Talk:Vision of Love

Date of song being written

The information about this song being written after Mariah was signed to Columbia is incorrect. She and Ben wrote it before that; it was one of the ones on the demo she gave Tommy. 68.174.98.216 (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Nick

Good information - do you have a source? Active Banana (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken. She wrote it right after she got signed. See this article: http://www.mariahjournal.com/cgi-bin/iSay.cgi?Page=Comments&ID=EkZppuFEZVZGlgcQLe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.98.216 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

adding content and chart listings

I suppose Genre for this song could be Pop/R&B, because it does not focus mainly on pop I suppose, and since Carey wanted it to have a more R&B tone, it has to have an element to start with.

Ok, Ive done some editing..anything else you think need any fixing?

I've added a bit more detail to some parts of the article, tidied up any spelling/grammar mistakes I could find and also sectioned the article. What do you think, is there too little to content to section? The Awards & Remixes sections obviously need more detail; for the latter it will be difficult to add anything more though. I'll try looking for the offical release dates; can you get the peak positions of the single on the sales and airplay charts, we could work that into the article. From the official Hot 100 chart run, instead of actually stating the positions each week, perhaps you could describe the run, i.e. if the single dropped one week, mention that. If it was just a steady climb (which I'm guessing it was), there probably isn't much more you can say than already is there. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 12:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've added airplay and sale stats. The run was gradual and theres not much to say about i think, but if youre intrested, heres the run...73-51-38-31-25-17-14-5-2-1-1-1-1-8-12-12-20-31-38-50-62-75. I think the content for now is good to section. It may seem not a lot here, but in later singles, where there is tons of info, it will be needed OmegaWikipedia 14:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added some comprehensive charts..what do you think? OmegaWikipedia 19:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Very good, I think this is a really good addition. Should we include charts from across the globe and omit the chart positions from the single table? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 00:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think adding the charts to the table is good, cause we want to make it stand out. 02:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

From the table explaining the single, should we leave the 2 chart positions for US & UK and leave the comprehensive charts section or incorporate all world charts into the comprehensive charts and get rid of the chart positions on the single explanation table. We could leave the table with a picture of the single, which we need to get from a source that is acceptable under the copyright laws for all singles and albums too and the information such as single formats, song length & chronology which isnt informed in the article. What do you think? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 17:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should leave the UK and US positions the way they are. They are the major positions people look for and need to be a in a place that stands out. What about single format, song length, and chronology? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there, sorry. We should definitely gets single pics. What's acceptable under these laws? OmegaWikipedia 03:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

English

The same changes keep being returned, and I keep reverting them, because they're almost entirely in strange English or non-Wikipedia style. For exaple:

• We either use "USA" or "U.S."; the insistence on changing "USA" to "US" is difficult to understand.
  • US is difficult? What? If you got confused, please come in here and say so.
• "Carey had fought to co-produce but was denied the rights to for the most part on her debut album by Sony" is too vaguely and clumsily expressed to be fully understandable.
  • Mel, you seem to be a very confused person. I don't think most people find that statment confused.
• "Science fiction-like" is correct; "sci-fi–like" isn't; first, we should avoid abbreviations like this, and secondly the en-rule is wrong, it should be a hyphen.
  • It's alright... OmegaWikipedia 10:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• There is no word "moreso", and even the correct "more so" makes no grammatical sense in "not exactly to a lover, but moreso to God"; why do you keep changing the perfectly correct "more"?
• Again, abreviations are generally to be avoided in favour of proper English; "#" is non-standard (whatever the custom in music magazines), and numbers under ten must be written in full; numbers under 100 are written in full according to standard manuals of style(this is especially true of ordinals). Arabic numerals are restricted to dates, scientific contexts, etc.
  • Mel, why don't you write out Pi in full or other scientific or sport entries that have numbers less than 100? You don't because its not standard practice. Neither here. And if you try to bring up this rule, then I hope you edit EVERY article about sciene and EVERY article about sports too then.

There are other points, but these are indicative. It doesn't help that no-one uses edit summaries, though these are Wikipedia policy. --OmegaWikipedia 10:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Reversion issues

1. Theme and influence - this is a widely used section in song articles across Wikipedia and therefore should be accepted. I renamed the section thinking that "The song" may have been a bit vague and therefore this sums it up nicer even though influence is only mildly touched upon. If you feel the introduction needs to be bigger, add a brief summary of that section or its success in general, but I do not think it needs a big section. The main basic questions that should be answered is who sang it, which album it was released from to give an idea of when during their career which should be noted by giving the ordinal number of album it was released from and the release date, which is different for so many countries that it is easier to just refer to it by a quarter of a year. Maybe genre should be addressed, so you may add an extra sentence about that. We could add "from American pop/R&B singer's xth album if you wanted and then all the information could be expanded upon in the section. Heavy introductions in my experience, are not a very clear method of presentation.

   But, even if this short bit of text needed to be in a separate section (and I don't understand the need), it's mostly not about a theme and not at all about influences. Mel Etitis (<fontcolor="green">ΜελΕτητης)

   The need is because its too heavy for an introduction. Add a summarised version initially if you feel the need. What do you feel the section should be renamed to? "The song", while being slightly correct, is probably too vague, but seemed to work better. Id like to get other people's opinions on where this part of the article should go though. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should make it go back to "The song". OmegaWikipedia 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

1. "more so" - Im not bothered about this hugely. I wont revert this back if you merely change this.

   As it's incorrect grammar, I'm pleased that you've finally given way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

2. Chart positions - yes, numbers below 100 have to be written in full, I have been sticking to that other than CHART POSITIONS, which if you notice, across Wikipedia and often in official texts are referred to using # instead of writing number. They are more of a statistical device, used to analyse through the number and if expressed as a word draw away from their primary purpose. If you have a problem with this, debate to make it official policy and if they agree with you, come and change not only this article but the thousands and thousands of music articles that exist that use this.

   In the text I've made the changes to English; in the statists I've left "#1", etc.; you've been reverting them all to "1". You seem to be saying that the edits that you've been reverting are in fact OK. Mel Etitis (<fontcolor="green">Μελ Ετητης)

   In text when chart positions are referred to, # is used instead of number in most music articles in Wikipedia. I used it because its what I saw initially when joining this site. Obviously, a single spending fifteen weeks in the Top 40, I now accept as fifteen instead of 15, but debuting at #2 is better than debuting at number two, because it is a chart position and not just a regular number. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

   I don't really umderstand the distinction between chart positions and regular numbers. All numbers (outside maths articles) refer to something else. I know, however, that music articles are a particular problem with regard to Wikipedia style; I'm currently trying to raise awareness of that among other editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

3. Bold - Number ones are often bolded in tables, because it is of great significance. It is merely used to point out the key fact, something that is done throughout purely informative material.

   It looks peculiar, and isn't Wikipedia style, but it's not hugely important. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

4. Charts - If there is seriously a rule against using
   then please show me it and I will bullet point those lists. They look silly as paragraphs, because they become much more unclear to read. They are more of a list, but not exactly one, so bullet points would not be a brilliant first choice, but I would prefer them bullet pointed to in a paragraph.

   We try to avoid HTML markup; if you really don't want them bulletted, why not use colons? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

   I don't mind them bulleted, just wondered if
   is against the rules or widely considered wrong. If so, then Ill bullet them. Do you have any links to pages about HTML markup use on Wikipedia? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

5. Chart trajectory - Ideal for chart success as it uses it as a basis for its description, but I can see why you placed it in comprehensive charts. I havent made up my mind on where I want it to be, I think another discussion on this page should be started on that.

   If it's explained (not just a set of numbers incomprehensible to anyone except fans), then I've no objection. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

6. Capitals on official remixes/versions list - Uncapitalise if you wish, like "more so", it was just reverted because I had issues with the rest. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 22:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

   I have particular concerns about "Edited Performance From" and "Album Version" (also, on another topic, "#1 (? weeks)"). Also, the Manual of style specifies "U.S." not "US", and policy precludes much of the PoV (evaluative) language used in this and other pop-music articles.

What is your concern with album version? And usually if the remix titles are preserved the way they exactly are, otherwises people can get confused, so they should be the way they originally were. OmegaWikipedia 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok, I guess you didn't have any objections about the issue when you responded, so I'm going to change back the remixes. OmegaWikipedia 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

1. So far as I can see, most of my edits are now accepted by you. I've just reverted to my version preparatory to adding back in your changes on which we agree — but I've been called away. I'll be back to re-edit in your changes tomorrow morining. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

   Im trying to find the Brazil weeks at #1. Its hard to find out chart information for countries other than the US, UK, Canada and Australia. Most articles use US instead of U.S. oddly enough. Ive read people saying it was better practice to use US. Surely, people know its the same abbreviation? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• "When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English) I change it in other articles when I see it, but a lot of editors don't read (or care) about the Manual of style.

  Well, as a person from the US myself, can I just say no, its not more common to use U.S. It's more common to use US. I agree with USWF, I dont think people will get confused. OmegaWikipedia 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, this is Wikipedia style. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "U.K.", but Wikipedia style is to use "UK". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• "wiki markup is preferred over HTML markup like < i > and < b >" is the only direct reference to HTML that I could find, though Wiki-markup tables are preferred if only because they're thought to be easier for people to edit withour previous knowledge.
• The worry about "(? weeks)" was that it looks unprofessional; if we don't know something it's better to omit it until we do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Official remixes/versions list

Te text read like descriptions; you seem to be saying that we're dealing with actual titles — is that right? "(album version)", for example, doesn't look like a title, but like a description. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

But it is a title. "Album Version" is the official title of the main version or the original version of a song. OmegaWikipedia 18:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it describes it; it's like "first edition" or "illustrated edition" of a book. Publishers might capitalise such terms in their punlicity material or packaging, but in English it's not a title. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, once again you are showing your ignorance in a field you are trying to edit. No, album version is not comparable to first edition. If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't try to talk abotu it. It is a title to describe what version of a song you're listening to. OmegaWikipedia 23:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's a simple fact. If you want to take this and the other articles to RfC, do so; you'll find that your understanding of English usage (such as the meaning of "title") isn't supported by others.

These parenthetical descriptions should be capitalized. In the first place, they are more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Second, they comprise part of the official naming conventions of these mixes and edits. Putting them in lower-case letters is contrary to proper titling. Musiclover 17:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetics is, of course, subjective; capitals or their lack here make no difference to me, for example. The problem with saying that they're part of the title is that, first, across Wikipedia pop-related articles, there's no consistency in capitalisation; they're often uncapitalised, especially in the text. Secondly, when I've Googled for them, I've again found no consistency of usage. Wikipedia has a very clear convention (which most music Web sites don't, including the big recording companies, whose standard of English is often abysmal), and we have an obligation to stick to it in Wikipedia articles. Editors can, of course, do whatever they want in their personal fan sites, but in writing for Wikipedia one must accept Wikipedia's Manual of style and other policies. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

On another point (with regard to List of number-one hits (United States)), don't move articles by cutting and pasting; that's explicitly against Wikipedia policy. If you think that the article should be moved, and you can't do it yourself, place it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, giving the grounds for the request. I doubt that you'll have any success, as you're trying to move it in opposition to Wikipedia naming conventions, but I might be wrong, so give it a try. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Reversion issues 2

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

   List of #1 singles on various charts - I don't mind them bullet pointed, its 100 times better than having them paragraphed, but please show me where it says HTML markup cannot be used. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

   First section - Theme and influence doesn't work, the song describes the section better, but is vague, why does it have to be in the introduction? Its too long and deserves a section of its own. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. It takes time to change these things. I'm changing them on all the articles I can, but this is slowed down by three or four editors, including you, who keep reverting. I've discussed this at the MoS talk pages, and haven't found anyone who likes the use of "#"; the standard abbreviation (if abbreviations are needed) is "no", but our policy is to avoid abbreviations where possible. I've left them in the tables (though they should really be "no"s there), but not in the article text.
2. You're reverting my corrections to Wikilinks and to MoS headings (which specify not using capitals after the first word, except for proper nouns); this is simple vandalism.
3. I've already answered the point about HTMl somewhere; I'm afraid that I'm being challenged on the same things on numerous Talk pages (often by the same people), and things get messy.
4. I still have no idea why you think that all article ought to be divided into sections. We use such divisions where they're useful, not as a matter of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In-text citation

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

Influence

I think we need a section for this how this song has influenced so many singers. Here are some examples: Christina Aguilera (AOL) - "When I discovered Mariah Carey and 'Vision of Love,' that was a breath of fresh air. And I adored her from that moment on and idolized her."

Beyonce (MTV Europe) - "'Vision Of Love,' when I first heard that song, I knew it, my mind was made up - I had to be a singer."

Snoop Dogg (MTV) - "I always tell her this story: When I was locked up in jail, that song 'Vision of Love' was the hottest song in the world."

Nivea (Launch) - "I was watching `The Arsenio Hall Show,' and Mariah was performing `Vision of Love,'" the singer recalls. "The way she projected her voice, she just had so much power. I knew then that I wanted to make people feel the way she made me feel. I bought all her albums and learned all the songs. That's all I would do all day long sing Mariah Carey songs..."

Issues

An RfC has been posted stating that there are revert and edit issues. Can the principal disputants please try to summarize the issues?

Since this article had a peer review, have the disputants referred to the archived peer review, which presumably would have established consensus? Robert McClenon 11:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

1. This article can't be seen in isolation; it's one of very large number in which which a couple of editors have been resisting my attempts to edit text into Wikipedia and good English style (using surnames not Christian names, correcting Wikilinks, correcting capitalisation of headings, removing unnecessary (and non-standard) abbreviations, turning numerals into words, making HTML lists into Wikipedia lists, turning unnecessary lists into text, etc.).
2. As this article indicates, however, the conflict is beginning to wind down; the two editors are, for the most part, no longer reverting all my edits, leaving only a small number of disagreements. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, having said that, I've just noticed (on Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now)) that OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs) hs gone back to some of the worse reverting: [1]. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there are a large number of edit wars about style of articles on popular music. Does the Wikipedia style manual provide specific guidance on popular music articles? Robert McClenon 12:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I think thats the problem. There are guidelines for math and sports so Mel can't cause a ruckus with them, but he doesn't know whats normal for popular music, because there arent any. In popular music, it is unheard of to write out something like "it peaked at position number fifty-three". Mel's problems are mostly with style. OmegaWikipedia 18:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a question of what's normal for popular music; music journalists have all sorts of stylistic quirks, codes, customs, etc., but we don't follow them. We don't follow such things in other areas, either. Encyclop&aeligdias have one style, music magazines another. OmegaWikipedia insists on keeping Wikipedia articles in the style of a music magazine.

But it's in fact not just that; his insistence on keeping incorrect links and capitalisation (just one example: he insists on changing my 7" single to 7" Single; his version goes to a redirect, and is incorrectly capitalised. See also [2].) suggests that it's not about popular-music style versus Wikipedia, but his chosen style over other people's.

The Manual of style isn't topic-specific; it aims to provide a uniform style for Wikipedia articles, so that we don't have numbers or units or headers written one way in one article and another way in another.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that a few editors with a special interest in one area of pop music have been beavering away for a while, generally unnoticed by other editors, and thus uncorrected. I've happened on the articles, started to do the normal editor's job of tidying and wikifying their style, and they've overreacted. (Actually I'm not the first; their Talk pages indicate that other editors have had the same experience with them, but were perhaps less determined not to be browbeaten and bullied away. Wikipedia doesn't have private fiefdoms, no-go areas for other editors, though, and I'm doing my best to make sure that this doesn't become (or stay) one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering: Why is it important to keep the certification level wikilinked to an article on a chemical element? --Carnildo 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I tried to revert the previous edits, and we must have had an unseen edit conflict, so I ended up revrting you to OmegaWikipedia instead of him to me. In fact I've been removing these Gold links from other articles too, and I'd removed it from this one, but it's one of the many corrections that OmegaWikipedia keeps reverting. I'll go back and remove this one again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Style guidelines needed

I think that I have seen enough revert wars about popular music articles, often making differing claims about standards, that style guidelines are needed. Robert McClenon 23:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad, you feel that way, Robert. Just like we have standards to deal with sports and scientific notation, theres a need to have guidelines for music to end all these revert wars OmegaWikipedia 00:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why should popular-music articles use a different style from the rest of Wikipedia? It seems to me that all that's needed is that editors of these articles be made aware of Wikipedia conventions. Besides, see above, where I point out that it's at least partly a problem of compartmentalisation, with editors of little areas of Wikipedia being cut off from the whole, and not becoming part of the community; many of the reverts made by these editors are not of things specific to music articles, but of headers, correct links, etc. I should add that they don't even use the standard album and single templates (which on the whole stick to Wikipedia style), but create their own (which don't).

The last thing we need, I'd have thought, was more guidelines; let's just apply the ones that we already have. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The big problem with compartmentalization is when an article falls into two or more categories: Do you apply the hypothetical "biography" style to Ashlee Simpson, or do you apply the "popular music" style? Do you apply the "history" style to Gdansk, or do you apply the "city" style? This could get even worse than the BC/BCE wars. --Carnildo 08:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There's also clearly a personal element here. For example, one of the first issues concerned the use of sections, and especially a separate section for what these two editors called "The song". I argued against (especially for very short articles), but ofered a compromise of "Song information", which other pop-music articles used. That held for a while, but they've now begun removing the heading altogether, with no explanation. Unless it's simple irrationality, the only reason would seem to be that I put the heading there. Other pages (such as List of number-one hits (United States) and Talk:List of artists who reached number one on the Hot 100 (US) provide more evidence of this. I'm beginning to think that an RfC on the pair is the only way forward. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Before you throw a tantrum and cause drama, I went through each edit since the unprotection and kept most of your prose and grammer fixes and wikilinking and all that stuff. The chart section was lacking a lot of detail so I added that back in and Ultimate Star Wars Fans had a better lead than you. But other than that, I didnt touch the grammar, so dont you dare accuse me of that. And I deconverted the conversion. OmegaWikipedia 06:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Another locked page? What's the dispute about this time? Winnermario 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There's an edit war (on this and a number of other articles) between Extraordinary Machine and OmegaWikpedia over the style of infobox. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

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

Katrina Darrell (Bikini Girl)

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vision of Love/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I see that there was a miscommunication, I'll gladly step in to review it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :). Yes I don't know what happened. I could have sworn it was under review las t week :S--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Wow great article to easily read through! It was terrific! Just one problem, the image of Carey performing Someday is being nominated for deletion, you may want to remove it. (Which sucks since it fits in perfectly). Yet other than that everything looks good!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything has been fixed =D..passing--Blackjacks101 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vision of Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061207220803/http://www.ew.com:80/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1048283_4_0_,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1048283_4_0_,00.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mtv.co.uk/shows/mtv-official-countdowns/episode/mariah-carey-official-top-20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 05:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vision of Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/release.php?release=17676
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66Bq295lq?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/1990-09-15/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/1990-09-15/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229103904/http://www.bet.com/Music/photos/msc_bestalbumsofthedecade_12.24.09.htm?i=3 to http://www.bet.com/Music/photos/msc_bestalbumsofthedecade_12.24.09.htm?i=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916080043/http://mariahcarey.com/news/awards.php to http://mariahcarey.com/news/awards.php

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

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) 19:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Covers

There's no section on Covers of this song. I know Mariah Carey has done numerous live versions herself but its interesting to see and hear other artists' interpretations/renditions. It could be thats it's not a heavily covered song but it would be nice to catalog the ones out there. For example recently in or around December 2023, Jennifer Hudson did a gospel tinged cover of the song during the Grio? awards. 71.178.185.35 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The guideline WP:SONGCOVER sets a high bar. Many cover versions don't get past it. Basically, the cover version needs to chart, or it needs to be described as remarkable in WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)