# Talk:Someday (Mariah Carey song)

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  (Μελ Ετητης) 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  (Μελ Ετητης) 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 encyclopædia, 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  (Μελ Ετητης) 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  (Μελ Ετητης) 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  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Manual of style by putting punctuation outside inverted commas is me, and anyone else who's read the manual. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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.
Wikipedia: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.
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...".
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)

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?

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)

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

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:

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 {{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 12:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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". - SummerPhDv2.0 20:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Someday (Mariah Carey song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I will take this on as late as this coming (June 3). By then, I will be out of school. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been nearly 10 days DannyMusicEditor.  — Calvin999  08:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You are totally right. Getting some done tonight, I promise. I've read through the whole thing before, there were a few obvious grammatical errors last I checked, don't know if they've been fixed. Please double check. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Anything neutral, I haven't checked yet. Even the one red mark is no big deal, I just spy a couple small problems. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  23:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


### Lead
"Someday" was released as the album's third single on November 15, 1990, in the United Kingdom Forgive me if I'm the one off here, but shouldn't the comma go after "United Kingdom" rather than "1990"?
MOS:DATE says to use a comma after the year unless other punctuation is used.  — Calvin999
Perhaps it's just because it was an album GA I worked on, but I've been told by GA reviewers not to link studio album.
Unlinked.  — Calvin999
I think the first mention of "Columbia" should be "Columbia Records", with the appropriate link.
Linked.  — Calvin999
In the infobox, is a maxi single a Proper Noun? Cause I don't think so.
Doesn't really matter does it? It's just a format, it's not used in sentence.  — Calvin999
Well, I have a personal problem with it because we have this same thing with genres. The first is capitalized, the rest are not. I feel that should be the same for every song or album or artist article, unless the given items are indeed proper nouns. I will be bold here. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  13:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
What is it you want me to do? Have subsequent ones in lower case?  — Calvin999
That's all I got here for now; if I find something in the body making the lead worth changing, I'll post there and here.


### Background
I have read this three times through and still fail to find anything wrong with it.


### Recording
Same thing with the studio album link, maybe?
Already linked in Background.  — Calvin999
Of these, You mean of the seven which made the album? Did the demo tape have any on it that were scrapped? Please clarify.
I've reworded it. She recorded 14 songs between 1985-88, seven were eventually included on her debut album. Of those seven, four were handed included on a demo picked up by Mottola in 1988.  — Calvin999
There's information which I feel is more appropriate here than in the MTV Unplugged section, particularly the last sentence in that paragraph. That information should first be presented up here, and then maybe a little down there if possible. I do see some correlation and link between that last sentence there and the one before it, but still feel the last one should go up here. I mean, doesn't it seem wrong that you're talking about how Cadway does guitars when there weren't originally any guitars there?
I don't think it will make sense to talk about the Unplugged version in the Recording section when the Unplugged version didn't exist until 1992. Also, Trevor Anderson talks about how the guitar stops it sounding timeless in his 2015 retrospective review, which I think leads on nicely from Mariah having said it 25 years earlier, keeps it more chronological.  — Calvin999  08:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand. Isn't the last sentence in MTV Unplugged talking about changes to the original "Someday" before it was released in the first place? The stuff Mariah didn't like about it? I think that information is good to have here, but if I'm applying that to something different, let me know. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  13:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the final sentence up.  — Calvin999  14:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
No need for "Its producer", just "producer"
Changed.  — Calvin999


### Release and remixes
The second "sentence" is a fragment, fix it or combine the two sentences.
I've re-worded it.  — Calvin999  09:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Could find nothing else wrong here.


### Composition and critical reception
Are you absolutely certain you can't find more reception for this? This was a number-one US single (big deal!) and I have reasonable doubt that only two reviews mention anything of value about this particular song.
The album was released 27 years ago before most reviews and single reviews were online. This is unfortunately all I have found.  — Calvin999  09:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Then I'll use my EBSCO access and see if I can find anything on it. For now it's fine. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  12:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The section is written well, though.
By the way....personal opinion: I totally disagree with that last reviewer, I like the solo.
So do I, I'd like to hear the horn version though.  — Calvin999  09:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


### Chart performance
Looks all good.


### Promotion
with the adult Carey shadowing her movements, I don't know what this means.
A young girl plays Mariah as a school girl, and the 20 year old Mariah is shadowing her movements, almost like looking back in time.  — Calvin999  09:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You should name this section "Music video" and move that last part about the Vegas show into the part where every other compilation is mentioned.
Done.  — Calvin999  09:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I see no other issues that need addressed. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. DannyMusicEditor  — Calvin999  09:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

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.
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) 10:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21 § Someday (Rezonance Q song) until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)