Talk:Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLet There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starLet There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song) is part of the Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
May 13, 2013Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 2, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Christina Aguilera wore a "cinched in corset" designed by The Blonds for her performance of "Let There Be Love" at the 2012 American Music Awards?
Current status: Good article

Live performance sources[edit]

AARON• TALK 12:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

Reviews[edit]

AARON• TALK 12:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Single?[edit]

I don't know, it just sounds to me like it could be a huge hit, it even sounds simiar to Moves Like Jagger rhythmically. Lyrically, it's like Katy Perry with Whitney Houston's voice. If not the third single, I am fairly confident that this has to be a single from the album. Just putting that out there... --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reliable source for that. Talk pages are not forums for fan discussions. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Robin (talk · contribs) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I'll review this.[reply]

Refs[edit]

  • Various refs have italicization issues. Go through the article and fix them.
  • ref #2 doesn't have the work parameter.

Lead[edit]

  • In a Lotus album preview with VEVO --- remove. Isn't necessary
  • Aguilera reveleaed that she knew of Martin when she first debuted in the music industry, but wanted to collaborate with other producers before working with him. he singer continued to say that now she has come full circle in her career, and that she felt like it was the right time collaborate on material for her album. --- These sentences convey the same message; merge them with less detail.
    • No it doesn't.  — AARON • TALK
      • Would you mind if I re-wrote these two sentences? — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see what there is to re-write, it doesn't repeat itself.  — AARON • TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its instrumentation consists of synths, "loud" drums and electronicas, and received comparisons to the songs recorded by Usher, "DJ Got Us Fallin' in Love" and "Scream", both of which were produced by Martin. --- Link instrumentation and change 'consists' to 'incorporates' and "loud" to abrasive. We don't know whether those particular attributes encompass its composition. In addition, remove the Usher comparisons as only one reviewer thinks this.
    • What? There's nothing wrong with those two words. "Loud" is a quote.  — AARON • TALK
      • Yes, a very redundant quote. Either remove 'loud' or change it abrasive. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The comparisons haven't been removed. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you understand what I mean with, "We don't know whether those particular attributes encompass its composition."; We don't if the 'synths, "loud" drums and electronicas' are the track's only instrumentation. That's why I suggest you change the wording from 'consist' to 'incorporates'. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't really see the point but okay. But abrasive is the complete wrong word, that makes it sound negative.  — AARON • TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of them praised Aguilera for not over singing and delivering a solid vocal performance, while others complimented the musical structure and composition. --- Change to: Many reviewers considered "Let There Be Love" a stand-out track on Lotus; plaudits centered on Aguilera's vocal performance and the track's musical structure.
    • I don't believe any critics called it a standout track though. Plaudits is the complete wrong word to use, I've never heard of it.  — AARON • TALK
      • 'best' and 'stand-out' are basically synonyms. Plaudit(s) is a synonym for praise, so its perfectly acceptable. Try this: "Many reviewers considered "Let There Be Love" one of the best songs on Lotus; praise centered on Aguilera's vocal performance and the track's musical structure." — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see an issue with this, it's just your opinion of how you would write it. There's actually nothing wrong with what I've written.  — AARON • TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon the release of Lotus, the song debuted on the South Korea international singles chart at number 92 with digital download sales of 2,945. --- link South Korea's single chart and change 'with' with due.
    • We know the exact amount here, so "with" is the correct word choice. If we didn't know, then yes "due" would be correct.  — AARON • TALK
      • I still don't see why "due" isn't appropriate; it charted due to those numbers. Why does it matter whether we know the exact number. Actually, your contradicting yourself; see the charts section. :/ — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon the release of Lotus, the song debuted on theSouth Korea international singles chart at number 92 with digital download sales of 2,945 ----- Something went wrong here. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aguilera performed the song for first time at the 40th American Music Awards on November 2012, as part of a medley with Lotus tracks "Lotus Intro" and "Army of Me". She also performed the song on The Voice with the team who she coaches. --- Aguilera performed on televised programs such as the 40th American Music Awards and The Voice. The current sentences are plagued with too much detail for a lead.
    • Second paragraph will be too short this way.  — AARON • TALK
      • So? Maybe you can add the composition sentences to the 2nd paragraph. Try this; "Aguilera performed the track on televised programs such as the 40th American Music Awards and The Voice." — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had to make both shorter, otherwise it's unbalanced.  — AARON • TALK 10:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording[edit]

This section is tedious and jarring to read. I suggest removing 3/4 of the statements.

  • How is it jarring? It's short and concise.  — AARON • TALK 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It repetitively revolves around her 'rebirth'. Condense.
      • It's already a condensed version of what it should to be. I only say rebirth once, and that's in a quote.  — AARON • TALK 10:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant the sentiment in general. It mainly revolves around Aguilera's sentiments and not on the song itself. I strongly urge you to condense the section. — Robin (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not passing the article if this remains the same. — Robin (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Development[edit]

However, she felt at this point in her career with Lotus, Aguilera felt it was the right time to work together, saying: --- change saying to 'stating' or 'reflecting'. Formal prose.

  • There's nothing wrong with "saying", but I've changed it anyway.  — AARON • TALK 23:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and lyrics[edit]

  • Opening sentence; change combines to incorporates and dancepop to dance-pop. We don't know whether those particular genres encompass its composition.
    • They are both sourced, so yes they are a part of the composition. Combines is fine here because of the magnitude of genres. You would use incorporates for one, maybe two, other genres.  — AARON • TALK 23:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. — Robin (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I didn't mean the dance genre. I meant changing the dance-pop genre. On combining okay. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Kitty Empire for The Guardian, the song "about as formulaic as club pop gets" but "resonates effectively. ---- the song is "about as formulaic as club pop gets" but "resonates effectively."
  • He also noted that Aguilera was probably aware that the "Let There Be Love"'s melody bared strong resemblances to the songs, which most likely prompted her to spend "the last minute wailing all over the place."[15] Aguilera "roars" the lyrics "Let there be let there be love/ Here in the here in the dark" over trance beats and projects a "saucy" tone as she sings ""Hit the right spot, making my eyes roll back." ---- These sentences are redundant for a composition section as they belong in a critical reception section. Remove.
    • This is completely about composition. It's about musical structure and comparisons, her vocals, and the lyrics. Not critical reception at all.  — AARON • TALK 10:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are all opinions which do not bare any relevance to composition info. — Robin (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does musical structure, vocal and lyric info not bare any relevance to composition?!?! That's what composition is! What the song is composed of: the melody, lyrics, vocals etc.  — AARON • TALK 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

  • The entire section follows the same template of author-for-publication. To keep the prose fresh, I suggest using formats that I've used at Gotta Be You (One Direction song)#Critical reception.
  • AllMusic is written with a capital m and should not be in italics.
  • but does not show much personality. --- Change to: "but is devoid of personality".
    • He's not saying completely, he's saying not much. There's a difference.  — AARON • TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mesfin Fekadu for The Huffington Post thought that Martin's production of "Let There Be Love" was superior to "Your Body", citing it as "typical" but potentially successful on radio. ------ link Your Body
  • Jim Farber for New York Daily News praised the song, writing that it "functions as a prime disco diva anthem" ---- Change to New York Daily News contributor Jim Farber hailed it "as a prime disco diva anthem".
  • Christina Garibaldi for MTV News praised the wrote the uptempo track, writing that its "heavy beat" and "sultry lyrics" were perfect for people to dance to in nightclubs. ------- This sentence needs some major restructuring.
  • Jenna Hally Rubenstein for MTV Buzzworthy wrote that it is easy to become addicted to listening to "Let There Be Love", and that Aguilera's vocals "prevail above the noise. ----- Jenna Hally Rubenstein for MTV Buzzworthy opined that it is easy to become addicted to listening to "Let There Be Love", and that Aguilera's vocals "prevail above the noise.
    • There's not much difference.  — AARON • TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You use the word about 25 times in the section; some variety would be nice. — Robin (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read Lansky's review; He does not complimented Aguilera for not over singing and he does not describe that as "epic." Restructure sentence.
    • Read it again. He does.  — AARON • TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did. He praises her vocal performance and then adds that she isn't over singing; there's a difference.
  • Wass echoed what Lanksy had written, concurring that the song could become a commercial success and that it ought to be a single.[12] He also praised her vocal performance, writing that the production serves as the "perfect destination" for her "powerhouse pipes." ---- Wass shared Lanksy's sentiments and elaborated that the production serves as the "perfect destination" for her "powerhouse pipes."
  • Link Pop Crush, fix the italics, and correct its ref while you're there. Its publisher is Townsquare Media.
  • Michael Gallucci for Popcrush thought that the song was not quite as good as "Your Body" and described the collaboration between Aguilera and Martin as "typical pop." ---- Michael Gallucci for Pop Crush thought that the song was not quite as good as "Your Body" and denounced it as "typical pop."
  • However, he criticized Aguilera vocal performance stating that her "big voice was designed to soar over monster beats like this." ---- This doesn't make sense.
  • Robert Copsey for Digital Spy thought that the song's weakness is also its strength ----- what weakness?
  • He also wrote that it was his favourite song on the album upon the initial listen, but that it would probably fall down his list after several months of play. ----- Remove entirely. Meh.
    • No.  — AARON • TALK 11:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence is redundant as it doesn't convey any constructive critique.
        • Done. 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Annie Zaleski for The A.V. Club was critical of the song, writing that it is "faceless Top 40 EDM." --- Annie Zaleski for The A.V. Club critized the song as "faceless Top 40 EDM."
  • Usher image needs to go. Not enough weight. — Robin (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live performance[edit]

  • Change section title to 'Live performances'
  • Aguilera also performed "Let There Be Love" with her team of aspiring singer's on The Voice, a singing competition on which she is a coach. ---- Change 'singer's' to singers.

Charts[edit]

  • The Gaon Chart's url does not specify the information given the article. Fix this.
    • They don't, that's why. Follow the instructions in the ref.  — AARON • TALK 11:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

On hold. — Robin (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added notes on queries that I'm adamant about. You have until 13 April. — Robin (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fail it then, because you are wrong on several things. How you can say that musical structure, vocal and lyrical information does not belong in the composition section and that the picture of Usher should not be included is to be honest, stupid. A mere mention of a person is reason to include a picture. This song was heavily compared to two of his songs. I'm adamant on not changing these because you are wrong. Fail the article, but then you may be approached by a senior editor for failing without good reason.  — AARON • TALK 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failing. — Robin (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Genres[edit]

They aren't properly sourced. A quick check shows that sources use words like "beats" or "inspired" which do not make a song of a particular genre. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Idolator says "dance-pop".
  • 4 Music says "From the initial stabs of synth, we know this is going to be an Ibiza-type dance anthem" implying "dance music". It also mentions trance and electronica but not in proper context.
  • AV Club top 40 EDM
  • Idolator (2) "Let There Be Love” — an unbearably cute pop song that sweeps Xtina away on a wave of synths to unfamiliar Eurodance territory", it calls its a pop song. Eurodance territory doesn't mean Eurodance song.
  • Digital Spy says "trance beats" but that doesn't make a song of the Trance genre. Same issue with Rude Boy (Rihanna song).

The genres in the infobox have been cherry picked. It has many influences but from the references the ones that should remain in the infobox as core genres should be Dance, pop, EDM. It has influences of trance, synthpop (numerous mentions of synthesizers), dance-pop and Eurodance (debatabley). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remove those three then. Idolator says "dance-pop track", how is that an influence exactly when he outright says it is dance-pop. Furthermore, synthpop is not written anyway. Inclusion of synths does not make it a synthpop song.  — AARON • TALK 21:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Idolator calls the song is dance-pop in one review, pop in the other. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 11:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you said it is a pop song with dance-pop influences. If both reviews say "pop song" and "dance-pop track", then they are both genres for the info box. Dance-pop isn't just an influence here. I've changed it all anyway.  — AARON • TALK 11:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intro should be changed to reflect that. "It is a multi-genre song" isnt very formal or encyclopaedic. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Artwork[edit]

The official artwork for the remix ep release, this should be added! Can somebody do that!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CHRISTINA-AGUILERA-LET-THERE-BE-LOVE-OFFICIAL-US-10-TRACK-PROMO-CDS-/370795194584?pt=UK_CDsDVDs_CDs_CDs_GL&hash=item56551da8d8

http://blogs.fusionradio.fm/fusion/2013/03/christina-aguilera-new-music/

--91.154.107.200 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable sources. Promo/remix CDs are not for official release. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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.

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

Reviewer: HĐ (talk · contribs) 06:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read this article several times, and it's very good!

Well done, passing! HĐ (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Chart Trajectory[edit]

Calvin999 would like to place this material in the article:

It broke into the top ten at number nine on April 20, 2013, after spending two months on the chart.<ref name="Number 9">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/2013-04-20/danceclub-play-songs|title=Dance/Club Play Songs - April 20, 2013|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|date=April 20, 2013|accessdate=May 21, 2013}}</ref> Two weeks later on May 4, 2013, it climbed to number five, and for the following four weeks, it rose by one position per week,<ref name="Number 5">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/2013-05-04/danceclub-play-songs|title=Dance/Club Play Songs - May 4, 2013|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|date=May 4, 2013|accessdate=May 21, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Number 4">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/2013-05-11/danceclub-play-songs|title=Dance/Club Play Songs - May 11, 2013|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|date=May 11, 2013|accessdate=May 21, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Number 3">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/2013-05-18/danceclub-play-songs|title=Dance/Club Play Songs - May 18, 2013|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|date=May 18, 2013|accessdate=May 21, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Number 2">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/2013-05-25/danceclub-play-songs|title=Dance/Club Play Songs - May 25, 2013|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|date=May 25, 2013|accessdate=May 21, 2013}}</ref> until it reached the top spot for the chart issue dated June 1, 2013.<ref name="US Dance Peak">{{cite web|last=Trust|first=Gary|url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/1563027/chart-highlights-christina-aguileras-love-lifts-to-no-1-on|title=Chart Highlights: Christina Aguilera's 'Love' Lifts To No. 1 On Dance/Club Play Songs|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|date=May 20, 2013|accessdate=May 21, 2013}}</ref> With "Let There Be Love" attaining the number one position on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, it upped her total tally to eight number one songs, and the second from ''Lotus'' to reach the peak, after "[[Your Body (Christina Aguilera song)|Your Body]]" in December 2013.<ref name="US Dance Peak"/>

I think it's an obvious violation of WP:CHARTTRAJ. Anyone but Calvin999 think it belongs in the article?—Kww(talk) 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree these are facts, the facts are chart trajectory which aren't allowed per WP:CHARTTRAJ. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aaron. As the section stands, there is a couple of sentences about this song's chart on the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart about its debut, breaking into the top 10, top 5 info about how it climbed one position week by week from 5-2 before peaking at number one. I did this because it gives a little info about the charting of this song, which has been three months int total. User:Kww thinks that the two small sentences about the top 10 and the top 5 is a case of WP:CHARTTRAJ. Clearly, it isn't.

Before (What I advocate):
Upon the release of Lotus, "Let There Be Love" debuted on the South Korea Gaon Single Chart at number 92 during the week of November 11 to 17, 2012, with digital download sales of 2,945. In the United States, the song debuted at number 44 on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart on February 18, 2013. It broke into the top ten at number nine on April 20, 2013, after spending two months on the chart. Two weeks later on May 4, 2013, it climbed to number five, and for the following four weeks, it rose by one position per week, until it reached the top spot for the chart issue dated June 1, 2013. With "Let There Be Love" attaining the number one position on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, it upped her total tally to eight number one songs, and the second from Lotus to reach the peak, after "Your Body" in December 2013.
After (What Kww advocates):
Upon the release of Lotus, "Let There Be Love" debuted on the South Korea Gaon Single Chart at number 92 during the week of November 11 to 17, 2012, with digital download sales of 2,945.< In the United States, the song debuted at number 44 on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart on February 18, 2013. It reached number one with the issue dated June 1, 2013. With "Let There Be Love" attaining the number one position on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, it upped her total tally to eight number one songs, and the second from Lotus to reach the peak, after "Your Body" in December 2012.
The problem with what Kww has removed from the article, even though it should stay for other editors to see as to form an opinion as only he has an issue, is that between it's mid February debut and it's 1st June dated chart release, there is no information, which is not encyclopaedic. What I added, the two small sentences, is hardly a chart trajectory. In fact, it's far from it. See [[User talk:Kww#Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song) [To save edit warring...]]] for more information, it is a discussion between Kww and myself about his removal. Obviously, I vote that my version be reinstated, as its clearly not a case of WP:CHARTTRAJ, and the section is now worse as a result of the removal of information.  — AARON • TALK 00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't particularly "advocate" my section. It just represented an effort to keep the parts of your edit that conformed to guidelines and remove only the material that did not.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do.  — AARON • TALK 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be just as happy if the entire "Chart Performance" section was removed and only the table retained. Like I said, I simply kept as much of your edit as I thought reasonably fell within our guidelines.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be even worse and would not cover the the information such as it being her 8th number one on the chart and second from Lotus overall. Think about it. Just because there are two charts, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve prose.  — AARON • TALK 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Upon viewing the addendum in question, I have concluded that the expansive information would be an indiscriminate collection of information and would not serve an encyclopedic purpose. I do not believe a meticulous narrative of chart performance would be useful, so much as an asinine flow chart inappropriately maintained by Wikipedia. DarthBotto talk•cont 01:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it expansive? It's two really short sentences. Not sentence after sentence of a week by week update for 3 months.  — AARON • TALK 10:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm copying a discussion fragment from my talk page to here, where I think it belongs:
As I said up there above somewhere, if you can find one industry source that says that this particular song has had an unusual trajectory, then I think that would be sufficient reason to include it. Is there any reason that we are talking on my talk page instead of in the discussion on the article talk page?—Kww(talk) 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need someone to write it when I provided the week by week archive?? And no.  — AARON • TALK 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a guideline, meaning that reasonable exceptions can be made. If you found that reliable industry sources were discussing how unusual the trajectory is, then I would view that as being a good reason to document the trajectory. Your personal opinion that it's unusual would be original research.—Kww(talk) 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I never actually wrote that it's "unusual", I just said that for 4 weeks it rose one position per week, as it shows in each source. So no it's not original research.  — AARON • TALK 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't your argument for including it based on the notion that it's unusual?—Kww(talk) 23:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I never said that. My argument is purely for more info to be included. Obviously.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let_There_Be_Love_(Christina_Aguilera_song)&oldid=1208152942"