Talk:Funhouse (Pink album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal 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.

Cleanup

[Originally taken from my talk page ]: Please don't revert cleanup. If you'll notice, none of the sources on those songs mention anything about them. It's fake. Made up. Imaginary. 71.64.154.24 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I got over-zealous. In any case, this belongs in the article's talk page. That way, future editors will be able to make note of this. XL2D (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album summary needs to be edited. page needs to be polished in prep for the cd release in a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirtydaes (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No consensus was reached for or against a move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'd suggest moving this page to Funhouse (album) since it currently redirects to Fun House (album) (notice the space) -TinGrin 11:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best solution IMO... see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#Minor spelling variations. Both albums are highly notable; Fun House is one of the most influential ever and Funhouse is currently highly topical. I've added a new hatnote to Fun House, its format is probably not quite right but it's important to have it with or without the redirect from Funhouse (album}. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i didn't see that before.

although i still think the pink album should be placed at Funhouse (album)... it seems that Wikipedia:PRECISION#If_the_two_titles_usually_have_a_different_meaning is what the debate is over at this point, since the "proper" name of this article (if no other articles existed) would be Funhouse, while the "proper" name of the The Stooges album would be Fun House (i think that makes sense...) -TinGrin 03:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving Fun House (album) to Fun House (The Stooges album); make Funhouse (album) and Fun House (album) redirects to the disambiguation page. Main disadvantage of this scheme is the cleanup of around 40 links to The Stooges' album. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The other problem is that it raises Pink's album, which is possibly forgettable in the long term, to equal prominence with one that is already recognised as having a significant place in rock history. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really; relative importance is only an issue for choosing a primary article – to aid searching – not for choice of disambiguating phrase, nor indeed any other editorial decision; Wikipedia technically has no opinion on the relative merits of the two topics (although of course individual editors do and it would be no surprise if most agreed with you). WP:NCDAB and WP:NCP#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses do not mention importance as a factor in choosing a disambiguating phrase; merely what sort of phrase to choose. Fun House's disambiguating phrase must disambiguate it from Funhouse, as much as the reverse, otherwise we may as well just follow the nominator's proposal. --Rogerb67 (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm, then that may be a problem with WP:NCP. Obviously, we wouldn't rename the article at Tommy {album) just because a new album called Tommy by a little-known band just scraped in as notable enough for its own article. So, where do we draw the line? Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid I don't agree that it's obvious at all; for example, it was recently voted to move the 1988 film Twins (as far as I am aware by far and away the most notable film by that name, no matter what one thinks of its artistic merits) from Twins (film) to Twins (1988 film). In my opinion, that decision not only agreed with policy, but was the best thing to do for the usability of Wikipedia. The purpose of disambiguation is to aid people in finding the right article, not to establish a hierarchy of importance; in this hypothetical Tommy scenario, if someone had heard of both albums, they would be at best unsure which Tommy (album) referred to. It's quite possible that some younger readers of Wikipedia might not have heard of the more notable album at all. Tommy (The Who album) would confuse no-one and assist those who are not sure. I note the album Tommy (1985-1987); perhaps this is what you are referring to? In this case, the lesser-known album's name differs by more than a single space, so the current situation appears adequate; no-one is going to look for The Who's album at Tommy (1985-1987) and anyone entering "Tommy" as a search will reach the disambiguation page where the artists of particular albums are noted. In any case, it would be unfair to describe Pink as little-known or her album as having "just scraped in" (to be clear, I'm not meaning to suggest you are implying anything of the sort, I know you are only concerned with improving Wikipedia). It may be that in the longer term Fun House is confirmed as more important than Funhouse. While it would be recentism to claim the Pink album as more notable because it is no doubt searched for more often right now, it would be unfair to condemn a new album by a genuinely notable artist out-of-hand. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We may have to agree to disagree on this. I still think that moving Tommy (album) to a different disambiguator would be against both commonsense and the naming conventions, and in a similar manner to this proposal. The Wedding Present album raises other issues, and perhaps Tommy is a bad example in view of this... I didn't think the Wedding Present album even relevant to this discussion, but obviously you do. Andrewa (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't really think the Wedding Present album is relevant; I just wasn't sure if maybe you were thinking of it, so I addressed it anyway. Clearly you weren't. I don't think it reduces the relevance of the Tommy example, which is a good one. I wrote the first part of my response before I found that album; for clarity, I've struck out the parts that are irrelevant. I think you're right, we do have different opinions here. Cheers. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working through the WP:RM backlog and this one is all that is left. However I think the conversation still has legs (so I am not going to close it) and I have asked TinGrin to contribute to the conversation now that some alternatives have been proposed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

now that i've read through everything, i'm still not 100% sure what should happen - either my original proposal (with {{for}} disambiguations) or go with Rogerb67's proposal, for reasons he stated. -TinGrin 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC) (delayed)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

iTunes Pre-release & clean/explicit versions

Apple iTunes was offering this for preorder. I pre-ordered and then on October 27 I received email saying it was now available for download. Following the link though it says that it is no longer available. What's up with that? --Craigfis (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now its up there and there are two versions of it - one "clean" and one "explicit". I'm guessing they only had the pre-order set up for the explicit version and pulled it to make people choose which they wanted. I see both versions on the Zune Marketplace too. Where was the pressure to do that coming from? --Craigfis (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name changing

I believe it would be in the reader's best interest to keep a single title for P!nk throughout the article. With that being said, I'll edit her name to "P!nk" as it is what she is best known as, and her stage name. I'm doing this because I am sure that most people don't know that her real name is Alecia Moores, which could potentially cause confusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.17.180 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:TM for Wikipedia policy on this. Policy favours using Pink except in first use when the word is in the title. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

This album currently has 5 genres. This is not helpful to the general reader. Please can we reduce this number, to 1 or 2? I won't pretend to be sufficiently expert on Pink to pick one. However, I may change it to pop music, pop rock alone – the only genres I can see mentioned in the article body – if the situation doesn't improve. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4th Single

Here in Australia, the radio has been playing "This is How It Goes Down", and claiming it's the 4th single. Is this true, or are they just doing what they did with "Funhouse", claiming that as the 3rd single. Billy4kate (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, Nova 100 are wrong and now using "Bad Influence" as single #4. Not the best choice, but i still like the song.

Heartbreak Is A Motherfucker

From what I've read and the interviews I've heard with Pink, I think the comment about it being an alternative title for the album was flippant, do we still want to keep it in the blurb of the description?

Bad Influence IS the fourth single.

SonyMusic Business2Business Australia confirms that Bad Influence is the next single (in Australia) and will be released physically May 9th. I'm letting you know this just so it will not be removed further on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRevolution7 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

without trustful and reliable citations you cannot add it as the fourth single. the fourth single is Funhouse and there are NO official resources confirming Bad Influence. I love the song but we can't just make a song a single when it's not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 05:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT'S WITH YOU GUYS AND THE SINGLES????

YOU SHOULD REALLY STOOOOOOP ADDING SONGS FROM THE ALBUM RANDOMLY TO THE SINGLES LIST! JUST STOP! WHY DO YOU DO THAT! BAD INFLUENCE IS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT A SINGLE! NEITHER AVE MARY A!! JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE SONG, YOU DON'T JUST CREATE A PAGE AND MAKE IT A SINGLE!!! JUST SyTOP IT PEOPLE! STOP IT! STOOOOP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHATS WITH YOU AND CAPS!???

Bad Influence IS a single in Australia, since this is a global article it is included. Ave Mary A will apparently be released on Jan 15th, in Australia, again since it is a global article it is included.

JWPJ (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote the first comment, listen up.....Ave Mary A and Bad Influence are singles in Austalia. How would i know i live here! Ave Mary A is the most recent only been confirmed a couple of days ago and i had some evidence to suport this statement and SOMEONE deleted it! Maybe i just wont bother using this site anymore and look elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.230.14 (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK...can someone please explain why AVE MARY A is deleted...AGAIN! and how come GLITTER IN THE AIR is up. the only problem i have is that AVE MARY A is a radio single just like GLITTER IN THE AIR so.......why is it ok for it to be on there when AVE MARY A isn't...not cool, as an aussie fan i am offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.230.14 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree - the only difference between the US/Canadian release of "Glitter In The Air" and the Australian release of "Ave Mary A" is that the US release is selling a lot of digital copies and the Australian release isn't (probably because the US equivalent of 11 million people already own the album in Australia). Moderators, either delete "Glitter In The Air" or allow "Ave Mary A" to be added. Since "Glitter" is now a Hot 100 chart hit, I doubt it can actually be deleted anyway...so "Ave Mary A" should have its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.248.198 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funhouse Tour: Live in Australia Cleanup

'The album was taped in Sydney, Australia on July 17 and July 18. The fact that it was shot in Sydney upset many Melburnians as Pink is a lot bigger in Melbourne than Sydney and Melbourne had many more shows. And Melbourne's city is bigger than Sydney's. Melbourne had 17 shows and Sydney had 12.'

Firstly this doesn't read well, Secondly, what is the relevance of the city size? And lastly, how can something like 'it upset many Melburnians' be verified?

I propose that the last few sentences from 'The fact...' to 'had 12' be removed.

Thoughts?

JWPJ (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreak is a Motherfucker

According to AOL Sessions, that title was a joke - it was never to be named this. Remove? 71.64.154.24 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications Change Request

The Funhouse Album sold in Germany 1,000,000 copies and was certificated 5x platinum. The source is a Youtube video where P!nk confirms it by herself. She thanks her fans at the Funhouse Summer Carnival Tour in Germany for 1,000,000 millionen copies sold and for 5 times platinum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6oJaha3SXM ^[1] Other websites related it, too: http://www.pinkspage.com/de/home ^[2] and http://www.pinkspage.wg.am/certifications_alben.html ^[3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.174.110 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article from Pink's official page http://www.pinkspage.com/de/news/m%C3%BCnchen-regnete-es-%E2%80%A6-platin As of June 2010, Funhouse has sold 1 million copies in Germany and is certified 5X Platinum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinksfunhouse (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3x Platinum is still written, please change that! It's 5x Platinum!!!! --79.216.219.137 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} I've been working on cleaning up the (long) list of internal links that point to the David Myers disambiguation page. Per Dave Meyers videography, I believe that the Dave Meyers link on this page should be changed to point to Dave Meyers (director) (i.e., replace [[Dave Meyers]] with [[Dave Meyers (director)|Dave Meyers]]). DennisIsMe (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add to German chart history:

In week 96, the album received another big jump, namely from No. 45 to No. 29, climbing up 16 positions source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.219.137 (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6oJaha3SXM

[2] ttp://www.pinkspage.com/de/home

[3] ttp://www.pinkspage.wg.am/certifications_alben.html

[1]

[2]

[3]