# Talk:Hypnotico

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)

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)

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)

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)