Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Guideline creation

This article was split out based on the unamimous support at WT:Record charts/RFC.—Kww(talk) 11:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether this should be tagged as a generic "whole community" content advice page, or as a WikiProject content advice page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Whole community. It isn't specific to any particular Wikiproject, as it covers albums, singles, songs, and charts, each of which has its own project.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjects can work together to create multi-project advice pages, so the fact that several groups recommend it isn't necessarily proof that it isn't a recommendation from groups of editors, rather than the whole community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

America's Music Charts

Are America's Music Charts ok to include as done on Rope (song)? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It is a vote-based chart. See HERE, "YOU can change these charts!"—Iknow23 (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm less certain than Iknow23. The tag he is pointing to is extremely worrisome, but so far as I can tell, it really only applies to a limited set of charts, like http://ratethemusic.com/index.cgi/rtm?email=&raterid=&chart=rtm_13 , and some of the charts, like http://www.americasmusiccharts.com/index.cgi?fmt=H1&rtmref=americasmusiccharts , are simply presentations of reliable Mediabase charts. There isn't any archiving at all, though, which means that it isn't a very useful site.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Mediabase, which compiles America's Music Charts, seems like a legitimate source. Note our own article, Mediabase, or Google it.

To Iknow23, I don't think it's a vote-based chart, and I don't think that's what they mean there. The methodology of the charts, as posted beneath the chart, is:

"Mediabase electronically monitors more than 1,700 radio stations in the top 150 U.S. metro markets, 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week. Those radio stations are broken out into specific radio "panels," and included in the most appropriate "format" above. Songs moving downward for a pre-specified number of weeks are removed from the charts. All charts are based on radio spins, with the exception of Country which is points based. Mediabase is the leading radio monitoring service with broadcast companies in the US. Mediabase also serves virtually every significant recording company, and associated entertainment industries."

I'm thinking that what "You can change these charts" may mean is that registrants may or may not be included in an audience sampling where they poll radio listeners to determine whether the genre a station self-identifies as is what listeners perceive the station to be, or into which genre(s) a particular song falls. The chart very specifically claims to be ranked on spins, as noted in the far right column.

I am a little troubled by the fact that they say that Country is points based when the others are not, yet the Country charts also have a "spins" column. Is that column actually the spins the song received, or is that its "points"? Points isn't a bad thing—Billboard uses a points system, for example, that is legitimate, notable, uniformly applied, and accepted by other sources (Mediatraffic.de uses a points system that is not)—but it rubs me the wrong way when one genre is treated differently than others.

And again, apparently other sources do accept Mediabase as legitimate and notable. So unless there is some notable reason that we should not do so, I would say it's acceptable. Abrazame (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Kww raises an important point. I would note that their charts seem to be published in PDF form. Help me understand: would a PDF like this one [1] be available after the week in question, thereby serving as an archive in the event it is cited in an article? Abrazame (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The PDFs don't include a date in their name, so I don't see how they could be retrievable later. As to the "voting" issue, it looks like the site has a set of voting charts at http://ratethemusic.com/?rtmref=americasmusiccharts , but the charts at http://www.americasmusiccharts.com/ are all Mediabase.—Kww(talk) 04:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

iTunes sales vs. WP:Badcharts

Hi!

It says pretty clearly here[2] that sales figures from one single retailer must not be presented in the articles. However, I've seen recently tons of pages (e.g. Born This Way (song)) that present iTunes sales figures (and even iTunes sales records) without ANY frigging regard to Deprecated charts guidelines that allow only comprehensive sales statistics, such as those by International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).[3]

So should we make an exception with iTunes? (Just because the retailer seems to have lots of exclusive contracts with artists that release singles first only on iTunes...) The current practice makes no sense with the actual guidelines. -- Frous (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants a general exception, no, but like the guideline says, reasonable exceptions are allowed. In the case of Born This Way (song), what I see is a reference to it making an all-time sales record. Doing that on the largest single retailer of digital music probably warrants an exception. I wouldn't want to see iTunes sales routinely discussed in articles or iTunes chart positions being mentioned.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kww.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you two expand more on why you see use of iTunes sales information in articles as problematic?--RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think an exception is warranted here for itunes charts. As of a year ago, iTunes sells 25% of the music and 69% of the digital music in the U.S.[4]. A figure that is expected to rise. The record keeping there is good and can be broken down by country (unlike many of the chartsand there are sources for archives of the charts here. Excluding iTunes as a reliable source for chart data, also runs the risk of excluding this information from notable songs and albums released only on iTunes (also a growing trend) that aren't going to show up on other charts which measure only in physical sales.--RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Why single out iTunes? Why not Amazon.com? or any other digital retailer? It doesn't make sense. iTunes' charts are not released on a weekly schedule, so for example an album can be #1 for, say, a day or 12 hours, until it updates. Additionally, there is no way to source archived chart positions. Anyone could claim "Title X" hit #3 but how could that be proven? It's opening a huge, messy can of worms, not to mention it gives undue weight to this one online store. No. - eo (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why single out iTunes? Why not Amazon or other digital music retailer? Because looking at the numbers for purchases (not subscriptions which is too complex to try to tackle for Wikipedia's sourcing for notability for songs albums and artists IMHO), Amazon and the others are scrambling for the remaining 20-31% (depending on who you ask) of the market. iTunes is the elephant in the room and it's getting harder to ignore. I get avoiding a single source from a single retailer. It wouldn't make sense to include a chart from WalMart for lots of reasons but continuing to exclude iTunes charts as a reliable source is ignoring a valuable resource that represents a large (and growing) way music is bought.--RadioFan (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion in March that discusses several of the problems. You can read that discussion by clicking Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)/Archive 12#iTunes in "Deprecated charts" list - Not appropriate anymore. Abrazame (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the major problems mentioned in that discussion was the lack of archive and clear windows for the charts. this source looks to help resolve that concern.--RadioFan (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That source isn't known to be reliable or stable. No one is ignoring sales made on iTunes: they are reported to Nielsen, and Nielsen incorporates those sales into the digital download charts it produces for each country iTunes is active in. What we aren't doing is separating them out and reporting them twice: once in each country's chart, and again in an iTunes specific chart.—Kww(talk) 14:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Billboard digital download chart? That includes only top sales from what I understand and doesn't delve into genre specific charts yet. iTunes seems to be the only digital download chart that incorporates pre-sales that I've run across, it would be nice to be able to use this to demonstrate notability as well.--RadioFan (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The digital downloads are incorporated into multiple charts. iTunes sales factor into the Billboard Hot 100, the French download charts, Canadian chart figures, pretty much worldwide, as Nielsen is a worldwide company. Are you saying that you want to just include iTunes sales figures as a factoid, completely separate from other sales figures? Why would you do that?—Kww(talk) 15:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

←iTunes is not the end-all for digital sales. Just because it may be the largest doesn't mean it deserves a special mention in chart tables or a separate section for its rankings. That's like listing Amazon charts for books instead of the New York Times Bestseller List. Amazon one part of the entire picture. Actually Billboard has quite a number of genre-specific digital songs charts. Most of these are available for viewing only in their subscription Billboard.biz site, and as far as I am aware, no pre-sales are counted until the release date of the product (not that it makes any difference). iTunes should not have a special precedence here, no one is trying to "ignore" it and whether other retailers are "scrambling" makes no difference - a sale is a sale. - eo (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Eric's assessment here. We shouldnot give undue importance to iTunes sales, which by the way, is a good analogy for why we don't add component charts in our music articles. And frankly, iTunes doesnot have any chart, its just their pop bars which show which song is most selling at that particular time. This changes every second and songs randomly go up and down the pop bars within a single day. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support for inclusion of iTunes. I've never bought a single song from iTunes, but like it or not, iTunes is now one of the most popular forms of music sales. Further, most reliable sources now include mention of iTunes sales. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be reflective of what the sources are saying. If reliable sources are covering iTune's sale positions, then so should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think iTunes charts can be used in exceptional cirumstances. If a song has not charted on an official chart, and its iTunes sales have been noted by reliable sources, I don't have an issue with its iTunes peak being reported, provided that it is removed if and when it charts on an official chart. Friday (Rebecca Black song) was one of the songs in this position. Otherwise, iTunes charts should genereally not be listed alongside other charts. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all guidelines can be bypassed in exceptional cricumstances. I would hate to see any common use like "hasn't charted on a real chart" being treated as exceptional, though. That's not much of an exception case: more like normal.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BADCHARTS is referenced when looking at charting claims in articles for purposes of determining notability. Sure would be nice if exceptional cases, such as those where a song or album is available only through iTunes could be mentioned in WP:BADCHARTS.--RadioFan (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If a song is only available on iTunes, but sells so little that it doesn't chart on any chart outside of iTunes, why would we mention it? Your logic would make sense if the sales weren't reported to Nielsen, but they are. It's not mentioned on WP:BADCHARTS because it's not an exception case. The exception cases are things like Friday (Rebecca Black song), which wasn't originally marketed or distributed through any conventional channels, and wound up being notable more as an internet meme than as a song. Those cases are rare enough to be handled by the "common sense" exception that applies to all guidelines. Is there a specific case that has you bothered?—Kww(talk) 16:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Genre charts

With Billboard charts, we use a variety of component charts (WP:USCHARTS), which are used in various circumstances. What is our position when it comes to other countries? For example, Australia has dance, country, urban and club charts as well as physical and digital charts. (When) is it appropriate to use these? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course when the song hasn't charted on the official main chart, any genre chart or component chart is allowed. There is a dichotomy however for US. Preference is to be given to the artist's charting nation, and hence the genre charts (not to be confused with component charts) can be added then. This is true in case of discographies also, where the artist's primary nation chart is placed as the first column of the table, followed by any genre where he/she specializes or has considerable success. Example would be Madonna singles discography, where, along with the BB Hot 100, the Hot Dance Club Songs is also included, seeing Madonna's humongous 40 #1's there. Same approach should be taken for the singles. We do try to limit the amount of charts to be added, as, if not controlled, every genre chart will be added from every provider, result will be a mess. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No one had really come up with a guideline, because it's never really been a problem. Legolas is on the right track: it's a question of avoiding a flood of charts. When something charts in only a few countries, there's no real problem with including things like UK R&B and other specialty charts. If something has charted in 50 countries, there's no reason to pad the table with specialty charts, including the US specialty charts.—Kww(talk) 11:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any clarity as to whether these are independently constructed or component/reductive charts? I found none at the site. Abrazame (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I've found. In general, component charts are rare outside of Billboard. I know that the OCC charts are all independent, but that't the only case I've examined in detail.—Kww(talk) 11:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What about Single Top 100? Is it the same one incorporated for making Dutch Top 40? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We cheat a bit there: Single Top 100 is actually a component of the Mega Top 50. Both the Mega Top 50 and the Dutch Top 40 are composite sales charts and track each other closely, but the Mega Top 50 isn't available online.—Kww(talk) 11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I always wondered why it wasn't explicitly stated as a component chart in WP:GOODCHARTS. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Decade-End as a parallel to Billboard Year-End

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Billboard_Decade-End_as_a_parallel_to_Billboard_Year-End so that all discussion is in one place.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on deleting record chart templates from articles

The following templates are at issue at The Beatles:

See Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has ended and the vote has been called at Talk:The_Beatles#Options.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:CHARTTRAJ doesn't link here

WP:CHARTTRAJ redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts) which doesn't address chart trajectories.

Fixed.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one singles (Israel)

Argue with me, agree with me, do what you will, but someone needs to say something at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one singles (Israel).—Kww(talk) 20:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

NVPI

Does anyone have any idea as to how the new NVPI gold/platinum works? It just gives the certifications for 2008, and returns null for other years. Am I doing something wrong? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is still under construction. I propose to wait a week, then, let's try to write them. SJ (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The new website is still massively broken for certifications. Has anybody written them yet? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I faced the same issue. I tried searching the certifications for Toni Braxton's Secrets and the website returned nothing. Do we have another source for Dutch certs? Novice7 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Austrian chart and Swedish chart

During my researches, i read that these charts until '90s weren't weekly charts. This left me puzzled because usually Hung Medien publishes only weekly charts, so, i checked the database. Austrian chart was monthly during the '70s and bi-weekly during the '80s and Swedish chart was bi-weekly until 1993. At this point, the question arises. Pre-weekly charts era, would be included in the discographies? Honestly, i think that the discographies would include only the weekly charts. For monthly and bi-weekly charts would be done another table, possibly in the albums/singles pages. SJ (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using these charts, as they are still officially compiled, and represent its sales/airplay performance for that period. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they weren't weekly charts. I don't think is right to mix the weekly charts with bi-weekly/monthly charts. It creates only confusion. SJ (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

On a technical basis, I agree with Simone. On a practical basis, you will never be able to keep the earlier positions out of the tables. Trying to keep them out is just starting a long, long, edit war.—Kww(talk) 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A note explaining this (where applicable) would suffice. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, i'm not sure....remember that Russia also use bi-weekly charts now. Argentina uses monthly charts and discontinues the weekly charts on CAPIF website.....i don't know if it is a good idea to admit bi-weekly/monthly charts in the discographies pages. SJ (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kev ... it would be impossible to police.... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Also other bi-weekly/monthly charts will be admitted (Russia, Argentina, or other charts prior a certain date, like French singles chart), or only Sweden and Austria? SJ (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Argentina has always been permitted so far as I know. Likewise, Brasil is a monthly chart.—Kww(talk) 01:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Brasil is a weekly chart. http://www.abpd.org.br/noticias_internas.asp?noticia=229 SJ(talk) 01:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The ABPD album chart is weekly, the Billboard Brasil Hot 100 Airplay is monthly.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So, we can say that also bi-weekly/monthly charts are accepted, provided they are official and provided that there is a note that explain that the chart posted is not weekly. SJ(talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Denmark Dance Chart?

Is there such a thing? My question arises from this (pdf) which keeps being added to Forever and a Day (Kelly Rowland song). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan?

I was hoping that this page could get some information on their charts and make a decision on whether to include them, and where they can be found. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 12:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never made much progress with the Taiwan charts. I tend to leave the G-Music charts in place, but that's a case of "I'm not sure it's bad, so I will give it the benefit of the doubt".—Kww(talk) 12:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

UKchartsplus.co.uk

There seems to be some confusion about using this website as a reliable source for UK chart data, specifically year-end chart data. Despite the fact that they plaster the logos for the Official Charts Company (OCC) all over their website, this website is not an official source for UK chart data. They are not affiliated with the OCC or with the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), of which the OCC are part of (as confirmed here). By its own admission, UKchartsplus is a site run by music fans (or "chart watchers" as they refer to themselves) who do it as a hobby. Their website confirms this here. Their year-end sales charts differ (sometimes greatly) in comparison to the official year-end sales chart published by the BPI. Therefore I propose that we add UKchartsplus to the list of websites to avoid as official details about shipments, certifications, and year-end retail sales can be obtained from the BPI website. 88.104.25.59 (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree - definitely should be mentioned and its use discouraged. - eo (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think UKChartsPlus is reliable. It takes its chart data straight from the OCC. —Andrew_stalk 04:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable. It claims to take data from the OCC, but it would appear that there are various discrepancies between data published by the BPI (who the OCC are part of) and UKchartsplus. I've just had a look at the year-end charts that UKchartsplus publish and those that the BPI publish (these charts are based on over the counter sales, not shipments). There are some huge differences. Furthermore, UKchartsplus actually states itself that the OCC do not provide them with sales figures as only the BPI get those and nobody else (read their FAQ here) which would make it rather impossible for them to be publishing their own year-end charts. Being run by a couple of music fans, UKchartsplus is no better than an unofficial fansite. And since their "service" is subscription based and you have to pay to access much of their content, it should be added to the list of sites to avoid as sources. GoldCoaster (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Does IP 88.104.25.59 belong to you GoldCoaster? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but I noticed this had been raised at WP:RSN last night and came to see if the same had been done here. The general feeling at WP:RSN is that it is it not a reliable source either. GoldCoaster (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree - this source is not reliable and is also unnecessary as the British Phonographic Industry publish year-end retail sales charts of their own. UKchartsplus is an unofficial site who do not have access to official sales data (which they admit), they simply copy the weekly chart rundowns that are compiled by the Official Charts Company (who are run by the BPI). But after having a look, I can see that Ukchartsplus' year-end charts do differ from the official BPI year-end charts and therefore have no basis for reliability. Also, because they are a subscription-based service, using them as a source/link (especially when it is unnecessary) could be construed as spam. Accordingly, the site should never be used as a source. MassassiUK 13:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree - this is not an official UK charts website, regardless of where it claims to get its information from. It is no more reliable than sites like madonnacharts.com and mariahcharts.com and should be added to WP:BADCHARTS as soon as possible. Soultruck (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

they do claim on their site to have paid the occ to licence the information. that would make them 100% reliable. is there any way of finding out if this is true? Mister sparky (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

this also means that positions 101-200 of the uk singles chart are no longer verifiable. as chartsplus is the only place that publishes them. i have emailed the occ's licencing dept for clarification. Mister sparky (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is irrelevant if they do or do not pay to licence them as there are still discrepancies with their charts and the official data published by the BPI. They have already been proven to be unreliable. UKchartsplus is not an official industry organisation and there would be no way to verify whether or not the 101-200 positions that they put on their site are actually accurate. Also, your e-mail to the OCC cannot be used as proof of anything. The BPI would have to acknowledge UKchartsplus themselves on the official BPI website as authorised publishers of positions 101-200. 88.104.24.37 (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

the occ are the compilers of the charts, not the bpi. Mister sparky (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The OCC are a division of the BPI, joint run by them and the Entertainment Retailers Association. [5] This has already been confirmed more than once in the conversation above. 88.104.24.62 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

yes i know exaxtly who they are thank you.Mister sparky (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then your previous comment was pointless and irrelevant. 88.104.24.62 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

that doesn't change that the occ compiles the charts, not the bpi. also the bpi lists are for retail shipments, not sales. and the bpi lists include compilation albums. hence the differences in the lists. Mister sparky (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You've obviously paid no attention to this discussion at all. The OCC are part of the BPI. They are the division that compiles the chart for them. And the BPI all time best sellers chart and end-of-year charts are for retail sales, not shipments. Their certifications database is for shipments. These are two separate things. If these BPI charts were based solely on shipments, then Oasis would be the biggest selling album of all time instead of Queen. And all of this is moot because we are discussing UKchartsplus, which is nothing to do with the BPI, or its divisions, or even part of the music industry. 88.104.24.62 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

it's still officially licenced by the occ. Mister sparky (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to prove that and it's still irrelevant even if there was. The data UKchartsplus publish is not reliable when compared to the official data the BPI publish. 88.110.246.217 (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Germany Gold / Platinum Databank

Hey, the databank link for Germany seems to be broken. Am I doing something wrong? I don't think so because I've used the url before and it worked perfectly. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's odd. The search functionality seems to be broken and it looks like you can only link to old search results if you had the URL saved (e.g. you can still view the search results for Achtung Baby, but you can't perform a new search on the webpage). However, if you manipulate the URL to contain whatever search parameters you'd like, you can still get a new search to run. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

CRIA New Gold/Platinum DB?

Is MusicCanada.com the official Gold/Platinum Database of CRIA now? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Their website says it here and they do list the same office address in their contact details, although the CRIA database here is still active if you access it directly. If you just go to the CRIA main page (www.cria.ca), it will redirect you to MusicCanada.com 88.104.24.37 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New chart for Korea: K-Pop Hot 100

Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 Launches; Sistar Is No. 1 on New Korea Chart - eo (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediabase

Anyone with a login to Mediabase's website at mmr247.com can see all of the information that they provide, in regard to airplay. Are we really saying that THE definitive resource for airplay statistics in the U.S. is a "bad chart"? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 16:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it archived anywhere?—Kww(talk) 16:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the Top 40 is published each weekend in USA Today (or, it was for a bit... admittedly, I don't read traditional newspapers anymore). Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Billboard use another numbers? I seen constantly that the number of impressions from Mediabase are different from the Soundscan totals? Frcm1988 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They are different, certainly, because they monitor different groups of stations. Both are based on statistical samples, not complete counts.—Kww(talk) 13:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Billboard uses a total of 139 stations, among them some being Latin. MEdiabase ignores the latin stations for some reason, hence songs there have a less audience impression than the ones calculated by BDS. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazon.com

I have added Amazon.com as a depreciated chart, merely spelling out a specific instance of the general rule given under iTunes: "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Korea: Gaon or Billboard?

There are two completely different Korean charts now: Gaon and Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100. I was looking at K-Pop Hot 100 and saw that Jason Mraz's "The World As I See It" charted at number 31 on the Gaon chart whereas on the K-Pop Hot 100, the same song charted at number 35! Which chart should be used? Novice7 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you use it, please source the Billboard chart to http://billboard.co.kr/v1/chart.php?&fm=json&f=30&e=10&t=3&query=Korea+Hot+100&y=&m=&d=&en=&pubdate=2011-09-28, not some weird "sort by top gainer" link. I don't see a strong reason to prefer one over the other. Use both for artists with a strong Korean presence, one or the other for most Western artists.—Kww(talk) 11:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin. (By the way, I've replaced the source in the article.) Novice7 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Hits of the World

While doing some research on Latin albums, I came across Billboard's "Hits of the World" and I wanted to know if it was legit. I found some charts in regions that aren't even posted online as far back as the 1960s. For Latin American countries that don't post charts online or don't have an archive from an earlier time, I found Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Actually, most of the countries I listed only had their charts posted from the 1960s to 1970s. Thoughts? Erick (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I only saw charts from Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Canada on Billboard can you post an example of one of them? Im from Latin America and I don't think I have ever heard about a singles or album chart in my country, will be interesting to know how they did it. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In the early 1960s, Billboard posted a list of international charts called "Hits of the Worlds". From that the 1960s to the 1970s, several Latin American countries were included in that lists. Here is a source for each country: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Some important things to mention. Most of the countries I mentioned were only posted from the 1960s to the 1970s, so I haven't seen them posted in the Billboard issues from the 1980s. Argentina and Chile made a return in the "Hits of the World" sometime in the 1990s issues, but as album charts rather than single charts. Nowadays for singles, Brazil charts have a Billboard chart but it needs to be sourced from the magazine (I think), Mexico has an airplay called "Monitor Latino", but the site doesn't archive and has to manually archive with something like WebCite. Same with Venezuela only it's called "Record Report". Erick (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Use caution and common sense with these archived Billboard charts. Most look good, and a stable link to a Billboard source removes most concerns about the chart, but it still has to be a sensible chart to include. That first link doesn't really have a Brazil chart, for example: it has charts for Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. We wouldn't include single state charts for any country, so those don't belong. The Mexican chart looks to be a single station chart.—Kww(talk) 11:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think some of them are not usable here, the Uruguayan chart looks like a radio station from Montevideo, same with Ecuador, the Bolivian chart is a TV program apparently, and Im not sure but I think "Escalera a la Fama" was a 70s radio program from Argentina. I don't know about the others, but the source for the Peruvian chart is La Prensa, which was an important newspaper here before it closed in the mid-80s. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay so if I get this right. Avoid the charts that use single-vendor and charts that focus on a state rather than the whole nation like it says the project page. Erick (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian chart

Italian singles chart now is changed: the previous chart was compiled by Nielsen, but starting from this week there is a new chart compiled by GfK. (link: http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_digital.php ) Altough the charts are basically the same, with some differences, the only official is the one compiled by GfK. But the Billboard site still use the old chart for its website, so beware! --164.132.40.142 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

According to FIMI, they are the only official chart in Italy, but it's false. There are other reliable charts that are also quoted outside Italy. However, Billboard uses Nielsen SoundScan International for all countries, except UK (OCC), Germany (Media Control), Canada (Nielsen SoundScan/Nielsen BDS), Japan (Hanshim/SoundScan Japan/Plantech) and Korea (Billboard Korea). Also the Euro chart is compiled by Nielsen SoundScan International. So, we have got at least two official charts per country. Simone Jackson (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bangladeshi chart?

Does anyone know if there's a recognized national chart for Bangladesh? Somehow a Bangladeshi singer ended up on my watchlist, and I'd love to have chart performances to verify notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom chart??

I'm in doubt with the use of the site "Zobbel.de" as a source of the United Kingdom chart. Many articles make use of this site as source (see) I think this site "Zobbel.de" should be added to the list of this article, because it is not mentioned here if the "Zobbel.de" should be used or not as source in articles. Another thing, the official UK chart only goes up to number 100 and the site "Zobbel.de" goes beyond the number 100, see My Love (Celine Dion song) or Ave Maria (Beyoncé Knowles song) for example. I'm sorry if I started this discussion in the wrong place. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You are in the right place. I don't support use of zobbel.de, and don't think it should be included in any articles. It's generally accurate, but it hasn't got a reputation as a reliable source. It lists come positions incorrectly, as well, as it incorrectly combines some charts. However, there is no strong consensus against it, either, which is why it isn't on WP:BADCHARTS. If had my way, it would be.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm understanding this situation now and thanks for the reply. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 23:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Does someone know if this is a legitimate chart? http://www.eldo.lu/music/chartbreaker/ --Ahmetyal 17:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me. It appears to depend on visitor voting (Stëmmen) and I see no archive of previous weeks. And anyway, the week I'm looking at right now (the current one, I guess, although there is no date anywhere I can see) shows that both "Hangover" by Taio Cruz (#2) and "Paradise" by Coldplay (#4) were #1 last week. Conclusion: not for me, thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Airplay Chart

Starting from 2008, PROMUSICAE also releases a weekly top 20 Ariplay Chart, which is published on its website (here is an example), but there's no mention about it in the guideline. Is this chart ok to be included in articles or should we avoid it? In both cases, I think it would be useful to write it in the guideline. --Stee888 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The chart is fine and could be included. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

French and Canadian video charts

CAn someone point me to the French SNEP video charts and if CAnada has any ala Top Music Videos? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I found this link for the French video charts. However, I'm not sure if it's possible to use this website as a source. Here it is : http://www.chartsinfrance.net/charts/videos-musicales.php --Raphael99 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Chartsinfrance.net is reliable to use. Its like Music Week for The Official Charts Company as compared to SNEP. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Monitor Latino?

I saw that Monitor Latino is acceptable as long as it's archived like with WebCite. Would that also meant a #1 category would be acceptable like "List of number-one singles in Mexico"? Also, is Record Report (for Venezuela) reliable? I've seen it posted on song articles like in Danza Kuduro. Thanks. DJ Magician Man (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I can say that I agree with the MExican category, just that the name of the category as per MOS here swhould be "Number-one singles in Mexico", or if there is a concrete chart name like Billboard Hot 100, then use the chart name. As for the Venezuelan thing, I'm not sure. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Record Report is quite reliable. The only reason it isn't in WP:GOODCHARTS is because it hasn't got an archive. I'm starting to think a separate list of "sites that are OK if a manual archival is performed" may be in order.—Kww(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well referring to the above article link, someone did use WebCite for Record Report. But, as long as it's someone archive it like using WebCite, it's fine, would that be correct? DJ Magician Man (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's an example of why WP:GOODCHARTS says "Many reliable charts are not included on this list, primarily due to archiving problems. The Romanian Top 100, for example, appears to be a reliable chart, but no stable searchable archive is available. These charts can be included so long as care is taken in providing a reliable source for the information."—Kww(talk) 14:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright thanks both of you for clarifying that for me. DJ Magician Man (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the GOODCHARTS section the Latin American music task force. DJ Magician Man (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Oh and another thing, an article for Top 100 Mexico has been created for albums charting in Mexico. DJ Magician Man (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this source, MonitorLatino will start doing charts for the Dominican Republic starting January 1. Erick (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Year-end charts

The chart "Hot 100 Airplay" can add with "Billboard Hot 100" in "Year-end charts"? Because in "Wikipedia:Record charts#Billboard charts" says it cannot be used with "Billboard Hot 100", but for example Sweet Dreams uses the two charts. This should be corrected or the rule is not valid for "Year-end charts"? Lucas Brígido ^msg 13:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Websites to avoid: Why?

The individual entries in the "Deprecated charts" section give explanations for why they are deprecated, except for entries in the subsection "Websites to avoid". Is there a reason for this? If not, I would like to add the reasons for each--is there a place where these reasons can be found? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Past discussions. I could trawl for them if you want pointers.

americatop100.com No one has ever found the source of these charts
Charly1300.com Mix of good charts, bad charts, and forum posts. All good charts available at reliable sources.
Chartblue.com Non-notable mix of airplay, voting, and, worst of all, "the input of our Chartblue Team from around the world"
Madonna-charts.com Fan site, no known editorial control
Mariah-charts.com Fan site, no known editorial control
slokylie.com Fan site, no known editorial control
top40-charts.com Charts are generally misdescribed: single station airplay charts represented as entire country charts, for example. No traces to original sourcing.
Tsort.info/music/ Primarily unacceptable charts: single-station airplay, single-vendor sales. Acceptable charts are all available at reliable sources.
UKchartsplus.co.uk Serious original research problems. Reproduces weekly charts accurately, but annual charts are calculated incorrectly, and don't match official annual charts.

—Kww(talk) 23:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. To the extent that I've looked myself, your assessments seem spot on, so I've updated accordingly, in even more neutral (i.e., wimpy) language. I encourage corrections, from you or any editor. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Charts in France?

Does anyone know if this site Chartsinfrance.net can be used as a source? this site is not listed here. Lucas Brígido ^msg 15:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Shortcuts

So WP:CHARTS and WP:CHART redirect here, while WP:Charts goes to Wikipedia:Graphs and charts and WP:Chart to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts. That's kind of confusing, isn't it? What should point to where? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I say you should be bold, Star, and point them all to one place, with hatnotes to the other two places. —Andrew_stalk 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

UK Music DVD chart

Does anyone know how to find UK Music Video DVD charts before 2009 (earliest on TOCC website archive)? —Andrew_stalk 01:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I found them in Music Week. —Andrew_stalk 22:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop 100, Radio Songs, and Digital Songs

I don't think that the Pop 100 should be included in articles since it's a defunct chart. If it charted on the Pop Songs chart, I think that it could be changed to its charting on the latter one. Also, I don't think that Radio and Digital Songs should be used in articles either. This is because the Billboard Hot 100 is determined by popularity, radio airplay, and digital and physical sales. What do you think? - Easy4me (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Pop 100 takes precedence over the Pop Songs, as the Pop 100 takes into account digital sales too. Radio and Digital Songs aren't used in articles where the song appeared on the Hot 100. See WP:USCHARTS. —Andrew_stalk 22:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first two sentences: Just because a chart is no longer updated doesn't mean we must stop reporting chart appearances on it. If a recording making it to a spot on the Pop 100 chart was significant, then we should still report that significant fact. Translating positions on one chart to positions on another is a really bad idea, since it's misleading and, at best, unverifiable original research. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Croatian national and airplay charts

Are these charts reliable? Airplay and national by Croatian Radiotelevision.

Croatian top 20 (singles) listed here is shut down, so I think it needs to be removed and new chart needs to be placed.--DujeTrogir (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Those both look like single-network charts to me, which would make them unacceptable for use.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, national charts are single-network. But airplay is from several networks, by 40 radio stations, not all of them are owned by HRT.--DujeTrogir (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you can read Croatian better than I can. What networks does the airplay chart represent?—Kww(talk) 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It represents radios owned by HRT (HR1, HR Osijek, HR Dubrovnik, HR Rijeka), by Soundset network (Radio Šibenik, Soundset Plavi) and other independent radios: BBR, Radio Čakovec, Radio Zadar, Radio Dalmacija, Radio Kaj, Radio Martin, Radio Varaždin, Slavonski radio, Radio Istra, Hit FM, Radio Centar, Radio 057 Zadar, Radio 1, Radio Baranja, Radio Makarska rivijera, Radio Megaton, Radio Moslavina, Radio Našice, Radio Novska, Radio Ritam, Radio Trsat, Radio Mrežnica, Radio Vallis Aurea, Radio Unidu, Radio Zona and V-FM.--DujeTrogir (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly sufficient for coverage, and HRT is sufficiently reliable. I'll update WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) And by the way, you can also remove "Croatian Singles Chart at www.soundguardian.com" from deprecated charts, because the charts on that site are only a copy of HRT's airplay charts, just pasted links.--DujeTrogir (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Billboard renaming Adult Contemporary?

It looks like Billboard has renamed (or is in the process of renaming) their Adult Contemporary chart. Have any of you noticed this? If I go to an artist's Album & Chart History page, I can choose from the drop-down list whatever charts the artist has appeared on (assuming BB has finally updated the lists, etc.). But now, instead of simply "Adult Contemporary" in the list, it's "Adult Contemporary Recurrents". This doesn't appear (to me) to be a different chart, since the URL (as, e.g., pointed to by {{singlechart}}) still points to this same thing. I see no second chart in the list.

"Recurrents" sounds to me like a reappearance on a chart after it's dropped off for a while, or maybe it's an official re-release. Except that I'm not aware that "Only Girl (In the World)" was re-released (but maybe it was). And if Adult Contemporary Recurrents is for re-releases or re-entries, how come there's not a regular Adult Contemporary anymore?

I went to Billboard's page listing all of their charts and there's just the one "Adult Contemporary Recurrents" shown. If I follow that link to see their (perhaps revised) description of the chart, that page is still labelled merely "Adult Contemporary", described (still?) as "The week's most popular soft rock songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by Nielsen BDS."

Once again, Billboard is hurting my brain. Who knows something more here? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Recurrent" simply means that the chart isn't filtered for age, and songs are able to drop on and off at will. I don't know if the chart rules have changed or not.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that, too, but it appears to have been corrected. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right; it's now been changed back. Nevermind, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Year-end Greek airplay chart

I am starting a discussion here about the validity of the year-end Greek airplay chart published by E-tetradio.gr ([6]) per User:Legolas2186 suggestion. Media Inspector ([7]) is the official airplay monitoring service in Greece. It's charts are not publicly viewable though, except for the top 5 of the week on their website. They have an arrangement with Billboard Greece to publish a top 100 chart each week, but that collaboration has been paused for some reason. Greek website E-tetradio.gr published the top 100 Greek year-end airplay chart recently. They are a "sister site" to Billboard Greece, sharing the same chief editor (Dimitris Kanellopoulos) and developed by the same company. (Radio Times LLC; See [8] and [9]) E-Tetradio.gr is also featured on Billboard Greece's homepage. By all accounts, the website (and the chart by extension) is reliable. Greekboy (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Media Forest

I'm having problems finding sources supporting Media Forest. Looking at http://www.mediaforest.biz/Default.aspx, I just have a hard time believing that it's a hoax. If it is, it's an extremely well constructed and elaborate one. On the other hand, I can't find any sign that the chart is actually used by any reliable sources. I appreciate any help that anyone can give pointing me at reliable sources discussing this company or chart.—Kww(talk) 12:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any materiel in English. It's definitly a real company and a real service, used by this chart (e.g. this week), which is published on Mako, the portal of Keshet Broadcasting. The company is a start-up established in 2005. There is an interesting essay here about it, claiming, among other things, that official royalties organizations doubt the accuracy of the technology. Bottom line, I don't think it is notable or reliable enough to be used at this point of time. Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Forest. --Muhandes (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So we think the chart is good for use on Wikipedia and there are no objections. What's next? 2pac Is Alive (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we do not think that their charts are good enough for WP. In fact, their WP article looks headed for deletion in a couple of days. If this is a mistake, please help correct it by finding evidence of notability from independent WP:RS sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
How did you read "we think the chart is good" in my words "I don't think it is notable or reliable enough to be used at this point of time"? --Muhandes (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The company's page was deleted and consensus here seems to be that the chart is not appropriate either. To answer 2pac Is Alive's question, the next step will apparently be to add it to WP:BADCHARTS pending a future change in consensus. As I was involved in the discussion I prefer for someone else to evaluate the situation and do it. --Muhandes (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure in this case. I understand that it wasn't notable enough for a standalone article. However, it was discussed in independent sources, and it does meet the other normal selection criteria for charts (multiple networks, archived, etc.). If we reject it, we are rejecting the only known Romanian and Israeli charts. I'm not going to rush to put it on BADCHARTS, and would like to talk it out a bit.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Romanian chart, but for the Israeli one, I have several issues. First, the company uses a novel technology, and the source I provided above, though somewhat bloggish, claims that official royalties organizations do not accept the technology as reliable. Do we want to make a stand on how reliable it is? I would like at least one independent source (and I don't consider Mako, which are the only one using it, to be independent) saying it is reliable. Second, I don't see anyone else quoting it but Mako. If it is notable and reliable, I would expect other media to quote it. Third, with the size of the Israeli market, to get on the top 5 a song may need to be played as little as 36 times in a single week, 9 of which on a single local radio station (source). So indeed this is not a single network chart but how far is it? --Muhandes (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the same company, so if we decide the source is unacceptable for one, it's unacceptable for both. It seems that you can deal with Hebrew more effectively than I can: does anything in this search appear promising?—Kww(talk) 00:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I went over them one by one and could not really find anything. I'd like to stress that I also don't see need for quick action on this. My comment above was mainly in response to 2pac Is Alive's "So we think the chart is good". I have no problem with waiting some time for 2pac Is Alive to find relevant sources, and I will be happy to find my concerns are answered so we can use the chart. --Muhandes (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2pac Is Alive has provided a number of reliable sources at my talk page. To summarize what I see there, quite a number of independent reliable sources (Ynet and Walla! among them) are using the yearly chart by Media Forest as a major source when discussing the success of Israeli artists. Some of them are also discussing the difference between that rating and the official yearly rating by Acum. I think this should be enough to allow the use of the yearly chart even for foreign artists. I am still unconvinced about the notability of the weekly chart.--Muhandes (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hot 100 number-one lists

Should we have both List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)? A discussion on the matter has started at Talk:List of number-one hits (United States). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Back in November, I requested feedback regarding the need for both "by year" and "by decade" lists of number-one songs on the Hot 100. No other chart from any other country has both types of lists and I see no need for both. It seems to me a lot of duplicated work with duplicated information from duplicated sources, yet the newer "decade" lists have survived AfD. They have been brought to AfD three times with results of KEEP, DELETE, and NO CONSENSUS. I'm not arguing for one over the other, only that there should be just one way of doing it. The discussion was originally located at Talk:List of number-one hits (United States), but little input was received. Since this talk page seems to get the majority of activity from chart enthusiasts, I'll ask that the continued discussion stay here.

Should one method be favored over the other? Or should both lists exist?
If both should exist, should "by decade" lists be created for each of the other "by year" lists and vice versa? For example, should the List of UK Singles Chart number ones of 2011 (or whatever it would be called) be created to have both it and List of 2010s UK Singles Chart number ones.

Whatever the consensus, I would think we would want some consistency these. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We definitely need to set some sort of standard. We have decades for some charts and years for others; how confusing and odd is that? I frankly don't care whether we use decades or years, but only one of them, and across all #1 chart lists. —Andrew_stalk 10:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it needs to be across the board, but it would be preferable. However, there is no need for "by decade" AND "by year" lists for the same chart. The same information is being imparted, taken from identical sources, and basically creates a content fork. For each week's new chart, they both have to be updated (again with the same info).

So there's 73 "by-year" Hot 100 lists, starting with List of number-one singles of 1940 (U.S.) throught the current List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2012 (U.S.). Eight "by-decade" lists through the same time frame all now exist with the ones from the 40s through the 80s just recently being created (and still "under construction"):

I just don't think this should continue. If we can get some sort of consensus, the above can be taken to AfD or the yearly lists can be merged/redirected to the decade lists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if a list is a FL, is it going to be merged anyway? Erick (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The first three lists created (90s, 00s, and 10s) have been re-nominated at AfD. Anyone interested in sharing an opinion can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (3rd nomination). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

South African Airplay Chart

www.mediaguide.co.za publishes an official airplay chart weekly in the form of a top 10 and a top 100 for subscribed users much like Billboard. I know there is no chart archive but is there no way this chart could be considered as a good chart? - Marky01 ^(talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you use WebCite or other archiving services, you can include it in articles. The use of a chart like that isn't really recommended (so it isn't on WP:GOODCHARTS), but it isn't prohibited, either (so it isn't on WP:BADCHARTS).—Kww(talk) 11:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Say I include positions on GA-class song articles, will they then be removed because the chart isn't on WP:GOODCHARTS? - Marky01 ^(talk) 11:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

GA is a totally broken procedure: it all depends on the knowledge of your individual reviewer. If it causes trouble, drop me a note, but I can't guarantee results.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Kww. I am going to get working on page for Mediaguide, for referencing purposes. - Marky01 ^(talk) 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Israeli singles chart(s)

Hi, My name is Avi and I'm new here. I'm from Israel, and am used to listen weekly to the singles chart here. Yesterday I was trying to edit articles about singles chart available in Israel, and I added positions of few singles in their charts of year 2011. For some reason, all infromation I'd edited was deleted. I think that for a country in which most of listeners listen to "billboard" singles, it is important to show this data in different singles chart (maybe my data was deleted because no citation was brought). I would like to know your opinion about the information I am interested to give, and how to share it correctly.

Yours, AviAV13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

They were deleted because they were the Galgalatz chart. The Galgalatz chart is listed on WP:BADCHARTS, because it is a single network chart, and single network airplay charts aren't permitted. The only Israeli chart that anyone has found that incorporates multiple networks is at http://www.mediaforest.biz/ —Kww(talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RIAA searchable database

Has anyone else had trouble with RIAA's searchable database recently? I noticed a few new RIAA certifications and I went to the website to check, and what were direct links to an artist's album and/or single certifications now just takes you to the main page and when entering in the name field, a search result takes you back to the same main page. At first I thought it may have been my laptop since I sometime deny cookies and that cookies might work, but I am also having the same trouble with a computer at work that allows cookies for the session. If anyone else can either verify this problem or verify that it is a cookie issue, I would very much appreciate it. Aspects (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that the website works perfectly well for me at this moment. --Muhandes (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whom to credit?

Billboard lists Party for Two as "Shania Twain with Billy Currington or Mark McGrath", as seen here. They also list Jimmy Buffett's cover of "Hey Good Lookin'" to "Jimmy Buffett with Clint Black, Kenny Chesney, Alan Jackson, Toby Keith and George Strait". Finally, Randy Travis' single "Baptism", in its single week on the charts, was listed by Billboard as "Down with the Old Man (Up with the New)", even though the album calls the song "Baptism" (as does Joel Whitburn's Hot Country Songs book). I'm assuming that in all these cases, the discographies should stick with what Billboard says? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, new Billboard on-demand songs chart

"Billboard, Nielsen, DigitalMusic.org Launch First-Ever Subscription Services 'On-Demand Songs' Chart": [10] - eo (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development, thanks for the heads-up. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Forest - why did you delete my section?

I want to resume the discussion about the notability of the "Media Forest" weekly airplay chart. As Muhandes noted, I have provided sources which show information about the company. The site compiles songs airplay on 19 main radio stations in Israel, and the weekly chart is published on mako which is a reliable site (and very famous in Israel). You can see more about it at Muhandes' talk page.

So does the chart deserve to be used on Wikipedia? 2pac Is Alive (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it has been deleted?—Kww(talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I suppose that User:Marky01 accidentally deleted the section. But it doesn't matter now. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion remains unchanged, that the annual charts are notable, but the weekly charts are not. I say so on the grounds that a) unlike the yearly charts which are quoted by other sources, the weekly charts are not used by anyone except Mako and b) the tiny Israeli market means 30 airings a week, 10 of which are from a single station, are enough to be #10 in the list. That's too close to a single station situation in my opinion. However, I am fair enough to say I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to charts. If one of the regulars thinks such low numbers and such low usage are enough to establish notability, I will defer to their knowledge and experience. --Muhandes (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's more a question of reliability than notability. The use of the annual charts is sufficient to establish reliability, and notability isn't a test for including things in articles. I'm not going to run around putting the chart into articles, but I'm not going to object to its use, either.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for going math on this, but mathematically speaking, what you are saying is that since a sum of a large number of samples is reliable (say, it is within some percentile bounds), so is the sum of a very small number of samples. This is obviously incorrect. However, I said I will defer to experienced editors, and so I will. If you are not going to oppose the mass adding of this chart, nor will I. --Muhandes (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I agree that in the great scheme of things, a small country's chart is pretty meaningless. Best Buy having a sale will shift an artist's sales more than all the sales in Slovenia or Israel. I mean "reliable" in the sense of being recognized by other sources as a source of these kind of measurements.—Kww(talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the number of songs airplay is correct. The site explains how he monitors songs airplay and mako mentions the stations which played most of the song airplay and the number of plays. It is now clearly that 30 airs for #10 and 90 airs for #1 is notable, based on about 10 of 19 stations that play Latin songs. Even though we haven't seen big articles about the weekly chart itself, I provided enough sources which shows the weekly chart is good for use. We should make a final decision. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we have. Neither Muhandes nor I is going to revert your additions, and no one else has commented.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So I think we should allow this chart on Wikipedia. Media Forest compiles songs airplay on Romanian Radio Airplay Chart, and the company even Award at Romanian Music Awards 2011, as you can see. So what is wrong with the airplay numbers!? It's obvious that the chart is notable. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, what about Media Forest?!

I proved that the weekly chart fits for use on Wikipedia, it's disrespectful and not fair to leave the issue like that. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Like what? Are you having problems with people reverting your edits?—Kww(talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that I had reverted my addition to WP:GOODCHARTS. It's back.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian weekly airplay chart

An weekly chart in Brazil based on airplay alone is displayed by Crowley Broadcast Analysis (the same company which provides the charts for Billboard Brasil) and it's possible view the online data here. For the public, it shows the five most played songs from ten cities in Brazil, but the top 100 is displayed for local subscribed radio broadcasters. The chart is official since Crowley lists the website as one of their features. So, I bring up this talk for the English Wikipedia since informations about charts in Brazil may get a little bit unsure since the only sources we have are from magazines, but now we have an option to check Brazil's biggest hits. Since there's no archive, it's recommended to save the chart on WebCite. I would really appreciate if other users could express their opinions towards this subject which may interest those who edit articles about music. Regards, Lucas RdS (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Check to make sure that WebCite stores the data correctly (it does for most websites, but not for all). If it does, there's no reason not to use the chart. Crowley Broadcast Analysis is certainly a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does store the data correctly as you can see here. Lucas RdS (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a WebCite that shows an earlier week? Some sites that depend heavily on internal searches will always show the current week, no matter when the WebCite was taken. That's what I'm worried about.—Kww(talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. There's this archive from mid-2011: WebCite. For other archives, you can check the list beside "Cached" at the top of the page and select the wanted week. Lucas RdS (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I see no reason not to use it.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! Could you please add the link for this chart under "Brazil > Singles > Airplay" with notes about it's provided by Crowley and that an archive is needed for verification? I belive that since there's another link for the available charts from 2010 only ("2010"), the new note could be listed as "from 2011", just like the other notes. Lucas RdS (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Lucas RdS (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Separate runs

Since I've never seen anything on this, I'd like to know how to handle this. Say a song charts briefly as a non-single, falls out, then re-enters later on as a de facto single. Does that count as two separate chart runs? I say yes. (For example — Shania Twain's "Come On Over" got a couple weeks on Hot Country Songs as an album cut in 1997, but wasn't released as a true single until 2 years later.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think common sense applies: I'd look for a real separation in time. If a track hits a low position upon album release, and then charts a month later when it is officially released as a single, that's clearly one run. Take the same situation but stretch one month to ten years, and it's clearly two runs. In between those two extremes, you've just got to use judgment.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Tim McGraw had a lot of album cuts chart, but most of the time they went straight to single anyway (as was the case with Just to See You Smile and My Next Thirty Years), so those are obviously counted as one run — while the non-single "Seventeen" charted for two weeks, fell out and re-entered over a year later as an album cut. The latter would obviously count as two runs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get how Canadian charts were managed

I've been doing the charts positions for Mariah Carey's song "Heartbreaker". One source (RPM) says the song peaked at number 5 (I myself have looked through all archives and it didn't peak higher), but AllMusic says it topped the chart. Now I don't get what to write. Any suggestions? – Cannot (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic says it reached number one on the Canadian Singles Chart not the RPM chart. Not the same chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I butt in? Can you provide the link to the source? What was the exact name of the chart the source gave. I'll look at the allmusic one myself. Then, I'll have a look through Library and Archives Canada. These are the archives you mean? Argolin (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems you received no results as the server is down. Or at least the server you want. I have a work around for this error, but it's to a different database. Argolin (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have kept quiet. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is correct, It was on the Nielsen charts not RPM. Argolin (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RPM should be used as a source until, November 2000 when they ceased publication. AllMusic measures archives from the Canadian Singles Chart from Nielsen SoundScan. The latter peaks should be used after November 2000, as it becomes the national singles chart. Canadaolympic989 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

InfoDisc

Hi! I have noticed that chart positions at InfoDisc are some different from Hung Medien. Please look at this page. According to Hung Medien "(You Drive Me) Crazy" wasn't number-one hit. And also "Summer Son", "The Boy Is Mine", "Frozen" wasn't. Which site is more reliable?--Cinemantique (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The number one hits on InfoDisc are unreliable, as the methodology used by the site is different from that of the official SNEP chart (it combines sales and airplay). However, InfoDisc is a useful site as it provided a database for the charts run of the albums[11] (which are accurate, compare with charts positions on Hung Medien) and the singles certifications.[12] --Europe22 (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Now I've seen it in the table.--Cinemantique (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

New shortcuts

I've created WP:SINGLEVENDOR and WP:SINGLENETWORK. They point to the obvious place.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Top Hit Russia

Universal Music Russia recognized this chart, so did Gala Records and Russian news portal KM.ru, Lenta.ru, NewsMusic.ru. I don't know why it is listed on WP:BADCHART. This chart's methodology is also clear and fine to me. Just because Russian Airplay Chart page was deleted due to lack of references, it doesn't mean the chart unreliable. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It borders on being a single vendor chart, as tophit.ru states that it provides recordings to radio stations and then surveys them for playlist data on the songs it has supplied. This would imply that songs that are provided to stations through other channels cannot be ranked on the chart. This bothers me, but I'm willing to listen to arguments about it.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This says that TopHit.ru is based on the dispositions of the Law of Russian Federation "About copyright and neighboring rights". The right owners give it TOPHIT.RU for the subsequent distribution among radio stations together with the permission of its broadcasting. So, I think it makes sense that they only rank "legal" songs for the chart. At least, the chart is notable and it covers various radios nationally in Russia (not a single-network). Bluesatellite (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Korean music program charts

I had recently removed Korean music program charts from artist articles, such as [13], or from list of awards and nomination articles, such as [14], with edit summaries of "removed single-network charts per WP:CHARTS".

If my edits were reverted, most were done so without an edit summary, so I have no idea why they were done. Some people claimed that because the charts were not listed in the Deprecated charts section, the charts could stay even though the section that I was talking about and referenced in my edit summaries was the Single-vendor/single-network charts section. A couple of times I did get edit summaries of "Those were Weekly Music Program Award Shows, which is a big deal in K-Pop." and "These are Music Programs wins though. I think they're relevant." that do not explain how they are a big deal, relevant or not single-network charts.

Looking through the articles of Inkigayo/The Music Trend, M! Countdown, Music Bank (TV series) and Music on Top, I do not see them being any different than the music chart shows on U.S. stations MTV, VH1 and Country Music Television. I would like input to see if I was editing in the right direction and if I was, then a discussion should follow if these network charts need to be added to the deprecated charts section. Aspects (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Record charts#Single-vendor/single-network charts is the proper guideline. There's simply no way to list every possible single-station chart on WP:BADCHARTS. My general rule of thumb is that things go on WP:BADCHARTS only if there is a chronic problem, or there is widespread confusion (like the Italian chart on acharts.us that doesn't really correspond to the FIMI chart). If they want to see the individual charts listed on WP:BADCHARTS, feel free to bring them here for individual discussion. If we all agree they violate the single-outlet guideline, they can be placed on WP:BADCHARTS easily enough.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I just remove it using WP:CHARTS in my edit summary. Honestly, considering the state of K-pop related articles, I sometimes think that they need a separate guideline or something. Anyway, it fits under the single-vendor charts guideline, no? Perhaps we can just simply make it more explicitly obvious, the fact that it includes TV network, store, and radio charts? SKS (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As an update, on April 27, I reverted Korean single-network charts from three articles that I believe were added since this discussion. 1) Sistar was reverted, [15] by an IP address with no edit summary. 2) 4Minute was reverted in less than two hours, [16], by the editor who had added the information three days before I removed it, with the edit summary of "what ?? this music show awards not a chart, they dont need top the chart to get this awards". 3) Kim Hyun-a was untouched, probably because it was an individual's article. --Aspects (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Venezuela & Argentina, etc. Charts

Hey everyone, I found singles charts from Venezuela and Argentina that are in the Billboard magazine in the 1960's and 1970's. For example, if you go to this link on page 26 it shows Hits of the World and Argentina has a singles chart. It is courtesy of "Escalera a la Fama" and should be official since it is in Billboard. As you can see there are many other countries included, such as Mexico, Denmark, and Finland. This link on page 42 shows a Venezuelan singles chart as per Radio Caracas. Venezuela currently has the same provider and an official chart website. I feel that these should be included in WP:GOODCHARTS if they can be verified as official. Thanks. (CanadaOlympic989 13:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with using these charts when they can be found. Most of them can't be added to WP:GOODCHARTS because they don't provide a searchable website. Neither WP:GOODCHARTS nor WP:BADCHARTS is exhaustive.—Kww(talk) 13:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that Billboard does, sometimes, include charts of single radio stations. Those still violate WP:Record charts#Single-vendor/single-network charts, so they can't be added.—Kww(talk) 13:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Record Report from Venezuela valid to include into chart tables? I think there should be an article on it before having categories and including it to verify its notability and methodology and not just rely on links solely to the chart. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed previously, and there was a fairly weak consensus that they were reliable enough to include in tables. I'd love to see a standalone article on them as well, but there has never been a requirement that a chart required a standalone article.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've created the article for Record Report. I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, it makes sense for readers to know how each chart has its methodology and if it's notable or not. The only thing keeping this and reliable charts like Mediaguide being listed at GOODCHARTS is the lack of a searchable database which is essential for verification purposes. But I think a list of reliable charts that needs to be manually archived would be useful for editors. Erick (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've considered creating WP:CHARTSTHATDONTCOMPLETELYSUCK, but haven't gotten around to it.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Colombia National Report

This came up on the article for Fanfarrón. I assumed that it was just another deprecated chart until I saw it being source from the singer's label (Universal) and not listed on BADCHARTS. Apparently, it reached #1 in the country and the label sources this as reference for the chart. Only question is if the site is reliable or not. Thanks. EDIT: Also, like MonitorLatino and Record Report, the site doesn't seem to have an archive. Erick (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a possibility. Perhaps someone with better Spanish than mine can look through https://www.google.com/search?q="National+report"+colombia+sonadas and see what they think.—Kww(talk) 11:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I could try asking at the reliable source noticeboard and see what they say. Erick (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources I found that references National Report from Google News archives:

Looks like it might be a reliable source, but if there's any objections, let me know. Erick (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.elpais.com.co and http://www.elcolombiano.com are certainly enough for me.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources above only namedrop the chart and give no information on it otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

First. It seems that National Report from Colombia y related to Venezuela's Record Report (my sources are not eligible for Wikipedia). Also, as what i've seen, the Top 100 is based only on airplay around the country, just as its sibling RR from Venezuela, which does the same. I think we should include. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the AfD that led to the deletion of the article just in case you're wondering. Erick (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read it. So we need to find the methodology. I'll be searching then. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I did some digging on National-Report on their website and here are some links I think could be useful. My Spanish isn't too fluent so I can't be too sure.

Anything in one of those links that could help? Erick (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a look at them. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the links are very very useful. National Report is a media research company that recolects information from radios and some Tv channels. It works with a "very advanced" real time consulting software to craft the lists.. I'll keep reading... --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have also discovered this: [27]

--Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

On the AfD it was stated that "Showing one's work is usually a sign of the reliability of a chart; for example, it's well known that Billboard uses Nielsen SoundScan, Mediabase uses a points system, etc." The point is: National Report is like Nielsen Soundscan, not like Billboard. Nielsen SoundScan is an information and sales tracking system, which is exactly what National Report is. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The links are mostly just a mish-mash of buzzwords and peacockery:

Link #8 is an "About Us" page: "the first and only communications company", "a system specialized with the highest technology", "unprecedented service", but also says it has 8 national TV networks and 3 international ones, plus 32 radio stations.

Link #9 is the homepage — it says it "monitors electronic mediums" through an automated system in real-time.

Link #10 is the one — it explains that they monitor radio stations in real time to track their stuff. I'm kind of tired right now, so I'll do a thing when I'm more coherent and stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Erick, i think ~~it's~~ it would be better if we document our researches on my talk page or yours. ~~I don't want such info~~ it may not be necessary here until ~~you and i~~ we have found enough information to provide. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I did probably ask way too soon. Erick (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm i don't think so. I just think it relates to another topic i'm not willing to mention but its better if we let this topic out of discussion until we find the correct sources. =) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

At TPH: When you said "Link #10 is the one" did you mean that's the kind of methodology needed to explain how a chart works? Erick (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It mentions that they monitor radio stations. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

But, the big question: is it enough information about its methodology? Or do we need to keep searching? =S --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I am still learning what makes a chart reliable, this should be helpful to us in the future. Erick (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the major argument for notability here is, are other sources citing its positions? If so, then it's likely a reputable chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

How about the sources I posted earlier? The ones that mention "Song X was on National Report"? One of them is a Colombian newspaper source, El Tiempo, another is El País a newspaper source from Cali. Erick (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Last question is, are all of the positions verifiable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I get your saying. In this article, it mentions the position of La Señal by Juanes debuted at #12 on the chart. When I was archiving the article, it matched the debut position listed in the article. Like the Mexico's Monitor Latino and Venezuela's Record Report chart it doesn't have a searchable database, so I had been manually archiving the charts with WebCitation. This article mentions the #1 song "Yo Te Le Dije" which is currently #1 in the charts on the main site. Erick (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as Record Report, NR seems to be like Nielsen Soundscan, with the exception that it also publish top 5 charts (Record Report publish more charts and positions). So, the only way to keep positions verifiable is through WebCite and similar services. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a bot to automatically archive, with WebCite, the weekly charts from those websites to keep the charts verifiable. I've been also working on a workaround for the {{Singlechart}} and {{Albumchart}} templates to be able to retrieve such information written by the bot. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes it seems one has to be a subscriber to gain complete access of the charts. Otherwise it will just show the Top 20 of the 100 songs in the list. Erick (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Although, i think Top 20 is enough, since some Billboard charts only show the top 10 or top 20 (of course it has a searchable database, but i know my point is clear)... Also, some charts like the Finnish and Portuguese only show the first 10 to 20 positions. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So, what's the verdict? Erick (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a way to verify the positions, then it should be good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, i'll be in touch with the idea of the bot and additional options like WebCite to create a way to verify the chart. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, well then. Thank you for taking your time to help me undertstand what makes a chart reliable. Erick (talk)

Czech Republic and Slovakia

Are the charts for Czech Republic and Slovakia actual singles charts (where people have paid for the music) or just airplay? Thanks. Till 04:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with your characterization of "just airplay", that's what those two charts are: the Radio Top 100 for each country. Generally, airplay is as large a source of income for an artist as sales.—Kww(talk) 11:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I think you misunderstood. My question was if the charts are based on paid downloads (such as UK Singles Chart, ARIA Chart etc.) or airplay (like Billboard's Radio Songs). There was no specific characterisation, thanks. Till 14:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Romania

Is there an official singles chart for Romania? Till 09:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Media Forest one appears to be reliable.—Kww(talk) 11:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Heatseekers

What would happe to this chart if a song already charted at Billboard Hot 100, and it charted at Heatseekers? (See [28]). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Heatseekers is for artists that haven't penetrated the Hot 100. Once a song makes the Hot 100, I don't think the Heatseekers position is particularly important any more.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's for artists who have never reached the top 50 positions within the Hot 100. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding charts with uknown positions

Recently, i saw an article about a song that appeared on two charts. The first one in 1993 and then in 2011. The issue is that the second chart position is unknown. I don't know how to properly explain it. Here's the article: La Llamada (Selena song). The question is. Is that valid? Can we add to the table a chart entry without its proper position and just say that it's "uknown" because the chart is a Billboard subscription-only chart and I can't access to the peak? I'm confused. Please, help me on this. —Hahc 21 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add it until you can determine the actual position.—Kww(talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I know. I'm reviewing the article at GA, and the nominator told me there's no guideline to remove it and wants it kept: Talk:La Llamada (Selena song)/GA1, check for yourself, please. —Hahc 21 13:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles

Anyone know where/how I can access this chart? Till 04:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Check on Google Books all Billboard magazines. It used to be on the website. But after the redesing, it is only available on the physical magazine. —Hahc 21 04:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm how can i find the more recent ones like from this year? I can't find them in Google books. Till 04:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, i forgot to say: Google Books stores the magazine from 1940's until 2009. From 2009 onwards are only available on physical magazines. —Hahc 21 05:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the edition i wanted from 2012 but there is nowhere that shows the Bubbling Under Hot 100! Till 05:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me see what I find —Hahc 21 13:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally you shouldn't bother. A chart of songs that haven't charted isn't very important, and generally shouldn't be included in articles. It's not that it can never be included, but it is rarely worthwhile to do so.—Kww(talk) 13:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Monitec charts

While searching for any more possible charts from Latin American countries to use, I find this article explaining that a song reached #1 in Central America and it sources a company named Monitec. Upon further investigating, I found several news articles on Google News Archive that talks about the company. This article explains how the company expands to Panama and talks about their methodology. Another article I found talks about how "Ai se eu te pego" reached #1 based on the radio airplay information from Monitech. The company's information is listed in their webpage written in English. The countries covered are Guatemala, Panamá, Costa Rica, Chile, and the Dominican Republic. However just like Monitor Latino and Record Report, there doesn't seem to be a searchable database and requires a subscription to access the entire charts, but using WebCitation works perfectly fine as it displays a top 10 for each of the country it provides. In this article, it is published by a La Nacion from Costa Rica which is also where the company originates from. At any rate, I believe the charts are notable and reliable from the sources and company statement that it tracks radio stations. Erick (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks very promising. One question, though: I don't see any dates anywhere. Am I just blind?—Kww(talk) 10:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. I was thinking that we could archive it every saturday (just as we do with Record Report). We'll still searching to find more information about it (and the dates, obv). Regards. —Hahc 21 15:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I have yet to see the dates myself and it still doesn't provide dates on the charts using the WayBack Machine archives. Is it going to present a problem when it used as a reference? Erick (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It really bothers me. Does the chart change every day, or just once a week?—Kww(talk) 23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article mentions a song being #1 for weeks on a chart from Monitec and this article mentions a chart position from a previous week and as does this one. But if you like, I can observe the chart for a week and see what happens. Erick (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That would make me more comfortable, yes.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do. In the meantime, I found a singles for the Honduras here. It's called the Honduras Top 50 and the chart is published by El Tiempo, the Honduran national newspaper. The methodology for the chart can be found at the bottom. Doesn't appear to have archives either. Erick (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I observed the chart for a week and http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1342337627361063&date=%400&fromform=1 archived] the chart each of the day for any further observations. The only change in the charts I saw was in Monday so it appears to be a weekly chart. How does this chart as well as the Honduran chart listed above fare for reliability? Erick (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Honduran chart looks fine. I'm still queasy about the Monitec charts, and would like to see more discussion. Perhaps a formal RFC to attract attention?—Kww(talk) 08:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Erick (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of dates on the Monitec chart present a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So, we can use the Honduran chart on articles now? —Hahc 21 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm yes, so the lack of dates on the chart still presents a problem. Shall I take Kww's suggestion to start a formal RfC? Erick (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I start a RFC anyway? I've never done it before so I don't know how it works. Erick (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RFC.—Kww(talk) 07:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Latin Areschart

I came across the Latin Areschart website sometime soon and found a metodology page in which the company explains how they compile the data. The page mentions National-Report, Record Report, Monitec and Nielsen Soundscan as some of the providers of the information, as well as explaining how the points system is compiled. It also says that YouTube, peer-to-peer and music channels are not used as sources of data for the chart. So, i want to start a discussion here to see if it can be included or not inside the Good charts. Regards. —Hahc 21 23:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, also, the website includes a weekly achive, so we don't need to directly archive the chart to keep the information. —Hahc 21 23:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it must also be covered by sources, so I'll do a quick check on Google news archive to see if it's mentioned by reliable sources. EDIT: Nope, nada. Couldn't find it in either Google News or Google News Archive. EDIT2: Turns out, there was an article for it, but it was deleted. Erick (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. So it might not be accepted. Damn. Well, it was so perfect to be true :( —Hahc 21 00:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Billboard Mexico vs Monitor Latino

I've seen the WebCitation archives for Billboard Mexican Airplay but the singles chart don't match up with Monitor Latino so I'm not sure if it makes MonitorLatino less reliable or which one to use. Erick (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all certain what Billboard uses for its airplay chart. It's quite possible for two separate airplay charts to exist for the same country and give different answers based on sampling differences.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I think there should be two different categories within the Number-one singles in Mexico for the MonitorLatino and Billboard International to be more precise. Like this:

Category:Monitor Latino number-one singles Category:Billboard International (Mexico) number-one singles EDIT: I also noticed that Billboard International posts certifications for singles as well. Erick (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Erick (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that separate categories should be used for separate charts. Where is Billboard posting certifications?—Kww(talk) 17:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the charts themselves. I archived the Mexican Airplay charts last night for verification. Erick (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I should probably mention this too. Monitor Latino has different genre charts in addition to the Top 20 General. I mention this because an IP edited the Monitor Latino chart for "We Found Love" to say that it reach #1 when the source is referring to the Top 20 Ingles chart, not the Top 20 General chart. I tend to only post the Top 20 General chart for songs though I wonder if mentions of charting the Top 20 Ingles are notable if no sources that it charted on the Top 20 General. Erick (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Even though it's Billboard publishing the Mexican Airplay charts, I do have some concerns about it. I can see no references to the chart on news sources and the site itself does not explain the methodology on how it gets these charts. If it's the same as the US, then that's fine, but I'm not too sure about it. For example, last week's chart displayed that "What Makes You Beautiful" is #1, but the only article I could find about it is here and even though, it makes no references being done by Billboard. Erick (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't care for it much, but I can recognize a losing battle when I see one. You are best off making sure it is well sourced and accurate, because I can promise you that attempting to remove it will provoke edit warring.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to high profile songs, yes I can see that happening. I will continue to archive the song chart as always but I will look more into the methodology. Erick (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I found where Billboard archives the MEX charts. Go to billboard.biz and under the chart tab click "Archive". Then click on "Album Charts Archive Search" (not Billboard Singles Chart). "Mexico Airplay" should be under "Album Chart Name". Hope that helps. Erick (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)