Talk:Someday (Mariah Carey song)

Chronology
Carey releases singles in many markets across the world, NOT just the US and the UK. Therefore, just because she decides to release one single in the US and not release it in the UK and then do the same with another single, it doesnt mean that they should be separated because there are still many markets to be taken into consideration. There may have also been some markets in which both singles were released in.

Also, "TGTBAW" was released after "IDWC", with the former being in April 1991 (this was in all markets) and the latter being in June 1991. Therefore, it is only logical that we place "TGTBAW" after "IDWC" as a there was a two month separation between their releases. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 08:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that this falsifies the chronology for some countries. There's already a problem (discussed elsewhere) concerning the North American parochialism of these pop-articles ("U.S." versus "International", etc.); this, though, surely goes too far.
 * I can see that there's a problem giving a neat chronology, and there seem to be two approaches: make the chronology more complex, or give up trying to squeeze it into the infobox. My preference would be for the latter, but I think that it has to be one or the other. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you prove it? According to my sources, TGTBAW was released in ALL markets after IDWC. Therefore, it should be after. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

First, it's not a matter of proof; if "your sources" are correct, then the two should go into the chronology in the correct order, if not they shouldn't. can you say what your sources are?

Secondly, in some articles you're just deleting one of them; why? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Visit [www.mariah-charts.com] and look at the release dates: in most markets the singles weren't even released and in the U.K. "TGTBAW" was released in June, "IDWC" was released in April in the U.S. and in May in Australia. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 10:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In other words, in order to explain the chronology in an international encyclop&aelig;dia, you have to include both. Your action is deleting one is parochial and unacceptable. As I said above, the chronology either has to be more complex than you seem willing to allow it to be, or should be omitted. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidently, you have not understood. TGTBAW was released in ALL markets after IDWC. June was the first release date of TGTBAW, May was the last of IDWC. Therefore IDWC should come before TGTBAW. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 14:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that in every market, either both or neither of the two singles was released, and when they were it was always in the same order? --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thats 100% what I'm trying to say. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine; so both singles shoudl appear in the chronology in that order. I've no further objections, thanks. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammar
This sentence under Awards: Continuing a trend with the singles from Mariah Carey, and a trend that seemed to follow with almost all of her future singles, "Someday" received a BMI Pop Award just like its two predecessors, "Vision of Love" and "Love Takes Time". is both redundant and grammatically incorrect. The first fragment and last fragment say the same thing, and who keeps putting periods after quote marks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.94.106 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 August 2005


 * Your first point has some merit (though all these pop-music articles are poorly written, and this is nowhere near the worst example in this article in particular).
 * The person who keeps following the Manual of style by putting punctuation outside inverted commas is me, and anyone else who's read the manual. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit war
Could OmegWikipedia explain what's so offensive about the new infobox style? Perhaps that will allow us to resolve this edit war. It would also help if he didn't mass revert, but only changed what he thought needed changing. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually Mel, I don't think I did a mass revert. Like EM changed captions and other things, but I didn't touch those. I only reverted the infobox, but I did tidy the lead section. There are many problems with this new box, but to start off with some, its give limited access in editing with its lack of flexability. The position of the charts and putting in single reviews is also quite awkward too. OmegaWikipedia 12:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I justified my introduction of a new single infobox here. OmegaWikipedia strongly protested the use of this infobox despite there being several valid reasons behind my arguments, and has been following me around and reverting my edits wherever I introduce it. OmegaWikipedia, apart from being grossly time-consuming and counterproductive, this is an severe violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy, and could lead to punitive actions against you. People have been blocked permanently for this type of behaviour, so I suggest you stop now.
 * 2) WikiProject Music specifically forbids editors from inserting "piped" links to years in music articles, and suggest that the years in music are inserted in parentheses as "(see 1991 in music)" after the first mention of the year (or years), rather than hidden (e.g. 1991). If you had read the guidelines there (as I have instructed you to countless times), you would already be aware of that and people won't have to clean up after you further down the line.
 * 3) Most, if not all, of Wikipedia's featured articles about songs begin their lead sections in a similar way to how I reworded the lead sections of the Carey single articles, e.g. "Real Love is a song originally written and performed...", not "Real Love is the first and only single from the Beatles' album Anthology 2...".
 * 4) Infoboxes and WikiProject guidelines aside, you're still undoing fundamentally useful edits to articles. For example, on your revert to Someday, you added "the single peaked at number one in the USA becoming Carey's third number one single. The single also peaked at number thirty-eight in the U.K.", when it says later in that very same paragraph: "Although topping the U.S. charts, it was not a success internationally." Firstly, it's a little jarring for readers to start two consecutive sentences with "the single"; secondly, what is the point of mentioning two facts twice in the same paragraph? Extraordinary Machine 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I have little feeling either way concerning the infobox, but the edit war has to stop; what's the discussion at the infobox's Talk page? With regard to the summary, etc., EM's version is surely better, for the reasons he's given. These pop articles are full of that sort of repetition; I've been cutting it out when I can, but there's a huge mass of it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To extend the discussion of this infobox beyond myself and OmegaWikipedia, I left a note at the WikiProject Songs talk page here announcing its creation; in under thiry minutes, OmegaWikipedia had replied and, surprise surprise, disagreed with my proposal that it should be used on every song article. I then corrected my argument and explained that I made a mistake (I'll apologise for that, at least) and didn't actually intend it to be used on every song article, just the ones where it would fit best. OW acted as if I hadn't said that (e.g. his inexplicable mention of Aretha Franklin), and seemed to be in the mindset that if the infobox can't be used on all single articles, then it shouldn't be used on any of them. I then quickly took a look at his edit history and gave him examples of song articles he had recently edited which could use the infobox...his response to this was to accuse me of "stalking" him and criticise my rewordings of the lead sections on these articles. Extraordinary Machine 18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

the shameful video
We read: Carey is ashamed of the video. (i) Why? (ii) What's the source for this? -- Hoary 02:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

She had no control in the creative direction, and it was a cheesy 90s video in her opinion, and I don't think shes fond of her hair either. Various interviews.... OmegaWikipedia 03:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What are the interviews in which Mariah claims that she is ashamed of the video?

Possible Disambig page
It might be a good idea to move Someday to Someday (Mariah Carey song) and make this page a disambiguation page. There are three recent popular songs named "Someday," and with some quick research, it's almost a guarantee you'll find other book, film, and musical works named "Someday." A disambiguation page would be helpful to visitors who aren't looking for the Carey work. As it is, there was no link to other songs named "Someday" before my edit (Nickelback and Spears songs). Just a suggestion. Volatile 17:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Volatile OmegaWikipedia 17:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Trivia about Carey's clothing in the video
I've removed that bit about Carey wearing an off-shoulder top in the video again. It isn't clear what the relevance of this info is. Extraordinary Machine 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed again. Why does this seemingly trivial detail keep being reinserted? Is Carey's clothing in the video significant in some way? Extraordinary Machine 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So what?! Why does it bother you so much?! The person is probobly just interested in the fashion at that time and would probobly just like to comment on it.

Contemporary reviews

 * http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/album-review/6597999/mariah-carey-debut-anniversary-track-by-track

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Someday (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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Genres
After reverting a recent multiplication of genres here, I was directed to a source. The edit epands Dance-pop by adding Contemporary R&B and new jack swing. The edit summary says, "Already sourced, like in AllMusic's review". The Allmusic review in question says the album has " uplifting dance/R&B cuts". It does not say this song is one of them. It does not say "Dance/pop, "Contemporary R&B" or "new jack swing" about anything. As for this song, it says it is one of several "memorable" cuts and it is "energetic". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Someday (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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208130220/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.2024&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.2024&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Someday (Rezonance Q song)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Someday_(Rezonance_Q_song)&redirect=no Someday (Rezonance Q song)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)