Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts

acharts again

Has anyone got a clue as to the source for their Japan chart? I've matched it against Billboard, Oricon, and the Tokio Hot 100, and can't seem to make a match.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the Billboard Hot 100. It's just a week behind, and having the acharts chart written in romaji and the Billboard chart written in real Japanese didn't help in recognizing the match.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean teh Billboard Japan Hot 100 I guess? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this one disturb me, especially when the tables have 2 or 3 references for a dozen charts. We need to be more insistent about not using acharts as a source, notably when they think it trumps over using 10 more reliable sources (because it is easier just to add one). Can something be noted in the good charts guide saying that it is extremely discouraged to use an individual source for many charts? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I would say, because I tend to link to one of the Hung Medien summary pages and reference everything I can to that. You are just fooling yourself if you link separately to australian-charts.com, lescharts.com, swisscharts.com, etc., and think you are linking to separate sources: it's all the same site with different skins on top. The difference is that Hung Medien is a licensed provider, and acharts.us is unlicensed. I've given Hung Medien a nicer symbol, top billing in the chart, and marked the symbol by acharts with "using a licensed source is preferred". I'm open to suggestions as to how better to steer people away from acharts, while admitting it's the only source we have for a couple of charts. Find me a licensed archive for the Japan Hot 100 and Dutch Top 40, and I'll go for some very strong language, but without that, acharts.us has to be tolerated.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well a simple "usage of alternate sources is preferred and encouraged" would suffice. Is this not the Dutch Top 40 website? Or is it not official? I don't mind it being used for those of which there aren't better sources available, that's unavoidable - however, I just think it's lazy to link to it for the Billboard Hot 100 and even all the Hung Medien charts, when they have better (, official) sources. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was having a serious senior moment with relationship to the Dutch charts. Japan Hot 100 still needs a good archive, though. I will argue that the Hung Medien sources are official: licensed is licensed. Given that, the Japan Hot 100 is the only chart I'm aware of where it is the only good source. I'll strengthen the disclaimer a bit, but I don't feel comfortable going too far.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought Billboard did the Japan Hot 100. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate Billboard's new search

I'm trying to find the chart page for "Illegal", by Shakira and Carlos Santana. I can't find the right combination of "Shakira", "Carlos Santana", and "featuring" to bring it up.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...but Billboard says it never charted...... SKS (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. BMI says it was a hit on Hot Dance Club Play.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard isn't exactly perfect. For example, the album Loso's Way topped the Billboard 200, but the charting history says it never charted. This problem seems to evident only in some albums that charted after Billboard's new design. — Σxplicit 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't that: Oral Fixation charted in 2006, so its singles are from 2006 and 2007. Allmusic.org claims it hasn't charted as well.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Croatian Singles Chart

We need to discuss the Croatian Singles Chart at www.soundguardian.com/airplay-radio-chart. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22www.soundguardian.com%2Fairplay-radio-chart%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t doesn't give promising results at all. If I step back to http://www.google.com/search?q=%22www.soundguardian.com%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t then things get a little better. A discussion at WP:Croatia#Record charts has assured me that the chart claims to aggregate multiple airplay charts, but no word as to who is behind it. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.barikada.com/&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en links to it, but it doesn't look a whole lot better than a blog. Opinions? Does this go in WP:BADCHARTS, or stay in that limbo of not being listed in either BADCHARTS or GOODCHARTS?—Kww(talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need to have QUESTIONABLECHARTS? :P To be honest, I don't know. I've always left it alone whenever I came across it, but it's always been iffy every time I tried to look into it.... SKS (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on discussion at WT:WikiProject Croatia, I've gone ahead and added it to WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Turkey dead?

Can one of you with access to www.billboard.biz check to see if there are any announcements regarding Billboard Turkey? The site has apparently been dead all week.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never, ever seen a Turkey chart within .biz. I always was kind of suspicious about the validity of the source that has been used in the past. The following countries are listed in the "International" section of Billboard.biz (note that Canada and Japan are the only ones compiled by Billboard): - eo (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Argentina (albums only)
• Australia
• Austria
• Belgium/Flanders
• Belgium/Wallony
• Brazil (albums only)
• Canada
• Denmark
• Finland
• France
• Greece (albums only)
• Germany
• Hungary
• Ireland
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico (albums only)
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Portugal (albums only)
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• Eurochart (albums and singles)
• Global Dance Tracks

Hm. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/04/prweb517593.htm would tend to add legitimacy, and http://billboardpublicitywire.com/releases/2007/04/prweb517593.htm looks pretty. Is http://billboardpublicitywire.com/ legitimate?—Kww(talk) 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Turkey still continues to release its charts through the published magazine. But they have ended the website and radio. Rumor has it they are working on a new website. --Sakrileg (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, U.S. "Bubbling Under" chart positions

The new edition of Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles (12th edition) was just released and in this version all bubbling under positions have been integrated into the book. If there is no online source available, the ISBN is 0-89820-180-2. Note that the book covers 1955 until the end of 2008. Anything current will need a web source. - eo (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet version of Cashbox

Is the new version of Cashbox considered to be a notable and reliable source of info? Specifically, I'm interested in http://cashboxmagazine.com/CashboxCharts.htm, and even more specifically their Brazilian singles chart and their Mexican singles chart. I'd like to plug some of those holes we have in discussing Latin American songs and Latin American chart positions.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it will work. According to this, it's partially based on Internet voting and jukebox play. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Billbaord.com

Take a look at www.billbaord.com. It's the old site. Whois indicates that it is a legitimate site owned by Nielsen business media.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not for me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It redirects me to the regular Billboard site for me. — Σxplicit 02:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That is bizarre. Could it be a geographic based redirect? Try http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/index.jsp and http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/esearch/searchResult.jsp?No=30&exp=y&Ntt=Rolling+Stones&Ntk=Keyword&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&nor=10&an=bbcom&N=36 . Work fine for me, complete with the old Billboard search engine that actually worked. For example, http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/esearch/searchResult.jsp?exp=y&Ntt=illegal&Ntk=Keyword&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&nor=10&an=bbcom&N=37+4294125687 is the missing "Hot Dance Club Play" listing for Shakira's "Illegal" that the new site claims never charted.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, now it works. I can't say I'll depend on it, though. It might end up like billboardmagazine.com and get redirected to the new site without warning. — Σxplicit 02:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth using WebCitation or somesuch and backing up any available data worth saving. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Already back down. It's a real shame that they have the better version of the website apparently available to bring up by snapping their fingers, but insist on keeping the new one on-line. I wish they would at least add the search facility back in.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they're just playing games. Apparently, you have to link in at least one level or you get redirected.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Heatseekers Songs

Should the Heatseekers Songs charts be used, or is it a component chart? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Heatseekers song is not a component chart. Hence it can be used only when the song has not charted within the top-fifty of Billboard Hot 100. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the usual method was if it was a component chart, then only include it if it hasn't charted on the main one? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Heatseekers isn't technically a component chart, but it is a subordinate one, since making it on the Hot 100 makes the artist ineligible for Heatseekers. Once a single has made it on the Hot 100, listing Heatseekers is redundant for that song.—Kww(talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ChartStats.com

hey guys, just a reliability query regarding this site. it is listed at WP:GOODCHARTS in the sourcing guide as a recommendation for the uk singles chart archive. however, when some discography articles have gone up for FL review a couple of reviewers have insisted that this source is removed because it is unreliable. this puzzles me greatly. why is it listed at [GOODCHARTS] if it is apparently unreliable? i asked the reviewer and they said that just because it is listed here it doesnt guarantee its reliability. but i was under the impression that was the whole point of [GOODCHARTS], a guide of reliable sites perfectly acceptable for sourcing. or am i completely wrong? can i have some opinions guys please? :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most sources here have limitations, and in particular, chartstats.com may have some holes in it, but I have over two years compared it against the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles on several occasions and found it to be more reliable than other sources. The problem with GBBHS is that it is only published every two years, whereas the guy who does chartstats.com is at least trying to keep it up to date and will accept corrections; to those who criticise it, I'd say, "Well, find a more reliable source". We shouldn't have to wait up to two years for the next edition of GBBHS. Rodhullandemu 23:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

plus if you try and use the GBBHS it cannot be verified by anybody who doesnt have the book, so its a bit pointless really. Mister sparky (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's somewhat irrelevant here, because as long as the book physically exists somewhere, even if it's some second-hand bookshop in Hay on Wye, that satisfies the requirement of verification; although it's probably easier to order a copy from the British Library, which is legally entitled to a copy of every book published in the UK. Even mine. I must send them a copy some day. Rodhullandemu

I think a reviewer that rejects chartstats.com needs to indicate what he would consider to be more reliable. I have not yet found an error. I wish it was licensed, but that is the only defect I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You can always verify the accuracy (or even replace) the charts with The OCC or Everyhit - that's the good thing about the UK charts, good range of sources. Chartstats remains my favourite though, best archive to source from. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I also favor chartstats, it has the most detailed information and I don't doubt it's accuracy. The problem is that it is essentially a hobbyist web site when it comes to reliability. That's probably how the FL reviewers see it. I like the idea backing it up with the British Hit Singles book but still citing chartstats so everyone can see the data verified with the book. My only question about chartstats is that with older records it's unclear which chart they used, Melody Maker, New Musical Express, Music Week? Piriczki (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

it is also really helpful because it's the only archive which covers the entire top 100 and has a search facility. with the OCC site you have to look through each individual chart and it takes foreve and Everyhit.com only covers the top 40, polyhex.com covers the top 75 but again there's a reliability issue. Mister sparky (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

One way to handle it is the way I handle acharts.us (which I won't use as a source unless forced to) and the bad search facilities on chart-tracks: I use acharts to give me the date of the peak, and use that to search chart-tracks. You can do the same with chartstats and the OCC for anything in the top 40.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Video Phone

Anyone got a legitimate source for Bubbling Under R&B charts? I know that if I remove the chart position from Video Phone and redirect the it the parent albums as an uncharted stub I'm going to cause some angst among those that just can't wait to make new articles, so I'd rather just get a real source and avoid the problem.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to Billboard.biz archive, the song "bubbled under" at #14 on November 29, 2008. I redirected "Video Phone (song)" and "Video Phone (Beyoncé Knowles song)" articles previously and (I guess I should have checked it before), I find it hard to believe that "Video Phone" had no article attached to it prior to this?? Nothing was deleted to make room for this was it? - eo (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Videophone exists. Can you edit it to provide the link to .biz? It's forum sourced right now, and that makes me itchy.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had to login to .biz in order to confirm it. - eo (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A link to .biz is fine: there's no rule against references that you need an account to verify.—Kww(talk) 11:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Double Disc CD

Are albums that come with 2 CDs still counted as double RIAA certifications?Like if an album ships 1.5 million copies, but is a double disc will it be certfied 3x platinum?I'm pretty sure it used to be like that, but I'm not sure if that still applies. Id really appreciate it if someone can explain to me the policies and how it works..thank!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RIAA Certification: "Multi-disc albums are counted once for each disc within the album if it is over 100 minutes in length or is from the vinyl era." - can't find a source on this, should be mentioned somewhere on the RIAA website. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard chart names

Should we be using the current names of charts? For example: Should we now use Alternative Songs instead of the old Hot Modern Rock Tracks. Or should it be relevant to the time the song was released, eg. a song released last year would link to HMRT. To me this is a no-brainer, to adjust the chart name for each song's timeline is just bloody confusing, we should use the current chart names to keep it simple and consistent. Reason I say this is because my AWB edits have been removed unexplained: [1] [2] [3] k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's mainly because Billboard didn't change the chart names. They just use the wrong names on the new site because they think it's easier for people that don't understand charts to use the wrong names. Or something like that. I still can't comprehend how such a reasonable site got transformed into such garbage.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When referring to chart names in articles, it is best to use the name of the chart at the time rather than the current chart name. Or just try to be more general (the R&B chart, the country chart, the alternative rock chart). For example, "When Doves Cry" was a number-one R&B hit or a number-one hit on the Hot Black Singles chart, since the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart did not yet exist. The same goes with Album Rock Tracks from the early '80s (instead on Mainstream Rock Tracks) and Easy Listening in the late '60s/early '70s (rather than Adult Contemporary Tracks). Beyond being accurate to the time it charted, another benefit to using the chart name at the time, is that no one has to worry about changing them in articles when chart names change. They will already nicely redirect to the current chart name anyway. It's still wait and see, I guess, on the current Billboard names with the disconnect between the online and print editions of many of the charts. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why though? Why is it better to confuse people by changing the names like Billboad have? I personally had no idea what the Hot "Black" Singles chart was until I clicked the link then - why not just stick with the current Hot R&B chart format? I just don't understand what the need is to complicate things - do you really want to look up "Ben", then find where it has charted, then find what Billboard was calling each chart at the time? Seems like that's just being too specific. As you said, we still need clarification from Billboard, yes. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because we're not changing the name, we're using the name that was used at the time. If you used the current name, you're just as likely to confuse people who remember it charting on the old name. --JD554 (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to use the title of the chart at the time. It shouldn't be too confusing for readers if a piped link takes them to an the article with the current chart name. Plus, sometimes the current names reflect changes to the charts over the years. For instance, to say that a song from the early '80s was on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart might give the reader the wrong impression because the term "mainstream" refers to a distinction between rock radio formats which arose later but didn't exist at the time, or at least was not recognized by Billboard. By the way, it looks like billboard.biz is finally getting around to updating the chart titles. Piriczki (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oftentimes the sources you are citing indicate the chart name at the time. Allmusic does this. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks

Should we be including Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks? and if so how should we reference it? As far as I can figure it is only available from billboard.bizz but requires a fee so linking to the reference would violate WP:EL. Thanks. J04n(talk page) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Subscription links are fine as references. I don't see a reason to include Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, but being a subscription link isn't a problem for a reference.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Using Allmusic for charting

In Ne-Yo discography Allmusic is used as the main source for charting. Is this considered a reliable charting source or not? If so why isn't it listed in the sourcing guide?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the holes in the sourcing guide is that the US isn't listed. That pretty much explains Allmusic's absence. As for reliability, I'd say it's better than Billboard after that last site revision. I still can't believe how thoroughly they ruined their site.—Kww(talk) 14:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic should be used with caution. It has a large number of missing chart positions, and doesn't always list them in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart macros

I'd like people to look at User:Kww/charttemplate and {{singlechart}} (you'll have to look at the source to see how they work). I'm not going to move much further without some feedback. The concept is pretty simple: plug in a chart, position, artist, and title, and it automatically generates the referencing. I'll be able to expand it to do a few nicer things: automatically flag invalid chart names, and a bot that periodically verifies that the position provided is accurate (keeping things up to date and automatically preventing vandalism). Billboard is doable, but nastier, because someone is going to have to plug in the chart number. Still, take a look at how it gets used, and let me know if you think I'm on a reasonable track or not.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea, but make it so that it formats the references with a citation template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Having a citation template should be an option as we should use the citation method that is already predominantly used in an article. --JD554 (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ouch. Pass it a parameter to control the format? Maybe, but it would probably default to long form.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you make it so entering Australia will wikilink to ARIA Charts? That'd be very helpful. Neat work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add Wikilinks for the charts. That's not a big deal.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Latvian Airplay Top

I recently asked Xymmax to reconsider the decision to delete the article on the Latvian Airplay Top... charts, and was advised to seek consensus here. It appears to me to be a legitimate chart, and I think relevant factors were overlooked during the very brief deletion discussion. Here's the conversation I had with Xymmax:

Greetings. I have not actually read the article in question but I was surprised to discover that it had been deleted and consequently this music chart is no longer considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latvian_Airplay_Top

There was minimal discussion and the reasons are not entirely clear to me, especially without access to the original article and its subpages. "Unsourced since 2007", yet one of the subpages also deleted was Latvian Airplay Top number-one hits of 2008. Was this page also unsourced? If the 2008 page was sourced, surely the same source could have been cited on the main article instead of deleting it?

"dubious chart, no hits unrelated to Wikipedia. "Latvijas rokziņu aģentūra" turns up 7 hits, Wikipedia and mirrors." Apparently "Latvijas rokziņu aģentūra" is "Latvian rock-news agency" which now yields 220 Google hits, and much more to the point, the phrase "Latvian Airplay Top" produces about 131 000 Google hits. I had a cursory look at the first few pages of results, and it appears that most are not directly related to Wikipedia (especially when you get past the first page or two).

This chart is listed at "Charts All Over the World" http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/ and I don't think the limited information on the organisation behind it (which may be due to some sort of translation error for all I know) is sufficient reason to discredit this very widely cited music chart. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I did close the AfD. There was no AfD notice at the top of each of the subpages, so I only deleted the main page. After I closed the AfD, TenPoundHammer, the nominator, added speedy deletion tags to all the subpages, and Dank deleted those including the 2008 page you mentioned. Looking at that chart, it does have the link to www.lanet.lv, and no such link was on the main page. I also see that http://www.lanet.lv has made it onto the WP:BADCHARTS list, presumably as a result of the AfD. Since the AfD I closed never considered that link, I agree that it isn't appropriate to exclude lanet.lv based on that discussion. I don't normally edit in that area, so I don't know whether there was some other AfD where it was decided to exclude the link or not. What I suggest is that you try to get consensus over at WT:Record charts, which is the talk page for BADCHARTS, to remove lanet.lv from the BADCHARTS list. If they agree that the source is legitimate, I'll restore all the pages. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the Latvian Airplay Top whatever or the related Latvian Singles Chart should be considered of major importance in global terms, but there may be cases where these are worth mentioning and I don't think they should be blacklisted. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The sub-articles were sourced only to the chart website. What no one has ever been able to find is any sign that anyone considers this to be a notable chart. Can you provide links of newspapers, published magazines, anything that is not a Wikipedia mirror, a blog or a forum that references this chart?—Kww(talk) 16:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because the chart is may not be notable for an article on Wikipedia, does that automatically make it a "bad chart", even if it is the official airplay chart of Latvia? Just wondering. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it make it a good chart. We need evidence as outlined by Kww that it is reliable. --JD554 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone could actually demonstrate that it was "official", that would be enough for me. There are a lot of self-proclaimed "official" charts, and it needs more than a website claiming to be official to actually be official. It tends to correspond pretty well to notability: there has to be a reliable source supporting the claim that the site is official and isn't from a single vendor or single network.—Kww(talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for not making myself clearer: I meant a reliable chart as opposed to a reliable source (although one probably follows the other). --JD554 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we have a few issues here.

Just because the chart is may not be notable for an article on Wikipedia, does that automatically make it a "bad chart", even if it is the official airplay chart of Latvia? Just wondering. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A very good question, and one which is important enough to warrant a separate discussion thread: I would not want to prejudice consensus regarding the wider principle by tying it to this particular case.

I have done some research and the "Latvian Singles Chart" which was also the subject of a deleted Wikipedia article does not appear to exist: I believe it to be either a misnomer or a predecessor of the Latvian "Spice" Music Chart (listed on Latvian Wikipedia as Latvijas Spice) which is an airplay-based chart specifically for Latvian music, documented at the same website as the Latvian Airplay Top chart.

Kww, "reliable source supporting the claim that the site is official and isn't from a single vendor or single network" may be a bigger ask than you realise: if you take a look at the UK Singles Chart article you will see that although it is much more detailed than the deleted Latvian Airplay Top article, UK Singles Chart has only 3 footnote references, only one of which contains any reference to the chart's methodology (an article mentioning that digital downloads are counted and speculating that planned Beatles download releases could dominate the charts). Another cited link probably said something similar but the article is no longer there. The UK Singles Chart article is probably based almost entirely on information published by The Official Charts Company itself, but would we question its validity?

Methodology

Mirrors of the old Latvian Airplay Top article state that the chart was compiled at that time based on airplay data from 15 radio stations. The current Latvian Wikipedia article (alas lacking citations) states that 18 radio stations and TV channels are used: these are listed in a table and some have their own articles. Both these articles may be out of date: the website which publishes the chart lists 19 component charts currently used (since Dec 2008) for the Latvian Airplay Top, and 7 for the Latvian Music Chart.

Sources

I have found a variety of sources other than the ubiquitous blogs, YouTube videos and Wikipedia mirrors which refer to this chart. Since magazines and newspapers were suggested, I have a webpage from Diena, a Latvian newspaper
http://www.diena.lv/lat/search?where=1&query=Latvian+Airplay+Top&order_by_date=yes

and this appears to be another newspaper or magazine site
http://www.tvnet.lv/muzika/Video/demo/article.php?id=160091

CHART LIST WEBSITES:
These list both Latvian Airplay Top and Latvian Music Charts (all link to the same main chart pages at lanet.lv):
http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/ (evidently part of the same website which hosts current and archived Latvian charts)
http://www.alaskajim.com/charts/currentsingles/international/latvia.php main charts & some component charts (some links no longer work)
http://www.useyourears.co.uk/music-industry/music-charts/world-music-charts.php
http://www.btinternet.com/~Huggesey/charts.htm includes some component charts with links to radio station websites but not directly to the actual component charts

These list the Latvian Music Chart but not the Latvian Airplay Top:
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/music_directory/music_chart.php
http://www.vocalist.org.uk/music_charts.html

WEBSITES REFERRING TO LATVIAN AIRPLAY TOP POSITIONS
Mostly music artist webpages, some from artists' official sites, some third-party (a few examples: more exist)
http://www.a-ha.com/news/languages/english/archive/AHA_fullStory.aspx?PostID=1934
http://www.parishiltonsite.net/starsareblind.php
http://www.last.fm/music/Jenny+May
http://darrenhayes.eclub.lv/en/news.html#charts010506
http://muzictime.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hips-dont-lie-shakira-feat-wyclef-jean/
http://www.brainstorm.lv/?mid=47&pname=main&lang=3&mid2=48
http://www.thisdayinrock.com/index.php/1997/02/
http://home.lanet.lv/~julita/sa/ this one is unofficial but mentions component charts

MISCELLANEOUS
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Latvia/Entertainment/Music/?o=a Yahoo directory listing Latvian Airplay Top 20
http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/pop_culture_randall.htm Academic paper (published by the University of Washington; presumably a good or at least acceptable example of a well-researched study) referencing the Latvian Music Chart.

Both these widely recognised charts appear to be legitimate and generally accepted as official Latvian charts. I propose that they should be removed from the Badcharts list and accepted as sources in Wikipedia articles. I would also like the Latvian Airplay Top article and its subpages restored. As for the Latvian Singles Chart article, perhaps it could be userfied to enable me to use its contents as the basis for a new article with a more accurate title if appropriate? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue that you haven't made a valiant effort. Let's go through them one-by-one.

• http://www.diena.lv/lat/search?where=1&query=Latvian+Airplay+Top&order_by_date=yes

• First, this references the Latvian Airplay Top 40, while others reference the Latvian Airplay Top 50. Not even clear it the same chart. When you click through, the article provided doesn't discuss the chart at all.

• http://www.tvnet.lv/muzika/Video/demo/article.php?id=160091

• Of all the sources you have provided, this one comes the closest: it identifies a Latvian Airplay Top 50, and claims it is an airplay chart summarizing all Latvian radio stations. If it clearly identified what chart it was referencing, and the publisher, this would nearly do it.

• http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/ (evidently part of the same website which hosts current and archived Latvian charts)
  

• Self-reference

• http://www.alaskajim.com/charts/currentsingles/international/latvia.php

• Lists charts without regard to status, makes no claims about this one.

• http://www.useyourears.co.uk/music-industry/music-charts/world-music-charts.php

• Lists a mix of unofficial and official charts, makes no statement about this one.

• http://www.btinternet.com/~Huggesey/charts.htm

• User page on BT Internet

• http://www.allaboutjazz.com/music_directory/music_chart.php

• Framed Google search result

• http://www.vocalist.org.uk/music_charts.html

• Another mix of unofficial and offical charts, makes no statement about the Latvian charts

• http://www.a-ha.com/news/languages/english/archive/AHA_fullStory.aspx?PostID=1934

• Mix of official and unofficial charts, no statement made about this one.

• http://www.parishiltonsite.net/starsareblind.php

• Old Wikipedia article: self-referencing

• http://www.last.fm/music/Jenny+May

• It's a wiki. Fails WP:RS

• http://darrenhayes.eclub.lv/en/news.html#charts010506

• blog

http://muzictime.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hips-dont-lie-shakira-feat-wyclef-jean/

• Questionable source, and lists a large range of official and unofficial charts.

http://www.thisdayinrock.com/index.php/1997/02/

• Contains mix of official and unofficial charts, no statement made about this one

http://home.lanet.lv/~julita/sa/

• Self-reference

http://www.brainstorm.lv/?mid=47&pname=main&lang=3&mid2=48

• No statement about Latvian Airplay Top itself

So, in summary, you have one acceptable source that doesn't contain a specific enough statement to do anything with. I think the results of this exercise demonstrates that the listing on WP:BADCHARTS is quite reasonable.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

B-sides

Should singles discography tables include B-sides where applicable and sourced? I usually remove them as being unsourced, but Joel Whitburn's books almost always list the B-side if the single had one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would depend on whether the B-side became notable enough. Generally B-sides are overshadowed by the actual A-side single and hence doesnot become notable enough. Including B-sides in those cases will make the discography a songography then. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen it as too much information for no real reason. It's something that should really be taken case-by-case, but MOS:DISCOG does say no b-sides. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen a published discography that did not include B-sides. It is an essential component of a discography, along with the format, release date, label and catalog number. Unfortunately, most singles discographies in wikipedia contain none of that information and as a result they are part discography and part chart history and are incomplete in both regards. Many appear to have been created by copying info from allmusic.com which only provides a limited chart history and not a full discography. Consequently, non-charting singles are sometimes omitted and album tracks that appeared on airplay charts are incorrectly listed as singles. To me, it appears the MOS:DISCOG guidelines were based on what information is readily available online, primarily at allmusic.com, and not on the information that is normally included in a discography. Piriczki (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that MOS:DISCOG is a proposal and not a policy (and if you want to debate whether or not it should become official policy, its talk page is probably the best place for it). My view is that a complete discography should include tracklistings of all releases (including singles) which do not have separate articles, and that trying to prevent this would inevitably lead to the creation of numerous separate articles for singles whose individual notability could be highly questionable: however, this is not really a matter for a Record Charts guideline. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Piriczki has a point. With the Billboard archives mostly gone, those of us with Whitburn books have a little more leverage in the discography department. And the latest Whitburn books do list the b-sides; I don't really see it as indiscriminate if it's sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And what about the releases that have multiple B-sides, for example Madonna used to release different ones for Northamerica, Europe and Japan. I believe that if every one is included the discography page would become too long and cluttered. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Official chart names

I removed the ARIA in Australian ARIA Singles Chart on the project page, which was reverted. This is something that has been discussed before and it really deserves some concrete consensus. Saying Australian ARIA Singles Chart is literally saying "Australian Australian Recording Industry Association Singles Chart". JD, you said it is offical - according to the ARIA Report it is the Australian Top 100 Singles Chart and the ARIA Charts website calls it the ARIA Top 50 Singles Chart - so I think it's something which is obviously debatable... it makes no sense for us to assume we have to include ARIA in the title, especially when we then have to also specify 'Australian' and in turn, repeat it. So, should titles include the name of the relevant association? If so, we should be labelling all the charts properly (eg. UK Official Charts Company Singles Chart, Canadian CRIA Singles Chart). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. There was no reason for JD to revert your change. This is how I have been formatting all the music articles that I edit. It seems totally ludicrous to use ARIA after Australian. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I gave reason for the revert in my edit summary and k.i.a.c repeated that above, so saying there was no reason is incorrect. That said, I was under the impression it was the official title, but k.i.a.c makes a good case and has shown that I was wrong, so I have no objection to it being changed again. --JD554 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing against you mate. Everyone okay with me wikilinking the charts too? As you would in a normal chart. I think we also need to separate some of the information in the lead into sections too, but that's another story. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the addition of the term ARIA was used to separate the songs that charted in the actual ARIA chart from the ones that did in the Kent Music Report back in the 70s and 80s, and i have seen pages with the name for Canada, CRIA dosen't make the chart,(Canadian RPM Singles Chart), i think than in this case this addition is to differentiate the time period of the chart.190.233.44.60 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a wikilink to Kent Music Report would suffice then. In the end, it was the official "Australian Singles Chart" back then, and now the ARIA Charts is, so either way it should work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

UK Charts

Hello there. I've always used ACharts for all my GA/FA after EveryHit's about us page was deemed not reliable at FAC. What's the official party line on using Zobbel and/or ChartStats? RB88 (T) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion just above. This still needs to be clarified, so comments are still welcome here. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Does being used as a source by the BBC and, to a lesser extent, a Member of Parliament not make it a reliable source?[4][5] --JD554 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Which source are the links about? RB88 (T) 17:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Everyhit.com. --JD554 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh. Damn you JD, where were you with this stuff when I needed you at the FAC! lol Anyway, I'll be adding it back then. RB88 (T) 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, in that case, it should replace ACharts which has zilch third-party reliable coverage. RB88 (T) 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Polish Singles Chart

Seems that a Polish Singles Chart is making its way into articles using this website as the source (83.21.243.108 (talk) is making these additions). Seeing as I have to leave to school in a few minutes, I really don't have time at the moment to get too deep into this, though I felt it was a good idea to bring this up to those who will be around while I'm at school. — ξ^xplicit 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. It's the Polish National Top 50, one of the original WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks for looking into it so quickly. — ξ^xplicit 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Turkey again

sorry to bother you all agian. Since billboard made some changes on Billboard turkey link to turkey top 20 is not vail anymore. i do not speak turkish, and i can't find on that site billboard turkey top 20 cahrt. can anyone find it? --SveroH (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried clicking everywhere for it, and I can't find the chart anywhere.... Perhaps someone who actually understands the site can help? SKS (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe ask at Wikiproject Turkey?—Kww(talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI (Billboard Korea)

The introductory site's up. It says it's supposed to open up in October, so hopefully we'll finally have a good national chart for South Korea...... SKS (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)