This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Rock musicMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofRock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Record ChartsHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating toRecord charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop bythe project page and/or leave a query atthe project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. Australia:MusicHigh‑importance ARIA Charts is within the scope ofWikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofAustralia andAustralia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Australian music (assessed asTop-importance). Need help improving this article?Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at theNational Library of Australia. TheWikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email tohelpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

• I've removed some information that pre-dates ARIA & therefore is not related to this topic. I'm thinking to start adding pages for weekly ARIA singles charts to Wikipedia, does anyone have a suitable table or format these should be in?ZlatkoT14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

I agree to the suggestion and someone should be adding more topics to the achivements page— Precedingunsigned comment added byTerrya (talk •contribs)07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree with that too.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMusic Maverick (talk •contribs)08:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but feel that the news thatBrazin will cease providing ARIA with sales data should be mentioned in the article. Brazin owns Sanity, HMV and Virgin Megastore, and the absence of these three (arguably only two, I don't know how big VM is) major music outlets' sales from the charts is sure to skew them in some manner--though it's likely too early to tell where.Does anyone feel like adding this somewhere? I wouldn't know where to put it, and don't know much about it. Here's a couple of links for anyone who wants to do some research:[1],[2],[3]. -211.28.136.8711:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the requested information, although I wasn't aware of it before now. There seems to be an awful lot of duplication surrounding ARIA - we have separate articles for the ARIA charts,ARIA Music Awards andAustralian Recording Industry Association. I think the information about the ARIA awards on this page could probably be removed, since they have their own article. Anybody disagree? Also, just a suggestion, perhaps this page should be renamed "Motorola ARIA charts" to come into line with the official name of the charts these days.Phil50008:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently announced (November 11) amid little fanfare, that Brazin has now recommenced contributing to the ARIA charts (see references). I've changed the article to reflect this.--Phil500(Talk /Contribs)07:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ARIA founding date (1983) post-dates any chart success The Beatles had before that therefore is not an ARIA fact.ZlatkoT08:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where you can find the history of the highest point reached for singles or albums. i can't find artist single/album positions on the ARIA website, only the end of year positions and the single/album accreditations. --Aljohnston02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raid your local state library to see if they have archives of the ARIA Report. That's about the only place you can find old ARIA chart info, apart from having your own collection or knowing someone who has. David Kent's "Australian Chart Book 1970-1992" has top 100 singles & albums chart peaks that are identical/were used by ARIA until the end of June 1988.Nqr905:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed ARIA has changed the name ofSingles Chart toPhysical Singles Chart and made a newSingles Chart which features CD's and internet downloads combined. Am I right about this. Should Wikipedia use the new combined chart? I just noticed this when I was editingI Don't Feel Like Dancing thinking it was number 7 (physical) when it's number 3 (combined).Lakeyboy07:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yeah in my opinion i recon that they should use this new Singles Chart, and yeah the singles chart is a combination of CD's and downloads. I found this news article on the ARIA webiste that might explain it better:)[4].Lillygirl 8:18, 10 Ocotber 2006.

Cool. I think I'll use "Singles Charts"!!!RaNdOm2616:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know a good spot to find the whole 100 positions of ARIA. And suitably an archive going back to 2003 or 2002?Tcatron56514:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah this website[5] has the ARIA Reports achived since 2001, but if you want top 50 charts since 1989, here's a good wesite[6].Lillygirl00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this again. It may belong in an article about Motorola Australia but it's not notable in, or significant to, an article on music charts, and is againstWP:NOT#SOAP: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising."

It is also againstWikipedia:Spam:"Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products". If it is reverted again I will put a {{Cleanup-spam}} tag on the article.

See also:Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers.

What would Wikipedia be like if we listed every single sponsorship deal in history?Grant65 |Talk01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the Motorola statement again, although I have moved it to the end of the top section, as I agree that it is probably not the most notable feature of the ARIA charts. However, as I have already stated, this alliance is factual information, supported by legitimate referencing. The statement is written from an objective view, and does not "plug" Motorola or any of Motorola's products. Check out the officialwebsite for the ARIA charts, and you will find that the Motorola sponsorship is being pushed very strongly by ARIA. For another example, look at the articles about two tennis tournaments: theMedibank International and theAustralian Open. Both of these articles mention the major sponsor of these events in a neutral way and there have been no allegations of bias or spamming.--Phil500(Talk /Contribs)02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to do more than that to convince me, I'm afraid, especially as you have not dealt with the basic issues of Wikipedia policy that I raised above. Lots of things that are factual are not mentioned in articles. The basic issue is that this is a particularly insidous form of advertising/spam.

There is also the matter ofWP:notability. We can't include mention of each and every sponsor, past and present, of everyone and everything that has a Wikipedia article. In terms of notability, the relevant questions are, does Motorola compile the charts? (No.) Would the charts exist without Motorola? (Yes.) Is Motorola a record company with a vested interest, raising questions of corruption which need to be mentioned in the article? (No.)

Thanks for the tip re the Australian Open. I have now removed the mention of the sponsor there as well. The Medibank International is a bit different in that it is embedded in the name, likePura Cup.Grant65 |Talk06:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the policies you raised above,

• WP:NOT#SOAP states that propaganda, advocacy, self-promotion or advertising should not be included. I fail to see how a simple statement informing readers that Motorola sponsors this chart can be considered propaganda or advocacy of Motorola. Just to be clear, I am not connected with Motorola, nor do I have any particular interest in them, so this is not self-promotion. Finally, this policy also explicitly states: "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." This article refers to Motorola in an objective and unbiased style. Your first point is therefore void.

• Wikipedia:Spam is a policy which goes towards blatant advertising and misuse of Wikipedia as a forum to sell goods and services. The policy also refers to external links to websites which promote such goods and services. The only external link in relation to this sponsorship is a link to an article provided on ARIA's own website, completely disconnected from any Motorola advertorial content.

• Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers defines some unacceptable forms of advertising: "adding excessive external links to one's company, outright replacing of legitimate articles with advertising, and writing glowing articles on one's own company." There are no external links to Motorola contained in this article. None of this article's content has been replaced by advertising, merely the addition of an objective statement that the ARIA chart has a corporate sponsor. In accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, the article does not describe Motorola in "glowing" terms, on the other hand, nor is it critical of such sponsorship. This policy does not support your argument.

• In regard to your latest point regardingWP:notability, while I agree with you that Motorola does not compile the charts, it is not up to us to speculate whether or not the ARIA charts would exist without Motorola. It is no secret that ARIA chart data is no longer used by programs such asRage or take40australia, so perhaps the sponsorship was necessary to keep the charts afloat. Your point here is merely speculation.

• Finally,Wikipedia is not censored. Removing details of corporate sponsorship, where such details are factually proven and presented in an objective manner, breaches this policy by denying the reality that corporate sponsorship exists in many areas of modern life, whether we like it or not. Launching some sort of vendetta against every article that mentions corporate sponsorship is equivalent to censoring Wikipedia.--Phil500(Talk /Contribs)10:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your points in turn: (1) The article is not about Motorola and the point is, who cares who sponsors ARIA, apart from Motorola (and to a lesser degree ARIA)? Our job is not to support ARIA's profitability (as if they need any help). To take a counterfactual approach, if -- instead of Motorola -- it was John Farnham or Michael Gudinski sponsoring ARIA, then that would be newsworthy and notable. (2 & 3) Spam takes many forms and it is not just direct links to commercial websites. As I have asked you before -- and you still have not addressed this -- are we now going to allow details of every sponsor who has ever sponsored any person/organisation/event/subject of an article in Wikipedia? If we allow it on one occasion, we will not have any excuse to stop it anywhere. (4) See point 1. (5) Wikipedia is not censored but it clearly does not assist companies who have nothing to do with the thing they are sponsoring, other than giving them money for their own promotional purposes. Our basic policy is no different to that of the BBC, ABC and many other media organisations. Not to mention other encyclopedias!Grant65 |Talk15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with all points made by Grant65. It has been sponsored by various companies over the years, I don't think it's terribly relevant. It also makes the encyclopaedia much harder to keep factual and up to date if we have little factoids that could change at any moment lying around the place.Orderinchaos7812:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed all the above comments, I am now inclined to agree with the comments made by Orderinchaos78. I agree that the statement is not all that relevant to an article about music charts, and would not be terribly disappointed to see it deleted. My main objection was to the manner in which the offending statement was treated by Grant. If I remember correctly, I was actually the editor who originally added this comment, believing at the time that it was factually relevant. Had it been removed with an edit summary such as "Sponsorship details are too trivial/irrelevant for inclusion," I would have accepted the deletion and moved on. However, having originally added the comment in good faith, I was rather offended by Grant labelling it as "insidious spam," and a "plug for Motorola," when in reality, it was never intended to be either of those things. I felt that I needed to defend my actions in originally adding the statement. Having clarified the issue, I would now accept the deletion of this statement from the article.--Phil500(Talk /Contribs)09:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to get a list of the songs/artists that reached #1 on ARIA Urban, Club Play and (discontinued) Alternative charts?— Precedingunsigned comment added byNathan86 (talk •contribs)04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend" did not debut at number 1. It debuted at number 3 and moved up to number 1 in its second week. You can visithttp://www.australian-charts.com for proof. I have removed the part that said it debuted at number 1.211.30.60.10602:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the printed release come on Saturday nowadays?— Precedingunsigned comment added by666ph666 (talk •contribs)15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair by sandi thom top the aria charts for ten weeks between sexyback and saints are coming?—Precedingunsigned comment added bySungkwo (talk •contribs)13:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According toMadonna singles discography, she has had 12 number one songs from 11 singles. The heading of the section in which this is listed under is just labelled as "hits" and does not clearly define what qualifies. I'm referring to "Angel" and "Into the Groove". According to footnote 4, both songs were on the one record, but both songs went to number one. Perhaps some clarification is needed. I believe this should say 12, not 11. It was listed as 11 before "4 Minutes" went to #1. --Lakeyboy (talk)04:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to be picky, but somehow it looks like singer-songwriter P!nks highly successfulI'm Not Dead album has been accidentally left out. As of June 2008 the album returned to the Top 40 ARIA album chart and by July 2008 had a total 98 weeks in the Top 40. And wasn't this a no. 1 album for many weeks?? Its already 8 times platinum, and some have predicted it well ultimately sell more than Farhnams'Whispering Jack album. This one album also had 6 (or was it 5?) Top 5 singles in Australia as well.

This is fromI'm Not Dead album reference onP!nks wikipedia page:-

The album spent a record sixty-two consecutive weeks in the top ten, and as of August 2007, it was certified eight times platinum by ARIA for shipments of 560,000 copies. Pink's most successful album in Australia,it was the second best selling album of both 2006 and 2007, and the number-one selling album by an American or a female artist in each year.According to australian-chart.com, I'm Not Dead is ranked first in the best of all time list with 3,821 points. On the week of 16/06/08, the album re-entered the charts at number 35 resulting the 94th week on the Australian charts.

I do not know the exact statistics for this album and songs off this album, butcan someone please add this worthy album, and singles, into the ARIA achievements page.—Precedingunsigned comment added byMusic Maverick (talk •contribs)08:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the large Trivia section on the following bases:

• Very little of it has to do with the topic of the article "ARIA Charts", which only date from 1988.
• With the songs with "most weeks at", etc, they are calculated using a raft of different measuring sticks (even just during the ARIA phase alone let alone the fact we are basing it on 3 different reports!) and therefore are not directly comparable. For example, the introduction of Aria-Net in 1997(?) made a big difference as the sample size was a lot greater. Look at the unpredictability and randomness of charts in 1988 and 1996 which did not have a big sample size (at one point in 1996 just seven of WA's stores were being surveyed for example as they'd depended rather too heavily on one chain which went bust).
• There were no sources provided for any of the information so it was impossible to check. I can personally check the ARIA era stuff from my own collection but it is of dubious encyclopaedic value anyway to begin with.
• "Biggest drop in the top 50" is not terribly useful as it relates to position numbers only, and excludes big falls into positions below 50. Most of these are due to record company cancellations rather than genuine falls in popularity, and these started happening with increasing frequency from the mid-90s onward. Again, almost impossible to verify encyclopaedically.

It seemed suspiciously likelistcruft to me and add in the verifications issue and one has something of a problem. The sources that can tell you what happens with one single (which is useful in that single's article) are suddenly quite useless when looking at comparing different songs over different eras. As one of the pages (WP:V?) says, strong claims require strong evidence. I think the focus should be on the title, "ARIA Charts", and remembering not everything that happened in Australia over the last 50 years falls under that banner. That's why we have the lists.Orderinchaos10:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The certification-award-levels were raised in Australia in 1989, the article states that the levels were reduced. The Platinum-award-level before 1989 was 50,000 and for Gold=25,000. Seethis article for example which was published in the Billboard magazine in November of 1979. Note that it statesBy 1979 "Best of ABBA" had sold 1.1 million copies, earning 22x Platinum, that's 50,000 x 22 Platinums=1,100,000. Also note in the beginning of the article where it statesThe "Waterloo" album moved past double platinum, and "ABBA" was moving towards an unbelievable half-million (or 10x Platinum). The previous levels stated in ARIA Charts article needs to be corrected or removed altogether since there is no specific source that can be provided.--Harout72 (talk)18:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been true for 1979, but the certifications levels must have later been increased to 50,000 for gold and 100,000 for platinum, as it was definitely reduced from those figures in 1989. I remember reading an article making reference to it in the Australian edition of Smash Hits in either 1989 or 1990. Furthermore, relatively few singles or albums achieved certification in 1988. See this thread online for a list of ARIA certifications, with italicised listings from the period where 'greater sales (were) required for accreditation':http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=40595&pages=Nqr9 (talk)00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't rely on that source you provided as it's a forum. But in 1981, the level for Platinum album was still 50,000 units, seethis Billboard article (under "Fight Economics"). It says the album,The Simon & Garfunkel Collection (released in 1981) has gone Triple Platinum (150,000 units), the same is for Men at Work'sBusiness as Usual also released in 1981. But in 1984, the Platinum level had already been raised to 70,000 units, seethis article by Billboard again, it says: Talking Head's album,Stop Making Sense released in Sep. 1984, has sold 250,000 units (or over triple Platinum). I'm not sure if the levels were later raised again for only a few years before 1989.--Harout72 (talk)01:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harout72: Here's a photo from the Kent Music Report, which published Australia's official national chart between 1974 and mid-1988, listing platinum and gold awards for 1982 -https://i.imgur.com/NpZJgfQ.jpg . As you'll see, platinum for singles is listed as being sales of 100,000, and gold 50,000. For albums, platinum is listed as being 50,000, and gold (not shown in this image, but on the following page, which I can upload if you wish to see it) as 20,000.Nqr9 (talk)09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nqr9: Thanks for that, it's definitely a useful information. Yes please, if it's not too much trouble, would you upload the page listing the Gold certification level for albums also? Thanks.--Harout72 (talk)12:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harout72: Here's the page showing that gold for albums was 20,000 copies in 1982 -https://i.imgur.com/9ODk2zx.jpg .Nqr9 (talk)07:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Harout72 (talk)13:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, soSwedish music charts rather thanSverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts.SilkTork^{✔Tea time}10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be suitable for the ARIA chart, because there were 2 different major Australian charts between June 1988 and early 1998. ARIA was the self-proclaimed 'official' chart during this period, as it was sponsored by the recording industry; but the Kent Music Report (under the name of the Kent Music Report) was also widely used during that period.Nqr9 (talk)11:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think that 2000-2009 #1's inclusive pages should be collapsed into a single page covering the whole decade, as for the 1940s to 1990s decade pages? Surely the 00's decade wasn't that important to require an individual page for each year's #1's (and the same for this decade when it's over... perhaps a 2010-2014 page in the interim)?Nqr9 (talk)05:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not included in the article as a component chartCornerstonepicker (talk)04:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note thePandora Archive hosts the weekly ARIA Report back till 2001[7]. Does anyone know where you can find copies older than this? Specifically I'm looking for 1998 and 1999. Ping me back here if you can help. Thanks.Damien Linnane (talk)12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've since discovered you can purchase individual back issues of the ARIA Report by emailing ARIA. Individual copies are $4.25 or you can purchase an entire year for $220. Copies are in PDF and emailed to you. They seem to be happy enough to confirm if certain songs charted outside the Top 40/50 if you ask email them as well. The ARIA Report itself, however, only lists the Top 100 positions. I inquired about two songs and ARIA confirmed to me that one charted at No. 103 and the other at No. 168, but since the ARIA Report only lists the Top 100 there's no way to reference that even if I ordered the report.Damien Linnane (talk)01:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few months, I have noticed ARIA Singles Chart peak positions for many artists including peak positions outside of the top 100. Some of these are completely nonsensical (number 512, number 368 in a given week).

Does anyone know why this was done just for Australia, the information source, and a remedy? It should really be top 100 only, and if not, then it didn't chart.— Precedingunsigned comment added by78.35.184.104 (talk)15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to IP user 78.35.184.104, who did not sign this post. I've added many of these outside the top 100 ARIA peaks to discographies, though have always added a reference (usually an anonymised email screenshot). ARIA calculated the chart beyond #100 dating back to January 1989, and it now extends into the thousands. Only a top 100 is published, in the ARIA Report, but chart positions beyond #100 exist on their database.Nqr9 (talk)13:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 78.35.184.104 replying to Ngr9. Just because they calculate them, doesn't mean they should be reported on Wikipedia, cluttering artists' discographies. What is your rationale for showing that a song peaked at #426 in Australia for example? Would it not be better to just say that it didn't chart and leave a - as is done for the entries of all other countries? I feel you have made a really odd choice here, and should remedy it by removing these entries.— Precedingunsigned comment added by195.14.217.25 (talk)21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last issue on the here[8] was 30 September 2019, is there anywhere else that I can find an archive from October onwards, the ariacharts.com website only has the current week then the following week it is removed.DanTheMusicMan2 (talk)13:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm,DanTheMusicMan2, seeAustralian Record Industry Association (2000),The ARIA report : ARIANET, Australian Record Industry Association - it looks as though the journal stopped publishing after that month, and I couldn't see any website snapshots beyond that. I'd start by contacting ARIA directly first, then PANDORA to ask about later website snapshots. (Trove is going to launch a new version of their website within a couple of weeks, but I don't think this will help if they're not there!)Laterthanyouthink (talk)13:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ARIA Report is definitely still being published, and distributed to subscribers. I don't know about Pandora or Trove hosting archived copies of it, though; perhaps they were asked not to do that (since it in effect probably deterred some people from subscribing to the report, if they could get it for free a couple of weeks later on one of these sites).Nqr9 (talk)13:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading theGerling page and it mentions their EPA Day of Research reached #3 on the ARIA Alternative Albums Chart in 1996. Trove/Internet Archive doesn't go back that far for these charts. Is there anywhere else they are preserved? The earliest I can find in Trove isWeek Commencing 22nd November 1999Jimmyjrg (talk)04:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, I ended up going to SLNSW to browse individual issues. There is no online version.Jimmyjrg (talk)05:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class Rock music articles
• Mid-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• C-Class Record Charts articles
• High-importance Record Charts articles
• WikiProject Record Charts articles
• C-Class Australia articles
• High-importance Australia articles
• C-Class Australian music articles
• Top-importance Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australian music articles
• WikiProject Australia articles