# Talk:You Lost Me

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 You Lost Me (Christina Aguilera song)'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 "BB":
From Woohoo: "Woohoo- Chrisina Aguilera". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved 2010-06-19.
From Bionic (Christina Aguilera album): "Woohoo- Chrisina Aguilera". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved 2010-06-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As you see here, You Lost Me didn't even reach the Top 100 in Germany in in its scheduled debuting week (sales from week August 30, 2010 to September 05, 2010).
I think that should be mentioned in the article! --79.216.218.63 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

NOPE! you don't mention what a song didn't achieve you just mention what it did achieve. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1  | talk2me 21:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it says that YLM has been released as the final single from the album. Is there a source confirming this because I believe he plans to continue promotion of Bionic once she is done promoting Burlesque and starts preparing for the Bionic Tour. Jpagan09 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, the tour might not go ahead as she's started her fourth album. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1  | talk2me 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think YLM should be listed as the final single since no one knows for sure whether it has been published or not. Also, Bionic is her fourth album, so can your statement saying she's started recording, I'm assuming from what you said, her next album. All these statements do not have reliable sources to back them up and are all just claimsJpagan09 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am starting a discussion here since there is some disagreement about which cover images should be used in the infobox.  We have had some editors chose one image over the image while a third group has advocated for using both.  I have added back the other imag, so we can have time to reach a consensus instead of it being deleted as being an orphaned fair use image.
I think both cover images should be used since an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed passes WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Im not being rude, but it violates the use of non-free-media, neither of the images are documented and I am about to note all the reasons why...
First of all, look at 99% of GA's, they dont have two covers, take Lady Gaga articles for instance, not one of them has a second image because it makes no difference to the article, and it is copyrighted material, that is restricted for a reason!
In the rationale it states;
Portion UsedThe entire cover: because the image is cover art, a form of product packaging, the entire image is needed to identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image.
"the entire image is needed to identify the product", ermmm dont think so!
"and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image", well thats what the first one does!
Purpose of use (this is the important part)Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public.
"The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art." - You kidding?
"The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." - one can do that!
So it absolutely violates most terms of copyrighted material, the image shown in the second one is also a shot of the music video, which is already documented with its own similar copyrighted picture. Literally I cannot be bothered to go on... (but thanks for opening a discussion :D) --FeuDeJoie (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Damn, I'm late in this. I think the other cover should be used (the one that was deleted) per Womanizer (song), where the physical cover is used rather than the digital cover. — Status {talkcontribs 00:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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 You Lost Me'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 "musicomh":
From Prima Donna (Christina Aguilera song): Cragg, Michael (June 7, 2010). "Christina Aguilera - Bionic | album reviews | musicOMH". musicOMH. Retrieved May 15, 2012.
From Ain't No Other Man: Murphy, John (July 31, 2006). "Christina Aguilera – Ain't No Other Man Review". musicOMH. Retrieved June 22, 2013.

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⚡ 11:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)