Talk:The Heart Wants What It Wants

Trip Hop?
Because a song is described on some guy's blog as Trip Hop doesn't actually mean the song is trip hop. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

RyanSeacrest.com - song named the best of 2014 - award not notable
A recent edit, which I have reverted, put an award for the song in the "Awards and nominations" section which I believe is far from notable, and should not be included in the section. This award, at RyanSeacrest.com, identified "The Heart Wants What It Wants" as the best song of 2014. While that is a respectable accolade, the results of this award are strictly based on a poll of fans, as is stated on the page. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence needs editing
Two people can't constitute a "trio." If I knew the third person, I would, but I don't, so just thought I'd leave this note. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:832E:860:214:51FF:FEDC:3C38 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is more accurate? Sentence dispute in lede
This edit changes a sentence in the lede to
 * "It was written by Gomez, Antonina Armato and Tim James, who collectively form the production duo Rock Mafia; additional songwriting was provided by David Jost."

Earlier versions have the sentence as either:
 * "It was written by Antonina Armato and Tim James, who collectively form the production duo Rock Mafia; additional songwriting was provided by Gomez and David Jost.",
 * "It was written and produced by Antonina Armato and Tim James, who collectively form the production duo Rock Mafia; additional songwriting was provided by Gomez and David Jost.", or
 * "It was written by Gomez along with Antonina Armato and Tim James, who collectively form the production duo Rock Mafia; additional songwriting was provided by David Jost."

If you notice in the first sentence above, it's making the implication that Ms. Gomez is part of the production team Rock Mafia, and this is a wrong assumption (unless a source can be found that supports this assumption, this is possibly also a BLP violation, though a minor one). The editor making the change has put the sentence in that fashion more than twice now, and is bordering on disruptive editing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)