Talk:Headlines (Friendship Never Ends)
 | Headlines (Friendship Never Ends) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 9, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Headlines (Friendship Never Ends) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Charts
editit's time for someone to add charts it's already #26 on UK Radio Airplay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicesoldier (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
WTH Happened to the charts?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.201.206 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"Friendship Never Ends"
editIt sounds to me as if they're referencing one of the lyrics from their breakout single, Wannabe. Leemorrison 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Victoria's Secret product placement
edit[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berserkerz Crit (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary speculative information
editThe article contains a paragraph of unsubstantiated speculative information:
"The marketing strategy of the single was quite questionable, releasing the single in a 2-phase-process (first digital, 2 weeks prior to the physical). A united and sudden release may have charted better. The fact that no B-sides or remixes were available on the single and that the Greatest Hits album was released at the same time may have lowered the single's chart possibilities."
It carries the tone of a fansite's pathetic attempt at justifying the single's poor chart performance, and stands outside Wiki's policy of containing only FACTUAL and SOURCED information, both of which are missing in this instance. Who else agrees that this paragrah should be deleted? Reqluce (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)