User talk:Ali1610

I am looking into a way to allow people to simply provide the chart name for Billboard charts. It should be ready sometime in April.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So I am right that some changes there would at the moment be misplaced because you are working on it? ^^

By the way, is there a possibility to fix the partly broken linking to the Hungarian single- and albumchart? The link being created by the template links to a website that shows the fields which are not filled out with chart, year and week though the link says so... so I suggest that the way the link is created does not work anymore?

(Example:

Hungarian Albums (MAHASZ)[1]

3

is not linking to the individual chart anymore. Either the selection of the archived chart or the link creation at all do not work anymore.) --Ali1610 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it. They've changed the site format. Thanks for letting me know.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Because this had been repeatedly re-created while they were not notable, the title was salted (protected against creation) by admin RHaworth (talk). I have userfied the article for you - moved it into a sub-page in your user space at User:Ali1610/ItaloBrothers where you can work on it. See WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles for advice; you will need references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to show how they meet the notability standard of WP:BAND. I have re-salted the title - when your article is ready, check with RHaworth that he will agree to lift the protection, or failing that go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the site. As you can see, i have already worked on it a bit. Can you please look over it when it is finished and give me some tips then? It will maybe be ready tomorrow or on monday. Would be very nice! --Ali1610 (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look in a day or so. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for delay - I will get to this tomorrow or at worst the next day. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine - I have made it live. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stamp on the Ground, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hands Up (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the year-end chart names. When you do that, though, always add the new name without deleting the old, like this. That way, the articles that use the old name still work. I'll have Chartbot look for the old ones and fix them. Once that's done, then we can remove the old names.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I got wrong what is standing in front of these lists, because I thought you should not remove names, but editing them is okay. Sorry for this, I did not know that it has such big causes ^^ (Maybe you can explain that a bit better in the text?)
• There are other charts which are year-end-charts, but I only tried every chart that was available for Cascada, so I could only edit these where Cascada had a chart position.
• I also noticed that many charts do not have names at the moment and do not appear in the artist´s chart history. But with the direct link available through your ID-Template, the charts with positions are completely available. I am angry about these problems with the Billboard website. Why they opened the site in beta status though there were and are so many bugs and problems? Cannot understand this.
• And I read somewhere that you had struggle with Billboard because you asked a question about the charts, is this right? oO

--Ali1610 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

1. They didn't used to label the "year end charts" that way, so I had no idea what they were. They were just multiple charts with the same name. Any others that you find, please go ahead and add.
2. Can you show me an example of "but with the direct link available through your ID-Template, the charts with positions are completely available"? I didn't know about that.
3. It wasn't a "struggle". They just won't bring back some of the articles that they have deleted.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

1. I´ll do that when I find one at another artist.
2. Example: https://www.billboard.com/artist/cascada/chart-history/ Here you have twenty charts in which Cascada has charted somewhen. But these are not all where Cascada has ever charted... If you link to the chart directly, e.g. https://www.billboard.com/artist/cascada/chart-history/global-dance-tracks, you will see the positions! But in the dropdown menu where to select the chart, the name of the chart is blank and only gainable with your id-list. You can also see that these charts are at the moment not under the 20 charts that are listed with the tag chart=all. Another two examples: https://www.billboard.com/artist/cascada/chart-history/hot-digital-tracks and https://www.billboard.com/artist/cascada/chart-history/hot-singles-sales (both added per Template:BillboardURLbyName, as you can see in the text). Hope you understand me now ^^
3. So they deleted chart articles with important information that is not accessible otherwise, but they will not restore it?

--Ali1610 (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ItaloBrothers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hands Up (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that tag from a couple of song pages (for example on Bad Girls (M.I.A. song). I don't know whether it is an honest mistake or a joke or whatever but it is totally unacceptable that the word that has no meaning "Vlanders" is displayed on a Wikipedia song articles. And I don't want anyone to reuse that tag again on a new song page, so it's better to remove it from the template as well. Loginnigol (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing this. But as I already said at the template talk page, it causes maybe some links to be broken. It first hast to be corrected everywhere (or is that what you mean with "removed that from a couple of song pages"?) before removing it completely. --Ali1610 (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I had all but forgotten about it! Glad that you fixed it. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ali1610

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ouch.. That saddens me. He edited the charts sections on several articles I had watchlisted, and I sat back and didn't check if they were reliable. Based on such damning evidence presented at ANI, should I undo everything I've seen from him on the aforementioned articles? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, these are the only articles on my watchlist that he has edited. Usually it was just once, but sometimes twice:

• Surfing with the Alien – his first edits, his second edits
• Flying in a Blue Dream – his first edits, his second edits
• The Extremist – his first edits
• Time Machine – his first edits
• Joe Satriani – his first edits
• Crystal Planet – his first edits
• Engines of Creation – his first edits
• Is There Love in Space? – his first edits
• Black Swans and Wormhole Wizards – his first edits
• Unstoppable Momentum – his first edits
• Shockwave Supernova – his first edits
• Passion and Warfare – his first edits
• Sex & Religion – his first edits
• Alien Love Secrets – his first edits
• Real Illusions: Reflections – his first edits

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

How were you able to differentiate between his good and bad edits? It sounds very laborious. Was he flat-out inserting false figures into the articles, or using self-published sources which were not permitted, or both? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Joe Satriani discography – another article in which he added content once. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I don't own the Australian Chart Books David Kent published. I've looked at them before, but don't own them myself, so usually have to ask for information from them on a chart forum. I know Nqr9 (talk · contribs) does, so perhaps you could ask him for some info. Sorry I can't help you out more! Ss112 13:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I tried tagging you in response to your comment on my talk page, but I'm not sure that it worked. If you contact me by email (a link is on my user page), I can help you out.Nqr9 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It did. I'll send you an email tomorrow evening (for me it's now almost 01:30 in the morning...). --Ali1610 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you email me, I can send you spreadsheets of the singles charts from the 80s (and 70s), if that's what you want. The Kent Music Report began in May 1974, but before that there were the Go-Set charts, which I don't have. David Kent back-calculated charts to 1940, but I don't consider these official, as they weren't the published charts of those years. The 70s spreadsheet contains the Kent Report charts that were back-calculated, from January 1970 to April 1974, so I would use these with reservation. If you want to cite a reference though, you best use David Kent's 1970-1992 chart book, which you can still buy directly from him here - http://www.austchartbook.com.au/ . It doesn't contain weekly charts, but lists each charting entry, the peak position, and the weeks spent (in the top 100) on the chart. The Kent Report chart was superseded by the ARIA-produced chart in late June 1988, though, and this book only contains Kent Report peaks. I also have scans of the Kent Report weekly top 100 singles charts, from 1979 to 1988, but these are in pdf form, and are not easy to use as a reference on wikipedia.

Gavin Ryan's 1988-2010 book, which uses the ARIA Chart, can be bought here - http://ozmusicbooks.com/product-category/australian-and-new-zealand-music-books/chart-books-australian-and-new-zealand-music-books/ - although the book is now out of print, it is still available on CD-ROM. There was also a USB pdf version, which I have, but doesn't seem to be listed for sale anymore. This book lists chart entries, their peaks, and weeks on the top 100 chart, but does not show the weekly charts. It also lists ARIA certifications. Gavin Ryan's 1988-2008 book is still listed for sale, but this does not contain albums chart peaks.

This blog posts scans of the ARIA top 50 singles chart every week, starting from the first printed top 50 chart in July 1983 (ARIA licensed the Kent Report chart for 5 years) - http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/search/label/ARIA%20charts . Currently the blog focuses on 1983, 1986, and 1991. All of the top 50 charts from July-October 1983, January 1985-October 1986, and July 1987-October 1991 are there currently.Nqr9 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nqr9: I thought I had sent you an email, but it looks like I didn't. Well, you almost answered everything I wanted to ask.

1. The Go-Set charts are freely available somewhere, but I can't remember where right now. I have to look when I'm back home.
2. How is Kent handling his post-calculated charts and the time from 1988 to 1992? There may be no difference in the book entries from the official and non-official ones, which means that the data for the entries at the beginning and in the end of his "official" charts are not useful, right?
3. The spreadsheets are nice, but this doesn't help me. As I said, only the Top 50 are useable in the German-language Wikipedia. I wanted to know if the Kent book only has the Top 100 data written or also Top 50, and it only has Top 100. This means that I would need copies of the charts instead of the book.
4. The copies from 1979 to 1988 (Top 100? But this is not a problem as the Top 50 are also written) seem to be exactly what I may need. Well, in case of referencing, you could convert then into images, upload them somewhere and then link to the image files after saving them via Internet Archive. But only if you want to publish them, I won't do this as even if you send them to me, these are still your copies, right?
5. Does the book from Gavin Ryan also include the cerfifications from 1988 to 1996/97?
6. I already started archiving the chart scan pictures from the Chartbeat blog at de:Benutzer:Ali1610/Webarchiv#Australien_Singles_Top_50/100 some time ago, but I have not enough time to be able to archive all on one day. And all Top 50 charts from 1988 on are all available at australian-charts.com, so the important ones are these from earlier time.
7. Sorry for this pamphlet and thanks a lot for your answers. --Ali1610 (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• The Kent Report (known as the Australian Music Report from 1987) chart continued to be published until early 1998, I believe. The charts are different from the ARIA chart, and the ARIA chart was the self-declared "official" chart, as it represented the Australian music industry. ARIA definitely had a more-accurate chart than the Kent chart from March 1997, when the ARIA chart began compiling sales data electronically (from electronic point-of-sale data). That's probably the main reason the Kent/Australian Music Report chart ceased publication a year later.
  
• There were sometimes large differences between the ARIA and Kent Report charts, from when the ARIA chart began in 1988. For example, Julian Lennon's "Now You're In Heaven" peaked at #5 on the ARIA Chart, but #1 on the Kent Report chart. The differences were bigger in the bottom half of the top 100.
  
• David Kent published a 1993-2006 chart book, based on the Kent Report charts, and calculated his own charts for 1998-2006. I'm not sure how he calculated charts after early 1998, but these charts were not published at the time.
  
• David Kent's books have top 100 data only. Gavin Ryan's 1988-2010 book also has weeks spent in the top 10 and weeks spent in the top 50, as well as weeks spent in the top 100. Gavin Ryan's book has certifications from 1989-2010. I have not seen any 1988 certifications in it. ARIA had higher levels for certification (100k for platinum, 50k for gold) before 1989, too. They did not list certifications on the top 50 charts until April 1989, although the annual charts on their website have some certifications listed now (but some are missing from it).
  
• It would take too long for me to convert the pdf files to separate image files for every chart, but I could send you the pdf files for you to do this yourself. The first page of the Kent Report charts lists number 1 to 65, and the second page number 66 to 100. They look like this (this is the second page) - http://i.imgur.com/ddC8a2K.png .
  
• There are two mistakes I have spotted on the australian-charts.com data. Divinyls' "I Touch Myself" debuted at #45 the week before it is listed entering at #31. Traveling Wilburys' "She's My Baby" did not enter the top 50 and peaked at #58. Motley Crue's 'Without You' peaked at #46, not #45 as listed. David Kent's 1970-1992 has one mistake I have spotted - Bon Jovi's "You Give Love a Bad Name" peaked at #32, not #23 as listed. But the printed Kent Report charts also make this mistake in the HP (highest position) column.
  
• One question I have for you, did West Germany and East Germany have separate charts before the reunification? e.g. when I list a German peak from the 80s, taken from the offiziellecharts site, should it really be listed as a West German peak, or was it considered the 'German' chart at the time?Nqr9 (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer the last question: East Germany had no music charts (as any other communist country, I suppose). It is not a usual thing to talk about “West Germany” charts, though.--XanonymusX (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nqr9: Well, the thing is that Western Germany during Cold Wad always believed in its exclusive mandate over the German territory from 1949 to at least 1973 and afterwards called everybody, regardless if Eastern or Western German, a German citizen. This may have contributed to the meaning that Germany in this time was mostly represented by the Western part and so I find it only logic to call these charts German charts.

Back to the Australian ones: so this means that the Kent book is almost useless for me and the Ryan book is only useful for the pre-1997 cerfifications. Regarding the chart copies, I will send you a mail in around two to three hours. Do you also have Top 100 copies between 1988 and 2001, when the archive of the South New Wales Library starts? --Ali1610 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A bit of an ignorant question on my behalf; I knew it was unlikely that East Germany would have had a chart, but still find it slightly odd that the chart is referred to as the 'German' chart, when Germany was two separate countries. I have full ARIA Reports from January 1990 (the first one) to December 1994, and photocopied top 100 singles and albums charts from January 1995 to April 1999. I'm planning to get the 1995-2000 ARIA Reports at some point. ARIA have never published positions 51-100 from when they commenced producing the chart (June 20, 1988) through to the first ARIA Report (January 8, 1990), unfortunately. I have asked if it is possible to get this missing chart data, and unfortunately it is not; but someone I know was able to get one top 100 chart from them from March 1989. Their database has peaks outside the top 100, starting from late January 1989. It looks like they calculated a top 200 chart between then and 1991, and a top 300 chart from 1992 at the latest. Now there is a top 600 chart they calculate (only available to those with a subscription to the secure site, which costs thousands of dollars per quarter, and you have to sign a confidentiality agreement, as it also lists sales figures), but their database goes even further than 600 for the current chart.Nqr9 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Who needs that much positions? I would call them useless, as the sales down there have to be negotiatable... I'm also interested in the copies from the 1990s, I wasn't able to send you a mail last evening, I'll do it soon. --Ali1610 (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)