# Talk:Who's Next

Towards the end of Pure and Easy as the music is fading away, you will be able to hear someone yelling "Put away your girlie magazines!". Does anyone know who says this?
I think this is the start of the concert version of "Baby Don't You Do It" which follows "Pure and Easy". It sounds like Pete Townshend.

Is it really necessary to have articles for studio versions of songs? I'm not seeing the significance of such articles. My suggestion is, if you want information for the studio versions of "Behind Blue Eyes" and "Won't Get Fooled Again", put it in the main article. That way we're not creating lots of confusion.
This article is already long enough.  Adding the articles for those individual songs (which themselves are of a significant length) will make this article too long.--FK65 04:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions "Join Together" and "Relay" as being recorded during the album sessions. They weren't. Thy were recorded the following year.  The songs do have ties to the Lifehouse project, but they are not Who's Next out-takes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.10 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC) 

I was looking at odds and sods and it looks like alot of songs on the deleux edition are on odds and sods —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.95.162 (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
They're the same songs, however, different versions.
Also, on the same note of the Deluxe Edition, is that Townshend's vocals on the electric version of "Love Ain't For Keeping?"  It sounds a lot like him, but a bit grittier.--Alexrules43 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to create a page for the song 'my wife' but the link only comes back to the 'whos next' page. Could this be amended in any way please? Thanks a lot, Robbie

If you click the link "My Wife" in the "Redirected from My Wife" line at the top of the page you can edit the "My Wife" article, for example change it from a redirect to an actual article. Hope this helps. --PEJL 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot mate.

Should there be mention somewhere in the article about the recent theft of the original Master Tracks for this album? That was a pretty big deal, as the album couldn't be put on to Rock Band because of that. Doshindude (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this information is being removed from the article? It's perfectly valid and well-sourced. Not to mention it's VERY notable. The fact that it is a 40 year old album and was planned to be made available for a music video game 40 years later is pretty significant. See The Cars (album), Screaming for Vengeance, Doolittle (album), Texas Flood (album), The Colour and the Shape, Peace Sells... but Who's Buying?, Dig Out Your Soul, Death Magnetic. (these are not sources - they are examples of precedents set for this information). Furthermore, this specific case brings to light some pretty important information that is not covered in the version of the article that keeps being reverted to. Mainly, that the master tapes were confirmed as stolen by Pete Townshend himself! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the 1995 reissue that is referred to in the article, because the 1995 reissue that I own has different bonus tracks. It does not contain "The Seeker", "Let's See Action" or "Join Together" but it does feature the original version of "Behind Blue Eyes".--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I see this has now been corrected - thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

On the album I own, this song's only three-and-a-half minutes long, but it says four minutes here. Anyone care to clarify? Middle Eye 512 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Who's Next's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":
From The Who discography: "Certified Awards Search". BPI. Retrieved 23 August 2012. Note: User needs to enter "The Who" in the "Search" field, "Artist" in the "Search by" field and click the "Go" button. Select "More info" next to the relevant entry to see full certification history. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
From The Who: "The BRITs 1988". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
From List of awards and nominations received by The Who: "BRIT Awards". Everyhit.com. Retrieved 24 November 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Who's Next. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/the-who/albumguide
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/36725-staff-list-top-100-albums-of-the-1970s/page_9
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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Who's Next/CommentsTalk:Who's Next/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 10:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"The album opened with..", "'Behind Blue Eyes' featured..", "The closing track, 'Won't Get Fooled Again', was critical.." – any reason we are using past term tense terms here? And furthermore why the contrast then with "The song features the Lowrey organ.."--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably because that's what the book sources tend to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you edit the sales certification from 3x platinum 3,000,000 to 5x platinum 5,000,000 49.228.253.197 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Not a reliable source. ~ Rob13Talk 20:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dan56: I think it is okay to add the WP:HATNOTE because there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. First, I was looking for Tom Lehrer's song "Who's Next?" and eventually found it on That Was the Year That Was. I not sure how to translate "reasonable possibility" into a percentage, 1%? 5%? Tom Lehrer gets as much traffic as this page, but the album TWTYTW gets about 5% of that (click on "Logarithmic scale"). If we leave the hatnote in there for a while, there's some tool which shows how much traffic flows there, giving us a better number. Others thought it was a "reasonable possibility" because it looks like there was a prior hatnote for 3 years (hard to know if more or less, is there a tool for that?) from 2006 to 2009. I'm not sure why the IP removed it with Tom Lehrer link has nothing to do with Who's Next. No relation or similarities. Perhaps they misunderstood the purpose of hatnotes and was thinking it had nothing to do with The Who's album instead of "Who's Next". Maybe the Lehrer's song/album influenced the naming of The Who's album since it peaked at #18 on Billboard in 1966, but probably not. StrayBolt (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The album charted in 1966; the song has no notability for the general reader to consider looking for an article on it. There is no (verifiable) information about the song, even in the article you are trying to place a hatnote for. It is an example of "trivial information," improper use (WP:TRHAT). And if we are to look at the bigger picture, this does not seem like a reasonable idea, to place hatnotes atop every album article, connecting it to an article sharing a title of one of its songs: Should we place another hatnote here for Spragga Benz, who had a similarly titled 1993 song? Dan56 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Why don't we just create a disambiguation page? StrayBolt can't be the only person on this planet who wants to find out about something called "Who's Next" that isn't this album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This article's album charted in 1971, peaking at #4 instead of #18 for TWTYTW; the year doesn't matter in either case. There are many verifiable sources for the song over all the decades, but yes, the article is lacking in cites about individual songs. Perhaps each of the songs description should be expanded with refs to show influence. Spragga Benz has 1/4 of the views as Tom Lehrer and Benz's article doesn't even mention the song, "Who Next", while the song is mentioned in both Lehrer's and the TWTYTW's article. Disambig is probably okay, but I hadn't done a search for usage yet and may not know the significance/usage of each. StrayBolt (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Since there seems to be debate about this, I'll quote from the source (Neill & Kent 2002 p. 288) "Saturday 14 August : As a reflection of the Who's Stateside popularity, Who's Next was released by Decca, a full fortnight before its U.K. release on 27 August." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Was it that hard to insert the reference when listing the release date? We certainly do not need any edit wars over such a small matter. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Why remove information when you have no reason to think it's false, instead of inserting a "citation needed" and giving people some time to find the info? john k (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Date changes that are apparently random are a recurring problem. Release and recording dates for songs/albums are a popular target.
You should, of course, have a reliable source if you are going to add or change a date. At that point, it's a relatively trivial matter to add the source with your edit. This makes it easy to both verify your edit and spot any future vandalism from those apparently bored editors spending their time making random changes to dates. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The trouble with August 14 is that the album made it to Billboard's album charts that week, so it must have been released earlier. RIAA Gold & Platinum page lists August 2 as the release date; a US copyright record for the cover package also lists Aug. 2 as the date of publication. That's the date I use in my collection cataloging. PatConolly (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)