Talk:The Nolans

Cleanup started

PPS WHAT DO YOU REGARD irelevant information ?? ENLIGHTEN ME DEAR GO ON... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.231.13 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PS i am the girl who has added all the imfo recording japan albums singles promos and video imfo i Did not copy it from any site i did it all my self the videos and cds and art work was all done by me!! i hope you will leave it i am working on getting it better so if you could leave it, it would help ok pet :)

k mc 2008

You said Somebody had pasted a huge whack of irelevant information promoting various bootleg compilations Wrong there 2 songs that are named bootlegs thats the name of the remixes you have no idea what your talking about i own all the recordings all albums i listed are official japan albums i dont buy cheep bootlegs the jap albums are very excpencive and very rare, do not try and say there not official(i should know) i own them!!! k mc 2008

The japan stuff i added are all official albums and all songs and tracks are official and for your information the bootlegs as you call them are official japan only mixes issued on there official albums, the remixes was done without the nolans input but the tracks are real and official, do not remove there a jap album named colourfull nolans that include all there hits remixed by a japan dj is this a bootleg, you donot know the nolans like i do there for stop removing official imfo karen :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.231.13 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Somebody had pasted a huge whack of irelevant information promoting various bootleg compilations into the article, which I've summarily removed, along with links to unofficial sites. The text still needs copy-editing (which means the tag should stay), but at least it's a start. Gusworld (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After a few days, the material got pasted back in again (by a user who is already deregistered). It's clearly non-encyclopedic, poorly formatted, and seems designed in large part to promote bootlet compilations. So once again I removed it. Gusworld (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This hasn't officially moved into WP:3RR territory, but there's definitely an edit war going on. The fact that the user who keeps inserting this material is either an anon or a redlinked account doesn't make it easy to engage in a dialogue, so let me restate the case as I see it: the information being added is entirely unsourced, in many cases consists only of lists (of minor TV appearances or Japanese recordings), is littered with non-NPOV material, and clearly in some cases is promoting bootlegs/fan compilations of material. Extra information about the success of the Nolans in Japan would definitely improve the article, but it should be sourced and written appropriately. The material being added doesn't remotely meet this criteria, being largely an unordered mess, and its presence distracts from the need to also rewrite the main body text. I'd welcome extra input from other Wiki users and admins, as at this stage we seem to be reaching a not very productive stalemate. Gusworld (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also further discussion of this dispute on my talk page. Gusworld (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

there certainly is a problem here. my friend has written all the text about the videos and the japanese years, as she has them all. the albums are all official. how can we source material that no one semeed to know about, and would never have appeared in wiki. this peroid was a very important time for the nolans, and a hugely sucessful one. again there is no malice intended with any reversals, but the fact that all this started because some idiots took chunks out for badness.

--Gazer97 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing may well be a problem, but verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. In any event, there's also a question of relevance -- it isn't encylopedic to list every television appearance made by a given group, or which appearances are found on particular fan-circulated tapes, and that type of material would quite likely be removed from any article. There's already a discography section in the article; for commercially released Japanese albums (not promos or fan compilations, as the general consensus among Wikipedia editors is that these aren't appropriate), a useful first step would be to add the album titles there. Another relevant policy to look at is WP:OWN -- material that gets added gets edited, and it's inappropriate to take the view 'I (or my friend) wrote this so it must never be changed', which is how this is coming across right now. I'm going to revert the material, but will try and implement some of these editing suggestions later today if you don't get to it first. Gusworld (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Karen, please read the entire discussion here, you've ignored most of it (and it helps to add comments at the end). As it stands, the listing you've pasted includes promo only releases, has a lot of irrelevant side comments, isn't formatted appropriately, and has a lot of repeated data. And then there's the problem of the TV show listings, which you haven't addressed either. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but you need to work within the framework of Wikipedia's guidelines and community. Gusworld (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, we are attempting to clean/tidy this a bit. we realise there are guidelines, but leaving out relevant material is worse than having it in in so called unsourced format. karen has tried to include all relevant material, she has all the cds in question, and feels she is being picked on when she does mean well. to see huge chunks just disappear is very worrying and depressing.--Gazer97 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still feel it would be more appropriate to get the text into a cleaner form rather than continually readding it unedited, and that the information it expresses should be integrated more concisely into the main article. Having gone through the CD-related material, for example, what it amounts to is a list of 10 albums (many compilations), some of which don't have dates. These could be added to the discography rather than in a separate section. Also, continually readding a fan site which doesn't even have a registered URL is definitely a no-go. Gusworld (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the basic information about the Japanese albums that can be gleaned from the disputed section into the discography. It would be helpful to have dates added into this section, as for many of the albums all we have is a title. I'd also like to draw both your and Karen's attention to the three-revert rule, as you've both violated this today with the continual reverts. Also take a look at WP:NOT which might help you understand why so many people feel the text being added isn't appropriate in its current form. Gusworld (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re to the nolans being called the irish fivestar do not make me laugh how dare you talk to me like this you know nothing about the nolans the fact of the matter is the group was called the irish five star i should know i am a major fan i will be removing all the japan imfo you added as its not correct and not true to the cds years or even the names, as you no nothing leave this alone i will be getting a very dear friend to re edit all your work as franky its dire. why do you feel the need to remove info regarding the japan years? and the video bio you did you have dates and song words all wrong franky its dire, i will be removing this i have been a nolans collector the biggest one in the uk for years dont dare try and contradict me How dare you. km c 2007

External links section

The reverting over other sections has also made it hard to keep this in line with Wikipedia guidelines. The current section includes the official site for the group, official sites for all members, and a representative fan site. Please don't readd sites that haven't been launched or sites that are no longer operating. (See here for the guidelines.) Gusworld (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Integration and removal

The album titles and release years have been added to the discography, and I've added a couple of references to the band's success in Japan from here to the main body text. It seems to me that this removes the need for the disputed sections 6-8, given the following clearly established policies within Wikipedia:

• Album track listings for a group don't belong in the group's main article. (They may belong in individual album articles if these are created and the relevance of these entries is accepted by the Wikipedia community.)
• Promo-only releases don't belong in discographies.
• Listings of every TV appearance made by an group don't belong in the group's main article (and probably don't belong on Wikipedia at all).
• POV material about individual tracks don't belong in the group's main article (indeed, no POV material should feature in articles at all).

Given this, it seems clear to me that the sections can be deleted, but I want to flag my intentions here first, given all the recent disputes. I'd really like to get on with rewriting the main body text to be more Wiki-appropriate (with sources, appropriate tone etc.), but want to make sure we have a relatively stable version first. If I've missed other Wiki-appropriate material in these sections, please note that on this talk page and we can work to add it. Gusworld (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

yes see your note now. well we appreciate things hav to be redone /rewritten,and your help is fine in this, note the point about seperate articles for albums, this is something we will have to consider. as for the video section, we are not happy if its all removed because karen owns all the recordings some impossible to get, and therefore unknown to many and recorded only for tv. --Gazer97 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It all comes back to the relevance point. A detailed list of the Nolans' numerous TV promotional appearances is not encylopedic content. The fact Karen happens to own copies of many of those performances is certainly not encylopedic content. For that kind of information, a personal site would be more appropriate, or a Nolans-specific wiki on Wikia or similar. Wikipedia is not designed to be a repository of all possible information on every given subject, which is why the content policies exist, and why they ultimately override what you, or Karen, or I, would like to post on a particular topic. Gusworld (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

how do we go forward with a version suitable to us all , i can rewrite things but if its all going to be removed well theres no point. or are you going to draft something so we can look at and get it right. back to the previous point about what should and should not be in, the tv shows are important in their history as they had songs only ever sung on tv, as that was part of the group appearing on bbc shows, rarely were they issued--Gazer97 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

also it seems perhaps a good idea therfore for us to consider starting new pages for the albums, this seems to be common practice.--Gazer97 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The album articles are definitely the appropriate place for track listings. It would probably be prudent to create articles for all the Epic albums (these would easily meet notability criteria by virtue of UK charting) as well as the Japanese releases. I will try and construct some of these and link them from the discography, but I think we're in agreement that the information is better served in album entries rather than the main article.

For the TV stuff: I take your point that some of these represent unique performances not captured on record or CD, but an awful lot of them are in fact simply appearances to promote a particular single. Many of the ones that aren't lack sufficient detail (e.g. described as "90s game show"). It also remains questionable whether an encyclopedia article about a group which has covered material from others for the majority of its career needs to list absolutely all of those covers -- again, Wikipedia isn't meant to contain all possible information on a subject, and establishing the notability of Bernie Nolan covering 'Stop' (to pick a random example) might be difficult in the long term. But as a starting point, I'll delete all the obvious promo appearances, tidy the text up and see what we're left with. (This will in fact also rely on the album entries being created, as otherwise it won't be immediately clear which tracks are non-released anyway.) Gusworld (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and made the edits -- when you eliminate the promotional appearances for recorded tracks (and the fan recordings of live shows, which clearly aren't relevant or encylopedic), there's not an awful lot left. I didn't include extremely vague entries (no date or name of show), and even then I don't think this section would stand up to extended scrutiny from other editors without a lot of work (the shows in question need wiki-fying for a start). But it's a start, and now I can get on with some album entries, which will deal with the other material. Gusworld (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Japanese discography information

I see a bunch of information about the Japanese releases was added under the discography, so I've incorporated this as appropriate. I've added the albums that weren't already in the list to the main discography table. There's no need to repeat the albums in a separate list. I'll note the patterm of the Japanese release activity more specifically in the body text. As has been noted before, promo-only releases aren't suitable for a discography. Material that's purely opinion (such as the Five Star comparison) also isn't suitable; this would not to be sourced (to a reputable publication or critic) to be included. Gusworld (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

this part was added to keep some of the information about the period , there is nothing wrong with the bit it sums up to fans at a glance what went on then. also you do not seem to know that they were widely called on UK TV the Irish Five Star. you hav missed out New music pops in japan- the nolans and friends 14 track special issue white day cd, any reason?--Gazer97 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The last edit was very disruptive -- the changes to the discography and the notes I'd added to the 1990s section about the Japanese releases, based on the new material, disappeared as a result. The discography has a chronological list including all the commercial releases which doesn't need repeating two lines later. The rest of the section is opinion, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia: see WP:NPOV. To justify the comparison, we'd need a specific or sourced example of the Nolans being referred to as the Irish Five Star (it strikes me as unlikely, given the Nolans came first), and in any event a UK TV example wouldn't justify a comparison relative to the Japanese albums. Re: the White Day CD, the special issue bit suggested to me that wasn't a general release, but I'll take it that's not the case and add it to the discography. Gusworld (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ok if the albums are in ok, but its surely a good idea to have a general bit of information as to what went on at the time , why they were asked to record etc, and the style they had, taking that out is pointless --Gazer97 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The main body of the article now mentions that the group continued to actively pursue a career in Japan in the 1990s, and notes the main Japan-only releases. Placing this after the discography makes much less sense. Some of this information is very much in need of sourcing (e.g. the six albums claim), but it is present. The fact that the band appeared on TV to promote the recordings isn't notable (all bands do, and it would arguably be more notable if they didn't), nor is the fact that fans like to collect this work. Descriptions of musical style are highly subjective, which is why Wikipedia generally requires that they be sourced. I simply can't see that the contested text adds any new or appropriate information to the current version (to say nothing of the way that it's expressed, which is also an issue). Gusworld (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re to the nolans being called the irish fivestar do not make me laugh how dare you talk to me like this you know nothing about the nolans the fact of the matter is the group was called the irish five star i should know i am a major fan i will be removing all the japan imfo you added as its not correct and not true to the cds tears or even the names, as you no nothing leave this alone i will be getting a very dear friend to re edit all your work as franky its dire. why do you feel the need to remove info regarding the japan years? and the video bio you did you have dates and song words all wrong franky its dire, i will be removing this i have been a nolans collector the biggest one in the uk for years dont dare try and contradict me How dare you. km c 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.71.65 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note WP:CIVIL -- hurling insults around isn't helpful to anyone. Most of the Japanese information and all of the information on videos has been incorporated based on text you have added, so I'm at a loss to see why you're now claiming it is inaccurate. I've mentioned numerous times that Wikipedia has strict policies on verifiability (WP:VER), which aren't satisfied by saying "I'm a fan so I know this stuff". And no-one owns this article, so it isn't appropriate to tell other users to cease their involvement. Gusworld (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes that good but seeing you no nothing about the nolans leave it alone why are you removing who was in the group? from 1991 till now the group was very diffrent! i had added who was in it but you removed. stop it i will only keep adding it back so add what you like its wrong and i will remove it as its not appropriate . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.71.65 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim re group membership is not an accurate one, nor a civil one. The evolving group lineup is discussed in the main body of the article (though it could be probably be expressed more clearly); the contested section repeats this information. I note again that Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit and that no-one has ownership of articles. I'm going to seek outside input on this as both of you don't seem to be taking note of most of the discussion here, or recognising that information isn't added purely to satisfy fans. Karen, please sign your posts by placing four tildes after your comment. Gusworld (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

why are you not including who was in the group in the japan years, its added coz its important. this is getin outa hand, i mean this was all put in to satisfy fans who want to know details, god surely a few lines of text will not bugger up the whole of wiki. too many folk think they know things they dont, or are determined to interfere for the sake of it, godsake its no life or death go do somrthing else on a fri night--Gazer97 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy point: further changes by myself, Gazer 97 or 88.111.71.65 (Karen) would violate WP:3RR -- so please hold off any edits until the RFC process kicks in. Gusworld (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UT

Yes but you have the wrong information writen down wrong members in band albums recorded buy the new group you have added it all wrong why do you think i added there names to let people know who was apert of the group i will remove the edits as you have it wrong

The vast majority of the text in this article was not written by me, as the article history shows. The section on the band's post-Epic career could doubtless benefit from a clearer statement of the band's lineup at that time, but that would be the logical place to put it -- not in a header on top of a random list underneath the discography. As I've said, neither of us should be involved in editing at the moment given the revert problems -- we need to achieve consensus here first, and part of that process is your recognising the issues involved with the text you want to incorporate, and the policies that apply to information on Wikipedia. Gusworld (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be reporting gustworld as the japan imformation is being removed apanese career and TV appearances is being unfairly deleted; he is only doing so out of beaing nasty and bad i will not let you remove it from some jaill bird.

as u say no one person owns wiki, but surely the person with all the albums and info knows more than someone who has nothing. its people who just take stuff out who need banned, its being taken out for badness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazer97 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gustworld said :As a regular user of Wikipedia, I figure it's only fair that I contribute as well. In 2008, I'm trying to consciously do some Wikipedia editing each day as a form of community service.

I work as a journalist and editor in Australia, so my corrections tend to either involve fixing grammar and expression problems, adding some global perspective and information to US-centric articles, or tweaking around the edges of pop-culture related articles.

journalist? oh things are looking a little clearer now hahahahaha sad act.

Once again, I point to WP:CIVIL -- personal insults are not appropriate. An RfC process for this article has already been started. Please sign your posts. Gusworld (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again i say you keep your face out of stuff you dont know as it stands you no nothing about the nolans i do and what i say will go edit away but i will remove all your crap so Why dont you take you do gooding goodytwo shoes way and play on some other street corner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.71.65 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you've now removed the section listing TV appearances. As I've noted earlier on this page, I'm not personally convinced this was ever necessary, but the current version had been created after what appeared to be a consensus discussion between myself and Gazer97. Again, making wholesale changes to a page that's under dispute and in possible violation of WP:3RR is not a good way of proceeding. Gusworld (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But i i have said b4 sweet heart you have it listed totaly wrong dates and years and some of the songs are not even correct i should no yes im gonna remove rubish i own the videos i know the songs and shows , you no nothing so i removed your crap like i said i would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.71.65 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that while I believe the current version of the article is once again loaded with inappropriate, unsourced and repeated information, and has eliminated useful consensus changes made earlier, I'm refraining from making any changes while the RFC and 3RR processes are in place. As I've said before, the currently active editors should definitely familiarise themselves with WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:VER. Gusworld (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok love whatever your imput was not wanted or correct anyway i did most of the page and will keep doing so, you no0 nothing about the nolans so please keep out of it :) regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.71.65 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Information on Nolans Japanese career and TV appearances

Two editors believe that information on the Nolans' Japanese career and TV appearances is being unfairly deleted; another editor believes that much of this information is irrelevant, contrary to policy or should be incorporated elsewhere well gustworld can start his own nolans page and iv got a good idea what place he could put it gustworld knows nothing about the nolan so his comments are not needed. thanks

Situation has changed (one of the disputing users is blocked and hence can't contribute) so I've removed the RfC tag for the time being. Gusworld (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Major edit and cleanup

Now that things have calmed down a bit, I've done a fairly major edit to the article to try and bring it more in line with Wikipedia standards and make it more coherent, while also addressing the concerns that have become apparent during recent edit wars. This is a good-faith edit; that is, I've assumed the facts presented are correct and worked largely on making the article read better (adding references where appropriate would be the next logical step; I've tagged some of the more obviously contestable claims). Here's the major changes:

• Added a group infobox to the top, which makes the entry more consistent with other music articles and also makes it easier to check the lineups at various points (an issue raised here quite a few times). I've ordered the sisters here based on length of membership in the group. The dates here are largely based on the information in the article, which is patchy in places, so may well need tweaking.
• Rewrote the opening paragraph so it provides a brief summary overview of the group (good practice for Wikipedia articles).
• General copy edit to include more Wikilinks, improve copy flow and fix formatting (album titles, for instance, changed to italics).
• Editing of the post-1984 section to provide an overview of the band's 1990s career and its recording activities in Japan. I've tried very hard to ensure this incorporates relevant information from earlier edits, including the band lineup at the time, the names of full albums recorded during this period and the nature of the material. I've also added some details regarding the post-1994 activities, and broken the post-Nolans career information into its own rationalised section. The previous version was essentially an unstructured list of various activities by individual Nolans, so I've tried to make it flow better.
• Fixed capitalisation in the discography table, and moved the scraps of Japanese name information from the body to here.
• I've moved the information on the Japanese promotional titles under the singles section in the discography, and changed it from a list to text in accordance with general Wikipedia style guidelines. I'm not totally convinced that this information actually meets the threshold of encylopedic relevance, but have left it in for now for further discussion.
• I've deleted section 6 (repeated Japanese title information and videography). The information on all the Japanese albums has been incorporated into the discography (which generally comes at the end of the article on Wikipedia), and the relevant details of the girls careers at this time can be found in section 3. (If anyone wants to yell at me "you've deleted information", please specify exactly what relevant information cannot be found elsewhere in the article rather than just wholesale reverting.)
• The videography (which still appears to be a catalogue of one person's own video collection, including many repeated entries), is not, as I've said many times before, suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in that format. Previous consensus attempts to extract unique material from this section seem to have been abandoned by others; I'd be happy to work on this again, but the need to demonstrate the relevance of the material, and to format it in a way consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, remains.

There's still a lot of work to be done on the article, particularly in terms of adding references, but this is definitely a start. I fully anticipate that others will make many changes here and further improve the article, but hope this is something we can all build on rather than falling into more revert wars. Gusworld (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kmc 2008 yes iv put it back to how i had it sorry but your version is crap and lost alot of persional touch, as for the dvds clips yes stupid there from diffrent part of the world stopp editing it i will tell you hear and now i will never let your edit be included as you no nothing about the nolans i will remove it everytime so just leave it along

It is exceptionally bad form and clearly vandalism to delete other users' comments from talk pages as you just have, especially when you have failed to address any of the remarks made there. You are displaying clearly disruptive behaviour for which you have already been blocked under another IP address. Please consider acting more thoughtfully. Gusworld (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the time it took to write the above, you vandalised the page again by removing my comments. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Gusworld (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Add what u like i will remove it everyday as u clearly no nothing about the nolans fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.183.132 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

stop removing my stuff have you no life but as i said i look everyday and will remove anything u ever add kmc u got the line ups all wrong are you simple? u clearly know nothing im removing ur crud

Reminding you once again of WP:CIVIL, I'd ask precisely what information you feel is inaccurate in the current version. You have not provided any justification for the inclusion of a personal video collection list, a clear violation of WP:NOT. Gusworld (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Record company names all wrong, members dates and last names wrong dire . i should know i own the records do not atemp to edit or write as its totaly wrong u got the imfo from fake site that clearly dont know what there talking about kmc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.183.132 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence that a source is incorrect, please bring it to the talk page so that it can be reviewed by other editors. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly i dont want you editing nothing more importantly i will never leave you edit there so what is your point you are clearly crazy you have dates and peoples name all wrong and you added a album that was made up in my mind to the list, that in my book proves once again your way out you league you clearly have no idea who or what the nolans are or about wonder what album you have wrong? ha ha ha you would add anything on a wim sad so sad but please carry on removing stuff coz in a flash i will revert to my edits and remove so much as a dot you put there as to code for the conduct your the guy editing a page when you know nothing about a group. ur not wanted or any of your lies or made up stuff.

There are four record company names in the article. Three of them -- Epic, Towerbell and Teichku -- are in the version you keep restoring. The added name is Living Beat, which, according to the copy of British Hit Singles I have next to me right now, was the label for the 1995 re-release single. So what precisely is inaccurate?

The same for the names. Self-evidently, most of the Nolan sisters are active with the surname Nolan. Julia Duckworth's name comes from the official site. I've explained above that the member dates are based on the body text of the article; again, how do they differ from the version you keep reverting to? Also, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying you've knowingly added fake album names to the text, which is hardly evidence of good faith or of your own ability to make reliable edits.

Yet again, you don't own the article, and continuous reversion is a violation of WP:3RR Gusworld (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

see WP:OR Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the fake album to prove what a mug you really are as to official sites my dear there run by me and my friend if you look on one of there pages iv even added some stuff i posted on wilk so again you are talking crap the noland have loads more record companys than you listed like pickwick dmg tv records and time music international and dynamic records, again you never listed!! why ? well its clearly you have no idea what your talking about if i was writing crap the nolans would not have it on there site. kmc2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.183.132 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed re OR -- as I've noted a couple of times on this talk page, adding citations needs to be a high priority. If additional label names need to be added, then they can easily be added (with sources) -- that doesn't make the article wrong, though it does make it less comprehensive. Your admission to adding false content demonstrates again the need for sources but does again call into question your own reliability as an editor on this topic. Gusworld (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again have the cds and i know better than you all i will say is anything you add will be removed as its been proven time and time again ur adding rubish , you have no idea what ur talking about. edit away i will remove thats a promice please do not go on my site again i will ban ur ip addres from this moment on. kmc 2008 u are not welcome on my nolans site. you have added inproper content to this page and got album names totaly wrong. its rather sad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.183.132 (talk)

Read WP:OR Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a pattern of behaviour on Wikipedia would quite possibly count as disruptive editing. Despite the length of this discussion, you have yet to engage with any of the substantive content issues raised above. Nor have you attempted to explain how a list of your video collection should be part of an encyclopedia article. Please refrain from personal abuse and address the issues at hand. Gusworld (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I will address you anyway i please i will talk to you in a proper mannor when you start acting proper as it stands you have added random record companys fake names and got album names all wrong so how can i beleve a word you say? dire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.183.132 (talk)

You have yet to demonstrate a single inaccurate record company name, merely an unsourced claim that other labels could be added to the list. If false information has been inserted into the article because of your own insistence on adding text (very evident early on this talk page), that reflects poorly on you. Some brief research suggests that the fake album name in question is 'Special Projects', which can easily be removed from the discography once this current dispute is resolved. As I have respect for WP:3RR, I'm making no changes now, but you still haven't provided a coherent reason for entirely rejecting my most recent edit. Gusworld (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Obi strip information

The following uncited information has been in the article in various forms for quite a while (edited into this form by me but around as a list for rather longer):

"In Japan, several single titles were changed for promotional purposes, a common practice in the Japanese market. "I’m In The Mood For Dancing" was retitled "Dancing Sister" (Japanese: 「ダンシング･シスター) and promoted with the catchphrase 'Five Fresh & Fruity Gals'. "Gotta Pull Myself Together" was promoted as "Koi-no Happy Date" (translation: happy date for our love). Two records were promoted via the ages of individual members: "Tokimeki Twenty" (translation: exciting twenty) for "Who's Gonna Rock You" referred to the then 20-year old Bernie, while "Natsu-wa Sixteen" '(translation: sixteen best suited for summer) was similarly linked to 16-year old Coleen in "Chemistry" promotion. Other title changes included "Yasashiku Love Me" '(translation: love me tenderly) for "Don't Love Me Too Hard" and "Love Koi-shikute"(translation: so in love) for "How Do I Survive".."

Now, I presume that this is referring to the text found on the obi strip. If that's the case, then on reflection I think it's not suitable for Wikipedia, as essentially it represents minor information about record packaging and is thus non-notable. More pertinently for now, it doesn't have a source, so I'm going to remove it from the main article for now -- but am parking it here so if someone can find suitable sources, it might be reintroduced (though probably not in its current form). Gusworld (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look you the imformation on them being Five Fresh & Fruity Gals' and all the name changes are all over the place on there japan dvd on the japan book song books so it stay how dare you change that u are evil and i am reporting u anyway im reverting back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.77.129 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

i was away for 2 days am back so i hav not quietend down--Gazer97 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate a single inaccurate record company name, merely an unsourced claim that other labels could be added to the list. If false information has been inserted into the article because of your own insistence on adding text (very evident early on this talk page), that reflects poorly on you. Some brief research suggests that the fake album name in question is 'Special Projects', which can easily be removed from the discography once this current dispute is resolved. As I have respect for WP:3RR, I'm making no changes now, but you still haven't provided a coherent reason for entirely rejecting my most recent edit. Gusworld (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC wrong there are 7 nolans special projects nolans album and most have 2 or 3 diffrent cover and special versions of the album, Do not talk crap about stuff u dont know about esprit only have half the the nolans cd sop you looking on a site that lists only bits of it? and you say its right grouw up kmc2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.77.129 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest reversion

Once again, the article has been summarily reverted to an earlier version and an unsourced personal videography added. As an administrator pointed out here, that version suffered from major formatting problems. Nolans2007, you haven't provided any verifiable sources for the obi strip information, or explained why it is relevant in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gazer97, you haven't explained why an index of a fan video collection is appropriate content.

The version reverted from contained numerous properly cited references and -- while undoubtedly requiring work, as most articles on Wikipedia do -- is a much better basis to work from, particularly in terms of verifiability and original research policies, so I'm going to restore it. Please sign your posts by including four tildes. Gusworld (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to some of the other points raised above: I've used Esprit to provide a verifiable external source that a given album actually exists, and to confirm the tracklistings and title spellings. I haven't claimed that it provides an exhaustive listing of everything that's ever been released by the Nolans. (That would not necessarily be appropriate information for Wikipedia in any case, especially in the main article on an artist.)

Re the claim regarding the Special Projects CDs: A Google search on "special projects" Nolans doesn't bring up any relevant information other than a link to an older version of this page, so I'm sceptical for now. Before any such CD could be added, a verifiable source of its existence would be needed. WP:VER makes it very clear that merely saying 'I have the CD in question' is not sufficient proof. The core requirement is verifiability, not truth. That's why providing references for any contestable information is a major Wikipedia policy. Gusworld (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look u i will print off the cd covers and cds and disc and the press kits i have i am a massive nolans fan i know loads more than the like of you i will prove you wrong i should know how dare you say im not , so your saying everything u read on the net is true? take your rose coloured glasses off and smell the coffee, i will add every nolans japan cd i have you have listed only half when i do i will remove your list as its only half of it kmc2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.77.129 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

we will accept your stuff is its ok e g any accurate info.but we wont have everything taken out either--Gazer97 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you haven't provided evidence in a form that meets Wikipedia guidelines.

I have not said everything found online is true -- Wikipedia sourcing policy makes it clear that many online resources should not be used, or only used with great care. I have said that there's no immediate evidence online that these particular CDs exist.

If you add CDs to the discography, they will need to be appropriately referenced, and conform to generally accepted policies re discographies (for instance, promo-only items aren't normally included). References wouldn't necessarily have to be an online reference (you'll note there are print references in the article already), but it would have to be from a verifiable source as defined by Wikipedia policy. I note you have previously claimed to have deliberately added fake CD informaton to the page; pursuing this policy ensures that all information is verifiable. Gusworld (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are loads and loads of nolans uk cd on diffrent record companys re issues re recorded hits i should know i own then dont you dare say its made up you would not know a nolans cd if hit you in the face iv still to add 7 nolans uk cd to the list as it stands i will let you play im in touch with all the uk fans and we are all gonna revert back to my list, as its more intresting than anything you have to say what are you being all goody 2 shoes about i looked on ur info page.. was u a bad boy? remember god is watching —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolans2007 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nolans2007, I've just placed a note on your talk page reminding you of WP:3RR -- continuous edit warring is unproductive. I'll merely reiterate that Wikipedia's policies emphasise verifiability, not truth. I'm not denying the existence of any particular CD, but any information added to the article must come from verifiable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, and continuously reverting to an old version which lacks any sources whatsoever is not helpful. Please be civil, and please sign your posts. Gusworld (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gazer97, I notice you reverted the article [[1]] here with the comment "we are looking to use your stuff if its correct only". On Wikipedia, the accuracy of information is defined using verifiable sources. There are none listed in the version you have reverted to. Claiming "fan expertise" does not trump the verifiability policy. The energy taken to continuously revert the article would be much better used engaged in actual discussion about the article's content and providing additional sourced information. Gusworld (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See the nolans cds all sold on esprit i own them you can look at covers and so on by i own the cds see smarty see play back part 2? says on the cover 1991 but on the disc 1992 and early versions of play back have diffrent mixes/ or demo versions of the songs, same with playback part 2/ 2004 issue all track by maurean and ann have been rerecorded fact you clearly no nothing about.. or what about new music pops in japan you have it listed but totaly forgot to say about the exclusive track "step into my dream" the track all nolans fans wanna own and talk about, same with rock n rolling idol and xmass pops in japan you have forgot to say that holliday romance 1993 version is a brand new recording! see what im saying you just putting list with no back bone its very very boring and lacks intrest you know nothing about the group nothing same with new best hits you have it listed but then forgot to say the cd includes 5 new nolans tracks??????????? has that slipped your mind crazy..kmc 2008

At this stage, I'll just say it again -- the information has to be verifiable and relevant for an encyclopedia entry. Information about individual album tracks would not be included in the discography for the main article on an artist. It's quite possible that the Nolans entry will ultimately end up needing a separate discography, but that's clearly not going to happen during an edit war. And even if it did, sources would still be required. Individuals are not sources.Gusworld (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are puting list after list but not talking about the content of the cd fans /people wanna know anout special tracks diffrent versions, every versions of the hits all you have listed is boring imfo that we all know, well you cant very well talk about the covers or tracks as you dont own them your removal of the japan song names changes is out of order what are you some sad old man with no life..."shudders" ewwwwwwwwww. kmc2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolans2007 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope soon you will find a life :) kmc2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolans2007 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gazer 97, at your most recent reversion you comment "just changing it back to your version doesnt make it right either, as you dont know the facts at all". Once again, all contestable facts need to be supported by verifiable sources. You haven't provided any sourced examples of inaccurate facts in the article (claiming extra information could be included doesn't prove inaccuracy in itself). Personal attacks are also against Wikipedia policy.

Nolans 2007, this is an encylopedia article, which should be readable and informative to anybody, not a fan trivia miscellany. Owning any given CD is not a requirement for writing on a topic at Wikipedia; providing verifiable sources is. Gusworld (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true pet but your boring dead end edits make this look like the last will and testament very boring fact missing no imfo on the new recorded track or the exclusive track and you forget to add that early versions of playback have extra tracks or that any the nolans "special projects" include rare unissued track cant u just go way and edit some other thing you know about godboy kmc2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolans2007 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we sorta work together your good at the layouts i have the real fact ....just a thought can you see anyone in the world apart from yourself? are you so far...best not eh lol kmc2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolans2007 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. Wikipedia is indeed supposed to be a collaborative environment, and I'd much rather be working co-operatively but policies such as WP:3RR and WP:VER are key principles, and so far you seem unwilling to acknowledge either. Gusworld (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok i will help you with all imformation and fact but i wanna work with you its my dream to have a superb page including all things im talking about and you to a point i cant have stuff removed we can edit it together you can maybe show me how to set it out better, regarding the exciting...... chapter in there music the best years, i had included im in the mood for dancing loads of people ask me and ask the group on tv did you record any your hits in japaniese ? and yes thay did i,m in the mood for dancing was rerecorded especialy for a japan super fan who was on a uk tv show to do a qiz all about the nolans and in the uk there was a 15 minute tv program all about the nolans turning japaniese i i want this imfo incluuded in the page i have even uploaded the video to you tube we could link it here...... this imfo is what the fans want and so do i. kmc2008 i will try and work with you but please do not remove all my stuff its not nice and not on.

Again, I'd definitely much rather co-operate then spend my time in edit wars. I've attempted a few times to ask specific questions on this page, but haven't seen much evidence of response to date.

A fundamental problem we keep butting up against is the your understanding of the nature of material on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, there is some information that is always probably going to be regarded as too trivial (such as repeated TV listings or possibly the obi strips, though I'm open to further discussion on that point). Most of the information you're referring to sounds like it would be more suited to a fan site (and apparently you already operate several). As has been said earlier, details of individual tracks might be better placed on a discography entry in Wikipedia or on specific album entries if these are consistent with notability guidelines.

Then there's the sourcing issue. Facts on Wikipedia (including sales figures, chart data, years for major events) need to be sourced. One consequence of this is that some information is probably never going to meet the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion (which is why "verifiability, not truth" comes up all the time), but the prevailing view in the Wikipedia community is that this rule helps ensure that the content in articles does remain encylopedic and verifiable.

The most recent batch of reversions has eliminated loads of referenced material without any reasonable justification. I've provided endless explanations on here of why some material isn't suitable, but these seem to get ignored. The most recent edit I proposed is absolutely based on what went before, but most of the key facts are sourced. Extra information could undoubtedly be added, but I can't see that working forward from the old version you keep reverting to is sensible.

Regarding expression, encylopedias inevitably have a formal tone. Doubtless the expression could be improved and made livelier, but the combination of the various policies does result in a particular approach that has been widely accepted. Gusworld (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Two other points while I'm musing on this. First, many of the criticisms raised here recently about "missing information" (such as the Japanese version of IITMFD or the tracks on various albums) aren't present in the version you've repeatedly reverted to either, so it's hard to see how they are relevant to the immediate discussion. (No disagreement from me that a reference to the Japanese language version of IITMFD would be good and relevant, if sourced appropriately.)

Second: It seems to me likely that at some point in the future this entry will end up divided into sub-sections -- general Wikipedia policy is that articles should not be more than 32K, and both the current competing versions are approaching that figure. If separate 'The Nolans discography' and 'The Nolans' career in Japan' sub-articles were created (with summaries of relevant content in the main article), then much of the material you're keen to include would have a more self-evident home. That wouldn't remove the long-term requirement for sourcing the information in those sub-articles and demonstrating encylopedic relevance, but it might help eliminate some of the current disputes. Can't go there until we've agreed on a basic version to work from though.

Finally, I notice Gazer97 has been copy editing some of the post-discography Japan text in the current (disputed and non-sourced) version to remove some of the basic punctuation and capitalisation issues. As I've suggested on his talk page, there's probably no point in any of us making changes to either version until we can reach consensus and see current revert issues resolved. Gusworld (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A version to build from

There's been no concrete response to my questions or suggestions, and no justification throughout this discussion of how this version meets core Wikipedia policies on formatting, suitable content, verifiability and no original research. So I've returned the article to the version featuring references and conforming more closely to Wikipedia guidelines and generally accepted approaches (note the cleanup tag on the older version), hoping that this can be the basis for further improvements. (As I said above, I realise some minor punctuation and capitalisation changes were made in the interim, but I can't see any extra 'information' added, as this diff shows [2] and I've maintained in this talk page discussion that the material being corrected here is not suitable in that form, being repetitious, frequently POV and unsourced.)

I recognise, though, that there's no consensus yet on how best to move forward with improving this article, so I don't propose to make any further changes until they have been discussed on this talk page and we can reach some kind of consensus.

I really hope that we can agree to work together and enhance this version with additional information, corrections and references, as well as creating any suitable sub-articles to make use of further material, rather than endlessly revisiting the same argument, which essentially boils down to Nolans2007 (backed up by Gazer97) stating her expert Nolans knowledge and me pointing out Wikipedia policies and article conventions violated by the previous versions. That could potentially be a productive combination of knowledge and skills; it's a pity it hasn't been so far.

No-one owns this article, and ongoing changes and discussions are inevitable at Wikipedia, but at present, we're the three editors with a declared interest in working on this article, so we need to find a way to work together. Gusworld (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry My Honolulu Lover single - does it exist?

Can anyone confirm the existence of this as an actual single released in the UK in 1979, and identify the label or catalogue number? It doesn't show up in any prominent second-hard record stores online (I checked GEMM, eBay and EIL), and the only references to the single (as distinct to the TV performance) that I could find through Google are copied from this entry on Wikipedia. I know it's appeared as a bonus track on various releases, but unless there's some definite evidence of the single itself it needs to be removed from the singles discography (the song is already mentioned in the article in the context of the Song for Europe performance). I'd have thought it would be relatively uncommon for a single by a band with (at that stage) no singles chart pedigree to be released for a song that didn't win the Song for Europe round, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Gusworld (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As this article has been locked, it seems that all the furore over editing should be over. However, I don't know whether "Harry" was a single, but I do know that they released several singles before "Spirit Body and Soul". The discography is also lacking in that it doesn't include later singles such as 1985's "Goodbye Nothin' To Say" or the '89 issue of "I'm In The Mood For dancing" (which reached the UK top 100)- so there are a lot of singles missing from the list. Also, is the albums discography accurate? Did all those Japanese 90s albums fail to chart or are they left blank because their positions are unknown? Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Yes, there's definitely still gaps in the discography, especially in terms of pre-1979 releases. (I've just hold of some reference material for some of those singles, so they should get added in soon). For quite a while, the discography was headed as 'UK chart singles', which wasn't entirely accurate (Harry and Dressed To Kill were in there for instance), but did explain why some were missing. If the discography gets much bigger, then it may well end up in a separate article, with just the charting singles in the main article, but either way more need to get added. The big challenge is documenting them in a way that's suitable for Wikipedia (one of the edit war problems was over demonstrating that given records actually existed).

Similar problems exist with the Japanese albums. I've not seen any reference to their chart positions, but that's not to say it doesn't exist. Separate tables for UK chart singles and unique (ie all-new material) Japanese albums in the main body, with a separate discography listing all known commercial releases, including the Nevis and Target releases and the many, many compilations, seems a likely step forward, though I want to wait a few more days before making any changes to the article.

Re the 89 re-release -- this is news to me, but it doesn't appear in any chart reference books as having made the UK Top 100 (though the 1995 re-recording did). Any further details? Gusworld (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just checked it. Sure enough, it reached NO.99. Check out their discography on the Chartstats website - a great site for the UK charts. Although look them up under T not N (ie. THE Nolans) --82.0.207.86 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, will look into that, thanks. Technically, only the UK Top 75 is considered canonical (which is why a #99 appearance wouldn't show up in reference books), but it could potentially be added in with a footnote to that effect. Gusworld (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Just shifted this to the end to make tracking discussion easier). A related question if anyone knows: is the 95 re-release of IITMFD a remix of the 89 re-recording, or a second re-recording? (As ever, need a source for this, but knowing the answer would make it simpler to locate one!) Gusworld (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)!

I'm fairly sure the 89 and 95 versions are different, but don't know 100%, so not a lot of help there. I do know that they re-recorded all their hits on a 1995 compilation released over here (UK and Ireland)- the version on this CD is different, but also on a different label. It was a budget release, so I wouldn't be too worried about including it in the discography. I see however, that you failed to put in the '85 single "Goodbye Nothin' To Say". This was advertised in the press at the time, so probably seen as a comeback single - so quite important, despite it not charting. I also know they had another album out this year called "Love Songs". Unfortunately I don't know any details on it or how official it was. Possibly a follow-up to "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"?

Still I'm glad to see all that ridiculous info on those videos has gone. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Have dug up some references for "Goodbye Nothin' To Say", so will add ASAP. Also need to add the early Target singles. I think there's a reference to Love Songs in some of the material I found earlier this week, will check. Thanks again for the information! Gusworld (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye Nothin' To Say is now in the discography table. When this has been expanded a bit with late 80s releases (next major task on the list), I'll also add some text referring to them in the main article. There's a bunch of different compilations with the same 12 hits on it, which I suspect are the re-recordings -- need to investigate further and gather some references. The recent interviews with Anne Nolan re her book have been useful in providing meatier references for early career activity, but don't have much to say on this subject. Gusworld (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note re editing and copyright problem

In the course of research, I've discovered that the text [3] on which most recent edits have been based is largely a copy of the Nolans entry in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Although many changes and additions have been made, quite a lot of directly copied phrasing survives in the current version, and this obviously needs to be rewritten or removed to avoid a copyvio. (On the upside, the original EPM entry is a good citable source for facts which are so far unsourced).

I still don't want to make any other major structural changes to the entry until further consensus is reached, but I will work on changing the article to eliminate this problem as quickly as possible (hopefully sometime in the next 24 hours), and ask other editors to bear this in mind if making any changes. Gusworld (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, see my talk page for response.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, this has been done now and the page is free of copied text. The number of changes needed wasn't as great as I'd thought, though earlier edits represent much closer copies of the EPM text. Also added reference to the '89 re-release, removed "Harry" from the singles list until someone can prove it exists, added some Australian chart positions, added citations for a couple of other facts already in place and put in some basic information on pre-1979 releases. These still need to go in the discography at some point, once there's agreement on a good ongoing format for it, along with the 80s Hallmark release and most post-1990 compilations.

Also made a slight edit to the labels list -- listing every label (especially those for the re-releases) would make an unwieldy and not very informative list, but other contributors have complained that just having four labels listed is unrepresentative by omission. The current version, listing Epic and Teichku (the labels which had the majority of new material) and Target (highest-charting album) and then adding "and others" seems a reasonable compromise to me. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Discography proposal

With most of the article now sourced (and tagged for the remaining problem facts), the area that now most urgently needs work is the discography (to add missing singles and albums and add references for the non-charting releases that are in there). However, before adding these in, I'd propose the following new structure for the discography tables, as more informative and consistent with general Wikipedia practice:

Singles: Title, Year, Label, UK chart, Japan chart*, Ireland chart, Australia chart, Japan sales*

Albums: Title, Year, Label, UK chart, Japan chart*, Japan sales*

(Categories tagged * are currently unsourced and may have to be removed eventually, but I'm happy to keep them there for now and continue searching for a source -- I don't think there's a question that they would be relevant if we can source them properly.)

As well as a more logical order, this adds a label column for the singles and makes room for Australian and Irish chart data (the latter easily available online). It eliminates the source album column, but this is already largely covered in the body text (and the two exceptions can easily be incorporated). It eliminates the vocalist column, but this is (1) unsourced (2) very repetitive. Note also that Wikipedia consensus seems to be that discographies aren't supposed to be exhaustive trivia on albums or songs, just the key verifiable facts. (The more successful albums should probably get their own separate articles at some point.)

I've left Australia and Ireland off the albums table as there's no data for the latter and the two charting albums in Australia are already in the body text -- adding an entire column just for those two figures would lead to unwieldiness.

Just putting this out there for suggestions before making the change. Ultimately the discography may end up as a separate article anyway, but this is still a good step towards that. Gusworld (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, have made the changes to the album discography. Gusworld (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And also the singles. Next step: add sourced records not mentioned here to the discography (and to text where appropriate).

Done for vinyl singles. Japan-only CD singles need to be done, along with albums (a somewhat bigger task). Gusworld (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Japanese sales figures and chart numbers

The lack of sources for the claimed Japanese sales figures in the discography is very problematic, especially as they are so specific. Getting accurate information on Japanese sales is hard, and what data I can find online conflicts. For instance, the article currently claims (without a source) that "I'm In The Mood For Dancing" has sold 673,850 copies in Japan. The same figure is found in List of best-selling singles in Japan, which does list some general external sources. Of these, however, the only one with an actual Nolans sales number gives a different figure -- 409,250. It's hard for me to assess the reliability of a source page largely in Japanese (it offers lower totals for other artists as well, so it may be using a slightly different source for sales data), but it clearly demonstrates that the numbers can't be taken for granted. (The article text currently cites the book In The Mood For Success which claims 600,000+ sales, which seems an OK interim compromise to me.)

Similarly this site claims the Nolans had three #1 albums in Japan and spent 21 weeks at number one in total on the album charts. No source for the information is listed and there are no title details, so we really can't treat it as more than indicative, but note that we only have one Japanese #1 album listed in the discography.

Also problematic is the much-repeated claim that the Nolans outsold the Beatles with 9 million records sold in Japan. We're never told how many copies the Beatles are meant to have sold by comparison or over what period, and no source for the number's ever been given that I can find.

The total of all the numbers reported here (and again, remember these have no source) is 2.8 million, which is a substantial gap. We might assume the remaining numbers are made up from sales post-1983 -- but then, in this interview Linda quotes a lower number (8 million) but says that was in their first two years of activity in Japan -- more or less the same period covered by the numbers here. In one way, Linda's is a less substantial claim (it allows that the Beatles have probably sold more in Japan by now), but it suggests much higher initial sales than even the current discography numbers claim. In The Mood For Success suggests the Beatles-beating claim only relates to "I'm In The Mood For Dancing", but again doesn't offer a proper basis for the comparison.

The bottom line: can anyone point to any citable resources (perhaps in print) with reliable Japanese sales totals or chart data? In the absence of any extra evidence, my current feeling is that the sales figure column from the discography should certainly be removed, and the chart positions (other than the uncontested #1 status of "I'm In The Mood For Dancing") should probably go too. The current text about the Beatles comparison makes it evident that this is a frequent PR claim rather than a well-documented fact, but could also use some work to reflect the various uncertainties.

Anyway, wanted to raise all this here before making those changes. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusworld (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures are always a minefield and I would reckon you're better off ditching them - you'll probably never find anything fully reliable. One quick point, you list The Nolan Sisters album at No.3 in the UK and 15 in Japan - should that be the other way round? I know it only got to 15 in the UK, but unsure of where in Japan. Good work on the early releases though. I remember seeing "All The Kings Horses" being performed on a TV programme around April/May 1979 - I thought it was probably a single, but that's just guesswork. I take it you found no mention of it anywhere?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the UK chart figure, must have got inverted during editing at some point. The Japanese chart positions are effectively unsourced, so no way of knowing if they're actually right (and hence they'll shortly be history). Haven't found any references to a single release of "All The Kings Horses" -- given the frequency with which the Nolans did TV guest appearances in the 70s and early 80s, single promo might not have been mandatory. Gusworld (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

don't know if i'm doing this right, but thansk for cleaning up the article and removing lots of the fake bootleg stuff. this nolan3008/kmc character, is a really silly little boy. he does this on various popstar websites i vist.

thanks again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.252 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Coleen

It says on here that Colleen joined the group in 1980. How is this possible when she is in the video for 'I'm in the mood for dancing' which was released in 1979? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.89.64 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes a bit confusing since she also appears on the album cover from the same time, but according to sister Anne, Coleen didn't take part on the recordings at that time. She officially became a member around "Don't Make Waves" when Anne left.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)