Talk:Cher albums discography

Cher decleared

In many interview Cher decleared that it is her 26th studio album and not 25! So ad Back Black Rose, that, according To her and To a book about her, is been re released in 1999 as a solo album by her, so please, change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.33.64.190 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE READ

If You ready on If You Believe or the original CD release of Black Rose It's clearly written that it was her 17th solo studio album! so he New Will be' her 26th

Warning!! PLEASE READ

you cant just come in to this page and write what you feel is correct, make sure you have proof to your conclusions, for example to that person that wrote cher sells more the 250 million albums thats very innapropriate as you dont have proof or any citations to this, also how sure are you on the shoop shoop song sales, why have you doubled them? i need evidence and asap or your info will be removed, and ill have to report to an administrator Rsf7589 05:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole page is unreferenced. It quotes figures as being factual without any reference. They much have come from somewhere? If someone can quote the references and validate the data, please do so. Otherwise it is meaningless numbers Maggott2000 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Videography

I don't think the videography should be merged back into the Cher discography page. For one the Cher discography page is too big in size. 2) The videography has been rearanged and reedited with more specific details. Rsf7589 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is long, but it just seems like the videography is essentially creating another article about very similar subject, even though one deals with physical singles and the other deals with videos. Perhaps instead of splitting off the Videography, the Sonny and Cher discography could be split? That seems a more reasonable separation. If not, I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with the videography being separate. GassyGuy 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Videography

i guess i have no problem making a sonny and cher discography but the videography does indeed look good on its own, but either way no problem with me for any changes Rsf7589 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sales figures

There is no evidence for any of these sales. As such I (or anyone) can amend any of these figures, and the detail cannot be disputed as any new figure is as dubious as the old figure. Having said that, there is alreasy a disclaimer that these are 'estimates', therefore an estimate is based on the probability of the sale being made. In most cases, as Cher was mainly an American artist selling well in her native America (excluding 'Believe'), then record accreditations given for sales by RIAA would be the most appropriate estimate. Even allowing for 100% markup for rest of world does not get you even close to the figures quoted (up to 1000% markup on US sales = impossible. that is not pov, or assumption, that is fact). Therefore either all sales NOT referenced should be removed, or anyone who can give credible information as to why data is better suited that current data is entitled to correct. 60.234.242.196 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example. This page says 'Heart of Stone' sold 10.8m. It was certified RIAA 3 X Platinum. Link says 4.5m less than HALF mentioned. 60.234.242.196 02:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

'Living Proof' went gold (500,000 copies) in the US. This discography says sold 6.4m. Only link I can find says sold 700,000 in US (believeable) and 3m worldwide (believeable). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.242.196 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Singles sales are equally fictional. Refer [1] which has 'Strong Enough' at 3.72m 'points'. Of which 49% is sales, making the figure to be approx. 1.85m yet here it is 4.2 million. Removing. 59.124.99.83 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the figures on this page are total crap. I do not FOR ONE MOMENT think that the "Believe" album sold 20 million copies. The US and UK figures together account for less than 5 million copies, so where did the other 15 million copies allegedly sell? The source given for it is a Rolling Stone article, but this is hardly certifiable proof of anything. I want to see evidence of official record industry certifications, not some coked-up journalist inventing "facts".79.65.92.202 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost unknown fact

It's almost unknown fact but in 1976 was released Cher's single "A Love Like Yours (Don't Come Knocking Every Day)" / "Just Enough To Keep Me Hangin' On" - Duet Cher with Harry Nilsson. File:LoveLikeYours.JPG

Missing compilation album

The 1992 Bang Bang & Other Hits seems to have been left out from the compilation section. Wasted Time R 10:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

TSORT is not a valid source for sales information

The sales figures in this article are inflated to a degree that is so far beyond credibility as to be satirical. I checked one of the references, TSORT [2], which is a supposed source for these statistics and could find no specific sales claims. The site consists of data compiled by a group of music fans who are averaging the chart information from a number of charts, some of which are redundant and some of which are non-notable. Even if all these figures were notable, the fact that this is a fan site doing the collation and computation makes it invalid as a source. Personally I would note that the entire continent of South America and half of Europe seems to be omitted from the chart sampling. The site referenced actually features this disclaimer about their source for sales figures that would be found on its pages:

"The claimed sales for a number of singles as reported in Wikipedia. Such lists are usually inaccurate and this one is certainly incomplete."

Even if all of the above problems did not exist, Wikipedia cannot quote a site which itself is quoting Wikipedia.

Beyond the question of the accuracy of what may or may not have at one time been featured on that fansite, there are some very disingenuous claims being made in this discography:

"Carousel Man" is listed as having sold half a million copies, when it was a promo only release, meaning that it would have been illegal to have sold even a single copy. One does not sell half a million copies of a single and fail to hit any sales chart anywhere in the world, and this is listed as having hit only the airplay chart in the U.S. It is my understanding that there was not a weekly national airplay chart printed in Billboard at that time, but I could be mistaken. Can anybody cite this?

"The Shoop Shoop Song (It's In His Kiss)" is listed as having sold seven million copies, with the TSORT site as a reference. The TSORT site says no such thing. On a separate Wiki page, List of best-selling singles worldwide, this single is listed as having sold five million copies. The same TSORT site is given as a reference on that page. For the time being, I have left the "Worldwide" listing as is and changed this page to five million, but until it is sourced and cited, it is subject to removal.

"I Found Someone" is listed as having gone Platinum in the U.S., when it has not even been certified Gold. "Strong Enough" is listed as having been certified RIAA Gold when it only peaked at #57, and Platinum in the UK when in fact its certification level was Silver. These things aren't slight exaggerations, they're so far beyond credibility as to cast a negative light on this article and those who would present fabricated numbers and awards as encyclopedic fact. This is beneath an artist of Cher's distinguished longevity and notable achievements.

While I have removed and recalculated some egregious falsehoods, I will not remove all questionable sales and award claims as, for one thing, I know that the RIAA site is often incomplete. If these figures are accurate, please provide valid citations for the numbers given and/or discuss this issue here within a reasonable time frame, or the uncited sales numbers, and the award claims which are not supported by the RIAA site, are likely to be removed by myself or another editor. Please note that whatever figures are changed on or removed from this page should be similarly edited in their respective song and album articles, and total sales claims adjusted accordingly. Abrazame (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As the administrator of the TsorT site I would like to agree. The site has quoted sales figures from various sources (including Wikipedia) however, as the quote from us above makes clear, we have always found that such numbers are unreliable and have never endorsed any sales figures. The TsorT data can never be used to support sales figures, that was never the intention of the site. Our data should only be used to support information about the positions of songs or albums in various charts around the world.

I think that dismissing our data as just a fan site is, however, unfair. We clearly quote all the sources for our charts, we have consolidated a large volume of complex data in a way that we feel is both valuable and unique. True we don't have charts for South America, primarily because such charts are not available, but also because the music market there is insignificant. We do have charts for all the major European markets, again only omitting countries, such as Spain, where reliable charts are not available to us. We continue to incorporate any new charts that we can, we allow our readers to decide which charts are non-notable.

Stating that Wikipedia cannot quote a site which itself is quoting Wikipedia is clearly wrong. Quoting a data item from a site whose source is Wikipedia is clearly redundant, and should be avoided, however the majority of our information comes from other, referenced, sources. This information can, surely, be valuable in helping improve Wikipedia's coverage. Steve.hawtin (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a number of false album certifications and replaced them with the actual RIAA certs. For a number of the false ones, some editors did cite the RIAA database for album certs that they had to know were blatantly false. I've also removed virtually all sales figures from the article, with the exception of a few that do have some source. I don't want to get into some sort of edit war over them but more than enough time has passed for sources to be found for them. I've also removed sections listing all the various number one and top ten albums and singles that she's had as well as a section listing every single she's ever made. All those sections accomplish is to make the article unnecessarily long and redundant. All that information can be found in her album and single chart histories.Odin's Beard (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More info

I've added more info in the discography:

• Special editions
• Box set compilations
• Other live recordings
• Other soundtrack albums featuring Cher songs.

.Kekkomereq4 (User talk:Kekkomereq4) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Certifications

Why is someone removing certifications for the following albums:

Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves - US Gold.

Heart Of Stone - AUS 4x Platinum.

Love Hurts - AUS Platinum.

The Very Best of Cher - CAN Platinum.

VH1 DIVAS Live 1999 - US Gold.

All those certifications are confirmed and should be listed!

First of all, sign your comments.

• Could you point out for me, where exactly ARIA has 4x Platinum for Heart of Stone and Platinum for Love Hurts posted on here?
• The RIAA doesn't have Gold certification posted for Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves. On my talk page, you're claiming that Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves is posted under Cher. Well, on page 10 for Cher album results, the column of Release Date on RIAA database states November 1987, which is Cher (1987 album), not the Chér (1966 album). Note that it's the same album on page 6 turning Platinum in 1992.--Harout72 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Take a better look: the release date of Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves under the name Cher states November 1987, but the certification date states April 1972. Clearly there is something wrong. Also, the release date of the "Gypsys" single states December 1969, but it was actually released two years later. The RIAA website is not always correct. Lordelliott (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the ARIA database doesn't have certification for albums and singles prior to 1997 so those albums (Cher 1987, Heart of Stone and Love Hurts) cannot be referenced from there.

Regarding the RIAA database, yes it has many errors concerning Cher's certifications so if you read carefully it has ALL Cher's/Sonny and Cher's 1960s/70s releases listed as being released on December 31, 1969 so you should use the certification date and Label as a reference.

The album "GYPSYS, TRAMPS & THIEVES" was firstly released under the name of "Cher" but as the single became a hit, and there was already a 1966 studio album titled "Cher" they changed it to "GYPSYS, TRAMPS & THIEVES". So if you compare the single and album certification dates as well as the label (KAPP) it is the album which is certified Gold. Now that I've checked the RIAA, it seems that the 1987 Cher album is not listed at all because it was released under the Geffen label not Kapp and was certified Gold in May 1988. So, the Platinum certification might be for the 1971 album Cher, which was later renamed to - Gypsys, Tramps and Thieves and not the 1987 Cher Geffen album which would mean it is only Gold.

[User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncleangelo, you're assuming that the Platinum certification might be for the 1971 album Cher? That violates WP:Verifiability. So you have no explanation as to what the Platinum-award is for certified in 1992? The bottom line is, that the album's name is Cher and its release date is November 1987, which correlates perfectly with Cher (1987 album), now we can't play guessing games here when in fact you're simply trying to argue your point based on the name of a label. We need the correct album name too, that is Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves. We don't have the name the latter, and nor do we have the release date of the latter. So what are we supposed to keeping WP:Verifiability in mind?--Harout72 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A simple Google Books research would solve the problem. Lordelliott (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that supports the name change of the album from Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves to Cher, if yes then, I think we can place the Platinum-award in the table for Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves with a footnote, explaining why the certification's posted as Cher.--Harout72 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=zH6rkKoFLWkC&pg=PA72. Lordelliott (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant a reliable source, not a self published book. Perhaps an article by Billboard that states the change of the title for whatever reason.--Harout72 (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a reliable source. Lordelliott (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not interested in proving anything. My point is that the RIAA database is not always correct. Lordelliott (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_sources: Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information: Who is the author or creator of the work? Who is the publisher of the work? If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published. This book is not self-published. Cheers. Lordelliott (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes that a reliable source? We need an article like this for example published by a third party reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a book from a reputed author and an established publisher. What makes that an unreliable source? Lordelliott (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A good starting point for you would be WP:RSN to find how what is and isn't regarded as a third party reliable source. Anyways, I already included the note with a source.--Harout72 (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Finally, thank you guys, I'm new at this wiki stuff so I hope you won't hold it against me. As I said, to us the Cher fans, it is a very well known fact that the Gypsies album was initially titled Cher, and that it got certified under that name. Now the problem is, it is also a known fact that Cher 1987 by Geffen is certified Gold in the US in May 1988, it reached #32 on the charts and had a #10 and #14 hits on Hot 100, why it is not in the RIAA database I don't know. The mix-up must be due to the albums of same name, cause the fact that they included 1987 release date is an indication that the album is somewhere in their files. Also here you can read Cher's career time-line and see that Cher (1987) was certified in 1988 http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-c/cher_main.htm

So the bottom line is, both "Cher(Gypsies)" and "Cher(1987)" are Gold, but the question is which one is Platinum? Anyway, thanks for cooperation! [User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cher 1987 is Platinum. Lordelliott (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

RIAA doesn't seem to have issued any certifications for the Cher (1987), both the Gold and the Platinum are for Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves (Cher). Certifications are not automatic, record companies must submit a fee with a proof of units shipped, in order to get albums/singles/videos certified. In the case of Cher 1987, if at all shipped as many as 500,000 (Gold) or 1,000,000 (Platinum) in the U.S., seems like the fee has yet to be submitted by Cher's record company. --Harout72 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Check out http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/from-i-found-someone-to-believe-all-of-chers-biggest-80s-and-90s-hits-on-new-the-best-of-cher-vol-2-73370697.html. Cher (1987) was certified Platinum. Lordelliott (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC

---

Here's how the certifications are:

Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves - Gold.

Cher 1987 - Platinum.

---

The 1971 Cher (GT&T) was certified Gold on April of 1972.

The 1987 Cher was certified Gold on May 1988 and Platinum in 1992.

---

RIAA database mixed it up but I hope that we can find reliable sources to back up the true certifications. For example I read those certifications in ""Q Rock Stars Encyclopedia" by Dafydd Rees and Luke Crampton, Dorling Kindersley, 1999" http://www.worldcat.org/title/q-rock-stars-encyclopedia/oclc/48982455 and other books about Cher's career which came out before there was an online RIAA database. I think it is only fair to give credit where it is due and not to take away Cher's accomplishments because of a glitch-ed website.

[User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

---

ARIA and RIANZ Certifications

Can someone add the Australian certifications for the following albums:

1987 Cher - Platinum (#32) 1989 Heart of Stone - 4x Platinum (#1) 1991 Love Hurts - Platinum (#15)

The current ARIA website only has accreditations for albums after 1998 so another source is needed.

Also the New Zealand certification are missing and according to this book "Scapolo, Dean (2007). The Complete New Zealand Music Charts 1966-2006. Maurienne House. ISBN 1-877443-00-X" they should be:

1989 Heart Of Stone #7 26 weeks 1x Platinum 1991 Love Hurts #4 23 weeks 2x Platinum 1992 Greatest Hits 1965 - 1992 #6 12 weeks 4x Platinum 1998 Believe #1 for 4 weeks 37 weeks 2x Platinum 1999 Greatest Hits #15 12 weeks 1x Platinum

Thanks!

[User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide scans for Australia's certifications please. New Zealand's certifications should be left out as we don't have NZ's peaks, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Per-release (bullet 8).--Harout72 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I read that article but don't get it, the peaks for these Cher's albums are known and according to the person who has the book "Scapolo, Dean (2007). The Complete New Zealand Music Charts 1966-2006. Maurienne House. ISBN 1-877443-00-X" the NZ certifications are credible. please read here http://charts.org.nz/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=39053

Regarding the Australian source, I'm searching for something credible but there's person who contacted ARIA and got a following response that these are the certifications there for Cher's singles/albums/DVDs:

Title Name Accreditation

Cher - Gold

Just Like Jesse James - Gold

Strong Enough - Gold

Love Hurts - Platinum

The Shoop Shoop Song (It's In His Kiss) - Platinum

The Very Best Of Cher: The Video Hits Collection (DVD) - Platinum

Believe (album) - 2x Platinum

If I Could Turn Back Time 2x - Platinum

Live In Concert (DVD) 2x Platinum

The Very Best Of Cher - 2x Platinum

Believe (single) - 3x Platinum

The Greatest Hits 3x Platinum

Heart Of Stone - 4x Platinum

The Farewell Tour (DVD) - 8x Platinum

Which brings Cher's certified sales in Australia to total of 1 530 000 copies and not 885,000 as listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

Maybe you can email them and check as I think that would be a sufficient proof.

charts.mail@aria.com.au

Thanks![User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

When editing in the same section, don't separate your posting from the original one by hitting the hyphen button, I removed all of it. The e-mail cannot be used to support certifications on here or at the List of best-selling music artists, unless of course it's in PDF format and has ARIA's official logo. If it's in PDF format with official ARIA logo, you might want to ask your friend to upload the file on Mediafire.com so we all can see the proof. If not, we'll just have to have to wait for ARIA to post those certifications on their website. And often times they do, when older albums/singles/videos get re-certified. As for New Zealand, we should have only 10 columns for chart peaks per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Per-release (bullet 6). And since New Zealand is a very small music market (see Global music industry market share data), there is no need to add it by removing another market's peaks as all other markets in the table are much bigger music markets.--Harout72 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I contacted ARIA myself and this is what I got http://www.mediafire.com/view/?xaij7r71ngxbgqe Hopefully it will suffice to include the certifications for Cher 1987, Heart of Stone and Love Hurts. Also, as mentioned before, the overall accredited records for Cher in Aus is 1 530 000 (not counting Divas Live 99) so the 885 000 at the best selling artists page could be updated. Thanks, much appreciated!!! [User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I was actually referring to a file such as this for example, something that came directly from their database. I'm not sure if your e-mail should be accepted. But I'll consider adding/supporting the rest of Australia's certified sales with the e-mail you've received, both at the List of best-selling music artists and here. However, it might get challenged by another editor as it's not an official document, it's just an e-mail.--Harout72 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you obtain a file such as that one? I've asked for the data and that's what I got from ARIA, you can see the person's email, logo and of course if someone really wants to double check it he/she can ask them, they answered me in a day. Anyway all those certifications can be checked here where there's all the certified albums in Aus from 1990 to 2012 www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=94272 I think that the file should be included as a reference, also I've seen that on some other singers' discography pages the early AUS accreditations are listed referring this book Kent, David (2003). Australian Chart Book 1970–1992. ISBN 0-646-11917-6 where the same info on Cher is listed. Again these are not false or inflated numbers, they could be checked... Thank you again! [User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, all associations have office databases, and the file I provided as an example, is from Canada's CRIA's database (CRIA is now Music Canada). Similarly, ARIA has such office database for certifications, that's where the person you contacted at ARIA looked them all up and listed in your e-mail. I am not, by the way, suggesting that they're false, I'm merely saying that it's not the official document that the ARIA has in their database for Cher. Also, what makes the forum at ukmix.org reliable? Are those certifications posted by the staff of the ARIA? Do you have a copy of David Kent's (2003) Australian Chart Book 1970–1992 in your possession? If yes, could you provide a scan for only Cher's certifications, at least for those that aren't posted at ARIA's site. I'll wait for your reply before I proceed with changing Cher's total certified sales for Australia at the List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I explained it in the email to ARIA that the data is needed to support the accreditations and if they can send me an excerpt from their database, and that was what i got. Surely, the ukmix list could not be taken into account but all the claims match with other sources. Anyway, I don't have the mentioned book but I don't see why there should be a problem in citing it if the pdf is not enough, it's not like the other discography pages. which have the book as a reference. have the scan... I guess it's up to your good will now, as the accreditations are real and can be checked. Thanks! [User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing chart position

The US peak of the 1966 album Chér is missing because the source does not have it. Lordelliott (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it maybe because the WP:Verifiability states: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.? --Harout72 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just wanted to point it out. Lordelliott (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Black Rose - should it be moved in the "Other albums" section?

Black Rose was a band and the self-titled album was their only record, and the fact that a third hand record company decided to put "Cher" on it and re-release it as such during the time when Cher was on top doesn't change the history of how the album originated. A lot of Cher books don't include it in the main Cher albums discography so my suggestion would be to move it to the "Other albums" category along with 'Allman and Woman', with a note that it was released in 1999 credited only to Cher. Thoughts? [User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've dug up a little further and found this info, which I included on the main Black Rose page: "In Germany, Spectrum Records re-released the Black Rose album, completely intact, for the first time on a CD. It was packaged with a photo of Cher singing in concert and marketed as a Cher album, instead of a Black Rose group album." It is from a reliable Cher book: If you Believe here is the link to the page http://books.google.rs/books?id=zH6rkKoFLWkC&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=spectrum+record+label+Cher&source=bl&ots=ZDRxJuY-SL&sig=DsIwGLfAT_mGv6j04kFkU-2_Qgk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VIByUbSbDsmMO4fCgMAB&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=spectrum%20record%20label%20Cher&f=false

therefore I am putting the Black Rose album in the other albums section as it was not re-released by one of Cher's labels and is indeed a group not a solo record. thank you. [User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Discography changes?

Since there is only 1 studio album which is certified in France (Platinum - 300k) it would be better to insert Spain instead:

Studio albums in Spain:

• 1998 Believe #2 /49/ 4x PLATINUM (400k)
• 2001 Living proof #17 /2/ PLATINUM (100k)

These are the compilations in Spanish charts, but it shouldn't be edited yet:

• 1993 Greatest hits 65-92 #23 /20 weeks/
• 1999 The Greatest hits #5 /13/ PLATINUM (100k)

Also, Cher has 5 certified albums in New Zealand, with top 10 chart peaks so it would be nice to include them too, though it is not a big market.

I will obtain the reliable sources in order to make the changes but just wanted to make sure others agree. thanks! .Uncleangelo (User talk:Uncleangelo) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting the Spanish Platinum for "Living Proof" and "The Greatest Hits"? ALso, keep in mind that we should have 10 columns for peaks, and only the certifications of those markets can be listed, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Per-release (bullets 6,8).--Harout72 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A book called "Sólo éxitos. Año a año. 1959-2002" has all the chart peaks as well as certifications and contains the above info on Cher. Yes I know only 10 columns are allowed, which is why I proposed to remove France or NDL and include Spain for the studio albums section. In both NDL and France there is only 1 certified studio album(2 over all in each - Believe and The Greatest Hits 1999), while in Spain there are 2 studio albums and 1 compilation. Uncleangelo (User talk:Uncleangelo) 01:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You want to remove France and Holland and replace them with Spain and New Zealand? France has the 5th biggest market in the world, while Holland is also a bigger market than Spain. Since the French peaks and the Dutch peaks are immediately verifiable, we should keep them. Do you have scans for the Spanish certifications, or peaks? France has one Platinum directly coming from SNEP, and one Gold posted by Infodisc total of 400,000 units, while New Zealand has 2x Platinum and a Platinum totaling 45,000 units. --Harout72 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What I had in mind was replacing France with Spain in the studio albums section, cause even though it is a bigger market, the Spanish Chart peaks were higher and there are two Spanish certifications (Believe is 4x Platinum and is one of the best selling female albums there, and Living Proof is Platinum) opposite to only one French certification. Also, at a time being Holland is there but no NDL certifications are included, well you've removed them as you've said yourself there are no available online sources to reference. Maybe the NDL column can be replaced for Spanish as at least the Believe certification can be referenced from the Billboard magazine issue Jan 2000? I mentioned New Zealand as Cher has 3 Platinum, one 2x Platinum and one 4x Platinum album there so it would be nice to have them too, though it is a smaller market and again the source is not online... Uncleangelo (User talk:Uncleangelo) 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you know whether or not Spain has better peaks than France? Do you have that book "Sólo éxitos. Año a año. 1959-2002"? We need to have sources through which editors can verify the peaks and certifications. Even if it's a book for Spanish charts, a scans for the peaks and certifications should be provided, if someone wishes to replace other markets in the table which already have online verifiable sources for peaks and certifications. Also, a scan should include a logo or a writing that it is being taken from the so called book. I've seen editors inserting unverifiable peaks and certifications on wikipedia, which in some cases turned out to be non-existent, false peaks and certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

MMmm... It is clear that Cher has had no impact on Latin markets (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese....) Maybe neither (France and/or Spain)? not is mandatory that ten lists appearing in the tables. :) Anyway. Chrishonduras (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I know the peaks/certifications cause several (totally objective) people gave me the same info from the book, and yes Chrishonduras has a point in a way, while there should be 10 markets of course, why keep the ones where there was no bigger impact. That being said, the columns should stay as is for now, but once I obtain the sources for Spain, I think it should be be there as it's a Latin market where Cher was most successful - albums wise, of course for albums and singles together the sales are better in France though... But as someone wrote, you should get the book Harout, that way you can check right away if the info is true and update all the sales for previous decades in the best selling artists list. thanks.. Uncleangelo (User talk:Uncleangelo) 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the scans for referencing Cher's chart peaks and certifications in Spain, http://www.mediafire.com/view/?s5qkldd20v3ifkt from the "Sólo éxitos. Año a año. 1959-2002" book, there are 8 files, each showing the albums which peaked at a certain position, official weekly charts showing the certification and the last file is a list of certified albums by various artists.

• In 1993 - "Greatest hits 65-92" #23
• In 1998 - "Believe" peaked at #2 and on the official chart from the book dating in June 1999 we see it is 4** which means 4x 100 000 units or 4x Platinum
• In 1999 we can see that "The Greatest Hits" peaked at #5 and that in the week of 15-20 of November it was certified Platinum (** = 100 000 units)
• In 2001 "Living Proof" peaked at #17 and was certified Platinum (** = 100 000 units), the last file shows Platinum and Multi Platinum albums, and the numbers show the level of certification

Uncleangelo (User talk:Uncleangelo) 19:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Greatest Hits 1999 in Canada

Adding Canadian chart peak for If I Could Turn Back Time: Cher's Greatest Hits album, and adding Platinum cert to it while removing it from The Greatest Hits which was a European release.

If I Could Turn Back Time: Cher's Greatest Hits was a Northern American release, it debuted on the Canadian charts at #17, and while it says "Greatest Hits" here http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.9968&type=1&interval=50&PHPSESSID=m94l6sq56kmlsmblmqjrhg9fh5 you can see that in the next week's chart and during its entire run it says IICTBT:CGH, here's the 2nd week chart http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.9940&type=1&interval=50&PHPSESSID=m94l6sq56kmlsmblmqjrhg9fh5

The confusion was also made by a glitch in the Music Canada's database showing that "The Greatest Hits" is Platinum, but that album was not released in Canada, and it didn't chart there so the Platinum certification belongs to IICTBT:CGH, as it charted there for 6 months.

Uncleangelo (User talk:Uncleangelo) 00:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alan Jackson albums discography which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand charts and certifications

As I have obtained a PDF file with all of Cher's chart peaks and certifications in NZ from a person who wrote a few chart books on Aus and NZ chart - Dean Scapolo (but expressed his email shouldn't be included on the file) I will replace the French charts with the ones of NZ, as, even though it is a smaller market than France, it was more consistent for Cher throughout the years: http://www.mediafire.com/view/mj45577gzeuh3gz/NZ_charts_Cher.pdf Also as there is only one certification from Norway in the compilations sections, I will replace it with NZ ones too. Hope it is OK, thanks! [User:Uncleangelo|Uncleangelo]] (talk) 15:05, 03 April 2014 (UTC)

A small market such as New Zealand should never replace any of the top five larger music markets in chart tables. New Zealand's music market ranked No.29 in terms of Music Sales in 2010, and never made it into the Top-20 neither in 2011 nor in 2012 (this information is based on IFPI). Whereas France is always No.5 latest music market in the world in terms of Retail Value, not to mention that one Platinum-award coming from France which is for sales of 300,000 units, can easily be more than all of the sales generated by New Zealand for all Cher's records combined. What's worse, your file has absolutely no evidence as to where it is taken from, no signs of reliability whatsoever. So it is not ok to use that file for chart peaks. Also, it's unclear what each column represents, in other words, how can one tell which column represents the highest peak or weeks on chart? That info is missing. In any case it should not be used.--Harout72 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)