Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Philippines charts

If anyone encounters a "Philippine Hot 100" or "Philippine Hot Hits" on any non-Filipino song article, remove it since it is a hoax. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Many times since these IPs formulated "Philippine Hot 100". Absolutely its a hoax. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fake" charts?

There seems to be a problem with "fake" charts, which is getting worse. Is there a running list of countries that do NOT have an official national chart? I know one of the Japanese charts is not official (I don't remember which one) and I've seen edits removing charts from Hong Kong and Bulgaria as being fakes. Perhaps these should be documented so that they stop getting added to so many song articles? - eo (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though I would suggest such a list should be limited to the talk page rather than the main article. Let's see, we have: Hong Kong, Bulgaria, non-national Philippines charts (per above), and non-Billboard Turkey charts (something I've been dealing with). I wonder if such a list might be put into a right side box under the Archive box? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think an ongoing problem will be that people use http://acharts.us/ as a source. In fact, its listed as a source in this guideline. The thing about that site is that their information IS correct and very thorough for charts that are official (U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, Ireland, etc.)... but they also include the minor markets and I'm not sure where they get them or why they include stuff like, for example, Bulgaria. So what to do? - eo (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dare I suggest that we establish a strict recommendation regarding which charts/countries to consider and which to avoid? There's no easy way to go about this and remain neutral, and I only say this since this guideline already sets a limit to the number of charts to include.

When I do pare down charts, I typically go in this order of inclusion: Local market > geographical surrounding markets (sometimes) > English-speaking markets (since this is the English wiki) > other markets based on size and perceived market power. I find this gives a decent cross-section, and it tends to significantly cut out a lot of the questionable/unsourceable chart figures. It isn't...completely...NPOV, but it has worked well so far. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, is this Billboard Turkish chart real? Funk Junkie (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the confusion comes from Billboard reporting charts from around the world and posting them online and in their print editions. I don't know which particular charts they pick from each country, but they do have a "hits of the world" section. The way they have it displayed, with the Billboard logo up top may lead people to think that Billboard compiles the charts, but as far as I know, they only create charts for the U.S. and Canada. - eo (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Billboard also does the new Japan Hot 100. [1] Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Where must succession boxes be placed: after references, after chart tables, or before references? Funk Junkie (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While there is no hard guideline that I know of for this, I suggest that, because it is a kind of navbox, they should always be placed as in example one. However, not just after references, but after all content (if any) except for other navboxes (which should be the last thing on the page). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Funk Junkie (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

20 or 18?

This sentence seems contradictory to me "The number of charts should include no more than ten national charts, and up to ten additional charts, but no more than eighteen charts total.". I mean can we add 20 charts or 18? If it's only 18 then I think it can be worded better. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit strange, but it is a maximum of 18 charts. Basically, up to ten national charts + up to ten additional charts, to a maximum of eighteen charts. Mix and match as you will, but say if you only have three nationals, you may still only have up to ten additional, for a max of 13 charts. This is just to limit the number on any given article, given that you'll occasionally find that one with 30-odd charts. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:Record charts a style guideline?

This says that it's part of the Manual of Style in the infobox, but it's not in the Style sidebar, and it's not in the style guidelines cat. The current thinking on style guidelines is: anyone can create them, and they're as official as they need to be, until and unless we have reason to believe they're not. Does anyone know of a reason why this shouldn't be in the style guidelines category? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because this rather rapidly grew from a fairly small proposal to maturing and someone slapping the guideline template on it, and going no further. Feel free to add/propose it if you wish, but something tells me it would need to be discussed somewhere before it gains real inclusion. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster. I posted a notice at WT:WikiProject Music; if you know anyone else to ask, ask away. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide charts?

What about Worldwide charts and EU charts? I would argue they should come last, since they act as a summary for everything else. Any opinions? Drewcifer (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally rather put charts in alphabetical order, just like it's seen in most of articles. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So you would put Worldwide in between Turkey and Zimbabwe? (Only country names I could think of close to W). That doesn't make much sense to me. Drewcifer (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I always place conglomerate charts (typically only Worldwide) at the end, both because they act as a summary and because it makes no sense to mix them in. But, I don't see any need to regulate such placement. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I second everything Huntster said.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Japan Hot 100

Apparently Billboard will now publish a Japan Hot 100. Details here. Anyone know if this chart can be considered Japan's official singles chart? - eo (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would consider it "official", or at least accurate, as compared to the Tokio Hot 100, which a lot of articles use. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can be considered "official" any more than Billboard is "official" here in the U.S. Accurate, most likely, but don't call it official unless something else calls it as such. Kind of pedantic, I know, but an important clarification I believe. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

References in single chart tables

Where should the reference for a chart position go in a table, beside the chart name or beside the position? Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally recommend placing refs beside the number, since we are, after all, citing the figure first and foremost, not just the chart. As with the above "Worldwide charts?" section, however, I see no need to regulate placement. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The 10/18 national/other chart rule

"The number of charts should include no more than ten national charts, and up to ten additional charts, but no more than eighteen charts total."

This seems to be causing a lot of conflict and confusion across various pages. This is partly due to haphazard editing of song/album pages with certain editors fixating on specific songs to limit the chart entries to just 10 national charts (having made no other contribution to updating the page itself through its history)and arbitrarily removing charts at will with no real value judgment as to what should and should not stay. This then causes frustration when other songs/albums aren't policed as strictly. If the chart limitation was policed across the board it would cause far less conflict. But that's just a procedural thing.

To me the major problem with the rule is it's US-centric. By allowing upto 10 extra genre charts (8 if you have your full quota of 10 national charts) it panders to Billboard and the USA's genre-specific music scene. Outwith the USA, these separations aren't considered anywhere near as noteworthy.

For major worldwide hits it is far more informative to include just the Billboard Hot100 position from the USA and then 17 other national charts (if you want to keep the 18 chart limit). This gives breadth to the scope of the song or album's achievement and place within the history of charting popular music.

As such the national chart of the Netherlands is far more important the Billboard Dance Club Play yet the former can not be posted if ten other national charts already exist, whereas the latter can. That is placing an unnecessary restriction on what is a worldwide encyclopedia.

I propose a change to 18 charts in total and a removal of the artificial 10/18 rule. Leipzigger98 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, especially concerning non-U.S. hits. - eo (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the table should include more than 20 charts overall. What happened to the old chart tables? They use to be lengthy, but now because of this they are all shorter compared to what they use to be. JayJ47 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who go around haphazardly removing charts. To me, it just looks gross when there are 50 chart listings for a song, especially when the country's music market is small. Does an article really need to know Latvia's chart placement? Or three different Europe charts (note: these are charts regarding Europe as a whole, not charts from 3 European countries)? If a song charts mostly in Asia or Europe, I see nothing wrong with adding more national charts, but having every single position from every single national chart available seems trivial. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Digital Charts

Should digital download charts be included in the chart? Grk1011 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason why not, I suppose, so long as it wasn't a component chart. Which chart is it? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, wouldnt a digital chart be the same thing as a sales-only chart? That to me is a component chart and should be included only if it does not hit the "main" chart. - eo (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually included Hot Digital Songs at least, since it doesn't seem to be a component chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hot 100/Bubbling Under

Is there a consensus as for the proper listing of a song that has entered the Bubbling Under Hot 100 but not the actual Hot 100 chart? Several editors, including myself, use #'s 101 thru 125 for Bubbling Under positions; for instance, Ashton Shepherd's "Takin' Off This Pain" peaked at #16 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, so I put 116 in the Hot 100 column. Is this an acceptable method of indicating a Bubbling Under peak? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart

I've noticed that United World Chart has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, due to problems with source coverage. Does that mean that we should still keep the chart positions; or remove them in thousands of discographies, song and album articles, because the chart has no article and is non-notable? I'm really interested to know. RaNdOm26 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically I guess it should be removed, right? Ugh, what a task that will be. Hot100Brasil was also just deleted, so there's even more things to get rid of. - eo (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened? This chart has been allowed so a number of song-related articles passed as FA. --Efe (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article deleted in the first place? It is significant, and should've been improved upon not deleted entirely. JayJ47 (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: No the chart positions shouldn't be removed because it is a significant chart. JayJ47 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just go to the link I gave above, and no, its not a significant chart. Does this mean that we should delete the chart positions from ALL articles? I'm surprised - this should've been brought up long ago. RaNdOm26 (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not now. It must be a concrete concensus before removing this chart. It has been widely used so its a waste of time removing and adding without final decision. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we really need to remove information regarding UWC per Wikipedia:RSN#United_World_Chart_and_aCharts.us. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of the term "chart"

Something that is glaringly absent from this standard is a definition of the term "chart," as it pertains to whether or not a record is notable on the basis of a given chart. Within the music industry, it is generally accepted that for a record to have "charted," it must have reached #40 or higher. As such, and to avoid the common argument brought up at AfD, this standard should be updated with a statement to that effect. --Winger84 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh? I'd love seeing a few source that state it must be over 40. While I'd actually like this to be a standard of this page, I'd rather not make such a requirement without some evidence to support this, or at least a consensus amongst editors. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think finding documentable sources for that may be difficult. Unfortunately, this is a situation where something is commonly accepted by a group of people (in this case, those of us who work in the music industry [I am a CHR/Pop radio station Program Director, myself]). For example, you won't see record companies get excited with promotional emails to PDs and Music Directors saying that "Song X Charts!" until it hits #40 or better. Tough one to call, but that's where I'm coming from in the request. --Winger84 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio Disney Hot 30

The various Disney star articles are riddled with the Radio Disney Hot 30 charts. Two questions:

• For a Disney star, is it reasonable to include this chart in the article?
• If so, can anybody find a reliable source to verify the numbers against?
  Kww (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been removing Radio Disney from articles for ages. Under no circumstances is this any kind of recognized chart - it's basically Disney channel promoting their own Disney artists... no calculation of sales or non-Disney-Radio airplay. Nuke 'em, nuke 'em all..... - eo (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include it in a "Disney star's" article or anyone else's. Disney is not a reliable source for notability of its own acts any more than, say, HBO is for notability of its shows (though a show on HBO is probably notable and a "star" on Radio Disney may or may not be. An artist whose music never makes an impact beyond Radio Disney giving them some play is not notable. As a result, placement on a chart from Radio Disney (even if somehow verified) is moot, IMO. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ericorbit here. Radio Disney is just a means of promoting Disney-oriented singers, nothing more. The charts are not a majorly recognized chart, like Billboard/Radio & Records, Mediabase 24/7, or even Music Row. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's self-referential and not notable per se, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be mentioned in an article. It's conceivable to me that, if verifiable, it could be mentioned in the text, perhaps to illustrate how Disney promoted the artist or piece. However, it is almost never verifiable. The "chart" isn't archived as far as I know, and it's rarely mentioned even in disney PR blurbs. Gimmetrow 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But the people vote in RadioDisney.com - Cheetahbrian (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still not verifiable. Disney or Radio Disney can alter the rankings however they choose. And Radio Disney has zero bearing on the U.S.'s national charts. - eo (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Component charts

The guideline states: "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart." I have to say, I strongly disagree that component charts should be included in an article at all. Songs that enter only these charts and not any significant chart are articles that are likely to be created as stubs and will remain stubs. I've failed to see any article that does go beyond a stub that hasn't charted beyond component charts and if there is, is full of original research and fancruft. I'm proposing that the line aforementioned should be reworded to state "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables. Songs that fail to chart in any significant chart do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article." Any thoughts? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 05:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Weeks at number 1 notation

Currently the guidelines state "Weeks spent at peak position should be mentioned within the article text and not inserted into the table." I propose that this be changed to allow weeks spent at number 1 to be indicated by a number in ( ). This has become a standard notation in most music publications and would be a more concise way to note this information than writing it out in an article or comments section. The weeks spent at number 1 may be important to many readers and is a quick way to show relative impact of a hit on the charts. A song or album that spent many weeks at number 1 should be noted in a table for it’s information to be considered complete. Does anyone object? (MHS1976 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

This was originally done on Wikipedia, however, it got a bit out of hand, with some articles indicating time at number one, some indicating total time on the chart, and other variations, and no real way to tell which article was doing what. While we could certainly say to only place weeks at #1 in the parentheses, but I can only see this become a problem again. It is simply clearer to leave such info out of the charts, and explained in the prose. Also, when adding a new section, always place it at the bottom of the page. Thanks! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated charts

I think it's time to start building a formal list of deprecated charts. I know that United World Chart, Radio Disney, Bulgarian National Top 40, and Brazil Hot 100 are shoot-on-sight. Are there others? Shouldn't we have a nice, handy list of them including in WP:CHARTS with a handy shortcut like BADCHARTS?—Kww(talk) 01:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)