Jump to content

Talk:Who Knew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watched a "behind the music" type show on p!nk a few days ago and she said this song was about the literal death of a friend. She found them overdosed on heroin or something? does anyone know more about this?

UK release date

[edit]

I updated this page to correct the release from 29 May to 22 May, as per her mailing list update mailing list.

It also gave this cover picture, but I don't know how to put it on here

http://de.click2music.co.uk/click2music_new/datagen_v2/pages/images/whoknew.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.86.113 (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page

[edit]

I moved the page from "Who Knew" to "Who Knew - Pink Single" to make room for a disambiguation-page for "Who Knew". Now "Who Knew" contains a link for "Who Knew Designer" and "Who Knew - Pink Single". I hope this was done correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentpaulsen (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reak Deep video???

[edit]

At first, I deleted this because I thought that it was a typo of "real deep" video, but since someone put it back, I'd like to know what it is, thanks.Bakahito 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]

Which TRL (Total Request Live) did it peak at #8 on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by -Anthony- (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Who Knew (song) → Who Knew – Who Knew used to be a disambig, but it's not anymore, so the article can now be moved back to its earlier name Filip (§) 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments

Whatever happened to that Norwegian designer label that someone was trying to set up a page for in the past ? -- Beardo 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music video header removed

[edit]

Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article recommends (for good reason) against short sections, which is particularly relevant to this article, in which the entire body of text is small enough to become the one "section". Extraordinary Machine 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hookerj and his/her IPs

[edit]

Well, Hookerj (talk · contribs) has chosen to continue performing wholesale reverts to my edits, so I'll post a full explanation for them here (carrying on from the one I left on his/her talk page):

  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Chart_positions seems to recommend including four or five chart positions in the infobox. This makes sense, because it stops the infobox from becoming huge and unwieldy. The "Charts" section is there for the other positions.
  2. As I explained above, Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article recommends (for good reason) against short sections. This is particularly relevant to this article, in which the entire body of text is small enough to become the one "section". A separate header for the music video information isn't needed.
  3. The placement of Image:Whoknewcap.jpg opposite the infobox makes the article look messy, in my opinion, and it squashed the paragraph it was accompanying. That's why I placed it below the infobox instead.
  4. The statement "reveals a different shade of P!nk to the sassy and controversial "Stupid Girls"" is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Please cite a reliable source that says this, and credit the statement to him/her.
  5. For section headers, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalization stipulates the capitalisation of the first word and proper nouns only. Thus, "Music video" instead of "Music Video", and "Chart performance" rather than "Chart Performance".
  6. Wikipedia guidelines recommend uncoloured "wikitable" format for charts, not coloured tablabonita. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts for more information on how to format tables, and note that music video charts are not official singles charts, so they shouldn't be included in the "Charts" section.
  7. Number-one positions shouldn't be bolded; firstly, it violates the neutral point of view policy by highlighting them over the others, and secondly, it's distracting to the eye for those wanting to read the other positions. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Legibility recommends using boldfacing sparingly.
  8. Bear in mind that any editor may remove unsourced content from any article at any time; the obligation for providing references lies with those wishing to retain such content rather than those wishing to remove it. This applies to the chart listings; it would be more useful if you were to cite your sources for the information you have been reinserting so that other editors can verify your work. The {{unreferenced}} tag is there for a reason.
  9. There's no point including download and airplay charts for countries if we already have the relevant singles charts. Official singles charts are perfectly good indicators of how popular a single was in any country; why include three charts when one provides essentially the same information? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: we're supposed to provide general summaries, not fansite-like detail. Much of these statistics and numbers will mean nothing to the casual reader, and too much information is a great way of hiding what's actually relevant. If there was a significant discrepancy between sales and airplay, it should be covered in the text of the article, not the "Charts" section.

Note also that Hookerj is repeatedly restoring blatantly inaccurate information (how can a single released months ago be "already shaping up to be a radio smash"?) into the article, despite being told more than once not to do so. This is vandalism. He's also undoing other unrelated and genuinely useful changes made in the meantime, which is equally disruptive. Extraordinary Machine 10:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very disruptive. Hookerj seems to be a young person (I believe in his unblock request he posted "i need edit!!!", which is not something a mature adult is likely to post). This is getting ridiculous; in my mind, everything but the information for, say, the top one or two charts should be wiped. Captainktainer * Talk 21:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that English isn't his first language, but that still doesn't explain (or excuse) the incivility and persistent, unexplained revert-warring. Extraordinary Machine 21:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Charts

[edit]

The reason for excluding the Billboard Hot 100, where the song charted at 21, and including the Canadian chart, where it hit 83 would be... Phoenix1304 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censored?

[edit]

Has the VH1 edition been censored? I can't remember anything about drugs in the video. --CrowstarVaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends! 20:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the guy takes drugs and at the one booth he starts having withdraws so he goes and does drugs again and OD's. He ends up dying at the end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.111.67 (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Knows

[edit]

What's the source that this is the next American single? 72.240.163.23 09:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one; in fact, Pink's publicist confirmed that Who Knew will be the last American single from I'm Not Dead. Not sure where the link is, I'll find it and post it later. If I may present my baseless giddy speculation: This could mean a new album sooner than we think. Phoenix1304 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video

[edit]

It was filmed in Reseda Park ,Reseda, San Fernando Valley...in LA County, Not LA itself... source: I was there. Not sure if I should add this myself and need an actual source or someone else to back me up before someone calls me a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.165.189 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Who Knew. 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.

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) 01:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Who Knew. 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.

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) 23:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Who Knew. 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.

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) 15:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Who_Knew&oldid=1208710680"