User talk:A Thousand Doors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, A Thousand Doors. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson/archive1.
Message added 09:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Thousand Doors, I've responded to your comments. You can check it now. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Thousand Doors, I've responded to your new comments. Please check. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, A Thousand Doors. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Emeli Sandé/archive1.
Message added 11:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — AARONTALK 11:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for So Damn Beautiful (Poloroid song)[edit]

Allen3 talk 00:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, A Thousand Doors. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Emeli Sandé/archive1.
Message added 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've done everything.  — AARONTALK 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made the improvements.  — AARONTALK 11:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Everything is answered now.  — AARONTALK 09:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

UK singles list[edit]

I'll be along shortly to have a look over it. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi A Thousand Doors, a list you recently nominated at WP:FLC has been promoted! I was wondering if you'd consider nominating it for inclusion on the main page some time, at Today's Featured List? Either way, it'd be great if you could participate there. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, A Thousand Doors. You have new messages at Talk:List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2012 (U.S.).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(talk) 02:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Thousand Doors,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Zoe Lyons Cigar Wink High Res.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 16, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-07-16. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC comment[edit]

Hi. If it's no bother, would you like to voice your support/oppose and comment at my FA nomination of Confusion (album)? It's a relatively short article to review. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of best-selling singles of the 1960s in the United Kingdom know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on August 26, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/August 26, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Face-smile.svg Thanks! Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of NME's Cool List[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of NME's Cool List at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for NME's Cool List[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s[edit]

Please check the talk page of the article in this report's title. Thanks! -- (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vehicles & Animals 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:
  • 3|5}} <ref>{{Allmusic|class=album|id=r643400|tab=review |label="Athlete: ''Vehicles & Animals'' > Review |first=Ned |last=Raggett |accessdate=13 October 2011}}</ref>
  • *''[ Vehicles & Animals]]'' at [[]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Comic's Choice[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Comic's Choice at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Comic's Choice[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of best-selling singles in the United Kingdom 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:
  • |"{{Sort|Everything I Do) I Do It for You|[[(Everything I Do) I Do It for You]]}}"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sales figures in Best Selling UK singles[edit]

List of best-selling singles in the United Kingdom Sales Figure updates. I can't find references for the updates you've made since The figures in List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom no longer match these (e.g. Beatles, I want to hold your hand 1.77 in Million Sellers 1.79 in Best sellers) If you can point me at the source I can update the million sellers to match. Thanks. --Btljs (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you used and adjusted the sales by those of the neighbouring chart entries? Tricky to assume sales figures without them being explicit in the source - was there a sudden surge in Beatles sales? Possibly. Would it be a good idea to put brackets round the figures we haven't actually sourced? Btljs (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that is basically what happened. I didn't want to remove the Sales column entirely, since the OCC are probably going to release the updated sales again at some point, and I didn't want to have to readd it again when that happens. So I took some educated guesses about what the sales might be. Please feel free to edit them if you wish to. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

'xxxx (year) in British music' articles[edit]

Hello, I have been speaking with Deb and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, and the latter suggested I contact you, as you have been heavily involved with the more recent years of the above articles. Basically I want to overhaul all of them and standardise them, in particular the year end charts which often have no citations (at best just a vague reference to Music Week or Record Mirror without any verifiable referencing) and the format changes from year to year - some are lists, others are tables; some are top 10, top 20, top 40, etc.

After spending a bit of time in the British Library I do now have proper citations for most of these charts going back to the 1970s, although as you may be aware, the UK charts before 1983 (when Gallup took over the charts from the BMRB and started automating the chart returns) are now considered very unreliable and have been sujected to some major revisions, so the published charts at the time can't be used: I'm working on sorting this out. In the meantime, I wondered if you had any opinion on the formatting? My view is that the cut-off point should be a top 40 or top 50 at most (some of the year end charts go up to a top 100 or even top 200, but this would make the list way too long, and in any case as I have already said, the earlier the chart, the more unreliable they are likely to be). I also prefer to use a simple list rather than a table – I can see that a table would be useful for more recent years where sales figures can be included, but as there were no official yearly sales figures published before 1994, I don't see what other useful information can be added to the title and artist, except maybe peak position, but this could be placed in brackets afterwards anyway. But I haven't got anything 'set in stone' yet – I wanted to get some opinions from people who have worked on the articles and try to come to some consensus as to how to present them. I would post on WikiProject boards to try and canvas opinion, but apart from Wikipedia:WikiProject Music I'm not sure there are any relevant projects that are still active these days. Richard3120 (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Standardising the 'Years in British music articles' sounds like a great idea – I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. I think the first decision should be what information will be included in which articles. For example, the year-end lists for 2006 are in 2006 in British music charts, while the same info for 2005 is in 2005 in British music, with 2005 in British music charts redirecting there. So obviously some standardisation there would be useful.
With regards the length, I'd agree that over 100 is too long. For comparison, the best-selling albums list only goes up to 40, the best-selling singles list also only goes up to 40 (but could go further), best-selling singles of the 1960s goes up to 60, and both best-selling singles of the 2000s and best-selling albums of the 2000s go up to 100. I'd say that it should be at least 40, no more than 100 (depending on how reliable the source is).
As for the format, I'd personally prefer tables over simple lists. They're more useful for sorting purposes, and just look a little "tidier" to me. I think peak chart position would be worth including. UKChartsPlus include information such as record label, certification and weeks on chart in their year-end charts (e.g. see here, here or here) – it might be worth our considering if we wanted to include any of that information as well, and, if we did, a table would probably be preferable to a list.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I agree that for recent years tables are the way to go, because there are (some) official sales figures available: I've updated the tables for 2010, 2011 and 2013 if you want to have a look at them, and I am working on 2012 at this moment. As far as what other information could be included on these tables, I can see that maybe label and certification could be useful additions... I'd draw the line personally at weeks on chart, as I'm not sure how relevant that is in the age of digital downloads: it used to be that a record would get just one chart run, but records drift in and out of the charts all year nowadays, they don't have a "shelf life". We'd also have to consider just how many columns we could sensibly get across one page width - no point adding lots of superfluous information if it's just going to make the important stuff unreadable.
I've redone the year end charts in 1989 in British music as a "list" if you want to have a look at that for the alternative format: my main point is that I had to make some corrections to the list (records in the incorrect order, ambiguous links, etc), and I suspect there are errors in many of the other years... this is the first thing that needs sorting out, along with a verifiable citation from Music Week so nobody can contradict the charts I am putting up. No point fussing over the format if the actual information in them is wrong!
I've done the charts up to a top 50 for the moment – it was an arbitary cut-off point but it seemed a good one to me. I think it should either be 40 or 50 – 100 is not just a long table, you're also getting down to records that really aren't that significant or sold that many copies. I understand that 40 would match the lists you mention and also the standard chart rundown too, so if the consensus is to cut the tables down from 50 to 40 I'll go along with that.
One thing that has come up today is another editor has questioned whether the year end compilation albums chart should be included, he saw it as of little interest but I think a top 10 or top 20 year end chart is worth including, and I have sources for these too (they seems far more important to me than the Scottish charts which have been included in the articles for recent years). Again, I'll go with consensus on this: I may put it up for discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. He also felt very strongly that the charts should go in their separate 'xxxx in British music charts' articles to stop cluttering up the main 'xxxx in British music' articles, as has been done for all years since 2004. This is even more relevant since Hadji87 started writing his weekly chart commentary: to be honest I find them pointless and they make the article ridiculously long, but he seems determined to carry on with his "pet project", so I and other editors have left him to it.
If you know of any other editors that would be interested in having a say on this subject, please let me know and I'll contact them. Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've given it a bit more thought, and I think you're right than a Top 100 would be too much for a year-end list – for a decade-end or "all time" list it would probably be okay, but nobody really needs to know that Bon Jovi's Greatest Hits was the 86th biggest-selling album of 2013, or whatever. Top 50 is probably fine – I may well get round to extending the best-selling singles list to that length as well. I also agree that a Top 10 for compilations is probably sufficient, and that there probably wouldn't be any need to mention number of weeks on chart.
I've had a brief look over the 2013 charts and made a few changes – largely, these are just formatting changes to make sure that the tables comply with MOS:DTT. I've made the table sortables, with the benefit of that being that it is then possible for the reader to, say, group together all the best-selling One Direction singles, for example.
I'm not sure that it's entire necessary to list all the different peak positions that albums achieved in previous years – since we're only dealing with one year (2013, in this case), it's not relevant how the albums performed during other years. For example, Gold: Greatest Hits by ABBA was one of the best-selling albums of 2009, but it only peaked at number 25 – would we have to note that it reached number one in 1992, 1999 AND 2008? It also means we're left with a rather unattractive-looking list underneath the table. I think it would be more prudent simply to include a note in the "Peak position" column explaining that the positions listed are for 2013 only.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Let me know what you reckon. Thanks! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, it looks fine – I'll get round to reformatting the other year end tables that I've done so far. I know what you're saying about the peak positions: this was a leftover from the years I've been updating, where very often the peak position listed would be the record's highest position at any point in its chart history, and not necessarily during the given year. So I ended up keeping the information but disambiguating it out of the table as a note (if that makes sense), with the year's actual peak position in the table. That's the reason it's still there, but I am also unsure about having the list underneath the table... it IS pretty ugly, as you say. But I still feel that information is relevant though, and that was the best way I could think of keeping it for now. It could be that eventually it gets ditched. Richard3120 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
One other thing I've just thought of: it's quite likely that the further back we go, the more likely that we are going to encounter artists that have no Wikipedia entry (e.g. they may have had one number 3 hit in 1976 and nothing else). How do the sortable wikitables and the {{Sortname}} template work in these cases? Richard3120 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sortname will just create a redlink for table entries that don't have Wikipedia articles, e.g.
Richard, CliffCliff Richard
Rafferty, PongoPongo Rafferty
However, we could also have the names unlinked, if we use {{Sortname|Pongo|Rafferty|nolink=1}}. Although I reckon that, in most cases, redlinking would be the way to go, per WP:REDLINK. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: 2013 in British music charts... I haven't done anything to the text, which could do with a lot of sorting out... but what is that fourth paragraph about David Bowie suppose to mean, do you suppose? Haven't all singles been eligible to chart before the album's release? I'm not sure what the original editor was trying to say here - any ideas? Richard3120 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I recall, when Where Are We Now? was released in January last year, it was made available both as a single and as an "instant gratification" downloaded for anyone who preordered the album. Up to that point, the Official Charts Company couldn't distinguish between which sales had come from singles and which had come from instant grat downloads, so songs like that would be excluded from the chart until their parent album was released. But when that happened to Where Are We Now?, there was a huge uproar, so the OCC changed the chart rulings so that instant grat downloads could still be included in the singles chart before the album was released. Does that all make sense? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so what he means to say is that it was the first time DOWNLOAD singles could be included in the chart before the parent album was released... yes, that makes sense. Sorry, I wasn't in the UK when The Next Day was released last year, so I would have missed that piece of news. Richard3120 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's kind of it. There's bit more information about it here: [1] [2] [3]. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up that Hadji87 has changed the best-selling singles table on 2013 in British music charts back to a non-sortable table, replacing all your Sortname templates back to standard text, as well as replacing "No." at the top of the table with "Position". :-/ Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the message you've left on Hadji87's talk page, and hope that the table style can be sorted out soon – he also changed some of the other tables in other years that I had been working on, so I decided to stop work on updating all the years until this issue was resolved, otherwise I am just wasting my time. Richard3120 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for taking the time to review my FL nomination over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one rap songs of the 2010s/archive1; I've responded to some of your unresolved comments over at the nomination page, and it'd be appreciated if you could check them out and reply to them if you'd like to leave any additional feedback. Cheers! Holiday56 (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

List of best-selling singles of the 1970s in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi – I don't know if you still have the above page on your watchlist but you may want to read the reply I wrote to Tuzapicabit's three-year-old query on the talk page. Basically the list that is curently featured is not an official one, which means we either have the option of replacing it with the official one that is now considered error-ridden (I can get hold of this list with a citation, so it could be included with some notes regarding its accuracy), or we just delete the page altogether. I've let Tuzapicabit know as well so we can see if we can come to a consensus regarding the article's future. Richard3120 (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Best selling singles of 20th & 21st century[edit]

I've posted comments in the talk pages of List of best-selling singles of the 20th century in the United Kingdom and List of best-selling singles of the 21st century in the United Kingdom as the WP:CENTURY states that the difinition of these centuries be 1901-2000 and 2001-2100 respectively (not the colloquial use of 19XX and 20XX). As you have been one of the main forces behind these pages, I thought you might like to have an input into how we work with renaming etc to fit in with WP guidelines. My initial ideas are in the talk pages, but there are various ways this could be pursued. Btljs (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

HMV's Poll of Polls[edit]

Hi A Thousand Doors,

Nice job in getting so many music-related lists up to featured list status! I was just looking at the HMV's Poll of Polls article and I noticed that the results from the 2013 poll don't seem to be in the list yet. Would you be willing to update the list? I was considering nominating it for a Today's Featured List slot, but I don't think it would pass without first being updated, and I thought that you would know how to do so.

Neelix (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Neelix, thanks very much! For some reason, HMV never released a Poll of Polls in 2013, possibly because they had gone into administration that January. I looked around for some official statement from the company, but couldn't find any. I didn't want to speculate on why no poll was published, so I decided just to leave it entirely. I'd be happy for the list to be featured at some point at the end of the year, but what would you recommend I do about this issue? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I have done a search and have also turned up nothing. Have you tried contacting HMV to ask if they ever published anything in the news media or on their website stating that they weren't doing a 2013 poll and/or why? It would also be helpful to know if they have discontinued the poll indefinitely or if they just skipped a year. Neelix (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess it couldn't hurt to ask. All right then, I'll do that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you heard back from HMV? If not, we might be wise to reword the initial sentence of the article to state that "HMV's Poll of Polls was an annual list of albums compiled by British music retailer HMV from 1998 to 2012. Neelix (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Neelix, sorry that I'm only just getting back to you. I actually did hear back from HMV – the e-mail that I received confirmed that the Poll of Polls was retired in 2013, when the .com team became HMV Retail Ltd. Their nearest equivalent is their in-house top 10 albums of the year (e.g. 2013, 2014), but these are quite clearly different, so it wouldn't make much sense to include them. Thanks a lot for your recent edits to the article; the clean-up's much appreciated. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Harvard-tech merger.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harvard-tech merger.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 18:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Official Album Streaming Chart[edit]

The wiki page Official Album Streaming Chart is important and part of the Official Charts Company like the Official Single Streaming Chart is. Just leave the article as it is because it is a brand new chart which has only just been launched since streaming data became incorporated into the UK Albums Chart.

Hi Hadji87. If the chart is sufficiently important, then there should be enough reliable third-party sources for it to meet our general notability guidelines. I cannot find any. If you can provide some, then I'd welcome you to include them either in the article or the AfD discussion. Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enthiran/archive1[edit]

I have opened the FAC for Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 07:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums of the 2000s in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi, I'm afraid I'm going to bother you again on the subject of "best of the decade" lists. I know you've been keeping an eye on List of best-selling albums of the 2000s in the United Kingdom and I've checked the current article (based on the Radio 1 rundown) against the updated list that appeared in Music Week at the end of January 2010. There are a few small changes, plus some big ones: it looks like the OCC forgot RHCP's By the Way entirely in their original list as it now appears at number 28, and the 2009 albums are all downgraded markedly... Susan Boyle drops from 21 to 52, Lady Gaga from 56 to 73, and Michael Bublé out of the top 100 altogether. I have to say though, that all these falls match up with the sales figures given for these albums and compared with other sales figures for some of the other albums in the top 100.

The one that bothers me though is Back to Black: Radio 1 announced it as the third biggest seller of the decade, and yet it is only number 19 in Music Week. I've been trawling through what sales figures I can find, and my theory is that the Radio 1 chart combines sales of the standard and deluxe editions, while the Music Week list includes sales of the standard edition only. So we have to decide now which placing we are going for in the article. I'm tempted to stick with keeping it at number 3, with a note to the effect that Music Week didn't include sales of the deluxe edition – it seems like all subsequent lists of the best-selling albums of all time in the UK lump sales of both versions of Back to Black together, even though they were listed as two separate albums with separate chart positions at the time. What do you reckon? Richard3120 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact the list in the article is wrong: By the Way WAS at 28 in the R1 countdown, it's just been overlooked here, and I Dreamed a Dream was at 56 and The Fame at 81 - looks like whoever created this chart included some post-2009 sales. So really it's only Back to Black that's in question, and I do believe we should stick with the number 3 position, as that's what all sales figures before and since have claimed for the album. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that you might be right that Radio 1 lumped together both the standard and deluxe editions of Back to Black. As I understand it, Island Records initially requested that the deluxe version be given its own unique chart run (see James Masterton's commentary here), and it wasn't until after Winehouse's death in 2011 that the sales of the two editions were combined. As far as I'm aware, the OCC do now count the original and deluxe versions together, although, interestingly, the BPI do not (a search for "Amy Winehouse" reveals that each edition has its own certification awards). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the two albums were certainly considered to be two separate releases initially - the deluxe edition was the 14th best seller of 2008, while the original was the 57th. It's not the only album that this has happened to - Michael Bublé's Call Me Irresponsible also had two separate chart runs in different editions. I suspect the BPI has no choice in recognising them as two albums each with its own certifications: the deluxe edition sold enough to qualify for its own awards, and once the two albums were merged, the BPI couldn't then really " decertify" it. Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
In that case, keeping it at number 3 (with a note) makes sense to me. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Just got round to reading this. It looked to me like someone had looked at the list after 2009 and decided that it was out of date as a millennium list but, not having full details of an up to date post-2000 chart, simply added a bit to the lead about 21 and later sales of Back to Black. Now that OCC have published a full millennium chart, I split the decade and century like with singles. Btljs (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I also suspect that that is what happened. I suppose that, without the "(decade)" disambiguator, the title was unclear. Thanks for creating the albums century list. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Another list of Somerset scheduled monuments at FLC[edit]

As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset which is now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1?— Rod talk 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1[edit]

Would you mind leaving some comments? Thanks, All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)