Talk:Hypnotico

Tami Chynn

This article only mentions that it was written for Tami. It was recorded by Tami. The background section made me confused. How is that the background of Hypnotico - that is the background of Brave. Some editors of music say that background sections are useful to reinforce notability... About the name of the song too - was it changed to "Hypnotico" for Brave? Was it was already titled "Hypnotico (Silly Heartbreakers)" when Tami recorded it? I just needed to ask these questions.Rain the 1 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the released version of the song; the original version is mentioned in "Writing and recording", where it belongs. It doesn't really matter if it was recorded by another artist beforehand, many songs are. "We Found Love" was shopped to Shakira and recorded by Leona Lewis before it went to Rihanna. Statυs (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My questions remain unanswered. I am not interested in "We Found Love". So - Why is Brave the background of the song? Why does it not mention that Tami recorded the song? "Hypnotico (Silly Heartbreakers)" was included on Prima Donna - an album she completed - leaked - then cancelled. If I had not known the truth I would have been fooled into thinking that Jennifer Lopez's "Love?" was the background. Surely "Prima Donna" and Chynn's work is the actual background of the song? As an uncharted album with critical reviews actually being about "Love?" as a collective, not "Hypnotico" in general and the remaining only existing because of GaGa association - this article is relying on the generic background section to help it pass WP:GNG. I would also like to point out that it is the same song no matter who records it. Lopez just made it an album track.Rain the 1 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a fair question. The "Background" section of the article should start with the songwriters writing the song together, not where Lopez was in her career at that time. Starting the body of the article with Lopez is like saying that the song is hers. It is not hers alone; at least two major recordings of it have been made (one unreleased but notable anyway) and other singers may record it in the future. The article should focus on the song itself, first and foremost. Lopez should be brought in later, after Chynn's album was shelved.

The Jamaica Gleaner says that Chynn's version of "Hypnotico" was under consideration as a single release. ("Chynn 'melts' dance charts with Frozen") Interesting. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Great point. But aside from this issue the GA reviewer quick passed this article. I checked the reviewer's talk page and noticed that you had already addressed the issue. Despite these editors being active they have not bothered to reply to any concerns? I think WP:GAR would be fair enough here. Good articles are not meant to mislead readers.Rain the 1 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm taking this article to GAR in a few days if there is no improvement. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

GAR is not the right way, and I find no reasons enough to delist the article. Also, I have thoroughly searched for sources when I developed this article with Status, and I believe that all possible information is already there, but if I am provided with reliable sources discussing and assuring how Tami recorded the song, as well as the rest of the claims made by Rain the 1, I will gladly add such information; otherwise, there is no reason to start a reassessment process and it will be considered somewhat disruptive. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You are free to consider it "somewhat disruptive" when I take this article to GAR; it's your privilege to have an opinion. My opinion is that the article was never developed far enough to merit the GA status. It had and still has problems with style/format and breadth, such as the points I mentioned to Khanassassin about the too-shallow GA determination. The J-Lo "Background" is about her, not about the song, so it should come later, after the songwriters get the song together, and after Chynn records it. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aganist your claims that the background is about Lopez; actually, she was the only one who released the song, and it became notable because of its inclusion in Lopez' album, Love?. The song is not famous because of Chynn, and that's why the focus of the article is settled to Lopez. Also, I am not against the inclusion of any information that is missed, either here at the talk or in the still-to-be-created GAR page, iff such information can be relied upon quality sources discussing the matter, and I have failed at this point to locate such information. I will do another look, although I may see the outcome as unsuccessful. I may be wrong, and therefore I welcome anyone willing to help by providing any useful information. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

All I want to see is some improvement to bring the article up to GA level. I will not go to GAR if the article is fixed, such that the background of the song is not about Lopez (a chronological presentation would fix that), and the article meets the normal Wikipedia:Good article criteria such as layout and WP:MOS. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already fixed all of the issues you pointed. Stop sounding so condescending to the writers of the article, when it isn't our fault the article didn't get a full review. The one who picked the review up thought everything was fine. As for the background, again, you're wrong. The article is about Lopez's and hers alone. The background is HER background and the original version of the song is in its writing.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you disagree that Background should be before writing does not make it an issue with layout or MOS. There were a few grammar issues that were corrected. If you have any more legitimate concerns, then please, do share them, if not, carry on. Also, both Hahc and I looked for additional information on Tami's version, and there is none. It's clear Lopez's is the most notable, so that's the focus of the article. Period.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking that theory - I could release Hypnotico and it becomes an international #1 hit. It is now an extremely famous song. Would the background section need a rewrite to fit my album? Chynn did record this song, but you already knew that. Obviously Lopez's version has found the most fame - I never disputed that. The article now references Chynn recording "Hypnotico" and it being the would-be second single. That is great. I maintain that the background section makes for a confusing article - more about "Love?" and Jennifer Lopez than "Hypnotico". I believe that is a legitimate concern.Rain the 1 01:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that Tami's version was not actually released, it leaked.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have said it leaked - But I never said it was released by Chynn. Missing the point, eh? Please keep comments focused on article improvement rather than accusing other editors. So far you have told editors they are condescending, wrong, having concerns that are not legitimate and now telling me I am unaware of the facts.Rain the 1 00:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lopez background moved down

I moved the Lopez background info down further so that the writing of the song can come first. This arrangement matches the actual chronology of the song. It was written and recorded long before Lopez knew about it. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that you were reverted. Please discuss further changes first, please... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the Lopez background come first, or the songwriting come first?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article body text start with what Lopez was doing in her career before she recorded the song "Hypnotico" (this version), or should it start with the process of songwriting by the five composers: RedOne, Lady Gaga, Akon, Claude Kelly and Tami Chynn (this version)? Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Songwriting should be first because the songwriting started the ball rolling. It came first in the chronology. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It is a standard that background of the notable version's artist comes first in song articles. The reader should be interested in reading what the artist were doing before recording the version that became notable. Then, it comes the writing process, where the reader is instructed about the existence of other versions of the song and how the artist got it and recorded it. That's the order, not backwards. Most of the people looking for this article do so because of Jennifer Lopez, so they expect a background talking about previous endeavours by the singer to come before any other information about the song. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see your suggestion made into a formal recommendation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Article content. In fact, that guideline says to start with "a description of the song". It does not say to start with a description of the performer. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • And that's why it is a guideline, and not a policy. It suggests, as a general note, how is the article to be developed, but it is not mandatory. Additionally, I don't see how you find the background section to be a "description of the performer"; as I see it, it is a description of the previous relevant facts the performer did before recording the song. That's why it is named background: what was the performed doing before getting to record the song. Also, you can check any other music article and see how it is written, although you surely will put an other stuff link in your next response to debunk my comment :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The Songs Wikiproject put the guideline together for the express purpose of helping to format song articles. There's no reason to pooh-pooh it because it is only a guideline and not policy—it remains the only applicable guideline for song articles. The guideline says to first describe the song, not the "previous relevant facts the performer did before recording the song". Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • My guess is that you are reading the guideline backwards. Guidelines represent what community mostly do when developing articles, and they (the guidelines) are written to represent how community write articles, not to teach community how to write them. It serves its purpose of illustrating new users with a quick-to-read way to learn the nuances of writing music articles, but it does not limit how they should be written. Guidelines can be followed, but not applied. They are not rules but a helping hand (and a good one indeed, although I read that page after taking several song articles to GA status, which proves its uselessness when it comes to necessity) and we must not try to enforce the compliance with that guideline to make a point. Is it really so highly relevant to let the users know how Chynn got the song even when they are looking for Lopez's version? I know that this may give undue weigh to Jennifer's version at the end, but is Chynn's unreleased version weighted enough to be put before Lopez's? Music articles are not written on a chronology but on a structural basis. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not here to push Chynn up at the expense of Lopez. I don't give a fig either way. I'm here to make certain that a song article is about the song first and foremost. Any argument bringing up Chynn is a strawman; of course her experience with the song is less important than Lopez's. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Okay. Then we can delete that part of the discussion and focus on the song. Just look at this example: When we study the second world war, we'd like to know which events happened prior to Gemany's invasion of Poland in 1939. The user would like to know that Japan was already at war with China since 1937, that Germany previously invaded Austria in 1917 during the previous war, between other series of events that came before the main subject of the article: the war. And eventually, the article about the World War II on Wikipedia has a background section explaining those events. Now, moving to music articles, The only previous events we can explain on a song's article are those related to the singer: the most recent notable events that led to the recording of the song. In "Hypnotico"'s case, how Lopez cancelled her contract with Epic Records after the lackluster release of "Louboutins" on November 2009 and how she later found a contract with another record label, Island Def Jam, to release her then still-in-work sixth album. During these new sessions, she found a song previously named "Silly Heartbreakers" which was written several years before she first heared it, and which was a scrapped recording from Chynn's cancelled album, Prima Donna. I believe that this is the order this article may follow, and any other song article. Background sections enjoy specific information about the song when available, like Madonna's "Hung Up", which has a very rich and detailed background (which happens to be mixed with information about the release of the song) about how Madonna developed a song wich sounded very different to the final single release. The more popular a song is, the more information that will be available. Sadly, "Hypnotico" isn't. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
              • But this is not an article on war. Taking that theory - surely everything that happened prior was a catalyst to start the war. The background section here is not accurate to describe how "Hypnotico" was created. We already know the actual background was GaGa, Chynn and co etc writing and recording for Chynn's album. This is not exclusive - it is an extra section that has been pasted into each article from Lopez's the Love? tracklist.Rain the 1 04:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
                • Backgrounds are designed to provide (in my honest opinion and as I have stated above) "the most recent notable events that led to the recording of the song", not how the song was created: we have the writing and recording section taking care of it. Also, I never said that this article was about war, which is apples to oranges; I was comparing how backgrounds have the same purpose on war articles than on music articles, which surely is apples to apples. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Took a few minutes for me to get back off of the floor from laughing... and I'm still a little dizzy, so I'll keep this short. (A RFC for what section should go first, really? Also, I'd like to note this "songwriting" section is not just songwriting, but also recording.) Hahc covered it completely. I already explained nicely in-dept above, if anyone wants to see a bigger comment.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Status has the wrong attitude which is shown all over this talk page - and now you are mocking editors. You have explained little too. Jennifer Lopez's point in her career has little to do with "Hypnotico". There has been no effort to link the information in the Background section to "Hypnotico". These sections have been designed as an aid to bypass GNG concerns. If Lopez chose the song because of that point in her career then it would be more acceptable. But this is an album track. I do not see why Brave failing, Loubitons being a promo single and whatever else has been used to bulk up the article has been mentioned. I am glad about this secondary discussion too - it appears to be exposing more of what I already thought. The Jlo fanzine? This article is not for Jennifer Lopez fans (as Hahc openly states) who come here expecting to read about her. Wikipedia serves the general reader - there are many Lopez fansites available for bias reading.Rain the 1 20:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

When did a mock an editor, personally? I'm commenting on the edit (the RFC), and not the editor. Hahc has already explained the background stuff, so there's no reason for me to go on about that. The general Lopez fan would know all of this information... That hardly makes any sense what-so-ever. Bias? So now you're saying the article has bias? Where? Show me it please.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

To expand, the background section is made for the general reader - somebody who somehow found themselves at the article. If they aren't familiar with Lopez, they get a brief history of what happened before she recorded the song, and then information about the song itself. I pride myself quite well in writing well-referenced articles that are helpful to not only people who are familiar with Lopez and like her, but also to a general everyday person. To imply otherwise, without even a bit of evidence or explanation, is quite insulting and at the borderline of being uncivil.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that Tami's version is more notable, please, re-do the article in such form, and then have a "Jennifer Lopez version" section, with all the information of her recording. I guarantee you won't find anything. A leaked version of a song by an artist whose album got cancelled, or a released (finalized) version by a major pop singer, which is clearly the most known, according to a quick Google Search.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You have mocked an editor's edits and this RFC. That is making it personal. You have stated that you find this laughable and are not taking this seriously. What are accusing me of now? Do you even read what I write? Let me restate: I said fansites are bias and not this article. That was in response to Hahc's suggestion that Lopez articles are for fans only. I have not said Tami's version is more notable. I have said Lopez's version is more notable therefore I do not need to change anything. This is not a popularity contest. What matters here is the article. As I have previously stated there is an issue with the "Background" section concentrating on Lopez's previous works and not being relevant to "Hypnotico". A simple solution would be to attempt to link it with "Hypnotico". If "Brave" being a commercial failure has nothing to do with "Hypnotico" then it should be removed. If "Loubitons" (a song not featured on Love?) has nothing to do with "Hypnotico" then remove it. So on and so forth. If readers would like to know more about Lopez's biography or album this bonus track included on - then they can visit the relevant articles.Rain the 1 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where Hahc mentioned the word "fan", please, provide that for me. Clearly, you never even read the section of the article. "Louboutins" performed poorly, she left her label, signed to Island Def Jam to finish her album, in which she recorded "Hypnotico" for. Simple.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The same "Background" section has been copy and pasted in "Hypnotico", "Invading My Mind", "Papi (song)", "Until It Beats No More", "One Love (Jennifer Lopez song)", "Run the World (song)", "I'm Into You", "Good Hit" and "On the Floor". Duplicate info across 10 articles. Just like content forking.00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you even know what content forking is?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

She didn't record "Hypnotico" because "Loubitons" performed poorly. She did not record it because "Brave" was not a success. Or because she switched record labels. Or because she had children. It is not even exclusive to this article. It just gets thrown into every article. Unless you can prove that every event mentioned was the reason she chose "Hypnotico" - then they need to go ASAP.Rain the 1 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a formal invitation to read the contructive and polite discussion I held with my fellow friend Binksternet just some lines above about background sections. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I agree with the notion that (most of) the background information is unnecessary. It is clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Till 02:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This RFC is about what section goes first: Background or writing and recording. Nothing else. Take your off-topic comments somewhere else.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It is perfectly legitimate for the discussion to bring up relevant details such as the need for a multiple-repeated background section. Don't try to shout down those who question your assembly line style of editing. I think it makes for a very poor encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, that isn't the point of this RFC and it's messy enough as it is already.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • And whose fault is it for the mess? I think it was "messy" for irrelevant text to be added to a half dozen song articles, text cited to sources that do not mention the song. Yes, it is another issue, but it is a deeper and related issue, not an unimportant or tangential one. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Songwriting should come first. It makes more sense and works for a better flow of the article. Maybe the section should be split, to separate Lopez's recording of the song and everything that happened before. I think this background works well for other songs from Love? but the actual background of "Hypnotico" is info about Gaga and Tami Chynn, etc, not where Lopez was at in her career a the time. This article could do without most of the background section, but there is relevant information. Arre 04:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think that if you guys believe that backgrounds, such as these, should not be included in articles, then this isn't really the place to discuss it. As you've already stated, it's a wider issue than this, and effects more articles than just this one. I suggest bringing up a discussion at WikiProject Songs. Maybe purpose and discuss guidelines for background sections.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing "Hypnotico" - not every other article. This article has failed to include relevant background information. Some editors acutally include relevant information. Some editors write individual sections - unlike the one that has been written and placed in every single Jennifer Lopez "Love?" article. If it is determined that the information should be removed as a result - we will. We do not have to ask permission anywhere else, this discussion is for everyone. So nice try.Rain the 1 23:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one little note to you, Raintheone. If you believe that you will scare me off telling me that you will take the article to GAR, then go ahead. I won't let you get your way or the highway so easily. We discuss the content while it is in there, not without it there. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you kept talk of Invading My Mind to the relevant article.Rain the 1 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not "we discuss the content while it is in there, not without it there", I don't think Wikipedia has a directly applicable guideline one way or the other. I think WP:BURDEN comes closest: it is often interpreted to say that the burden is on those who wish to keep challenged material or add it, rather than on those who wish to remove it, or keep it out. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care about it anymore. I will just drop this and go and watch a film or play a game. Tomorrow is December 31 and my parents arrived today to receive the new year with me. If the background is removed or not, I won't complain. I'm tired and dissapointed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed every last background section. You've gotten what you wanted, congratulations. Don't worry about it anymore, I'm done here now. Bye.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hypnotico. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120523134945/http://www.hotspotsmagazine.com/columns/dj-shane-phoenix-sound-off/1577-jennifer-lopez-love-review.html to http://www.hotspotsmagazine.com/columns/dj-shane-phoenix-sound-off/1577-jennifer-lopez-love-review.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hypnotico. 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/20081021103524/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20081020/ent/ent2.html to http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20081020/ent/ent2.html

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) 10:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)