Charmbracelet 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 Date Process Result November 24, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed January 11, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

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

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

although the album did get re-released in a few smaller markets was recently revised as although the album did get re-released in a few international markets

I'm puzzled. I'd have thought there'd only be one "international market". Can somebody explain? -- Hoary 08:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why a separate article should exist on an artist's tour, unless there was something extremely noteworthy about it. Besides, there's plenty of room in the main Charmbracelet article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005. Extraordinary Machine 16:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This tour was definitely extremely notable being her first ever major international tour (like she actually went around the world, not just the USA, Japan, and Europe). The main CB article is already big and theres too much info to merge. Other artists have articles on their tours too and this page could be used to also describe the critics opinions of the tours along with performance info and setlists. OmegaWikipedia 06:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, while there may be too much information to merge (though I'd tend to call it trivia rather than information), there is not too much encyclopedic information to merge. I've shortened the tour article slightly, without yet cutting any of this trivia. -- Hoary 06:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its definitely encyclopedic...which honestly is sort of an abstract weaseal word to get rid of something or support something without a real reason on either side. OmegaWikipedia 07:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that for something to be encyclopedic it would have to interest more than a small number of fans. This is indeed possible for costumes. (Janet Jackson's costume somewhere or other -- I forget -- did so because one of her tits fell out, thereby causing mild amusement among many and righteous indignation among the Bible-thumping booboisie.) How many people do you think now want to read about Carey's changes of frock? And can't those people read about this and more (entire articles on Carey's pooch, etc.) on some "careypedia" somewhere? -- Hoary 07:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think every article here has an audience that can be appreciated by everyone if we take a moment to look at it without preconceptions or being judgemental. Like we know you're not a fan of pop music, so obviously something like this will go look very "So what" to you. By that same token, I could look at an article you created and go "so what" because its not my field of intrest. But this is probably not the right way to think and we have to look at these things from a more general perspective and learn to appreciate articles that we would not enjoy naturally. OmegaWikipedia 07:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that simple. The articles I've seen on musicians whose work does happen to interest me don't spend time relating such things as how well those musicians did in various "charts" week after week, the musicians' changes of clothes, or the place and date of each of their concerts. And neither, I think, should they do so. That's what fan sites are for. -- Hoary 11:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of the information in this article is, like Hoary said, unencyclopedic trivia. Fancruft. It will only be of interest to hardcore Carey fans (and could you honestly argue the list of tour dates to be encylopedic information?). Keep in mind that another article about a musician's tour was deleted (not merged, not redirected) with the support of roughly eighty percent of voters. I suggest we summarise the main points of the article into one or two paragraphs (at the very most), and then merge with and redirect to the main Charmbracelet article (and no, it isn't too long, as the recommended maximum article size is 32KB, and this article isn't even half that). I've submitted a request for a Mariah Carey wiki to be created at Wikicities so that all the information about tour dates and costume changes and everything else can be moved there. Extraordinary Machine 11:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is of intrest is always debatable. Like I said, we all create articles that are looked at from different points of view from other angles. Like I said, Im sure I could look at some articles youve created and deem them as fancruft that would be of no intrest to anyone. There seemed to be an Ashlee Simpson backlash here before, but what about other artists with articles on tours? For now, I hope we don't take any brash action and just discuss this matter. What about when there is a tour for TEOM? That article is long and tour info would not fit onto that album. You also have to remember that many times artists go on tour not in support of any particular albumOmegaWikipedia 11:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to look at these article from the point of view of somebody wanting to read an encyclopedia, not a fansite for a singer. What if there is a tour in support of The Emancipation of Mimi? Simple: don't start a separate article on it. Write a paragraph, or even just a couple of lines, about it on the main article. Trim down the main article, as there's a lot of overexcessive detail that could be removed. For example, Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) restricts information on that album's tour to one single sentence. Extraordinary Machine 12:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the article is written from the point of view of an encylopedia, because it this was a fansite, the article would be very different. The article on TEOM is pretty long now, and even if it were cut down, adding tour info would still bloat it. Seeing as there is only one tour article right now, how about this...I would be find with a merge for the time being. But if the CB article gets too big, or if TEOM does have a tour, I think the article should be seperated. As there are currently no announced plans to tour and Charmbracelet wont be reaching that size anytime soon, does that sound fair? OmegaWikipedia 12:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about we write reams and reams of information about Mariah Carey's tours, costume and scene changes during her performances, plots of her music videos, week-by-week sales and chart positions of her albums and singles etc. etc. etc. on the forthcoming Mariah Carey Wikicity, and keep that level of detail off Wikipedia entirely? Extraordinary Machine 12:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should list empty categories (or categories that you want renaming) at WP:CFD instead of just orphaning them entirely. Extraordinary Machine 12:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, can you please stop being so snide and sarcastic in your replies? I don't know why you're always like this. Everytime I try to talk politely, you act so hostile. I'm honestly trying to talk about this situation in a polite fashion. But anyway, is that a reasonable position concerning this proposed merger? OmegaWikipedia 12:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your histrionics: no, I don't think it's a reasonable position. It's still suggesting that these tours are noteworthy enough for their very own articles, when a paragraph or so in the articles for the albums would do. Write about the tours all you want on Wikicities, just not here.

My histronics? I'm not the one ranting here lol. Again, I'm not asking to write a huge article on the tours. You suggested that their should only be an article if the tour was noteworthy and Ive explained to you why it was noteworthy. If this were one of her other tours, I would understand, but this was a signicant tour. Again, there are other tour articles on Wikipedia. And again seeing as the CB article isnt big yet, I wouldnt mind a mergr for now, but if the article does get big enough, Im just suggesting the tour section should be split. I'm already compromising here..OmegaWikipedia 19:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and rather than creating empty section headers, you should either refrain from proposing new sections until you have something to write in them, or write a few lines and tag them with {{Expandsect}} or {{sect-stub}} (instead of writing "To be filled in soon" or whatnot). Extraordinary Machine 13:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll talk until you're blue in the face. Nothing against him, but OW and the rest of the Careyites don't understand the ideals behind an encyclopedia, especially as far as what should be covered, shouldn't be covered, and what should be covered in what amount of detail. I'm researching a way to file a multiple-user RfC (or just a general one for the pop music articles in general). Of course, all that messy business could be prevented if they would all just conform with the Wikipedia guidelines, the WIkipedia principles, and good old fashioned common sense. --FuriousFreddy 13:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy, why are you regressing? I thought we had our talk and that things got cleared up (but then again that conversation did get cut off). But Im dissapointed in your behavior again to classify things inappropriately. No, thats not the case here, and I wish you'd stop making your stereotypes. You have it completely wrong. OmegaWikipedia 19:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our conversation didn't mean that there still weren't problems to be resolved, nor did it mean that you can just do whatever you want. In fact, from our conversation, the main thing I realized is that yes, based upon your behavior, you do not appear to understand the ideals behind an encyclopedia, especially as far as what should be covered, shouldn't be covered, and what should be covered in what amount of detail.

Then if that's what you realize, then once again Freddy you are terribly wrong. This doesnt seem to be a matter of what's "encyclopedic" (which as I mentioned above is a weaseal word you like to use when you dont like something), but article preference and bias. Ive seen articles you have created that I could deem as fancruft, due to your writing style. I think you're probably confused because you deal with older R&B songs, which dont have much to write about, so you write them in a different fashion, while with modern songs, there are more aspects to discuss. I can see how you would be offended as these articles overshadow and undermine you.

That's not a personal attack or a dergatory thing; that's just how you (and others) come across. For the hundredth time, I don't have a problem with you personally, and I hope you understand that. I apoligize for appearing to lump everyone into one big box, but the problem isn't with the people; it's with the articles. You haven't shown enough (some, yes, but not enough) willingness to try and reduce/reverse/end the problems that you and others have started, and the problem is really bigger than one person can handle (there's litterally hundreds of articles that need to be gone back over and cleaned up), so an RfC is the way to get more assistance, more notice, and solid, firmly established guidelines about what should and should not be done. Again, it could be avoided if the initiative were taken to do something about it before going to that step (I'd like to be able to get this resolved without having to resort to that, but it seems like that is the only way). --FuriousFreddy 02:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And again, for the most part this seems to do with personal preference over what constitutes a single article. Obiously the songs you write are older and are filled with info over recordings and studio credits, while the articles we write today constitute of different factors. And again, everytime I talk to you, I think my point has gone over your head and you dotn seem to understand. I would definitely be willing to discuss this if you are OmegaWikipedia 03:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he does. I notice he returned to Wikipedia once again! *insane laugh* --Winnermario 21:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I returned because I've decided that giving up is not the way. And your cyncism is unprofessional and not appreciated. --FuriousFreddy 02:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I weigh in here? I followed a link hoping to read about the tour, only to find a mass of double redirects (which I fixed, directing them all to the album article) and no article on the tour except in one of the page histories. I really think we should have that information and I'm disappointed to see it's gone. Everyking 11:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that that shouldn't be redirected. That should be on concert tours gatecory and I think it's a good thing to have a their own pages about concert tours, because those concert tours are important and there really isn't a good reason to delete those pages!

-L.a.m.b (6:59 20 October 2005)

There is no reason why 'Boy (I Need You)' should be merged with the Charmbracelet album article, as indicated on it's page. The song is a definite full-fledged single and has enough information to validate it's article's existence. In the case of 'The One', it could be debated, but like such songs as 'Last Night a DJ Saved My Life', 'Lead the Way', and 'Underneath the Stars', all of which are promo-only singles, it had been given official singles treatment. Therefore, I am removing the tag from the 'Boy (I Need You)' article, but not from 'The One' article. - Grey Pursuit January 6, 2005 (UTC)

There's no need at all to merge these articles. One is about an album and one is about a single. End of. Any other Music Album related article follows the same setup, with seperate pages for singles. And may I add how well an established artist Carey is, and what a fanbase she has, easy access to information is necessary, without having everything cluttered. Both articles are clear and informative and are up to Wikipedia's standards - so why need they be merged?

1. I removed "although it should be noted that a CD single was not released in the U.S., seriously impeding it's chances for success" in relation to "Boy (I Need You)". Any sentence that begins with "it should be noted that" does not belong in any article; it is a violation of the NPOV policy because it is the author's opinion that "it should be noted" and not an outside source. Unless you can find a reliable source that says the song failed in the U.S. because a single wasn't released, then that sentence should not be re-inserted. (Note also that often a song's airplay can determine whether it is released as a CD single; if a song receives little airplay then there isn't much point releasing it on CD, especially if the album is already available.) Extraordinary Machine 23:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I also removed the note about "Fly like a Bird" reaching the top five of the Adult R&B Airplay chart; it isn't even a song from this album so its chart performance is irrelevant here. All the reader needs to know is that it initially received little play when released alongside "My Saving Grace", but was later released to radio again. If they want to know how it performed the second time around then they can visit the song's article. Also, "Fly like a Bird" failed to chart in the U.S. and only received substantial airplay on adult R&B stations, so simply writing it "went on to peak in the top 5" there is misleading.
3. Please consider creating an account here, particularly because your IP changes with every edit and it is almost impossible to track you down and discuss things with you. Extraordinary Machine 23:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have to admit that this article is well-developed, even though it does not contain references. —[Eternal Equinox] | talk 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. As with Madonna's "Hollywood," "Boy (I Need You)" "could have managed a week or two at the bottom of the Hot 100 had the single release been a little more timely."
2. As I have said before: 'neither song recieved substantial airplay' is a lie unless the small successes of "Fly..." are noted.
3. What is wrong with discussing with me about an article on that article's talk page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.10 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 June 2006.

1. If you cite a reliable source stating that the situation was as you described, then feel free to reinsert it.
2. The statement "Neither song received substantial airplay and only the latter was eventually released to other formats" is accurate; the first part ("Neither song...") tells the reader it is the song's original release that is being referred to (and not any subsequent releases), while the second part tells them that it may or may not have gotten more airplay after being released to other formats, and that's when the Fly like a Bird article comes in. Regardless, "Fly like a Bird" didn't reach the R&B/hip hop airplay top twenty in the U.S., so "substantial airplay" is misleading; it's also not a song from this album, as I've said above.
3. I probably wouldn't be asking you this if I didn't have issues with your contributions, but some of your other edits are NPOV violations, such as on the articles Mariah Carey and We Belong Together where you altered critics' quotes to make them less anti-Carey. Also, on Breakdown (song) you reverted an edit of mine without any explanation. So without a username and with a dynamic IP you could (if you wanted to) refuse to discuss anything, and even if you were willing to take part in discussions you wouldn't know that somebody did want to discuss something with you unless it was mentioned in the edit summary or an "invisible note" was placed in the article. Creating an account would be a good way of eliminating this problem, and it also has many other benefits. Extraordinary Machine 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ericorbit has now removed that quote from the "Hollywood (song)" page (thanks!). I simply felt that as the quote ("...could have managed a week or two at the bottom of the Hot 100 had the single release been a little more timely") applied to both songs it should either be in both articles or neither.
2. "Neither song..." suggests neither song EVER got substantial airplay, that is untrue. Would "Fly..." peaking two places higher on the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart have made you think that it had received "substantial" airplay?
3. I have issues with some of you're contributions (as evident in me rv-ing your edits without any explanation, something you also do frequently). I don't refuse to discuss anything, if someone wants to discuss my editing of an article with me then they can do it on the article's talk page, which I check, as I have evidently been doing with this talk page. It is not compulsory to create an account to edit on Wikipedia, and as I have no desire to create an account, I won’t until it IS compulsory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.10 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 June 2006.

1. Well, make sure to double check things like this. That another Wikipedia article says it does not necessarily mean it's okay to mention here without citing a source.
2. In articles I've read, a song that is said to have achieved "substantial" (or any other word with the same meaning) success reached the top ten, or at the very least the top twenty. "Fly like a Bird" didn't.
3. I leave edit summaries for all of my contributions; I know this is particularly important when I'm undoing someone else's. Whatever your intentions may be, you've been making attempts to insert a pro-Carey POV into these articles for a while now. I'm guessing your a fan of her; well I am too, and it's good that there are other people who are interested enough to write about her here. What nobody must do, however, is allow their personal opinions to dictate what these articles say or don't say; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a non-negotiable key policy for the project. You do realise that creating an account would make communicating with other editors easier? Extraordinary Machine 18:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am now Such Great Heights
2. Fly Like a Bird this week moves 27-19 on both Billboard's R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts -- a substantial hit?! Such Great Heights 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Mariahs 'Nervous/Exhaustion Breakdown' was prior to the release of "Glitter" and not after, as is reported in this article. "Glitters failure" was partly due to her lack of promotion of the project over the summer of 2001 due to the fact that her father had died and she was in a rehabilitation facility recovering from the breakdown. It is widely reported that Mariah suffered the breakdown in response to the failure of her album/film, however she actually suffered the breakdown during the promotion of the albums lead single "loverboy", as is well documented due to her erratic appearance on MTV's "TRL" that July, not in or after September 2001 when the film was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.173.240 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they pay her to leave the label. In other words I read that when Virgin wanted to release her from her contract they had a series of meetings where they negotiated a 58 million pay off to her if she AGREED to leave the label. I don't think that qualifies as dropping.PhoenixPrince (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be expanded like her other albums! It don't even hve background info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.118.144 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why shouldn't "I Know What You Want" be included as a single? It's on the album, just like a re-release. I believe that it is also part of the singles form this album. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 10:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I Know What You Want" was recorded by Busta Rhymes for It Ain't Safe No More and was first released as a single from his album. It Ain't Safe No More was released in November 2002, long before Charmbracelet was re-released. So, I don't think that the song is a single from Charmbracelet. Also, the "I Know What You Want" article states that it's a single from The Remixes! Thank you for starting a discussion because I'm confused at the moment. Opinions of other editors are welcome. Novice7 (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubt the song had anything to do with an actual Carey album. It was more of a featured appearance than anything, so it was included as a "bonus track".--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But since it's a bonus track doesn't that make it part of the album & singles? I mean, people might have bought the deluxe vers. just because of that song. It's the same case as with "Dilemma (song)", it was first released on Nelly's album, but it also appears on Kelly Rowland's album. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I agree that sometimes songs are included on the featured artists' album due to their popularity. It is a single by Carey, but not from Charmbracelet but from It Ain't Safe No More. "Dilemma"'s the same case. Novice7 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that either Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mariah Carey have any system of assessing articles as B-class. I see that User:Zidane tribal and User:Novice7 added B-class without even attempting to assess the article. The prose is extremely poor and and thus the article only merits Start class. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to delete the Credits and personnel section at the end of the copy-edit; per WP:NOT. We don't need to know who made the tea and swept the studio floor - that's what the sleeve notes are for. Thoughts? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, i may place this and the track listing into collapsible tables, closed by default. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to MoS for album articles, a personnel section is required. I think placing them into a collapsible table is a great idea. 五代 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll do that if I can make the template work - I tried yesterday and it only worked in preview mode, so maybe there's a bug in the wikicode. Having read MOS:ALBUMS I understand the section is recommended. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From 'Background':

Critics deemed the album a strong improvement over Glitter, but not something that would re-capture audiences around the world and re-establish her popularity throughout the 1990s. Many took notice of Carey's more airy and light vocals, and criticized her of not being capable of the same degree of vocal prowess she had been known for during the first part of her career. However, three years later with the release of The Emancipation of Mimi, Carey's critical and commercial popularity surged again, with critics calling it her true comeback, as well as her emancipation from her previous two albums.<ref name="Mayer"/>

From 'Development and recording':

"I've always tried to insert positivity into my songs wherever I can, to inspire other people who go through stuff. I mean the stuff they talked about in tabloids and the things that were so overly exaggerated, that's one aspect. I also went through a lot of personal stuff, a lot of family stuff this year. [...] It's brought me to another place. People are going to read into it as, 'This is Mariah and her struggle,'" Carey said of the song.<ref name="mtv1">{{cite web|url =http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1457873/mariah-dont-call-it-comeback.jhtml|title =Mariah Carey Insists She Just Needed Sleep, Taps Family History for Clip|last1=Reid|first1=Shaheem|last2=Norris|first2=John|work=MTV|publisher=MTV Networks (Viacom)|date=October 1, 2002|accessdate=August 16, 2011}}</ref>

In the 're-release' section, the final two sentences are: "The re-released version of Charmbracelet charted for three weeks on the album chart where it peaked at number 96. According to Oricon, it has sold 4,936 copies." I understand the website is Japanese, and Oricon compiles the Japanese charts. Can someone confirm the referenced chart is the official Japanese album chart, and provide dates for chart entry, peak and exit? I've checked the reference which was not helpful. Meanwhile I've left 'where' and 'when' templates in the text. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The re-release charted on the Oricon albums chart [1]. The link provided is official but I'm afraid the readers have to subscribe to view the contents [2], just like Billboard. I'll ask someone who has access to Oricon. 五代 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the chart trajectory (in the top 300):

2003/07/07 177

2003/07/14 96

2003/07/21 195

This is from the subscription only link too. 五代 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these dates; I've included the peak date in the text. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the resolution of two files tagged with {{Non-free reduce}} and also removed an excess sample. 五代 (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Charmbracelet. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=2003&type=2
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ifpihk.org/www_1/go21e.php

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} 12:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charmbracelet. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/artist/163336/ranking/cd_album/

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} 11:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Charmbracelet. 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.music.yahoo.ca/read/news/12026730
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621054859/http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113151538/http://swisscharts.com/awards.asp?year=2003 to http://www.swisscharts.com/awards.asp?year=2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511120001/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leparisien.fr/loisirs-et-spectacles/tf-1-et-nrj-ont-toutes-les-stars-18-01-2003-2003742780.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1471917/mariah-carey-scraps-arena-tour.jhtml

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charmbracelet. 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/20110629170705/http://www.mtv.com/bands/c/carey_mariah/news_feature_032805/index.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/bands/c/carey_mariah/news_feature_032805/index.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710135003/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259165-CERTIFICATIONS.html?year=2003&type=8 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259165-CERTIFICATIONS.html?year=2003&type=8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906003856/http://www.abpd.org.br/certificados.asp to http://www.abpd.org.br/certificados.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110052929/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=450 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=450

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) 23:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charmbracelet. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1456879/new-mariah-album-december.jhtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mtv-ca-jq.mtvi.com/music/video_browse_play.jhtml?vid=22733&aid=976
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111124357/http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=6288119&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID to http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=6288119&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID

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) 22:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]