTunes and it's already being called the fourth single by media outlets.  — ₳aron 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources for expanding

Reviews

• 77/100 - Billboard (extensive track-by-track review)
• 3.5/5 - Allmusic
• 4/5 - New York Daily News
• 3.5/4 - USA Today
• 3.5/5 - Digital Spy
• 2.5/4 - Los Angeles Times
• 2.5/4 - Toronto Star
• 2/4 - RedEye
• 4/5 - Houston Chronicle
• 4/5 - Idolator
• 3.5/5 - Entertainment.ie
• A- - San Angelo Standard-Times (Newsday reprint)
• B - The Plain Dealer
• A- - Newsday
• B - Entertainment Weekly
• B - HitFix
• Positive - New York Times (A lot on music/lyrics/gospel style etc.)
• Positive - Manila Standard Times (Review & background information on album/era)
• Positive - Vibe
• Mixed - Boston Globe
• Positive - Yahoo Music
• Mixed - Washington Post
• Positive - Showbiz Spy (Carey's version of "One More Try" superior to original - Roger Friedman)
• Positive - Liberty Voice
• Positive - MTV News
• Mixed to Negative - The Daily Beast

Digital Spy, Yahoo! and showbiz411 are not of the quality that should even be considered for an album of this caliber. It should be Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, New York Daily News and USA Today, which all are Metacritic sources except for USA Today. So, we should only consider Metacritic sources with the lone exception being USA Today at the current moment. Vibe can be included but just in prose and not in the ratings template.HotHat (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Digital Spy & Showbiz are 100% reliable and will be used in the article. Did you see me place them in the infobox? Didn't think so.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliability is not the only standard. The most noteworthy review publications should be utilized, and given preference over less noteworthy publications.HotHat (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with a wall over trivial matters. The article is barren of information. We need these kind of article to provide additional coverage. Move on.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have moved on, so good night and good luck.HotHat (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I will add digital Spy cause its used on Metacritic Generally fidelovkurt 08:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We won't add a chart until the album has secured a final Metacritic score. From there, we can determine which 10 sources are most credible (most closely reflect the final score).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Digital Spy has never been used by Metacritic before, and still currently are not according to the FAQ's.HotHat (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You Don't Know What To Do (Reviews)

• E! Online
• Slate
• MTV News
• FUSE TV
• HitFix
• Bustle
• Idolator

These sources are of no merit to be included in an article like this, which will be reviewed 30-plus times by greater publications than these that are mentioned here in this listing.HotHat (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see writing isn't your forte, but now it seems reading isn't either. These sources are specifically for the song "YDKWTD" which will most probably have its own article (hence why I placed them here). Btw, who do you think you are to disregard high quality publications in such a manner? Learn your place.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I know quite well, thank you very much.HotHat (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, they are for the song! Since that is the case, they should just be used on the song page. We are doing a critical reception on an album not the song, so we take reviews about the whole work not just a track selection.HotHat (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Come back to planet earth dude. We haven't made the article yet.. I'm collecting sources over time in case I'm right.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say it has a 75 percent shot that it gets released as a single. Have you listened to the album on iTunes Radio because it is a good song.HotHat (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception section development

Comments

This is saved here for others to further develop as more sources come in for the album.HotHat (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to keeping the reviews but not including any aggregate score at present since Metacritic score is keeping on changing as more reviews come. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fine, my fine Wikipedia editing friend. You all can take what I have done and run with it when you all see fit. Please, I implore and urge whomever to take my misshapen words and make them better. Rudyard Kipling said in the poem "If—" that "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken/ Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,/ Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,/ And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools" that "you'll be a Man, my son".HotHat (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Metacritic citation should be to the critics page only, and not to the one including user ratings.HotHat (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep playing obnoxious games with you. Just wait and see. I guarantee you it won't be used in the chart. How is a B a bad review? That's a 75 on Metacritic. Higher than any of her albums prior to Glitter. Learn your facts.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Newsday is not used by Metacritic so I highly doubt it will be included in the ratings box either.HotHat (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Rodman of The Boston Globe just gave a mixed review here if you want to read it. The last paragraph is what Metacritic will use, since it is a source taken by them.

Draft

Professional ratings

Aggregate scores
Source	Rating
Metacritic	69/100
Review scores
Source	Rating
AllMusic
Billboard	77/100
Entertainment Weekly	B
The Guardian
Los Angeles Times
New York Daily News
Newsday	A-
The Plain Dealer	B
USA Today

Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse received generally positive reviews from music critics. The review aggregator wesite Metacritic gives a weighted average rating to an album based upon the selected independent mainstream reviews it utilizes, and the album has a Metascore of a 69 out of 100 based on 10 reviews. At AllMusic, Andy Kellman rated the album three-and-a-half stars out of five, saying how Mariah has abandoned the brevity of her earlier releases, but says the songstress is "still capable of delivering 40 minutes of strong, supremely voiced R&B when she's up for it." Kenneth Partridge of Billboard rated the album a 77 out of 100, writing how Mariah has found her musical niche that her fans have come to expect, which is a "mix of pop-classicist balladry and hip-hop-tinged summer jamming". At Entertainment Weekly, Melissa Maerz graded the album a B, saying how the release proves that her voice has been put through its paces, which she writes when Mariah is "trying to power through a note where it sounds like digital technology might be holding her up by the straps of that crocheted swimsuit." According to Gardner however, Mariah's vocal is "relaxed and confident". Jim Farber of New York Daily News rated the album four stars out of five, writing how the title is not indicative of the release as a whole because he says Mariah is not "elusive" in the least on an album where she "made her talent more clear."

USA Today's Elysa Gardner rated the album three-and-a-half stars out of four, remarking whether "Elusive or not, this chanteuse is a survivor, and that's a rare thing in today's fickle, polarized pop landscape." Glenn Gamboa of Newsday graded the album an A-, commenting how Mariah has "nailed it" because she "goes for timeless [sounding music], with grand results." At The Plain Dealer, Troy L. Smith graded the album a B, indicating how the music meanders towards the latter stages of the album, yet noting that Mariah still picks the correct collaborators to work with on the release. Caroline Sullivan of The Guardian rated the album three stars out of five, indicating how the release contains "a good deal of clutter", however, Mariah is "also at her most soulful and melodic" on a release she calls "a welcome return." At Los Angeles Times, August Brown rated the album two-and-a-half stars out of four, indicating how Mariah vocally reigned herself in on the album where she showcases her continued relevance.

References

Canadian special edition

I have no idea how this will be dealt with, but the Canadian special edition = the Target special edition with "America the Beautiful" as Track 18. The issue I'm having is that there's no direct source saying this, although I literally bought it yesterday.

The only way I can source it is with the Chapters Indigo listing, which shows the Target UPC. There's also this music store in Quebec with the same tracklisting/UPC. HMV.ca doesn't have a tracklisting, and for some reason the iTunes version is the US version.

SKS (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Use the second reference to source that in the target/Japan bonus track version is also the Canadian CD bonus version? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Press Release

This whole article reads like a press release. Someone needs to seriously rewrite it so it sounds like an encyclopedia article. 99.149.196.79 (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)BeaMyra

Heavenly (No Way Tired / Can't Give Up Now)

This song is listed in the notes as containing a sample of Mary Mary's Can't Give Up Now, but in actual fact, the song is a cover of the Mary Mary song Can't Give Up Now, with No Way Tired added on the end. Shouldn't this note reflect the fact that it's essentially a cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.43.155 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up, here is a link asserting the same: http://www.whosampled.com/cover/272706/Mariah-Carey-Heavenly-(No-Ways-TiredCan't-Give-Up-Now)-Mary-Mary-Can't-Give-Up-Now/ 220.233.43.155 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, sorry but whosampledwho.com is not a reliable source. There is no professional editing noticeable nor any journalistic or academic credibility nor is an industry source. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Some one is downgrading this album

The changed the chart positions terribly. Kavion1215 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalism. Has been reverted. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse. 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://ariacharts.com.au/chart/urban-albums

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140608103459/http://gawker.com/considering-mariah-careys-new-album-1585132670 to http://gawker.com/considering-mariah-careys-new-album-1585132670
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-rhythmic/future-releases
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?termGbn=year&hitYear=2014&targetTime=14&nationGbn=E
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160508034435/http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6546159/idols-turned-rivals-drake-kanye-west-ariana-grande-mariah-carey to http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6546159/idols-turned-rivals-drake-kanye-west-ariana-grande-mariah-carey

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) 04:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse. 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Gjsgv3GI?url=http://thehonestyhour.com/2013/05/new-music-mariah-carey-beautiful-feat-miguel/ to http://thehonestyhour.com/2013/05/new-music-mariah-carey-beautiful-feat-miguel/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714173549/http://frequencynews.com/musiclibrary_detail.cfm?LabelID=6&ArtistID=23&AlbumID=1261&SingleID=4098&Gospel=0 to http://frequencynews.com/musiclibrary_detail.cfm?LabelID=6&ArtistID=23&AlbumID=1261&SingleID=4098&Gospel=0

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) 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-RS

Showbiz411, which is used in the article as a ref more than once, is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. It should therefore be deleted as a ref in each instance, per wp guidelines. --2603:7000:2143:8500:95D3:5A5F:D9B5:5BA4 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)