Talk:Take That discography

Fair use rationale for Image:Take-That-Beautiful-World.jpg

Image:Take-That-Beautiful-World.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Untidy

• This article is one of the messiest I have ever seen, its all over the placeDt128 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Track certifications

For some reason BPI havent included tracks such as Greatest Day, and The Flood as being Silver, baring in mind after every week when the charts are released there are figures revealed showing how many were sold and have been sold since release. For instance The Flood has sold near 350k since release staying in the top 10 for 6 weeks and 2 weeks outside the top 10, but it hasnt been updated on BPI and Greatest Day is on the same figure or thereabout as well after being released over 2 years ago, either way they both pass the 200k mark for silver certification. While on the point of certification, the Greatest Hits and Never Forget albums are clearly out of date as well. The Greatest Hits is around 1million on this article yet its been in the charts constantly throughout the last 5 years since they reformed yet the sales havent been adapted to show this, with the article showing the sales the album made in 1996 rather than up to and including the present day. Same goes for Never Forget, which this week is at number 20 in the midweek charts and has been in the top 50 since Take That performed The Flood on the XFactor in November. i have included various sources showing that it is now 6x platinum with sales over 2 million since its release in 2005 (which is entirely feasible over a 5 yera period) however for some reason because BPI do not update their sales and certifications with older albums the sales can't be changed to reflect the actual sales over time on this article. Any advice here would be great as relying on one source that doesnt keep its certifications and sales up to date online in my opinion hinders wikipedia's ability to provide users with correct information.

Kind regards and hope you can help shed some light and common sense on this matter Yids2010 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Certifications are not automatic. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to do the math and assume a certification "should" be awarded. Once BPI issues the award(s) then their database will be updated accordingly. - eo (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again I ask you to read what I have previously written, its not just me who believes common sense should be used here. Looking through the BPI database and it proves BPI isnt accurate enough to rely on e.g. Matt Cardle's song, sold over 800k copies, 2nd biggest selling single of the year and it hasnt been awarded anything, where common sense tells us that the song is Platinum. Same with Greatest Day, sold over 350k, probably more now and yet its not on the database...the list goes on cheryl cole, bep etc Yids2010 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And again, unless you can find a reliable source that proves that a single or album has been certified, the article should not assume that it has or state that it has when it has not. You may want it to be certified, or think it deserves to be certified, or assume its certified based on its sales, but unless it can be sourced, then it should not be in the article. Read the BPI article; it's the same as with the RIAA in the U.S.: "BPI certificates are not automatic; the record company must pay a fee to the BPI and they carry out an audit into the release in question. Certificates are usually awarded on the basis of the amount of units the release has shipped, rather than the amount it has sold." - eo (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I get that we need sources for updates but COME ON - the 'Progress' album's sales have not been adjusted since it fell off No.1 in the UK and it's had 3 months and 1 weeks worth of sales since then - all of them bar 2 in the top 20. So basically the album sales are INCORRECT and have been for a good 3 months now. What's the point of having a wikipedia page when the sales aren't even correct? And you saying 'it's not up to wikipedia editors to calculate sales' - well there are some people (including me) who would HAPPILY do that math to preserve the integrity and accuracy of the albums sales but you're saying we are not allowed to, just becuase you're not willing to doesn't mean others are not willing to.

Happy Now - an official single?

Happy Now has a music video and is a promo single according to it's wiki entry, why is it not listed in the actual singles section? It's just in the 'other songs that have charted' list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.228.10 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sales in the US

Did Take That ever chart in the US?

I just found it odd that most discographies list US sales and awards but this page doesn't.