Talk:Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7th New Zealand release date - can someone add this?

I'm from New Zealand and I asked the CD store when would it be released. They told me June 7th. Can someone add this to the release dates? (: I think it would be more informative for New Zealand fans. Thanks (: 125.238.96.175 (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, see reference here http://www.jbhifi.co.nz/cd-dvd-music/hot-new-release-cds/ Dbc55 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed tracks aren't confirmed.

There are no sources for the 'Confirmed Tracks' so either they need sources or need to be removed. I also know that one of them isn't really a name for one of the tracks, it is a working title. 'I Am' is what Sia named the track as a working title, but she says that Christina may change the name and it's not confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.103.93 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I think someone has already removed it though so its fine now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyboy94 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Album tracks!

Ive split the album tracks up into 'Recorded Tracks' and 'Confirmed Tracks' and updated the credits of each with info from the ASCAP site. Ive done this as with it being a new release more people will be coming to this page and not all of the tracks mentioned are actually confired ass album tracks, some may not make it onto the album or some may even be for the Burlesque soundtrack. I guess we'll find out when the albums released. Wneedham02 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re

Thank you so much. This would make it so much easier for those who view the pages. Awesome job. KickoMan69 (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Ok guys, the current introduction is just too boring! Too much details!! Edit it please, or I will.Ahmedfarhat (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Iamamiwhoami

The article doesn't mentioned something about the viral camapign, which "is" from Xtina. Many rumors comes to the web, and many of the main journalist have written about it. As NME, PopJustice... --201.232.241.223 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


iamamiwhoami is not Christina Aguilera so shouldn't be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.103.162 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

where is it mentioned? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to editors

Please do not change the following:

  • in the infobox there should only be studio albums listed!! Keeps Getting.... is not a studio album! it's a greatest hits record!!
  • do not add any songs or genres for the album yet! they will be added when something 100% confirmed by a RELIABLE source will appear

Thank v much!! :-) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Please make note to the album:

  • It is the first album for her to have a Parental Advisory sticker. I saw the sticker on her cover on Oprah as she was introducing her on the show.

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojocollins11 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Track listing

There is currently a track listing on hmv. [1]


1. Bionic
2. Not Myself Tonight
3. You Lost Me
4. Kimono Girl
5. Lift Me Up
6. So What You Get
7. Stronger
8. Monday Morning
9. Sex For Breakfast
10. Glam
11. Little Dreamer
12. I Am
13. All I Need
14. Birds Of Prey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.175.246 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Key word being CURRENTLY!!! - HMV says track listing to be confirmed. Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mention TBC anywhere on there but all track listings are subject to change up until the albums actual release, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.175.246 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I added it a few days ago and it did say artwork and track listing to be confirmed. lets wait for other sources to say the same then we'll add it.Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be included if we can find another source that states the same exact tracklisting. --Alextwa (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Music Factory has confirmed a slightly different listing [2]Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are contradicting sources with different information then we should wait to post a trracklisting. I'd wait until a reliable website such as her official site or a site like amazon.com puts in a tracklisting. --Alextwa (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Although i dont think that Amazon is any more credible than any other retailer i certainly will advocate as above. We should not add until there is more than one source with credility indicating the same tracklisting. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I Found another website saying the same tracklist http://www.cdwow.com/CD/christina-aguilera-bionic/dp/9348623/14711093 just to let you know, I Think this is official :)

Christina said in an interview last week that she was still picking the tracklist so I doubt any of these are real.

I would prefer if we got the tracklisting from her website, RCA or Sony Music. If there is a pre-order option on iTunes then I think that would justify including the tracklisting as well. --Alextwa (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I got this from hmv, it's clearly not correct.

She stated "Stronger" was only a working-title as it was to confusing with the fact another song is also called "Fighter" from Stripped. This is obviously not correct.

Writers for confirmed tracks

There are writers mentioned in the ASCAP site. Might be worth placing them there already.

Elastic Love http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=881240491&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1

I Am http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=881250497&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1

You Lost Me http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=881250498&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1

All I Need http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=881250499&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1

I don't know how to place subscripts and source notations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.28.168.51 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Why No One adds genre on the record? is obviously going to have same tipe of sound of Stripped Pop, R&B, Urban adding Electropop and Dance-Pop to all, I think that are the genres judging for Not My Self Tonight and the leaks of Bionic and You Lost Me that someone record from Vh1 Storytellers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.136.10 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

but those could be live renditions of the songs. Its best to wait for the album to actually come out then we can base the genre on the reviews!Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I listen to 3 new leaks "I Hate Boys", "Bionic" and "You Lost Me" and is kind of true the Pop, R&B, Urban, Electropop, Dance-Pop..but I don't know I think that the better put the general thing Pop, R&B, Electropop, cuz I heard "Bionic" and sounds like an Alternative/New Wave and "You Lost Me" a Soul song, So I Think that wait to the review is better cuz they put the genre in general like "Pop" record, "Dance", "R&B", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.58.121 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, better wait the reviews, I just heard all the amazon previews..and really covers a lot of genres and is better wait until someone of reviews put the genres in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.225.134 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Peaches

Did Christina collaborate with Peaches for Bionic? [3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnberrytree (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Billboard

Billboard have described her album as a cut and paste record.

"As it happens, "cut and paste" goes a long way toward describing the choppy postmodern vibe on "Bionic," due June 8 from RCA." Source:[5] This should be added.Apeaboutsims (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So why not go ahead and add it then?Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Where? :SApeaboutsims (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Extra deluxe edition track on iTunes

In the UK, iTunes features an extra track (track no. 24) on the deluxe version titled Little Dreamer http://itunes.apple.com/gb/preorder/little-dreamer/id372419562?i=372419781 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.103.162 (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

German Deluxe Edition altered track listing

{{editsemiprotected}} In the German Deluxe edition of Bionic "Woohoo" is replaced by a hungarian song titled "Add Mar, Uram Az Esöt!" and "I Hate Boys" is replaced by a new track titled "Jungle Juice". Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softonic (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. I'm not sure if you want me to add the new song titles under a new "German Deluxe" section or replace the song titles or what? Please specify EXACTLY how you want the article to appear, thanks. -- Ϫ 00:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, add the new song titles under a new "German Deluxe" section. 85.237.212.12 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Typo found: In the Chronology section in the top right the date listed for Back to Basics is 2008 but it should be 2006. Can't make the correction since this is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.81.224 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

- Been confirmed that "Jungle Juice" is sampled on "I Hate Boys" and "Add Mar, Uram Az Esöt!" is sampled on "WooHoo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaggers (talk • contribs) 17:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit semi protected

{{editsemiprotected}} In the marketinng and promotion section, add that she was on The Today Show on June 8, 2010 and performed "Bionic", "Not myself Tonight", "You lost me" and two songs from her second album Stripped": "Fighter" and "Beautiful". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiagays (talk • contribs) 13:06, June 8, 2010

Tim Pierce (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Today Show

{{editsemiprotected}} In the marketing and promotion section, add that she also performed "You Lost Me" on The Today Show on June 8.Source 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.84 (talk • contribs) 16:48, June 11, 2010

Done Tim Pierce (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Early Show

{{editsemiprotected}} In the marketing and promotion section, add that the performances she did on The Early Show were taped on June 9, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.84 (talk • contribs) 16:48, June 11, 2010

Done Tim Pierce (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuse TV

{{editsemiprotected}} In the marketing and promotion section, add that Aguilera was on Fuse TV on June 7, 2010 to promote the album.Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.91 (talk • contribs) 17:12, June 11, 2010

Done Tim Pierce (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo not second single

No where has it been confirmed to being the second single. It was a promo single in the USA only exactly the same as Dynamite was over there. It's listed in the "Singles" section as the second single. This should be removed or changed to promo itunes single for the USA only.125.238.96.175 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, it is not an official single. It has not even been confirmed by Christina's camp as such and there still has been no conformation as to what the second single will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coiler fan (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You people are not understanding. When a song is sent to radio, it means it is a single. Normal album tracks are not just sent to radio, they are considered singles. Dynamite and Woohoo both are given official radio add dates as singles. Just because she or her label didn't make an announcement doesn't mean anything. There are songs that have just been released to iTunes as promo singles, and they aren't considered singles. But due to radio, Woohoo and Dynamite do not fall under this category, and are official singles. Candyo32 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually being sent to radio is not proof of single release. However "Woohoo" has been given critical reception and some websites have referred to it as the next single. Therefore in this case although its precautious (and i voted for the song to be merged to the album) it is notable for its own article. We will monitor the situation and if the song doesn't recieve a video or recieve official promotion announcement in the future as a single but another song does then we can demote the song's status. I have heard that "You Lost Me" is being lined up as a new single - but we will monitor the situation. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said in the debate a while back on WP:SONGS, regular album tracks do not get airplay. Labels have radio add dates for a reason, for the particular song to get airplay. I mean, when has there been a case when as song released to radio has not been a single. I mean its pretty self-explanatory. Also, not all official singles have an accompanying video release, nor does a video being released make a song a single. Here in the US, CD singles are very uncommon now. So if this were the case, no US-only singles after the release of an album would technically be a single, if you do not count the radio date as being a single. Therefore I thought we decided on WP:SONGS that it would be the case like I said. And about the next single, "You Lost Me" was performed on Idol and received rave reviews for Xtina's vocal performance. However I'm hearing differently, that "Bionic" may be lined up, especially since it has been well-received by fans (more than likely, not critics), and will probably debut on the Billboard Hot 100 from digital downloads from the album alone. Candyo32 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually some random album tracks do get sent to radio, i've known Oasis' 'Shes Electric' to be played on the radio before and a number of other album tracks (not just Oasis). I agree it should be removed from the singles selection until there is a source confirming it is a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, any song can be played on the radio. But singles like Woohoo are given a SPECIFIC radio add date, in this case May 25, 2010, in which labels want there songs (in mostly all cases their SINGLES) to start getting spins. Alright, for US-only singles after an album's release, radio add dates have to be considered as the release date. This has already had an long drawn out discussion before, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_4#Singles_release_date_is_when_FIRST_being_SOLD_as_a_Single.2C_NOT_Radio_Airplay Candyo32 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No offense but the last thing someone said was just crap. Given a specific radio add date? Im pretty sure most songs will be added on a specific date to radio regardless.125.238.96.175 (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason you don't understand is because you do not know about the radio industry. Like you said, and other people that don't know, ANY song can be played on the radio. But SINGLES are given specific airplay dates to go for adds! Please go to [6] or [7], just to name a few, to understand more, and please review [[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_4#Singles_release_date_is_when_FIRST_being_SOLD_as_a_Single.2C_NOT_Radio_Airplay]] to understand why for US-only singles after an album's release are considered singles via airplay date. Candyo32 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Woohoo and Dynamite are promotional singles that are NOT considered official singles, even if they are serviced to airplay. Both are not considered official singles by Christina or RCA Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you from RCA records? Do you speak behalf of Christina? Im sure the answer for both of these is no. MTV called "Woohoo" a single. It was sent for Radio Adds and several other publications called it a single. Christina's website even premiered it as a single. Like it or not, it was a single, it flopped and so the label quickly lined up a third single, "You Lost ME" and cancelled the video for "Woohoo" as well as its international release. P.s. is there a source which calls "You Lost Me" the worldwide second single NO? Each song/single has to be considered on its own merits and based on the information available. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Chart debut in the U.S.A

Bionic debuted at #3 on the Billboard 200, selling approx. 111,800, her lowest in her career. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolz03 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you find this its not on the official billboard site yet? :( I think we should wait for more confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.175 (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 125.238.96.175 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaked

Shouldn't this article mention the album was leaked a couple weeks prior to the albums official release anywhere?125.238.96.175 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, per WP:LEAK the leaking of an album or song is only notable if it invokes a media reaction but more importantly if the artist and/or label responds to such incidents. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please state in the commercial performance section of the article that the album has reached number one in the UK? and also provide a source for it. This is all new to me. If I knew how to do it, I would have done it myself. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor140790 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

'You Lost Me' next single, Not 'WooHoo'

http://www.christinaaguilera.com/us/news/christina-aguileras-you-lost-me Enanoj1111 (talk)

As I have stated before in the previous discussion, Woohoo was sent to U.S. rhythmic stations, making it the second single in the United States. You Lost Me will presumably be the third in the U.S. and the second international single. Candyo32 (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually because xtina's official website is calling "You Lost Me" the next single (it doesn't say Woohoo was ever a single) it seems more credible and plausible that "Woohoo" was only every released in promotion for the album. Yes I'm aware of the discussion (i was part of it) but we need to look at things in context. Woohoo had a radio release date and was released as a purchase only on Itunes. It was released with the album's cover and did not even have its own itunes listing. No official source from Xtina's camp or from RCA records confirmed it was the second single. It is time to consider merging "Woo Hoo" into the album page because frankly it is no longer notable for its own page. It is not likely to grow in size and was IMO created too early anyway. There is not enough information for a decent sized article. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article isn't sufficient enough to stand on its own, meeting WP:SONGS, i'll work on it anyway. However you still have to take in consideration that for US-only singles, radio add dates are the only indications of new singles since CD singles are basically extinct. Using a great example, Lil Freak was originally only a promo single, but went for urban and rhythmic adds, making it the second US-only single (btw, second international single soon) and has flourished since. Woohoo just never picked up on radio. But I mean if this were the case, now i'm just throwing out random examples, songs like "Rockstar 101", "We Got Hood Love", "Sex Room" "Love All Over Me", and thousands of other songs would not be singles if not using the radio add date as a sign. And like I said before, when has a song ever been released to US radio that wasn't a single? Candyo32 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all using other stuff as source of proof for acceptable practise is not the way to prove notability. Lets look at this from a different angle."Lil Freak" and the other songs you mentioned all recieved coverage as a single. "Lil Freak" for example recieved a music video etc. and was promoted actively by the label. Plus its set to be released in the UK. "Woo Hoo" doesn't have a video, was not listed independently on iTunes (was listed with the album) and was not pushed forward as a single. Therefore what makes it so special for its own article? Was it performed by other artists? no. did it recieve lots of independent coverage? yes. did it recieve awards from a notable awards organisation? no. did it chart on several national charts, yes. it is because it is missing some of this notability criteria and that it was never announced as a single that it should not have its own page. for the time being i recommend demoting the infobox from single to song. We need a more thorough discussion about the status of "Woohoo". But to me it seems like RCA are doing a Mariah Carey and pretending that "Woohoo" was never officially released. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't use the "other stuff" angle, but it's true. However, a music video does not certify a release as a single. Several singles have not have music videos, and there have been music videos made for songs that were not singles. Just because a single isn't actively promoted doesn't mean it isn't a single, ex. Mariah's recent songs. And on iTunes, although it was listed with the album, it was listed on the iTunes Home in "New and Noteworthy" as it's own withstanding piece. Besides, I wasn't under the impression that an article had to meet every criterion of WP:SONGS or several songs would be deleted if they weren't performed by another artist or didn't receive an award. I mean if you went on the fact that it wasn't performed by other artists and not an award, then article, just spouting out something random, like Commander (song) should be redirected. To me, the simple fact that it had so much outside coverage that it meets it. YLM is more than likely is being promoted as the second international single, but third in US. But look at it this way, here in the US, keep in mind that CD singles barely don't exist and that an album has already been released digitally (the song can't be re-released if it's already available digitally), then how could you have new singles? There would be none. Candyo32 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
And btw, the last time Woohoo was nominated, it was snowing. Candyo32 (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The previous AfD was different because we assumed that "Woohoo" would have a proper release. An AfD now might yield different results though im not sure its quite required just yet. "Commander" has a lot more coverage including media as well as reports from Kelly Rowland's website calling it the official single and even a press release. It has multiple charts and multiple sources confirming its release including her website, her press release and her record label. "Woohoo" did get a lot of outside coverage but the simple fact that it was never promoted or referred to as the second single speaks volumes. "Lil Freak", "Sex Room" and "Rockstar 101" all recieved support from their labels as official singles even though initially they were only released to radio. The question here is not favouring one artist/song over another. Take a very good example non-released song which has an article: "Speechless (Lady Gaga song)". Are you seriously suggesting that even with improvements the "Woohoo" article could be as good as the "Speechless" one? At the very least downgrade the infobox to song instead of single unless we can provide several sources which specifically say that "Woohoo" is the second U.S. single because at the end of the day of the label and/or artist don't push the song forward as a single then it becomes a promo. Your final comment is slightly misjudged. A single by defination is an independent release of a song seperate to an album. Though this has changed through time thanks to radio-only singles and promo's etc the basic sentiment is that songs must be referred to as a single to be classified as one because the conditions of what constitutes a single are now vague. Your comments would suggest that when an album is released in the US digitally, then all of its songs are singles because they are available digitally. We know this is not the case. Songs don't become singles until they are treated independently of the album, until they have seperate listings when available by retailers etc. Finally the radio argument is a little bit pointless with this song because it was released to purchase anyway. Does that make more sense now? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstood my last comment. I was saying because the whole album has been released digitally, a single could not be released separately, in that it has already been released. And they can't be treated separate by retailers if the song is already been released with the album, keeping in mind CD singles are extinct. How is the radio argument pointless if you say that its first released was as a promo single only, making it a single. A song is not going to be given a radio add date (WHICH IS BY THE LABEL) if it is not intended to be a single. I think it's kind of hard for you to see my perspective on the Radio/digital angle since the market is different here in the US, mainly since in the UK CD singles are readily available. And I'm not talking "Speechless" quality but there are GA's for promo singles (ex. Favorite Girl and Love Me (Justin Bieber song). Candyo32 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok well we're going round in circles here so im gonna stop talking about it. You've made your position clear and i've given my opinion. We'll see what others think. In the mean time, we seem to now both be calling "Woohoo" a promo single? Are we at least agree on that? As a compromise and way of getting "Woohoo" to survive it would be better to remove it from the album infobox and change the yellow single infobox to the blue song infobox. And please i know what you said was in good faith but i am not a dunce or clutz. I understand radio releases well enough. My point is it may have been intended as the second single but because it wasnt promoted as one, it didnt get official coverage as one, it didn't get a single cover etc. the label obviously no longer want it to be seen as one. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I meant it was originally a promo single, then went for adds making it an official, like Lil Freak. But I mean lets say if her label pulled the promotion or something, it doesn't it wasn't intended to be one, as RCA wanted the song to go for adds on May 25, 2010. And as for the good faith thing, you may have misunderstood again, I was just noting that Radio airplay is the only way you can note singles after an album's release in the US, however that is different in the UK because of CD singles, airplay really isn't needed to figure out singles, and really doesn't matter like it does in the US. Candyo32 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, you note single release by releasing something official stating "XYZ" is the 2nd single from album "ABC" by artist "HIJ". Take Monica's "Everything to Me" ... look at how much coverage she gave it as her first single... If the label had intended "Woohoo" to be classified a second single it would have been on the website, it would have been introduced as one etc. Im just not convinced that they ever intended it to be a full single, they essentially tested the waters and because the response is lukewarm they're now moving on as though it didnt happen. Anyway forget it... if people want to keep it open please do so. You've already made a start on making improvements to the article and it is quite good now i must admit. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Well ETM was the lead single and had proper release and was prior to the album so it was available for standalone from the album. But then look how Island just like dropped all promotion for Mariah's IWTKWLI (in the us), HATEU, Up Out My Face, and Angels Cry. Lol. And Thanks. Candyo32 (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved conversation about bionic to my talk page as article talk page's are not forums. =) Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

According to MTV, "Woohoo" was issued as a single. "In addition to the singles 'Woohoo' and 'Not Myself Tonight,' other tracks from the disc have leaked online." In the same article, producer Claude Kelly said, "I did 'Woohoo,' which is the single out now". His quote might not be accurate so reliable as he is too close to Aguilera and not close enough to the record label, but the fact that MTV, a reliable publication, refers to it as the second single is confirmation enough. –Chase (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Candyo32 (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is handling this is doing a terrible job. Just like any other article, if something is not certain and is being debated on it should not be made official in the article. In this case, there is no evidence that WooHoo is a single, and it is most likely that it isn't. It shouldn't even have it's own article, especially since it's a buzz single at its most. It only deserves a brief mention in this article. What are you, waiting for Christina to make a wikipedia account and personally tell you Woohoo is not a single? It is so blatantly obvious You Lost Me is the official second single and Christina nor her reps have said nothing about Woohoo plus it's not even being promoted by them as a single. But like i said, until this is resolved, this article should not state Woohoo as an official second single. Coiler fan (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

^ To the use above i used to be of the same opinion until I compared the situation to other similar radio releases e.g. "We Got Hood Love" and "H.A.T.E.U.". Labels often push songs with a radio release but if the song never takes off i.e. it doesn't chart on Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) promotion is usually pulled. It was released seperately from the album on iTunes and was reviewed in the US as as a seperate release. The conclusion here is that because the song didnt really take off it is being left and they are moving on to the third overall single from the album, "You Lost Me" (which is the second international single). Lots of albums have different national and international singles. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not released separately from the album, but simply it was a song that was made available from iTunes before all the others. As soon as the album came out, all the others were available and now when you go to "Woohoo - Single" the entire Bionic album comes up. Woohoo should not be considered an official single, but rather a promotional single. The page for it should be kept, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For the last time IT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO RHYTHMIC AIRPLAY AS THE ALBUM'S SECOND SINGLE. End of story. Please stop trying to cause confusion once again. Candyo32 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SINCE WHEN DOES THAT PROVE IT'S AN OFFICIAL SINGLE? (Cprice1000 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs)

Radio add dates are how US-only singles are determined. It is the only way because the song cannot be re-released to digital download. Candyo32 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Sorry! User:Cprice1000 (Cprice1000 16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
Most of this is utter crap. No offense. "In addition to the singles 'Woohoo' and 'Not Myself Tonight,' other tracks from the disc have leaked online." That does not make WooHoo a single. AT ALL. Noting a song as a 'Single" does not make it a single. A news site in Aus declared "Bad Boy" as a single, even though it hasn't been released as a single. For a song to be listed as a single, the record label needs to release it as a single. Not have someone call it a "Single". I might say, I really like the singles "Glam" and "I Am". Does that automatically mean its a single? Think about it.--Apeaboutsims (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Woohoo was released to US radio and iTunes. Why can't people accept that Aggie released a single and no one was bothered? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 09:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

US review

US Magazine/Weekly is a gossip/tabloid magazine. Should it be included in this article as a reviewer? Dan56 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course not! here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites you can find the sites that are prefered for reviews! ;-) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"I Hate Boys" next Australian single?

I know that blogs do not count as a reliable sources, but according to auspOp, Sony Music Australia has confirmed "I Hate Boys" as the second official Australian single off the album. It will apparently be officially serviced to Australian radios next Monday. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources, but will mention it here if I come across any.--141.35.189.15 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable source. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know! That's why I explicitly mentioned that I hadn't been able to find any reliable sources. --141.35.40.136 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
What about this? http://www.starsentertainment.com/news/item/1185-aguilera-confirms-next-bionic-single.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.132.191 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I bet that article was based on what was posted on the aforementioned blog, which still isn't a reliable source.--141.35.40.136 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an itunes link proving the track was released in Australia. It was a digital single only. http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/i-hate-boys-single/id389964817

Debut in Mexican Albums Chart

Bionic has debuted #8 in the official Mexican Albums Chart. Here you have the link: http://greaves.tv/amprofon3/Top100.pdf

I hope somebody has the time to put it on the page. Thanks. --190.222.217.94 (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Greek certification

First, I suspect there's a big problem with the Google translation, and the original Greek should be translated something like "a chance to win "Bionic", an album that has gone gold in our country." Chronisgr is reading the original Greek and doesn't see that the Google translation is warped.

That aside, the certification is not being sourced to IFPI Greece, and that's the only source for certifications that is acceptable. Sony will claim gold and platinum for things that never get certified: of all the record companies, they seem to be the worst about exaggerating things, to the point of telling out-and-out lies. They are not a reliable source for certifications or sales.—Kww(talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


Well, you can understand from the translation of google that the album is gold. How is it possible not to believe Sony BMG? They do not call all of their albums as "gold" or "platinum", but only those who have reached the gold level (3,000 copies). IFPI GR rarely updates the certifications of the albums in their website. Rihanna's album is still not certified in their website but she got a plaque for the platinum sales of Rated R when she came to Athens for her tour. the website of IFPI Greece is almost dead. Each record company is responsible for the certifications. I repeat. It's not a fan site but an official website. They cannot claim something that does not exist. Chronisgr (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sony BMG lies. They've lied about Jay Sean sales, they lie about Michael Jackson sales, they lie about Mariah Carey sales. This isn't special treatment for Greece: I remove certifications for any country if they can't be confirmed with the certification agency. There's just to much exaggeration in the music industry to do anything else.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
^ Most of all Sony Music (and their record label Columbia) have lied about Beyoncé sales. I have tried several different translation websites all appear to suggest that the gold prize in the competition is a copy of Bionic. Anyway like Kww says it doesn't matter. The source must be directly from IFPI Greece. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you must remove the platinum certification of Sade's latest album and the certifications of Britney Spears' "Circus" which are incorrect. Lil-unique1, you're wrong. The translation clearly says what Kww wrote before (that the album is gold).Chronisgr (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well like i said i don't speak Greek and I accept that online translation tools can be wrong. However as Kww said only the provider of the certification can be used to source certificates. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sony wasn't lying at all. The album is listed as GOLD in the IFPI site.Chronisgr (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

if IFPI has it as gold by all means add it.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit waring over singles please...

Three singles have been released from the album:

Therefore three singles have been released overall (3 in the US, 2 internationally). This makes "Woohoo" the second single from the album, "You Lost Me" is therefore the third single. Singles refer to songs released from the album not songs released in certain countries. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Change back label to RCA only..

Something changed the label to RCA/Jive. Christina Aguilera is signed to RCA and RCA Records alone and Bionic was distributed by RCA and RCA Records alone.

RCA/Jive is only for artists signed to Jive Records since RCA Records purchased them I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.198 (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sales figures necessary in Intro section?

Are sales figures really necessary in the Introduction?

Firstly- there are no sources to support the whole of the second paragraph in the Intro (about US and UK sales) For example- there is no source to support the claim that, "Bionic made UK chart history by first debuting at number one with lowest number of copies sold in eight years and then by registering the largest weekly decline for a number one album."

Secondly- my edit in the Introduction in which I added a quote from a review by Billboard was removed on the basis that it should be included in the 'Critical Response' section. Which is fair enough- but surely the paragraph in the Intro about Bionic's sales in the US and UK should therefore be moved to the 'Commercial Performance' section, following the same logic? No?

Basically, I just think the information in the Intro about sales and figures is unecessary and poorly supported with zilch sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnm2324 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its sourced in the commericial performance section (therefore this is not required to be sourced in the lead) that Bionic is the first album to top the charts with 24,000 copies sold in 8 years and registers the biggest single weekly tumble for a number one albim. Quotes about the general reception and sales are more than relevant because the lead section per the guidelines is supposed to summarise the album including its performance and reception. It will leave a legacy for these achievements. I understand thats fan of Xtina are upset that the album didn't perform however Wikipedia is supposed to be factual and offer a fair representation of the actual achievements, perceptions to and performance of an article. These details are intergral to that understanding. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand you think its upsetting to Xtina fans but when you think about it, its not needed. Regardless of how low the sales were their is always going to be albums debuting at number 1 with lower sales but 8 years isn't exactly a milestone. I feel that its overly negative. It feels like your justifying to her fans why in your mind it debuted high and trying to tell them its not an accomplishment. Regardless of that it still went to number 1. Its an accomplishment for any artists. Maybe keep it in the article but move it to "Commercial Performance" and not the first paragraph or so.125.238.96.26 (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

per other WP:GA and WP:FA articles, any records broken by an album are mentioned in its lead section. However you try and gloss over it, the album has broken records. Those need to be mentioned in the introduction. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider that a record at all. A record is like fatest selling them of all time or something.125.238.96.26 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

you're logic is misplaced, how can "registering the biggest week-on-week decline for a number one album in UK chart history not be a record? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You Lost Me

You Lost Me terribly needs a page that is REFERENCED this time. Also there is information of a official music video for the song on her Twitter and a behind the scenes video of it on her youtube. cprice1000 (7/13/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  • neither of those are viable, or reliable sources and it has yet to chart. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The music video is out, so it should have an article. Plus, the redirect should be removed; a self dirsecting link is redundant. --Arathun (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The single has been released, plus the video. It should have its own page. --Alextwa (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

RCA conflict

There have been reports of fall out between Aguilera and RCA over this album. There are claims of her not listening to RCA's advise. RCA and her management have denied this however. I opened a discussion on this (on the RCA records wikipedia page) as material that can be put into the criticisms section of the RCA page. I am wondering if anyone thinks this situation should be added onto this page given it deals directly with this album. --Alextwa (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This wouldn't surpsise me. She never wanted Not Myself Tonight as lead single apparently but RCA took over in the end and decided. I dont think their are any references for this "rumor" though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.26 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That piece of information could be used on this page plus the page on RCA Records in the criticisms section. --Alextwa (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DID SOMEONE DELETE IT??????

What happened to the You Lost Me page!? Why shouldn't it have stayed up????????? It had everything! (Charts,references) What was wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprice1000 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NSONGS song pages MUST not be created until there is sufficient detail. All of that information can be reliably contained here. It hasn't been deleted rather redirected. Once the video is released then there will be more information etc. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The video has been released.

And now were are awaiting more information to be released. Please sign your comments next time. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The single should have its own page, its been released and there is a music video. There should be no question about that fact it should have a page. --Alextwa (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Singles

From what I know, no future single have been announced. Only three have been released to date. Some editing I have seen suggusts otherwise. If a next single has been announced then source it. --Alextwa (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WooHoo the THIRD single?

What?! Who keeps doing this? How is it the THIRD?!?!?!User:Cprice1000 (User:Cprice1000 () 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

Sales

What is its worldwide sales to day and US sales to date? We should include this. I've heard 221,000 in the US and 526,000 worldwide. --Alextwa (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not from what's been said. Need sources.--59.101.212.138 (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Drop from label

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/its_fight_or_flight_for_christ.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.212.138 (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic Link

The link to metacritic's normalized rating is broken. If someone could rectify this situation by citing an analogous source, that would be much appreciate. Myownworst (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to find a similar version of a normalized rating for critical reviews, but since I have been unable, I will remove that information from the article and instead utilize the cited critical reviews. If someone can find a suitable generalized rating source, please replace the information and add the citation. Thanks. Myownworst (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I Hate Boys even be considered an official single?

The song, thus far has only really been released digitally, that we can confirm. For this so called radio release, we don't have an exact date of when it was sent to radio. It could have just been sent out for promotional uses. This would be perfectly fine if we had a date when it was sent to radio, but we don't. So how can this even be considered an official single from the album? ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I Hate Boys can be considered as an official single, because it was announced that the song will be released in US and in the UK in late 2010. Lxhizy (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this information? ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not a promotional digital download (something released around the same time as the single). People must understand that just because it was 1 country makes it just a promotional single. It was an Australian only single. Also notice here it says "single" not promotional. --Cprice1000talk2me 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Studio Album

I believe there might me a mistake in the first line of the article: there it says that Bionic is Aguilera's sixth studio album, rather than fourth, as it is stated in the infobox at the bottom of the same article. Can someone fix this if it is wrong or explain why is it correct please? Thanks. 201.220.233.86 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Nico

No, it's right:

  1. Christina Aguilera
  2. Mi Reflejo
  3. My Kind of Christmas
  4. Stripped
  5. Back to Basics
  6. Bionic

--Cprice1000talk2me 01:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed her sixth studio album. If you are talking about the template, someone changed it, and it was reverted back for being incorrect. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think "Bionic" it's her 4th studio album, not 6th!

XD, "other albums" don't exist. There are studio albums and studio albums. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 11:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Studio albums:

  1. Christina Aguilera
  2. Stripped
  3. Back to Basics
  4. Bionic

Other albums:

  • Mi Reflejo (Not regular, it's something like "a spanish version for her 1st album")
  • My Kind of Christmas (Not regular, it might be in a "Christmas album" category)

Arlindo 88 (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bionic Named Second Most Illegally-Downloaded Album of 2010

I think someone should add this somewhere, maybe in the commercial performance section. Not Myself Tonight's single and video have also made a list, so they should be posted in the Not Myself Tonight page aswell maybe. You can find the information here: http://perezhilton.com/2010-12-28-top-ten-most-illegally-downloaded-albums-songs-and-music-videos-of-2010 or http://ileaks.com/2010/ 74.216.6.127 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

More reliable source here That's truly awful. :( --Cprice1000talk2me 21:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't really have anything to do with the album. ℥nding·start 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
How is it not? I think it should be listed on it's sales, since it affects them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.6.127 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. A leak doesn't necessarily affect album sales. The Fame was illegally downloaded millions of times, and the album still sold very well. ℥nding·start 21:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Well Bionic was illegally downloaded tens of millions of times (:219.89.129.189 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Who cares? Unless the label address it or the artist addresses it, its not notable. Especially not from Perez Hilton. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 04:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Singles section doesnt make sense

I didnt want to remove it before discussing it but under the singles section it has a promotional singles part however it doesnt feautre 'WooHoo' and on the description it says that it was released as a promo/ buzz single so shouldnt it be under the promotional section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiceitup08 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo is an official single from the album. ℥nding·start 22:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But it says "But it was only a promo-single, to create the buzz about the album." shouldnt that be removed then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiceitup08 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should. I'll fix it. ℥nding·start 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Right now, this article stands at a strong B. There are a few strong issues that lead me to fail this article. First and foremost, the second paragraph of the lead is in shambles and needs work. It only focuses in the UK, where there is still wierd wording (mixed reception? I call it weak sales). There is no focus on any other major music markets. Aside from that, my main issue are the references, which each one has an issue. Some are not reliable and almost every single one is poirly formatted. If you need help or have questions, I will be happy to outline their sepcifics and help you out. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead: "recording artist", "singer-songwriter"

Not that this seems worthy of discussing, but it has been brought up that addressing Aguilera as "singer-songwriter" is more appropriate. It is less accurate, however, since this signifies that she writes her own material. Most of her work has been either penned or co-penned (writing/producing) by other collaboraters, while the biographical article on her addresses her as "recording artist". This is less controversial and general, since it has also been brought up that she does production work as well, better covering her musical role. Dan56 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary reads, a singer-songwriter is "a performer who writes his or her own songs". Recording artist is a quite general term. Any artist who recordings music can be labeled a recording artist. Singer-songwriter is more specific. She writes most of her songs, whether she writes them by herself or with co-writers is irrelevant. I don't know what the big deal is to you about it, it's quite obvious she is a singer-songwriter. She's also co-produced some of her songs, if the term singer-songwriter means to you they produce the music too. And about her main page, it did say singer-songwriter, but I see someone went and changed it. ℥nding·start 02:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not obvious, since she co-writes the songs. Not her own songs, they are also those of the writers. It is relevant. And she fits the bill of recording artist rather Singer-songwriter. A number of other well-known musicians may write some of their own songs, but are usually called singers instead.
I am confused at what you are saying. Can you further explain you're responding to why she shouldn't be listed as a singer-songwriter? There's no denying she co-wrote most of her songs, and even co-produced some of them. I think this discussion should be moved to her main page, as it affects all of her articles. I just changed it on here first because I'm trying to get this article to GA status. ℥nding·start 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You answered your own question. All of her songs have her as co-writer, which hardly qualifies her as "singer-songwriter". Their not her own songs, they are also those of the other writers. She could just be referred to as "singer" and it would be more accurate, but "recording artist" seems more general for the point you made in her having a producing role as well. Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been/will be discussed further on Aguilera's biographical article. ℥nding·start 02:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP article on singer-songwriter: "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and sing their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. They often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano. A number of other well-known musicians may write some of their own songs, but are usually called singers instead" Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

i hate boys as single

it did get a radio release and digtial download in australia, so isnt a single in australia then?? the same thing whit woohoo. --91.154.102.120 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bionic World Wide Sales

According to mediatraffic site admin, copies sold of Bionic 750k

LINK: http://www.mediatraffic.de/Forum3/viewtopic.php?t=2116&sid=1951af183d8600e472dfc34422732de2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.252.10.117 (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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 "411mania":

  • From Elastic Love: Pardalis, Dan (June 9, 2010). "411mania.com: Music - Christina Aguilera - Bionic Review". 411 Mania. Retrieved May 19, 2012.
  • From Bionic (song): Pardalis, Dan (June 9, 2010). "Christina Aguilera - Bionic Review". 411Mania. Retrieved May 17, 2012.

Reference named "idolator":

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⚡ 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bionic_(Christina_Aguilera_album)/Archive_1&oldid=1148855468"