Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hello A Thousand Doors, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Learn the basics by reading the introduction and taking the tutorial.
• Remember to sign messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically insert your username and the date.
• Enjoy editing to improve articles, but try to leave an edit summary to explain what you are doing.
• Create your first article using the Article Wizard to help avoid common mistakes, which may lead to article deletion.
• Although you don't need to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, try to keep to the core principles and basic guidelines.
• When dealing with fellow Wikipedians, please remain polite, solve problems calmly, and remember that no-one is out to get you.
• Get involved with the community by joining a WikiProject.
• Make any test edits in the sandbox or click here and create a sandbox of your own.
• If you are having diffculty, consider finding a mentor to give you more personal advice.
• If in doubt, be bold. If you make a mistake, it can easily be reverted.

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thanks - glad my peer review was useful and good luck with the article at FLC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

~ a week to wikipedia's birthday. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for pointing this out. These were taken from a mate's Music Week collection. It's possible that mistakes have crept in. Grrr! He didn't have a full set for 2003, which is why I left that blank. How far back does that site you linked me go? I supposed I could have a look myself :p I should verify that the chart is the same one first (because there's the Upfront Club Play one too) and then at some point correct the mistakes - gah! Technohead1980 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good point about the Upfront Club Top 40 - I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between that and the UK Dance Chart. The sources that I've been using are the archive crawls of Radio 1's Dance Chart that are done by the Wayback Machine, which can be found here and here. From the looks of things, there are loads of archives of 2005's dance chart, so that might be a good place to start to see how it compares to the current Wikipedia article. I might try to dig out one or two old editions of Music Week as well, just to see if they specifically call the chart that they list the "UK Dance Chart" or whatever. Thanks a lot for the speedy reply, incidentally. A Thousand Doors (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Upfront chart is based on airplay. That is to say, DJs return listings of what they've been playing to the OCC and then they compile it. The UK Dance chart (prior to downloads) was based on sales of 12" dance records from specialist dance outlets. Now, in the download age, it's based on sales of dance music from any outlet (but let's face it, predominantly itunes). I have to admit that, looking at the links you've posted, it seems as if that's the proper UK Dance chart. That is to say, the sales one. Technohead1980 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense. I only have one or two issues of Music Week, and they're all from after their 2008 redesign, but, from what I can tell, they only seem to list the Upfront chart (on page 35), and I can't find the Dance Chart at all. I might see if it's archived on the official OCC website though. A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what they've done. They've changed the #1s to the biggest selling dance record on the main chart, which is not how the chart is calculated. This could mean they've done it to other years. I'll have to review. Technohead1980 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you have recently created the above page. I will offer my help expanding/creating all the 'Dance Chart Number one albums' if i knew where i could obtain the information from. Wilbur2012(talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbur2012 (talk • contribs)

Hey Wilbur, that'd be very good of you, thanks very much! To be honest though, I haven't been able to find anywhere on the web that contains all the information that we'd need. There are a few weeks dotted about on web archive crawls of Radio 1's dance chart page (e.g. here and here), but the only place I can think of that would contain all the number ones would be some back issues of ChartsPlus. I wasn't planning on spending money getting them though, so I thought that the best that I could do would be to go through the archive crawls and add whatever information I can find. If you're able to help, that'd be really great, but, if not, that's fine too. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I will look forward to trying to expand those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbur2012 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That may only be from the end of 2009, but it's a solid start and makes it clear how others could add to it. – SJ + 19:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SJ! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to pass this. I have just a few questions and then I will. See (Talk:Bedsitcom/GA1) Good work. AIRcorn (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have a few more comments, but this well and truly meets the criteria, so I am passing it. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:NikRussian.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(from User talk:Daniel); "Hi there Daniel. A few years back you deleted an article about Irish pop band Buffalo G, following an AfD discussion. Would you perhaps be willing to restore that article, as they did have a single that made number 17 on the UK Singles Chart (Source), which does make them notable, per criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)"

The article had very, very little content. In some respects you'd probably be better just starting from scratch. If the new article asserts notability (as it seems to be able to) then there'd be no issues with the previous AfD. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Portraits like that are often used on biographies, as it is generally held that seeing an image of a person significantly adds to an article about them. However, this does not extend to articles in which they are just a part. Basically, I think we are perfectly able to understand the article without seeing a picture of the man's face; specifically, I believe the image fails NFCC#8. For comparison, take a look at Lady in the Lake trial, an article I wrote. Though it contains biographical details about Gordon and Carol Park, we are able to understand the article without seeing pictures of them. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's fair enough then. The suggestion that an image of Russian should be included in the article was made by H1nkles during a peer review. It seemed like a good idea, but I couldn't find a free-use one, so tried to make do with one that could fall under fair-use. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention anyway. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs)

The article 22 Dynamic Hits, Vol. 2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable comp

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See my comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Christmas number one albums (UK)/archive1 PumpkinSky talk 01:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion at the above now-deleted discussion, I have deleted the nomination. Feel free to re-submit when your first nomination has been closed or gains a few supports. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - you are correct. The 47 is the vessel's pennant number, equivalent to, say CV-6 or CVN-65 after USS Enterprise. Mark Sublette (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a few minor concerns regarding the GA nomination for Great Reality TV Swindle. Please see Talk:Great Reality TV Swindle/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Great Reality TV Swindle a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Hi there, just to let you know I've addressed all the points you raised, was wondering if you could see if it's been done to your total satisfaction......? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

They haven't quite all been addressed - the ones that have been done I've struckthrough, but there are still one or two that haven't quite yet been fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey A Thousand Doors, I just noticed that the layout of the page mentioned has been changed dramatically. You mentioned in the edit that a discussion had taken place and I was wondering where I could locate this - personally I find the addition of 'Record Labels' an unnecessary one; causing the table to carry on into two-lines per single (e.g. 'Olly Murs featuring Rizzle Kicks' now extends onto a second line of the table, whereas before it was only one). I'm hoping that in this discussion I can find a justification/agreement of the decision, so any help would be much appreciated – AlligatorSky (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey there AlligatorSky, thanks a lot for the message. To be honest, my use of the word "discussion" was perhaps a little obtuse - a couple of months ago I mentioned on the article's talk page that there were areas for expansion, nobody really said anything, so I thought that I'd just be bold, make the change myself, and see what people thought. My reasoning is that, as Wikipedians, we should really be aiming to be the most comprehensive resource available, and there's a relevance to detailing the record labels through which the singles were released; the information can be sourced from Radio 1's website, so I don't think there's any verifiability issue there. Personally, my monitor displays almost all of the number ones on single lines – I don't know how it might be different for you, but obviously if there's an WP:ACCESS issue then that's something that we'll have to look into. Thanks again for the message. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Race of Jesus.ogv. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Orlady (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Thousand, My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 21:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I reverted your edit regarding the Lee Strobel article with a rationale on its talk page, but wanted to drop you a note here so that you would notice it and could comment, if desired. Have a good day! SocratesJedi | Talk 04:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Both very nice pictures, but they are suspicious. The first claims to have a separate source and author, the second claims to have a different author and copyright holder. Clarification of this would be required. Also, as these are clearly professional photographs, OTRS permission would really be needed. In all seriousness, in their current state, they'd be more likely to be deleted than featured. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Probably for the best that I didn't just jump straight in nominating them right away then. Thanks for letting me know. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Replying to your comments on my talk page...

I read your suggestion that this hook be saved for Christmas, and decided that it made sense to feature it sooner. The article is not particularly focused on Jesus' birth, and the hook is decidedly unrelated to Christmas. Christianity-related topics like this one are featured in DYK year-round, and IMO this rather serious article would get more reader attention on a day when people aren't in a holiday mood.

As for why I didn't use in an image slot, please note that more hooks are nominated with images than can be used in image slots, so we need to be selective. This particular image did not illustrate the hook fact; indeed, the conventional depiction of Christ in the image was inconsistent with the hook fact, so I concluded that the hook was one that would "work" better without the image. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense - thanks very much for the response. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And thanks to you for contributing a good article and an interesting hook! (The fact is hardly surprising to me, but I know it is controversial.) --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of UK Indie Breakers Chart number-one albums from the 2010s, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of UK Indie Breakers Chart number-one albums from the 2000s. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article List of UK Indie Breakers Chart number ones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not necessary- simply a redirect to already established articles

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zzaffuto118 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Son of God (TV series) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Son of God (TV series) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks A Thousand Doors for helping to promote Son of God (TV series) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you have made a many contributions to the UK charts series of articles. I've recently created a similar series of articles of the U.S. singles charts by decade, which are built the same way the British ones are (by decade and with statistics).

These are the articles​​:

• List of Billboard number-one singles of the 1940s (U.S.)
• List of Billboard number-one singles during 1950–1958 (U.S.)
• List of Hot 100 number-one singles during 1958–1969 (U.S.)
• List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1970s (U.S.)
• List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1980s (U.S.)
• List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1990s (U.S.)
• List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.)
• List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

Unfortunately, there are some Wikipedians whom oppose keeping these articles around, claiming that they are essentially a duplication of information which already exists in other articles (namely, the extended articles covering individual years in the U.S. singles chart) and therefore they are in their opinion redundant – even though in my opinion, these articles present the chart lists more effectively (through sortable lists with reduced redundant data) and contain statistics by decade which does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia. Despite this opposition, so far three of these articles have ​​survived individual AfDs. Nevertheless, according to this current ongoing deletion review it seems that very soon another bigger AfD is going to be held in which the fate of ALL these articles is going to be determined in a voting. I myself believe that these articles have a lot of potential and could be further expanded/developed. Nevertheless, if this potential would not be demonstrated soon enough, I fear the outcome of the upcoming voting, knowing that many Wikipedians might not see the value in such a series and/or its potential to be further expanded/developed.

Because you have had a lot of experience in developing the British charts articles, I assume you might have some good insights on how to expanding this series of articles as well. I would appreciate any help you would be able to provide in expanding/developing this series of articles.

Thanks in advance. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this is certainly quite a polarising issue, thanks for bringing it to my attention. From the looks of the deletion review, it appears that the lists are going to be restored and then put up at AfD all together, so I think I'll just wait until that happens and then throw my comments in at that point. For what it's worth, I think there are merits to both ways of displaying the information. I'll have a think about which format I prefer though... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks anyway. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Classical Artist Albums Chart number ones from the 2010s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Classic FM

List of Specialist Classical Albums Chart number ones from the 2010s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Classic FM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have addressed your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Rihanna/archive1. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Rihanna/archive1. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. You happened to mention in the FLC for the List of Chartjackers episodes that you had watched the series, so you're probably more familiar with its scope than most other editors. I recently nominated the three Chartjackers articles to become a Good Topic (see here). Would you mind looking over the nom and offering your comments, whether positive or negative? V_oBEDD 09:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can do. Not all too familiar with topics on Wikipedia, but I shall have a look over it and leave some comments for you. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you have taken it upon yourself to change the official dates on this chart. Please remove these dates. You have credited every album as reaching No.1 on Sunday which is incorrect. The Official charts use Saturday as its chart date. The only other option available to you would be to use each Tuesday.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a perennial debate for which, to the best of my knowledge, no clear consensus has been reached. My reasoning for listing the singles by the date that they reached number one rather than their week ending date is that this is clearer and more intuitive to our readers. I believe that the main reason why someone would want to look up the list of UK number ones is to find out which single was number one on a particular date – under the current system, that would just be whichever single was number-one on the date in question, or immediately before it. Asking them to subtract six days first makes the information more prone to being misunderstood. The OCC's search facility lists number ones from the day that they topped the chart, e.g. a search for what was the number-one album on 10 March 1975 returns that it was Pysical Graffiti by Led Zeppelin. Using the week ending dates instead could easily confuse a reader into thinking that it was On the Level by Status Quo, although that was not the case. This is why I believe that it is in our best interests to use dates of reaching number one, rather than the week ending dates. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but these albums didn't reach No.1 on Sunday. Reggatta de Blanc reached No.1 on week-ending 13 October 1979 (Saturday), but in fact it reached No.1 on 9 October (Tuesday), you have it as 7 October, so whichever you choose, the dates you have are wrong. On the 7 October The Pleasure Principle was still No.1.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

But that's not what the source says. If you search for 7 October 1979 on the OCC's site, it states that Reggatta be Blanc was the number-one album, Eat to the Beat was at two, and The Pleasure Principle was at three. Also, if you're saying that pre-1987 singles/albums didn't technically become number ones until Tuesday, then that would mean, for example, that "I Love You" by Cliff Richard & The Shadows didn't top the chart until 27 December 1960. But this would imply that it wasn't the 1960 Christmas number one, and we can verify from the OCC's previous website that it was. My understanding has been (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that an album's time at number one officially began on the Sunday, but that it wasn't actually announced as the number one until the Tuesday. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the sources for the OCC given on the article state the week-ending date, which is what we should also use. It's not for us to decide which date to use. Either way the latest No.1 wasn't known until Tuesday, so the previous Sunday was the previous week's No.1, so yes, if you went back to the day of 7 October 1979 the current No.1 was The Pleasure Principle. Yes, "I Love You" by Cliff Richard wasn't the Christmas No.1 regardless of what anything else says (although its sales for its week at No.1 are taken from the week over Christmas, but that's a different argument), but nothing we can do about that, we have to go with the sources, whether right or wrong.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... All right, you've convinced me. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. But now you've mentioned it, maybe we can change "I Love You" since it clearly wasn't No.1 on Christmas Day in 1960 Or maybe not , actually I'm done! --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I used this website as a source - http://www.onlineweb.com/theones/ - some years have "number of number ones" - other years don't, so I had to just count them. Generally I only counted new number ones in a given year. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• And again lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4