Talk:Pet Shop Boys discography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pet Shop Boys discography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pet Shop Boys discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 19, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
June 30, 2010	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured list

Discographies

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography

Electronic music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[X2 (record label)#Spaghetti Records|Spaghetti]] The anchor (#Spaghetti Records) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

Does a distinction need to be made between the US dance airplay chart and the US dance club play chart? Bondegezou 16:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the original West End Girls actually get to #121? I've never seen any proof, and suspect it may be speculation myself. Rolypole 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's Madonna

I believe this has been added before and removed under the claim its not a PSB song despite their production and writing involvement. However, the cover shown on the song's page says "Robbie Williams with Pet Shop Boys" — and I heard Terry Wogan give it the dual credit after playing it on BBC Radio 2 the other day, so presumably that's how it's being officially released. Shouldn't it, therefore, in fact count as a PSB single release also? Angmering 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. Actually I think I was the one who removed it before. If the single cover has it listed with PSB as performer then it should be re-added. - eo 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Different US Dance Charts for Singles...

Yes a distinction must be made between the three different Dance Charts at Billboard

Hot Dance Club Play: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Hot+Dance+Club+Play Hot Dance Airplay: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Hot+Dance+Airplay Hot Dance Single Sales: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Hot+Dance+Singles+Sales

The distinction between Club Play & Airplay is simply Club Play is for those songs getting the most turns at clubs while The Airplay chart is for those songs getting the most turns at radio stations with dance formats. I am sure you could guess that on your own, but I thought I would explain it anyway.MoovieStarz 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the wikilink at the top of the column leads to the U.S. Club Play article. - eo 12:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover images

Is there a valid reason that these are been removed? feydey 11:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use doesn't cover their use in this sort of article; they're copyright-violating here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could You please link to the relevant policy page that forbids fair use images in discographies. Thanks, feydey 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." and "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Sodom and Gomorrah Show"

I see no source for this as a single release - there is nothing on the PSB website. I've left it for now, but if no source surfaces, I'm gonna delete. - eo 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disco 4 and Integral single

Disco 4 has been recently announced on the PSB OS: http://www.petshopboys.co.uk/browser.aspx. so for the sake of god, don't revert to an older version of the page.

However, Integral will not be released as a single, although a promo set will be, so I'm doubtful if to add it to the singles list. Cristóbal 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological white label single

It is mentioned on the Fundamental page, but if I'm mistaken again, feel free to revert.

I'm not sure which singles types can go there but I thought it was good for the list. Cristóbal 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certification?

I have a question about the certification. FUNDAMENTAL is awarded 3x gold by BPI according to this page. But to my opinion there is no such thing. Because 3x gold (3 x 100 000) would mean Platinum (300 000). And I have found no source confirming anything above silver.

This is 'evidence' I found on the BPI site. It also states PLEASE 1x platinum instead of 3x. And INTROSPECTIVE 2x instead of 3x. etc. Maybe the BPI site isn't up to date (I can't check that), but then I still wonder where the sources are for the claims on this page.

PLEASE , Silver , Tue May 6 1986 PLEASE , Gold , Tue May 6 1986 DISCO , Silver , Mon Dec 1 1986 DISCO , Gold , Mon Jan 12 1987 PLEASE , Platinum , Mon Jan 12 1987 ACTUALLY , Gold , Mon Sep 21 1987 ACTUALLY , Silver , Mon Sep 21 1987 ACTUALLY , Platinum , Mon Sep 21 1987 ACTUALLY , 2 x Platinum , Fri Jan 8 1988 DISCO , Platinum , Fri Jan 15 1988 ACTUALLY , 3 x Platinum , Fri Apr 29 1988 INTROSPECTIVE , Silver , Thu Oct 13 1988 INTROSPECTIVE , Gold , Thu Oct 13 1988 INTROSPECTIVE , Platinum , Thu Oct 13 1988 INTROSPECTIVE , 2 x Platinum , Mon Jan 9 1989 BEHAVIOUR , Gold , Thu Nov 1 1990 BEHAVIOUR , Platinum , Thu Nov 1 1990 BEHAVIOUR , Silver , Thu Nov 1 1990 DISCOGRAPHY , Platinum , Fri Nov 1 1991 DISCOGRAPHY , Gold , Fri Nov 1 1991 DISCOGRAPHY , Silver , Fri Nov 1 1991 VERY , Silver , Fri Oct 1 1993 VERY , Gold , Fri Oct 1 1993 VERY , Platinum , Wed Dec 1 1993 ALTERNATIVE , Silver , Tue Aug 1 1995 BILINGUAL , Gold , Sun Sep 1 1996 BILINGUAL , Silver , Sun Sep 1 1996 NIGHTLIFE , Silver , Fri Oct 15 1999 NIGHTLIFE , Gold , Fri Feb 18 2000 RELEASE , Silver , Fri Apr 5 2002 POP ART - THE HITS , Gold , Fri Nov 28 2003 POP ART - THE HITS , Silver , Fri Nov 28 2003 FUNDAMENTAL , Silver , Fri Jun 9 2006 (www.bpi.co.uk)

Categories?

Might it be an idea to split the "albums" table into studio albums, compilation albums, disco albums, live albums, soundtrack and score albums, limited edition and further listening albums or something of that sort? It would seem to make sense, and fits in with the specified discography style template. I'd be happy to do it, if it needs doing. Samballance (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singles discography

I'd like to offer some help with the singles discography. There's quite a lot missing here, for example the single, One MOre Chance, that came out in Europe before West End Girls was released. Also, how about listing all the promo 12"s, stuff like the US promo only Arthur Baker remixes of Suburbia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peedon (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let people know "Love Etc" is the Number One song in Iceland. (MoovieStarz (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Pet Shop Boys Story 25 years of hits

The Mail published this promo cd by Pet Shop Boys. Should it be added to the discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frcabon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definitely not. it was a free gift given away with the newspaper. Mister sparky (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it was given free away with the newspaper - but it is a real psb release as it is listed on their own homepage as an album! the price doesn't matter at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.166.92 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In depth

The 1989 Japanese mini compilation album "In Depth" is missing. Any particular reason? danno 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take the lack of responses as a tacit "go ahead and add it"? danno 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

been added :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you! That was mine! At least let me do the album article danno 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, didnt realise it was your own personal thing to add lol. but i have no interest in album articles. Mister sparky (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Shop Boys Paninaro 1986 release

How could it been charted? It was not a real single, that people could buy in shops! so it clould NOT enter the single charts!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keine melodien (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

panimaro was officially released in italy in 1986 Mister sparky (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music videos section

I've removed this.... for now. I know a lot of discog pages have a videos section, which is fine, but the way it is right now is just a straight-up numbered list of song titles which essentially repeat all the titles above it in the table. If additional information was included, such as the video directors, I think the section would serve a much better purpose. Sure they can be easily found - perhaps in the DVD liner notes for the Pop Art collection? - eo (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

adding the directors was what i was doing this evening actually lol Mister sparky (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL okay, I'll shut up then :-) - eo (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

haha i'll forgive ya :p and the column widths were the same for consistency cuz thats what they tell u to do in FL discussions. but that doesnt matter atm. Mister sparky (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Ugh, I always remove them cuz I the way I have my screen settings its large and when columns are restricted by width it all gets crammed. I always thought that not having a width length would just allow the table(s) to adhere to however your browser size was configured? Guess not. Didn't realize there was even a consensus on that topic. - eo (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all videos and director info added now from the 3 video compilation vhs/dvd's. dont think i've missed any... Mister sparky (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"To Step Aside"

I see this is now missing. I feel this should be re-added, as it was a double-A side in the States with Sé a Vida é [1] (pic is of the vinyl but I also have this release on CD single, Atlantic 2-85430) and it also topped the U.S. dance chart. Was there a reason for its removal? - eo (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

was removed by error when re-formatting the double a-sides. added back now Mister sparky (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you sir! - eo (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I'm inclined to agree that this is clearer (even though it's removed pretty much all of my contributions - more on that in a moment!) I'd say a couple of things though: - 'Formats' under 'Albums' - presumably this is standard? It seems a bit odd, as there are so many formats missing (i.e. PopArt vinyl; Discography MiniDisc; etc) - Disco 4 charted on the UK Compilations chart, as did Back to Mine - the positions used to be on the page - Where has Back to Mine gone, by the way? If Disco 4 is there, so should that be, surely? - Similarly should Essentials be listed in the compilations? - Why is Christmas listed both under 'Extended Plays' and 'Singles'? - "Where the Streets Have No Name (I Can't Take My Eyes Off of You)" - no 'of' - I should edit that myself actually - I still don't think West End Girls actually got to #121, by the way - does anyone have any evidence of this? - Title Case ("I Don't Know What You Want But I Can't Give It Any More") or PSB title style ("I wouldn't normally do this kind of thing")? It's inconsistent - '—' or '-' for flops? Likewise - 'Album' column under 'Singles' seems inconsistent too - surely it shouldn't suggest that Always on my mind was released as a single from Introspective? Similarly Ab Fab / Disco 2; and why is Christmas down as a single from itself? (It charted as 'Christmas' in the UK) - Finally, were the footnotes about the second chart placings for I Wouldn't Normally Do...; Paninaro 95; and Before too confusing? They were legitimate (separate) chart hits after all... - No mention of Relentless seems a bit of a shame - can it not be squeezed in there somehow?

I'm not going to make these edits myself right now as I can see some of them need discussion... Oh, and UK Top 200 positions since 1994 can be sourced from zobbel.de if a source is required. Rolypole (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay i'll answer a few now:

not all formats are listed bcos it takes up far too much space and makes the table looked stretched downwards
the uk compilation chart is not shown on the page, just the main album chart. if a position is put by disco 4 it would look as though it charted on the main album chart, which it didnt. but the comp chart position could me mentioned in a footnote?
back to mine isnt a compilation of pet shop boys songs, thats why i removed it. disco 4 follows in the "disco" series and does include psb songs.
essentials i always thought was just a bootleg of remixes? which shouldnt be included.
good point about the ep! fixed that.
psb capitalisation is inconsistent. its how the band write their song titles. there's a discussion on the main psb page.
'—' or '-' means the table is in the middles of sorting and checking all the positions. the colums with the bigger '—' means they have been checked and verified and are all correct. the other ones still need checking.
always on my mind IS on introspective, not actually. i have both albums myself. similarly, ab fab IS on disco 2.
the 2nd chart placings were removed because they were the same songs, just under different formats.
relentless i thought was just a bonus disc of very?

hopefully thats answered your questions? :) Mister sparky (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional notes: Essential is not a bootleg, but a limited edition compilation released bu EMI/Capitol (72434-93688-2). A couple of the tracks included were remixed, but not all of them. Also, Relentless is another limited edition release - available for a short time bundled with Very. As far as I know it was never made available (officially) on its own. In the U.S. (and may for other territories?), "Always on my Mind" was bundled as a CD3 along with Actually, as the song became popular when that album was in stores. By the time Introspective came out, it contained the "Always on My Mind/In My House" remix. - eo (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good answers, sorry about my formatting by the way... A couple things I'd say in response. Firstly - I still think Back to Mine is as legitimate an entry as Disco 4; I'd like to hear some more opinions on that. Secondly - regarding title capitalisation - it's set out very clearly by Neil in a fairly recent issue of Literally (sorry, I don't have them to hand): the first letter is always capitalised; all others are lower case unless they are proper names (the exception to this may be cover versions) - so it's "West End girls", "New York City boy" and "I don't know what you want but I etc...". Hope this helps! Thanks also to Ericorbit for helping to clarify! Rolypole (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West End girls video

I have recently tried to edit the Music video section, changing the year of the West End girls video from 1984 to 1985, but it is always changed back to 1984 again. I would here like to clarify why I want this edit to be made. The original version of West End girls was produced by Bobby Orlando and released in 1984. As far as I know no music video was filmed for that version. West End girls was re-recorded in 1985, produced by Stephen Hague. For that version a music video was filmed, directed by Eric Watson and Andy Morahan (Neil and Chris walking in London). It was released after the first version of Opportunities. This information (directors, producer and year) can be found in the booklet for the PopArt DVD.

So, it is true that West End girls was first released in 1984 but, since the video is for a version of the song released in 1985, my opinion is that 1985 should be the year given in the Music video section. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree with my point of view. Matbill (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Like It Here, Wherever It Is

I Like It Here, Wherever It Is, the Japanese video album released on VHS and 8" LaserDisc (Studio: Picture Music Intl/Toshiba EMI; quoted release dates vary; content is very similar to Showbusiness) was removed again after I added an entry for this, because reportedly the sources I used (Discogs and LDDB) are considered unreliable. If that's the case, what source can we find that is reliable enough? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Listening?

Shouldn't the Further Listening albums be included? feydey (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images

Are there policies in Wikipedia that forbid adding free images to articles? This relates to the current removal of them. feydey (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

album cover arts were all removed from discography articles at least 2yrs ago, i'll try and find something. Mister sparky (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clarified at WP:DISCOGSTYLE under fair use materials. also on the talkpage of that. Mister sparky (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a PD album cover, however images in discographies (apart from the infobox) are just clutter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a PD album cover, not fair use. Besides WP:DISCOGSTYLE is just a style guide proposal, not an official guideline or policy. So are there policies in Wikipedia that forbid adding free images to articles? feydey (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

most likely not, but it still clutters up the page and adds extra coding to the page, and adds no new information whatsoever. you are the only one that wants it added, and 3 who don't, so already that's a small consensus that it shouldn't be. and the only edits you have ever made to the article are insisting on that image being added. Mister sparky (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pet Shop Boys - Yes.jpg

The latest Pet Shop Boys studio album Yes (2009) reached #4 in UK charts.

So there are no policies against adding free images to articles. The reasons given when the image was removed: Ericorbit; "pls dont do this, WP:FU, non free images not used this way in discog artiucles", "WP:FU", Mister sparky; "unnecessary", "as you've been told before, images do not belong in discog articles", "album cover images were removed from discographies a long time ago. you are the one that needs to start a discussion if you want them back. take it to WP:DISCOGSTYLE. i will be removing it every single time", "you are incapable of reading plain english..." - seems that removing a useful PD image with false reasons is OK? The added image is topical, illustrative, informative and free. And extra coding is always encouraged to be added to articles (Wikipedia:Introduction). Clutter - how can ONE image add that, also seeing that no reverts were made for that reason before? feydey (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you're the only person that's wanted so desperately to add the image. and extra coding is encouraged, if it actually adds valuable information to the subject. And there are dozens of free images relating to the duo, doesn't mean they should all be added to the article. Mister sparky (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the logic in the second sentence is incorrect. For many articles, there are not only dosens; there are THOUSANDS of free images. And of course nobody puts them into one page. Only sample ones. There is a very simple solution to this: put them into Commons and use template:Commons or template:Commonscat to link the whole gallery from commons to the article . See eg. Trousers#See also. (WHy this word came first to my mind? :-) Lothar Klaic (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the image is free does not mean it should be placed here. There is no enhancement to the article from its inclusion and it especially should not be so large. It's clutter and no other discography articles have images decorating the page like this. The repeated insertion of the image by feydey is disruptive, especially with his knowledge that more than one editor has removed it and that there is no consensus to have it here. Even more troubling is feydey's decision to fully protect the article under the guise of "vandalism" on his preferred version. For someone who arrogantly questioned my diligence as an admin, I'm surprised to see such careless action taken. Not cool. - eo (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several enhancements to the article as explained above. It's not clutter and also other discography articles have images for vital informational purposes. The repeated deletion of the image is disruptive, especially with the knowledge that there are no policies in Wikipedia that forbid adding free images to articles. Even more troubling is Mister sparky's decision to avoid discussion and use false arguments to revert valid edits to have his preferred version. I'm for one shocked that this has come to personal attacks and no effort was taken to discuss this matter. Not cool. I suggest WP:DRR if the addition of one Public Domain image to the article is "disruptive" and "adds extra coding". What a waste of everyone's energy this is. feydey (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here, as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style. You've got three editors right here agreeing that it should not be in the article, and you've repeatedly added it, and then went as far as full-protecting the article. The "waste of everyone's energy" seems to be prolonged by your insistence that the image should be included. - eo (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, i avoid discussion! you are the one who is constantly ignoring people's opinions and constantly adding the image to the page, and then fully protecting it and calling me a vandal just because me and other editors happen to disagree with you! if anybody's trying their hardest to have their preferred version it is you feydey. i'm one of the one's that has worked to bring this article to FL standard and wish to keep it that way. yes i am going to remove it again until their is consensus amongst other editors to keep it. ignoring that is being a vandal. Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original question: Are there policies in Wikipedia that forbid adding free images to articles? Please, for the final time, where is the policy against Public Domain images? I also see 3 persons here saying that PD images are fine. What is so much hateful in this PD image that it needs to be removed and reverted, "Yes" or "Pet Shop Boys"? I also haven't found a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style to ban PD images, please deep-link. I again suggest WP:DRR if there are still issues with this image. The article was protected as valid edits were repeatedly reverted by one user (WP:OWN). feydey (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing against adding PD images to discographies. However, it is practice to include only one image (infobox) to avoid clutter. On most people's screens the image will either appear above the table (strange) or force the table to an uncomfortable width. I appreciate that you are happy that the band's album cover is PD (and thus able to be freely used on WP), but it is unreasonable to add images just because you can. Another way of looking at it: there are hundreds of free images of some people, but we don't add them all to their bio articles. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So You think that this image is not valuable enough to be used here?

Wikipedia:The perfect article: Includes informative, relevant images—including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it. The identification of the group's latest album clearly adds to a reader's interest and understanding. "Practice to include only one image (infobox) to avoid clutter" and "unreasonable to add images just because you can" - please link to relevant policies. feydey (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline I can point you to, I'm sorry, but silent consensus is to include only one image (infobox) in discographies. Take a look at any other FL discography - I'm sure at least some of the related artists have released PD artwork, but they are not included. On the computer I am using right now the image (in [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pet_Shop_Boys_discography&action=historysubmit&diff=429090362&oldid=429065637 this revision) does not align with the table, and there is whitespace for the whole width of the image. On other browsers it will either do the same or squash the table to appear distorted. Please, don't be difficult about this issue. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So You don't like the position of the image - that can be discussed. The last I checked useful images are are encouraged to be used on Wikipedia articles. The image was originally removed as it was claimed to be against WP:FU and I had to open this talk as it was unclear to users that this is a Public Domain image. Before that it was removed several times and the addition was claimed as vandalism. Furthermore I'd like that "silent consensus is to include only one image (infobox) in discographies" turned into a discussion (WP:DISCOGSTYLE?) where it can be conceptualized. As of now I know of no "1 image per article" rule. feydey (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the table clearly shows the album's chart positions, as does the album's own page. the image adds extra coding and distorts the page to many viewers, but adds no new information. that's my reasoning. the fact it's a free image is irrelavent to me. and btw, constant edits to add an image that other editors disagree with and there is no consensus to add is also a violation of WP:OWN and vandalism. just because you're an admin doesn't make you above other editors and free to protect articles just because you disagree with people. hence why you were made to unprotect it. but in truth this really is a pointless discussion if it's just going to be ignored. "please don't be difficult with this issue" it's way past that adabow. Mister sparky (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with the word "vandalism" in wikipedia. Please read the guidelines WP:VAND#What is not vandalism and other rules of this policy. Lothar Klaic (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not the one who fully protected the article citing vandalism because other people disagree with me... Mister sparky (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted edits without discussion and You reverted an edit where the image under discussion AND a wikification were made [2]. feydey (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes i reverted the images insertion because you kept adding it before the discussions were completed. Mister sparky (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memory of the future, Axis and Vocal

Shouldn't there for pages made for these singles? MOTF was released last December so should be a page up by now. As for Axis that was released a few months ago so there should be enough info to make a page. Lastly Vocal is about to be released formally as a single so the page can be made in the next few weeks. PSBmad 11:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSBmad (talk • contribs)

Artwork for Axis and Vocal

I uploaded artwork for these songs but they appear to have taken down. Anyone know why? I've been looking those the talk pages for Pet Shop Boys Discography but found nothing. Would be helpful to know why the artwork was removed. PSBmad 16:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSBmad (talk • contribs)

Very/Relentless

The album "Relentless" was forgotten! It was released at the same time as CD2 of "Very" and there are some rare Versions of "Relentless" without "Very". It had 6 Tracks:

1 My Head Is Spinning 2 Forever In Love 3 KDX 125 4 We Came From Outer Space 5 The Man Who Has Everything 6 One Thing Leads To Another — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klodnyckyj (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC) --93.130.118.190 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Production, writing, and remix credits and other appearances

There are some very successful, notable, production credits for PSB, such as Dusty Springfield, Boy George and Liza Minnelli. Similarly, there's quite a list of remixes out there, not all of which are included on Disco 4, such as their remixes for The Bloodhound Gang and Blur ("Boys & Girls" has two PSB remixes, one of which they covered live). They have also written tracks for others, such as the acts they have produced but also for Girls Aloud, Morton Harket, Tina Turner, Alcazar and Eighth Wonder.

Further, there are PSB appearances as notable as those listed in Section 2.5 but where PSB are not featured as such, for example, on the debut Electronic album or on Twentieth-Century Blues: The Songs of Noël Coward.

Finally, there are releases where they have independently contributed to other works, such as Tennant singing with DJ Fresh, Suede and Superchumbo and Lowe producing music for Ian Wright's single "Do The Right Thing". These shouldn't be in separate discographies, do they have room on this page?

Thoughts please. Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE ETC. never entered the BUBBLING UNDER HOT 100

please remove # 121 of LOVE ETC

IT NEVER charted on the bubbling under charts at #21

i mean its ridiculous to speak and talk about the bubbling under hot 100 charts, i mean those measure the places 1-25 below the hot 100

but their last singles on the main hot 100 they had by 1991 !!!!!!!!! EXACTLY 25 years ago

their last bubbling under hot 100 hit they had 1997 with somewhere reaching #125 on that charts

sadly 20 years ago

therefore LOVE ETC never reached # 121 on the us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.0.137.8 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singles/US chart positions

I realize that it has been many years since PSB have charted on the Hot 100 but it's inconsistent to replace the Hot 100 column with Dance Club Songs only in the "2010s" box. I think we should have one or the other all the way through, or make an exception to have 11 columns total and have both the US pop and dance charts. Otherwise we're getting an incomplete picture (they have quite an extensice US dance chart history). Thoughts? - eo (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack Albums

These three aren't really soundtracks as such, are they? They are just recordings of the music for a musical, a silent film, and a ballet respectively. A "soundtrack" suggests something more like the music taken from a film... If that makes sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.53.123 (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pet Shop Boys discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pet Shop Boys discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pet Shop Boys discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626174049/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?&artist=%22Pet%20Shop%20Boys%22
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wwow.petshopboys.co.uk/news/2485

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pet Shop Boys discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013112632/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=v2a76h62to0aart05gg0u3agj2&q1=pet+shop+boys&x=29&y=11 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=v2a76h62to0aart05gg0u3agj2&q1=pet+shop+boys&x=29&y=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pet Shop Boys discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023093859/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=v2a76h62to0aart05gg0u3agj2&q1=pet+shop+boys&q2=Top+Albums%2FCDs&interval=50 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=v2a76h62to0aart05gg0u3agj2&q1=pet+shop+boys&q2=Top+Albums%2FCDs&interval=50

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"West End Girls" release year?

I noticed a couple of discrepencies in the singles section. Firstly, West End Girls (Remix) is listed as a 1986 release, but the page for that song states a release date of 28 October 1985. Another discrepency is that Always on My Mind is listed as a single from Actually (1987). It seems to me to be a non-album single. Same with "Where the Streets Have No Name", actually.

Bit leary to edit this stuff myself... maybe there's something I'm missing (not a Pet Shop Boys expert), plus don't want to mess with tables lol. RestaurantMarsupial (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]