User talk:Nqr9/Archive 1

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

ARIA Charts

Hello. Your good at doing music chart positions in Australia. Will you please help me out with the Divinyls chart positions? Is there a website i can go to? Thanks :) Lillygirl 12:41, 16 June 2006

Thanks:). Lillygirl 7:16, 22 June 2006

Sorry to bug you again, but would you be able check for me the Merril Bainbridge chart positions if they are correct please. It would be really apprieciated. :).Lillygirl 11:12, 18 August 2006.

ARIA Charts from 1988

Hey Nqr9, I'm trying to get hold of ARIA charts from 1988 and 1989, I don't suppose you have access to these? Thanks, leroy78

AUS peak chart positions (singles) for Tori Amos discography

Hello. Thanks for your input in the Tori Amos discography article. I'm trying to source everything as much as possible. I left a note for you on the discussion page. --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of those links and the info! =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Madonna singles

Your addition seemed a deliberate factual error because the table was screwed up and broken. When such a thing happens it always appear as vandalism and insertion of error code. Now that you have explained, I see no reason to revert myself to your position. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yazz

I saw you added some info to the Yazz article and wondered if there was anything more you could add to her Wanted album article. I created the page a few months ago and so far only I have contributed to it! I'm a bit worried it may get deleted if there's not enough information, infoboxes or references. Feel free to add anything more to it - if there IS anything more to add, that is! --Geach (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Can't Forget You (Sonia song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal communication

Personal communication means absolutely nothing. It is worthless. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Do not restore. It will be reverted and you will be subjected to a block. ALWAYS provide reliable, independent sources. Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

ARIA chart entries

Hi there, seems like you are a master in ARIA charts. Would you mind having a look at Peniston's discography to see if there is anything missing from Australia, please. MiewEN (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've taken a quick look. I wasn't familiar with "Eternal Love" charting in Australia, though see it's noted as charting on the ARIA Top 50 Club Tracks chart on its individual page. I know that chart exists, but I don't follow it. "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" peaked at #99 on the ARIA top 100 singles chart belatedly in April 1995 (it was released late here), and I'll add that in an edit. The "Finally" album also peaked at #95 on the ARIA albums chart in March 1992, which I'll also add.
It's not relevant to the article, but "We Got a Love Thang" had an unusual chart run in Australia: 70-68-72-76-84-out-out-36-72-69-91. I've always wondered what prompted it to re-enter the charts at #36 and then drop quickly.
CeCe may have also had some other releases charting outside the top 100, but these positions can only be obtained directly from ARIA, as positions beyond #100 were only available to industry.Nqr9 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nqr9, thank you for your inputs regarding the Australian charts for Peniston as (s)well. A full Pandora Archive for the ARIA Top 50 Club Tracks comes from the State Library of New South Wales. It is quite tiresome work, though, as there is no option to search for a release/artist within one default researchable online field. So the only way how to retrieve music chart positions is to review the chart week by week depending on idividual issue-links. As for the rest, I don't really known how it works in Australia but in European countries it is not that unusual when a song drops and then re-enter the official music charts back again while making even a more striking entry later. I think in many cases it has something to do either with delayed counting or such weekly chart reports filed in addition by individual local recording associations, so the highest chart position doesn't really have to reflect the actual chart run of a song, or let's say the proper weekly outcome, you know. Thanks heaps for your time, I appreciate your help. Greetings. MiewEN (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that either Ce Ce may have done a promotional tour of Australia just before the single re-entered, or the single may have been heavily discounted - resulting in its dramatic re-entry into the top 100. A number of singles were being heavily discounted at that time in Australia (some cassette singles being sold at approx. 20% of their normal price, and CD singles being sold for approx. 12-14% of their normal price - the first time I had ever seen this happening), though mostly it only affected new releases. I am aware of the pandora archive, though it only goes back to 2001 (the first digital ARIA report). If you have an interest in Australian charts, a good blog posts scans of the top 50 printed chart each week from 25/30 years ago, and also details new entries between 51-100 (currently on 1985/1990) here - http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/ . Ce Ce didn't debut on the top 50 chart here until January 1992, though.Nqr9 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, touring or the discount case that could be a case too, one never knows... Thank you for sharing the chart beats-link that I didn't know about in fact. Looks like a pretty heavily loaded one, so I will definitely have a closer look at it once I catch a moment for new surprising facts. With all good wish from MiewEN (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Music Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar in recognition of your diligent work and expertise on ARIA chart peaks. Keep it up! --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. Nice one :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.Nqr9 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, great job. Lapadite (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Garbage

Hi, thanks for your message. Please email me at [email protected] / or find me on FB/Twitter @acereject

There was no Australian pressing for The World is Not Enough, Sex is Not the Enemy or Tell Me Where It Hurts. When TWINE was out, the When I Grow Up single was still charting strongly in Australia, and the You Look So Fine single was released instead (it went to #106 I believe). SINTE was sent to Aus radio and music TV in advance of the band touring, but instead of a single, the band rereleased the Bleed Like Me album with a bonus disc featuring the SINTE video and Making of. This was probably one of the last Festival Mushroom releases before the company was absorbed into Warner Music Australia. For Tell Me Where It Hurts, there was no physical single released. Both singles however could have had imports from the UK available, and both would have had a digital single available at least? I know in 2012 Big Bright World was released as a single in Australia, but only digitally and as an album cut, rather than a separate single/artwork.

I'd be very interested to find out what you research, especially for the singles that didnt make the Top 40, or for the singles that had a chart run earlier than the Pandora ARIA archive shows.

Regards Paul Breakinguptheguy (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Paula Abdul discography

Hello, someone added an Australian certification to Forever Your Girl. Could you claim that ? (or not) Πx (discuter) 20:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Gavin Ryan's 'Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010' book has just a single platinum certification listed beside the 'Forever Your Girl' album. That book was published in 2011, however. It's possible that it might have been certified double platinum since (though probably unlikely, I think). This forum thread is updated with new certifications (including old albums/singles when they receive a new certification) regularly, and there is no mention of 'Forever Your Girl' there - http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=40595&pages= . I would revert it to a single platinum award, unless they can provide a reference.Nqr9 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I've updated the certification level for you, as well as on the Paula Abdul discography page. I've also fixed up 'Spellbound's ARIA certification level on its own page - it achieved gold, not platinum.Nqr9 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates. These would help the French page. Πx (discuter) 20:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dream Juice

I'd love to create a new page for Efua's album Dream Juice but I guess there would be no point what with its lack of success and therefore interest. Although it does seem Efua was a bit more popular in Australia. But if you think you could collect enough info to create a good enough Dream Juice article please do - I know mine would get deleted straight away! --Geach (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As I just edited on the Efua page, it did 'chart' in Australia (albeit at #140, for which I had to ask ARIA for the peak as only the top 100 was publicly available). I've got a UK newspaper article interview (from 'Echoes', a 'black' music newspaper) from January 1993, when 'Down Is the Drop' had just been released, in which Efua discusses writing/recording the album briefly - but it's A3 size and I've only got an A4 scanner. I've scanned it as 2 separate images, and (badly) joined them together, made even worse by the image compression/size reduction on the hosting site. It's uploaded here - http://i.imgur.com/Oj0ZKLW.jpg . I could send you the original scans if you leave a contact email here, or send a message through my youtube channel here - https://www.youtube.com/user/ohnoitisnathan33 .Nqr9 (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That's an excellent article, really interesting. Can any of the info be used in the Efua article to bulk it up a bit? Well done on finding all this stuff and general chart info. There's also this review of Dream Juice which may be used in future, but I don't currently know how to add reviews. http://www.allmusic.com/album/dream-juice-mw0000097205 --Geach (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a go at adding some of the info to the Efua page. I've uploaded a better combined scan of the article here - http://i.imgur.com/OpIFyvg.jpgNqr9 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This article I've added as a reference on the Efua page has some interesting info on the recording of "Somewhere". Also, her year of birth on the wikipedia article appears to be incorrect - this May 1993 article says she was 26 at the time: https://web.archive.org/web/20151002032937/http://i.imgur.com/KSQDJK8.jpgNqr9 (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. I can't remember where I, you or anyone else found her original year of birth from without checking through all the editing history. Also thanks for finding and adding the new One on One info - that should save it from future deletion! --Geach (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sybil

Not sure if Stock Aitken Waterman-related singer Sybil had any hits in Australia, but if you have any further info on these two albums - Australian or otherwise - please add it to the rather basic articles!

--Geach (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately she didn't have any top 100 hits in Australia. Some singles peaks of hers I've obtained from ARIA are: Don't Make Me Over #144, The Love I Lost #145, Crazy 4 U #147, Make It Easy On Me #160, When I'm Good and Ready #213, Walk On By (single) (no chart history). I can add those to her discography page (if she has one). I only asked about singles I could find evidence of receiving an Australian release; I don't know whether she had other singles released here - but none of them made the top 100 chart. It's funny that 'When I'm Good and Ready' was the lowest-charting among those, as it was the only one I was aware of at the time it was released. I think I've got 'Good 'N' Ready' on a list of albums to ask about; but I would be surprised if that received a chart placing.Nqr9 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised Sybil didn't have any hits in Australia as from what I've seen your charts seemed to follow a similar pattern to the UK charts and I understand other SAW acts had hits your way. That said, she wasn't a major success here, she had two or three stabs at stardom but she's largely forgotten other than for "When I'm Good and Ready" and "The Love I Lost" which are still played on "retro" radio shows and feature on 90s compilations and the like. "Walk On By" was featured on the first compilation LP I ever had but it's very much forgotten about now. It looks as though she didn't have much success in her native US either. --Geach (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I remember reading about Sybil in the UK 'Number One' magazine (which would arrive here about 3 months after its original publication date), but don't recall hearing any of her music until 'When I'm Good and Ready' was being played on a temporary license youth radio station, Hitz FM in early 1994. 1987 and 1988 were Stock/Aitken/Waterman's biggest years in Australia, and Lonnie Gordon was the only non-Kylie or Jason S/A/W artist to score a top 50 hit here after January 1990. Even Jason was flopping here by 1990 - 'Hang On To Your Love' and 'Another Night' did not even receive a local release.Nqr9 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Number One magazine, there's a blast from the past. I didn't even know until relatively recently that Sybil's songs, old and newer, had been written or produced by Stock Aitken Waterman. I think by the mid 90s when SAW had gone completely out of fashion any new songs they were producing they were doing more secretly and with a different sound compared with the heady Kylie/Jason/Lonnie Gordon days. But that's a different story.... --Geach (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Albums info

Do you have any further info to add to these 80s and 90s album articles? I started the first two a while ago but they've had very little attention from other users.

The only thing I could add is that Greatest Remixes Vol. 1 peaked at #43 in Australia on the ARIA Charts - see http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=C+%26+C+Music+Factory Nqr9 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
And Greatest Remixes Vol. 1 peaked at #45 in the UK - see the albums tab on this page - http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/27329/clivilles-and-cole/ Nqr9 (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just created Body to Body by Technotronic and noticed you'd added stuff to their other pages so please add any info you have on that album or improve what I've done so it doesn't get deleted! :) --Geach (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. I've just added a basic charts table to Schubert Dip by EMF and wondered if you could add anything to it, maybe the Australian peak position, if one exists. I've seen on the band page that they had hit singles in Australia. Thanks! --Geach (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I added Aus & NZ albums chart peaks, plus a reference for the US peak and centred the peak positions (I think it looks better that way). There are other countries' peaks listed here, which you can follow through to the specific sites for those countries, if you feel so inclined (or maybe I can add them at a later date) - http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=EMF&titel=Schubert+Dip&cat=a Nqr9 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not great at creating those tables - I simply copied it from another article and changed the numbers accordingly so appreciate what you've done with it. Feel free to add the others, I've just made my eyes go funny reading through the whole badly written EMF article and trying to edit and clean it up which was quite difficult to do. The whole thing probably shouldn't be up there and it was so out of date! --Geach (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just expanded the Kim Appleby album article. I read through it thinking how poorly written it was - not that there was much to read - then I realised I was actually the last person to edit it - three whole years ago! Add extra info to it if you have any or feel free to improve what I've done. It seems a bit of a forgotten article. :-( --Geach (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Done!Nqr9 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Boney M. discography

I see you have added Australian peaks to the tables at Boney M. discography, which is fine. But for singles tables, now we have 12 markets, which is more than what we should have. We're supposed to have approximately 10 columns for peaks, which makes having 11 columns sort of acceptable, but not 12. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Per-release (under section 6). I didn't want to revert your entire work, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention so you could remove Australia from the singles table yourself. That way we'll stay on the borderline of the suggested limits.--Harout72 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I added singles peaks for Australia as there were already albums peaks for Australia on the page (but no singles). I think if one should be deleted, both should be, as otherwise it is an incomplete record, and gives the impression that none of their singles charted in Australia. Plus I added some Australian albums chart peaks that were not already there. There are New Zealand singles peaks on the table, and despite the greater number of Boney M. singles charting there, New Zealand is a much smaller market than Australia, as are some of the other countries listed. How does one decide which markets are the most relevant/significant to include in the table if it is to be limited to 10? I think there should be a clearer rationale for which countries are to be included in a discography table limited to 10 countries/charts, rather than being based on which 10 (or 11 in this case) countries were added to the table first. The wikiproject page you link is a suggestion, not a rule. I think 12 columns in the table looks fine, despite the suggested guideline of 10.Nqr9 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is a suggestion and widely accepted rule among those that edit discographies. Anyways, I removed the column for the US as there were few peaks available and they were low peaks. Normally, it's best to cover the larger and medium-sized markets first, and also smaller markets that generate significant amount of sales. But if a large music market such as the US has fewer peaks than a medium market such as Australia or Canada, the the former can be left out.--Harout72 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I was going to suggest removing the US column instead, as they only had a few chart entries there (and nothing higher than 30), even though the US is the world's largest music market. Thanks!Nqr9 (talk)

Your work

Hi, I would like to say that I love what you do with the Australian charts. I'm a chart freak and all those hard to find informations always make my day :) I love Tina Turner, Lisa Stansfield, Celine Dion and Mariah Carey, and you had info about all of them. If you have more, please, add it :) By the way, I have a question about Simply the Best (Tina Turner album). According to the book source you have added, it was #26 on the 1991 YE chart. But it is not listed here http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-50albums-1991.htm . Is it a mistake on the ARIA website or in the book? Max24 (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed yesterday that we had a lot of cross-over with the pages we've edited. I'll dig out my 1991 end of year top 50 printed ARIA chart (they used to be available free in record stores) for the 'Simply the Best' end of year 1991 peak soon and get back to you on that. I have spotted a couple of errors in Gavin Ryan's book, and this is possibly one of them. I've also seen one or two errors on the australian-charts.com database (and singles charting over the Xmas chart breaks before 1998 don't have those weeks added to the weeks-in tally), and in David Kent's 1992 chart book (covering Australian peaks pre-dating the ARIA-produced chart) - I guess no source is 100% accurate. There are many ARIA peaks outside the top 50 I've seen on wikipedia that are wrongly sourced to David Kent's chart books (I'm guessing someone added these references in later, assuming the peaks were taken from there). His books were based on the Kent Music Report (his own) chart - not used by ARIA after June 1988, and ceasing publication in 1998.
Unfortunately, ARIA peaks between 51-100 from 26 June 1988 (their first self-produced chart) and 14 January 1990 (the first time the full top 100 was available by subscription) have never been publicly available anywhere to date - other than asking them for info directly. Occasionally, the ARIA Report's Chartifacts column mentions a peak from this era (as where I've taken Blue Zone's 'Jackie' and Coldcut's 'People Hold On' ARIA peaks from). Sometimes, the Kent Report and ARIA peaks are very different (e.g. #67 for 'Jackie' on the Kent Report chart, but only #99 on ARIA). I hope to obtain ARIA peaks for 'Set Your Loving Free' and 'Little Bit of Heaven' from ARIA in the future. I didn't ask previously, as I only recently discovered they both had an Australian release (both missed the top 100). If you're a Mariah fan, I think 'If It's Over' received a commercial single release in Australia, too (but missed the top 100), as I saw the MTV performance played on rage as a new release music video once. I used to add 'hit predictions' to the top 60 charts I used to copy down from 'rage', based largely on new release videos they aired, and I've got 'If It's Over' listed as a hit prediction for 5th December 1992. Many years ago, I saw a peak of #109 (from memory) for it somewhere, but I don't know if that as an ARIA peak. It was before wikipedia, so there was no reference listed either. ARIA probably have a few peaks for Tina Turner outside the top 100 - I know 'Look Me In the Heart', 'On Silent Wings', 'Missing You', 'Something Beautiful Remains', 'In Your Wildest Dreams' and 'When the Heartache Is Over' were definitely released commercially here (all missed the top 100). 'Be Tender With Me Baby' and 'Proud Mary' may have also been released here.
As you might have seen with the 1989 Australian peak for 'What You Get Is What You See' I added, this blog is a good source for top 50 peaks (with scans of the chart), and peaks for 'breakers' (singles charting just outside the top 50 that have not yet entered it) for the 1988-89 ARIA period: http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/ , though currently only Jan-Oct 1985 and July 1987-Oct 1990 are available (it is updated weekly with a chart from 30 or 25 years ago). Occasionally there is also a 'single of the week' on the printed chart that missed the top 100, and a peak is listed when available.Nqr9 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I just checked my printed chart - http://i.imgur.com/p9nVz55.jpg - and it is an error in Gavin Ryan's book. His 1991 end of year albums chart listings in the book seem very inaccurate for some reason (e.g. the #1 album of the year is listed as #14 for the year, and #33 for the year is listed as both #1 and #3 for the year - I wonder what went wrong there). Here's the Tina entry from the pdf version of the book - http://i.imgur.com/zHkd5aw.png (the end of year placing column is the one with 26/91 in it). It seemed possible that 'Simply the Best' might be placed in the lower half of the top 100 for 1991, but I don't have a copy of that chart from the ARIA Report, or in a spreadsheet. I've only got this page saved a screen-shot (the original page no longer seems to be online, and I didn't save the URL), which had the full top 100 for 1991 - http://i.imgur.com/YlIKbZO.jpg - at least the top 50 is consistent with the printed ARIA top 50 chart for the year. My State Library only has ARIA Reports from 1994 onwards. I was thinking of taking a trip to the National State Library in Canberra maybe next year (they have from the first ARIA Report, I believe) to grab copies of earlier ARIA Report top 100 charts though. I'll delete the 1991 entry from the wikipedia page.Nqr9 (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
All information about ARIA is very useful, especially 51-100 peaks, complete year-end charts and accreditations. You're doing a great job! About Tina Turner, do you know maybe if Twenty Four Seven (1999) charted on the ARIA chart? I couldn't find this one and it was released in Australia. Also, I'm not sure if any of her latest releases were issued and charted in Australia: Tina! (2008), The Platinum Collection (2009), Tina Live (2009) and Love Songs (2014)? Max24 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about 'Love Songs', but none of those other albums charted within the top 100. If you know the release date for 'Love Songs', you can check archived copies of the ARIA Report (contains the top 100) here, dating back to 2001: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790 . The archive is not searchable, though - you have to check each chart around the time it was released/likely to chart.Nqr9 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You have your old paper ARIA charts? Well done, you're doing better than me, I collected them then didn't save them :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've got only sporadic paper charts before 1992 (I threw out several in a house move in the 90s, and regret it now, though never had a complete set before this period - some I have re-acquired through someone who no longer wanted them). From about February 1992 I have them right through until they first stopped printing them, in June 1998; although I cut out the albums chart and used to stick it in a chart book until the first foolscap-sized printed charts in August 1992. I didn't realise the full top 100 was the 'detailed chart information' available by subscription mentioned along the bottom of the top 50 chart, so never sent away for it. I spent 2 afternoons in my State Library photocopying the ARIA Reports they had (only from 1994) - though only the Chartifacts, top 100 singles, and top 100 albums charts, up until 2000. At some point I want to raid the National Library of Australia's ARIA Report archive.Nqr9 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again :) I really think your ARIA edits are very significant here. Max24 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Twenty 4 Seven

Oops! Sorry about that, I did not read the sentence well enough and judged to fast. I hope this won't happen to often. Thanx for the provided information. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boys for Pele may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • align:top"| [[ARIA Charts|Top 100 Australian Singles]]<br><ref name=ariasingles>Australian ([[ARIA Charts|ARIA]] singles chart peaks:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joe Jackson (musician) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Mary Mary

Hi. I've just been doing some editing on the Mary Mary album Thankful and wondered if you had any Australian or other chart positions for it, along with their discography which only lists US peaks and UK single peaks, yet the song "Shackles" was a worldwide hit. Thanks! --Geach (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Shackles" peaked at #2 on the ARIA singles chart, and was certified platinum in Australia. "I Sings" peaked at #88 on the singles chart. The album "Thankful" peaked at #48 on the albums chart. These were their only ARIA top 100 entries. References for the top 50 peaks would be http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Mary+Mary , and the top 100 peak and platinum certification can be sourced from { { cite book|last=Ryan|first=Gavin|title=Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010|year=2011|publisher=Moonlight Publishing|location=Mt. Martha, VIC, Australia } } (minus the spaces). You can see a bunch of international peaks for "Shackles" here - http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Mary+Mary&titel=Shackles+%28Praise+You%29&cat=s .Nqr9 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Seal

Unless I'm reading something wrong I've just noticed that the Australian and Austrian peak positions for the 1990 Adamski version of "Killer" in the Seal discography don't match up with the peak positions in the actual "Killer" article. Did it reach number 8 in Australia or number 112? Bit of a difference! See what you can do. :-) --Geach (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for alerting me to this. It definitely did not reach #8 in Australia! It only reached #112 here. I'll fix it up.Nqr9 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all that work. Although it's a shame "Killer" only reached number 112 in Australia! It was one of my first singles and if I remember rightly here in the UK it kept Kylie's "Better the Devil You Know" off number one. What I'd do to have those songs at number one and two again! --Geach (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Inaccurate information on wikipedia bugs me, so I couldn't help myself with all of those edits, ha ha. "Killer" didn't do so well in Australia no doubt partly due to it receiving almost no mainstream exposure. I only knew of the song through reading about it in 'Number One' magazine (which arrived here about 3 months after the publication date), and then seeing the video at about 5:30am one Saturday morning on the Australian music video TV program 'rage' just before they aired the top 50 chart. Although dance music was starting to have some chart success in Australia, the edgier stuff like 'Killer' didn't normally chart so well yet in 1990. Australian FM radio did not touch pop or dance (outside of airing the top 40), at least in my state, until 1995! 'Put Yourself In My Place' was the first Kylie song that received airplay outside of the top 40 countdown or evening listener-voted charts aimed at teenagers.Nqr9 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. UK radio seemed to play a mix of genres and I'm sure there was a time here where you couldn't move without hearing or seeing Kylie & Jason at some point during the day, but maybe that was due to the fact my older sister and various other people I knew liked them. Of course by 1995 Kylie was trying to shake off her pop/SAW image and was hanging out with 'cool' people - not that I need to tell you that as a fellow Aussie - so I guess it was 'okay' for certain radio stations to play her slightly more mature songs by then. Funnily enough, despite me preferring her earlier stuff, the 1994 album Kylie Minogue was my first Kylie purchase, before she got largely forgotten about here until 2000. But yes, you do well at adding all those chart positions. I was always obsessed with the UK charts from a young age, then the US charts, but now it's great to see chart positions from other countries - when they're correct! I didn't know positions lower than number 75 even existed in our own charts until relatively recently so that kind of opened up a whole new world to me. --Geach (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Most of my favourite artists flopped here - well after one or a few hits, so I've always been more interested in lower chart positions. The UK chart has always been interesting to me, as it was generally much more fast-paced (pre-downloads) than our charts; so nearly everything obtained a chart position there. I've always found it odd though that the UK chart traditionally bottoms out at 75 instead of 100 - yes, I know there are positions 76-100, but they're not a 'pure' 76-100, as singles falling out of the top 75 with a sales decline exceeding 20% are excluded, unless their sales increase again (although uncompressed peaks are listed on the Chart Log UK 1994-2010 site pre-2001, from memory; which is why some are quite different to those on the Official Charts site, which lists compressed peaks in this region). If you didn't know about it already, this thread on the UK Mix forum is quite handy for UK/US chart runs (and contains some UK chart data below the top 75 from 1981-1982 which isn't available on the Official Charts database) - h t t p s : / / w w w . u k m i x . o r g /forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13100&sid=577812f5d3c7f97fec083c555ba92852 (remove the spaces; I can't post the link here) . However, the author/supplier of the chart data died last year (or maybe it was in 2014), so the thread is now locked. There's also this thread with UK 76-100 positions from September 1992 until January 1994, which also is not on the Official Charts database - h t t p s : / / w w w . u k m i x . o r g /forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21742&start=200 . However, unfortunately you can't cite ukmix as a reference on wikipedia (I can't even post the URL on my own talk page!), as it's on a blacklist (presumably due to people citing worldwide sales claims from another section of the forum, which is not a reliable source for these), so I have to resort to taking screen shots when citing peaks from here. Oddly, I've found that many lower pre-1990 Billboard Hot 100 peaks are not yet on the Billboard website site database, so have had to use UK Mix for some of them.Nqr9 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for those links, I've just had a quick look but I've never actually seen that forum before - I'll have a look around when I have a bit more time. I'm not really sure why ours was a perhaps random Top 75, but there's something really weird for me seeing positions below number 75 - as I said for years I didn't even know such positions even existed, like it was a vortex of nothingness or something! As I'm sure you'll know, the main chart-based radio station BBC Radio 1 and music TV show Top of the Pops only focused on the Top 40 and I remember the thrill of seeing below number 40 for the first time on a Top 75 chart print out in my most local but small record shop. I know it was 1993 as I saw Efua's "Somewhere" just below the Top 40, which I'd recently bought on cassette from that same shop! Of course this was way before the internet so that was the only place I could look at the whole Top 75 but unfortunately it was on the desk where the payments were made so I felt awkward going up and staring at it week after week so only saw it occasionally grrrr. The UK charts got more and more rapid by the late 90s due to deliberate heavy promotion before songs were released, making them go in high and fall fast. I preferred it when songs would actually climb to number one, sort of pre-1995 mostly. --Geach (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the UK chart was a bit boring when 99% of singles would peak on debut and then fall. But even before then, your chart was usually more fast-paced than ours, with a 6 to 8 week stint in the top 40 being typical for a top 10 hit. Here, most top 10 hits back then would have normally spent at least 10 weeks in the top 40, and even lasting 20 weeks in the top 40 wasn't unusual for a top 5 single; but our chart thankfully wasn't as slow as the American one. Number one single debuts were very rare here until 2000. ARIA used to print a top 50 chart that was available free in record stores. Between 1986 and 1992 it contained a Breakers section, listing the 5 highest-charting singles that (usually) had not yet entered the top 50, in order. But the chart didn't actually explain what they were; it wasn't until about 1992 that I figured it out, as rage would air the 51-60 portion of the chart. This blog posts scans of our top 50 chart from 25 years ago (starting from mid 1987) and 30 years ago (starting from January 1985) each week: http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/search/label/ARIA%20charts . I've posted a handful of ARIA Report top 100 singles chart scans (of photocopies) to use as references, e.g. http://i.imgur.com/ZlukZTd.jpg . I've also found this site which has scans of the UK top 75/100 charts - http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/ . A UK top 200 exists from at least January 1983 - I wish the whole chart would be unleashed some day.Nqr9 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info and links, especially for providing the link to that website with the UK Top 75 charts - what a find! Those are the exact charts they used to print out at my local record shop so it really brings back memories, from Music Week magazine I think, but I didn't know what that was back then. I've just spent some time looking through various charts from different years and I think I've found the first Top 75 I ever saw there with "Somewhere" by Efua just outside the Top 40 in July 1993. Great to see that despite it missing the Top 40, one week it was actually the highest climber, going up 23 places to number 50. :-D --Geach (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Temptation

Blimey! What brought all this on? I"m most impressed - I don't think the article's been touched for ages! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! The video aired recently on Australian music video TV program rage, on a Countdown re-run from 1983, so it was in my mental list of wikipedia pages to update ;-) I'm about to add their Australian chart peaks to the discography section of the Heaven 17 page, too.Nqr9 (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, excellent, thanks. I follow it with a certain musical and (minor) financial fondness as I am on it in a very minor capacity and I get paid £0.0000002 or something when it gets played! :) DBaK (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool! The song seems to be more well-known in Australia, I would say, than its #38 peak suggests... well, for anyone who was aware of music in the 80s/early 90s.Nqr9 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I was quite surprised at how well it did here in the UK! I was on a school journey when that chart position came out and the headteacher bought champagne on the beach in Lyme Regis to celebrate! :) DBaK (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask what your contribution to the song was? I'm thinking maybe you did some backing vocals on it?Nqr9 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
2nd trumpet! :) DBaK (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool. I assumed session musicians got paid a set fee for the recording session and that was it, so it's nice you get some ongoing royalties... however small they may be.Nqr9 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That was the case originally - a good fee at the time but you signed away your future rights. There was then a campaign - maybe 20 years ago? - to change this, since it was felt unfair that the named star performers went on getting richer whilst other contributors didn't. A particular poster boy for this campaign was David Mason (trumpet player) who played the piccolo trumpet solo on Penny Lane. David was always quite vocal about the fact that he'd got a decent fee but no royalties. Eventually they changed the rules and introduced a system for distributing the royalties to all performers. I think there was even some retrospective element to this though not right back to the original date. I was only vaguely aware of it but then they had an ad in the Musicians' Union magazine with a random load of names as an example, saying "these people are owed money" and my name was there! I was quite chuffed, and a little bit richer. :) DBaK (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There was an interview I saw or read (I can't remember which) a while ago where Toni Basil, the singer of 'Mickey', said that she'd only made about US$2000 in royalties worldwide since the release of that single in 1981. She didn't write it, but changed it from 'Kitty' to 'Mickey', and also wrote the "oh Mickey you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind, hey Mickey!" chant - but didn't (coudln't?) claim a co-writing credit for that. I was shocked that she made so little from such a massive hit, even though she didn't write it.Nqr9 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt but I'd still got this page on my watchlist and this conversation has been really interesting. I was thinking that if DBaK gets paid just £0.0000002 for each play of Heaven 17's "Temptation" I dread to think how much he/she gets paid for each play of the 1992 Brothers in Rhythm remix, my favourite version of the song lol. I'm also wondering if he/she got to meet the band members, who went on to work on one of my favourite albums, Private Dancer by Tina Turner. --Geach (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The Brothers In Rhythm remix is marginally my preferred version too; though I guess it's partly because it was the one I was familiar with first.Nqr9 (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I quite like that version too. My royalty from that is probably similar but with a few more zeroes, so say £0.00000000002 for the sake of argument ... unless I am not on it at all in which case I will probably get a big fat £0.00 per play. I haven't listened to it for a while so I am honestly not sure whether I am on it or not. I was not exactly prominent in the original! But I do know I was there ... :) DBaK (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
On the other question, I only got to meet them briefly. Like a conscientious little chap I stuck my head round the control room door on my way home to say thanks etc ... but there was a Bit Of An Atmosphere™ and it was clearly unwise to linger! I mean, the song did well in the end, so great, fine, but certainly someone was unhappy right then and it was very obviously uncool to hang around trying to be matey with my elders and betters. I did obviously interact more with my fellow musicians at the session and I was very impressed with the conductor/arranger, John Wesley Barker, who I thought did a genuinely excellent job on the orchestral side. The first trumpet, Andy Callard, was very good and a thoroughly nice bloke too. I did not meet The Phenix Horns, sadly, as I was very taken with them and I love their performances on the album; but we had no tracks in common. They were either orchestral or not. I remember that Haircut One Hundred were around in the studios at the same time and I was a bit impressed, having already heard of them. This by the way was at the old Air Studios in Oxford Circus, above the Top Shop. As far as I know before Air Monserrat (no, same time it turns out) and certainly long before Air Lyndhurst (yep, move to Lyndhurst was 1991). DBaK (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Raw Like Sushi

Hey I've just being doing some edits on Neneh Cherry's Raw Like Sushi album and wondered if you could at some point improve the charts section of it. It's not set out in the typical format so looks a bit of a mess and I wouldn't know where to start. Plus it's in your best interest as there's no mention of an Australian peak. ;-) --Geach (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Will do, later today.Nqr9 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

ARIA Charts (Imgur)

Hi is there anyway of searching the Imgur.com site to find the images of the ARIA Top 100, that you have been quoting as a source in some articles (e.g All Apologies). I think its fine as a source but when I tried searching the Imgur.com website from scratch I couldn't seem to find anything. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply on my talk page. The only peaks I was trying to source were positions 51 - 100 which cannot be found online at [1], which only archives the top 50. You have already done All Apologies for Nirvana, but two other of their singles also charted outside the Top 50 in 1992: Lithium (Nirvana song) and In Bloom which it would be good to source. There are also a number of singles by Foo Fighters, pre-2001 that charted outside the Top 50 which it would be good to get sourced from this. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please stop adding the email picture links to the articles for sourcing obscure ARIA information. It is heavily rejected at WP:RSN noticeboard discussion where I had raised a thread. I am reverting your additions to the Madonna articles. I suggest you trail back and do the same for the others. Your additons for the chart book is deeply appreciated though. —IB [ Poke ] 13:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The peaks can be verified though, if you contact ARIA. However, responding to requests for chart information isn't their primary work (and I wouldn't want to be responsible for them being inundated with requests), so I'd rather not attach their contact details to the email screen shots I post. I'm happy for you to delete these Madonna peaks; I just put this information out there because it's otherwise unavailable.Nqr9 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It sucks really though and I can't thank you enough for all that you have done already. —IB [ Poke ] 10:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Corrs discography

Hi Nqr9. I've been working on The Corrs discography article for the past week or so. I removed a tonne of unsourced chart positions, but an IP has re-added some of the below-top 50 chart peaks for several songs on the ARIA Charts, without providing a source. Rather than remove them, I thought it'd be a good idea to talk with your fine self - I've noticed you doing lots of great work on other discography articles for a while now. Is there any way you could verify those positions - for "What Can I Do? (Tin Tin Out Remix)"; "So Young (K-Klass Remix)"; "Angel" and "Long Night" - and perhaps even provide chart positions/sources for some of the other singles listed there too? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll reply on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rhythm of the Night (album)

Hello again. I've just created the album article The Rhythm of the Night by Corona and wondered if you could add more chart positions, references etc and anything else that needs improving. Many thanks! --Geach (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Done! Just as well you found the Official Charts page to cite; nothing came up at all when I entered Corona into the search box on their site. It's bizarre how the artist is listed there as Pier Luigi Corona. I titled the reference just 'Corona' though; assuming they'll fix it at some point (someone has left a comment on the page from 5 months ago requesting they do so).Nqr9 (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
PS, out of curiosity, where did you get the release date for the album from? I would've thought it would have been released (in the UK, anyway) on 8th May 1995, subtracting 12 days from its UK albums chart entry date (the Monday of the sales week this chart was based on). I guess they weren't a UK-based act though, so it could have been released earlier elsewhere in Europe. edit - I see that it entered the Swiss chart on 7th May 1995, suggesting it *was* released in April in continental Europe.Nqr9 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all that - great work! In just a few edits it now looks pretty much like a proper album article. And I'm sure Corona's debut album was the Wikipedia article the whole world was eagerly waiting for. ;-) That said, I was quite surprised to find that there wasn't already an article for the album as they were quite popular everywhere back then. I was hoping to add an AllMusic rating but the album doesn't even exist on that website, yet later 'unknown' albums are on there! I'm not sure what the 'Pier Luigi Corona' name is all about on the OCC website - I've noticed mistakes on there before which have wrongly been used on Wikipedia, but who am I to argue with the OFFICIAL Charts Company?! As for the album's release date, I simply got it from the discography section of the Corona article itself - where someone got that info from is anyone's guess so may need looking at. I'd guess that date is it's initial release somewhere in Continental Europe (they're an Italian band) but I wouldn't really know.--Geach (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The Corona album was relatively big in Australia, there was even a TV ad for it after 'Try Me Out' had been released as a single (most unusual for a dance-oriented album here at the time). There was also a 2-CD edition released here - https://www.discogs.com/Corona-The-Rhythm-Of-The-Night/release/3116154 . There are a couple of 'updated' charts that appear on the Official Charts website in 1994-5; I spotted one yesterday, which has Dannii Minogue's 'Get Into You' debuting and peaking at #39 instead of #36 as it did on the original chart published (and a few other singles debuted lower, and some peaked higher on this chart). Presumably it's due to missing sales reports from the time that were later added in - there's a discussion about the updated charts in this thread you're interested - https://www.u k m i x.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=109295 (delete the spaces in the ukmix part; the whole website is blacklisted on wikipedia, presumably due to users citing specific-artists threads for [unofficial] worldwide sales... but bizarre I can't even post a link to it on my own talk page).Nqr9 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I bought that Corona album on cassette at the time out of a bargain bin for £1 from a local Virgin Megastores. I liked it but I was never a big fan of the 1994 onward Euro stuff - I'm more Black Box than Corona - miming and all lol. But 20+ years on I'm now thinking of bands like Corona as pleasantly retro. I'm tempted to sign up to that forum! For general use I use a website called Polyhex for UK chart runs and I've never noticed any mistakes on there. It's a bit annoying though when you search for an artist like Cher and you also get results for people like Neneh Cherry and Tasmin Archer. And Polyhex doesn't get used for references on Wikipedia. It does list "Get Into You" as peaking at number 36, then falling to number 53 before dropping out of the chart. I feel a bit guilty for not knowing that from the top of my head as I was listening to the UK Top 40 every week then and was obsessed with it. I can still remember a lot of the peak positions and general chart activity from that era! --Geach (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I know about polyhex, but yes it's more difficult to cite from there, and they no longer have the 76-100 positions. You can check the exact match box and it will bring up e.g. only Cher with that search you mentioned, but will then omit any duets/featured singles she's on. Likewise I can still remember a lot of charts from memory, but mostly 1989-1993ish probably more than 1994. I'm with you on thinking music from 20+ years ago that you overlooked at the time doesn't seem so bad now.Nqr9 (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Funnily enough 1989 was around the time I started becoming properly interested in the charts. I blame Kylie & Jason as I was an avid Neighbours watcher at the time each night after school (about 2yrs behind Australia) so seeing them on Top of the Pops was really exciting and I then started paying very close attention to the charts in general. 1988-1993 are probably my favourite years, but I'd extend that to 1983-1995 as my 'classic' years that I'm most interested in, with acts like Corona being right at the end of those years! --Geach (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Long John Baldry

Hi. I see that your good with the ARIA charts. Could you add a ref for the Long John Baldry section in the You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' article? His version of the song did well in Australia in 1980, so any help from you would be great. Caden cool 12:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Although it was a Kent Music Report peak; the ARIA chart did not exist until mid 1983, and then licensed the Kent Report chart for 5 years before producing its own chart.Nqr9 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that. :) Caden cool 03:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi could you also add a ref for Cilla Black's version which reached number 15 in Australia and number 2 in the UK? Caden cool 23:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't add a reference for that, unfortunately, as I've only got David Kent's 1970-1992 chart book. Also, the Kent Music Report, which is the one used for his books, was only Australia's official chart from May 1974 (from memory); although he retrospectively calculated (I'm not sure what data this was based on) charts pre-1974, and I think he also produced a book covering the charts from the 1940-1969 - but again, these were not the charts published at the time. Before the Kent Report, there was the Go-Set national Australian chart, but according to its wikipedia page, this was first published in October 1966, which would have been long after the Cilla Black version was 'charting' in Australia. I gather the Australian peak was taken from David Kent's 1940-1969 Australian chart book, but things get a bit murky here as these charts were not published at the time. If you are interested enough, his books are still available for purchase from his website.Nqr9 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay I see. Thanks for telling me. I've always found the Australian charts confusing to be honest. I'll try to find a source. Thanks for all your help though :) Caden cool 05:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have got David Kent's Top 20 chart book, which has top 20 charts listed for 1940-2006 inclusive. I can use it as a reference, as it made the top 20 (though as I said, the charts are a bit dicey because they weren't strictly 'official' for that period), but I'll need to locate it first.Nqr9 (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay that will help. Thanks. Caden cool 05:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just Visiting This Planet

Hello again. I've just created an article for the 1987 album Just Visiting This Planet by producer Jellybean. Not sure if any of his stuff was a hit over your way but I wondered if there were any other world chart positions etc you could find and add to it when you can. Thanks! --Geach (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Who Found Who?" featuring Elisa Fiorillo was his only top 100 chart entry in Australia, peaking at #75 in May 1988. No Jellybean albums reached the top 100.Nqr9 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Name of Australian chart

When you add Australian chart peaks in future, to be consistent with how the Australian chart is titled if one were to use the Singlechart template/all present peaks, can you please write "Australia (ARIA)"? The wording between the parentheses is used to indicate the publisher, not the chart name (so ARIA, not "ARIA Singles Chart"). Same with other manually-written peaks; the (current) publisher of the New Zealand charts is Recorded Music NZ (RMNZ), so that should be between the parentheses, not Official New Zealand Music Chart, the name of the chart. It's unnecessary to state on a song article it charted on a singles chart anyway. Alternatively, if the page you're adding the peaks to was written in the style of titling every country's chart "[Name] Singles Chart", please do this for the Australian one as well to be consistent. It looks odd to add one instance of a parenthesised chart title while the rest are at odds with it. I've been correcting/making these instances consistent for a while now. Thank you. Ss112 23:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

But 'Australian Singles Chart' is too ambiguous for the period where both the Kent Music Report and ARIA Chart were being published separately (June 1988-early 1998). Plenty of UK chart entries on such pages have UK Singles Chart, so I don't see what the problem is with specifying that it's the ARIA Singles Chart (which is technically the name of the singles chart). Labelling UK entries as Official Charts Company for example is questionable, as technically the chart from the 80s/90s (the main period I edit articles for) was then the Gallup Chart and the OCC did not actually yet exist.Nqr9 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It probably wasn't your intention, but I found your message on my talk page rather condescending. I was already aware of what you're referring to, and I don't have to have lived through the late 1980s to understand that there were two concurrent charts, that ARIA began publishing in 1983 using Kent Music Report, later the AMR's, data, and then began collating their own from 1988. "Australian Singles Chart" is fine for consistency with the naming of other charts, because even if you aren't specifying which, it's still the highest peak it achieved in this country. Even then, "Australia (ARIA)" should always be used over "ARIA Singles Chart". Also, I can't see a sole example of where Billboard peaks use chart names in parentheses. Most modern instances (using the singlechart template) put the Billboard part in parentheses. And the "plenty of pages" you're referring to are the ones where I'm changing to "Australian Singles Chart" for consistency on the page and maintaining the link to ARIA Charts. Ss112 00:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't intended to be condescending. If you hadn't lived through the late 80's, you couldn't be reasonably expected to have known that e.g. people would say/newspapers would publish that something was #1 on the chart when it was only #1 on the AMR chart but not ARIA's, or vice versa. As recently as 2009, rage aired Womack & Womack's 'Teardrops' video among a list of videos of singles that were #1 in Australia in the 80's, even though it only reached #1 on the AMR chart, and rage always aired the ARIA chart once the two diverged. Given that there is still some confusion over the two charts, I do not believe that 'Australian Singles Chart' should be used for this period. Furthermore, no consensus was established in a discussion over using national charts here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Record_Charts/Archive_2#National_Albums.2FMusic_Charts; in fact, there was marginally more opposition than support for the proposal. Consensus has not been established for this matter, so please do not imply that it has been.Nqr9 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
At what point did I imply that consensus had been reached on what to call the Australian chart? I'm asking you to please be consistent with the rest of the page you're adding said peaks to instead of dumping "Australia (ARIA)" on there when no other chart has been parenthesised to show their publisher. I also just said that I'm in the process of converting them (through search results) while maintaining the links to ARIA Charts should there be confusion on the matter, and besides, you also have references that make it quite evident who provided the data. I don't think just because there was confusion for people interested in charts in Australia at one time, that this should be a reason why "Australian Singles Chart" with a link pointing to the relevant chart, if that page is not converted to showing publishers in parentheses, should not be used. In fact, I've read a multitude of perspectives on the matter, and those I have read express a perspective I'm pretty sure I've also read on Wikipedia, that once ARIA started publishing their own chart with their own data in 1988, that it became quite evident soon after that this was the official chart and hence why it's still going and the AMR ceased publication years later. Ss112 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
My end point is, please be consistent on the page you're adding data to; adapt the style of wording for that page. That's not me implying consensus has been reached; it's fact on Wikipedia that pages have different styles and consistency is better within an article's content. That doesn't mean the page you're adding data to is in the best shape it could be, but it doesn't help to make it less consistent by adding different styles within a chart section. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Also, this isn't me suggesting a preference for using "Australian Singles Chart" at all. Ideally, everything would be "Australia (ARIA)". I'm saying that if this is the only instance of a "country (parenthesised publisher)" versus "[country] Singles Chart" on the page, the inconsistency is a problem. Ss112 01:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand the point about consistency; I always try to be consistent with the accessdate format and table formatting, for example. But I don't see a major problem when a table has 'UK Singles Chart' and 'Irish Singles Chart' (the former seems to be the best description of the UK singles chart available) adding Australia (ARIA) rather than 'Australian Singles Chart', because 'Australia (ARIA)' is more accurate/less ambiguous than using 'Australian Singles Chart'. ARIA's own chart was the self-proclaimed official chart, as it was backed by record companies, but the AMR chart was still widely used thereafter. The main objection I have to using 'Australian Singles Chart' for this period, rather than specifying which chart it is, is that I have seen numerous examples on wikipedia of 'Australian Singles Chart', or even 'Australia (ARIA)', where the peak listed is actually an AMR peak post June 1988! Similarly, I have seen David Kent's book used as a reference for ARIA peaks outside the top 50, even when the single/album was released after the AMR chart ceased publication. I have also seen instances of pre-1983 (when the ARIA chart did not exist at all) Kent Report peaks listed as '(ARIA)'. For these reasons, I think it is best to specify precisely which chart the peak is from, even if there is already a wikipedia page hyperlink to the relevant chart. I think this is more important than consistency of naming charts. Alternatively, other charts listed in the table could be re-named to their country-specific charts (e.g. Germany (Media Control Chart) rather than German Singles Chart), and I have done this on a few pages. The main issue with doing this, though, seems to be with the UK Singles Chart, for which 'UK Singles Chart' is the best name for it that I'm aware of.Nqr9 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, the instances of using "ARIA" for data pre-1983 is wrong. I've seen this a few times myself and have always tried to remove it. As for using David Kent's Chart Book data for post-1988 peaks when ARIA is meant, I'm not sure if I was responsible for any of these, but if I am, I'm pretty sure they would have been done before I properly understood the difference (or forgot). Like I said, the naming of the other charts probably isn't ideal itself, but changing all of those is more of a task than changing just one instance. There's inherently some confusion about other countries' charts too; it isn't always specified for significantly old American peaks whether the peak was achieved on Billboard or Cashbox. I've also seen disparities between Spain's charts; the version that ends up on spanishcharts.com is different from what is contained on http://www.elportaldemusica.es/. Multiple other countries have or have had other chart publishers clamouring for official status, so Australia isn't alone in that sense, and for how many instances of it there are, I think the ARIA for pre-1983, Kent for post-1988 errors can be corrected too to minimise confusion about what "Australian Singles Chart", when used (if not hyperlinked or evident from what is contained in the reference provided), must mean. I think the confusion would be minimal at most for overseas readers. Ss112 01:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I've never looked through the editing history of pages to see which user has added David Kent's book as a reference for ARIA peaks outside the top 50 from the period where the ARIA Chart was the 'official' one; so I'm not aware of you having added any of these references, if you have. One problem with the Kent/AMR and ARIA issue is that ARIA have never published positions 51-100 from their first self-published chart (week ending 26/6/1988) until just before the first ARIA Report (week ending 14/1/1990) was published, where the top 100 was available by subscription. The top 100 for the chart dated 3 weeks ending 7/1/1990 can be extrapolated from the 'these were in the top 100 last week' section of the first ARIA Report, though. I've recently asked ARIA about obtaining those missing charts, and they don't seem to have any record of them in printed form now, unfortunately; but they were circulated to industry in some form at the time, as e.g. the short-lived Countdown Revolution program would sometimes mention new entries outside the top 50/'chartbusters' where the previous week's position was outside the top 50, in the second half of 1989. The Chartifacts column from the ARIA Report sometimes contained peaks between 51-100 from this period, though.Nqr9 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Edwards dates

From memory I got those dates from the McFarlane reference: they may be chart peaks months rather than release months. If you have ARIA Reports from that era then they are more reliable. Change whatever they reckon is wrong. I'm impressed by your detailed knowledge of charting: well done. I believe singles should have month and year (where known) and albums should have day, month and year (likewise).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get around to doing it hopefully within the next week. I'm just in a bit of an editing lull at the moment. Remind me if I forget.Nqr9 (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wozza20

Thank you for all the tips and feedback regarding my Hothouse Flowers update, something I will ensure I follow on any other "improvements" I make. As you can see, I am only interested in improving a discography, and I will be more careful going forward. Wozza20 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2016(UTC)

Australian peak positions for "Imagine"

As you seem to have access to Australian peak positions through numerous books, can you please take a look at them to confirm these peak positions are correct ? It would help me a lot. BTW thanks for your overall work. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The 2008 and 2010 peaks are correct, and can also be found in Gavin Ryan's (he is the user bulion who posts the peaks listed in the australian-charts.com page cited) book - cite book|last=Ryan|first=Gavin|title=Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010|year=2011|publisher=Moonlight Publishing|location=Mt. Martha, VIC, Australia - I've taken a screen-shot from the pdf version of the book here - http://i.imgur.com/qv5K8Gp.png . Note that the book has no page numbers printed on the pages, and has no ISBN. The first numerical column is the (weeks at) peak, the second is cumulative weeks spent in the top 100 (ARIA data between 51-100 for the period where they began producing the chart in-house (June 20, 1988) until the publication date of the first ARIA Report (January 10, 1990) is not publicly available, so there is no top 100 weeks in tally for the 1989 entry listed), the third is weeks in the top 50, the fourth is weeks in the top 10, the fifth is debut position, and the last numerical column is how many weeks it took to reach its peak.
This site also has archived copies of the ARIA Report (containing the top 100 singles chart) from January 2001 - http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790.
The Kent Music Report peaks taken from David Kent's chart book are correct, and the page number they're from (not currently listed in the citation) is page 175. The Kent Music Report is considered Australia's official chart from about May 1974 from memory, but he later back-calculated charts dating back to 1940 (these are a bit more questionable as a result, I think). The Go-Set chart also listed in the table was apparently Australia's only national chart published at the time, from the mid 60's until the commencement of the Kent Report chart in 1974, but I don't have any book relating to that, and know less about the chart from this period. Hope that helps.Nqr9 (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed the end of year chart placing listed for 1972 on the page. That is incorrect. David Kent's 1970-1992 chart book (cited) has it listed as the 19th biggest single of 1972 (page 424), not the 22nd as currently listed.Nqr9 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed this up now & have updated the Kent chart book references on the page.Nqr9 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're invited to discuss a merge proposal

Hi there,

As a recent contributor to the Betty Boo article, I thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Boomania regarding a merge proposal.

Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Below 100 Aaliyah peaks

Hey Nqr9, next time you email ARIA for peaks below 100, would you please be able to ask if there were any by Aaliyah? I know she made the top 100 two times in the '90s with "Back & Forth" and "One in a Million", but there were several hits elsewhere in the world (like the NZ number one "Are You That Somebody?") that I find so strange missed the top 100 here. I know I could email them myself, but I figure since it's a thing you do regularly, it might not be too much trouble. Thanks! Ss112 14:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently waiting on a list of about another hundred or so to be returned, which could take a few months. After that, I should probably give them a break for a while. I will probably send a (shorter) list through again in the next 6-12 months, and could possibly add some Aaliyah singles to it if it's just a few and you specify which ones - but it might be quicker/easier if you ask them yourself. You can contact me through my email address via my User page, if you like, and I could put you in touch with my contact from there.Nqr9 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzanne Vega discography

Hi,

I admit, Suzanne Vega discography is not easy to get right, but we should be consistent at least, so don't forget to also edit {{Suzanne Vega}} template to match what the article says. --kocio (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to let you do that. Sorry, I might have been a bit picky with my reversion of your edits - in all probability that album will be released in October, but hypoethetically, it may not be. It looks like you know more about her releases than I do; I primarily edit discographies for chart peaks, and had that page on my watch-list. I don't really agree though that an acoustic album is the same as a studio one when it's just re-worked versions of old songs. But the line gets a bit blurry when an artist has released 4 of these albums.Nqr9 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
In case you're interested, I've posted my questions on WikiProject:Discography to look for a help, but still got no reply there. --kocio (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hunters & Collectors

Before you going making accusations of me of making up fictitious Australian (ARIA) certifications for albums on the Hunters & Collectors Discography page, I would have appreciated you making some sort of query as to where I sourced the information from. Given that the edits were over two years ago it is impossible to say exactly where I sourced them from but at a guess I would say they would have been from the individual album articles and possibly from the Mushroom Record site or site. Essentially they were good faith edits rather than, as you imply, some form of bogus attempt to mislead readers. I agree that they should have been properly referenced with inline citations and I appreciate that you brought that to my attention. I just think that your manner could have been a little more civil. Something you might want to keep in mind in the future. Dan arndt (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I understand how frustrating it is when statements are un-cited. Now that you've drawn my attention to it I'll try and track down some reliable sources on the various albums accreditations. It would appear that Human Frailty did received a double platinum fairly recently, on the back of the tribute album The Crucible. I'm fairly sure that most of the album sales accreditations are correct its just a matter of finding suitable references and I won't be re-instating them till I have those. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The 1990s appear to the decade which the internet forgot. Will try and get a hold of Thirteen Tonne Theory by Mark Seymour to see if I can find anything definitive on album certification. Dan arndt (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Australian peak of Rocky Horror soundtrack

Hey Nqr9, do you know what the original Australian peak of the Rocky Horror Picture Show soundtrack is? The article has it at number 40, but I've checked australian-charts.com and as I suspected, that was a re-entry (in 1996). If you can find out, thanks in advance! Ss112 01:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

David Kent's 1970-1992 book has the Original Australian Cast (The Rocky Horror Show) album peaking at #27 in 1974 (page 281), the Soundtrack (The Rocky Horror Picture Show) peaking at #12 that debuted in 1976 and spent 105 weeks on the chart (presumably that is the one you are after?) (page 282), and the Austrailan Cast (The Rocky Horror Show) version peaking at #100 in 1982 (page 283).Nqr9 (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It also re-entered in 1991, peaking at #63. ARIA must have only counted its previous top 50 weeks in the TI column here - http://i.imgur.com/Fy98QZn.png - as they only licensed the top 50 portion of the Kent Music Report. However, the previous chart life of this album pre-dates the ARIA licensing of the Kent Report chart.Nqr9 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks heaps for that info! Ss112 02:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: I Am... Sasha Fierece

Hi. Would you mind weighing in on this RfC, which involves whether this statement should be removed: "I Am... Sasha Fierce received generally mediocre reviews from critics"?; "mediocre" was paraphrased from "lukewarm", verified by these sources: 1, 2, 3. Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about your Australian chart archive

Good evening. User:Ss112 said that you can maybe help me. I know you have the book covering the Australian Top 100 charts since 1988, but do you also have charts from the time before? If yes, when do you first charts start? I am an editor in the German Wikipedia and I don't search for Top 100 data as it is not used there, only Top 50 (well, I do search for it, but not especially for the German WP... see the still unfinished page de:Benutzer:Ali1610/Webarchiv and its subpages), but for the normal Top 50 chart data from before 1983. This is available nowhere but in the David Kent books. I suppose you don't have them, right? Do you know somebody who does? --Ali1610 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ali1610 (talk · contribs) I do have David Kent's 1970-1992 chart book. If you contact me via email (a link is on my user page), I can help you out.Nqr9 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Dire Straits discography

Hey Nqr9, would you please able to change/fill in one of the columns on Dire Straits discography back to an Australian column with a ref to Kent's book? I'm assuming Wozza20 removed the column because he didn't have ready access to the chart data for Australia from that time period, but Australian chart data and sales are more relevant than smaller countries like Austria if they can be found. I'm not necessarily asking so I can put it in myself; if you have access to it, it'd be cool if you change one of the columns to Australia. Thanks heaps if you can! Ss112 06:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if you end up adding it, can you please replace the Finnish column? It would be even less relevant than Australian data. Ss112 06:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ss112 (talk · contribs) I can do it, but it will be later tonight or tomorrow. The Finnish reference I saw him use on the Mel and Kim page recently (I reverted his edits there) was a blog, so it raises the question of reliability, without getting into whether Finland is a significant enough country to include or not (plus he deleted a US column on that page I'd added which had official Billboard references). His edits are bordering on nuisance, I think, even though it is presumably unintentional. I see he uses his sandbox extensively before posting any changes to discography tables. I guess he doesn't know how to add things to existing tables without re-doing everything. It bugs me how he will re-do valid references that have already been cited.Nqr9 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I just noticed, it's a Blogspot blog with Finnish chart info on it. Definitely not reliable then. Nothing against Finland; I add the peaks on single and album pages of a week when they update, just that in comparison it would be less notable than a larger market like Australia. I'm really wary about editors like Wozza20, as from what I've seen, people who do a lot of extensive edits to music articles where they redo whole sections are usually pretty wayward with their references, citing unreliable blogs and sometimes pages hosted on IP address URLs. They definitely need to be warned and guided in the right direction (that being WP:RS). And yeah, whenever you can, it's fine! Thanks again! Ss112 07:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ss112 (talk · contribs) Done! I also added the certifications I could find. By the way, you asked me a while ago about asking ARIA for some Aaliyah peaks outside the top 100. I'm not sure if you saw my reply on this page, but I suggested it might be easier if you ask them yourself - I can give you details on how to reach my contact person there if you wish to email me (a link is on my user page). The reason being - I'm giving them a break for a while, as they've fulfilled a lot of requests for me.Nqr9 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for that! And yep, I'll email you next time I go on my email! Ss112 09:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

TLC discography

Thanks for changing this – you'll see in the edit history that I recently made a lot of changes myself, mostly to the albums discography and the main US Billboard and UK singles charts, and to the certifications (which had nearly all been uprated by one level of disc), but never got round to checking the other countries. There's an IP who keeps fabricating chart positions and certifications for TLC across all their articles without ever providing an explanation or edit summary, which is why I keep an eye on this.

By the way, I've left it for now because I don't know where to put it, but the RIAA gold certifications for "Girl Talk" and "Hands Up" isn't quite accurate either... the gold certification is actually for the video single rather than the actual singles, which is a completely different format and level of sales. Richard3120 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120 (talk · contribs) I added those Australian peaks outside the top 50 to it last year, I think, when I noticed that there were a whole bunch of fake chart peaks on the article, e.g. 'Red Light Special' supposedly peaking at #1 in Australia, or something far-fetched like that. I'm not a huge TLC fan, but went to add those peaks to the article. I didn't add the page to my watch list (but have now), but while it was showing still in my recent contributions, I noticed someone (either an anonymous IP address or new user) put the obviously fake chart positions back. When I looked at separate pages for some of the singles, such as 'Red Light Special', there were also a lot of fake chart positions on those. It looks like someone/some people are hell-bent on keeping fake chart positions on their discography and related pages. For this reason, I asked earlier for the page to be protected; hopefully it will be. Maybe we should add this discussion to the article's talk page, so that the administrator who reviews my page protection request can see it.
I generally don't add or modify US certifications on articles, but I've got the RIAA certifications page bookmarked somewhere. I can take a look at it later on.Nqr9 (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the band and their music but I'm not an obsessive fan either... I just want to make sure Wiki articles are factually accurate. If you look at the contribution history from IP 177.152.124.30 they are a SPA who only work on TLC articles... and cite them using very dubious sources. For instance, look at this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FanMail&diff=prev&oldid=745407330. The last sentence states that Nielsen Soundscan have certified Fanmail as diamond... but Nielsen don't give award certifications, RIAA do. And it's based purely on a quote from a TLC member who "feels" the album sold more, and the "OfficialTLCNews" Twitter account... which explicitly states in its header "this is not TLC's official account". I wonder if blocking the IP might be another option, given they work across several articles. Richard3120 (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120 (talk · contribs) I'm not an administrator, so can't block the IP. My request for page protection was declined, as there hasn't been enough 'recent (vandal) activity'. But if it happens again, I'll submit another request. I've fixed up those dubious RIAA certifications you mentioned. The only thing I haven't checked now regarding chart peaks and certifications is the Canadian albums chart peaks.Nqr9 (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike Oldfield – Tubular Bells

Hello Nqr9 – as you have a copy of David Kent's Australian Chart Book 1970-1992 close to hand, could you please look up a couple of page numbers for me with regards to this album? Specifically, the page number(s) for the entry for Mike Oldfield which will show Tubular Bells having peaked at no. 1, and the page at the back for "Top 25 Albums of 1974", which should show the album placed at no. 6 for the year (from my notes regarding previous year-end charts I've looked up in this book, I calculate this will be page 426, but if you could confirm it, that would be great). Thank you very much. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120 (talk · contribs) Pages 222 (weekly charts peak) and 426 for the top 25 of 1974. One thing to note, if you didn't know already, was that the Kent Report end of year charts were based on a points system, rather than actual sales. So releases that spent a long time on the chart were placed higher than they otherwise might have been (e.g. Bruce Springsteen's 'Dancing In the Dark' being the #1 single for 1984, despite only peaking at #5 and spending 11 weeks in the top 10). Sales-based end of year charts did not exist until 1988, when ARIA began producing their own chart.Nqr9 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for doing that: the book is in the British Library and I normally look things up myself when I am in London, but I am currently in South America for the next few months and I'd be surprised if there was a copy of it anywhere on the continent.
Yes, I did know it was a points system, thanks – same as the British year-end charts throughout the 1950s and 60s until BMRB started producing the first official charts in 1969. Even the sales-based charts throughout the 1970s in the UK are now considered suspect, until Gallup took over and started producing automated returns in 1983. But you can only go with what information you have, and the points system from Kent is the only year-end info we have from the time. I know Australian certifications from this period have come under scrutiny as well, but Kent's book doesn't include them and I don't know anywhere that does. I wonder why ARIA only have certifications from 1997 onwards on their website though – why not include 1989 to 1996? Richard3120 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120 (talk · contribs) You can actually still buy all of David Kent's books from his Australian Chart Books site, if you're interested. I didn't buy his 1970-1992 book until 10 years ago. Although it's a blog, this site posts scans of the Australian top 50 printed charts each week from 33/30/25 years ago, if you're interested - http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/search/label/ARIA%20charts . The albums top 50 chart is also printed alongside the singles top 50 from July 1983 (the first ARIA-branded chart, even though they were using the Kent Report Chart) to mid-August 1986 (and will appear again once it gets to 1992). The printed chart also annotates ARIA certifications from April 1989, but multi-platinum certifications are just listed as multi-platinum, without the level being specified, until January 1990. Also, obviously only certifications that are awarded while the release is in the top 50 are shown; occasionally a single or album is certified/the level is increased while it it outside the top 50. Gavin Ryan's Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010 book (now out of print but still available on CD-Rom when I looked recently), which I also use as a reference, lists ARIA certifications beside releases (valid at July 2011), but some 1988 certifications are missing. The annual charts page on the ARIA website now has certifications listed for the top 50 singles/albums end of year charts before 1997, but these are not always accurate (some are undercertified or not showing their certification at all), I've noticed. I've uploaded a couple of year-end chart scans showing certifications (the circle symbol indicates gold, the triangle indicates platinum) here:
1989 albums (61-100): http://i.imgur.com/aaFG1cy.png
1992 top 50 singles & albums: http://i.imgur.com/wRoAyd8.jpg
1994 top 100 singles: http://i.imgur.com/LHigR9p.jpg
1995 top 100 singles: http://i.imgur.com/aBqgAcE.jpg
1996 top 100 singles: http://i.imgur.com/t1PYbhG.jpg
1997 top 100 singles: http://i.imgur.com/jPE8T28.jpg
There is also the issue with pre-1989 ARIA certifications of them being awarded for a higher sales figure. Pre-1989, it was 100k shipments for platinum, and 50k shipments for gold. I remember reading this in an Australian edition of Smash Hits magazine, which, unfortunately I did not keep, and there is no other 'reliable source' that has been found for that claim to my knowledge - but certifications pre-1989 were much less-frequent. There is a thread on australian-charts.com here with some pre-1989 ARIA certifications (in Italics) - http://www.australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=40595 . One thing I see often on wikipedia is people citing David Kent's books for ARIA certifications and peaks outside the top 50 from mid-1988, when the two charts diverged. Thanks for the info on the UK end of year charts.Nqr9 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120 (talk · contribs) P.S. - if you were looking for an Australian certification for the 'Tubular Bells' album, it is listed as being 3× platinum on the last week it spent in the top 100 (unless it has re-entered since 2011, which is probably unlikely), in 1992. I've uploaded a screen-shot of the page from The ARIA Report Issue No. 140 here - http://i.imgur.com/UbZNhJy.png . That being said, it still could have been awarded a higher certification since then. Although I said previously that ARIA certification levels were higher pre-1989, since the levels changed in 1989, the charts are annotated with their current certification levels (i.e. 3× platinum = exceeding shipments of 210,000 copies). Interestingly, Gavin Ryan's book doesn't list any certification beside 'Tubular Bells'.Nqr9 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've added this certification reference, and corrected the certification level, on the Tubular Bells page. I saw that someone had cited an ARIA website 1995 certifications page that does not exist for the supposed 10× platinum claim. That certification level seems rather far-fetched to me.Nqr9 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree the certification seemed a bit over the top, but like I said, without 1995 certifications on the ARIA website there's no way to check it. The Tubular Bells article is a complete mess with no logical order to it, and I've been trying to restructure and rewrite it in my sandbox.
Those scans are really interesting and useful – are they from Ryan's book? I know Ryan posts as "bulion" on the australiancharts.com forum, and there are lots of threads that he has created for each year which contain every hit from that year, the year-end charts, and for the most part the certifications from that year as well. But I'm wary about citing those threads as a source on Wikipedia, not just because it might not be considered acceptable as an RS but also because Ryan may claim copyright over the information. I agree with you that ARIA chart positions should be used instead of Kent's when the two overlapped from May 1988: after all, the ARIA self-produced chart was then the official chart at that point.
I'm trying to get the template for music certifications updated, but it's a tricky process as it's not always easy to prove certification levels from the past, as you have shown with the Australian certs. I know New Zealand certifications were halved for singles in 1989 so Template:Certification Table Entry for New Zealand singles before this date is actually showing half of what it should be. But WP:IKNOWIT is not a valid argument, and I'm working on getting a proper source to support my case. And I have no idea why the RIAA website for US certifications fails to take into account the same halving of levels in 1989, so all certifications for records before this date are showing the right certification level but the wrong sales amount for that level, which I think is pretty poor for an official website.
It took me a while but I've done almost every year-end and decade-end chart for the UK on Wikipedia, save for a few early 1970s charts which I don't have sources for, and a couple in the 1990s where the lists on the OCC website now differ from the official lists published at the time, for some reason which the OCC won't explain to me. The decade-end charts were not simple either: if you look at List of best-selling singles of the 1970s in the United Kingdom you'll see there were about four different charts produced, and the official BMRB chart at the time is now considered a heap of junk. And there never was an official 1990s chart produced, so any top 100s charts you find on internet forums are user-generated. Richard3120 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120 (talk · contribs) Other than the 1992 year end chart scan, which was from a printed top 50 chart (as used to be available for free in certain record stores), the scans are from The ARIA Report - the weekly chart publication available by subscription, which contains top 100 singles & albums, a list of singles and albums being released that week, and various other charts. I photocopied the top 100 charts from these for 1994-1999 (that's all they had, with some missing from 1999) from my State Library ten years ago, but purchased the 1990-1994 full ARIA Reports from ARIA as .pdf files (they now have these for sale) earlier this year, which is where the earlier scans are from.
Ryan's book does not display weekly charts, but lists charting singles and albums by artist, with their peak positions, weeks in the top 10/50/100, entry position, debut date, date left chart, cataloge no., year-end chart positions, and certifications. Unfortunately, australian-charts.com did not get permission to publish the Kent Report charts as part of their searchable database, nor ARIA positions 51-100. ARIA are responsive to requests for chart information, but as it's not their main job, it may take a while to receive a response. I have a contact there who I can ask about certification levels pre-1989, but I'm not planning to contact her again until some time early next year (to give her a break for a while). They also have certification info on their database for specific releases; however, I'm not sure if this extends to pre-June 1988.
There's an interesting thread including discussion on OCC discrepancies on a chart forum here - https://www.u k m i x.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=109295 (remove the spaces in the ukmix part - I can't post that here as it's a blacklisted site on wikipedia). The ARIA end of year charts from the early 1990s seem a bit suspect, too. There's a discussion on that here - http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=26621&pages=3 .Nqr9 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It has always annoyed myself and another British Wikipedian, Btljs, that the OCC have now decided that positions 76 to 100 up to 2007 are now official placings, when there was always an element of artificiality about them, with singles that were on their way down being dropped from this section of the chart altogether. I've also noticed that on their website, if you look up a particular artist it gives you a summary at the top which includes number of number ones, number of top ten hits, number of weeks on chart, etc. but the total weeks on chart given in the summary doesn't always match the figure you get by adding up the totals from the individual singles: I remember Massive Attack was one such example. Richard3120 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: I've just been reading that UKMIX thread and I'm guessing you are the person talking about editing the chart position of Cracker's "Low" – don't worry, I'm just about the only other person likely to be checking that chart position, and I wouldn't be edit warring with you! And that was a good tune, I can't believe nobody else on the forum had heard of it... Richard3120 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120 (talk · contribs) Yes, that was me. The exclusion rules below #75 thing on the UK chart is annoying, I agree. It also seems odd how the UK chart is/was a top 75, rather than a top 100. I also find it frustrating how no-one seems to have positions 76-100 between April 1991 and the start of September 1992. It is only on that forum that I've seen this region of the (singles) chart published for September 1992-January 1994. I think I only noticed the 'Low' chart discrepancy when adding the ARIA peak to its wikipedia page, and also added or updated the UK chart reference at the same time, but I remember the song.Nqr9 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian discography reference you use

Per your edits at Leonard Cohen discography earlier today, when you copypaste this Australian reference you use on discographies you edit, please change two things in future:

  1. Please hyphenate "mid-1983". "Mid" without a hyphen is grammatically incorrect, as it can be read as a separate word, when it actually relates to the year next to it.
  2. Adapt the dates in the text of the reference to the format of what the page you're using it on is. Leonard Cohen's discography uses mdy, so please write "June 19, 1988" not dmy format, which would be "19 June 1988". It does not matter what the Australian date format used for the charts is, what matters is the date format used on that particular page, which should be consistent per MOS:DATEUNIFY.

I have corrected these on a series of pages and it seems you're still copypasting the same errors everywhere. Thank you. Ss112 07:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It's only the mid without a hyphen that is 'everywhere'; I always check the accessdate MOS before adding references so that is not "the same error" everywhere. The date format on that page, for accessdate, was year-month-day; the month-day-year only appears for album release dates, which I must have overlooked. Thank you for bringing that to my intention, but at least the article now has accurate references for Australian peaks, when before (including after your recent edits), it had David Kent's book listed for "all other peaks" that weren't on australian-charts.com which was not true.Nqr9 (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the accessdates at all, I'm talking about your wording in the reference; "Top 100 (Kent Music Report) peaks to June 19, 1988" and so on. That was dmy format (19 June 1988) before I corrected it, so yes, that is an error "everywhere" (and by everywhere, I meant discographies and song pages you edit, so please stop condescendingly quoting my own wording back to me). All text in the article should use the same date format; accessdates can be different but have to be independently consistent. Also, your indirect way of partly blaming me for not sourcing the below 50 peaks of two albums after 2001, which are the only peaks covered by your Gavin Ryan reference, is unwarranted. I'm not responsible for not sourcing them at all; it's not my responsibility, even after editing the page. It's the fault of the person who added the material originally. I was actually planning to source those peaks from the ARIA Report archives, but I evidently forgot. I only added text and the australian-charts.com reference. Ss112 08:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I knew you weren't talking about accessdates. I was explaining why I overlooked that MDY format within the article. I repeat, I do not make that mistake "everywhere"; normally I will check for a North American artist to see what date format is used in the article outside of references. My point re: the article now having accurate references was highlighting that this (or so I think) is more important for the article than whether 'mid' is followed by a hyphen, or if the correct date format is used (which can easily be fixed). Any condescension on my part was a reaction to the hostile and patronising tone of your initial post, falsely accusing me of making this mistake "everywhere", and implying that I copy and paste references carelessly without modifying them for the page they're being used on (I always add a specific page number from the David Kent book).Nqr9 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
"Patronising" and "hostile"? I asked you to do two things, using "please" and "thank you". I said "it seems", as I was unsure where else exactly you've done it, so that should have told you that "everywhere" did not literally mean "You're editing every page and it's everywhere!" It meant "everywhere you copypaste the same explanation of Australian chart history" (If that is what you meant by your initial reply, then I'm not meaning to blame you here, but furthering date format disunity isn't really helping.) I'm sorry, but any patronising tone you read into that is in your mind. Besides the last sentence, I don't know how I could have been kinder. Ss112 08:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

...except I don't get the date format wrong on that N.B. I add explaining how the Kent Report chart was used by ARIA for those years "everywhere". That's what you're implying, which is not true. It's only recently I've noticed you adding hyphens to the 'mid' part; I don't mind that being changed, but you're the first person who has taken an issue with it. It doesn't matter that you used 'please' and 'thank you' in your initial post in this section, the overall tone of your post was rude. I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong, and have no problem with the corrections you've made in this instance; the way you go about pointing it out to other users though could be worded less abrasively and without resorting to generalisations (or, at least those not supported by facts). That's all I'm saying.Nqr9 (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Everywhere I have seen that N.B. you've written, you have used dmy format. I have never seen it in mdy format. That's not a generalisation; that's my observation. What I'm saying is if I had've said "Do these two things!" and that was it and not used please or thank you, I could understand it being seen as rudeness. Rudeness is sometimes a matter of opinion, so I disagree as it wasn't intended with rudeness, I was mindful of it coming off rude and re-reading it, I still really don't see it. Also, I'm sorry, but you just talked about generalisations, then you implied you know how I talk to other users, as if you have been looking into my interactions with anybody else or that that is all under easy access on my talk page (I try not to write to other users there), so...? Ss112 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
That may be the case that it's been "everywhere you've seen", but that is not necessarily "everywhere". I have definitely done the MDY format with it, where appropriate, from this year at least. You learn as you go, and like I said, I don't mind being picked up on this, and it's something I'll keep in mind for future edits (as I have done with your using 'Australian Singles Chart' rather than 'Australia (ARIA)' where other table entries are of this format) - though no other editor has commented on it. Another editor I've conversed with (who I don't personally know) has similarly noticed you having 'run-ins' with users on their talk pages, so I know it's not only me. I'm not trying to insult you, but just offering some feedback. Your talk page starts with an all-bold statement that could not be described as welcoming to readers, for example.Nqr9 (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
That all-bold statement was originally written to users who felt it was appropriate to template me (even against WP:DTTR) for not leaving an edit summary (which I actually do most of the time if I'm not in a hurry), or abuse me for reverting them (it's happened). I adapted it to be a reminder to "remain civil", as some people do still need to be reminded as they often sometimes leap right into insults. I don't know who this user telling you this is, or how they've noticed, but that's a bit concerning because it seems like they're monitoring me (which could be interpreted as surreptitious Wikihounding), or they're a talk page stalker. If I have "run-ins" with people on their talk page, it's because of their directly rude attitude or inability to stick to something they have been asked to do (like stop removing extra references before a source updates, or to not add unreferenced material). I'm not saying I've never been rude; absolutely I have, but only back to people who have either done it to me or will not listen (and then it's hard not to be "rude"). I'd take what this other user says with a grain of salt. Ss112 08:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not meaning to toot my own horn here at all, but you don't get to 100,000+ edits without having some run-ins with users. The most experienced users all have (I'm not meaning that group to include me). They can be as nice as they like to users; those users will not always assume good faith of them, especially if the experienced user has regarded them as problematic and reverted a slew of their edits and other such behaviour. Ss112 09:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The other user is not doing those things, don't worry. It just came up when we exchanged some messages outside of wikipedia, as we'd edited some of the same pages. I noticed it when I first saw you altering a bunch of my contributions when I had a look through some (but not all, obviously) of your recent editing history. I think it's to do with you picking up (seemingly) minor faults and making a big deal out of them, like in this section. It's more the underlying tone of "do this (a certain way) or else!" that comes through in some of your posts, as though there has been an established consensus that there is only one correct way to do things. The wording I found hostile in your first post was actually "you're still" (implying I'm doing something wrong after having repeatedly been told) and "the same errors." Yes, it's the 'same error' you're pointing out here, but this is probably mostly referring to edits I made in, say 2014, when I was still relatively new to adding references to articles. The Leonard Cohen one was a more-recent example, yes, but as I said, was an oversight.Nqr9 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is an established way or consensus of doing many things on Wikipedia, hence why there are quite a number of policies. Perhaps not directed at you, but many of those edit summaries you speak of are usually corrections of things users I am aware of have done and continue to do that are against consensus and are incorrect. I'm not saying everything I do is 100% correct all the time (and I don't expect anybody else to be), but I try not to disregard policies in how I edit, which I generally expect other users to do as well, especially if they've been made aware of them—again, that isn't directed at you. Ss112 09:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nqr9. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Keeping an eye out for poor sourcing

Hey Nqr9, you seem to edit some of the same topics in music as JGabbard (talk · contribs), so would you be able to keep an eye out for poor sourcing (i.e. remove) supplied by this user? They've been flying under the radar on this site for years, adding poor sources (i.e. citing forums on australian-charts.com, linking to David Kent's Australian Chart Book site which doesn't actually show any of the information, adding links to year-end of US Cash Box lists hosted by an IP address beginning with http://50.- and so on). They previously thought the chart of a radio "superstation" passed as a valid chart to include in charts sections despite it violating the one network section of WP:CHART, and their contributions are mainly in the area of "oldies" music. If you come across any of this poor sourcing, could you please test to see if the sites are valid or reliable and remove if they're not? Thanks. Ss112 09:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112 (talk · contribs) I had a look through their last 1000 edits and only saw 2 of the same pages we've edited. I have seen David Kent's chart book cited to web address where you can buy the book before, though, and have fixed this up (without checking who added it). If I see any edits like this, I'll make note.Nqr9 (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nqr9/Archive_1&oldid=1142524079"