Talk:Pink (singer)/Archive 1

Singles

Got info on where her singles were on the charts from: http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-p/pink.htm

Might it be an idea to move this to P!nk? Earl Andrew 01:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Am making some major cuts/revisions to make this more NPOV and a little more accurate. IE: I seriously doubt women at the "real Moulin Rouge" dressed like the girls in the video... Pacian 05:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pinks newest song: So what!!!

This song, so what, is a great song and is such a hilarious music video. You should watch it. It is on youtube and it is so funny, that I had to put it on my iPod!!!!!

I have started the article about the tour and am now requesting help/information about it as I only have limited knowledge. Thanks

Tickets for australia are on sale this friday, tour here starts april to may. IM GOING YAY! Check ticket tek 210.49.194.248 07:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Confusing

"Pink is one of the only female-solo artists to have 9 top 10 hits in the U.K."

What does this mean? Either she is the ONLY such artist?, Or ONE OF a few such artists?

Also, the article is confusing re all the links to Gay and LGBT categories at the end, but no mention of her sexual orientation in the article.

According to the NNBD link, she's bisexual. I've never heard that before; someone should try to clear this up. Chatoyant 19:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)pink is not

bysexual she is trisexual she has already stated that she will try anything once and her and carey look at girls together but she has never stated she is by :Talk about confusing: Pink was Punk'd very badly. Did she really break up afterwards?

Did pink only win ONE award during her career?

Just curious. When I read her article, it only mentioned her winning a grammy for a collabration. Surely she might have won more than that. Can you let me know if she won any other awards?

NEW ALBUM

Her new album is called Im not dead could someone change that! --L.a.m.b 18:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Move to P!nk

• Move - I think this should be moved to P!nk. I mean even the artist infobox has "P!nk" at the top. There's no reason that the article shouldn't be at that name! - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 20:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

P!nk is more accurate. Agreed. Mitch0110 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at this please. P!nk contravenes our naming policies. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 10:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories of Entry

Her father is of German-Irish descent. Does this make her a German-American singer? Same with Irish-American singer. I'll remove those categories if there are no objections. -- Hey Teacher 12:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You should. I don't think someone should be categorized as a "something-American" unless they have at least one parent of that group, or if less they should somehow identify. From what I can tell, if anything, she identifies as Jewish or "half-Jewish". Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just removed those two categories. -- Hey Teacher 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia a person is categorized as "Jewish-American something" if they have a Jewish grandparent or perhaps great-grandparent (that's why those categories are extremely big). Why was the category "Jewish-American singers" not removed? Pink is not Jewish; her mother is of Jewish and Lithuanian descent - while her father is of German and Irish. She is as German and Irish as she is Jewish. The definition of German Americans is Americans of German descent.

It was claimed in the article that she identified as Jewish (although having no religion!), but nothing in the source indicated this (it did only deal with her mother), so the false claim was removed.

Here is what she herself said about her nationality: "I’m Irish-German-Lithuanian-Jew." (Q Magazine Transcript from March 2004 [1] [2]

There is a claim that she is a vegan... I have not found anything to support that claim. If support is not found, she should be removed from the category.-- Zachyzz 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Discography

Someone changed the discography. I know why the person did this but i don't agree, it did look better with the chart positions attached to it. Lillygirl 7:11, 30 April 2006

Don't worry, I put back the chart positions--hottie 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Why does the picture keep changing? Keep it at a decent picture, recomended to have been proffesionally taken.

Chart positions

Hotwiki (talk) has reverted my removal of chart positions, claiming that the information seem accurate. However, this information was disputed more than a week ago as it does not seem right to me. It is often changed and there is no source for the information. Now, I'm quite happy to let the information stand but only if we can come up with a source that confirms the chart positions. Otherwise, Wikipedia policy says it should be removed as it is not cited and the information is disputed. To be clear, however, I believe Hotwiki is a good editor. I simply do not agree that the information looks accurate and nobody responded to the request that it be cited. As this is currently a dispute, however, I will not remove the chart positions again for several days. --Yamla 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try to use yahoo search I'm sure you could find a site with accurate chart positions, I visited a site where all europeans chart positions are there too bad I forgot the link. There's billboard.com for U.S chart positions. Thanks that you called me a good editor I'm about to cry Lol --hottie 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Karaite

Does anyone have a source for that she is of Karaite descent? Mad Jack 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mandy Moore's cousin

Someone just added that, and it has the air of false information. Who revealed it on TRL? What airdate? What else did they say about it? Mad Jack 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true! I've read it in numerous magazines and P!nk has confirmed it herself in an interview awhile back. User:XBohemian 06:15, 7 July 2007

Dropped??

I Read some-where that pink was being dropped because of low album sales - any-one verify this??

Her album sales have been very high, just not in America. So I doubt it. Phoenix1304 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kristanna Loken

Didn't she have sex with Kristanna Loken? 1 shouldn't there be something about that in here, or even a personal life category? ~ Unfortunate

Probably should be! be bold and add it yourself. Mad Jack 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there a realiable source that confirms that she is bisexual? Otherwise, the LGBT and bisexual categories should probably be removed because it's speculation. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pink just said on True Hollywood story on Entertainment TV said that it was just a kiss.

I know there's been a lot of speculation about her sexuality, but to list her or categorize her as being bisexual, Wikipedia requires a statement in her own words confirming that she actually identifies as such. Bearcat 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In a Playboy interview, she clearly said that she is not into women. Wryspy 09:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Please can someone edit the beginning of this artical for bias? 82.0.69.6 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. Most of the changes made by 81.157.208.221 went unnoticed for some reason. I changed them all back, so I think it should be good now. — ShadowHalo 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Pink (singer). Joelito (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

P!nk → Pink (singer) — Present name violates Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names. Wryspy 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support per above. This is clearly an example of the "stylized typography" that the naming conventions mention. --musicpvm 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. As a practical note, I also observed that the explanation point in the name can cause it to get split between lines depending on the size of the browser window, with P! at the right end of one line and nk at the start of the next line. The big issue, of course, is that the article name violates Wikipedia policy. -- Wryspy 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looked at the naming conventions, and P!nk certainly qualifies to be moved to Pink with a redirect from P!nk. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per naming convention...but could somebody please programme a bot to correct the links from P!nk to Pink (singer)? Changing the non-linked instances of "P!nk" to "Pink" would be extremely useful too; recently I've been working on some of the articles on her albums and singles and changing "Pink" to "P!nk", having completely forgotten this convention. It would be too mindnumbing to have to go back to correct them again (yes, call me lazy, I probably am...). Extraordinary Machine 00:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I can WP:AWB the unneeded "P!nk" instances. --Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. If Dhartung is busy, I can do the change with AWB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

somebody go on to Yahoo.co.uk go to music type in the music search bar: Pink, then click on artsit: Pink, then click on videos. Next go on to the pepsi smash hits track 1. You will find at the end of the video that P!nk lights up a cigar. it is clear that she smokes—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecia Beth Moore (talk • contribs)

What she does in a video does not confirm what she does in real life. I doubt Snoop Dogg can morph into a Doberman in real life. You may be right, but you need a better source. Wryspy 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Smoking???????

In a smash hits pepsi video about p!nk going on tour in America. Episode 1 near to the end of the video it shows p!nk lighting a cigarette. 04/11/06Alecia Beth Moore 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Alecia Beth Moore

May I ask what your point is? That is evidence only that she lit a cigarette in a video. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim otherwise is original research.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nipple Piercing

Should there be somethin added in the trivia section about her having her nipple pierced? (Piercing Video Link)

Should there be something added in the trivia section about when she goes to bed, gets up, having breakfast, brushing teeth, shopping with mom, watching tv, reading books... 88.73.50.81 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be a trivia section at all. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. ShadowHalo 12:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion

The citation following the line:

[i]"Pink herself does not adhere to any organized religion."[/i]

...actually says she claims to be Jewish? It certainly doesn't support the statement that she does not adhere to any organized religion. Someone might want to look into that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractClass (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I'll change it, slightly Mad Jack 06:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

pink and her real name!!!!! omg her real name

Do not revert cleanup

Last night, I spent a good two hours cleaning up spelling, grammatical flubs, and getting rid of incorrect and/or redundant tidbits that had littered the article. Case in point: Pink didn't "leave" or "switch" from LaFace or Arista. LaFace was absorbed into Arista Records after her debut album was released...which was why her second and third albums were released by the latter. LaFace was reactivated and all of its acts (Pink included) returned to the company.

Keep the article simple. One of the worst things about Wikipedia is when fans show up and want to clutter up the articles by adding a bunch of meticulous information. The Real One Returns 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for recent major edits and reverts

Well, at least two editors have chosen to revert wholesale my recent major edits to this article without any explanation or edit summary whatsoever, so here goes:

1. Wikipedia:Lead section recommends that the intro sentence be as concise as possible. Mentioning things such as Grammys and album sales stops that from happening.
2. In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, stylised typography should not be replicated, so her stage name should be written as Pink, not P!nk. This is the reason the article was moved from P!nk to Pink (singer).
   • not to mention the move request above! Taalo 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Removed a lot of excessive detail, some of which was largely unrelated to Pink, such as Moulin Rouge! being the best-selling album of 2001 in Australia. The significance (if any) of what Pink and co. wore in the "Lady Marmalade" video wore wasn't made clear in the article, so I removed the mention of that as well. This is what album and song articles are for. The I'm Not Dead section was particularly cluttered with factoids and trivia that are better suited to other articles.
4. Removed the decorative music video screenshots in compliance with Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Any unfree "fair use" images must contribute significantly to the article; for example, if the "God Is a DJ" video was discussed in the article, the screenshot could stay, but it isn't even mentioned. This applies to the gallery of album covers in the discography section as well.
5. Lots of wikilink, grammar, spelling, category (Jewish American singers is a subcategory of Jewish American musicians - no need to list them both!) and formatting fixes besides; boldfacing/highlighting number-one chart positions and award wins violated WP:NPOV, for example. Also, "Last to Know" wasn't released as a single in the U.S., precluding any chance it may have had to enter the top forty on the Hot 100. Extraordinary Machine 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another near-wholesale revert, with no justification here or anywhere else. Look, if editors explained to me why they were reverting, I'd really appreciate it, but if they don't I see no reason not to restore my changes, for which I've provided explanations above. If I haven't made those explanations clear or detailed enough, please tell me. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate and irrelevant information inserted by Electric Storm89 and others

I would like to ask Electric Storm89 (talk · contribs) and others to make sure information they are inserting and changing is a) correct and b) relevant in an article about Pink. Pink was not signed to LaFace after she recorded the album with Choice; Choice signed with LaFace, then Pink remained with LaFace after Choice broke up. "Lady Marmalade" was originally by Labelle the group, not Patti LaBelle. These are just two of many examples. And readers don't need to know that Pink claimed she was drunk during her MTV VMAs acceptance speech, or that she learnt to harmonise to "I Have Seen the Rain". That's what other articles are for. Extraordinary Machine 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

L.A. Reid statement incongruent

I was very confused by the statement "According to VH1 Driven, L.A. Reid wasn't initially content with the new music she was making." It sounds like this is an article about Antonio Reid and that he is a female. I had to research the context and who this Reid was, for that matter, before I understood it. I will try to make this sentence fit within the context of the article a little better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ralraz (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Genre

P!nk's genre has changed substantially during her eras. Although it's undeniably "pop" in standard, would there be any more specific transition in the genres we could use? For example, "I'm Not Dead" uses a lot more punk/funk/soul/electro elements than do her earlier albums. Would there be a more precise genre besides "Pop rock"?

I think it should just denote RnB as an earlier type of her genre, and Pop Rock to describe her genre now, since her songs are hardly RnB now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.109.74 (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD Charts

This week P!nk's 'Live From Wembley Arena" DVD debuted at number one on the ARIA DVD charts taking the number one spot from her previous Live DVD: "Live In Europe". "Live in Europe" is now sitting at number 2.

I think this information is quite important, it reflects the success and impact P!nk has made in Australia. So if you're reading this, add it somewhere as I don't know how to.

• I've added it...but this page isn't there to show how big she is in Australia....

Electric Storm89 15:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. President

I read that this song and video was banned from the U.S. Is that true?--Kingforaday1620 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it since the first amendment and all . America dos not ban things even wen and if they deserve it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.200.168 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Discography section

I know that "Leave me alone (I'm lonely)" wasnt released world wide, but it was released in australia and NZ, and it has been a hit here reaching number 5 on the aria charts. I think It should be added to the singles section, what do you guys think? 130.194.13.101 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Coming Soon (2007/2008)

In the list of P!nk's studio albums, someone has added 'Coming Soon (2007/2008)'. Is this true?! Is there really a new album on the way or has some inconsiderate hoon written that to tease us all?

Hmmm, it seems to be gone now... no new album :(

Actually, there is. She's said she'll start writing for her fifth album by the end of January. Phoenix1304 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article vandalism

The 2nd paragraph of the article has a phrase that seems to be a vandalism:

In 2001, she participated in the worldhit single Lady Marmalade, and soon after became known throughout the United States and later throughout europe as an ignorant fool.

I did a strikethru on the final 3 words because I don't know what to substitute, but I wanted to draw someone's attention to the vandalism.

It now reads: In 2001, she participated in the worldhit single Lady Marmalade, and soon after became known throughout the United States and later throughout europe as an ignorant fool.

Also: what is a "worldhit single"? Should that be three words rather than two? Jennifer Brooks 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected this, and posted a message about it on your Talk page. Terraxos 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

possible vandalism, or just plain stupidity

in the very first paragraph, the last sentence reads "[pink] is the daughter of pink floyd". i wasnt sure if this is vandalism, or just somebody whos just incredibly dumb, considering pink floyd wasnt even a person, it was the name of a freaking band. i didnt wanna just edit it out since i didnt know if id get in trouble with wikipedia or not. but ya, just so somebody knows and is anle to do something about it.

I removed this passage from "Childhood and Discovery:" "She's also said to have attempted committing suicide 5 times, and at one point tried to strangle her neighbours dog." as it sounds dubious, has no source and I can't find any external source on the internet. Feel free to add it in if you find a source. 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.81.3 (talk)

Why "Pink"

I'm surprised this article doesn't explain (or offer stories about) why she is called "Pink". That's what I came here to find out... GreenAsJade 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been several stories. The most common one was that she picked it from the character Mr. Pink in the movie Reservoir Dogs. L. A. says she came in one day saying she wanted to be called Mr. Pink. In an interview with Playboy, however, she said it had to do with a black friend's observation about the appearance of her white girl genitalia. Wryspy

the reservoir dogs story is the true one.

I mean come on thats just dumb black girls genitals are also pink.

20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pink - Trouble.ogg

Image:Pink - Trouble.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bisexual, or at least LGBT

We know you married your long-term beau, Carey Hart, last year, but have you had sexual relationships with women in the past?

I don’t like to talk about my private life too much, but I have, yeah. My first girlfriend actually really fucked my head up – she left me for my brother. I was only 14 at the time, but I still find it pretty gross. I could have understood her running off with a friend or classmate, but to go from kissing me to kissing my brother? Ugh.

How old were you when you first realised you were attracted to women?

The first time I really noticed another girl, I was 12 and used to go dancing at my local gay club. It wasn’t the best club I’ve ever been to, but the atmosphere was fantastic. I remember just dancing for hours and feeling really free.

What kind of ladies do you go for?

I don’t have a specific type when it comes to men or women. They can be blonde, brunette, butch or femme. The main thing is whether or not they have a great personality and a sick sense of humour.

Do you identify yourself as bisexual or queer?

I don’t like labels; they’re too easy. I’m just about good energy and good feelings. A lot of people feel the need to split the world into heterosexuals and homosexuals, but I really believe we’re all trisexual. The most interesting people I know are ones who refuse to categorise or define themselves by their desires.

from [3]

She is also listed in the "List of bisexual people" Raven. 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that she is bisexual needs to be sourced. Without a citation it just seems like speculation (which I believe, but that's irrelevant).Aroundthewayboy (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From what Pink has said, see above, on the main page, and elsewhere, including her stating she has had sexual relationships with females and males, we can soundly conclude she is bisexual. The large majority of the world's people are heterosexual, but many bisexuals claim that (nearly) everyone is bi. Many even use terms which the LGBT community has invented, such as trysexual or pansexual. I guess they are trying to convince themselves and others that they are in the majority and/or are the norm, and it is heterosexuals who are strange and/or unusual. In addition, LGBT people are massively overrepresented in the the entertainment industry, so much so that bisexuality may be (considered) typical within that field. In addition she is already in the LGBT activists category, and part of Wikipedia's LGBT project. Whilst some people in the entertainment industry use (supposed) bisexuality to increase their success and popularity, this cannot reasonably be claimed to be the case for her; she was bisexual in orientation and in practice since before her singing career began. Therefore, she should be in relevant bi and LGBT categories. Werdnawerdna (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey who postulated that everyone is possibly bisexual. They did this long before it became "en vogue" for the entertainment industry. The flipside could be that the artistic field is about exploration, and so people in the field are more open to these other aspects of themselves, aspects that may be taboo for the general population where exploration is not the norm.

Pink's 5th album

Someone find a citation for this please! 72.240.163.23 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why has this been removed? 84.12.137.68 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it was sitting there for weeks without a source. No source, no mention in the article. Phoenix1304 (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Pink an only child?

It doesnt mention anything about her having any brothers or sisters on this article. Is she really an only child? --72.230.46.168 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pink has one sibling. A brother named Jason.84.12.137.68 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PETA Section and POV

The PETA section seems to have a slanted POV with comments about assumptive moralities, etc. It seems odd to have such interjections in an encyclopedia entry, and I feel the article would be served better were they not there. The comments in particular are:

    "Presumably because she regarded herself..."
    "...perhaps presumes to place her own cultural views above the cultures of other nations..."
    "...Pink may regard her singing talent as automatically placing her upon a high moral pedestal from which she can judge the world."

All of which seem oddly judgmental for an encyclopedia entry, as well as having only ONE citation in the entire section. All in all, i would suggest removing the heavily-biased section until it can be rewritten with NPOV. Thank you. -Avidya- 2008 July 10 18:33 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.6.201 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Funhouse

This section just seems to be a list of dates of with random pieces of information rather than anything seemingly specific about what the album is like, etc (I know the main article is somewhat lacking info too, but still..it doesn't feel coherent). londonsista | ^Prod 16:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree. The first three paragraphs could be deleted, as the history of Australian airtime for "So What!" does not seem to be overly relevant, nor do I need to know that the Australian tour will take her to Newcastle or Sydney. Yes, this part need revision!! 89.182.197.40 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) ramander

Semiprotected for 1 week

Due to a sudden spike in multi-IP address vandalism, this article has been semi-protected for 1 week. IP editors and new accounts cannot edit the page until next Sunday. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

I noticed on the page that someone listed her birthday as September 9. However, in her Rapid trivia video she states that it is September 8th. Shouldn't someone correct this? DraakUSA (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New photo?

I think someone should put a new photo (which was taken recently). :) Iggy Ax (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added a new image today. See this edit. Also be aware that living bio's should have a free image and not a copyrighted image which haven't been released under a free license. Then we've got the ones just taken from the internet, those are very likely not under a free license so please don't do that. My talk page is available to such questions, if you have any! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

She's looks hot in that one! Thanks! Iggy Ax (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two people in the photo. Which one is Pink? RomaC (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pink is hot in that picture with PETA t-shirt and black hair. But, when i thought about it, i think we should put a photo taken recently, you know with short blonde punk hair. What do you think about it? Iggy Ax (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

STOP TAKING HER OUT OF THE BISEXUAL MUSICIANS CATEGORY!

Jesus Christ people... what is wrong with you...?Lady Raven. 10:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well does she A.self-identify and B. is it relevant to her public life? Asarelah (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just Like A Pill

Should it be mentioned that Carey HArt appears in Pink's Just Like A Pill video? --122.107.80.44 (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin bit of info box

The main text say her Grandparents? orignated from Ireland, Germany, Lithuania however she was born in the US so shouldnt she techcially orignate from there and not from 3 other locations, which she wasnt born?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Anyone else feel that this article should be semi-protected because of all the uncertified alterations to it? Rs09985 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Pink really a vegetarian?

Her official website seems silent on the matter, as do reliable sources as far as I can see. HappyCow [4] was used as a reference to show she was a vegetarian, however I have found an equally (un)impressive reference stating the exact opposite [5]. Given this, we need a proper, unequivocal reliable source before commenting on this issue on the page. --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The IMDB Biography says she's strict vegan. Hmmm. [6] Don't see much else about it. Bob98133 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably according to WP:CIMDB "IMDb content not suitable for Wikipedia" includes "Any potentially contentious material about living persons". Another conflicting one to add to the above list I feel. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reports of Pink's personal life

Per WP:BLP These need solid, reliable reports of fact in reliable sources, not paparazzi-style pieces reporting unsourced rumour as rumour, with copious use of the question mark in the cited piece. I have removed this once again.--Rogerb67 (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Over-categorisation

This is just an example, but Pink is here described as belonging to categories (among others)

1. American dance musicians
2. German-American musicians
3. Irish-American musicians
4. Jewish actors
5. Jewish American musicians
6. Jewish singers
7. Lithuanian-Americans

I have no idea how she would self-describe her ethnicity, but I doubt it would be quite this complicated. What is the criteria for including one of these categories in a biography? How far back in the family tree should editors look? —Pablomismo (via posting script) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point regarding the ethnic categories, but why are you concerned over the American dance musicians category? Asarelah (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not - I think I left that in because it gives her ethnic category as simply "American", rather than German-American, Irish-American, Lithuanian-American, Jewish-American etc. pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 10:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"American" isn't an ethnic category, its a national category. There's a difference. Asarelah (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Like "Irish", or "Lithuanian", then? pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 16:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You can be of Irish descent without being an Irish citizen, and you can be of Lithuanian descent without being a Lithuanian citizen. Irish-American and Lithuanian-American merely mean that the individual is an American of Irish and Lithuanian descent, respectively. Asarelah (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I get that. But then "ethnic" and "national" categories are increasingly blurred, and I think that categorisation should be done more carefully in general. (see comments from Cottonshirt (talk) below. pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pink can clearly be categorised as American, Catholic and Jewish because she is one of those by birth and her parents were the other two. But I have to admit to being confused about how she (or an editor) can reasonably claim that she is German, Irish and Lithuanian. Unless we have a reference that says how far back these German, Irish and Lithuanian ancestors are then I suggest that categories relating to them should be deleted. This is based on the WP policy on categories that says we should not categorise living people unless we are sure. So, if you have a source, go ahead and categorise, if not, the Irish, German, and Lithuaninan categories should really be left out. Cottonshirt (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious categories are not to be used on bios of living people unless they self-identify and it is relevant to their public lives. Therefore, I would leave out the Catholic category. The Jewish categories can refer to being either of Jewish descent and/or religiously Jewish. If there is a source saying she's of Irish/German/Jewish/Lithuanian descent, then I think she should be in the categories. Otherwise, they should be deleted. Asarelah (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Came from RFC. I tend to use as few categories as possible. Looking over this list I would keep "American dance musicians" and get rid of everything else. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

From RFC Those ethnicity (not nationality - her nationality is only American isn't it?) cats refer to points of minor relevance in the article and just serve to clutter to the bottom of the page. The two religions are at least directly those of her parents and so are more relevant - it is important to know which (one, both or neither) she self identifies as, however. I also think most of the categories that refer to her being an actor should go - she has had very minor roles in three films, so being in the categories 'actor-singers' and 'Jewish Actors', for instance, hardly seem useful or appropriate categorisations. The music genre cats are a bit confused, but I appreciate her music covers many different styles and so is hard to categorize - that would matter less if she wasn't stuck in so many other categories. Cleanup needed, imo. sassf (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Remove most of the categories. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actress and Singer/songwriter?

Currently the first line says "... a two-time Grammy-winning American actress and singer-songwriter who gained prominence..."

Would it not make more sense to change it to "... a two-time Grammy-winning American singer-songwriter and actress and who gained prominence..." since her Grammy awards are for her singing instead of her acting? Also, she seems to be better known for her singing, where she headlines world tours instead of her acting, where she has had small roles. NightBear (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the singing should come first. In fact her acting is apparently so minor it isn't mentioned in the rest of the lead. I would say, either relegate it to the end of the lead, or remove it entirely. I've relegated it to the end for now. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title

Yes, I'm aware of NC regarding such titles, but I really think the name of "P!nk" deserves more consideration than mast have seemed to have given it in the past. This is not just a case of being printed on releases a promotional material etc. Several reliable sources use the name "P!nk", including iTunes (can't link as I'm on Linux, look it up) a number of other online stores (I'll get links if asked), as well as (for me, most importantly) the official Sony catalogue listings (see http://www.sonybmgcatalogue.com - site doesn't accomodate direct linking to listings). If people are still opposed, I won't push it, just thought I'd mention, that official non-promo (i.e. the catalogue) material also use this name. Most reasons I saw for opposing "P!nk" seemed to be based solely on the prescence of the "!" (though I didn't read them all). Though last time I checked the "stylised typography" rule (or whatever it's called) in NC did not override all other considerations. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose None of the above overrides MOS:TM. Feel free to take it to a requested move, but please note the last one above was unanimous in supporting the current title. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro Expansion

I tried to expand the intro to include more information about the resurgence of her career with commercial success in 2007, having not released an album that sold well since 2001. Please add to it/edit it.Rs09985 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

M!ssundaztood

The album was officially titled M!ssundaztood with the exclamation mark and not the letter "I". Rs09985 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And MOS:TM still applies; it should be written "Missundaztood" in Wikipedia. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, after more research I still find that it was both officially titled and copyrighted under the name M!ssundaztood. If you can find alternate official titles, then change it, but remember to cite it.Rs09985 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The page MOS:TM is about "words and short phrases used by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services". This would include "officially titled and copyrighted" titles of albums. MOS:TM states "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for 'love')." While the exclamation mark in Missundaztood substitutes for a single letter rather than being decoration or a substitute for a word, the meaning of the guideline is clear. The "!" substitutes for "i" and should be replaced according to the guideline. That it is an official copyrighted title merely confirms that it falls under the guideline. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, If you feel that the Wikipedia article is enough substantiation to make the change, then I give you the green lightRs09985 (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I'm not sure what happened to the picture we had for Pink, but like so many on wikipedia, I'm assuming a higher power (a.k.a. an administrator) deleted it. So let's try and find a 'free' image, because I believe she definitely deserves one. Rs09985 (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have (or at least had) a bunch of images of Pink. The thing is, people keep replacing one picture with another. Right now the article uses File:Pink stairs.jpg; another one we've used is File:Alecia Beth Moore.jpg (the one with the PETA shirt). The former might go away (it is a recent upload with no copyright information) while the latter appears to be public domain. -- Why Not A Duck 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a selection of free images on Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pink_(singer). Fences and windows (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Per our WP:BLP guidelines, we can not include the bisexuality information except something along the lines of "the UK's News of the World said this but Pink said the report was false/a lie/fabricated".. or whatever.. because The New York Daily News is reporting that Pink says the News of the World interview was all made up, is a "fabricated" story and that she's not bisexual.

From the New York Daily News article:

“ Singer Pink is pretty peeved that she was quoted as saying she's bisexual. After years of denials, the married singer reportedly confirmed she has a thing for the ladies. But she says it was all made up. Pink's rep tells the Daily News that the interview was "entirely fabricated". The singer was cagey about the story on her Twitter page, writing, "I just read that I'm bisexual. So 1991. Good thing people write articles about me so I can get my facts [straight]." ”

So, we can't include it as fact. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rosiedanugbtugn (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

why she chose name of PINK?

who knows why she chose name of PINK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.7.206 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article locked,yet here are banners saying it needs cleaning up?

Why is the article locked,yet here are banners saying it needs cleaning up? I wanted to change some things because the article is a mess under the "Funhouse" section.

Things like-"So What" was immediately voted #1 on Nova 100 Melbourne (although this angered Barry Fields) and shot to #1 on the Today Network's national radio Hot30 Countdown.[31] It also shot straight to number 1 on the official Australian and British iTunes single downloads charts." look like they were written by a fan and don't look very encyclopedic. I mean,who is Barry Fields,and why exactly is he angry? Are there any sources saying who or why Barry Fields is angry? I don't think a encyclopedia is supposed to speak on someones behalf,as has been done for Barry Fields. Also,writing "It also shot straight to number 1 " sounds like it was written by a fan,and the wording "shot straight to number 1" does not sound encyclopedic. I mean if if that sentence has to be in there,wouldn't went to number 1 sound better than "shot"?

And this-"On about August 24, 2008, Pink spoke about her new album Funhouse in an interview on Australian radio. This interview was then aired on Monday August 25, and Pink stated she now has a fairly busy schedule booked right up till 2010, including touring again in Australia and elsewhere. Approximately 17 minute interview with Pink aired about 9:10 am Monday August 25, 2008 on Australian radio - interview was recorded in the USA on about August 24." seems totally unnecessary. Are there any sources to back up this supposed interview? And the wording-"On about August 24, 2008",sound ridiculous. And this reads like it was written by a fan-"On August 22, Pink announced a new track titled "Crystal Balls". The song is about not knowing what the future holds and liking it that way." Is this information necessary? Why is this the only song that has a explanation behind it? Why aren't the rest of songs listed with a explanation? I would like to change these things but the article is locked.--70.149.147.58 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was locked to new and anonymous editors for vandalism. However, that was awhile ago and should have been unlocked by now. So, I've gone ahead and unlocked it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why all the Australia bias?

while it's good to hear about artists doing well in countries other than their own, or even my own, why is there such a bias towards australia? it's not just this page, i also just noticed it on the funhouse single page. there is so much about how her albums and singles are doing in australia, where and when she is(/has) performing(/ed) in australia, and for all i know, the last time she took a leak in australia!! it just seems so biased to me. i don't mind that it's there, but there needs to be the same info in regards to other countries, and how well she is doing there. it's only right. her fans aren't all in australia... 77.97.110.57 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Punk?

I was shocked to see Pink labeled as Punk in her Genres, im removing it and replacing it with Pop Punk because that would make more sence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No no no no. Provide sources or out goes the "punk" reference. Anyone who wants to complain provide sourced first. Deedeek (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

p!nk has sold way over 30 million albums!!! that is a wrong fact so id like to change that to at least 50 million.!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley0100 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

um....it's not a "wrong fact". 50 million is more than 30 million. always has been, always will be. it's math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Add rock to Genres

Listen to "U + Ur Hand," "Funhouse," "Most girls," "There you go," "Cuz I can" and tell me she's not rock and roll. In "So what" she even calls herself a rock star. So I say we add it to her genres. --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)l(talk

rockstar? not a chance. overe 30 million albums sold, and i have never heard a single song on a rock station. not one. i can call myself the president of the usa, but that doesn't make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In an interview on youtube, she said she doesn't consider herself a rockstar & said it was just a joke. Ajo0894 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC) ajo0894

i'd say most girls was more pop/rnb. she started out in the rnb genre, with her first album and therefore most girls and there you go. or there you go and most girls, seeing as there you go was her first single! and btw, commas should be outwith your quotation marks, that's bad grammar! 77.97.110.57 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

She has done enough rock for that to be in the genres list in the infobox. Qzm (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

religion ==

What RELIGION was she raised as? Is it correct that she identifies as JEWISH, but does not follow a RELIGION? Qzm (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should mention somewhere that she wrote a song on Adam Lambert's new album! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.21.123 (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

who cares what 'religion' she was brought up as? obviously pink is not overtly religious. this is religious groups trying to use wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle. they try to include religion in everything as a way of promoting it. LAME --76.173.244.75 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Because it's locked someone please change the grammy noms to {pending} for 2010 and "Funhouse" to Funhouse (it's the album not the song that's nominated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.49.60 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move'.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Pink (singer) → P!nk (singer) — Her name is officially stylized as P!nk by her record label, but I'm not sure if this move will occur without controversy.—Dalekusa (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOSTM, the "!" is used for stylistic reasons only. TJ Spyke 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. The ! is graphical -- just as the Fox Broadcasting Company uses capitalization (FOX) in its graphic, and AT&T uses lowercase letters in its logo. It's not the actual name. Me Three (talk to me) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: also, if the move were to occur, it would no longer need the (singer) disambiguator. Me Three (talk to me) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't move articles to marketing stylisations. I'm sure this has been suggested before, does there need to be an article FAQ? Fences&Windows 22:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There was a move request in October 2006: Talk:Pink (singer)/Archive 1#Requested move, it ended up being moved from [[P!nk]] to its current name. TJ Spyke 22:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

People forgot she moved to Georgia.Lived there for awhile until she moves to New Jersey. My aunt did her nails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.67.229 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sixth Album

Is including "Pink revealed that she is in no hurry to record a sixth album because she "has nothing to say."" really necessary in the introduction? I feel it should be removed from the intro and moved to the end of the article. Myownworst (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the aforementioned quote from the intro. If you feel it is necessary please discuss it here.Myownworst (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

P!nk "Funhouse" will be on #REDIRECT Now That's What I Call Music! 33 (U.S. series). <span style="font-size: smaller;"

shouldn't this article be called Alecia Moore?.(can't be bothered signing in right now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.96 (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Technically, her name is legally Pink. She changed it shortly after signing her solo contract. I actually think the first line needs to be changed to Pink (born Alecia Moore)...

Leviathanlover (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Awards

She received the 'Swiss Music Award'in 2010 for the best pop-rock album. I guess that should be added to the other awards. link: http://www.swissmusicawards.ch/pdf/news_de/SMA_MM_winner_de_100203.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.56.177.252 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Guitar

On which albums does Pink play her own guitar? Can someone tell me? King of smart alecks 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)p!nk was the most popaler singer in 1993. she was playing base and piono in that time. she also recorded a gold record with her dad. if any q just e mail me at breanna_sill@yahoo.com

Father's Profession

This article states: "the daughter of Judith Moore, a nurse, and James Moore, Jr., a Vietnam veteran." Vietnam veteran isn't an occupation. Unless he was disabled or died as a result of wounds suffered during that conflict, he must have done something after the war ended in early 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.68 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In an interview with Rosie O'Donnell, she stated her father is an investor and owns an insurance company. This is a link to the interview she does on the Rosie Show --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN4g5wLoFFo Ajo0894 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

'Pink is the #1 Pop Song Artist of the Decade (2000-2009)according to Billboard's Decade End Chart' According to the link of Billboard, it seems to be Pink Floyd, not P!nk.

stylization

The title above the picture at the top states "P!nk." with a period. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.11.18 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No.1 Pop Song Artist?

'Pink is the #1 Pop Song Artist of the Decade (2000-2009)according to Billboard's Decade End Chart.' According to the link provided, it seems to be Pink Floyd, not P!nk.

(Sorry that it's my first time doing editing.)

hair:blonde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.152.203 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but it must be a wrong link as Pink Floyd hasn't released any new material in this decade. Also, Pink Floyd is a Rock band and is not considered pop. Ajo0894 (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a wrong link and should be removed as if you click on the word pink in the artical you are taken to pink floyde, the scttish pop/rock band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.28.144 (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Psychedelic pop?

The genre box says "Genres: Punk rock, Pop rock, Psychedelic pop, R&B". Proof? 79.223.114.125 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Injured in Germany

According to an article in the industry magazine Lighting and Sound International also known as L&Si Online:

"Pop star Pink was injured during a gig in Nuremburg, Germany when a flying stunt went wrong. She fell out of a harness which was supposed to carry her out over the crowd, and was dragged into a barricade. The concert was stopped and the performer was taken to hospital for checks.
She later apologised to fans on Twitter, and added: "Didn't get clipped in2 harness correctly, drug me off stage, fell in2 barricade. Getting xrays. I hope it at least looked cool!!!"

"Pink injured in flying stunt", written by Lee Baldock, 16 July 2010

There must be other sources reporting on this as well. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I caught this on TV ealrier tonight. Looked pretty brutal. They were strapping her in and apparently whoever was at the controls jumped the gun before all the straps where connected.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Acrobat

It says she is an acrobat but there is no encyclopaedic information on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.213 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Error to be fixed

The article says "Both "U + Ur Hand" and "Who Knew" went to #1 on the pop chart." Not true - see the Discography. They were Top 10 but not #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.99.175 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink (singer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)

This nomination is resulting in an automatic fail. Not only has the nominator had little to no part in its creation, he has not notified or worked with any of the articles regular editors. Aside from the fact that you pretty much took an article you never worked on and nominated it, it is in pretty poor shape and very under-prepared. The lead reads like a list of her singles and chart performance, tons of MoS issues and instances of poor grammar. Lastly, the references are very poorly formatted. In the future, please try and nominate your own work.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Album sales

According to the Best selling musicians of all time article, record labels are not considered reliable sources, since they tend to give wrong information about the sales, changing them in order to make someone more popular. My number of 45 million is calculated from the estimated sales from certifications(check every album's page to see what I mean). I think that my number is more reliable, and I will let you(Prayer for the wild at heart) have the final word on this. Filipfilip047 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

2010–present: Greatest Hits... So Far!!!

I think it should say "2010–present: Greatest Hits... So Far!!! and Pregnancy". Plus, there is NO mention of Greatest Hits... So Far!!! or the #1 single Raise Your Glass! What the hell! The title of the section has nothing to do with what is actually written! 80.5.210.187 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of her amazing performance at the 2011 Annual Grammy awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.99.5 (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone finally did add "Pregnancy" to the title, but shortly there after, the reference to her child was removed, but the title remained. I removed the "Pregnancy" from the title for consistency. I do agree that pregnancy and child references belong in "Personal Life" and not in "Music Career", though admittedly there is some overlap so it is not always so cut and dry. Bcworkz (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:P!nk at Happy Feet Two Premiere.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:P!nk at Happy Feet Two Premiere.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why isn't Pink categorized under LGBT musicians from the United States, even though the article mentions she is bisexual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.236.10 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Pink isn't actually bi - the website given as a source in the article issued a correction retracting their original story. So I've removed that sentence from the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

it would still be a reliable source even if it was later retracted and pink is not a reliable source on herself that not how wikipedia works Syxxpackid420 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

P!nk is clearly bisexual, so the article should say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.113.72 (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WW Sales

Are these sales accurate/reliable ? http://www.pinkspage.wg.am/diskografie.html The author on the web page has no source to back them up — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuzikPro (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Pinkspage" is the Official Pink's website. Generally, self-published sources can't be used to remark those details. I change it with a Billboard reference. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Billboard cover story

Regulars of this article might interested in looking over this cover story about P!nk written by Billboard magazine. Might help fill in some gaps on this article. Read it here. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead section far too long

I have made the corresponding edit and none of the information has been lost. I also inserted a copyedit tag, as the article needs further review/editing, especially in the area of punctuation. I will attempt to look at it before the end of January 2013.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

R & B

She also did R & B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.142.85 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Marriage

The section that has "Marriage" in the title doesn't mention marriage. The whole article is long-winded and disrganized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.95 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit reqest

I think it is worth noting in this article that P!nk has had more number 1 hits on the billboard adult pop chart than any other artist. http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/1560012/pnk-sets-mark-for-most-adult-pop-songs-no-1s

Edit request on 5 April 2013

RedBrad15 (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC) i would like to change a few things since you have made a mistake on how many singles pink (singer) has sold she has not sold 50 million she has sold over 70 million singles so you are mistaken with 50 million so i would like to change it to 70 million please.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Performances

This page needs to have a Performances/Performing Style section since she has received so much praise & recognition for it, even being lauded as the best performer of our time on several occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuzikPro (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In the section about Pink's career 2012 to the present, it says that "Just Give Me A Reason" became her "third fourth" No. 1. Please edit the word "third". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.146.149 (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013

hello just wanted to say that im not dead (p!nk) sold 5.5million funhouse 5.1 million truth about love (4.069million) Justjosh92 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013

RedBrad15 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC) i would like to edit pink (singer) becuase it needs updating and i have the information.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. smtchahal^talk 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: It's not possible to make single exceptions to page protection. If you would like to request that the page be unprotected, you need to make that request at WP:RFPP. If you would like to request specific changes via edit request, please make them in the form of "Change X to Y". --ElHef (Meep?) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 6-2-13

Under the Personal Life section I would propose a change from:

• Following a brief separation in 2003, Pink proposed to Hart in June 2005 during a Mammoth Lakes motocross race by holding up a "Will you marry me?" sign on her pit board. They married in Costa Rica on January 7, 2006.

to

• Following a brief separation in 2003, Pink proposed to Hart in June 2005 during a Mammoth Lakes motocross race by writing "Will u marry me? Serious!" on her pit board, causing him to veer off the track and accept on the spot. They married six months later in Costa Rica on January 7, 2006.
  

(Note: Remember to keep the wiki links intact)

I would also propose a removal of this reference because it is incorrect on a few points, mainly that she held up 2 signs back to back:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1505056/20050630/story.jhtml

And replace it with these 2 references that are correct, include the only picture evidence, and have both P!nk and her husband confirming the facts in person:
http://society.ezinemark.com/pinks-most-amazing-rockin-moments-7736ccedb94a.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sFKhYEsIcU Varixai (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I made the above suggested changes. Tsatt22 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about Needed Citations

In the 'Family' section of 'Personal Life', there are citation needed tags on the claims that Hart appears in the mentioned videos. What exactly is needed as far as citations? He is clearly in the videos; would a link to the video suffice? Tsatt22 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Such links are better than nothing, but technically this is original research. Such simple observations are far more often tolerated in practice than the policy would suggest! So I would strongly encourage including both the material and the links, on the grounds of WP:IAR, but be aware that not all Wikipedians agree with me on that.

There is a risk that you've got the identification wrong, so just a link to a video where he is clearly in the videos is the worst possible reference, but far better to be honest about it than to leave it unsourced, in my opinion. A link to a video in which he is named in the credits is better, but this is still technically a primary source. A link to a published critic (almost any published critic with some following, but not just any blogger, see WP:reliable sources) who names him as appearing in the video is ideal, but in practice let's face it, not likely to be any more reliable than the first two. Which is the main reason that the first two are tolerated.

See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

Can you unblock this please so everyone can edit please 123.211.47.206 (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.- Arjayay (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2014

Can you unblock this please so everyone can edit please 123.211.47.206 (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Legacy section

Is all smoke blowing. Pretty much everything stated there applies to Shirley Manson, the one who did it before her. Is this a joke? Are they aware of how derivative Pink is? She "changed" nothing, Manson did, and gave way to people like her in pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Album Collection

On KISS 1055.com, I found out that Pink is going to have a new compilation album on April 5, 2011. Here's the link: http://www.kiss1055.com/iplaylist/artist/365124/?_show. It's called The Album Collection. P!nk's most recent album is entitled The Truth About Love.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

The word ranked is repeated twice in the third summary paragraph. This should be fixed. 90.220.177.40 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 20:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: snow closed and not moved. Strong consensus against moving. (non-admin closure) - Calidum 02:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Pink (singer) → Pink (musician) – Per WP:NCPDAB, the disambiguator "musician" is considered more ambiguous than "singer". – Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose She's not a musician (per the example for Prince at WP:NCPDAB) and per the opening line of her bio which states "...is a singer..." And WP:TITLECHANGES too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: I respectfully disagree with both your interpretation of WP:NCPDAB, as well as your interpretation of WP:TITLECHANGES. For WP:NCPDAB, the fact that the "Prince" article is titled Prince (musician) is documented quite well in the guideline; essentially, he is a singer, but per the guideline, the article has the "(musician)" disambiguator since it is the most ambiguous disambiguator to explain the profession which he is known the best, and because he's not the primary topic for his name. For WP:TITLECHANGES, I am not seeing how that guideline applies since, for one, the move request is essentially deemed uncontroversial per the way I am interpreting WP:NCPDAB, and also, it's not a change in the subject's actual name, but rather the article's disambiguator ... which still accurately describes the subject, and is even enforced by another guideline. (However, with all that being said, I have moved it to full discussion per ... well, you contested it. There's not a guideline that I can think of regarding that since I'm not claiming that either of us are 100% correct in our interpretations of these guidelines.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For WP:TITLECHANGES I was referring to the line "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just googled: pink drums, pink guitar and pink singer and only found the singer pink prominently in the last search. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - she's a singer. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. She's a singer. Also, I don't interpret WP:NCPDAB the same way that you are. It says that if there were two musicians named Pink, then we couldn't use "(musician)" for either. However, that there are not two does not require we use "(musician)". Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. She is a singer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose..... Because she is a singer........ –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox

The infobox on this article changed from Template:Infobox person to Template:Infobox musical artist as the subject is primarily notable as a musical artist and far more so than anything else. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

She's also an actress and besides it has more information about her life on the top and her musical information on the bottom. And plus what about Kanye West, Jay-Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.112.249 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist summarises the person's life as a musician, if their personal life is relevant to their popularity or importance, then this can be discussed in the body of the article. Changing the template for extra fields about the personal life does not seem justified, unless it a reason for their notability. I do not see Pink as a special case of being a musician where parameters are needed to be accommodated to include her personal life.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is not a good argument, make arguments for or against those artists on their individual talk pages. Although there are justified reasons to change an infobox, such as if the subject becomes more notable for reasons other than being a musician or artist, such as Jennifer Lopez, Cher, Victoria Beckham, Queen Latifah, Mandy Moore etc. However, in Pinks's case it is a reason unrelated to her notability therefore this would not apply. She would not have an article of her own for just being married to Carey Hart therefore why accommodate the article purely for this reason alone? Tanbircdq (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The template should not be person due to her acting career being a side job more than anything. Drake Bell has person template because he has a main acting and music career, and is notable in both, whereas in the article Taylor Swift, where the infobox is musical artist because her "acting career" is more of a side job than a career, and is way more notable in music, and almost no notability in acting. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Listen kid, there is nothing wrong with it at all. The infobox does not affect the page at all, everything is correct. This is by far the stupidest reversion ever. There is nothing wrong with it, I can understand it with having it on other pages like Paul McCartney, Pharrel Williams, Taylor Swift, etc. but the fact that Jay-Z, Kanye West, Beyonce, John Lennon, and Elvis Presley just baffles me. Don't revert again, without giving a good reason why not. Teenagers.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

Taylor Swift has about as much, if not more notable roles than Pink, and she doesn't have it. And a lot of people have agreed on this with me. She is not notable outside of music, and neither is most of the people you have mentioned. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well then why do they have it?(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

Well, that is very incorrect. Do you not know how the infobox categories work? John Lennon has had multiple very notable spouses, such as Yoko Ono, among other reasons. Kanye west is married to Kim Kardashian, also pretty notable. A motorcyclist is not. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Pink (singer) → P!nk – This is a unique situation. The subject of this article has consistently used only the coined stage name, P!nk, a term that resembles a word with a clear primary topic (the color, pink). Although the "singer" has therefore been disambiguated, the current disambiguator is insufficient because the fictional protagonist of the Pink Floyd album and film, The Wall is also a singer whose name is given only as "Pink". See the IMDB description of "The Wall" ("Storyline" section), stating: "The movie tells the story of rock singer "Pink" who is sitting in his hotel room in Los Angeles, burnt out from the music business and only able to perform on stage with the help of drugs"; John Kenneth Muir, Singing a New Tune: The Rebirth of the Modern Film Musical (2005), p. 71: "Pink Floyd: The Wall... starred Bob Geldof as a strange cat named Pink, and his odd, psychologically fragile existence was punctuated by a terrific, pounding sound track from Pink Floyd's Roger Waters"; Will Romano, Mountains Come Out of the Sky: The Illustrated History of Prog Rock (2010): "The Wall, centered on an aging, emotionally and detached rocker named Pink, who's fallen prey to his fears, perhaps much like Waters". (An added irony is that Pink Floyd is itself named in part after a blues singer named Pink Anderson).

In order to avoid confusion with the fictional singer, "Pink", this title requires either further disambiguation (making it even more unnatural relative to its origins), or disambiguation by using the subject's actual real-world stage name, which is not "Pink" but "P!nk". The relevant portion of the disambiguation guideline (WP:NCDAB) specifically states that "[n]atural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation", and that "[i]f natural disambiguation is not available, a parenthetical is used". Here, natural disambiguation is available, and the parenthetical can be avoided altogether. Like Deadmau5 and Tech N9ne, this subject has been completely consistent in using only "P!nk" (see album covers in Can't Take Me Home, Missundaztood, Try This, The Truth About Love (Pink album), Funhouse Tour: Live in Australia, and so on). This form notably has been used by major media outlets like the BBC, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, Fox News, and the Washington Post:

• Luis Gomez, "Sighting: P!nk dines at Frasca Pizzeria, Crosby's Kitchen", Chicago Tribune (January 10, 2014).
• Hollie McKay, "P!nk's main goal with new record: 'Just don't suck'", Fox News (September 25, 2012).
• Jaime Gill, "P!nk Greatest Hits…So Far!!! Review" BBC (2010)
• "Grammys 2014: Winners list" CNN (January 27, 2014), noting "Just Give Me a Reason -- P!nk featuring Nate Ruess".
• Emily Yahr, "People’s Choice Awards: Jennifer Hudson and other standout moments" (January 9, 2014), listing "P!nk" for several categories.
• Allmusic.com also denotes this subject as P!nk.

This is not to suggest that there are not also many sources that use "Pink", but that an equivalent quality of sources use the subject's own consistently used version. WP:NCDAB states that natural disambiguation is preferable to a parenthetical "even without being the most common term". Furthermore, there is no source which uses our exact title, "Pink (singer)", making this a good candidate for natural disambiguation. The naturalness of this title is exemplified by the fact that in the last 90 days, the existing redirect P!nk has received over 15,000 pageviews, indicating that a large number of readers are expecting the article to be titled "P!nk". Note that this subject is not comparable to Ke$ha because in that case, the singer's given name is "Kesha" (of which Ke$ha is a variation), while in this case the singer's given name is Alicia, and her stage name is not a variation of any existing thing; and because there is no other use of "Kesha" requiring disambiguation (natural or otherwise); and because Kesha has been inconsistent in the use of that stylization, and has since officially dropped it altogether, while P!nk has been entirely consistent throughout her career. I have not designated this as a multimove, but I think it goes without saying that per WP:CONSUB, this would apply to all subtopics, category names, and so forth. bd2412 T 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the stylisation. Mainly due to the sixth bullet point of MOSTM ("Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced"), which was similar reasoning for opposing a move the last time a move was requested. I appreciate the effort you've made for this proposal though. Stickee (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the bullet point at MOS:TM applies... the "!" in P!nk actually is pronounced (granted, it is a unique pronunciation... but the character is pronounced). Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  It can't stay where it is, though, as the current title is still ambiguous. What would you suggest? bd2412 T 01:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  Why would you need further disambiguation? Wouldn't "Pink (singer)" and "Pink (fictional singer)" suffice? This article is effectively the primary topic for the realm of singers. Stickee (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  Do we even have an article for Pink Floyd’s Pink? Because we really don’t need to consider non-notable topics since there’s little to no chance of confusion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  Per WP:DABMENTION, we don't need an article on Pink Floyd's "Pink" because the character is mentioned in The Wall (and in the film adaptation, Pink Floyd – The Wall, where "Pink" is played by Bob Geldof). bd2412 T 23:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  That doesn’t answer whether the character himself is notable enough or well-known enough that we need such a disambiguation, or even the redirect you created during this discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Pink Floyd's "Pink" is the main character in one of the most iconic albums of all time, and the star character of the movie based on the album. I don't know very many other albums that have actually been made into movies - The Who's Tommy and Quadrophenia come to mind, and "Jimmy Cooper", the fictional lead character in Quadrophenia, has long had an entry on the Jimmy Cooper disambiguation page. As noted in the proposal, Pink Floyd's "Pink" has been discussed in independent reliable sources, also. bd2412 T 03:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The stylization has been consistent, as BD2412 mentions above. We shouldn't redefine it just to fit our house style, which does not override reality. It's not like her name is Pink, and she started spelling it P!nk -- it's always been the second way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose—not all news outlets use the stylized version, and also note the article from earlier this month in The Daily Mirror that she's dropping the stage name going forward. As for any ambiguity between real and fictional singers, Stickee's suggestion handles the situation completely. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • CBS News: ""Pink: Singing With Dad Was 'Awesome'"
  • The Advertiser (Adelaide): Galleries: Singer Pink - her life and performances"
  • The Daily Mirror (London): "Is that Pink? Singer looks unrecognisable after announcing she'll now go by her real name"
  • The Daily Mail (London): "Having a wheel-y good time! Pink and Carey Hart treat giggling daughter Willow to a fun bicycle ride as they return from the slopes"
  • E! Online: "Pink Is Pregnant...With a Thin Mint Baby! Singer Pokes Fun at Pregnancy Rumors"
  • Us Magazine: "Pink Shares Sweet New Year's Eve Family Photo Of Husband Carey Hart, Daughter Willow"
    • @Imzadi1979, I was not aware of the Daily Mirror piece, but it raises an interesting point. Unlike Ke$ha (who went back to her birth name, Kesha), P!nk "dropping the stage name" does not mean that henceforth she will be known as "Pink", but that she will be known as "Alecia Moore". This raises a Cat Stevens-like question of whether we should just title her article Alecia Moore, which would seem to depend on whether she continues to produce successful work, and therefore becomes more relevant under this name. bd2412 T 20:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I thought standard practice with BLPs was generally to use the subject’s present chosen name? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
        • If that was the case, then Cat Stevens would be at Yusuf Islam, and Snoop Dogg would be at Snoop Lion. We do, however, have precedents where the expressed preference of the subject has been given weight, particularly Chelsea Manning and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Jimbo has weighed in on this issue to suggest that it "has very long been practice to weigh the wishes of article subjects as one factor", and that "if we are to be respectful, if we are to be accurate, if we are to be ethical, then we must take into account, as one factor, the BLP concerns of any individual (or group of individuals) written about in Wikipedia". That would seem to be the case for using the subject's own stylization of their unique stage name, and for reverting to the subject's birth name if it enters into common use. bd2412 T 03:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. On one hand, it certainly fits WP:NATURAL. On the other, it’s punctuation used as a letter. As an encyclopedia, I really think we should avoid using names like “P!nk” beyond acknowledging that they exist, provided that doesn’t mean using a name/style that no one else uses, per MOS:TM. As for pageviews… if WP:NATURAL were the only concern, I’d agree, because it’s a terribly ambiguous name without stylization. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - It makes sense but at the end of the day everyone (inc some music channels) spells it as Pink and half of the sources name her "Pink", I personally don't see any advantage to having the proposed name, –Davey2010^Talk 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, I see arguments both ways as far as page name is concerned but certainly think that the main article reference should be to "P!nk" in initial text, infobox and, where relevant, in [[Pink (singer)|P!nk]], piped links. "... her stage name" is not "Pink" but "P!nk". For me the main reason for not generally opposing this type of move is that "P!nk" is not especially searchable and

• "P!nk" gets the same search results as -
• "P nk"

Both searches link to the singer yet, while Wikipedia is not here to promote usage I think that WP:OFFICIAL and WP:NATURAL carry at least similar weight to MOS:TM which, in my view, tends to push a number of encyclopaedically irrelevant issues. GregKaye 13:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Week Support - It's a close call... but, balancing all factors presented (Naturalness, Recognizability, Ambiguity, MOS guidance, etc.)... I think a reasonable argument has been made that P!nk is the best name to use in the title (and I would extend that to the text as well). Our MOS guidelines all include caveats saying that there will be occasional exceptions to the rules (exceptions that may not be explicitly spelled out in the guidelines). All our policies and guidelines need to be applied with common sense, and I think this is a case where common sense indicates we should make an exception to MOS guidance, in order to better adhere to other policy and guideline provisions. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be a case where all relevant naming policies except MOS:TM would favor P!nk; the stylization is a natural disambiguater, it's recognizable, and its use is supported by reliable sources. Because of that, I think we can ignore MOS:TM in this instance. -- Calidum 16:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Further, After re-reading MOS:TM I doubt it actually applies to people since it explicitly states "This guideline (in its entirety) applies to all trademarks, all service marks, all business names, and all other names of business entities." No where does it mention people in there. -- Calidum 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I have checked the records of the USPTO; there is no trademark registration for P!nk. It is strictly a personal name. bd2412 T 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I wanted to cite WP:Use English to counter, but I don’t see anything in there barring non-letter characters like numerals or punctuation. Still, sources are mixed (“Pink” is in use), so I stand by my argument. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If money is changing hands because people recognize the mark, as is certainly the case here, it's a trademark. It doesn't have to be registered. Personal names can certainly be trademarks. In principle, you can trademark even a common name like "Steve." But in that case, you'll find that you can't prevent other people named Steve from using it.[7] NotUnusual (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• I Support titling things as they are correctly named. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - MOS:TM, not called P!nk in majority of reliable sources, and this is an encyclopaedia, not a fan blog. A hatnote {for|the film character|Pink (fictional singer)} will cover the Wall character. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  The subject is not called "Pink (singer)" in any sources. One might think that counts for something. bd2412 T 00:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yes she is. They all acknowledge that she is a singer, and many of them do call her “Pink.” See WP:Parenthetical disambiguation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Please, show me one source that uses the phrase "Pink (singer)" to refer to this subject. We are not in the realm of shifting and wavering, but of determining whether a natural disambiguation option exists. Unless there are sources actually using the phrase "Pink (singer)", it is an unnatural form of disambiguation. bd2412 T 01:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  My link was for parenthetical, not natural, disambiguation. She is known as a singer named Pink, as evidenced by the use of “Pink” in the text of many of the citations. Is your argument here that a parenthetical disambiguation might be mistaken for a natural disambiguation, that readers are likely to come across this article and think it’s about something with “(singer)” as part of its name? That would be a much broader issue than this one page, and one that I’d suggest bringing up at WT:D rather than any mainspace Talk page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Matter of fact… WT:D#Should parenthetical disambiguation be discouraged? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  WP did not invent "Pink (singer)". See

  1. here
  2. here
  3. here
  4. here
  5. here
  6. etc.

  Dohn joe (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I also OPPOSE since I see the reliable source argument as missing the point. We are not saying that her name is pink (singer) but are calling her pink and describing her as a singer to deferentiate her from other entries titled Pink. These ate two separate things. I also don't see these types of arguments regarding Contra (video game) or (Bigfoot (truck) despot the fact that I doubt that any sources ever used those exact terms to describe them. I am also quote confident that any move request for either of the articles, based on that rationale, would fail quite strongly. Finally the only way I could see reliable sources being an issue would be if people were disputing that Pink was a singer but that is cleary not the case.--174.91.184.181 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. A Google Books search for "pink 'raise your glass'" versus "p!nk 'raise your glass'" (pairing the artist's name with one of her bestselling songs) shows that reliable sources use Pink over P!nk by a wide enough margin that the natural disambiguation does not outweigh the COMMONNAME as used in sources. Dohn joe (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You need to look through the actual results. The hit count numbers your looking at are mostly ghost hits. I count 10 results for "P!nk," 13 for "Pink." NotUnusual (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is the standard disambiguation, and Pink (The Wall character) seems reasonable for the extremely obscure counter-example brought forth.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The title "Pink (singer)" may look normal to editors fluent in Wikipediaese. But we cannot assume that is true of our readers. That Dohn joe has to resort to index listings to show otherwise only proves the point. WP:TM is a useful rule of thumb that acknowledges that the promotional form of a name is generally less common in independent RS. But in principle, I think a trademark should be treated like any other name. NotUnusual (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @NotUnusual: I have never understood this line of reasoning. If a reader types “P!nk” into WP’s search field, he gets taken to the appropriate article regardless of whether it’s a title or a redirect. If he types in “Pink” and presses enter, Pink has a hatnote stating: “For the singer known as Pink (P!nk), see Pink (singer).” Where would the reader be confused? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Doesn't everything just look better with a parenthetical on the end? In fact, I've created a term for this condition: parenthetiholism. The title tells reader the name of the subject. It should be as close to the actual name as we can get. "Pink (singer)" seems especially problematic in this regard since it could be interpreted as "Pink singer." Parenthetical disambiguation should be used only "if natural disambiguation is not possible," per WP:NATURAL. NotUnusual (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • As to index listings, aren't those pretty analogous to title listings? The sources using "Pink (singer)" in the index use plain "Pink" in the body - just as our article does. And I generally agree with you about the rampant overusage of parenthetical disambiguation. This just happens to be a case where parentheses is better than using a minority name. Dohn joe (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I think the simple answer to that can be derived by looking at titles (book titles, book chapter titles, newspaper article titles, etc.) and seeing if any of those use the index form. bd2412 T 14:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Those works are unlikely to have multiple "Pink"s to title, and don't need to distinguish among them. WP has articles on more than one subject called "Pink" and thus we need to distinguish among them. Sometimes we use natural disambiguation, sometimes we use parentheses. This is WP:DISAMBIGUATION 101. Dohn joe (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
            • The problem is that here we are really discussing only whether "Pink (singer)" redirects to "P!nk" or the other way around. The proposed "ambiguity", a fictional character in a film, is too trivial to ever consider changing "Pink (singer)" into a disambiguation page to accommodate. There really is no ambiguity at "Pink (singer)", and it's hard for me to see a different way to distinguish between Pink the singer and pink the color. Even if we made a strange exception to our non-use of stylizations, we would still need "Pink (singer)" as a redirect because most people are going to type "Pink" into the search box and then choose from the dropdown.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
              • In that case, isn't the entire question, what should readers see at the top of the page? bd2412 T 15:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral. This requires holding a SHIFT key and pressing "1" simultaneously to create a "!". Many readers would be annoyed by typing it this way. But I guess the same might go for those typing "(singer)", which has more bytes and requires holding a SHIFT key and pressing "9" or "10" to create "(" or ")" respectively. WP:NATURALDIS normally encourages natural disambiguation. "P!nk" requires memorization, but I typed "P!ink" instead. "Pink" is easy to type, but she must be disambiguated. Well, anybody or anything can be "P!nk" seriously, but there is just one "P!nk". Still, MOS:TM would discourage this, and WP:NICKNAME is insufficient. If this article becomes "P!nk", I have to exactly type it to avoid redirecting myself. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

After much thought, I must say oppose. "Pink (singer)" is much, much longer but easier to type; "P!ink" would have looked great if "P!nk" used the "!i" instead. I have to struggle to exactly her name, but I came up with "P@ink" instead. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose since the singer's stage name is pronounced Pink, and the latter already redirects to the former, its only possible target. Best to leave it as is. I mean, for those unfamiliar with the subject, if this move were to occur, there might think that the singer's name is pronounced "Pexclamation Pointink", and that's just wrong and weird. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I stick by my stance on this, but it's odd that the phrase "pexclamation pointink singer" searched on search engines returns results for this subject... Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is not a unique situation. Lots of singers etc. make up stylized trade names with unpronounceable characters, and we generally apply the advice of MOS:TM to pick a more readable English-like variant from among the styles that are widely used in sources. "Pink" is certainly widely used in sources, as a glance at the reference list shows. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  How many singers make up stylized trade names that are ambiguous to existing primary topic terms, and are also potentially ambiguous to other persons (fictional or otherwise) in the same field? bd2412 T 19:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  Still on this? The Pink from The Wall is not notable. The Wall is notable and well-known; its characters are not. There is no ambiguity there. Even besides that, there is indisputably a PRIMARYTOPIC for “Pink (singer).” You have stronger arguments to use than this one, so repeating it just weakens your case. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I recall, there was consensus to use the title "Deadmau5" (or "deadmau5") on the basis that reliable sources favor such styling overwhelmingly. Conversely, in this instance, usage is mixed (and "Pink" probably predominates).
  I find the rationale regarding The Wall unconvincing, as it seems unlikely that readers would expect to find information about a fictional singer called "Pink" via this title (but if they do, the hatnote points them to the relevant article). And even if the article were renamed "P!nk", "Pink (singer)" would remain a redirect (with a similar hatnote linking to the secondary topic's article), so there would be absolutely no navigational benefit.
  I'm surprised to see arguments based on opposition to the use of parenthetical disambiguation in general (and the premise that it might confuse readers), as this is a standard Wikipedia practice with no special significance here. I'm a longstanding proponent of favoring natural disambiguation, but not at all costs. —David Levy 21:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL. Done and done. Red Slash 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not say that it is done and done since several users have opposed this (even on use states that they usually are proponent of WP:NATURAL). It's not that simple.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. First, I reject the argument that the current title is problematic. This is the primary topic for the partial disambiguation, Pink (singer). The other use - the fictional singer - is highly unlikely to be sought by anyone.

  So that leaves us with the question of whether P!nk is sufficiently commonly used to qualify as a preferred natural disambiguation. This is not like Mustang horse which just looks and sounds wrong to anyone familiar with the topic. Anyone familiar with this singer knows and recognizes the proposed stylized spelling. It is used quite commonly by reliable sources, and therefore it is indicated by WP:NATURAL that we prefer it to the current parenthetic disambiguation. FWIW, during the writing of this comment I went from weak oppose, to weak support, to full support. --В²C ☎ 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  When applying WP:NATURAL, it's important to be mindful of its spirit (and the underlying intent). We generally favor natural disambiguation because it's nice to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. We also generally favor the avoidance of styling inconsistent with standard English. Like most of Wikipedia's practices, both of these conventions have exceptions. Where the two collide, it's a matter of determining which prevails. In this instance, I believe that our preference for standard English does. "Pink (singer)" is a normal Wikipedia title, in line with what readers expect to see. Conversely, "P!nk" includes highly unusual (and unpronounceable) styling. It's "natural" in the respect that no parenthetical term is required, but not in a more general sense. Strong predominance of "P!nk" among reliable would be a solid justification for its use here. But as discussed above, that isn't the case. —David Levy 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is well-stocked with titles like Isopropyl β-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside, Arachidonyl-2'-chloroethylamide, and ǃGãǃne language. It seems that the only places where we don't indulge unusual orthography are where they are being used to sell products or where they reference artists and their works. bd2412 T 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  BD2412, we don't indulge unusual orthography are where they are being used to sell products. Isn't this exactly the situation here. P!nk is a commercial product, a very successful one, and even if not trademarked, try using it for another commercial product. The unusual orthography is used (obviously?) for the attention-grabbing shock value, of level and style matching the product itself. You seem to be arguing against your own nomination? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  There are a great many artists who will tell you that they are in it for the art. I take them at their word; to a degree, I consider it an extension of assuming good faith directed at the rest of the world. bd2412 T 00:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  I fail to see the relevance. We don't favor standard English orthography to punish persons motivated by monetary pursuits. That just happens to be a common situation. You're focusing on a distinction that – if it exists – is immaterial. —David Levy 03:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  Those examples are not unusual in their respective contexts (unlike the substitution of a punctuation mark for a letter in a person's stage name). —David Levy 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  They are, however, quite usual in the context of Wikipedia titles. bd2412 T 00:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  They are quite usual in that they use the only available name for their subjects (or, in the case of ǃGãǃne/!Gã!nge, one of two available and equally non-English names). Such is not the case here. Sources use “Pink.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  All sorts of traits frequently appear in Wikipedia titles, depending on the articles' subjects. That a characteristic is "usual" among the article titles in one subject area doesn't automatically mean that it (or something superficially similar) is acceptable/preferable across all subject areas.
  Even within a given area, the subject's specific nature can be key. For example, most of our articles about flora have scientific names (e.g. Lijndenia barteri and Utricularia bisquamata) as their titles. But for articles about plant species with major agricultural significance, we use common names (e.g. apple and tomato) instead.
  That something makes sense in other articles' titles doesn't automatically mean that it's appropriate here. —David Levy 03:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Dohn joe's !vote of 02:37, 26 January 2015. Reliable secondary sources use Pink over P!nk. Also, "P!nk" is not natural disambiguation; it is a creative product, like ascii art, not proper use of English, and overly catering to fandom over scholarly use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  "P!nk" is natural disambiguation in that it is used as her name in multiple reliable sources, as the list in the nomination shows. That you think it looks like ASCII art is really neither here nor there. NotUnusual (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  "P!nk" is natural disambiguation subject to an unnatural definition, not at all what one would expect from the shortcut. It is not suiting to write scholarly articles using non-standard orthography. ASCII art or otherwise, "P!nk" is not a word but an artistic product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  Dismissing the stage name "P!nk" as being nothing more than an artistic product is like dismissing the pen name Mark Twain as being nothing more than an artistic product... which I think everyone would agree would be silly. Besides we don't have a WP:Don't use the name of an artistic product as the title of an article on that product guideline (yet).

  To me, all this arguing about the naturalness of the title is secondary... the entire debate comes down to a very simple question... What title would the average reader expect us to use for our article on this subject?... based on source usage, it's about 50 - 50 between "Pink" and "P!ink"... and since Pink is already taken, that leaves us with P!nk. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  "Samuel Clemens" and "Mark Twain" are different names. "P!nk" is "Pink" with a typographical flourish (and no difference in pronunciation, though that fact isn't necessarily clear).
  No one is dismissing the artist's stage name. In your analogy, the equivalent to "Samuel Clemens" is "Alecia Moore". Apparently, the singer intends to begin performing under that name. If it catches on among reliable sources, this discussion will be rendered moot. In the meantime, both the article's current title and the one proposed reflect her established stage name. The matter at hand is simply one of style.
  Given Wikipedia's naming conventions (befitting its role as a generalist encyclopedia, not a pop music database), I believe that the average reader would expect us to use standard English orthography in the article's title. There's nothing remotely unusual about appending parenthetical disambiguation, as we do for a great many articles (and obviously would in the case of a subject called "Pink" that isn't the color). —David Levy 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedians are still imposing an incorrect version because of a POV favoring prescriptive spellings. This is no different than if we were to move Inglourious Basterds to Inglorious Bastards, or Kars4Kids to Cars for Kids, because they are conventionally spelled wrong. The fact that other sources similarly impose a POV is no excuse when at least some of them get it right (just as there sources can be found that have inobservantly "corrected" some element of spelling in "Inglourious Basterds"). bd2412 T 02:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  “Wikipedians are still imposing an incorrect version because of a POV favoring prescriptive spellings.” As opposed to your POV favoring a different prescriptive spelling. How is the one you oppose less valid than the one you favor? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  Support “Wikipedians POV favoring prescriptive spellings.” because the use of normal proper spelling is better for wider accessibility. Boldly present stylisations in the lede, yes, but not the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  If you don't recognize a material distinction between spelling and style, we'll have to agree to disagree. Respectfully, I doubt that you'll make much headway in your efforts to reform Wikipedia's conventions in this area, thereby replacing "incorrect" titles with the likes of "tUnE-yArDs" and "National Association of REALTORS". —David Levy 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  There is an equally material difference between variations that use the same letters with different capitalizations, and variations that use something other than a letter altogether, particularly where the something else conveys its own significance (such as an exclamation point, signifying excitement or shock). I have also noted in other discussions that I have no interest in pursuing the correctness of stage names where the artists themselves are inconsistent in usage, as with the Tune-Yards here. In this case, the subject has been completely consistent with usage of "P!nk" on everything they have produced. bd2412 T 03:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  If you regard the exclamation point in "P!nk" as something other than a stylized representation of the letter "i" (however exciting that may be), this is another area in which we'll have to agree to disagree.
  Regarding "completely consistent" usage, one needn't look past the front page of the singer's official website to find the styling "Pink" (specifically, "Pink's Page"). And I'm not counting the URL (wherein technical limitations preclude the use of an exclamation point).
  Her biggest fans, I presume, join her mailing list (because they "love Pink"). Have you contacted her webmaster(s) to request that he/she/they stop "imposing an incorrect version" of her name on her behalf? —David Levy 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  I don't see a single usage on the front page where there is not the exclamation point. I see some where it is more subtle than others, but an exclamation point nonetheless. Were you talking about the legalese in very fine print at the bottom of the page, which does not specify that the subject is named "Pink", but indicates the trademark ownership of the page? bd2412 T 04:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  A simple "find" operation on that page turns up two "P!nk" and two more "Pink" besides the one in the Pinks Page copyright notice. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  On that particular page, I see only the one instance of "Pink" (which appears throughout the website). —David Levy 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  Are you seriously arguing that calling the singer's official website "Pink's Page" (and registering this as a trademark) doesn't indicate that she she's called "Pink"? It isn't even something like "The Pink Room", "The Pink Zone" or "Pinkville". It's the possessive "Pink's Page". A page belonging to Pink. The one whose mailing list subscribers "love" her. —David Levy 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  It is too bad that we can only have the page at one title - otherwise, we could have it at "Pink (singer)" for readers who need to use a word search to find the word "Pink" in small and obscure text somewhere on the subject's website, and "P!nk" for readers who go to that website and overwhelmingly see the same spelling that appears on every album cover, billboard advertisement, and concert ticket published with respect to the subject. bd2412 T 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  That's what redirects are for. :-) P!nk --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  Redirects work both ways. Ultimately, the only question here is: "what should appear at the top of the article?" I prefer to have the title that is most accurate, natural, and concise. bd2412 T 14:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  SarekOfVulcan's reply appears to address your statement that "it is too bad that we can only have the page at one title" at face value (rather than treating it as a pretext for sarcastic mockery). —David Levy 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  I think you are reading tone into my words. I was not being sarcastic; I was merely stating my preference. bd2412 T 16:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  Your expression of a desire to accommodate "readers who need to use a word search to find the word 'Pink' in small and obscure text somewhere on the subject's website" wasn't sarcastic? —David Levy 17:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, that was - I thought you were referring to my reply to SarekOfVulcan (or, as MOS:TM would have it, SarekofVulcan). bd2412 T 18:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  As I noted explicitly, I cited those instances of "Pink" on the singer's official website in response to your repeated claim that "this subject has been completely consistent in using only 'P!nk'". In no way was my observation intended to disprove the preponderance of "P!nk" in that context, which is obvious and indisputable. I certainly don't demand complete consistency (and wouldn't have raised the issue myself), so I object to your apparent assertion of pedantry on my part. —David Levy 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  For the record, I disagree with the notion that a primary source’s preference necessarily correlates with the style appropriate to an encyclopedia. Non-niche reliable sources use both versions. One is less precise, and the other is less appropriate for a reference work. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose stylisations are not usually included in the title. Also, "Pink" does appear to be used a lot.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• While I myself have seen "Pink" more than "P!nk", the latter is the correct version. But, we usually don't move names just to change punctuation, with some exceptions. I honestly don't know whether to support or oppose, so neutral vote for me. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 04:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The way the article is is fine. For example, Joey Badass does not have the stylization in the title. It is noted in the lead paragraph, like Pink's is now. It should not be changed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TM. This is not a "unique situation", it's just like every other case of this sort. Nom's rationale is faulty: The fictional character is not a singer, for WP purposes, but a fictional character. We do not disambiguate fictional characters as if they were real people. Ever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I know you said a fictional character is not a singer, but what about "someone" like Hatsune Miku, where she (it) is not real, but yet sells albums? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If I may interject, that's simply another fictional character. If parenthetical disambiguation were required, it wouldn't be "(singer)". The same goes for Alvin and the Chipmunks and MC Skat Kat. —David Levy 21:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birthplace

This article is cited for multiple issues, and I ran across a few them just now. For an article that's supposed to follow the strict verification policy of WP:BLP, there were numerous uncited claims about her personal life — perhaps most notably about where she was born. Someone had added an uncited claim of a town that isn't even mentioned in any of the sources that are cited in the Early life section, nor in the RS AllMusic.com — all of which that even mention her birthplace give Doylestown, Pennsylvania. No cite gave her mother's maiden name. No cite gave her purported elementary and middle schools. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pink (singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716164314/http://news.superiorpics.com/print/2006/03/30/PINK_S_LATEST_INTERVIEW.html to http://news.superiorpics.com/print/2006/03/30/PINK_S_LATEST_INTERVIEW.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pink (singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905121052/http://www.annielennoxsing.com:80/sing.php to http://www.annielennoxsing.com/sing.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100713025528/http://www.thepeoplespeak.com:80/pages/credits/ to http://www.thepeoplespeak.com/pages/credits/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pink (singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/top-5-albums-2000-2005.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100217032215/http://www.ariacharts.com.au:80/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1G50 to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1G50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120921054302/http://www.spinner.com/2010/12/23/adele-defining-moments/ to http://www.spinner.com/2010/12/23/adele-defining-moments/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pink (singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090628184816/http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/57322859 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/57322859
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110917235708/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/27/entertainment/e075958D99.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/27/entertainment/e075958D99.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

Pink's genre will be pop, rock, R&B, folk and dance. 92.0.63.46 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)