Talk:Touch My Body

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Touch My Body article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Mariah Carey High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mariah Carey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mariah Carey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mariah CareyWikipedia:WikiProject Mariah CareyTemplate:WikiProject Mariah CareyMariah Carey articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music High‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Touch My Body 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.

Touch My Body is part of 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
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
October 12, 2024	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Untitled

Please do not delete,if u think the article needs improvement or more references please feel free to edit.....but DONT delete this article.......it has been confirmed throughout many sources that this is the lead single of the album...please keep for the time being,thankyou..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs)

hi i tried to add the youtube video link for touch my body(the official video) as a external link from user universalmusicgroup but it was autodeleted by a automated bot. why cant the link take place. its not advertising its just giving the reader the link to the music video and showing mariah's accomplishments as it has garnered over 12million views. please reply thank you so much. i am new at this but im learning.

Regarding previous deletion

Although the page has been previously deleted, we now have confirmation from various radio industry sources that the single will be released within a week, and that it is the first single from Mariah's new album. As such, the speedy deletion criteria does not apply. Please do not pointlessly mark this page for deletion without looking at the sources, as the sources will clearly prove what is on the page. Thank you. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I was contacted by SWIK78 about the section "Music video". I'm going to remove it because I don't feel the info is verified. It's from a blog printed in the Voice, which I don't think is a WP:RS, plus, the only reference in the article I found to the music video was this: "she's shooting a video this fortnight for her new album, which is totally off the hook!" It doesn't say which video, so we don't have verification that this is the one. Deducing that this is the video would be considered original research, which is prohibited. I'm afraid we'll have to leave this info out until we can find a reliable source for it.

There are also a couple more minor issues, including Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: We don't make predictions about things unless they're well established. But the need for verifiability from reliable sources is the most important. delldot on a public computer talk 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked

I Heard a song on a Mariah Carey fan site and It has stuff to do with Touch My Body. I'm not sure if it is "Touch My Body", but I added it to the article. If someone finds out please correct ME, because I was seriously expecting a better song after such anticipation. I'm her #1 Fan!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MicP (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Just Researched It. The Song I Heard Was Actually "Friendz" from N.O.R.E's Unreleased album "1 Fan A Day". The Song features Mariah carey and Big Pun. Sorry For Any Inconvenience caused. Next Time, I will be sure to get My facts and suspicions right before entering them into an article.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video

according to the voice newspaper mariah already shot the music video,and i put the link for that,and it clearly states that mariah will shoot the video within 14 days,and the date then was mid december,and now were feb,so its Definitely shot,and it makes sense,the song will go to radio feb 12,mariah is not stupid to shoot the video in the last minute,as making a music video takes time,and theres also post production and editing etc.,just because it hasnt been confirmed by her record label,that doesnt mean its not shot...when the song hits radio,the video will follow.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.59 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pared down some of the quote because I don't think we should be quoting from something that extensively unless it's very notable. I've reworded some parts to avoid copyright problems. This site is not a reliable source. We should find another source for the info or remove it. Note that we can't just use logic to assume something has happened, that would be considered original research. All the info in articles must come from reliable sources. delldot on a public computer talk 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did a good amount of google searching and couldn't find anything to back this up, so I had to take it out. Looks like it's just rumor for now. I found nothing about the actor, director, or filming date other than that fansite and copies of it. As soon as it makes the news, though, we can definitely put it back in. delldot on a public computer talk 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Information

Additional Source for Music VIdeo Infromation(please add):http://www.mariahdaily.com/news.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Storm (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is the same source used before. It is not reliable because it is a fansite and gets its info from unreliable sources. delldot on a public computer talk 07:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please keep this info, as it is official,thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the info that is sourced only to mariahdaily.com. I believe the site is a fansite and does not meet WP:RS. If you think otherwise, we can discuss it, but it would be better to find a better source. delldot on a public computer talk 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going for adds?

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

The single will officially go for adds on February 19

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) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touch My Body Cover

http://www.mariahcarey.com/news/news.php?uid=2073 —Preceding unsigned comment added by F9o0oly (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GOING FOR ADDS

GOING FOR ADDS means that it will be able to download it on ITUNES NAPSTER etc........ so i can make it on the billboard hot 100 as her 18 #1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartg14 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it means going for additions to radio playlists; someone mentioned that earlier. A release on iTunes et al. would mean a digital single release, which has not been announced yet. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would have to be released as a digital single because paid downloads seem to affect the chart more than airplay and CD Singles nowadays.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know when the song will receive a digital release?76.217.37.0 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video

Why'd you people remove that description I made. I have seen the video before and that's exactly what it is.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm,hi im new user on wikipedia,and i also noticed that the music video description is bieng deleted for no resonable reason,i just put a new one,if u think it needs edits then edit it...but DONT delete it,whoever keeps deleting the description please stop,this is considered vandalism,you will be blocked if u continue.....why should other music videos have a music video description and not this one....???...please keep this description, it is not copied from any site...and theres no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted.....Mimibianca (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, it's very very poorly written. Second, it's a bit trivial, and a full description is not necessary. I'll try to fix it. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok,edit it....but dont delete it,as i said before,other music videos have a music video description and this one should to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimibianca (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its maybe true that mine wasnt written in a professional way....but urs is just toooooooooo shortened and also poorly written.....Mimibianca (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add to it. But please keep in mind that what you write should be clear and concise. There's no need to be fully detailed about the video, when it's only a small part of the overall song article. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shall i remove what happens in his fantasy??Mimibianca (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. On the day the video premiered, I saw it before most people in the world. I put my description into the article. It gets deleted faster than nail polish dries on a Cheetah Girl's toes. Then, I visit the article and now, staring me in the face is an over-edited adaptation of my description. Can someone explain why when I pioneered this description it was thought unnecessary but, when someone else does the exact same thing - but adding more - it's acceptable. I seriously don't get it. Instead of completely deleting my description in the first place, couldn't some just add to it if that was all it needed?--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, a full-on description is not really necessary. But I am only one person, so I'm waiting until other people have their say. There are people who will find any sort of music video description trivial and will therefore remove it completely from pages. Just realise that if people delete, you can always re-add...without, of course, violating Wikipedia's revert rules. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry people, I was writing a long note to an editor while this discussion was going on so I ended up removing the plot description without saying anything here, so I do apologize.
Personally, I believe that music video plot descriptions fall into indiscriminate collection of information as per WP:NOT#PLOT. An inherent problem with music videos, this one not being an exception, is that it is difficult to describe the plot while making sure that it does contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. In this case, there is no real-world context offered, nor is it analyzed in any way, it simply describes what happens in the video and that is clearly against WP:NOT#PLOT. I would be OK with the plot staying in the article if there is a way to ascribe some kind of artistic or historic significance but other than that, I am of the opinion that a simple recitation of what happens in the video is a clear breach of WP:NOT as well as general WP:notability guidelines. SWik78 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me,what are u talking about.....its called a music video description....what happened in the music video is exactly whats supposed to be written.....i mean whats with that line u wrote : 'if there is a way to ascribe some kind of artistic or historic significance"...i dont know what to say cause what ur wrote above so does not make sense that its not even worth discussing...what does that have to do with writing a description of a music video...you obviously dont know what ur talking about...and u just made up those things u said.....u dont have any reason that makes sense for the description not to be there...and there is no reason why the article should not be there.......all the other articles have a m.v. description..and this should have one also.....the description stays like all other m.v. descriptions on wikipedia......if u dont want m.v. descriptions on wiki...then remove all m.v. descriptions from all the articles,then come to this one....Mimibianca (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how come janet jackson's feedback can have m.v description.....

Good Question...somebody try answering that while not forgetting to state relevant facts.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page about that, actually. Using other pages as a reason for inclusion or exclusion should be avoided. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I realise that the page is about deleting pages, but the same principle applies. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What SWiki is saying is perfectly true. In the case of "Heartbreaker", the video itself is notable for being one of the most expensive music videos. Therefore, there is a lot of discussion regarding the music video, but there is absolutely nothing about the plot of the music video. There's really no point in adding a plot unless you want to provide critical commentary on it, or if it's notable in and of itself. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SKS2K6...According to you, should I can delete the descriptions of all music videos in their entirety? Articles such as "We Belong Together", etc. have lots of stuff on the plot of the music video. Yes, the song was one of the most successful songs/singles ever, but according to standards, they should be removed. Is it a rule? If it is a rule, many editors have been slacking off and those of us who did not know of this rule are suffering the after effects and are debating for no reason other than the errors of those before us (or just the errors of others).--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary a rule; it's a policy. If you think it's notable, then add it in. If you think it isn't, then remove it. That's the whole point of Wikipedia, that people can add and delete and contribute freely. Someone could make the argument that the video for "We Belong Together" is notable because she used her old wedding dress and is the sequel to "It's like That". Basically, it's gonna be a consensus, and it all depends on what others are gonna do. If you do add in a description, please keep in mind that it should be clean, concise, and readable. And if you want, you can go ahead to all music pages and delete the music video description, but remember that Wikipedia should not be used to prove a point. SKS2K6 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm totally a gigantic Mariah Carey lamb and I have all her albums. Putting that aside, I was just pointing out these situation in order to show show that if that was a rule in itself, Wikipedia is a very contradicting place to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for the description/plot of the video remaining in this article. If I weren't, then I wouldn't have started it. Thanks for your help!!! Can we make a final vote in regards to it. It seems others don't want it in the article. The votes will say whether is stays or goes. No sock-puppets allowed.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for music video descriptions, especially when they talk about production, reception, etc. As for how the description of the video is handled - I think as it stands now, the description is overly detailed. I think it could be revised in a way that portrays the concept of the video rather than being a complete overhaul. Additionally, I do not believe more than one or two images are needed in the music video description section (there are like 3 right now). -HeavenlyEire (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it harming u that there are more than 2 images on the video section..and why should we shorten the video description and as a result omitting something out of the video's plot and furthermore confusing the readers...Mimibianca (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not harming me, it's against the set policy. The purpose of the article is not to give a complete description of the music video. I'm pretty certain that most song articles on this website do not give complete reiterations of the plot - they give an overview (i.e., brief summary). I didn't mean to offend you or anything. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think now the description is ok....but please keep the pictures,as they illustrate furthermore what happened in the video in a visual form which the written description can never offer... Mimibianca (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but six images are excessive, both in terms of the visual layout of the article and per policy. We try to minimize the number of fair use images in any article and having seven is clearly inappropriate. There is really no need for more than a single image to illustrate the video - and even that is arguable. I have reduced the number of images accordingly. Please do not replace the excessive images. Thanks, Gwernol 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think it excessive.......but if u insist at least keep 2......Mimibianca (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, one is sufficient, further images do not add significantly to the commentary in the text. We have to be very careful not to overuse Fair Use images. Having even one to illustrate that section is borderline acceptable, having more than one is not okay. Please read Wikipedia:NFC#3. Thanks, Gwernol 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 1 is most often used but occassionally 2 pictures have occured for videos like the new janet jackson feedback music video. Either way 6 pictures is a joke, 1 picture maybe 2 if its required but no more. Realist2 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I pioneered this description and fought for it to remain in full detail. However, y'all are just making it a joke. 6 picture? Two is enough. Please do not insert more than 2 pictures for the video section. I thought my description was sufficient enough. This whole thing is going overboard. , there I said it. Can someone cut this video description down a bit to make it just an overview of the video plot. Also, please find more significant information with valid sources so that the article can intellectually be expanded. Look at Don't Forget About Us, there is one picture and it is absolutely fulfilling its purpose.

Fantasy has no pictures, except for the single cover, and it stands undefeated in relevancy. [[:Image:DFAB1.jpg|thumb|120px|right|Carey alludes to Monroe's Something's Got to Give (1962) in "Don't Forget About Us".]]---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will restate my opinion that a plot description of a music video falls under WP:NOT#PLOT and really has no useful purpose in an article. The guideline on plots clearly states that they should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This article's section on the music video clearly is solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. I don't think it has any purpose in this article other than being a depository of indiscriminate information for indiscriminate Mariah Carey fans, in which case WP:NOT is clearly against that. SWik78 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no reason for the article to contain a plot analysis - the video is not plot-heavy. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude...I put the fact that I like her music aside and I was told that there is no rule that states what you supposedly repeated. I only started the description like a week ago and I won't die if it is or is not retained in the article. I haven't touched the description anytime after I began it. I has just been expanded by other editors. I only want to find out the facts in relation to this issue and as i said earlier, "...I was just pointing out these situation in order to show show that if that was a rule in itself, Wikipedia is a very contradicting place to be...According to you, should I can delete the descriptions of all music videos in their entirety? Articles such as "We Belong Together", etc. have lots of stuff on the plot of the music video. Yes, the song was one of the most successful songs/singles ever, but according to standards, they should be removed. Is it a rule? If it is a rule, many editors have been slacking off and those of us who did not know of this rule are suffering the after effects and are debating for no reason other than the errors of those before us (or just the errors of others)."---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point - it is very difficult to figure out what is and is not "acceptable" on Wikipedia. (You'll run into these issues a lot because this is user-run.) As for the article for "We Belong Together", I may be mistaken, but I think the difference is that the music video for that song is actually plot-driven. It is also notable because it is a continuation of the music video for another one of her singles. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I mentioned before that this is a policy. It is not necessarily a rule that cannot be broken, but a guideline that should be followed. Second, the talk applies to this page. Each page will be different, because a music video that has content that can be critically looked at (such as Madonna's "Hollywood") or is notable in and of itself ("Heartbreaker" example given earlier) can perhaps have detailed descriptions. This music video is just a fantasy sequence. There is no reason to go into detail because it's trivial, and anyone can just go watch the video if they want to. I'm not saying this because I hate Mariah; I'm actually quite a fan. It's just that the description is pointless. SKS2K6 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. I have no problem with the description being or not being there. When it is removed, as I said earlier, I don't feel empty. I don't make it my business to do any reversions because I reserve myself. I just think that the fact that there was a special concept used to make it the way it is is enough to make it valid. Also, it is different than her other videos in that instead of a muscled up man she uses a computer nerd.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Release

How is it that under the format section it is written that one of the single's many formats is digital. On the Billboard Hot 100 it states that it is a promotional single. As much as I wish it would be released for sale on stores such as iTunes, that is not the case. As stated in the article Promotional recording, a single of that type is, "is a recording issued on vinyl, CD, cassette tape, VHS, or DVD and distributed free in order to promote a commercial recording." In this case the commercial recording is obviously the album "E=MC²". Digital release could even be the song given for free on an internet store. Until further information such as the actual release to iTunes (most notable), etc., that statement is most likely out of the question. Since nothing in the article is written in stone, I will be deleting the words is question.--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Remove it. Basically, whoever added it in just thought that it would eventually be digitally released, which it most likely will, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so you should remove stuff that's speculatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SKS2K6 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea...thanks!!!--Mikéylicious & Really, Really Hot!!! (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section, "Release and reception," an individual wrote "Touch My Body will never be released on iTunes" and cites two sources. I visited the source pages, and neither of them mention anything about iTunes, much less go as far to say it "will never be released." The reason I'm putting this in the talk section is that I'm not exactly sure that I can just go ahead and delete the unverified statement. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...I get your point. It's just continuation of my point.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 22:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...I was just addressing an issue with a statement that was given cited sources that didn't actually confirm what was written. I was just asking if I could delete it since it was blatantly unverified (which doesn't matter anymore because someone did delete it). -HeavenlyEire (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were for the previous statement (about B96 leaking it early).... SKS2K6 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Got it. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, MY bad. I got it now. Today has been an odd day for me. Oh...I deleted the format. I said I was and I did due to what was stated by yours truly and what you also said about the the two sources that were dead ends in reference to digital release.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of direct quotations in the article

I removed long quotes about choosing the song as the first single as well as about writing the song because they are completely unneccessary. It would be better to re-write the section in one's own words and reference statements to the quote. Unless we are dealing with a unique phrase or term or we're dealing with a potentially controversial statement, quotations such as these are not needed. SWik78 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who are u to march in and just delete them......first u discuss it,then see how many votes say keep and how many say remove,based on that u make an action.....its not fair just u to come out of no where and delete them......they should stay as they give more info about the songs background and writing which is notable...see We Belong Together for example.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimibianca (talk • contribs)

But they don't really belong in the article. For one thing, it makes it seem like a fansite, instead of an encyclopedic article. Second, one paragraph talks about one line of the song that's pretty trivial. and there's nothing wrong with deleting things, so don't blame him/her for doing so. but if you have a problem, then bring it here, which is exactly what you're doing, which is good. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok,maybe ur right about the paragraph that talks about the one line......but the other one that talks about choosing the song as the first single is not trivial at all.....it gives more background about the song and lets u learn more why she choose it as the first single,and all in all its resourceful...please keep until more users discuss and then well see how many votes say keep and how many say remove.......then well see what well do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimibianca (talk • contribs)

We don't vote on Wikipedia. However, I have removed that quote since it is still unsourced and it adds nothing of substance to the article. This is not Carey's personal blog, this is an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Gwernol 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

putting that quote does not in any way, shape or form make it look like like a blog.....the quote is just giving more infor about the song....and is encyclopedic......and notable and should stay...see We Belong Together for example.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimibianca (talk • contribs)

It's not notable; it's trivial. I already included the important part of that section in the following paragraph. And the reason youtube clips are usually not allowed is because they don't follow the copyright restrictions; please see the policy for youtube clips. It would be different if there was a huge fight over the first single, or if something notable happened with the first single's production or whatever, but the fact is that they just wanted to go with a mid-tempo single, and that's all that needs to be mentioned. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Versions"

Is it me, or is this becoming too big for something so trivial? SKS2K6 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone...Help!!!

What has become of the Wikipedia rules and regulations? What has happened to this article? People keep adding every little thing they can find about this song and it's "remixes" section has become annoying. Why did I even start it? I started the video section and you guys had to go ruin a good thing by placing 6 pictures and long intricate details on the plot....Someone please put this article in order. I'm a super-extra-over-obsessed Lamb (Mariah Carey fan) but I don't go putting stuff without reliable sources and stuff that are irrelevant...PLEASE STOP IT!!!---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 00:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell from the above statements (see the "Video" section), people have been constantly reviewing the quality of this article. Users have also been engaging in positive discussion with the hopes of maintaining [and/or improving] said quality. We are supposed to Assume good faith in others' edits, and based on my observation and discussion with other users on this very page, I do feel this is being done for the most part.

What I'm trying to say is people will constantly be editing, adding, omitting, etc. things that other users may not agree with, but we're here to discuss it and work it out. Don't take it personally. The issue with the six pictures in the music video section was resolved (again, consult the "Video" section of this discussion page), as was the plot detail issue. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clothes

What clothes do they wear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiaaz (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Records

It should be mentioned that this hit could help her break even more records, so, with Billboard's statements, I've made it known in this article.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Pictures Being Orphaned

You guys keep uploading pictures for this article and then as soon as another opportunity for a better photo comes up, you upload. If this is a new and fascinating feature to you newly registered users, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official versions of the song

Are those remix really official?

"Touch My Body" (ZAX Can't Touch It Mix featuring Fatman Scoop)
"Touch My Body" (ZAX Can't Touch It Mix - no Rap)

I can't see it in any web page... 62.167.77.63 (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes

There are eight remixes officially release of this song - it would good to list and update that section.These are how they're are listed on the disc.

Seamus Haji & Paul Emanuel Radio edit
Craig C radio edit
Subkulcha radio edit
Seamus Haji & Paul Emanuel club remix
Craig C club remix
Subkulcha remix
Seamus Haji & Paul Emanuel dub
Craig C dub

Hope this helps. 71.139.57.199 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

My rationale for the charts is this: we follow Wikipedia's chart guidelines. First, it clearly states that The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total. Second, [a] song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article, even if it is verifiable. That is why I keep reverting the massive amount of chart info and data that is being re-added frequently. Please note that I'm mostly deleted the unverified/questionable charts, and those of really small markets that aren't really notable, especially since TMB didn't top the charts there. It's nothing personal, but it really clutters up the page when we devote so much space to chart data. Yes, her topping the Billboard charts an 18th time is impressive. Simply showing up on various other charts isn't. SKS2K6 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music video "cameo appearance"

Since he appears in the majority of scenes, it's hard to see how it can be a "cameo"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Touch My Body. 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/20110628230719/http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/carey.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/carey.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617025339/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2006/03/31/musicsales-coldplay.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/03/31/musicsales-coldplay.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mtv.co.uk/shows/mtv-official-countdowns/episode/mariah-carey-official-top-20
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110131140925/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338548,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338548,00.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/artist/163336/ranking/cd_single/

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} 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Touch My Body. 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) 12:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Touch My Body. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5yo3FJpPO?url=http://www.musikindustrie.de/uploads/media/top50-2005.pdf to http://www.musikindustrie.de/uploads/media/top50-2005.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406184344/http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr03/0%2C4670%2CMusicMariahCarey%2C00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr03/0%2C4670%2CMusicMariahCarey%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Mariah%20Carey&titel=Touch%20My%20Body&cat=s
Corrected formatting/usage for http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=Mariah%20Carey&titel=Touch%20My%20Body&cat=s
Corrected formatting/usage for http://charts.org.nz/showitem.asp?interpret=Mariah%20Carey&titel=Touch%20My%20Body&cat=s
Corrected formatting/usage for http://norwegiancharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Mariah%20Carey&titel=Touch%20My%20Body&cat=s
Corrected formatting/usage for http://hitparade.ch/showitem.asp?interpret=Mariah%20Carey&titel=Touch%20My%20Body&cat=s
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C338548%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2008

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) 03:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Touch My Body. 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/20120316225752/http://www.chartstats.com/release.php?release=33473 to http://www.chartstats.com/release.php?release=33473

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) 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]