Jump to content

Talk:Honey (Mariah Carey song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHoney (Mariah Carey song) 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.
Article milestones
November 16, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2011Good topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article


I think it might be a bit much to give such prominent placement to the theory that the song's about bukkake, or to mention it at all. I mean, the odds of that seem so small it's laughable. The song was a corporate product. Of course, Wikipedia isn't customized for children, that's true, but by including that I think we run the risk of needlessly offending/disgusting some readers. Everyking 11:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The odds are not that small. Lots of commercial pop songs had drug or sex references. 'Pearl Necklace' by ZZ Top is one. 'Brown Sugar' by the Stones is another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:23, 7 May 2005.

Another piece of marketing fluff?[edit]

The more I browse, the worse it becomes: yet another e-team lead piece of marketing that with sources would barely qualify for inclusion in MC's bio. Without sources and with a monstrous libel-in-waiting, this is clearly an AfD.--HasBeen 10:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I remember seeing an interview on MTV where Mariah was asked if Honey was a metaphor for semen and she said 'Ew, that's disgusting'..

However, as in many songs, (see most of Britney songs!) there is a double entendre present in the song which would be hard to ignore.

BUT this article should not lead with that theory.. because it is not exactly a fact that this is intentional.

Freddie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 11:09, 8 May 2006.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Honey (Mariah Carey song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Candyo32 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


*Refs are discouraged in the infobox, because like the lead, this info should be covered in the bottom. So include the date it was recorded somewhere in the background.


*Due to the use of two samples; --> semi colon needs to be a colon (:) *Just a suggestion -- To cut down on so many so many sentences in the wordiness listed here, after stating the US charting, say something one the order of "Honey" also reached number one in Canada, and reached the top ten in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In other most European countries, the song charted outside the top ten, not matching the success of Carey's previous singles in the respective markets. *"a feat that was never again duplicated" ---> say a feat that has yet to be duplicated. "Never again" sounds like it's never going to happen again.

  • "dancing aboard a ship with sailors and frolicking on a beautiful island with her lover." comma after sailors

*Grammy noms are not mentioned in the article. Add & source them and put it in the critical reception too.

Background and recording[edit]

  • The sentences about "a personal note" are a little bit WP:NPOV unless it is critical reception. It also sounds like a direct quote from the book you mentioned. If so, then it needs to be stated it came from the book or the author said it.

*persuing --> I suppose you mean pursuing *In doing so, she began perusing a more hip-hop oriented sound; something much different than anything she had ever recorded. --> After something is not a complete thought, so instead of a semi-colon it needs to be a comma

The info about Carey and Mottolla. But the next sound really like composition than background, because why would the song having "sultrier lyrics" "hip-hop beat" have to do with the background. And this sentence sounds like reception --> "The song revealed a more confident and independent side to Carey that had ever been presented in her previous work" because if it were background then it would be WP:NPOV because finding Carey "confident" and "independent" is bordering on non-neutral. And if this is so, it should state in reception somewhere, Chris Nickson of ___________ said....... Candyo32 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


*Link hip-hop and R&B *Combs was very confident with the song, calling it "slammin'", but because of its heavy hip-hip influence, he felt only cautiously optimistic about the song's commercial success. --> Is more of background

  • Like that sentence in the background the last sentence here sentence sounds like critical reception, and if the author of the book said it it needs to be mentioned
  • Use the {{music|flat}} template to denote flats. It comes out large and weird if you just copy and paste the note.


Critical reception[edit]

  • Looks pretty good, but try paraphrasing some of the quotes so you won't have to directly state what the review says.
I don't mean the quote length itself just the use of the direct quote, and paraphrasing so it will not be a copyright vio. We don't want to overuse quotes. For example:
Current: Author Chris Nickson felt that "Honey" served as one of the most important songs in Carey's career; enabling her gradual and genuine transition into the Contemporary R&B and hip-hop market. He complimented many aspects of the song, writing "Its importance was well beyond its chart placing. "Honey" was the record that gave Mariah hip-hop credibility. Before that, she'd been seen as a pop singer with R&B tendencies. "Honey changed that perception, and even those who'd once dismissed Mariah as a wannabe were forced to take a second look."
Paraphrased: Author Chris Nickson felt the single's importance was "well beyond its chart placing" and that the single was one of the most important songs in Carey's career, enabling her to transition into R&B and hip-hop. Nickson commented that before, Carey was seen as a pop singer with R&B tendencies, but "Honey" changed that idea, giving the singer "hip-hop credibility", and forced naysayers to "take another look." Candyo32 20:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance[edit]

*Looks good, just wondering how a photo of Carey performing "Without You" is relevant?

Music video[edit]

*First sentence is kind of irrelevant. We're talking about the music video. If you want to talk about how the sound of her new music related to the departure of a new theme in her video, re-word it a bit and it needs to be the last thing mentioned in the last paragraph.


  • Good

Live performances[edit]

  • Good

Formats and track listings[edit]

*These need sourcings

How are the album liner notes used to source US and UK CD singles.


*Your books are referenced a little awkwardly. I would recommend visiting WP:Citation templates and get a cite book temp, so you can state the author, date, publication company, title, etc.


*Shouldn't the charts themselves be linked as seen in other music articles? ::Last two charts aren't linked. *Rhythmic Top 40 needs to be removed as it is an component/airplay only chart and not acceptable per WP:USCHART/WP:BADCHARTS

Overall Great work, just make the corrections so the ball can get rollin' Candyo32 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Candy :). Its all done! However, regarding the book sources. I copied the format from all legolas' GA and FAs, take a look at Like a Virgin for an example. Thanks!--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 04:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Honey (Mariah Carey song). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Honey (Mariah Carey song). 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) 10:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada certification[edit]

The song is gold certified in canada. Could someone add in the certifications board? (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png[edit]

(Moved discussion from File talk:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png, for better visibility.)

@Theknine2: since we disagree on this, let's discuss here instead of edit warring. As the current art work has had consensus for over two years per WP:CON, altering it should be achieved though a new consensus, which can be made here. As said in the file's edit summaries, the cover most aptly represents the release date listed in the infobox, that being the earliest, as cover is also that; chart performance or regional use does not pertain here. QuestFour (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @QuestFour:, I am open to this discussion. • As aforementioned, firstly, this song was most notable as a US hit (by the numerous US chart positions in the article), plus it is additionally noted as Mariah's 12th #1 hit, where it is included in the US #1 compilation albums #1's (1998) and #1 to Infinity (2015); the song charted lower at #3 in the UK. • Secondly, the US cover was also used in the single's global release, while the UK cover seems to be only used for that region (Discogs); additionally, the US/international cover is used in the booklet for the Greatest Hits (2001) album by Sony (CD unboxing on YouTube). • Third, that same US cover is used for current issues of the single, particularly the digital remix EP (Apple Music), as well as the 2022 remixes LP (Mariah Carey website). • Fourth, "first" single cover is not an enforced rule, nor is it suitable for every situation: Ava Max's "Torn" was originally released in Aug with this single cover (Discogs, Apple Music (archive)), but the cover was later changed by her label to the current single cover (in article), to match the superhero theme of the song's music video. Hence, I do think the US/international cover for "Honey" should be used in the infobox, instead of the comparatively obscure UK cover. Theknine2 (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the chart performance in the region of cover's release is impertinent. Discogs is generally an unreliable source as per WP:RSDISCOGS, and the use of either cover in subsequent and compilation releases or streaming services is not really a factor for its placement in the infobox. Also, the example mentioned is inapplicable in this case as the cover was not changed or altered due to any particular reasoning. I see no rationale for its replacement. QuestFour (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any indication that a cover has to be selected solely by release date, unless you are able to put a specific quote from documentation such as Template:Infobox song. Otherwise, the date rationale does not seem like a valid factor either. Secondly, wider use of that cover is a strong indication that the cover in particular is the cover intended by the artist (based on Template:Infobox album), especially if it's been consistently used over a long period of time, so simply brushing it off as "not really a factor for its placement in the infobox" is incorrect. Third, as I have already mentioned, since Mariah is an American artist, it is crucial to use the proper US cover, such as ...Baby One More Time (album) and 1989 (album) using their North American covers as their infobox cover. You have given no valid rationale for using the UK cover, over the much more widely used US/international cover. I hope you take the above explanations into consideration. Theknine2 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of a cover corresponding to the release date, if anything, would fall under MOS:PERTINENCE. Template:Infobox album also stresses the use of the "original" cover, which correlates more to the current, earliest-released cover. The nationality argument is completely impertinent and again ties in to the former, as we don't place release dates based on artists' nationalities. QuestFour (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how MOS:PERTINENCE relates to release date either, nor does it say anything about an "original" cover... it simply discusses the importance of an illustrative aid, which actually reinforces my point regarding the US/international cover, as it is the more widely used and hence more widely recognisable cover. As mentioned above, a large majority of this single's (past and present) releases use the 1997 US/international cover. Theknine2 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theknine2, please make yourself familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, and do not make any further changes until consensus has been made. MOS:PERTINENCE relates in that it the cover is "relevant in the topic's context," that being the single's release date, as stated in the MOS. Again, which cover has been used more or in subsequent released do not constitute a reasoning for altering the cover. QuestFour (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The release date should be irrelevant, especially when it is only one day apart. Monday being the UK 'release day' for products shouldn't mean every song article is supposed to use UK covers because the US release day was Tuesday. As it is the one consistently used in subsequent releases, the non-UK cover is the one most identifiable with the song as so should be displayed in the infobox. Heartfox (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for chiming in and for offering your take. Forgive me, however, but I don't see how the release date's to be irrelevant; choosing the cover based on which is more identifiable and determining which of the two is seems needless when the cover correlated with the single's earliest release date and the date used in the infobox is available; the cover is also associated with the unveiling of the single and carries historical significance and context. QuestFour (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is effectively the same date. Before Global Release Day, music releases were on Mondays in the UK and Tuesdays in the US. The US cover has outweighed the significance of the UK one, if it ever was below it, as it is the one used for subsequent releases. Most readers would identify the song with the US cover, which is what an infobox image is for. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, they are "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." In addition, the song is more associated with the US than the UK as it experienced far greater commercial success in the former, and Carey is an American artist. Heartfox (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the nationality and subsequent-releases reasonings are ambiguous at best and don't really hold ground nor are they criteria for determining the identifiably of the covers, and the later is not needed when the chronologically-appropriate cover is at hand. QuestFour (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, chronology does not apply here when the release dates were determined by the music release days that these countries followed; it effectively means the song was intended to be released around the same time. Secondly, the "nationality" argument is far from ambiguous or "don't really hold ground" (it is an extremely clear and valid rationale, as a matter of fact). If you continue to argue against these points, I would have to assume that you are being disruptive (WP:LISTEN), and I will not hesitate to request assistance from an administrator when necessary. Thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theknine2, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CNN, also, arguments, whether from my side or yours, are not in themselves disruptive. As per the former, there is clearly no consensus as of yet, so kindly refrain from edit-warring on the file's page; WP:LISTEN would apply here. Asserting that the single was intended to be released at the same time when no source states such thing is WP:OR, and in contrast with the release date, as shown above, no policy or MOS guideline mentions a correlation between the artist's nationality and single covers, thus it is not a plausible rationale. I've added to the dispute resolution discussion. QuestFour (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have an extraordinarily long history of inciting edit wars, including uploading incorrect versions of album/single covers, as according to your talk page. I will not be wasting more time on discussion, and I have formally requested the attention of an administrator. Theknine2 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly ad hominem, WP:REPENTANT. QuestFour (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only skimmed this discussion, so forgive me for repeating anything stated earlier. For what it's worth, the US/international artwork was also used in the UK, with one of the CD singles (665019 2) as well as the cassette single (665019 4) receiving said artwork. That's two out of three UK formats, and as far as I know, the other artwork wasn't used anywhere outside the UK. Generally, I believe the most widely used cover artwork should be used—I say "generally" because I know there are some cases where I'd disagree. This is not one of them, and I mostly agree with what Theknine2 and Heartfox said.
QuestFour, the reason we remind your of your editing history is because you are still making controversial edits even after you have been called out on them multiple times. I recall warning you twice for randomly changing cover artworks, and you never explained yourself during either instance (see here and here). All I got was another editor telling me to take you to WP:ANI for WP:TIMESINK. With this incident, I'm starting to understand where they're coming from. I'm not going to do that since I don't want to be that guy, but this is getting so old. I almost reverted the artwork myself before finding out about this discussion. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for chiming in, I am really grateful for it. We have a consensus now that the US/international cover is the one that should be used in the article. I have reported QuestFour to the administrators (Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Edit warring#User:QuestFour reported by User:Theknine2 (Result: Both users blocked from page for three months); QuestFour has been temporarily blocked from the page, but I have been unfairly blocked too. I hope an editor can replace the single cover with the correct US/international one now. Thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]