Talk:Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 26, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 24, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Christina Aguilera High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christina Aguilera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christina Aguilera 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.Christina AguileraWikipedia:WikiProject Christina AguileraTemplate:WikiProject Christina AguileraChristina Aguilera articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Certifications

UK Silver Certification (Album) 22 July 2013. SONY MUSIC (RCA) Released 07 June 2010

--189.172.88.68 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/christina-aguileras-bionic-and-more-new-reviews-20100608

— Simon (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ladytron quote

"The way she played the album to me was her original vision. She was on the right track but the record label f**ked up everything, to be honest. All the good stuff got pumped into disc two. I think that if she would have done what she had in mind it would have been better. I also think that with what she had in mind she could have [sidestepped] all the kind of potential comparison with Lady GaGa which, you know, at the time it was that nightmare for her. She would have done it in the smart way and she would have been renowned now, but her record label instead wanted to put her against [GaGa]."

—Ladytron talking about "Bionic" not meeting their expectations.^[1]

I am removing this quote from the article because the source quotes a fan forum (AfterLD.com). Unless Daniel Hunt has said this to a reliable source, there is no way to verify that he said this. Melonkelon (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Copsey, Robert (March 28, 2011). "Ladytron: 'Label f**ked up Aguilera LP'". Digital Spy. Retrieved September 23, 2011.

Lotus is the fifth, Bionic is the fourth STUDIO album.

Source: http://www.rcarecords.com/news/global-superstar-christina-aguilera-release-new-album-lotus-november-13th Ã — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.233.75 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christina has released 7 albums, 5 English language albums, 1 spanish language album and 1 christmas album. That is seven studio albums.

Christina Aguilera (1999)
Mi Reflejo (2000)
My Kind of Christmas (2000)
Stripped (2002)
Back to Basics (2006)
Bionic (2010)
Lotus (2012)

Rather simple really. Her label counts her five English albums as her studio albums but at the end of the day, the christmas album and spanish album are also studio albums.→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SONG'S REDIRECTION

I couldn't be sadder than that, honestly, the only reason that some "Bionic" articles were redirected was because of the lackluster sales, because saying that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for songs is very controversial, since many articles here of the same format (non-single), which has charted in the same chart, only with ALBUM REVIEWS as sources, received GA nominations, and now these articles were simply redirected? And what about the criterion of redirect an article since it lacks coverage independent of album reviews? Why the same rules are not applied to every non-single article here? "Desnudate" even has a single source about the song (a track-by-track commentary from the singer herself), "I Am" has enough coverage (so many reliable and different sources - not only album reviews), however if we dig deeper and search other articles here on Wikipedia, you'll find them receiving GA nominations, even lacking a single source about the song itself. Well, what I'm trying to say is that you can't apply a rule to selected articles, it needs to be apply for every article (in this case, every non-single article). I worked so hard on these articles, dedicated my time (many months), did many researches to make a beautiful book in the end, but then I find out that all my effort was in vain, because of a rule that is not applied to every article and clearly it's only because some users didn't want these articles anymore. I was even looking many other sources and references to add, and I was going to improve them even more with a more refined vocabulary, so they would become perfect, not to receive a GA nomination, but to stay here as they have the right to. FanofPopMusic (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FanofPopMusic: You can restore the articles, as long as they all meet the criteria for WP:NSONGS. Simon (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, FanofPopMusic, but WP:EFFORT and WP:MERCY aren't convincing reasons to keep articles. Also, whether a song was released as a single is not an automatic indicator of notability. There are non-notable singles as well as notable non-singles. Just making a general statement. It isn't so much whether people "want" articles as it is some articles not meeting notability criteria. WP:NSONGS does exist for a reason, so it should be put to use. Not every song is going to be notable, single or not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MC":

From Lights (Ellie Goulding album): "Lights – Ellie Goulding". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 19 June 2010.
From Burlesque: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack: "Gold and Platinum Search". Music Canada. Retrieved May 4, 2014.
From Christina Aguilera discography: "Gold and Platinum (Christina Aguilera)". Music Canada (MC). Retrieved June 11, 2012.
From Lotus (Christina Aguilera album): "Lotus Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved November 18, 2012.
From Hurt (Christina Aguilera song): "Gold and Platinum Search: Christina Aguilera, Hurt". Music Canada. Retrieved August 25, 2008.
From Mi Reflejo: "Mi Reflejo Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More at Metacritic". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved April 28, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Copsey, Robert (March 28, 2011). "Ladytron: 'Label f**ked up Aguilera LP'". Digital Spy. Retrieved September 23, 2011.

[1]