Talk:List of UK singles chart number ones of the 1960s

List of UK singles chart number ones of the 1960s is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 16, 2010	Featured list candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 20, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Beatles (pictured) had 17 number-one singles during the 1960s in the United Kingdom?

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Record Charts Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 12 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1960s to List of UK singles chart number ones of the 1960s. The result of the discussion was moved.

Something

The Official UK Charts Company would disagree with the charts for this decade. Since they are more widely accepted as choosing the correct charts for the period from 1950 - 1969, I believe just as the 1950's the charts they use should be used. After all, you cannot claim in one article that the Beatles had 17 UK #1's, yet somehow in this article show they had 18 (Please Please Me was NOT a #1 single).

Please Please Me was a number one single, despite the OCC throwing their weight around. But yeah, ideally we should list number ones for all the major charts, I just haven't got around to adding all the other ones in yet. Bonalaw 14:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great if all four of the major UK charts were listed (Please Please Me got to #1 in 3 of the 4, so it was by all means a #1 hit). The NME chart was the most widley used chart for most of the 1960s. Even in 1969 a lot of people still went by the NME chart. "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love To Town" by Kenny Rogers and The First Edition for example reached #1 in the NME chart in 1969 and was dethroned by Stevie Wonder's "Yester me, yester you, yesterday", both of which were widely hailed as #1 hit's of the year, but now the OCC tell us "they only got to #2". 74.65.39.59 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very happy to do it for you, if you would provide me with the necessary information or let me know of a place where I could access it. (Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I don't know of an online source for the Record Mirror charts but I have the number ones on paper; I'll add those when I have time. I believe a list of Melody Maker's no1s was posted on the Chart & Music forum at www.sheepmusic.co.uk recently. The Record Retailer no1s are available on many different sites, of course; [www.everyhit.com] is a useful one which I used in adding the existing RR no1s. The format I proposed to use is demonstrated on the 1950s number ones page but I only ever did one year with the RM charts alongside NME. --Bonalaw 16:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's the MM no1s up to April '66 from that thread on sheepmusic I mentioned.

12 Mar 60 Poor Me Adam Faith 1
19 Mar 60 Running Bear Johnny Preston 2
02 Apr 60 My Old Man's A Dustman Lonnie Donegan 2
16 Apr 60 Stuck On You Elvis Presley 1
23 Apr 60 My Old Man's A Dustman Lonnie Donegan 1
30 Apr 60 Do You Mind Anthony Newley 1
07 May 60 Cathy's Clown The Everly Brothers 9
09 Jul 60 Good Timin' Jimmy Jones 3
30 Jul 60 Please Don't Tease Cliff Richard And The Shadows 4
27 Aug 60 Apache The Shadows 4
24 Sep 60 A Mess Of Blues/The Girl Of My Best Friend Elvis Presley 1
01 Oct 60 Tell Laura I Love Her Ricky Valance 2
15 Oct 60 Only The Lonely Roy Orbison 3
05 Nov 60 It's Now Or Never Elvis Presley 8
31 Dec 60 I Love You Cliff Richard And The Shadows 1

07 Jan 61 Poetry In Motion Johnny Tillotson 3
28 Jan 61 Are You Lonesome Tonight? Elvis Presley 5
04 Mar 61 Ebony Eyes/Walk Right Back The Everly Brothers 3
25 Mar 61 Wooden Heart Elvis Presley 6
06 May 61 You're Driving Me Crazy The Temperance Seven 1
13 May 61 Blue Moon The Marcels 2
27 May 61 Runaway Del Shannon 1
03 Jun 61 Surrender Elvis Presley 3
24 Jun 61 Runaway Del Shannon 5
29 Jul 61 Temptation The Everly Brothers 1
05 Aug 61 Well I Ask You Eden Kane 1
12 Aug 61 You Don't Know Helen Shapiro 2
26 Aug 61 Johnny Remember Me John Leyton 6
07 Oct 61 Kon-Tiki The Shadows 1
14 Oct 61 Michael The Highwaymen 1
21 Oct 61 Walkin' Back To Happiness Helen Shapiro 4
18 Nov 61 His Latest Flame/Little Sister Elvis Presley 3
09 Dec 61 Tower Of Strength Frankie Vaughan 3
30 Dec 61 Stranger On The Shore Mr Acker Bilk 2

13 Jan 62 The Young Ones Cliff Richard And The Shadows 6
24 Feb 62 Rock-A-Hula Baby/Can't Help Falling In Love Elvis Presley 4
24 Mar 62 Wonderful Land The Shadows 8
19 May 62 Nut Rocker B. Bumble And The Stingers 1
26 May 62 Good Luck Charm Elvis Presley 6
07 Jul 62 Come Outside Mike Sarne With Wendy Richard 1
14 Jul 62 A Picture Of You Joe Brown And The Bruvvers 1
21 Jul 62 I Can't Stop Loving You Ray Charles 1
28 Jul 62 I Remember You Frank Ifield 8
22 Sep 62 She's Not You Elvis Presley 2
06 Oct 62 Telstar The Tornados 6
17 Nov 62 Lovesick Blues/She Taught Me How To Yodel Frank Ifield 5
22 Dec 62 Return To Sender Elvis Presley 2

05 Jan 63 The Next Time/Bachelor Boy Cliff Richard And The Shadows 4
02 Feb 63 Diamonds Jet Harris And Tony Meehan 4
02 Mar 63 Please Please Me The Beatles 2
16 Mar 63 Summer Holiday Cliff Richard And The Shadows 3
06 Apr 63 Foot Tapper The Shadows 1
13 Apr 63 How Do You Do It? Gerry And The Pacemakers 3
04 May 63 From Me To You The Beatles 6
15 Jun 63 Do You Want To Know A Secret? Billy J. Kramer And The Dakotas 1
22 Jun 63 I Like It Gerry And The Pacemakers 4
20 Jul 63 Confessin' (That I Love You) Frank Ifield 3
10 Aug 63 Sweets For My Sweet The Searchers 2
24 Aug 63 Bad To Me Billy J. Kramer And The Dakotas 2
07 Sep 63 She Loves You The Beatles 5
12 Oct 63 Do You Love Me Brian Poole And The Tremeloes 2
26 Oct 63 You'll Never Walk Alone Gerry And The Pacemakers 4
23 Nov 63 She Loves You The Beatles 2
07 Dec 63 I Want To Hold Your Hand The Beatles 5

11 Jan 64 Glad All Over The Dave Clark Five 3
01 Feb 64 Needles And Pins The Searchers 3
22 Feb 64 Anyone Who Had A Heart Cilla Black 4
21 Mar 64 Little Children Billy J. Kramer And The Dakotas 1
28 Mar 64 Can't Buy Me Love The Beatles 3
18 Apr 64 A World Without Love Peter And Gordon 2
02 May 64 Don't Throw Your Love Away The Searchers 2
16 May 64 Juliet The Four Pennies 2
30 May 64 You're My World Cilla Black 3
20 Jun 64 It's Over Roy Orbison 2
04 Jul 64 The House Of The Rising Sun The Animals 1
11 Jul 64 It's All Over Now The Rolling Stones 1
18 Jul 64 A Hard Day's Night The Beatles 4
15 Aug 64 Do Wah Diddy Diddy Manfred Mann 2
29 Aug 64 Have I The Right The Honeycombs 3
19 Sep 64 You Really Got Me The Kinks 1
26 Sep 64 I'm Into Something Good Herman's Hermits 2
10 Oct 64 Oh, Pretty Woman Roy Orbison 3
31 Oct 64 (There's) Always Something There To Remind Me Sandie Shaw 1
07 Nov 64 Oh, Pretty Woman Roy Orbison 1
14 Nov 64 Baby Love The Supremes 3
05 Dec 64 I Feel Fine The Beatles 6

16 Jan 65 Yeh Yeh Georgie Fame And The Blue Flames 1
23 Jan 65 Go Now The Moody Blues 1
30 Jan 65 You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' The Righteous Brothers 2
13 Feb 65 Tired Of Waiting For You The Kinks 1
20 Feb 65 I'll Never Find Another You The Seekers 2
06 Mar 65 It's Not Unusual Tom Jones 1
13 Mar 65 The Last Time The Rolling Stones 4
10 Apr 65 The Minute You're Gone Cliff Richard 1
17 Apr 65 Ticket To Ride The Beatles 5
22 May 65 Where Are You Now (My Love) Jackie Trent 1
29 May 65 Long Live Love Sandie Shaw 2
12 Jun 65 Crying In The Chapel Elvis Presley 3
03 Jul 65 I'm Alive The Hollies 2
17 Jul 65 Mr Tambourine Man The Byrds 2
31 Jul 65 Help! The Beatles 4
28 Aug 65 I Got You Babe Sonny And Cher 2
11 Sep 65 (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction The Rolling Stones 2
25 Sep 65 Make It Easy On Yourself The Walker Brothers 1
02 Oct 65 Tears Ken Dodd 5
06 Nov 65 Get Off Of My Cloud The Rolling Stones 2
20 Nov 65 The Carnival Is Over The Seekers 4
18 Dec 65 We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper The Beatles 4

15 Jan 66 Keep On Running The Spencer Davis Group 2
29 Jan 66 Michelle The Overlanders 2
12 Feb 66 These Boots Are Made For Walkin' Nancy Sinatra 1
19 Feb 66 19th Nervous Breakdown The Rolling Stones 3
12 Mar 66 Sha La La La Lee The Small Faces 1
19 Mar 66 The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore The Walker Brothers 3
09 Apr 66 Somebody Help Me The Spencer Davis Group 2
23 Apr 66 You Don't Have To Say You Love Me Dusty Springfield 2

--Bonalaw 16:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What has happened to this page?! I've just caused myself embarrasment by using this information - why have the unorthodox charts been used. No original research - the OCC's lead should and will be followed. Dmn € Դմն 22:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't tell whether you're serious or joking. --Bonalaw 09:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OCC's lead should NOT be followed. All major charts are allowed to be included and should be. The chart books now claim The Who "never had a #1 hit", despite the fact "My Generation" was on Top Of The Pops as the #1 single. 74.65.39.59 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this page and others like it will be the start of the ignoring once and for all this ridiculous idea that OCC's lead is anything more than an outrageous rewriting of musical history. Hopefully they'll be a definitive publication out soon that includes all the main charts with equal validity.And as for the person above "Dmn" what planet's he on?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.93.113 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation

I hadn't noticed the thread until two minutes ago, but I hope to have come to a good compromise here. This page documents The Official Charts Company canon and links to:

These are feature lists I have made that cover two of the other main charts used in the 1960s. Reliable sources have not been found for the Melody Maker and Disc charts (and forum posts are not reliable). If and when reliable sources can be found, pages can be made for them too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of number-one singles (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest selling single of 1964

The source that has "I Love You Because" as the biggest selling single is not the Official Charts Company. I think that is based on a points-based system, but based on sales, it is generally accepted that "Can't Buy Me Love" was the biggest seller. It is the Beatles' 3rd biggest selling single ever. In a points-based system, that song does not perform well as it sold large numbers of copies over a short period, and was only 7 weeks inside the top 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.176.31 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that. Indeed, "Can't Buy Me Love" was a million-seller, and probably achieved most of those sales when it was first released in spring 1964. The Jim Reeves record is not a million-seller. I've always had "Sugar Sugar" down as the top seller of 1969, and indeed this article has the † symbol denoting it was. The footnote says "My Way" was the top seller of the year. Overall, "My Way" has sold 989,000 copies (as of 2015), and "Sugar Sugar" had sold 945,000 physical units when it was erroneously awarded a gold disc, presumably during it's original chart run from 1969-70. I'd be interested in further clarification that "My Way" outsold "Sugar Sugar" up to 31 December 1969. --TrottieTrue (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sugar, Sugar had sold a million when it was awarded a Gold Record in 1970. Nothing erroneous about it. It was still widely acknowledged as having sold the million by 1970 in c. 1990. It is more "Official" revisionism to say that Sugar, Sugar(and Apache) never sold a million copies. Where did you get "945,000" from? Did you have access to the record company books and accounts from 1969/1970? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.169 (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1960s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week ending

What's happened here? The dates given are clearly said to be week-ENDING dates as given by the OCC, but they're in fact the week-beginning dates as given by the OCC. To give an example; The Rolling Stones "Honky Tonk Woman" is listed from 23 - 29 July 1969 on the OCC page (the week it reached No.1). The date here listed is 23 July - the day it REACHED No.1, so obviously not the week-ending. The week-ending date is 29 July as given by the OCC. [See here http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/19690723/7501/].Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can see what you're saying, but I think the OCC and Guinness would say that the date that "Honky Tonk Women" reached #1 was 23 July 1969, a Wednesday - which is the day the charts were published according to this article. I would hazard a guess that Record Retailer's chart published on 23 July 1969 was incorporating data for their week-ending on that date. The first NME chart was published in the 14 November 1952 issue, but the chart itself said it was for the week-ending 8 November 1952. All a bit confusing, but an old Guinness British Hit Singles book I have lists 23 July 1969 as the date that "Honky Tonk Women" was at #1. Therefore I think the date on this article is correct. --TrottieTrue (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do however think that the dates might need correcting on this article, as I think they have been standardised to Saturdays for each week, when, as noted, the week-ending day varied upon original publication. It would mean longer the gap is not 7 days at various points, but I think the original chart publication dates should be used here. Or has this already been done? It's very confusing. -- TrottieTrue (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1960s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1960s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Million Sellers

~~Disc Magazine awarded Gold Records to records that had sold a million copies in the UK. Record companies had to provide sales information to Disc. This is all verified, and Reliably Sourced.~~

After BPI took over in 1973, it was claimed that Disc awards were "unofficial". An "Alan Smith" wrote two contradictory accounts, stating that Sugar, Sugar hadn't sold a million, despite multiple RS saying that it had. One is on a forum, the other on a blog. In one version, "Alan Smith" states that the actual number was 945 000, in the other 981 000. So, Mr Smith, which number is "correct"? The OCC website and everyhit website do NOT say that Sugar, Sugar didn't sell a million. They just don't list it(or Apache) in their "million sellers". Whereas, RS much closer to the era say that both records did indeed achieve the million UK sales. Why is this website going off 21st century forums and fanboy websites, which are contradictory, rather than published books, chart magazines etc. FROM THE TIME? If somebody wants to show dispute, fine. But, obviously, it should state that both Apache and Sugar, Sugar sold the million copies, but...in later years...some people dispute these claims.(Even though these ones disputing the numbers have no possible way of verifying the actual sales. And that's not my RS, Mr Smith can't even keep his "actual sales figures" straight from one forum post to the next.) 197.87.135.46 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links... OCC... [1] and everyhit [2]

say nothing about either song "failing to sell a million". In fact, they say nothing at all about either record!

Meanwhile, Mr Smith can't keep his story straight

So, was it "945 000" [3]

or

"981 000" [4].

And, there he says it did reach 1 000 000 in 1971, a mere 33 years before the previous, inaccurate version stated.

POV/OR Mode ON: And it's obvious WHY Sugar, Sugar and Apache were falsely said to have not actually sold the million. A way of discrediting the Disc Sales Awards, and making the BPi ones the "first official ones in the UK"! The irony there comes when anyone picks up the November 2000 issue of Chartwatch, and reads the "How sales are measured article" about the BPI. I'll try and find exact quotes, although it's not truly directly relevant to this article. Yes, both Apache and Sugar, Sugar deserved those Gold Records at the time they were awarded to them. We have the RS. The contrary view is either complete omission(everyhit), or one forum poster who can't keep his own story straight. We can put in, and probably should, that "some people dispute the million sales", but the way it was worded is completely POV and, as shown, utterly without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.46 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears that the same character also claims that The Carnival Is Over didn't sell a million copies either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Disc awards WERE unofficial... where is the claim that they were official? They gave the awards based on information given to them by the record companies, but neither the magazine nor the record companies had access to sales information, only shipments, so there is no evidence that they could prove that a record had sold a million. How do you know that "ASM" on the UKMix forum is the same Alan Smith, and not a user that has just cut and pasted his post from David McAleer's website, and changed Mr. Smith's original post? I also note that ASM says that he got all his information straight from Disc magazine, so if there are any errors, then Disc is the problem. I agree with you that the previous wording was POV, but so are your claims that "it's obvious WHY Sugar, Sugar and Apache were falsely said to have not actually sold the million" and "both Apache and Sugar, Sugar deserved those Gold Records at the time". Richard3120 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your RS that they were "unofficial"? DISC presentations were noted not only in DISC itself, but also, in eg. Record Retailer/Music Week. As well as in major US Music publications. And, as just one example, in Demetri Coryton's Hits of the 60s, he lists all the RIAA Gold Albums from the 60s, as well as all the DISC Silver Records from the 60s. So, are the RIAA Gold Albums "unofficial" too? The US Gold and UK Silver Records are clearly transatlantic counterparts. So, that's an odd definition of "unofficial". Of course, the (unintentionally) funniest part of all is the oft-repeated "excuse" that "DISC didn't keep a constant check of the numbers. The record companies provided DISC with data for units manufactured and shipped to record shops, not actual over-the-counter sales." Firstly, that's EXACTLY how the original Music Certification(RIAA in the USA) awarded Gold Records. And indeed, it's still how the RIAA awards Gold, Platinum, Multi-Platinum and Diamond Records.(Of course, lately also including downloads and streams into the mix.) But, more relevant to this issue is this...

This is the beginning of an article, from November 2000 Chartwatch. I c&p exactly...

- Chartwatch November 2000 (Copyright Neil Rawlings)

"Sales of records vary so much from year to year and from month to month depending upon factors such as economic conditions and Christmas. This is also true of sales awards.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about sales awards. To begin with, these are not “awards” in the sense that some overseeing authority hands them out, but are prizes that have to be claimed. In other words, it isn’t that the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is constantly monitoring record sales to make the awards, but that individual record companies have to go to the BPI with lists of sales in hand and claim the awards. Some record companies, especially the independents, don’t like the idea of BPI officials scrutinizing their account books and never make the claim. So there will always be records that should have received awards but never have.

The second point is that the awards are made for shipments not sales. The accounts that record companies keep are for supplies to the shops, and the number of records manufactured, not the number sold. No-one keeps track of total sales, though the chart compilers Millward Brown monitor sales because the chart is compiled from a panel of record shops, that is it’s a representative sample (between a sixth and a seventh of all shops). So a record may get a sales award even though a proportion of records remain unsold on shops and eventually hit the bargain bins or are returned to the record company on a sale-or-return basis. In truth, no record company is going to press a quarter of a million records unless two hundred thousand or more have been sold; it is unusual for a no.1 record to exceed 150,000 sales in a week, after all.**

Yes, November 2000. Or twenty-seven-and-a-half years into BPI Certifications. The supposed "problems" with DISC are the way BPI certified awards, Let's repeat a few of those phrases, from the BPI...

To begin with, these are not “awards” in the sense that some overseeing authority hands them out, but are prizes that have to be claimed. In other words, it isn’t that the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is constantly monitoring record sales to make the awards, but that individual record companies have to go to the BPI with lists of sales in hand and claim the awards.

The second point is that the awards are made for shipments not sales. The accounts that record companies keep are for supplies to the shops, and the number of records manufactured, not the number sold.

No-one keeps track of total sales,

So a record may get a sales award even though a proportion of records remain unsold on shops and eventually hit the bargain bins or are returned to the record company on a sale-or-return basis

And, as of November 2000, that was the Truth About BPI Certifications. How is that in any way "better" than the way DISC awarded Silver and Gold Records? In fact, it's the IDENTICAL method. And indeed the IDENTICAL method to RIAA Certifications in the USA at the same time. And, as BPI certainly weren't keeping track of total sales in 1969/1970 any more than they were in 2000, there is no possible way that they could have "confirmed" that Sugar, Sugar hadn't actually sold one million units. And, of course, the BPI themselves have undoubtedly bestowed Silver, Gold, Platinum and/or Multi-Platinum Record Awards on releases that didn't in fact sell every copy of the manufactured and shipped units.

In short, it may technically be WP:OR to say that the BPI wanted to discredit the DISC Awards, and declare them "unofficial", but it's stating the bleeding obvious to say that they did. And, if nothing else, it's ridiculous to think of all those Gold and Silver Records awarded to the likes of The Beatles, Cliff Richard, Elvis Presley etc. simply being dismissed out of hand as "unofficial". And, yes, had it been the BPI in 1969/1970, Sugar, Sugar would have fulfilled every BPI criterion to get a BPI Platinum Record Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, as just one example, why would Cliff Richard have called one of his compilation releases Cliff's Silver Discs?

Further evidence that Alan Smith/ASM is untrustworthy. He claims that he got his information from going through old copies of Disc. He lists his results, with dates of Disc issue. Problem is, his results don't match. As Example 1.. the first Silver Record was dated 9 May 1959 according to Mr Smith. Here however

[5] is a link to an online pdf of that issue. Can you find the relevant information contained therein? So, where did Alan Smith get it from then? Then there's the 26 December 1959 issue[6]. Go to Page 7. The first thing that catches your eye is that Oh! Carol by Neil Sedaka has been awarded a Silver Record for sales of 1/4 million. But, according to ASM and/or Alan Smith(I believe it's the same person), that never happened. This record is not listed as one of the Disc Silver Records in either of his/their posts. The same person who "knew" that Sugar, Sugar only sold 945 000/981 000 copies. In addition, somebody else had to point out to him that Silver Records received the special symbol in the publication. Using this person as a WP:RS has now been pretty thoroughly exposed. As such, there is no reason to not accept that Apache, The Carnival Is Over, and Sugar, Sugar did all indeed sell one million records in the UK on their 60s releases.(Although obviously not all within their year of release.) As it stands, the most reliable source is the Demetri Coryton/Joseph Murrells book, the same one that ASM says is "flawed". It is clearly ASM and Alan Smith who are "both" flawed in "their" analyses of these matters, not Messrs Coryton and Murrells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to flog this deceased horse with another blow, in Coryton's book, he makes the point(Page 260) that I Love You/D In Love by Cliff Richard And The Shadows was the 50th record to receive a DISC Silver Record. The awards started in 1959. Sadly, Coryton only lists winners from 1 January 1960 to 31 December 1969.(Well, it IS a book specifically about 1960s Music.) Counting the records Coryton lists, I Love You/D In Love is the 30th Silver Record awarded in 1960. So, obviously there were 20 Silver Record awards in 1959. ASM/Alan Smith lists 12. Where are the other 8? The plot thickens as, reading through the UKMIX forum posts, we find that ASM omits(as Alan Smith did on the other website...) Silver Record awards that ARE LISTED IN CORYTON'S BOOK. After having to "check again" in old copies of DISC, it turns out Coryton was correct, and ASM/Alan Smith was wrong. ASM does admit these mistakes, but with the "excuse" that "Coryton's book is fatally flawed"! Whether ASM IS Alan Smith, or whether it's another person cutting-and-pasting, that doesn't change the simple fact that The information from both Alan Smith and ASM is riddled with errors. All the old WP:RS state that Apache, The Carnival Is Over, and Sugar, Sugar each sold one million copies. Yet this person seems to be on a one-man crusade to "prove" that they, especially The Archies, did not. Yet, we have exposed him(or is it them?) as Unreliable. Time and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, couldn't resist. DISC 19 December 1959...[7]. On the FRONT COVER The Everyly Brothers are congratulated for being awarded a Silver Record for 1/4 million sales of (Til) I Kissed You. Front cover. However, "expert music historian" Alan Smith missed that. And, again, this is the person whose word is taken as RS for what did or did not sell a million copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, even after all that, I still don't know what your point is. So Alan Smith wrote something on Dave McAleer's website, but that's not an official source. And Disc may be a reputable magazine (no argument about that), but that doesn't make their awards official. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not official, how exactly? And, according to who? How are they any more or less official than BPI ones? On whose authority? DISC awards were also mentioned in other UK publications(including "official" Record Retailer), as well as US publications. Is it simply the BPI or OCC stating, long after the event, "Oh, those never really counted. But OURS do!"? Funny that leading artists like Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Cliff Richard etc. would care so much about unofficial awards. So, again, who exactly is it who decides how "official" they are, and on what grounds exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.139 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BPI is the official body in charge of certifications, recognised by the entire British music industry. The Disc awards have never been recognised as official by anyone, including Disc themselves. Richard3120 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence for that? It's standard BPI claim. The BPI is the official body because the BPI says the BPI is the official body.

Here (page 10) [8] is the scheme being introduced. Nothing about it being unofficial. Looks more like it says it's the British equivalent to an American Gold Record. Here are the first awards (page 8) [9]. Where is it stated that it's "unofficial"? And what's this? A round-up of the first year's winners.(Page 10).. [10]. And note the comments from the people from Decca Records and EMI Records. I could go on, but it's clear that "unofficial" is BPI revisionism to discredit the Silver(and Gold) Record awards. It is sad that 50 years after the system ended that the BPI still takes this stance.

And here's just 1(of numerous) pages from an American publication(in this case none other than Billboard [11]. Imagine doing that for unofficial awards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.139 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is my evidence? The BPI is a body which includes all the major record labels, most of the smaller independent labels, and most of the UK music retailers as members. So yes, virtually the entire UK record industry not only recognises the BPI as official, they are actually part of it. Disc had nobody other than themselves. Your reasoning is backwards... you are arguing that we need proof that it was unofficial, whereas the correct reasoning is to start with the premise that it is unofficial and then try and find proof that it was official. And yes, why wouldn't they do that for unofficial awards? There are numerous times Billboard has reported in-house gold disc presentations, which are also unofficial, so logically there's no problem with also reporting Disc awards. Richard3120 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're reaching now. So, what you are saying is that because DISC was an independent organisation(exactly like the RIAA in the USA), they are "unofficial". But official in what sense? If, hypothetically, a rival group started up next week in the UK, what would make one the "official", and the other the "unofficial"? It reminds one of the "Official" charts, which don't recognise songs like "Stranger on the Shore" or "Please Please Me" ever having topped the British charts.

But, it appears that what you said is that..record labels and record shops are members of the BPI. And, as nobody can truly be a "member of a magazine", that can't make it "official". However, we see major labels recognising the DISC awards, making statements recognising the DISC awards, and even buying space in US publications to brag about DISC awards. Billboard may have reported in-house awards. But that was paid for by Pye. Plus, as you yourself just stated, DISC didn't have "members", so those aren't in-house awards. Just think about that. Just "Silver and Gold Records". No further clarification was required, because it was known what that meant. The same way if somebody today says that somebody got a Silver Record, nobody needs to clarify it's "an official BPI award". After decades of BPI control, the truth about how DISC Records were thought of at the time has been lost. It is clear that at the time these were as "official" as it could possibly be for 59-73 UK. So, record companies recognised them, spoke highly and respectfully of them, bought print media space to trumpet their artists getting them, books made a big deal out of them, and nobody needed to clarify what was meant by, as a hypothetical example "The Kinks just got another Silver Record". Was it identical to BPI? Of course not. Was it fully official at/for the time? Absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reaching in the slightest, everything I've said is 100% true and accurate. But anyway, the point is that to get Wikipedia to accept the Disc certifications, you will have to get consensus from other editors, because that's how Wikipedia works. So we need a wider discussion than just you and me, otherwise nothing is going to change. Richard3120 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, record companies, when a record reached a certain sales level, would go to DISC, with the sales information, get that verified, then DISC would award a Silver(or in much rarer cases Gold) Record award. This was reported not only in DISC, but in other UK media, and even US media.(Possibly other countries too.) Record labels bought print media space in publications(including US publications) to announce/brag about these awards. They were mentioned in books by music historians as being the British equivalent to RIAA Gold Record awards in the USA. And nothing more than "Silver Record" was needed to be said to get full comprehension. Again, if they were "unofficial" record companies would have just handed out in-house Silver Records instead. And no record company would have given a toss about submitting sales data to DISC at all. The fact that they did, and that they made a big deal out of getting DISC Record awards says all you need to know.

But, how would one go about trying to get Wiki to recognise them as Official Sales Certification Awards?

As I said, there would need to be a wider discussion involving other editors, and a consensus formed that either agrees with your proposal or decides to keep the status quo. I'm not sure where the best forum for that is though. But I have no objection to it being discussed. Richard3120 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more I have investigated, the more inaccurate that Alan Smith/ASM post is. Turns out I was wrong about something major. Namely, there was no such thing as a DISC Gold Record. All pre-BPI Gold Records in the UK were awarded to artists by their record company. I wondered why Coryton never marked which DISC Silver Records also received DISC Gold Records. And it should have been obvious. Because DISC Gold Records didn't exist. Instead, a record company would announce that a certain record had sold a million copies. This was often accompanied by the presentation of a Gold Record. And the UK Music Press(including DISC) would report on it. But these weren't DISC Gold Records. They were in-house Gold Records. And "blaming" DISC for Smith's Sugar, Sugar fixation makes no sense whatsoever. This is explained on the [[12]] discussion page in more detail. That Alan Smith/ASM article is full of horrendous errors, including the most basic description of what DISC Record Awards actually were. It is depressing that so many people, including yours truly, believed much of it. And it is sad how much misinformation is all over the internet as a result.

Yes – I know Dave McAleer is a very respected chart historian, and edited the later editions of British Hit Singles. So he is not just some fan on the internet with his own web page. But... his own web page is still just his personal page, and it appears that he has allowed other chart enthusiasts to post their own opinions on his website. I also have no idea who Alan Smith is, but at the end of the day, he doesn't have access to any record company figures, so his sales figures are just guesswork. Richard3120 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations by Cliff Richard

[13] Page 6, under Disc News In Brief. 197.87.143.177 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:UK Singles Chart which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More Cliff Richard Gold/Million Sellers

[14].

Scroll down to "King of the Silver Discs". We see that Richard already has 3 there. And we found "Congratulations" elsewhere. Smith/ASM said thst the DISC awards were "unofficial" and "unreliable" because HE claimed that Cliff Richard only ever got one Gold Record award for a million-seller. But, with minimum effort, I have proved it was at least quadruple Smith/ASM's claims. Wikipedia needs to start recognising DISC record awards under the "Certifications and Sales" for the UK. The info is easy, as DISC Silver and original BPI Silver were thd same... 250 000. But as no Gold Records were awarded in 1973, a simple piece of programming would make that easy as well. It is outrageous that Beatles' Gold and Silver Records from the 60s are "not official". It looks as though none of those Classics sold the minimum requirement for a Silver Record award! 197.87.135.139 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link from 1974...

[15] 197.87.135.139 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Talk:List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom#I have found a page from 1974. It is at remarkably different to this article. for why I think this list is total nonsense. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I' l'll reply there.

Those million sellers

Unfortunately, this section was entirely created based around an enormously inaccurate article written by one "Alan Smith". According to Mr Smith, the weekly publication DISC awarded Gold Record Awards for releases that sold one million copies in the UK. Smith then listed a total of 16 1960s releases that received a DISC Gold Record for one million UK sales. And then Smith made disparaging comments about DISC, claiming that certain releases received their DISC Gold Record despite actual UK sales falling somewhat short of the one million copies figure. In particular, he seemed to have an obsession with "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies. It is because of this "Smith List of Sixteen" that this section was created.

The obvious problem with that is simple...DISC never awarded Gold Record Awards. DISC only ever awarded SILVER Record Awards for UK sales of 250,000 copies. There was no such thing as a DISC Gold Record Award. However, starting years before DISC even existed, British record labels would award a Gold Record to releases that had "sold a million". And then, British Music Publications, which included DISC, would report on these Gold Record Awards. But that obviously doesn't mean that the music press reporting on events were themselves responsible for the events. And, in fact, DISC reported on far more than the "Select Sixteen" that Smith's article erroneously states were "DISC Gold Records". I'm not sure if all of these were reported by DISC, but here is a list from early 1970 of British Gold Record Awards from another Music Publication [16]. And NONE of those were presented by DISC. because "DISC Gold Records" did not exist. Only DISC SILVER Records. As such, this "The awarding of sixteen gold records to records released in the 1960s is documented" is a completely absurd statement, which comes entirely from Smith's appalling article on "DISC Silver and Gold(!) Record Awards". This section either needs to be extended to include ALL these actual documented Gold record Awards, or removed in its entirety. 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]