Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins discography

Remix Changes
I combined the mixes with the chart positions of their parent title. There's no reason to have a seperate entry on a chart trajectory if the remix was neither (a.) released in another year ... nor (b.) resung or restructured

Questions
Shouldn't The Aeroplane Flies High be under "Compilations" instead of "EP's and Singles"? Underwater 01:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After renaming the section to "EPs" I put Lull and Peel Sessions there and moved the other releases from "EPs" to the "live and compilations" section. --jh51681 05:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Promo singles
I don't think there needs to be a seperate section for promo singles, and the revereted compromise was incomplete at best. If you're really concerned about promo singles, then make the table compelte. Add Rhinoceros, Drown, Muzzle, The Everlasting Gaze...

Plenty of promo singles chart, so to take the ones that don't and make a separate list is misguided. If anything, I'd support a notes section of the chart that specifies when a single was just a promo. Cjosefy 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that there is a clear difference between a song which was actually released as a full-fledged single and a promotional release. I wouldn't add in other singles which ALSO had promotional releases because it isn't notable. As it is, I don't think that the promo releases are notable enough anyway, but so be it. Official singles should be shown distinctly from promos and remixes. Personally, I'm not going to bother reverting it, because I fully expect someone else will bother with it within the next 12 months anyway. Tant pis. Girolamo Savonarola 10:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Promo releases aren't notable, even when they chart? Cjosefy 12:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I said promos which also were singles aren't notable (as promos). And the issue here isn't notability, it's content ordering. That's all. Girolamo Savonarola 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of promotional singles aren't considered true singles, since they exist solely for radio DJs to get easy access to a particular track. They're considered "singles" these days if they have a video, chart, and/or are released commercially.  In the case of the last two Adore singles, they aren't considered part of the chronology since plans for commercial release and videos were cancelled.  WesleyDodds 23:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reconsidering the promos issue. Note, however, that you don't have to delete them from the discography en masse - I would think that reinstituting the "promotional-only" section would be more than sufficient for including these releases. Girolamo Savonarola 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag Issue
I added the cleanup tag simply because this whole article is very messy.It may be correct but it is sloppy and unsourced.Once the article is cleaned up than it should be removed.SOADLuver 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see a major difference between this discography and the Pearl Jam discography which apparently meets your approval based on your edits there. If you see specific parts that need sources or cleanup, please use more specific tags.  Cjosefy 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also concur with the tag, based on issues such as the structuring (as noted above). Please do not remove the tag unless there exists consensus to do so. Girolamo Savonarola 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would but this whole article needs cleanup reasons- 1.only one album has worldwide sales number 2.there are too many uncharted singles listed 3.all of the The music video section is down right messy 4.No sources cited on anything on this page. If you cannot see a difference between the pearl jam and Smashing pumpkins discography then please look harder.No need to get in an edit war over this. SOADLuver 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please, let's edit the article, not the tag. We all just want to make the article as good as it can be, right? Girolamo Savonarola 20:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, your right our attention should be on the article anyways.oh and BTW this is my first articel tagged so quit saying I go around tagging articles for no reaseon.I didn't think I needed a reason because it seemed self explanitory. SOADLuver 20:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not(Green Day discography), but that's not the point. I just wanted some specific criticism like you have now provided.  I'm of the opinion that tagging an article without any discussion or reasoning isn't helpful, no matter how obvious you feel it may be. Cjosefy 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

oh got me there.guess I didn't recall it.but anyways the tag should be ok to remove after a little cleanup =) SOADLuver 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you for providing specific areas for improvement.  Cjosefy 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Segregated Discography?!
Obviously a jaded fan has separated out the post-reunion items because they're not "true" Pumpkins stuff to said fan. This is unprofessional - they are still Smashing Pumpkins, and it would be asinine to break down a discography by lineup changes - should "Adore" be in its own section because Jimmy wasn't there? Should the Machina music videos be in their own category because D'arcy isn't in them? I'm changing this back. -Werideatdusk33 05:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimmy was still a member of the band during Adore, he just wasn't actually in the band. Billy Corgan himself said that he never had any intention of NOT allowing Chmaberlain to return, in fact, that Billy Corgan regreted the push from Virgin and the band's manager and publicist to "fire" Chamberlain at all. Jimmy was a drug addict and was seeking help. He was quoted as saying being kicked out of Smashing Pumpkins was the best thing that could have happened to him. His spirit was still with the core of the band during Adore, whether he was there or not. That's why they rejoined with him for the 1999 Arising! tour. Besides, Jimmy rejoined the band while they were still touring for Adore in late 1998.

The point is, that this band broke up in 2000, accompanied by greatest hits album, a re-release album, and DVD's accompaning both releases. In the interum, Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlain were in another band, Zwan, as well Corgan released his own solo album. Corgan and Chamberlain adding two other members to their duo and playing his own disbanded group's songs does NOT constitute it actually being the same band. Was Zwan a Smashing Pumpkins album because Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlain added three members to their tightly-knit duo? No. Does Billy Corgan by himself playing Smashing Pumpkins songs on acoustic guitar make him a band? No. Neither is this new The Smashing Pumpkins album, however contrived and technical it may be. The new The Smashing Pumpkins album, in all actuality, is not a Smashing Pumpkins album. The band's bassist left, the band broke up, and only half its members came together... seven years after it was disbanded. It's not the same band. Not by a long shot. That's like trying to say Time was at all a Fleetwood Mac album. Ask anyone, ask their fans, ask the core lineup of Stevie Nicks/Lindsey Buckingham/Christine McVie/John McVie/Mick Fleetwood. Even Christine sang and performed on tracks from 2003's Say You Will when people considered her not being part of the band. You must be confused with Blondie's 1998 reunion of Clem Burke, Deborah Harry, Chris Stein, and Jimmy Destri. All four core members of the band returned, albeit without 3 of their former auxillary members. Nonetheless, the reunion wasn't Blondie Presents: Debbie Harry and Three Unknowns. Again, Smashing Pumpkins is Billy, D'arcy, James, and Jimmy.--The Knowledge 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to report the discography of the entity operating under the name The Smashing Pumpkins. As long as the band is being claimed as Smashing Pumpkins and the claiming band is not completely divorced from the prior one (ie random unrelated people calling themselves "The Smashing Pumpkins"), then it's a Smashing Pumpkins album/song/whatever. You can debate what constitutes "real" Smashing Pumpkins, but for the purposes of general discography, it's irrelevant. Most developed discographies on Wikipedia will also not make any distinctions either, although some do add a comments column to note significant changes or achievements.

However, the fact remains that MOST bands do not retain a consistent lineup over their lifetimes, especially the longer they exist. Constant memberships are the exception, not the norm.

Furthermore, it is generally considered consensus that Corgan and Chamberlin were the two members with the most input - which is not to say that Iha had none, but given the decline of number of Iha or Corgan/Iha songs in the later catalog as well as Iha's general reluctance to be involved, it is debatable how influence he would have or be willing to have if he were to hypothetically join the band tomorrow. But that's another matter entirely... Girolamo Savonarola 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no need to trail off like that. We don't report what is true to an artist's name, but what is successful under that name. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. -- Reaper  X  05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh? I thought encyclopedias were supposed to be accurate. My mistake! --The Knowledge 05:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So if I've read this correctly, all bands should change their names every time a member leaves or a new member joins? Try telling that to The Melvins. In all seriousness, though, I see this as the Pumpkins. Plenty of bands lose and switch members and will change their name every so often, but that's not what usually happens. Godlord2 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No you didn't read it correctly. The point is Smashing Pumpkins broke up. They released a greatest hits accompanying it. The band broke up, end of story. It so happens that the lead singer released two albums since, one with the drummer of Smashing Pumpkins for the band Zwan, and another for Billy Corgan's solo album. Seven years after Smashing Pumpkins broke up, half the members rejoin to drag on the demise of the band a few more years. It's hardly the same as a member leaving during the height of a band's career, or a member joinging in the middle of an active band's tour. No, this band broke up. No, it's not the same band, and yes, the band should be under another name. How about this one: "Billy Corgan Featuring the Drummer-From-Smashing-Pumpkins-That-You-Don't-Know-His-Name-and-Two-Other-People-Desecrating-Your-Favourite-Smashing-Pumpkins-Songs." --69.136.10.51 20:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we read it correctly. See WP:POV. Girolamo Savonarola 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mellon Collie 9x Platinum
I was wondering, where does this figure come from?

I was looking on the RIAA site and only found 6 platinum certificates. click here Emmaneul (Talk) 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See here. Girolamo Savonarola 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks! Emmaneul (Talk) 20:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Making a case for it on the talk page
Why are current footnotes one, three, and four unneeded or unhelpful? Here's why: What certification a record could have doesn't matter; all that's really significant is what certification, if any, a record currently has. Anything else in this context is irrelevant. Also, the fourth note has a fact tag, which alone would warrant its removal. If anything, a note that Machina II was released only over the internet would be made in a format column or ref tag. --Brandt Luke Zorn 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. The fact that Machina II was an internet-release only would be more friendly as a ref tag, making a format column is unnecessary in my opinion. -- Reaper  X  20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored the M2 note merely to explain that it was a free internet release; otherwise it's complete lack of charting/sales data probably would raise eyebrows to the non-fan. Girolamo Savonarola 04:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

References and Vandalism
I've noticed that a lot of the chart numbers have been changed, often by anonymous IPs (some of whom also revert other anons). While these may in fact be good faith edits, it's impossible to separate them from vandalism without each and every number being properly cited, so that we can easily check what the numbers should be. Until all numbers are referenced, the refimprove should stand. Girolamo Savonarola 15:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to fix this up for a while, and I know a few other people who may be interested. I'll see if we can't start soon. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I give up - will someone please find sourcing for the chart placings regarding the recent anon edits - I think I'm reverting vandalism, but without a reference to check, I have no idea if I'm reverting a genuine good faith edit or not. Girolamo Savonarola 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiz Source
I found | this page that verifies Wiz (W.I.Z.) directed "Stand Inside Your Love". Just FYI. It's a shame the guy doesn't have a wiki article. StevePrutz 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be acceptable as a reliable source, probably for the same reasons we no longer accept IMDb - anonymous user-submitted data. However, his page on Oil Factory is official, and thus would be acceptable. Girolamo Savonarola 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Promotional singles and chart placings
A couple of the promotional singles have UK chart placings against them. The UK singles chart is based on sales (and recently, paid-for downloads) and therefore excludes promotional records. Are the chart placings here a mistake or is there some basis for them?--Michig 10:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now the page is in the middle of a massive overhaul; however, single chart positions and some other aspects of the list haven't been fixed yet. It's very likely that some of the unreferenced information is erroneous. --Brandt Luke Zorn 11:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The 2007 one could be correct based on downloads - any album track can get into the UK singles chart on the basis of downloads alone. The earlier one looks wrong, though.  I've checked the 'proper' releases - the UK chart placings for those are correct.--Michig 11:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we get the sales info for Lull and Peel Sessions? They were pretty widely distributed and might have some figures. Grim 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything for these, which seems odd, but they may have been ineligible for the singles chart. There's a lot of UK chart info here.--Michig 17:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreleased songs section
I think the Pumpkins have way too many unreleased songs to have this section. It works well as lines of prose in the Nirvana discography but as a list, it's just too much. I could see this list getting up to 100 songs easy (look at Pastichio Medley), so perhaps this addition isn't such a good idea. Grim 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose it could be split off as a list, though. Girolamo Savonarola 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to remove this section per the reasons listed above. If anyone would like to dispute the removal of the section (in it's removed form) then please do so here. I would like to add that if the section were prose summarizing their unreleased songs rather than a list of them, it perhaps could work—although the section might still be unnecessary. Grim 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Machine and other odd singles
There is a minor conflict about the inclusion of "Heavy Metal Machine" as a single. I removed it on the grounds that it was a cassette-only release that was released neither to radio nor stores. Every other single listed on wikipedia is either a commercial single from stores (ie BWBW, etc) or a promotional release that was given to radio stations (ie Drown, Muzzle, Eye, Doomsday Clock, I of the Mourning, Everlasting Gaze). A similar release to HMM was also given to the Perfect b-side, "Summer." Summer promo tape but that is clearly not considered a true single. "To Sheila" and "Daphne Descends," as well, were issued on CD but were not distributed commercially or for radio. WE should add a new section for these odd releases, or put them all in promotional releases despite their lack of promotion. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, "Daughter" belongs in this category. Why is it in with the commercial singles?  That's senseless!  -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Daughter was a commercial single. Yes it had some idiosyncratic extenuating circumstances, but it was a single. Grim (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but "commercial single" means it was released commercially. This was given free to magazine subscribers - how is that a commercial single?  On another note, I think Zero should be listed under singles.  Yes, it's technically an EP because of its length, and is often called an EP, but it is also the single for the song "Zero," and is more important for that.  It's listed as a single in the template, which I think is more sensible and more accurate. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not in the singles section? Well that's a mistake. I say that all these "odd" singles be listed. There's no other way to categorize them, and their oddity can be clarified with footnotes. Sound good? Grim (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would move it into the singles section. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you guys think about just having one singles section, with a "notes" column to specify if it's promotional or a strange release? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you build a prototype of what you have in mind? Grim (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Revamped Singles Section

 * This is not formatted well, but you get the rough idea: all of the Pumpkins' singles, promo or commercial or unconventional, together in one chronological list, with a Comments section to explain any strange release patterns, or if it's promotional. It's just a thought, and, once again, the formatting is pretty hodge-podge.  This is only a layout.  -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedent shows that commercial and promotional singles should be separated, and I agree with that. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's well and good, but doesn't help the question - which is, where should we put stuff like "Daughter," "Summer," "Heavy Metal Machine," "To Sheila" and the like? These are not easily classifiable. I'd also like to know where this precedent is coming from because that doesn't make much sense to me. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Were they commercially released? If not, then they are promotional items. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was under the impression that "promotional" implied radio-only releases.  I'll make the changes.  --Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"—" denotes singles that did not chart.

Gold certification and Zeigeist
The RIAA certifications are judged by number of copies shipped; that is, copies sold to retailers. So this means there are at least 500,000 copies of Zeitgeist in existence, both already purchased by consumers and just sitting on retail shelves waiting to be bought. This does not mean customers have bought 500,000. For comparision, Nirvana's In Utero has been certified five times platinum (five million copies shipped), but its SoundScan sales are only at 4.11 million. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Well, we should try to get updated SoundScan figures.  As long as the "Gold" certification is listed, people will understand how well it's done compared to other albums, anyways.  -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, it's a technicality that I don't think is worth fussing about at this time. The fact is the Pumpkins have received money for 500,000 albums. Until we get a citable Soundscan figure, we shouldn't worry bout it. -- Reaper  X  04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gold certification is the only reported number that is cited I don't know where the 300,000 number comes from and how old it is... Do you? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should reiterate - If there is no recent, verified SoundScan figure (ie late 2008 or early 2008) we should count "500,000" as the most recent sales figure. But I understand using something else if we can.  -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can't do that. As albums are always selling (Nirvana's Nevermind sells like 100,000 copies a year), what's important is the most recent reliable sales figure, which for now is the ~300,000 number. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there's a Billboard mention of the current sales figures. Right now a message board is cited, and that's not acceptable. The only number I'm absolutely sure of is the first week sales for the album, which Billboard reported as 145,000 copies here. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually its the Smashing Pumpkins Official news pertaining to the recent Gold status. Not a message board :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My fault, I was looking at the ref below it (for Rotten Apples sales figures; it should be removed nonetheless). Yeah, I don't see the number cited in there. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

demo albums
deleting the page is one thing,but removing them from the discography page and wiping the knowledge of existance is another

they do have notability,they're being reffered to in other articles and i think it would be nice for people to know,they were recording and releasing tapes long before Gish and to know what the hell this "Moon Demo Tape" is.I'm not really referring to the album demos but the early ones like, Nothing Ever Changes,Moon and The Smashing Pumpkins Demo Tape.They're the only documents of the early early Pumpkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you there. The fact that they deleted it was a shame. Theres plenty of demos, such as Blink 182`s Buddha demo. Even if there isnt a page for these demo, it wont hurt adding them here. _Alec scheat (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Singles charts
Does anyone object to removing a handful of columns from this table? A lot of the countries only had two or three SP songs chart there, barely any of them are high enough to be notable and the table would look far neater without them. I suggest we remove Belgium's, Finland's France's, Netherlands', Norway's and Sweden's respective chart columns, resulting in the following table:

"—" denotes singles that did not chart.

Pasta of Muppets (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Album sales
I'm going to remove the album sales columns from the studio albums and compilation albums tables. My reasons as to why can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style. If anyone can find sources for the album sales, then by all means, include them. I'll leave the old tables here for reference or if anyone wants to use them if/when they find references.

"—" denotes albums that did not chart. {{note|mcis|}} I Mellon Collie is considered 9× platinum since it is a double album with length exceeding 100 minutes–the album shipped upwards of 4,700,000, which equals 9,400,000 discs total. {{note|machinaii}} II Machina II had a free internet release and thus did not chart.

"—" denotes albums that did not chart.

Pasta of Muppets (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Mashed potatoes anyone ?
Hmm... no mention of this anywhere ?

please discuss class...Chaosdruid (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially released. End of discussion. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pisces Iscariot = compilation album, ≠ studio album
I'd meant to write in the edit summary that Pisces Iscariot is a compilation album, and it DOES contain previously released material. In fact, only three of the 14 songs weren't previously released. Pisces Iscariot is as much a studio album as any Greatest Hits album. I rest my case. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Widow Wake My Mind should be under promotional singles
Since the song is being pushed as a single, the song should at the very least be listed under promotional singles but more likely as a single as it is receiving a physical single release in the boxset "Song For a Sailor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.105.170 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Tables must be edited down
Per consensus at WP:DISCOG tables should have 10 columns max; this article is way over that. Does anyone have preferences on which countries should be kept? If no discussion happens in the next few days, I'll edit this myself based on chart performance and music market size. Anyone? - eo (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've edited this down on a subpage and I'm ready to implement it. Please note the countries I've used for the tables and add to this discussion if you feel different countries should be represented.  I'll wait a bit to move the reduced article to see if any alternative consensus is reached.
 * Albums: US, AUS, BEL, CAN, FRA, GER, IRL, NLD, NZ, UK
 * Singles: US, AUS, BEL, CAN, FRA, IRL, NLD, NZ, NOR, UK - eo (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Last call - will implement this today if no objections or discussion. - eo (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Reissues of Studio Albums
Why aren't they mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.33.147 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Charting section
"Disarm", "Eye", and "Landslide" didn't not enter the Hot 100 or the Bubbling over according to Billboard. Will people stop adding charting for them that implies otherwise? "Hot 100 Airplay" is not the same thing as "Hot 100" Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on The Smashing Pumpkins 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019171610/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=c6btf3r8hs459qqt5ln3o3dcv5&q1=Smashing+Pumpkins&q2=Top+Albums%2FCDs&interval=50 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=c6btf3r8hs459qqt5ln3o3dcv5&q1=Smashing+Pumpkins&q2=Top+Albums%2FCDs&interval=50
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812041700/http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/guld-platina-1987-1998.pdf to http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/guld-platina-1987-1998.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100829092900/http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-1998.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-1998.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611211848/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2000.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2000.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqrbHnJJ to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2001.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514063919/http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement?page=1 to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement?page=1
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090912150607/http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-1997.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-1997.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090912150840/http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-dvd-2003.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-dvd-2003.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)