Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts

Billboard.com updates, causes problems

I noticed this morning that Billboard updated their website, both cosmetically and the change in URL (it's now www.billboard.com/#/ as opposed to www.billboard.com/bbcom/index.jsp). Unfortunately, with their update, several pages are now dead links (Error 404), including artist chart histories, individual chart peaks and probably much more. This is going to be hell trying to repair this links, but I thought I'd bring this to the attention of those who aren't aware of the change. — Σxplicit 18:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC) All their articles are also dead links. They really screwed us over. — Σxplicit 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. - eo (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What we really need is a way to have a bot do this for us. I'm trying to think of a way, but everyone concerned should ponder the problem.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well, but it might not be possible. For example, the artist chart history I posted above was Aaliyah's. The "ID" number for her chart information is 36610. The problem with the new system is that they have divided the different type of charts. For example, they now have a separate URL for chart, one for the Billboard 200, one for Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, etc. Since all tables are differently organized (some have one U.S. chart while others have more), a bot wouldn't be able to do determine something so complex. As far as the Billboard articles go, those don't seem to be comparable; for example, this URL is significantly different from this one. These will definitely need to be done by hand. And on a different note, I can't seem to locate the component charts anywhere on the site. I may have missed them, but this could be yet another problem. — Σxplicit 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I keep thinking of something semi-automatic, where we could put something in the chart like {{chartname|song name|artist name}}, and it would expand into the correct reference. At least that way, we'd only have to do a mass change once.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The only semi-automatic I'm thinking of is the gun I want to put to my head after realizing the scope of this task. - eo (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that Billboard.com isn't archiving its "Bubbling Under" charts right now, creating a roadblock for verifiability. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol at eric. But seriously, even a number of charts have been completely renamed: like Hot 100 Airplay to Radio Songs, Top 40 Mainstream to Pop songs. Also, component charts like Dance Airplay or any other airplay and sales chart have completely vanished as well as the news archives. God! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My solution is to declare Billboard unreliable and delete all reference to it from Wikipedia. I think a bot could fairly easily take care of that task! (perhaps the next step is to create a policy doing away with all record chart type material?) ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Might as well delete all the songs. On a serious note, I don't believe that bots will be able to do it, when there is so much of difference in the URLs itself. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to scale the problem, per this search, there are current 25,133 links to billboard.com from Wikipedia. Maybe the answer is to beg Billboard for help.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is going to fall on deaf ears. Billboard never listens to anybody, at least my experience says so. Grrrr. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... umm. I think we may as well shoot ourselves in the head. I first pondered this happening when the BPI screwed us over, but man... this is devastating. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good news: they released an API to get data from the site. It probably won't be fun, but using the API to develop a set of macros and bots to deal with this should be possible. We are going to have to find someone that really enjoys a challenge, though.—Kww(talk) 04:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How does this API work. Grrr, for me the API doesnot open even though the actual Billbaord site is still opening. Anybody worked on it? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to make up a new table for what's what. New charts are popping up like Rock Songs, then we also have Hot Alternative Tracks and as said before, they've changed Top 40 Mainstream to just Pop Songs, does this mean it now incorporates sales or what?! k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget "Active Rock" and "Heritage Rock".... "Rock Songs" being a combination of Alternative, Active and Heritage. The Billboard articles in general need to be majorly cleaned now that R&R has been blended in. There is also a new "Heatseekers" singles chart which is similar to the Heatseekers Album chart. And it would certainly be nice if their websites reflected these changes, rather than having to see them only in the print editions. Their pay website (billboard.biz) still lists all the old charts with their old names, which is kind of ridiculous at this point. - eo (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed the links for the singles charts on Radiohead discography and Phoenix (band), so at least those two things are done. Also, a few artists' discographies like Pink Floyd and The Who link to Allmusic instead of Billboard because it uses the same information (but unlike Billboard's site, features chart positions from before 1987). I think that's also an alternative for Billboard chart peaks (from at least before this year because they don't have Modern Rock/Alternative chart information on songs like "1901" by Phoenix) for now (at least for me. Newer chart peaks, like the afformentioned Phoenix single, i'll use Billboard's new site). Well at least I know what i'm spending my weekend doing! Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen Allmusic as incomplete. Not as in an artist is missing certain chartings in a particular chart, as in some artists are just plain out missing entire charts they have featured in - that Allmusic would have usually covered.

I can see that. In fact, Billboard and Allmusic now no longer list the song "The Only One" by The Cure as charting on the Modern Rock/Alternative chart, when it indeed did last year. I don't know what's up with that one, for instance.

That above comment about The Cure is mine. I seemed to have not signed it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fezmar actually mentioned to me that perhaps that new Heatseeker Songs chart is the Bubbling Under Chart, anyone know if this is possible? If no, who would be against using Internet Archive to recover some Bubbling Under Charts? Is it worth it? I think for some singles it would be for notability. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Well "Ain't No Rest for the Wicked" by Cage the Elephant is currently on both the Billboard Hot 100 and this new Heatseeker chart, and "Panic Switch" by Silversun Pickups, which previously appeared on the Billboard Hot 100 is also on the chart. I don't know if Bubbling Under = Heatseeker Singles, but if it has, they've certainly changed the rules around. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not the same. Billboard had the explanation on it, although I can't remember if I read it online or in print. It is basically the same concept as the Heatseekers album chart — artists who have never been above #50 (I think) are eligible and once a song reaches that peak all of that artist's songs are removed. And it has nothing to do with that artist's album ranks.... so someone could have a #1 album but still be on the Heatseekers songs chart if they never had a big single. - eo (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They're not "removed" it's that after they appear in the Billboard Hot 100, they can't appear in the Heatseekers Songs chart again. Also, Billboard left this site up. The charts, like the Billboard Hot 100 are all updated to this week's (and probably will keep being updated), but the artists chart pages won't be updated again, apparently. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually they are removed, just as they would be on the albums list. For example, if a Heatseekers album climbs above 100 on the Billboard 200, it is "removed" from Heatseekers immediately - it doesn't stay on the Heatseekers chart for the length of its run... it just stays on the main chart. Same for the Heatseekers songs. - eo (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but those two songs I mentioned (by Cage the Elephant and Silversun Pickups) are still on the Heatseekers singles chart. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Right.... because those two bands have yet to climb above position X on the Hot 100 (I think it is 50). Once that happens, they'll be gone from Heatseekers. - eo (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the description in both Heatseekers Songs and Heatseekers albums, it seems that songs and albums that don't reach the top 100 can chart in these charts. — Σxplicit 19:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Another problem to watch out for. See: North by Something Corporate, which apparently charted at #5 on the Jazz Albums chart. It's not a Jazz Album, and well, Elvis Costello's North was in fact the charting that it's referring to. Well done Billboard, can't even decipher two completely different albums. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the amazing problems above

As it was pointed out, Billboard has altered and added various new charts. There are several issues that need to be sorted here. For example, we need to track down the charts that were simply renamed and modify the guideline accordingly; we also have to take note of the new charts and figure out which are component charts and which aren't—skimming, I see a Mexico chart, tropical chart (whatever the hell that is), and Yahoo! and AOL charts (I'm sure these two will fall under the "do not list" pile). I'm also seeing additional problems—peak positions are not lining up as they should be. For example, this says that the album Jeremih peaked at number 15, when in reality, it peaked number six. Not sure how far this extends, but will definitely be a problem if they have the peaks completely wrong. — Σxplicit 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be trusting Billboard with the UK charts at this stage, we're still working out the simplest charts. We need to create an entire list of the Billboard charts, put it in a dropdown list of hideable list or something and shove it on the Policy page. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You probably read an early reporting of the sales and charting for Jeremih, which in my experience have only been accurate about half the time. Billboard releases new charts on Thursdays, and typically a few days before that, sources will publish various charts, but for some reason they are occasionally wrong. For example, on October 8, 2009 (a Wednesday) Blabbermouth.net published here that Declaration peaked at number 101, but then the following day Billboard listed the same album with a debut of 104 here. This was just the first example to come to mind, but I have seen it many times. I think it's just best to wait for Billboard's charts. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's Billboard's own site that's wrong (with itself, if that makes sense). The first link clearly states that on the Billboard 200, it "peaked" at #15, and last week it was at #6. The second link is also using Billboard stats. SKS (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Although I'm not a reliable source, the album did in fact debut at number six. I've also begun to compile the new Billboard inclusion chart, for those who are are willing to go through the charts. — Σxplicit 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you were talking about. Well, if you go to the artist's chart history on Billboard here it is listed as #6. It also shows a peak of #6 if you launch "The Visualizer" from the floating sidebar here. It looks like the website just has "peak" confused with "last week's position" on the album page. Maybe just a bug with new site? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I got all of the charts listed, but I didn't finished the inclusion part. — Σxplicit 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Straightening out the facts re: "Rock Songs" chart

I just did some quick lookups on allmusic.com and billboard.com for Green Day single chart stats. I compared the two sites, and it turns out that "Rock Songs" = Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, and "Alternative Songs" = Hot Modern Rock Tracks. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The "Rock Songs" chart gets its information from airplay from alternative, active rock and triple-A radio stations instead of just Active Rock like Mainstream Rock. But I think that they did indeed merge the history of Mainstream Rock Tracks in this new Rock Songs chart. Alternative Songs, however, is indeed Modern Rock Tracks with a different name. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot may possibly be programmed to fix links

As far as Billboard stories go, I've pretty much figured out the change in URLs. Basically, all you need is the ID number from the stories. Below is a list of examples on how things work. (Note: changes in new URL will be in bold)

Cover story

• http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=943381 (old)
• http://www.billboard.com/#/news/keys-debut-tops-the-billboard-200-943381.story (new)

Chart Beat

• http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=100191898 (old)
• http://www.billboard.com/#/news/chart-beat-1001918986.story (new)

Hot Product

• http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=91544 (old)
• http://www.billboard.com/#/news/hot-product-915447.story (new)

In a nutshell, here are the changes:

• /bbcom/ → /#/
• /esearch/ → /news/
• article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= → title of the article separated by hyphens. The URL only includes the letters of the alphabet—punctuation is completely omitted. Anything titled "hot product" or "chart beat" stays as simple as that in the URL plus the ID and ending with .story.

I have no clue how to get a bot running to do this, I'm no bot expert… or bot beginner at that. If anyone knows how or can ask someone else to set this up, we can get this replacement done at a much faster rate. I'm not touching discographies though, those get too complex. — Σxplicit 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, but I noticed that for reviews its not the same. The original url for a, suppose, single review has a big chunk like "sjidfhksjfghwehfwuehwhguwehguhweugew" but in the new one it is simply replaced by a concrete number. Hence I don't know how reviews can be updated. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you happen to have any examples? The only review I can get my hands on at the moment is for Battlefield (old, new). Both links seem to work fine. — Σxplicit 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I faced the situation while updating the dead bb links for Miles Away. The old bb link for the Hard Candy review was this but now it changed to this. The numbers at the end are significantly different. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any relation with the two links—the first link is a random string of characters, while the second one has the ID number. Those will have to be done by hand. — Σxplicit 05:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Sigh! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this billboardmagazine site is going to stay live. It is stil being updated and is seemingly exactly the same as the old Billboard website, just with a different URL. If this stays live, we could use the Bot to do a simple url change from billboard.com to billboardmagazine.com and it'd be done with. Then we would probably have to still progressively change the url's manually to the updated website. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that seems to be updated are the charts, which is fine at this point. I wouldn't mind this solution as long as we continue to have access to billboardmagazine.com. — Σxplicit 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I didn't notice that the URL was moved! I agree; the bot should change the dead link URL's if possible. I'll reinstate some quickly. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no...not again

Well, billboardmagazine.com died today, so only the "new" billboard site exists. The bubbling under charts and that good old chart search function are no longer here. :( Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's another option demolished by our great friends at Billboard. That means no Mainstream Rock and no Bubbling Under. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They are really IRRITATING. :( --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Billboardmagazine.com now redirects to billboard.com. Component charts seem to be impossible to verify as well as year end charts from the past (I searched for them when this first began to no avail). We really are screwed. — Σxplicit 06:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

allmusic.com still has them all mirrored, right? Like they also have the old charts from before the Soundscan era. At least the peaks. Hekerui (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They have defunct charts archived, like the Pop 100. They've never touched the component charts, though. — Σxplicit 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually allmusic does list the Rhythmic Top 40 and Top 40 Mainstream and other such Top 40 charts. I guess Billboard is trying to get profits off payments to view the Bubbling Under and such charts. Well it's a recession, but are they not aware of free content like Wikipedia?! :( And apparently there's no other website that'll host these charts for fear of copyright infringement I guess. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is going to cause big problems. Is there any sources besides the one that was removed with archived Top Heatseekers charts? • вяαdcяochat 08:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Allmusic does, but I'm not sure their archiving covers 100%. Guess we have nothing to compare it too now though. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a blogger's archive of a Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart from October 2008. But that was when billboard actually had its great search function! Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of using a blog, honestly. There's no way to verify that those chart positions weren't messed around with. — Σxplicit 20:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BPI Website

There could be light at the end of the tunnel: I've just received an email from the BPI to say that the certification database should be back online in the next couple of weeks. The delay has been due to extra testing they're doing for some additional search options that there will be. --JD554 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

thats wicked, because i can't promote a discography i'm working on till its back online! its soooo annoying! unless anybody knows of any other sources for uk certifications? Mister sparky (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The awards database is finally back online[1] --JD554 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Hallelujah! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish charts

Spanishcharts.com also publishes the combined download/physical top 50 including archive. Please change the text. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitparadech (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Finland music chart

I would like to inquire regarding the music chart for Finland as I am rather confused. Is Mitä hittiä the chart listed at acharts.us and finnishcharts.com? • вяαdcяochat 10:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just verified with them. Its the same. Also WP:GOODCHARTS lists it like that. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So on this article I am working on, I suppose now it will be appropriate to link Finnish Singles Chart to Mitä hittiä? • вяαdcяochat 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Initially Mita didnot refer to the Finnish charts, but later they overlapped. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your help. I was rather confused because another user was telling me it was something different. • вяαdcяochat 11:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Legolas, where does it say that Mitä hittiä is the Finnish singles chart? YLE's official Finnish chart website lists the singles chart as Suomen virallinen lista (literal translation: "the official chart of Finland"). A Google search for Mitä hittiä doesn't show YLE's chart site. According to the Mitä hittiä article, MH is a combination of airplay and singles sales. However, the Finnish singles chart is only based on singles sales (and since 2007, downloads) with the exception of the charts made in 1999-2000 where they also used the airplay on YLE stations to get the chart results. Mitä hittiä seems to be a defunct chart as there is no website for it. YuckieDuck (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hit 40 UK

I believe that editors misinterpreted this press release when determining whether Hit 40 UK should be added to the BADCHARTS list. The original discussion asserted that SMS messaging was used in compiling the chart. The release is confusing, and states "the countdown is [....] compiled through sales, airplay and downloads". The website, SMS club, and podcast supported the radio broadcast, and were not used to compile the chart. Furthermore, the Hit 40 UK chart (and its predecessor The Pepsi Chart) was printed each week in Music Week at least until 2004, strongly suggesting that it was held notable by the UK music industry. CJPargeter (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you show some evidence that it was listed in Music Week? I agree that that would be strong evidence of notability for the chart.—Kww(talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Scans of the relevant pages have been put online at this link. The Pepsi Chart / Hit 40 UK is listed from about June 1998 until May 2005. CJPargeter (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it from WP:BADCHARTS per the above and per its description at http://www.theofficialcharts.com/docs/OCC_Chart_Rules_Edition9.pdf . This does not apply to its successor, the Big Chart Show, because its top ten is strictly iTunes based.—Kww(talk) 13:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good Charts?

Are the four charts listed as the last four references in The Dark Side of the Moon considered reliable? It's at FAC. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Swedishcharts.com, norwegiancharts.com, and australian-charts.com are all listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. Everyhit.com isn't listed as a recommended archive, but I see nothing wrong with it: it appears to contain correct data.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the quick reply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the table should comply with the samples provide in the Wikipedia:Record charts page. I know they are pretty lenient with this issue over at FAC, but for continuity and project-wide consistency, it should be done. If you would like some help, talk page me. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing in example charts

One thing just struck my eye: the sample charts in WP:Record charts haven't got any references. Any objections if I install reference tags next to every position in the example charts? We need to reinforce to people that you must source all figures, and the references need to be next to the figure sourced (not at the table head or next to the chart name).—Kww(talk) 11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Had the same thought myself actually. Thanks for bringing it up. – IbLeo (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is such a good idea... It looks crowded and, also, a reader who is not familiar with Wikipedia formatting may be confused as to wich number is the actual peak (the written one or the one from the reference). I think it is better if the source is listed next to the name of the chart.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this notion, next to the chart would be preferred. More readable, doesn't clash with other numbers - either way, definitely need citations in there somewhere. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Two arguments. The first is philosophical: the reference goes next to the information being derived from the reference. No one is sourcing the existence of the Lower Slobovian Singles Chart, they are sourcing the position on the chart. The second is that it gets confused with the instructions about how to notate an alternate version of the same song, which involves putting superscripted numbers next to the chart name.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Third argument: The trend in articles about recent hit albums is to incorporate the certifications (and sometimes sales figures) into the same table as the chart positions. (Which, after all, I think is a most reasonable thing to do as those things are highly related. Why don't we have any guidelines for this? Okay, let's leave that for another discussion, it is out-of-scope here). See for example 21st Century Breakdown, Life for Rent, Working on a Dream, Number Ones (Michael Jackson album), and Only by the Night. I think it is highly illogical and confusing that while the references for the certification are placed on the certification itself, the reference for the chart position is placed on the chart name. I would definitely prefer to see it on the chart position. – IbLeo (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorting with references included

Well, there is an issue that's come to light that makes this worthy of fresh discussion. Compare the sortable table here and here, and try to sort each table by position. The difference is the inclusion of the "sort" macro. Sorts fine with no references in the figure column. I guess the real question is whether we expect people to sort by position, or just by name.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you would think people would be curious as to where a release went number one - so I would say yeah they would sort by position. It's a bit far-fetched to make people put the sort template in every single table. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Billboard's charts aren't renamed at all?

This is an interesting email I received from Billboard's Silvio Pietroluongo. I didn't write to him specifically but I emailed Billboard to bitch about how their (subscription-only) .biz site still has all the old chart names and that chart data there seems to always get updated late, as opposed to the (free) .com website which is nice and revamped and pretty and interactive, displaying all the new chart names (I still hadn't had my coffee yet that morning and I was pissy). This is what he wrote back (emphasis added by me):

"...The charts on .biz do not necessarily have old names. We tweaked the names of some charts on .com to make them more understandable to visitors to that site who are more consumer-oriented and might not be as chart savvy as our longtime readers. The chart names in the print addition of Billboard mirror .biz for the most part. So there are some charts that are referred to differently depending on where you view them...."

So I don't know whether to revert articles to their previous titles? Any thoughts about this? - eo (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Have they said any such thing in the .com site anywhere? Then probably we can just add the new names in the original articles and link to the line that they have tweaked the names of some charts on .com to make them more understandable to visitors to that site who are more consumer-oriented and might not be as chart savvy as our longtime readers. For eg in the Hot 100 Airplay article we can insert a line saying that on the .com site the chart is known as Radio Songs and then add the reference. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can stick to one source with this, needs to be taken on a case by case basis. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but then which source do we use? Billboard.com or Billboard.biz? If .biz is supposedly for the "chart savvy readers" then shouldn't those chart titles be used? Legolas's idea of mentioning the "alternate" name make sense, although a personal email I received from Pietroluongo can hardly be used as a source for the explanation. - eo (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks merger

Discussion has been minimal for 2 weeks, need some more eyes on the issue. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Album component charts

About: "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."

For singles the digital chart and genre charts are usually accepted and the page says "song" instead of "album". Can that be clarified? I was asked whether to include a digital albums chart in an article. Hekerui (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it should probably say "release". Digital albums charts are okay to include, as long as it hasn't charted on the main chart (that the digital chart is used to calculate). For example; Album X has not charted on the Billboard 200, so it is okay to add its peak at 35 on the Billboard Digital Albums chart - if it reaches the Billboard 200 however, remove the Digital Albums peak. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kiac's altercation of the guideline. I've seen many digital album charts in tables while the album charted—or even topped—the Billboard 200. Digital album charts should be treated just as equally as digital song charts (though "component chart" may need a redefinition here). — Σxplicit 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also agree - the concept of "component" should also apply to album charts. - eo (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitparadeitalia

Hitparadeitalia.it is sometimes used as source for the Italian charts in songs articles. However, after a comparison with Italiancharts.com, it appears that Hitparadeitalia doesn't provide the FIMI chart positions (their lists are different). I think it should be listed as WP:BADCHARTS. Europe22 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The website doesn't seem to be linked FIMI in any way. Reading over a horrible translation page, it doesn't seem that they use any proper methodology. — Σxplicit 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be based on a defunct magazine's charts for their earlier charts, and no indication of what they do now. Google says that there are no links to their site, and even Italian Wikipedia makes little use of it. Where they do use it, it is for very old songs, apparently predating the FIMI's electronic database. I tend to agree that it should go on WP:BADCHARTS. I'll add it tomorrow if no dissent occurs.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ZoneMusicReporter as Criteria 2

Does anyone have a view on whether a ZoneMusicReporter chart satisfies Criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (music)? The chart - claiming to be a "Top 100 Radio Airplay Chart" - contains a list of what are to me very obscure songs indeed. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Zonemusicreporter was previously known as New Age Reporter (name change earlier this month) and is often cited in Wikipedia articles (FWIW). Their current chart includes Philip Glass and Tangerine Dream and is drawn from airplay data of broadcasters all around the world (list here [3] then click 'Select Stations/Playlist'). Many of the broadcasters have entries in Wikipedia. (Note: I am the subject of the article that Tagishsimon has put up for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Anthony_Jay so have a Wikipedia:Vested_interest) Burningpetals (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sadly there is no evidence beyond inference, that the list of stations in "[4] then click 'Select Stations/Playlist" actually contribute to the chart. Indeed, from a long trawl of the site, I cannot establish how many submissions go to make the any chart. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That information is available, but (due to the value inherent in it), only to paid subscribers. Regardless, there aren't many charts in existence that give exact details of how they are compiled: otherwise, artists and record companies could effectively abuse the system. Burningpetals (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The site may or may not be notable, but I would venture the chart is not usable in Wikipedia articles. Contrary to Burningpetals's statement, most legitimate charts do publish details of how the charts are compiled. The list of rules for the Official Chart company goes on for pages. Your question about criteria two seems to really be "Does charting on the zonemusicreporter chart count for meeting criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC?", and I think the answer there is a resounding "no."—Kww(talk) 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • When you say "rules" it sounds like you are referring to things like eligibility. That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that very few charts tell you exactly which stores/stations are used in each chart. For example, sales charts use a sampling of different stores from week to week (so as to avoid chart rigging). Airplay charts may use a sampling of broadcasters returns or receive returns at different times from different stations. Consequently, I stand by my statement that "there aren't many charts in existence that give exact details of how they are compiled". Burningpetals (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even appear to have a scope. Top 100 Airplay of what? Ambient, which is mentioned in the page title? It doesn't even describe its contents, let alone establish any kind of notability. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Dance Chart

With one of the articles I that have been working on, a user has included the UK Dance Chart in the chart table using this as their source. Is this particular chart permitted? Note that the song has already charted on the official UK Singles Chart and Irish Singles Chart. • вяαdcяochat 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Permitted"? I would think so. I would have to see the particular article to say whether I thought it was a particularly good idea to include it, but there's nothing forbidden about it.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is Ready for the Weekend (song). • вяαdcяochat 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem in my mind. The single is essentially unknown outside the UK, so having two UK charts isn't any kind of undue weighting. It's a dance single, so the dance chart is highly relevant to the topic.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you happen to know if that particular chart is archived because I know BBC update it weekly? • вяαdcяochat 23:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe it is. Technically, that isn't an obstacle, because the chart is printed in Music Week and Charts Plus. The ref should really indicate a printed, stable source, not the unstable internet version.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Canadian charts

The RPM chart is not listed in the good charts table, so is it reliable for albums and singles positions between the 60s and the 90s? 190.233.8.10 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Also the table should have Slovakia since the chart is from IFPI and have the same layout of the Czech one. And what about the Romanian Top 100 and the Russian Airplay chart, are those considered reliable. 190.233.8.10 (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)