Jump to content

Talk:Nickelback discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New discography table

[edit]

I'd like something like this done with this page it would look better (this was took from the Fall Out Boy discography page):

Nickelback

In concert, August 25 2004.

Releases
Studio albums ↙
4
Extended plays ↙
3
Singles ↙
11
Music videos ↙
12
Compilations/Remixes ↙
17
Covers/Tributes ↙
3
Soundtracks ↙
3
References

All the Right Reasons

[edit]

There's some debate on whether All the Right Reasons has been certified as 3x or as 4x platinum. Note that the certifying authority is the RIAA itself and as such, the RIAA's database itself is the source we should be using. Claims have been made that the RIAA database is not kept up to date. I have sent a request for confirmation to the RIAA and will post the response, if any. Please note that Billboard Magazine is not a preferred source for this information. If there is a contradiction, we are to use the RIAA's figures as per WP:RS. However, if the RIAA admit their database is inaccurate, obviously we would no longer be able to use them as a source. --Yamla 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is a preffered source. It takes their info on certifications directly from the RIAA, and it says that the CD is 5x platnium. Don't ask me how it's 5x platnium when it hasn't sold over 5 million yet, but that's what it's labeled as. Billboard distributes the top music charts of the world, and are a professional organization, so don't you think their stuff is accurate? Why would they label the CD as being 5x platnium by the RIAA, as can be seen here [1], if that information was false, and wouldn't you think they would get in trouble from the RIAA if they put out false information under their certifications? Billboard updates their site daily, and RIAA must not update frequently. It's apparent RIAA's site is just out of date, so I think the CD should be left as 5x platnium. WIKI-GUY-16, 30 December (UTC)
I agree with the last post and have had discussions before and it got me no where but you are correct because billboard gets its certifications from the RIAA and they do not update there certifications on their own site frequently at all. And to answer about the why it is certified 5x platinum when it has not sold 5 million copies yet is because certifications are for shipments not sales...meaning the album has shipped 5 million copies in the u.s.a Basinger19 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread WP:RS. Given that Billboard Magazine gets its information from the RIAA and given that the RIAA claims All the Right Reasons is 3x platinum, we have to assume that Billboard is mistaken. Particularly when, as claimed by Wiki-guy-16, we know for sure Billboard is making a mistake as the album hasn't sold five million yet. Anyway, RIAA is the source of this information so we need our citation to be from that source. RIAA may well be out of date but they are claiming this is the latest information and have not responded to any inquiries yet for clarification. Until we receive such, WP:RS demands that we use the certification from the RIAA. --Yamla 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RIAA is out of date. Just serch for any CD that hasn't come out in the last half of the year and you can see that the last updates for their certifications haven't been past june. Also if you look under latest news on RIAA's site you can see it says "RIAA announces first half 2006 music shipment numbers". They obviously only update all CD certifications every 2 quarters, so they should be announcing their last half of 2006 numbers soon, but it's apparent they use billboard to keep the certifications updated on a weekly basis. I'm sorry but billboard does take their certifications directly from the RIAA, and they would not post false information on certifications under RIAA's name. We shouldn't have to wait every half a year to update CD certifications on this site, just because we're waiting for RIAA's site to announce them, when Billbaord does that for RIAA. One example is Carrie Underwood's CD. The album has sold over 4 million for a while now, and here on wikipedia and billbaord it's listed as 4x platnium. However if you go to RIAA,'s site the last time they updated her certifications were in april when the CD went 3x platnium. Like I said it's obvious RIAA only updates all certification on their own site every half year. All the Right Reasons is at least 4x platnium. RIAA's own platnium certification rules state that multiplatnium awards are added to every million the album sells unless it hits 10 million upon which it's certified diamond. So the album has been over 4 million for awhile so it makes zero sense according to RIAA's own rules that it should still be 3x platnium. So I'm skeptic on the 5x platnium certification(unless they do award certifcations now based on shipments instead of sales), but I think we need to at least label it as 4x platnium for now, based on RIAA's own certification rules. WIKI-GUY-16, December 31, (UTC)
If you can provide a reliable citation that indicates that RIAA does not keep their website up to date, we can certainly stop using them. However, they claim to be up to date and have not yet responded to my inquiries. Furthermore, changing the information to 4x platinum is original research. --Yamla 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RIAA has always based it's certifications on shipments and not sales hense the reason why britney spears debut album is 14x platinum but has only sold 10 million in the u.s.a*(just an example)...also i will state yet again billboard is not mistaken when they give information on albums certifications because they get their information from the riaa otherwise do you realize how many times they would be sued/or had other action taken against them. Basinger19 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. Billboard is the biggest professional music organization in the world. They are not going to just put false information about the RIAA at their own leisure. They would be sued left and right. This is getting annoying. I understand that according to wikipedia rules, RIAA is where we are supposed to get our certifications from, but what Yamla is failing to understand is that Billboard takes their certifictions from the RIAA, so getting certifications from billboard is getting them from the RIAA, because that's where Billboard gets them from in the first place! Yamla is the only person on here who seems to not understand this. I'll give this example again: here on wikipedia Carrie Underwood's debut album is listed 4x platinum, which Billboard has it labeled as under it's RIAA certfication. If you got to RIAA's offcial website the last time they updated her certification was in April when it went 3x. Search the database for Rascal Flatts' Me and My Gang album, and the last time it was certified was in May when it went 2x platinum. But since then it has gone 3x platinum as billbboard has it listed, and as it's listed here on wiki. Search for Justin Timberlake's Futuresex lovesounds and according to the database it hasn't even gone gold yet. But funny how here on wikipedia and billboard it's listed as 2x platinum. Same goes for Beyonce's B'day, not even listed as being certifed, but billboard has it as 2x platinum. And the list goes on and on. Yet if you look under latest news on the RIAA site and click "Tis the season for precious metals", you can see that Future/Sex Lovesounds has in fact been certified 2x platinum, depsite the fact that their database doesn't have it listed as being certifed as anything. The database on RIAA's site has not been updated since June of '06, hence why their are zero certifications in the database past that. If that's not enough proof that the database is not up to date, then you're just being stubborn, Yamla. So I'll say it yet again, Billboard IS an acceptable source for RIAA certifications, and the album needs to be listed as 5x platinum. WIKI-GUY-16, January 3, 2007 (UTC)
Even though in this case, we know for sure that the Billboard certification information must be wrong? After all, we know the sales are well under 5 million yet Billboard is claiming that it is certified 5x platinum. Any argument you make for Billboard putting up false information could similarly be made for RIAA putting up false information. After all, you are claiming that the RIAA, a professional organisation and certifying authority, has false information on their web site. If you wish, I'm willing to get a third-party opinion on this matter from the admin noticeboard or similar. Would this be acceptable? I'm willing to be bound by whatever the consensus is there even if I believe it to be a misinterpretation of WP:RS. If you would prefer another dispute resolution, please let me know. --Yamla 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we can't just settle this ourselves. You say you want proof that RIAA's searchable database is out of date, well I've given proof, and I'll give it again. Here's the article I was previously talking about on RIAA's website[2]. If you read it it clearly states Timberlake's FutureSex Lovesounds has gone 2x platinum. Now here's a link to their searchable database and just type in Justin Timberlake in the artist section, and Futuresex/Lovesounds in the album title section[3]. If you click search you can see there are no results for the album even being gold yet, despite the fact that in the article on their OWN site it says it's 2x platinum. That is proof that the database is out of date. You claim we know that billbaord is wrong since the CD hasn't sold 5 million yet, but at the same time we know RIAA is wrong since the CD has sold over 4 million and should at least be 4x. Like Basinger19 has pointed out platinum certifications are for shipments, just look at the article for Nickelback's Silver Side Up here on Wikipedia, and you'll see it says that the album has sold just over 5 million, and yet it's certified 6x platinum. If you look at the billboard 200 on billboard's site, and click at where they have All the Right Reasons certified 5x platinum under it's RIAA certification, you will get a little info box that says "RIAA certification for net shipment for 1 million units (Platinum) with additional 1 million units indicated by a number following the symbol." So it says right there that it's based off of shipments, not sales, hence why it would be 5x platinum. Plus there are dozens of CD's on wikipedia that are being listed by their RIAA certification that billboard has them under, and no one is having a problem with it, except you. I'm not trying to sound like I'm bullying you or anything, but if all these other articles are using billboard(and again billboard does get their certifications from RIAA), then why can't we use them in this article. I've already proved that RIAA's searchable database is NOT up to date, and I've provided more then enough evidence to support my statements, but if you still aren't in agreement, then get a third party opinion. I just don't see how you can still be arguing with me, when I've proved that RIAA's searchable database is not up to date. WIKI-GUY-16, January 4, 2007 (UTC)
Here I finally have proof directly from RIAA that All the Right Reasons is certified 5x platinum. Here's the newsletter from RIAA for all certifications made in December 2006[4]. Scroll down to page 5 where it says "Multi Platinum Album(8)", and you can see that on December 12th, 2006 All the Right Reasoins was certified 5x platinum. Now this should finally settle this debate, and once again confirm that RIAA's searchable database is out of date, and Billboard is an acceptable source for RIAA certifications for future purposes. WIKI-GUY-16, January 4, 2007 (UTC)

Side of a Bullet: A Single?

[edit]

I was suprised to her "Side of a Bullet" on the radio last night. Is this yet another single from All the Right Reasons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.203.212 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

7x Platinum

[edit]

A week ago some one wrote that "All the Right Reasons" was certificated as 7x platinum by RIAA. Today on the band's myspace I read that it's true that they got 7x platinum. It's 7x Platinum!!, the band wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.209.184 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar Single

[edit]

The single Rockstar has been released in the UK charting at #64 in the singles chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.64.104 (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bootlegs" Section

[edit]

Is the "Bootlegs" section even necessary? I don't feel it adds anything of value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.168 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

[edit]

Someone should put up the single certifications for all of their singles. --Love.Game (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Unplugged?

[edit]

I'm not sure if it's an official release or a "bootleg", but there's a copy of their 2003 MTV Unplugged performance out there with six tracks on it. That should probably be mentioned, despite some whiner's complaint about a "bootleg" section above. If there are any significant variants of performances out there to be found, their existence ought to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OBloodyHell (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits

[edit]

"Greatest Hits - obscure retailer claims this is a limited edition release (500 copies). More likely it is a bootleg." No need to mention this in an encyclopedia. I propose to remove this CD from the discography if no proof of a legal release will be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.210.76 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Means War not a single

[edit]

Are you positive This Means War has been released as a single? The link to the reference page on the Here and Now page is not a very reliable source. And I'm not hearing it on the radio, and if it was a single, it would've charted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.50 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not officially a single yet, but it probably will be one day. Andre666 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nickelback discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nickelback discography. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nickelback discography. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Nickelback discography. 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) 01:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nickelback discography. 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) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singles section

[edit]

It's broken. I don't know how to fix it. Brodyargo (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Andre666 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nickelback_discography&oldid=1209367740"