Talk:Chemical World
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Release date
[edit]The single release date must have been before 5 July 1993, because it entered the singles chart on Sunday 4 July (commonly noted in chart listings as 10 July, as it's the chart week ending on Saturday 10 July). See Chart Stats or search at polyhex.com. Indopug has pointed out a Select article from the July 1995 issue that says otherwise, but (for the reason I've stated) this is undoubtedly incorrect.
According to this fan discography page, the CD2 and 12" versions were released on 5 July, but CD1 and 7" were released on 28 June. However, I don't propose that a fan site be used as a citation in the article, so does anyone have a source that corroborates these dates? (I'll repost this at the talk page for the main Blur article, where it's more likely to be seen by anyone in possession of such a source.) –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography book has release date as June 1993 - it only gives month so I can't provide an exact date.--Michig (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Until we get a reliable source to mention the 28 June 1993 date we should stick with what can be verified - as WP:V says "verifiability, not truth". While it was common practice to release singles on the Monday prior to the publication of the chart in order to give it the longest selling time possible, saying that this must have been the release date is original research. We would need a reliable source to say that every song was released on the Monday prior to the chart to be able to use this. Michig's book may be useful, but is it better to say "June 2003" as the release or "5 July 2003"? --JD554 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- If we have conflicting reliable sources we should leave it as general as possible - maybe June/July 1993. If there's something reliable that backs up the 10 July chart being the one announced on the 5th that would be useful (this appears to tally with how last week's chart is described, with positions announced on 16 August described as entering the chart on '22/08/2009') but if it did chart on 5 July, which was a Sunday, it must have been released before 5 July - the chart was based on physical sales only in those days and Sunday trading didn't come in until the year after in the UK. I also have a vague feeling that the UK top 40 was announced on Saturday for a while, though I could be wrong - it used to be announced on a Tuesday going back to the early 1980s. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think "June 1993" would be best then going by your source. --JD554 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd added {{dubious}} to the July date, but I agree it should be changed to June 1993 with Strong's book as a citation. I'll leave that to you, Michig, as you can provide the page number, ISBN, etc. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think "June 1993" would be best then going by your source. --JD554 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- If we have conflicting reliable sources we should leave it as general as possible - maybe June/July 1993. If there's something reliable that backs up the 10 July chart being the one announced on the 5th that would be useful (this appears to tally with how last week's chart is described, with positions announced on 16 August described as entering the chart on '22/08/2009') but if it did chart on 5 July, which was a Sunday, it must have been released before 5 July - the chart was based on physical sales only in those days and Sunday trading didn't come in until the year after in the UK. I also have a vague feeling that the UK top 40 was announced on Saturday for a while, though I could be wrong - it used to be announced on a Tuesday going back to the early 1980s. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Until we get a reliable source to mention the 28 June 1993 date we should stick with what can be verified - as WP:V says "verifiability, not truth". While it was common practice to release singles on the Monday prior to the publication of the chart in order to give it the longest selling time possible, saying that this must have been the release date is original research. We would need a reliable source to say that every song was released on the Monday prior to the chart to be able to use this. Michig's book may be useful, but is it better to say "June 2003" as the release or "5 July 2003"? --JD554 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)