Talk:Not Myself Tonight

	Not Myself Tonight 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 23, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept December 22, 2010 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christina Aguilera Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christina Aguilera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christina Aguilera on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christina AguileraWikipedia:WikiProject Christina AguileraTemplate:WikiProject Christina AguileraChristina Aguilera articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles Electronic music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chrisitna always adapts his voice, and his octaves has each of its songs. Everything is reflected, and makes intelligently. NMT is a piece particularly shambolic, and how she has the title of "the voice generation" it is not surprising that radios and general public did not follow him (Glam, Lift Me Up or Prima Donna, would have been more suited to the vocal level), real one athlete the Xtina! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel310 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for including professional reviews of the track, but I think it's insulting readers' better judgment to make it seem as though the cited Digital Spy article (which was published as a response to the 18-second snippet, not the actual song) was a "positive review," or even a review at all. Can someone delete this? 128.62.63.103 (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The snippet was still the song, therefore it stays. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You would consider an article that says "it's hard to deduce very much from a clip this brief and chorus-free" and makes no value judgments whatsoever an actual review? The portions quoted in this Wikipedia article are nothing but obvious facts about the song; there is nothing inherently "positive" about them. 128.62.60.203 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the reviews are fine, but there is nothing on the public reception, and judging from the charting its quite a poor lead single. This should be reflected in the reception of the single as a lot of fans on forums and youtube are dissapointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.66.107 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it is called CRITICAL reception for critics, not what fans think. Candyo32 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this marked for deletion? As far as I can tell this is perfectly notable. (Circusstar (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Which of the criteria listed in WP:NSONGS is met? This article should be created in two or three weeks, but not today.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the unsigned user. If Christina Aguilera's official website has confirmed it, and promotion has already begun, then it is indeed notable enough whether it meets criteria or not. The guidelines there are a joke. There is more then that that makes something worth putting on Wikipedia. (Circusstar (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted, it was confirmed that this will be the first single of Christina's album, that's relevant enough to have an article of it's own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.190.73 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the Glam page was put up, the only details for it were the Madonna reference and that's it, yet it wasn't considered for deletion and was up for weeks. Now we have something 100% official and it needs to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.23.136 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the deletion notice, as this has certainly been official. Wiki pseud (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if this is marked, so should Bionic (Album), because it hasn't been released yet, either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.127.44 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world is this nominated for deletion? It has been confirmed several times that it will be the first single of Christina Aguilera's new album; and she is one of the biggest names in music, that is relevant enough to have it's own page. The song premieres today online and next week on the radio; if it is deleted it will have to be created again in about a week. Glosoli87 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its already premiered. There is no need to have the page on the single deleted. --MusicFan408 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVEN'T CITATION ABOUT EUROPEAN HIT RADIO. CAUSE I'M WORKING IN THIS RADIO AND I KNOW THAT WE PLAY FIRST IN EUROPE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.67.122 (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well without a source it cant be properly added into the article and will eventually be deleted. Currently it has a {{fact}} tag. did your radio not post it on their website?Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write news like this, just every monday present new songs on air. I'm source - just this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.67.122 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then im afraid it cannot and will not be allowed in the article. Anyone could claim anything and we'd be forced to believe it because they said so. Wikipedia is an enclopedia and so information MUST be verifiable. Also in future can you sign your posts using four tilds (4 × ~) or using the signature with timestamp button on the taskbar. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but some of this article sounds like an angry Lady GaGa fan wrote it, trying to put her name in it at every given opportunity! Mizzybizzy (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The video, which is inspired by S&M and features bondage, was influenced by other acts, pays an homage to Madonna clips." This sentence makes no sense.75.22.16.245 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person offering insight into the inspiration of this video is clearly unfamiliar with a wider range of music videos. Hype Williams is a concise and deliberate director with refined skills and tastes. The varied and uncohesive references they list are baseless and insulting to Williams as a director. On top of this, they are incorrect.

I'd like to invite others to help correct his paragraph by having you review the 4 actual videos that Hype Williams used as the inspiration for this video. Every shot and image from the "Tonight" video can be attributed to one of these 4 videos created by 3 video artists all heavily used by Madonna. Madonna's choice of directing talent is Williams' clear choice for creating this most recent video. I've attempted several times to insert the below onto the page and ask that others review the videos and base their conclusions upon the evidence at hand.

attempted addition::::

The video by Hype Williams pays direct homage to three music video directors who have worked with Madonna: Mary Lambert, David Fincher, and Jean-Baptiste Mondino. Direct shot and image references are used from primarily 4 videos by these artist (two videos by David Fincher,) Madonna (entertainer)’s Human Nature, Like a Prayer, Express Yourself, and George Michael’s Freedom! '90. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettstout (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is WP:OR you have to go by what verifiable sources state. Candyo32 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Woohoo there? It has not been announced/released as a new single, just released to YouTube as a build up to Bionic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.175 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IT has now been confirmed as an album track. Candyo32 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but why is it listed as the next single after Not Myself Tonight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.96.175 (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed because it is not confirmed.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add that the song reached 16 on Russian Digital Singles Chart? source: http://www.2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5646 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.166.131 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should add this in here and/or in the Bionic article that the single has been named the fifth most illegally-downloaded song of the year, with it's video being the third most illegally-downloaded music video. You can see the information here: http://perezhilton.com/2010-12-28-top-ten-most-illegally-downloaded-albums-songs-and-music-videos-of-2010 or http://ileaks.com/2010/ 74.216.6.127 (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP continues to add the "LGBT-related songs" category to this page (before then it was an account spamming it with the "Songs about sexuality" category). As this has gone on for a few days now, I feel I should bring this here: I don't think the LGBT-related songs category fits on this page. While there is one lyric in the song where Aguilera mentioning kissing women, it's more of a throwaway line and this song isn't specifically about LGBT issues nor does it have an overall LGBT theme.

Other thoughts on this? Happy to revert if people feel otherwise. Acalamari 07:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]