Talk:List of albums which have spent the most weeks on the UK Albums Chart

This list is untrue! The Beatles' debut album alone spent 74 weeks on the chart! Where are the 'facts' coming from for this nonsense list?

The List is pointless. It uses the Top 200 for the ABBA Album, but the Top 75 for everything else.

It is best to use only the Top 75, for the List - for all Albums.

NOTE - All of my Lists, (below), go up to the UK Album Chart of the Week Ending 31st December 2011 - inclusive.

Here are the Albums based on Top 75 Weeks:,

Several of the Albums have No.76 to No.100 Positions included,because from W/E 8th August 1981 to W/E 14th January 1989,

the entire Top 100 of the UK Album Chart was counted. For example, 'Gold', by ABBA, is the only Album in the Top 5, to showTop 75 Weeks, only. The Queen Album spent 414 Weeks in the Top 75, the other 62 Weeks, are from when the entire Top 100 was counted.

UK ALBUMS WITH THE MOST CHART WEEKS

If an Album did not Peak at No.1, I show where it did Peak - in Brackets

1. Rumours - Fleetwood Mac - 483 Weeks (1977)
2. Greatest Hits - Queen - 476 Weeks (1981)
3. Gold - Greatest Hits - ABBA - 444 Weeks (1992)
4. Bat Out Of Hell - Meat Loaf - 474 Weeks (1978) (Peak = No.9 in 1981)
5. Legend - Bob Marley & The Wailers - 396 Weeks (1984)
6. The Dark Side Of The Moon - Pink Floyd - 376 Weeks (1973) (No.2)
7. The Sound Of Music - Film Soundtrack - 374 Weeks (1965)
8. South Pacific - Film Soundtrack - 315 Weeks (1958)
9. Bridge Over Troubled Water - Simon And Garfunkel - 309 Weeks (1970)
10. Greatest Hits - Simon And Garfunkel - 290 Weeks (1972) (No.2)
11. War Of The Worlds - Jeff Wayne / Various Artists - 285 Weeks (1978) (No.5 in both 1978 & 2005)
12. Tubular Bells - Mike Oldfield - 278 Weeks (1974)
13. Face Value - Phil Collins - 274 Weeks (1981)
14. Making Movies - Dire Straits - 251 Weeks (1980) (No.4)
15. Thriller/Thriller 25 - Michael Jackson - 248 Weeks (No.1/No.3) (1982/2008)
16. Dirty Dancing - Film Soundtrack - 243 Weeks (No.4) (1987)
17. The Immaculate Collection - Madonna - 242 Weeks (1990)
18. Brothers In Arms - Dire Straits - 231 Weeks (1985)
19. Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles - 207 Weeks (1967)
20. Nevermind - Nirvana - 205 Weeks (1991) (No.5 - in 2011)

THE TOP 5 ALBUMS - WITH ONLY TOP 75 WEEKS SHOWN

Here I show - in Brackets - how many Weeks, an Album has added from the entire Top 100, for the August 1981 to January 1989 period:,

1. Rumours - Fleetwood Mac - 483 Weeks (112 Top 100 Weeks added)
2. Greatest Hits (One) - Queen - 476 Weeks (62 Top 100 Weeks added)
3. Bat Out Of Hell - Meat Loaf - 474 Weeks (34 Top 100 Weeks added)
4. Gold - ABBA - 444 Weeks (Top 75 Weeks only)
5. Legend - Bob Marley & The Wailers - 396 Weeks (30 Top 100 Weeks added)

THE TOP 5 ALBUMS TOP 100 WEEKS

If we use the Top 100 for all of the Top 5 Albums, (since they first Charted), then the Albums with the most Top 100 Weeks are:,

1. Gold - ABBA - 638 Top 100 Weeks
2. Greatest Hits (One) - Queen - 635 Top 100 Weeks
3. Legend - Bob Marley & The Wailers - 583 Top 100 Weeks
4. Rumours - Fleetwood Mac - 513 Top 100 Weeks
5. Bat Out Of Hell - Meat Loaf - 506 Top 100 Weeks

82.22.125.117 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This list is a joke surely? Or am i missing something? Where are the Beatles, Oasis, Phil Collins and suchlike? All of which have multiple albums that spent over 100 weeks in the chart.

IN fact I would go as far as to say that possibly hundreds of albums are missing from this list.

The list is incomplete, it's under construction. fyi the beatles only have 3 albums that qualify, oasis just 2 and phil collins 3. albums don't stay in the charts as long as you think they do. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen's greatest hits album must be top of the pile by now i would have thought, there can't be to many weeks separating queen and abba'a greatest hits collections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.137.203 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. According to the Official Charts Company, Greatest Hits by Queen has, as of 27 September 2012, spent 479 weeks on the United Kingdom Album Chart. Gold: Greatest Hits by ABBA has spent 450 weeks on the chart. However, the official Chart Company only lists the charts from 1960 onwards. A more extensive listing, going back to 1952, is provided by Chart Archive^{[dead link]}. This differs somewhat from the Official Chart Company's version, showing the ABBA album at 506 weeks, and the Queen album at 497 weeks. As neither website gives any details of how they make up their statistics, it is difficult to work out which is correct.

Strangely, the Queen album doesn't even appear on the list in the article! Other albums missing from the list include Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, which spent 489 weeks on the chart according to Chart Archive and 487 according to the Official Charts Company and Bat Out of Hell by Meat Loaf, which was there for 469 weeks per the Chart Archive and 474 weeks per the Official Chart Company. Other long-runners missing are the original soundtrack of South Pacific, which Chart Archive reckons spent 315 weeks on the chart, the original soundtrack of The Sound of Music, which Chart Archive credits with 372 weeks on the list, and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, which Chart Archive has at 380 weeks, while the Official Chart Company reckons on 351 weeks.

Legend by Bob Marley & The Wailers is a strange one, as there are two entries. Legend managed just 78 weeks according to the Official Chart Company, but "Legend: The Best of Bob Marley & The Wailers" (which appears to be a different version of the same album) chalked up another 340 weeks. Chart Archive adds them both together and comes up with 446 weeks. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a simple matter - the Chart Archive Site is missing a great many UK Album Charts. That is why it has/had too low a Weeks On Chart Total for many Albums - ABBA Gold & Greatest Hits by Queen included. The person who ran that Site told me this on more than one occasion. So it is pointless for anyone to use the Chart Archive Site as a gauge of Chart Weeks under those circumstances. Also, it is wrong to add the Chart Weeks of Greatest Hits I, II, & III by Queen to those of Greatest Hits - as you have done. In the past I know of only 1 UK Chart Book that also did that. The Guinness & Virgin Chart Books certainly did not - and nor does The OCC on its Web Site. Only the stand-a-lone Chart Weeks of Greatest Hits (One) by Queen count towards that Album. 82.6.134.233 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude but surely this is the most pointless/innacurate/completely false article in all of Wikipedia - and that's quite a feat!To be honest I'm completely mystified and it needs deleting in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.127.57 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There are still serious flaws with this list, one year on from the plea to give us more time to get it finished. As an example, Tubular Bells by Mike Oldfield spent 278 weeks on the United Kingdom Album Chart according to the Official Charts Company and Chart Archive(Link redirected to OCC website), which would place it third on the list, and yet it fails to appear in the top 85 places.

Either this list needs some serious work to knock it into shape, or it should be scrapped completely. If it is a work in progress, it should really be moved to somebody's sandbox, where work can continue (by a group of editors, if necessary) until it is in a fit state to be transferred to the article pages. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The singles list uses 40 as the minimum for entry on that list, how about making it 50 for this one just to round the numbers?. Also, we could have two combined lists from all singles or albums released, in which 100 weeks are needed for the albums and 80 for the singles?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myevergreen (talk • contribs) 23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

the idea that it's a work in progress is no longer valid (if it ever was!)as it'd been up ages and you've still got complete rubbish like a Beyonce album in the top numbers of weeks of all time - beating 'Bat Out Of Hell' for goodness sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.180.108 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is clear when comparing weeks on chart you have to factor in size of charts eg Top 100 1981-1989 and Top 75 thereafter - but that the former included multi-artist compilations while the latter doesn't.(Coachtripfan (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

Thought I'd take this list in hand, seeing as no-one else seemed to be bothering, plus I have an interest in such things and some time on my hands. Starting to run out of ideas of albums I might be missing, though, although I've still a few more to add.

Having added a large number of albums to the list, I'm starting to wonder if 52 is too low a starting point. I understand the significance of 1 year on chart, I guess it is a pretty good achievement, but it has made for a very long list! Maybe 52-74 and 75-99 should become 52-59, 60-69, 70-79 etc. to break it up a bit.

(Satyrist (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC))

Personally I would go for a cut-off of 100 weeks and concentrate on getting every album above this and making updates reasonable for the future. I recently edited the Singles equivalent page and increased the cut-off for the same reason. Btljs (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Satyrist:The new revamped OCC archives have lists of weeks on top 75 and top 100 and a quick check of the top few albums in the list shows that neither of these match this page. What is defined as the chart here? Plus all the reference to OCC pages need updating. Btljs (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've gone with top 100 because on the OCC Meat Loaf page it refers to Bat out of Hell having more than 500 weeks on the chart and that's only true if you count the top 100. I've recalculated and re-referenced the 200+ list - although there are likely to be other albums which need promoting to this (I came across 3 just going through the artists already in there). I still think we should cut off at 100 weeks, but if people are happy to keep adding them in then fine. Btljs (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, (and this is hopefully a temporary situation) the OCC pop-up boxes for the individual albums which contain the top 75 weeks are unreliable - some don't have the correct totals for their own contents. Maybe if they sort this out both top 100 and top 75 could be included in different columns? Btljs (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Btljs: Yes, OCC has decided to change the way it calculates things and redone its website, and this is why none of the numbers match and all the links are incorrect. Previously going to each artist's own page you'd get number of weeks for top 75, now I agree it looks like top 100 for everything (although I'm sure I saw somewhere that the Live Chart used to be weeks in top 200, but I haven't had time to look to see if that is still the case). Anyway, you can imagine my despondency when I saw it knowing how much now needs changing. Thanks for making a start - I totally agree it should be top 100. I'm fairly busy for a couple of weeks, but will get back to this page soon. Satyrist (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Satyrist:I do share your pain - I've spent many hours changing chart dates to match OCC (Saturday week/ending) only for them to change all the links to the Sunday week/starting! I thought it would be better if I had at least done some of it before you saw it and despaired. I'm happy to go down to 100 weeks, as you get a kind of handle on it by looking through picking out the big hitters. The good news is that the current chart now matches the archive, so in future we just need to go down the week's chart and pick out anything over whatever cut-off we end up with and update accordingly. Let's hope they don't ever decide to do top 200s. Btljs (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richard3120: @A Thousand Doors: @Satyrist: Does anyone know when these were excluded from the albums chart? If we are including them from when they were in the normal chart we should give an explanation with some dates I think. Btljs (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Btljs:They were never on the page when I started the huge overhaul, and I excluded them purely because the old OCC website wouldn't for some reason let you search for them, so I couldn't get the accurate information on them, and therefore I had to make mention that they were excluded to explain the incomplete list, if you see what I mean. I always knew there were some soundtrack albums that should be on it - especially as South Pacific spent over 1 year of consecutive weeks at the top of the chart! However, the revamped OCC website now makes them properly searchable, so it is at last possible to include them and have a fully accurate list. Satyrist (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Btljs:Take a look at my sandbox page if you like - I've been using it to keep notes on this page, you'll see near the bottom where I made a note on these; haven't bothered to update it yet. By the way, I'm fairly convinced from doing some searching that no compilation albums by various artists would qualify anyway (Now! 1 comes very close, but not close enough) but I cannot be 100% certain that none qualify... Satyrist (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure it was 1989 when they got their own separate chart, but I'd need to check that. I find it somewhat ironic that the reason they were split off is because it was felt the compilation albums (particularly the Now and Hits series) were taking up too much of the chart positions... and now in 2015 with the internet allowing you to make your own compilations, they've died a death: with the exception of the Now series sales of compilations are negligible. Really, how many "Forever Love Ballads" or "All Time Great Driving Rock" type albums with exactly the same songs on them can you put out these days? Richard3120 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how Now keep going. It used to be a useful way of updating your collection with chart hits but now you'd just pick them out of itunes. Anyway, I looked and it appears from OCC rules pages that soundtrack albums are allowed if they are either an original cast recording or done by one orchestra/performer. There is, as well as a compilation chart, a soundtrack chart on which Dirty Dancing has chalked up an impressive 979 weeks despite the fact that the chart didn't start until 2002, only 688 weeks ago. The Guinness Books of Records of my youth always used to go on about South Pacific and Sound of Music so it is only fitting that these are included and, who knows, another Captain Sensible style cover and they might even chart again one day. Btljs (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My guess is the Now series keeps being successful precisely because of its appeal to people to the kind of people that have to have "the latest" and aren't picky about music... much simpler to buy the whole album than pick and choose your chart hits. I also suspect that by the time the next in the series rolls around four months later, the previous one hasn't been played in weeks. On the other hand, other compilations tend to be themed (e.g. Valentine's Day) but containing old songs that everyone already has... so they don't sell any more. Richard3120 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the date that compilation albums were split off from the albums chart was 14 January 1989, which, coincidentially, was also the day that Frankie Sandford of The Saturdays was born – another landmark moment in British music history. It would seem that, from that date on, albums credited to "Original Soundtrack" were also excluded (note that the original soundtracks to Buster and Dirty Dancing are in the 7th January chart, yet both are conspicuously absent one week later). As far as I can tell, it would appear that soundtracks could only chart if they were credited to a specific act (e.g. Paul McCartney, James Horner, Badly Drawn Boy, Daft Punk, etc.). Soundtracks credited to various artists or "Original Soundtrack" (e.g. Twilight or Frozen) were listed in the compilations chart instead.

However, just to really confuse things, albums credited to "Original Cast Recording" still qualify for the main albums chart (as recently as last October we had the original cast recording of Miss Saigon at number 25). I presume that this is how the soundtrack albums from Evita and Les Misérables were able to reach number one. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely correct: I'm sure you're right about the January 1989 date as well, that year had stuck in my mind as being the changeover year. I think the reason "original cast recordings" still count as an artist album is that the cast ensemble is considered to be a single group, not a random selection of different songs by separate artists, as a soundtrack album often is. Richard3120 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Btljs: What do I do when I know the information is wrong?! Two of Elton John's albums definitely have this issue - the first being The Very Best of Elton John which is listed on OCC (http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/21478/ELTON-JOHN/) as having been released in 1980 and having 103 weeks on chart. However, only the first 13 weeks relate to the 1980 release, while the other 90 should be added to the 14 weeks on chart from 1994-7, to give the correct total for the 1990 release. The second is Love Songs which is listed as having been released in 1982 and having 70 weeks on chart. Again, these are two different albums with the same name, and the first 13 weeks relate to the 1982 version while the remaining 57 weeks relate to the 1995 version. Elton John albums discography lists them correctly (but doesn't list weeks on chart, of course) and if you look at the breakdown of position by week for each album on OCC you can see the huge date gaps. Satyrist (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Satyrist:Wrong information in popular sources is the bane of the Wikipedian's life. If you can piece together the information from different sources, even if they don't have it all or disagree on details, then that I always think that is a good idea to cite them. Also put in footnotes to say that the usual source (OCC in this case) is wrong and how you know. Finally, if you can be bothered, e-mail OCC to let them know they have an error. The real problems arise when someone else alters the information to match the OCC - which is why I always like to have notes on the page to "rely on in court". To my mind wrong information is worse than no information at all. Btljs (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Great work on the page, by the way.

@Btljs: Thanks! Ok, I'll see what I can do to get round the problem. Failing all else, a lengthy note! Satyrist (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK so this page has been tagged for only citing OCC and not other sources. A couple of points: 1. OCC is not a primary source because this is historical information which was publicly available from various chart compilers over the years. 2. To establish notability, a range of sources is generally required and this holds. I will try to add some news articles about certain key facts e.g. an album passing a threshold BUT it is not reasonable to expect a list like this to get precise numbers from any other than the main source. Btljs (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the general topic of "albums spending the most weeks on the album chart" that needs to be discussed in reliable third party sources. Per WP:LISTN, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I know. I get that. It's why we have debates about top 100 vs. top 75 and we look back at records books to see what they were using. As a child I was well aware of The Dark Side of the Moon spending 12 years on the US chart so it must have been reported. Btljs (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Btljs: I confess I've been saving this one up! Take a look at the following webpage, which I did very quickly this morning: http://www.darkwarrior.org.uk/satyrist/AWb2b.htm in conjunction with the relevant OCC page (http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/812/AMY-WINEHOUSE/). It shows the chart weeks of Back to Black from its first week on chart until after the last week that the deluxe version of the album charted. You will note that for some reason both albums were listed as being on the chart in 32 of the deluxe version's 55 weeks on chart. So, should Back to Black be credited with 217 weeks on chart (as currently, allowing that it managed to chart twice in the same week 32 times), 185 weeks on chart (removing the double-counting weeks) or 162 weeks on chart (treating the two versions as different albums)? What do you reckon?! (N.B. I'm nearly done for all 100+ week albums and will be moving them to the main list soon) Satyrist (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC+01:00)

@Satyrist: As far as I know there is no rule that a record can't appear more than once in a week's chart. In the OCC soundtrack chart Dirty Dancing is credited with more weeks than there have been charts by having two versions. After all we are counting a number of appearances not a period of time. So if the official source does it like that then I guess so should we. Btljs (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Btljs: Ok, I'll leave as is then, thanks for your thoughts. Satyrist (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC+01:00)

@Btljs: You said back in January that the cut-off for this list should be 100 weeks and now that OCC have changed their listings many more albums than before are credited with 52+ weeks on chart. Night Visions by Imagine Dragons this week became the 236th album (assuming I haven't missed any) to reach 100 weeks on chart and several more are rapidly approaching (for a start, Bad Blood by Bastille and Time Flies... 1994–2009 by Oasis are on 98 and 97 weeks respectively and, crucially, are in this week's chart). I think I therefore agree with your January comment - do you still agree? As to the rest of the list below, one wonders whether keeping them here as an aid to updating the article in the future would be acceptable? I have no idea about these things, I'm afraid. Personally, I am happy to continue updating and adding to the list below in spare moments. Would be grateful for your thoughts and thanks once again for all your help! Satyrist (talk) 19:13, 07 April 2015 (UTC+01:00)

Yes I think that's a good cut-off. I can't see a problem with keeping the others here (I don't know if someone may come along and archive them if the talk page gets too long). Btljs (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks. On that basis I will also remove the "article incomplete" tag, unless you have any objections? Satyrist (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC+01:00)

Chart ending: 20 June 2015

90 to 99 weeks

80 to 89 weeks

70 to 79 weeks

60 to 69 weeks

52 to 59 weeks

Notes

It is a simple matter - the Chart Archive Site is missing a great many UK Album Charts. That is why it has/had too low a Weeks On Chart Total for many Albums - ABBA Gold & Greatest Hits by Queen included. The person who ran that Site told me this on more than one occasion. So it is pointless for anyone to use the Chart Archive Site as a gauge of Chart Weeks under those circumstances. Also, it is wrong to add the Chart Weeks of The Platinum Collection, (AKA Greatest Hits I, II, & III) by Queen to those of Greatest Hits - as you have done. In the past I know of only 1 UK Chart Book that also did that. The Guinness & Virgin Chart Books certainly did not - and nor does The OCC on its Web Site. Only the stand-a-lone Chart Weeks of Greatest Hits (One) by Queen count towards that Album. 82.6.134.233 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure which Chart Archive Site you are talking about? I think we've used OCC for most, if not all, of these albums. As regards combining box sets with individual albums: when I looked at different sources there was little consistency between them; some counted fractions of box sets - as if somehow buying several albums bundled together counts as one sale which then has to be divided between them (I find this fairly absurd), some didn't count them at all, some counted some multi-album sets but not others with no explanation of the difference. The OCC is not consistent - many of the totals combine separately listed albums which have 1. the same name and 2. the same songs in the same order. In the absence of one overriding approach from different sources (or even consistency within each source), we have made what I believe is a common-sense judgement which is that an album charts if it is bought in its entirety regardless of what else is bought alongside it. It is worth noting that from this March individual tracks streamed count towards an album charting as well so that the listener is not even making a conscious choice of album. Btljs (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Chart Archive Site that The OCC got to close down a few Year's ago. Until that point several Wikipedia Pages used to use that Site for the UK Weeks On Chart of Album's such as ABBA Gold & Greatest Hits (One) by Queen. Totally oblivious to the fact that the Site owner was missing a great many UK Charts. So the ABBA 'Gold' Album was 144 Chart Weeks too low & the Queen Album was 139 Weeks too low. As you use The OCC Site, you will notice that they certainly do not combine the Chart Weeks of any of the 3 Queen 'Greatest Hits' Albums with those of the Triple Set 'The Platinum Collection'. They count all 4 Queen releases as separate Albums. Which is also what most UK Chart Books used to do. It is an anomaly to give 'Greatest Hits' (One) & 'Greatest Hits II' the UK Chart Weeks of the Triple CD. ('The Platinum Collection' currently has 157 Top 75 Weeks & 211 Top 100 Weeks). ABBA 'Gold' is the stand-a-lone Album with the most UK Top 75 Weeks & Top 100 Weeks. It has 488 Top 75 Weeks & 722 Top 100 Weeks - to W/E Thursday 10th September 2015. (The OCC say that it has 720 Top 100 Weeks, but they miss out 2 No.77 Positions - 1 from May 1993 & 1 from February 1994). 82.6.134.233 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

First, regarding the missing top 100 weeks: if the OCC only lists a top 75 then that is all we can list it we are treating this as 'official'. I've changed the wording in the lede to include the years from 1988 to 1994 when only a top 75 is listed. With that caveat the weeks for Abba now stand (as for every other album which may have a 76-100 placing in other source's listings for this period).

Second, the point about box sets: (See also the discussions on Elton John and Back to Black above.) There are discrepancies in the way the OCC lists albums in their archive. We have to live with that and as far as possible that means making sensible judgements about what constitutes 'the same album'. On balance, I have to agree with you about Queen Greatest Hits: the BPI gives GH12,3 separate platinum awards to GH (and even award GH1,2 separately). To be consistent, it we split these then all the other albums in the list which have additional weeks will have to be debited as well. Btljs (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the weeks for albums in box sets be divided between the respective albums instead of giving all the albums in the box the total weeks the box charted? Now Queen's Greatest Hits I as well as II are getting 211 weeks for the weeks The Platinum Collection charted, but I would say it's fair to give one of them 211 weeks, or one 105 and the other 106, or, because Greatest hits III is also a part of this box, 70, 70 and 71. Has anyone a better suggestion? I don't know why this system would be better (apart for Queen and their fans of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freak of nature-music (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)