User talk:Classicrockfan42

Nirvana album covers

Hey, wanted to let you know that this (i.e. using Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg on the Lounge Act article) doesn't jibe with the Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE requirements. Non-free material such as album covers can only be used in limited circumstances and then only with justifications (Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline). This is the cover for the Nevermind album itself, and it really cannot be extended to use on individual songs. These articles used to have this image on them but they were removed awhile ago. So you may as well remove the images, as someone (maybe myself if I have time) will be along to remove them anyways at some point. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Chengwes (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard

Hi, when adding a charts heading, it should be "Chart positions" and not "Chart Positions" - see WP:HEAD. Also, only Billboard is italicised because it's a magazine. So it's [[Billboard 200|''Billboard'' 200]] instead of ''Billboard 200''. And when linking "number one album", the "n" doesn't need to be capitalised. So basically, it's Billboard 200 number-one album. I know it's minor stuff, but I thought I'd tell you since you're doing this on many pages. Anyway, keep up the good work adding the banners! Spellcast (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've been busy updating and adding succession boxes for Billboard 200 #1 albums. It is my understanding that the succession box is supposed to flow through the albums from one to the next, thus adding multiple boxes for the same album becomes redundant and circular. The boxes are not intended to list multiple runs at number one. Once an album is #1, only the first album that replaces it at #1 should be listed as the subsequent album. As a hypothetical example, suppose over a 20 week period, two albums alternate the top two spots on the album chart, we don't need 10 succession boxes to represent each 1 week run for each album. I believe the succession boxes should represent the chronological list of the albums, but not each successive run of an individual album. See Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) and Frampton Comes Alive! for pages that I updated that may show what I mean. Wolfer68 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. From my understanding of the succession boxes (at least for these #1 albums, songs types) is that you want to flow from one to the next. Say you start with Business as Usual, then you click on subsequent album, Thriller (album), then you go to Flashdance (soundtrack), but then you're going back to Thriller, then to Synchronicity (album). Thriller was already #1 so in order to flow the subsequent album for Flashdance should be Synchoncity not Thriller, otherwise it's circular.

I'm not too sure I like the term "run" either. Because technically it's the same run. The Twist, hitting #1 in 1960 and again in 1962, was two different runs, maybe just the dates at number 1 is enough, listing only the first subsequent album. User:Ericorbit made me aware of this. Wolfer68 (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Thanks for the deleltion of the section on the Ryan Drummond article. kickenchicken 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Many thanks for the help integrating the trivia in Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans, Louisiana) --Jh12 (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Hot Minute

That may be the case, but I'm really against those boxes at the end of an album. They're totally useless. I don't see them holding any significance or real need to stay in the article. NSR77 ^T_C 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MJJ

You edit a lot of articles relating to Michael Jackson, feel free to join the project if you like. — Realist² 04:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

number one abums in Australia for each year - loss of data

Hi

I am the user who originally put in the decade charts for the number one albums in Australia. Can you please add the number of weeks at number one that each album spent at that position in each year's table as I originally had it. I use the pages in my research for a radio show I do (which is one of the reasons I origianlly put this up on wikipedia). ie. Teaser & the Firecat spent 15 weeks at No 1, American Pie 11 weeks, Harvest, 1 week etc. This is not always obvious, as some albums spend time at number one in two different years. In effect, as you have broken the original decade chart up into year by year, you have lost this feature (eg. HOT AUGUST NIGHT spent 29 weeks at number one for various weeks in 1973 & 1974), TEASER AND THE FIRECAT spent time at #1 in both 1971 & 1972. I think people will find this feature interesting and will not want to count every single week. It will be especially useful for people who are wanting to quote figures.

I would appreciate it if you first contact me before going ahead and chopping up the singles charts i created, if that is your plan. I hope you appreciate that there was a lot of work behind creating the original chart pages.

Rusty201 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion discussion forum

I've now put this message on the DELETION DISCUSSION on the 1970s albums

objection to the removal of this list

Although the way that classicrockfan42 has now configured the list year by year is good and has obviously been a lot of work for him, as the creator of the original list, I object to the removal of this page on a number of grounds:

please bare with me if I repeat myself, but I am passionate to defend my original work, which took a long time to complete.

1) I would like an online resource that shows how long each album spent at number one. This new version does not show this.

In the way it has been split up now, classicrockfan42 has failed to include the number of weeks that each album spent at number one. For one, I use this information in research for a radio show I produce, which is one of the reasons I put this list on the internet originally. It will take a lot of work to reinclude this information in the new chart format that classicrockfan42 has produced, and if he does not wish to include this, you couuld perhaps argue that in effect vandalised my original work (if the original is removed) has been vandalised, and turned it into a lesser quality product with the omission of weeks spent at No 1. I do not wish to spend several hours putting this info back in to his newly created product (which in turn may also make him very angry), because someone decided to take a knife to my original work. If you look at the way that the British chart entries are done, they show the entire decade at a glance List_of_number-one_albums_(UK) (although admittedly this is an external site.

Currently, if you wish to quote how many weeks an album was at number one, you have to count it manually, as this info is missing. You may also get an incorrect number due to the reasons given in point 1. Albums at number one also sometimes follow a haphazard pattern of the distribution of weeks at the top. You'll find an example of this during 1971/2/3 with such albums as COCKER HAPPY, SLADE ALIVE! and TEASER AND THE FIRECAT. They do not spend a certain amount of weeks at number one in a solid block. If the number of weeks at #1 are given in a decade wide spread with numbers of weeks at #1 next to each seperate entry, then a more accurate picture is achieved.

2) The new format, which it appears has only been done to make it the same formatting as similar USA entries, makes it more difficult to have a larger overview of the chart situation. For example, if an album was number one during more than one year, you don't get a feel for how long it was at the top (EG. Neil Diamond'S HOT AUGUST NIGHT was number one for 29 weeks at various times right throughout 1973 & 1974. Splitting the list up into years only will give the reader a false impression about the longevity of certain albums in some cases. it is not always easy to count up on each page how many weeks an album spent at #1, as it may have been spread out over a 2 year period at number one. This is especially so for albums at number one over the Xmas period. This is where a decade list is much more useful in tracking the performance of an album at the number one position. eg 1971-1972 TEASER AND THE FIRECAT by cat Stevens spent 15 weeks at No 1, over the Christmas period. You don't get this picture in the way it has been newly formatted, you only get the view of 1971 or 1972. The new way it has been formatted gives no provision to show that it also charted at No 1 in the following or previous year. If you wish to look at the popularity of an artist, such as THE BEATLES for the 1960s, or ABBA, ROD STEWART, ELTON JOHN, say for the 1970s, it is much easier to do so with the decade format with an overview rather than scrolling through various pages for each year of a decade to get an overview.

3) I see no reason why my version and the version created by classicrockfan42 cannot exist side by side. I would strongly object to the removal of the page I originally created, as it took several weeks of solid work to put it together, as an online resource. Perhaps classicrockfan42 would like to add more of his own original work to the list he created, or change it altogether, so it is more his own original work. He has in effect taken my original work, rearranged it & wikipedia is now calling for the eradication of my original, as Classicrockfan42 may not have liked the way I formatted the information stylistically. I personally think the American formatting lacks, because of the omission of weeks at number one. (Must all information be standardised to an American style? The Brits haven't done it) I think Classicrockfan42 could be rewarded for his work somehow by leaving it there side by side, but he needs to add something more to it to make it more of his own original work.

4)I WAS NOT CONTACTED by classicrockfan42 before he split up my original work up and a request was put in to wikipedia to remove my original work. I personally am not happy that it be changed to the inferior American formatting. Rusty201 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also added to deletion talk

1960s is now gone

The 1960s albums list has now dissapeared without any possibility to have put in my opinion on its removal. My vote could have saved it. Will my singles lists now suffer the same fate?

Rusty201 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] links will no longer be valid

I have put some links in various articles linking weeks spent at number one to the decade lists. See links for the original text and links to album & singles lists.

Eg. Sherbet's_Greatest_Hits

"Sherbet's Greatest Hits (1970-1975) was a compilation album released on Infinity Records in Australia in 1975, at the time of the height of Sherbet's popularity in Australia. It spent 1 week at the top of the Australian album chart in 1975. It was Sherbet's first number one album in Australia and covered their single releases 1970-1975."

My_Little_Angel_(William_Shakespeare_song) "It was Shakespeare's second big hit in Australia and his first number one, making the number 1 spot in Australia for 3 weeks in early 1975."

or: Living_in_the_Seventies "Two singles were lifted from the album: "Living in the 70s"/"You're a Broken Gin Bottle, Baby" and "Horror Movie"/"Carlton (Lygon Street Blues)", the latter spending 2 weeks at the top of the Australian singles chart in 1975. "

The last two assume that someone is going to tamper with the singles lists as well.

Rusty201 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rusty201 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks 4 yr message

Hi

Thanks for your friendly message, and for not jumping down my throat!

1) Is it possible that the two formats live side by side? ie. one decade chart and one yearly?

2) You can take each year by year from my old decade charts (which have the weeks at No 1) and make it easy to replace with the relevant missing info

3) I'd appreciate it if you left the singles lists, thanks :-)

4) It's great that you've added in the info under each seperate album for having made No 1 on the Australian album charts. Thanks a lot for that. It looks very professional. I had to create a few album pages myself when creating the album list Rusty201 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources for chart positions

Hi there. I noticed you are adding UK chart positions, but you are not adding sources. I added a source for Rock 'n' Roll Stage Show, that same website can be used quite easily for all the rest. I hope you'll find this useful. --Muhandes (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was only using the Wikipedia list of number-one albums for information, but this site is a good outside source. - Classicrockfan42 (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help. I went ahead and added the source to a few more. --Muhandes (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]