Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts

Chart Stats, Zobbel, everyHit and αCharts.us

Just wondering, in terms of a featured list candidate (Interpol discography in this case), what are considered the reliable sources when noting the charts of singles and albums? The above four have been thrown around, but the reliability of all three has been questioned in the mentioned article's candidacy. Please help! Thank you in advance. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Acharts is reliable enough but ChartStats should be used where possible. However ChartStats I do not believe is licensed either it just has the flow diagram on there which no other UK sources have. ChartStats should be used according to Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS as it always seems reliable and it's the only one that can be used with the {{singlechart}} macro system.

However for those using the old chart format, everyhit isn't allowed, which I don't know why because it's from Radio 1 as a link. When I put everyhit before it got removed so I don't recommend putting it anywhere. Zobbel I remove when I see it, there is no clear consensus on it's reliability, it seems reliable and no problems have been found but the 100-200 positions aren't available to the public so it's unlikely whoever runs it would have the data.

Official Charts Company website has an archive off all top 40 charts which is probably the most reliable out of all of them however positions 40-100 are not archived. I hope that was helpful. Jayy008 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If your article is about recent enough things, use the Official Charts Company. They only archive the last 100 weeks, for sometimes, that's enough. Acharts should never be used for a good or featured article. As for the others, I would rank it everyhit (because we can provide examples of reliable sources using it), chartstats (comprehensive, with no implementation problems), and then zobbel (a few implementation problems yielding incorrect results in some cases).—Kww(talk) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So in terms of an FA, we're only talking EveryHit and ChartStats? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally. Official Charts Company is what I would use for an article about a recent song, because it would save a lot of arguments during the FA review, but it will have to be replaced eventually. I could justify Zobbel on a case-by-case basis, but there would have to be a compelling need. Using Zobbel is basically a case of WP:IAR, and that's not something to be taken lightly.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Imo ChartStats should be considered without question. OCC can't really be used in the article in question as most of the charting singles are from before the 100 weeks. It is stated on Zobbel that it is compiled from ChartPlus, the only publisher of all 200 singles every week. Surely this is enough in terms of reliability? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Zobbel is that it returns soundtrack and other special albums as having charted on the main albums chart, when in fact they are not even eligible for it.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. You say that soundtrack albums are NOT eligible to appear on the main albums chart. What about Glitter (soundtrack) at Billboard? It is listed as charting in Soundtrack, R&B/Hip-Hop and the Top 200. Actually couldn't all THREE be displayed in the Chart table in the Glitter article as R&B/Hip-Hop is a genre chart and I think that Soundtrack chart should also be eligible.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's Billboard, not the Official Charts Company. Different charts, different companies, different rules.—Kww(talk) 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So what about wiki? Should we display it if Billboard 'says' it?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost in this conversation. What are you saying that relates to the issue of how Zobbel stores charts from the Official Charts Company?—Kww(talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Glitter was allowed on the UK albums chart at #10 because it was a studio album. Kevin, ChartsPlus might include the real 200 albums, with no rules, perhaps? Jayy008 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's the Official Charts Company chart. I'm not sure how Glitter qualified. The case I dug through was one of the Hannah Montana soundtracks that didn't make the UK Album chart because it wasn't eligible, but Zobbel was reporting it anyway. I checked a few more and found the pattern. It'd take me a while to reconstruct.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's strange. Hmm. I don't think Zobbel should be allowed. There's no proof they have a ChartsPlus account and they could make things up. Unless one of us gets an account. I don't think postions 101-200 should be allowed for the UK. By the way, I've signed up to music week for a 4 week free trial, so once it's come through I should be able to verify all of Zobbel or does Music Week not post 101-200? Either way I will subscribe to one of them permanently which should be helpful for charts on here. Jayy008 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayy, music week has a 1-75 position chart. Positions over are sometimes found in the weekly articles if very interesting. I have access, also have copies of weekly reports. SunCreator (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They were returning the right chart positions, it's just that when they return a position, they don't tell you whether it is for the soundtrack chart, compilation chart, or album chart. You have to sort that out yourself, which is why I don't recommend Zobbel.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Well it's down to personal preference if it's included then I guess. Jayy008 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Was a decision reached about Zobbel? Should it be added to WP:BADCHARTS "Websites to avoid"?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, add it to BADCHARTS and say some editors find it unreliable and cite this diff. SunCreator (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, did it. It had seemed to be generally unfavorable about Zobbel, but I didn't see any resulting action.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Zobbel has a place on Badcharts. Perhaps not on Goodcharts, but there is no reason to rule it out completely, it's a convenient and trustworthy source in my book - where are these mistakes? Are they just the soundtrack charts being mixed in with the national chart and people getting confused, or what? There's no basis behind this claim that "some editors find it unreliable". kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention that it just be listed on BADCHARTS, I think an explanation is due. It's not bad, but it's not good either on account of at least some editor(s?) had a problem with it. I would be happy if you amend the entry on BADCHARTS to add some explanation. SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please edit it to explain when it can be used?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For example is this relaible?? http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/100213cluk.txt —Iknow23 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that for User:Kiac or myself? I don't know if the link you provided is reliable or not. I found no chart errors on that link when cross checking it, but the date information I do question. It says at the top 'Update 13.02.2010 (wk5)' - that is for the dates and the chart matching from 07/02/2010 until 13/02/2010. The OCC tell us that's Week 6 and not wk5(Week 5). See TOP 40 SINGLES ARCHIVE :: WEEK 06 : 07/02/2010 - 13/02/2010. SunCreator (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to answer. Actual case is that I see it is being used at Kesha discography for UK positions in excess of 100 and wonder if its reliable for such use? —Iknow23 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The UK charts published by The OCC today are a Top100 as you can see on there website, those are obviously official. Positions 101 and above are produced by Chart+Plus, these are no doubt an accurate reflection of sales, yet are they actually part of the official chart? The situation seems unclear. SunCreator (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Let's hope that others will be able to help us out a bit here.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They're obviously official on some level, because they are true and them being published by this website, to me, makes them verifiable. Quoting someone else saying that 'people' have said that the site is unreliable hardly makes the statement true. The only complication I have ever, in two years of using it and other UK chart sources, is the soundtrack issue. Which can easily be cross-checked and erradicated. Putting it on Badcharts requires some concrete evidence that it is unhelpful for the project. kiac. (talk-contrib) 11:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Zobbel is being edit warred at Kesha discography for UK positions in excess of 100. Is it reliable for such use?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

R&R :: Going For Adds

Of no use for radio. See Talk:Telephone_(song)#Flaw_with_airplay_citation. Add this to BADCHARTS? SunCreator (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• to keep it simple... Yes Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Radio add date doesn't pertain to Record charts, does it?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but we don't have a WP:BADRADIO. SunCreator (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know. But shouldn't we keep the Project page within its scope?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I was thinking this talk was WP:SONGS. SunCreator (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

k, no problem :) —Iknow23 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay

Is the U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay a component or subcomponent of the U.S. Billboard Hot 100? I still wish that someone could make 'relationship tree tables' showing the relationships between all the US charts.
"One Time" is where I noticed Pop 100 Airplay being shown when the Hot 100 is also. Seeing that made me wonder, so I thought to ask here.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well to start off with, the discontinued Pop 100 can be included in the charts section & discographies. WP:CHARTS says "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart." It failed to enter the main chart (Pop 100), however charted on a component (Pop 100 Airplay), thus why I included it. Candyo32 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, with the Pop 100 is not a component and can be used in the tables, since the P1A can be used instead since it charted there, I see no room for conflict where the Hot 100 is. Candyo32 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

::: That means that if it a song doesn't enter the hot 100 component charts can be used. Hot 100 Airplay (Now Radio songs 1-40 only available to the public) is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100 and since it charted on the Hot 100 (One Time) Hot 100 Airplay shouldn't be used. Jayy008 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But Jayy. we are talking about the Pop 100 Airplay.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: I know, I'm just saying that Pop 100 Airplay is a component of The Hot 100 so it isn't allowed as it is a component chart Shown Here. "Component charts shouldn't be used unless the song fails the enter the main chart" that rule is based on the Hot 100 thus being the main chart to which Hot 100 Airplay contributes. Hot 100 Airplay has never been allowed when the Hot 100 has been. I hope I'm making this clear. Airplay only charts are component charts and should not be used unless it failed to enter the main chart (Billboard Hot 100) Jayy008 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But again, this discussion is regarding Pop 100 Airplay which if the UNSOURCED wiki article is correct has been discontinued by Billboard in June 2009 when the Pop 100 was discontinued.
Anyway, at Shown Here, I see that the Pop 100 Airplay is a component of Pop 100 but don't see it said that Pop 100 is a component of HOT 100.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::Yes I know but it goes down to the Hot 100. Pop 100 wasn't a component chart because it took into account sales, airplay & digital just like the Hot 100. Which is why it was allowed UNTIL it was dis-continued then it became unsourcable. Hot 100 Airplay is a component of both of the top charts the Hot 100 and the Pop 100. Wikipedia:Record Charts says component charts shouldn't be used when it charts on the main chart. Why is this an issue? It's been like it forever (Well since I've been here). Jayy008 (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pop 100 Airplay is not a component of Hot 100 Airplay, it is a component of Pop 100. Top 40 Mainstream/Pop Songs is the pop component chart to the Hot 100 Airplay. Candyo32 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Candyo (forgive me if I am incorrect) is saying that Pop 100 is an allowed Genre chart and as it did not chart in the 'Main' Genre chart that its Component is allowed.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the above. I was thinking "Hot 10 Airplay" not Pop 100 airplay. Yes IKnow23 that's what the user means but that rule has only ever applied for the Hot 100 and it's components. Pop 100 was allowed, Pop 100 Airplay was only allowed when it failed the Hot 100. Pop 100 Airplay AND Pop 100 were both allowed if it didn't chart on the Hot 100. I hope I'm clearer now. Jayy008 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone could make AGREED UPON 'relationship tree tables' showing the relationships between all the US charts there would be so much less confusion and edit warring.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Kww he should reply soon, he pretty much made the rules. But basically the way I say it:

• Hot 100 #1 (tick)
  
• Pop 100 #1 (tick)
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #1 (NO NO)
  

When the song fails the Hot 100:

• Pop 100 #57 (tick)
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #57 (Tick)
  

Both are allowed if it doesn't reach the Hot 100. Anything is allowed when it doesn't reach the Hot 100. But when it does the only charts that are allowed to go with it are: Hot Adult Contempoary, Hot Dance/Club Play, Hot Rap Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop and Hitseekers I do believe? But I agree IKnow23, Billboard charts are an issue, but doesn't this clarify? Jayy008 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly confusing. That is why I came here. :)
As 'main Genre charts' are allowed even when the Hot 100 appears, for consistency regarding Component charts I agree with Candyo that when a 'main Genre chart' does not appear then its components are allowed.
I disagree with "Pop 100 Airplay AND Pop 100 were both allowed..." I say that ONLY the Pop 100 should be allowed and that Pop 100 Airplay (a component of the larger Pop 100) should not be allowed.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

They were allowed, well I had seen them, but it doesn't matter now it will NEVER happen again, it is only in "One Time" that the issue was created ans the chart is no longer around, it won't be an issue again. The only reason I have a problem with this is because it's an "airplay only" based chart and "airplay only" based charts are component charts in the definition of component charts. But yeah it won't happen again so if you want to add it back to "One Time" I won't revert again! Jayy008 (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What I think

• Hot 100 #1 (tick) AGREE
  
• Pop 100 #1 (tick) AGREE
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #1 (NO NO) AGREE (it is a component of a chart that appears, the Pop 100)
  

When the song fails the Hot 100:

• Pop 100 #57 (tick) AGREE
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #57 (Tick) DISAGREE (it is a component of a chart that appears, the Pop 100)
  —Iknow23 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A component of ANY chart that appears should not be used. I would apply that to ANY Genre chart—Iknow23 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't make the rules: I've just been following them for longer than most. Pop 100 is hard to source, but if you have a source for it, it's fine. Pop 100 airplay is a component of the Pop 100, and standard component chart rules apply: if it charts in the Pop 100, don't list the Pop 100 airplay. If it doesn't make the Pop 100, a listing in the Pop 100 Airplay is generally fine. I tend not to list Pop 100 Airply if it made the Hot 100, but that's a personal preference, not found in guidelines or policy.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add the Pop 100 or Pop 100 Airplay charts if they can be properly sourced from the magazine. And yes, Pop 100 Airplay should not be added if the song charted on the combined Pop 100. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see Kww, I thought it was a rule, not a preference, my mistake. Jayy008 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WCharts - World Charts RELIABLE?

Is THIS a reliable site?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been a reliable blogspot chart yet.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. It sources Mediatraffic, the original United World Chart and deleted from Wikipedia. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering if it was somehow connected to the United World Chart that I see on WP:BADCHARTS and didn't really think blogspot would be reliable either. But thought I would ask. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Something that stretches. (Italian Singles)

I do not understand this, "Smooth Criminal" from "Hitparadetitalia.it" is set in the # 11 ranking, and "Smooth Criminal" from "ItalianCharts.com" has the # 6, I do not understand, is not meant to be the singles of italia?, ought be the same. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitparadeitalia.it isn't the official FIMI chart. Italiancharts.com is.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Danish charts before 2001

Hi, I was looking at past issues of Billboard magazine (1996). And found that they used to publish charts around the world, the UK Singles Chart, Germany, France, etc. Well one of the charts is from Denmark, thet have both albums and a singles chart, apparently published by IFPI and Nielsen Marketing Research, I was wondering if this is a valid chart for singles and albums before 2001. I have reviewed some of the other charts, and they are correct, the ones from the UK, Germany, France, Austria, Ireland, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands. They also have some others charts that could be useful because there is no other database, the Euro Hot 100, Spain(AFIVE), Italy(Musica e Dischi/FIMI) and Portugal(AFP, albums only). Here is one of the magazines, most of them are available at Google Books, the entire magazine is available for me I don't know perhaps in other countries it won't show up.[1] Frcm1988 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing to an archived copy of Billboard should be fine. Use {{cite journal}}, like {{cite journal |year= |title= |journal=Billboard |volume= |issue= |pages= |url= }}, filling out the appropriate page, volume, and issue, setting the url to the Google books source, and the title to the chart title.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

UK R&B Chart

The trouble with this chart, is that it's un-archived, but since I had the Music Week trial, you can search a song and it tells you the R&B position as well. What I've been doing is putting a non-clickable ref (Because it requires subscription) saying something like this: "Music Week search results. Lewis, Leona "I Got You" UK R&B Chart peak position #3." and if I know the chart date I will add the week it charted too. Is this appropriate? To stop the BBC source.? Jayy008 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Provide a complete URL, even if it's subscription only. See WP:PAYWALL.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we even have to show this? I'd say an item is rather trivial to require sourcing to a UK genre Chart. SunCreator (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd only advise listing it if it didn't make the main UK chart or was by a UK artist.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd only advise listing it when it's got a WP:RS mentioning it in prose, not a number on a tabulated list. Personally I think the offical UK Top 100 chart is quite enough of a chart list. SunCreator (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If used and a complete URL is shown, please note in the ref citation that a subscription is required. Especially note that subscription is required if the URL is clickable to give readers a 'head's up' to not bother when they know that they have not subscribed.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I've never liked the chart, but I thought it was allowed which is why I brought it up. But I agree, only if it doesn't make the main chart. Jayy008 (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Charts

I am wrong, the page file of the Irish charts are not displayed on my computer, Irish Charts. Is it just me or happens to you too?.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am wrong, too; irishcharts.ie will not load on my computer, either. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Is it the homepage you can't see or is there something missing inside the site? SunCreator (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Broken here. Server doesn't respond. Looks like temporary site trouble.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The site is working, I think the issue is further afield unless them have done a georgebush and blocked foreign traffic. SunCreator (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be at DNS level. www.irishcharts.ie doesn't even resolve. Got an IP address for the site?—Kww(talk) 18:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I do that? SunCreator (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Presuming you are on a Windows machine, open a command prompt window and enter "tracert www.irishcharts.ie". It'll be pretty obvious on the output.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ready, the site looks fine on my computer, just had to take time.Irish Charts. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The site does this from time to time, it does get fixed after a couple of days. Jayy008 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I get "Could not locate remote server".—Iknow23 (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to record charts

With this edit I've moved the original chart format under it's own header, and kept the page intro and just prose. I think this will help people identify that "Original Chart Format" and "Chart Macros" are allowed. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. Jayy008 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart references

Per Wikipedia:Record_charts#Original_Chart_Format - 'references should be individual and specific to each chart that is being used. Sources per column or table are insufficient.' Has anyone else notice Today's featured article fails this in the chart section. Being on the front page somewhat (unhelpfully) encourages other editors to repeat it's formatting. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got to remember how old that song is, most old songs you'll find are unreferenced. I'm trying to go through and sort the "older songs" out but there are sooo many. Jayy008 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian charts

When does a new month's Brazilian chart debut? I have only been peripherally following this issue, but my understanding was that, while there was no chart archive, a current chart could be found online. Yet upon a claim at I Want To Know What Love Is that Mariah Carey's version had charted at #1 there for five months, which they parenthetically claimed was 19 weeks, I scratched my head (as November through February is actually more like 13 weeks) and checked Wiki's Brasil Hot 100 Airplay article. There I found no March data, despite its being March 11. I then visited the link at Billboard Brasil, http://billboard.br.com/rankings#brasil-hot-100-airplay (because there is no reference for the material at Brasil Hot 100 Airplay), and found no current data for Brazil's charts, only a link to the U.S. charts for the week ending March 13.

Is it common for there to be a lag time between when the prior chart is removed from the site and the next one posted? (Why on earth would that be so? The only reason I can think of is that they are indicating that the chart is not meant to represent a whole month, but merely a representative week of that month?) Perhaps I'm checking during the couple of minutes the page is being reconfigured for the new month? Have the Brazilian charts been discontinued after a mere five? I'd be interested to know if anybody has any insight on this.

On a related issue, there is List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Brazil) and a List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (Brazil). The inaugural chart was in October 2009 and it is a monthly chart, meaning that there are only 3 charts that year and only 12 charts in any year. The first #1 ran for two charts and the second #1 for three (albeit spanning two years), so the first list consists of two singles.

Additionally, there is a List of number-one pop hits of 2009 (Brazil) which happens to be the same as List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Brazil) (ditto for 2010). And then of course there is the domestic chart, List of number-one popular hits of 2009 (Brazil), which is a lone Brazilian artist for 2009 and another for 2010 to date. I note that List of French number-one hits of 2009 — which is a weekly chart — is split into physical singles and digital singles. The French list then adds the same data for albums as well as a top 10 of the year in both sales categories for both singles and albums.

Considering that there are only four singles represented across these six Brazilian articles covering five months' worth of three charts, doesn't it make sense to combine the scant data in a similar manner that we combine the more frequently updated data at the French article? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From December to now makes 17 weeks. But for example say Beyonce was #1 for november, it was actually #1 for October because it updates at the beginning of the month. So for all intents and purposes the song has been #1 for around 20 weeks if you look at it like that. It's not Billboard Brazil that sourced that it was something else, I can't remember what but the source used compiles the charts for Billboard Brasil. Billboard Brasil's charts seems to be down but their compilers are still up and running (you can find it somewhere). I hope I explained that well. As for combining that data, I think Billboard Brasil should be completely combined and the #1's just have their own date. I don't think it should be noted that Mariah Carey's song is the longest running song on the chart because it's still a new chart. It's actually the longest running airplay song is Brazil since forever, because they've always had an airplay chart, just not run by Billboard before. Jayy008 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I thank you for the acknowledgement of the "longest running" and combining points, respectfully, your logic is in error regarding a number of points.

Firstly, look at the French chart I linked above. There are several instances of a title falling from number one for a week or even two and then regaining the top spot. Just because a chart is only updated every month, rather than every week, does not change the possibility of such a dynamic. So we have no proof that a single that averages out to #1 over the course of a month was actually the #1 single for each week of that month, and the data given does not allow us to draw the conclusion that it was. We could extrapolate that a song that was the #1 song for twelve months was the #1 song for a year, because the metric is each month and twelve months from now is a year from now, it's simple logic. But just as you surely know that we do not presume the #1 song of a specific year (as is measured in several articles here at Wikipedia) was not actually the #1 song each month of that year, neither can we presume the #1 song of the month was actually the #1 song of each week of that month. We apparently can't know that it wasn't, but neither can we presume that it was; we must present the same metric officially presented by the chartist, in this case a monthly figure.

Secondly, the fact that any published chart is obviously representing figures from prior to the time it "went to press" doesn't change the fact that a song making two or three charts is still a song charting for only two or three chart periods, in this case months (but again the same is true for weeks). So if Beyonce was #1 for the October and November charts, it was actually #1 in September and October, still just two months. And if Mariah Carey was #1 for the December, January and February charts, that's representing the three months of November, December and January. So then a March chart would reflect February, a fourth month, not a fifth one. When you say "from December to now makes 17 weeks," it seems you are forgetting there is no source cited for the claim that she is the #1 single now, and as you note that whatever the #1 single on a March chart would be is actually not representing now but some point before the end of February (if, as you state, it is updated at the beginning of each month), and it takes until April to determine what is number one now, again, this is a conflation of metrics. After all, if as you suggest there is an official rundown of weekly charts, then why do our Brazilian lists fail to acknowledge that, in favor of a monthly metric?

Thirdly, if the Billboard Brazil chartings are being sourced to something other than Billboard Brazil, that should be evident by the reference cited on each page a Billboard Brazil chart figure is being presented. While it is extremely hard to track down chart references for pre-internet-era recordings, it shouldn't be this vague to what we are sourcing a contemporary charting in 2010. Abrazame (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

for a start, this place is to discuss charts not songs, it isn't even listed on the article on wikipedia that it reached #1 for 20 weeks...So why are you bringing it up? But it is listed as #1 with a reliable source. What you say about going 2-1-1-2 in a month is impossible because it's a monthly chart, only. So I Want to Know What Love Is has been number one November, December, January, February, March. This is radio provider in Brazil What's listed in the Article now is that it reached #1 and it's reliably sourced. Nothing else. Jayy008 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points to address in this discussion. First, Jayy008 is correct that Crowley compiles the chart, and Crowley has compiled Brazilian airplay charts for a long time. However, (and this is a big "however"), they did not publish a national airplay chart, only regional ones. Thus, there is no history before the publication of the first Billboard Brasil to make a valid comparison to.

Second, the Billboard Brasil website is a shambles. No archiving, days where all the charts disappear, links to US charts appearing in inappropriate places. The website cannot be used as a source, only the magazine.

Third, as for articles that reproduce lists of number ones or otherwise reproduce chart data from proprietary sources, I maintain that they should all be deleted as copyright violations. Discussions of folding them or how to format them are moot: if the purpose they serve is to reiterate a chart, they shouldn't exist.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

All I mean it, in the article for "I Want to Know What Love Is", nobody has mentioned "#1 for 20 weeks etc" so what does it matter? I just can't see the relevance. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because Abrazame removed the claim based on the argument he is presenting here.—Kww(talk) 01:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it, there's no source for the 20 weeks thing anyway and the provider doesn't archive it, so it shouldn't be used. Jayy008 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kww, for clearing that up. But my issues remain unresponded to, which is even more troubling a week after I first noted them. Not unlike Legolas' comment in the Argentina thread below about CAPIF, I am unclear on the purpose of mentioning or linking http://www.crowley.com.br/arquivos_comuns/about_crowley.asp in this thread. Is the current national airplay chart posted somewhere at the Crowley site? Is there a searchable database there? If so, can we post a site map on how to get there for English language users? I'm troubled that we're 18 days into the month and a chart that by the explanation above was supposed to have been available two and a half weeks ago is still not cited in the articles I mention above. The Billboard.br link I pasted above from one of our article cites is still blank. This does not seem to be the way a major operation like Billboard handles data they find encyclopedic and worthy, and presenting as our most recent data in the second half of March material from a February chart that, as Jayy008 notes, actually represented airplay in the month of January, raises some red flags to me on how seriously we should take this as a reliable chart.

To Jayy008, you say that the song has been number one in February and March: where have you gotten that information? Again, this is about the chart, not about the song, but of course the purpose of the chart is to make claims about songs, and it perplexes me how you and others are doing that.

I thank you, too, Kww, for your response about the Brazilian albums chart in the thread below. Abrazame (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

An anon added March figures to the Brazil singles charts on March 21. The Billboard.br page is still empty, more than three weeks after I first noted it. So where are these figures coming from? Why is there no source cited whatsoever for a current and very specific promotional data point in the internet era? And what's the deal with Billboard.br? I mean, how many purposes are there for that site other than to note the Brazilian chart positions? Abrazame (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to have serious doubts about Billboard Brasil myself. Its site is essentially dead. This article, published only two weeks ago in Jornal de Economia describes it as a weekly publication (although our article describes it as monthly), and gives no indication that it is defunct. I've caught some editors forging references, using positions from hot100brasil.com and creating citations to show it as taken from the physical magazine. I'd like to hear from some of our Brazilian editors that can confirm the magazine is still even on the stands.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. I've noticed that people seemed to have realised that they can apparently source chart positions physically but there is no evidence to suggest the magazine is in circulation. its highly unsual that there is no online version/archive and that the magazine is not mentioned by Brazil's equivalent of IFPI. but i do wonder because www.mariahdailyjournal.com regularly reports on how carey songs are doing in brasil citing the billboard brasil magazine as a source.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kww if you translate the article it actually says the traditional weekly publication has a monthly basis in Brasil. also this article appears to show the magazine as still active as of Jan 2010. [2] Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not too surprising that I make mistakes when reading Portuguese. Not a language I'm very fluent in (I mainly recognize words that I know from Spanish and Papiamento). That cover would seem to correspond to the last chart published before the website went dead.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tis ok... I used Google Translate to help with the translation. Erm yeah cus the website i've given as an example usually posts the cover of the magazine regularly. A quick search on google, reuters and google news reveals very late about the fate of the chart or even if it is active.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my translation software says the Jornal de Economia article reads: "The magazine Billboard Brazil is a weekly publication, where its rankings are based on in such a way digital sales, how much physical and in the amount of times that music was touched in the radios of all country in the week." Though of course I don't take their word for this under the circumstances. Abrazame (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw Kww's notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil, and yes, I confirm the magazine is still on the stands. Unfortunately, they cost quite too much for me to keep them at home only to serve as physical references, although I sometimes check them to find out information on singles I might want to work on. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear of a sighting. There is something funky going on, though. pt:Anexo:Lista de Canções número um em 2009 (Brasil) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Brazil) disagree. We have a List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (Brazil), but there is no pt:Anexo:Lista de Canções número um em 2010 (Brasil).—Kww(talk) 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

pt:Anexo:Lista de Canções número um em 2010 (Brasil) may be just a matter of time. As of the diverging information...I tried to check the website, but the lists are not being displayed. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The dead website is what started this discussion. We are left in the position of having to trust magazine references, and are in the unfortunate position of having some Brazilian editors that are taking advantage of the situation to add false material.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's something to worry about. I hope the list comes back soon. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary

This IP, 188.129.253.214 continues Chart vandalism at "Fight for This Love" ignoring the instructional comment that provides how to follow through to obtain the information at 'per Field selections, "Lista" = Single (track) Top 10 lista, "Ev" = 2010, "Hét" = 7'.
I recommend that "Editors' Choice rádiós játszási lista" be listed at Badcharts and a note in Goodcharts left to mention to NOT use this chart. THAT must be the chart that 188.129.253.214 is using as it shows "18" that they are always editing it to. "Editor's Choice" does NOT seem like a proper chart to me. It sounds more like a critical rating than a real chart. What do you think?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have not followed up on your talk page message, but yes, I agree: an "editor's choice" chart isn't usable.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you're busy. Is this enough of a 'no-brainer' to ADD to BADCHARTS, etc as I've requested?...or is more discussion required?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request a "Subcharts" stipulation for Billboard albums chart

Billboard has numerous albums charts outside of the main Billboard 200 albums chart. These charts include, but not limited to: Billboard Alternative Albums, Billboard Hard Rock Albums, Billboard Rock Albums, Heatseakers chart, Billboard Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums, Billboard Top Digital Albums, Billboard Top Internet Albums, Billboard Tastemakers, and so on.

While devoted fans and information completionists feel it's necessary to include every single chart that a given album appeared, I feel in most cases that these charts are superfluous and unimportant. For example; the Billboard Rock Albums chart is simply a subchart of the Billboard 200, only removing any albums that Billboard doesn't deem to be in the rock genre. Wiki-Articles to albums such as Death Magnetic, Crash Love and Sonic Boom are littered with charting information to these subcharts. In light that all of the aforementioned albums come from established acts and debuted in the top 20 of the Billboard 200, information on the charting history of the subcharts is unnecessary. Since Death Magnetic debuted at #1 on the Billboard 200, of course it was #1 on the Billboard Hard Rock Albums, as well as being #1 on Billboard Rock Albums, etc.

I am requesting that a "Subcharts" stipulation similar to the already existing "component charts" requirement that "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", be implemented for Billboard albums charts. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• For the record (no pun intended), what is the component charts requirement? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I read it somewhere, can't find it now. Reworded accordingly. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just click 'Project page' tab above. It is near the top of the page there. "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables,..."—Iknow23 (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew I read it somewhere. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It also appears in more summarized versions elsewhere. I think this is the most comprehensive one.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no current stipulation on Wikipedia regarding the various Billboard albums charts as there is for the component charts regarding singles. That is what I am trying to gather consensus on here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they're relevant at times. Nothing Personal reached #4 on the Billboard 200, but was number one on the Alternative, Rock and Independent charts, which has to be worth pointing out? Especially when there is little to no charting other than the US. I do agree that the exampe you put forth is a worthless usage. Digital charts are components, so shouldn't be used. Remember not to get the 2 (subchart and component) mixed up! kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your example with Nothing Personal proves my point. If the album didn't chart at #4 on the Billboard 200, then it'd be worth pointing out if it charted on the Alternative, Rock and Independent charts. Instead, the page gets littered with additional, and I would argue, generally superfluous charting information. All the Alternative chart is doing is removing any albums that Billboard deems non-"alternative" from the list. Hardly notable when the album itself peaked in the top five of the Billboard 200. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The ref link used for them all is one of those (roll eyes) dead Billboard ones.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you can blame Billboard for that. I'm not going through and changing every Billboard link i ever added... it's referenced properly and is easy enough to verify. My point was that I think number ones have a greater relevance. Nevertheless, this is something which I don't think requires regulating, unless we want to restrict it with tables that are bigger (once you hit 10 charts, remove the extra US charts..?). kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel this requires regulation. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we already have that. No component charts as long as appears on 'main' charts. Genre charts are also allowed. A component of a Genre chart is allowed if it does not chart on the 'main' Genre chart, etc. —Iknow23 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And yes, kiac, I DO blame Billboard for all those dead links :X —Iknow23 (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, can you please provide a link to where that wikirule is stated? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard has turned into one ghetto-pimp mess, pardon the language. That said, I agree to a banning of component album charts when an album has charted on the Mega Billboard 200. However, genre charts can still be added. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a rule limiting the total number of Billboard charts to be included, so as to not give undue weight to US charts vs. other countries that have fewer charts? Or was that something that was just kicked around in discussion? TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything official. Hence why it got brought up here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's Bulldog, I'm not sure if it is EXACTLY stated as a wikirule but I do remember this recent discussion above at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay that touches on this matter.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, thank you for the link. Since it's not exactly stated, I'm looking to see if there's consensus to make a wikirule for the albums Genre charts that similar the consensus reached regarding the component charts listed in the link you provided. Fanboys and completionists are are very determined to have every single Billboard chart listed on the pages they claim ownership of. There would need to be an official wikirule in effect to reference the proper use/nonuse of the various albums charts to prevent edit wars. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So my position is that component charts of ANY allowable chart that does NOT actually appear are allowed. Either (US example) Billboard 200 or Hot 100 as MAIN charts of a counrty or (main) Genre charts. Thus the material (or portions thereof) is not given DOUBLE credit (undue weight)...by itself and as part of the MAIN country chart or main Genre chart because it failed to appear in those 'main' charts. The allowing of Genre charts was probably a compromise between listing ONLY the MAIN country chart and listing EVERY verifiable CHART there is; that is using ALL the component charts ALL the time.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that genre charts are only appropriate if a given album either failed to chart on the Billboard 200, or if it charted really low on the Billboard 200 yet charted high on the genre chart (example: album X charted at #159 on the Billboard 200, yet charted at #8 on the Alternative albums chart). Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Same rules are in effect for both albums and singles as this is WP:CHARTS. We do not have separate WP:ALBUMCHARTS and WP:SINGLECHARTS. WP:BADCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS both include albums and singles. SUGGESTION: Perhaps at least one of the Project page example charts should be an Album chart? They are ALL singles charts. At least albums are mentioned in the text in the examples, "Albums and singles which appear on different charts..."—Iknow23 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an albums example should be included as well as wording that genre charts need not be included unless an album either a) fails to chart on the Billboard 200, or b) charts low on the Billboard 200 yet high on a given genre chart. Otherwise pages will continue to be littered with numerous (upword to six or more) Billboard charts. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be hard to codify, wouldn't it? You would have to define specifically 'low' and 'high'. I admit to not being as familiar with album component and Genre charts but is Billboard Hard Rock Albums a component of Billboard Rock Albums? I admit that it does appear odd to have both of them listed at Sonic Boom.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If defining 'low' vs. 'high' is a problem, then I'm for just stating that genre charts aren't allowed unless an album doesn't chart on the Billboard 200. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but you probably couldn't get a consensus for that. Can't some of them be trimmed from Death Magnetic under the component chart rules?? again stating I am not that familiar with the varios Billboard album charts. —Iknow23 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a rule for trimming some off. Go ahead and try, fanboys and completionists will simply put it back if there's no document supporting its removal. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

← I'm not familiar enough with the Album charts to do it. All I'm saying is: If some of them can be removed under the 'component chart' rules, go ahead do it and cite WP:CHARTS "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."—Iknow23 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's amend the verbiage to include album genre charts: "Billboard genre and component charts should not be used in the tables or articles, unless the album or song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart for singles, or a genre chart for albums." This stipulation (or one similar to it) would make the removal of additional Billboard charts from articles legit. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I would would not support that. It is a BIG change to what is currently being done. Charts are frequently being removed under the component chart 'rule'. I ask again: Can't some of the charts in the examples be removed under the existing component chart 'rules'?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwin, so far no one has supported your proposal. I have removed the components, since they shouldn't be there anyway. I'm pretty confident that no experienced editor will return them. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiac, please don't make incorrect statements. If you read through this discussion, there are other editors that appear to agree that there are more Billboard charts listed in articles than need be. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, as per your suggestion, I can try using the component chart 'rule', though I do expect a few over zealous editors to argue that there is nothing stated specifically for albums. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly true that overzealous editors (fans) often add component charts. As Wikipedia is open to editing, that can not be prevented. I'm sure that it is not always being done to subvert our 'rule'. They are probably unaware of it (as I myself once was). So what I do to educate them when deleting component charts is to put in the Edit summary something like this, "Per WP:CHARTS "component charts should not be used in the tables, unless [it] fails to enter the main chart." _{Note that I link the 'WP:CHARTS' so they can click-through and see it for themself.} You can also add a hidden instructional comment to the Chart positions table section of the page as well. These suggestions that I have seen others use and adopted myself may be helpful to you.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help and info Iknow23. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Enjoy spreading the word :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As predicted, resistance has been met here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per edit disputes and previous discussion at Talk:Crash Love#Removal of 'component' charts and Talk:Crash Love#Request, I remain unconvinced of Darwin's Bulldog's arguments with respect to the various Billboard charts. These chart positions are verifiable and relevant to the respective albums, and ultimately it's not up to us to decide which facts about an album may be relevant to our readers and which aren't. This is an encyclopedia: we present facts and let readers decide what is important to them. A reader may want to know that an album held a certain position on the Billboard 200, but they may also want to know what position it held with respect to other albums of the same genre, which is what these Billboard charts are designed to show. From all of the arguments I've seen, the major bias against including Billboard's individual genre charts is that it tends towards US-centrism. But that's not Wikipedia's fault. Rather, its seems to be a function of the fact that other countries don't bother to break their charts down by genres. If the UK albums chart had separate subcharts for different genres, I imagine we'd include those too. The only case in which it seems redundant to include the individual charts would be if an album reached #1 on the Billboard 200, which would mean that it also reached #1 on whatever genre charts it was also ranked on. But of course the vast majority of albums don't reach this postion. By definition, only 0.5% of the albums on the Billboard 200 can hold the #1 position at any one time. So we are left with albums that may have charted higher on one of the genre charts than they did on the 200. And who's to say that's not of interest to a reader? I, as both a reader and editor, certainly find it of interest that though Crash Love ranked #12 on the Billboard 200 (in comparison to all other albums of all genres), it ranked #4 in comparison to other hard rock albums. There's a reason Billboard bothers to create separate charts for different genres. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla, if you read through this discussion, you'll see that other editors besides myself question the need to include multiple charts from the same publisher. In light of the Crash Love example that we've gotten to know each other so well on, there are as many American (Billboard) charts listed on that page as there are foreign country charts. I'm not arguing that all the various Billboard charts are verifiable, but it gives undue weight to one publishers chart. It's great that Billboard filters out the main chart to show how the various sub-genre albums respectively perform against one another, but inclusion of the numerous charts from one publisher contributes to the excessive listing of statistics with lists that may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles as noted in WP:NOT. For example: what position did Crash Love peak at? Was it 12? 4? Or 5? All three positions are listed. Admittedly, the Crash Love article doesn't have the extreme number of charts listed as the Death Magnetic example I listed at the beginning of this thread. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

True, and I did agree that the sub-charts become a bit superfluous in a case like Death Magnetic which reached #1 on the Billboard 200 (meaning that by default it also reached #1 on any Billboard sub-charts), but this is only the case for a small minority of albums. When an album has a higher position on a sub-chart, that communicates a different set of information: "This is how the album performed against all other albums released, and this is how it performed against other albums of the same genre." That's not superfluous, nor is it undue weight just because Billboard happens to be the one organization that tracks info this way; undue weight applies to fringe viewpoints or ideas...we're talking about simple raw data. I don't feel that it's excessive (in the sense of being "long and sprawling" as described by WP:NOT) in the great majority of cases. Even 4 or 5 Billboard positions doesn't "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" in the vast majority of cases. It would be really difficult to come up with a one-size-fits-all "rule", which from the above seems to be what you're proposing, and I don't think it's our place to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel posting multiple Billboard subcharts is an ideal example of giving undue weight and that much of the information derived from the subcharts is superfluous as they are calculated via a filtering process from the Billboard 200. I understand that our views are different on this, and I respect your opinions, but just because we disagree doesn't mean that you get your way and can claim that removal of the excessive charts is vandalism. There are no set rules on this topic, and there are as many, if not more album articles (including FAs) that do not include subcharting information. I think it'd be in the best interest of the community to have this well defined for reference. This has been done for component charts, why can't it be done for genre charts as well? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

The reason Billboard has so many different charts and subcharts is all down to sales and marketing. I could swear it was once a rule here but maybe I only read it in a discussion, that you could use the main chart (Hot 100/Billboard 200) and only 1 genre chart for whatever genre the artist was (choice of which genre chart was most appropriate was open to interpretation). Including every single genre chart is superfluous. Thank god that other countries don't have their charts split out in multiple ways like Billboard does. Imagine the amount of space it would take up in every article. I am not against the inclusion of any genre charts where a release appeared on the main chart but I am against including every genre chart; one is plenty. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(Restating what I said above) No component charts as long as appears on 'main' charts. Genre charts are also allowed. A component of a Genre chart is allowed if it does not chart on the 'main' Genre chart, etc.
I always presumed that goes for BOTH singles and albums, does it not?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting thought, JazzDalek, but then of course the question becomes how do you select which subcharts to include, and which to exclude? Choose the one on which it charted the highest? The one which you think best reflects the band's genre? It seems all options lend themselves to POV and UNDUE problems, particularly with genre (which we know all editors just politely agree on all the time :rolleyes:). Plus the "subcharts" are not merely by genre, but also by distribution. For example there is the Top Independent Albums chart, which ranks albums released by non-major labels. I think it's worth noting, for example, that This Addiction, released through independent label Epitaph Records, was #1 amongst independent albums, as well as among rock and alternative albums, despite the fact that it was only #11 on the Billboard 200. Doesn't this seem like information relevant to the album's history, reception, sales, and notability? What reason do we give for excluding this information, other than the fact that some editors just don't like having more than 1 Billboard chart? Darwin's Bulldog, I respectfully disagree that listing various Billboard chart positions represents an example of undue weight, though I do agree with you that it's in the best interest of the community as a whole to establish a guideline on the subject. For the record, and to the best of my recollection, I never called your removals vandalism. I'm merely perturbed that removing the chart positions from Crash Love is in direct opposition to the consensus established on the article's talk page 5 months ago, a discussion in which you were a participant. Iknow23, I'm a bit confused by your statement: how do you differentiate a component chart from a "genre chart" (or "sub-chart"), such as Alternative Albums or Indpendent Albums? As far as I know there aren't any "component charts of genre charts", but I may be mistaken. In order to get a broader input on this topic I have posted a note at WT:ALBUMS in hopes that members of the albums project will find their way over here. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm a bit disturbed by Darwin's Bulldog removal of sub-chart information even from the prose, which I have to vehemently disagree with. Regardless of your thoughts on what should be displayed in an article's tables, there is no call to remove pertinent, referenced information from the prose. Doing so seems very heavy-handed, and continuing to remove charts in any case while we are mid-discussion on their usefulness seems inappropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by the term, 'sub-charts'. Do you mean EVERY chart that is NOT the main OVERALL chart? I believe that currently Genre charts are allowed even when charting on the 'main' overall charts (Billboard 200 or Hot 100). But ANY 'component chart' of a chart that does appear in the Chart table is NOT allowed. Let me use singles for an example as I am more familiar with those.

Hot 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main overall chart)

Pop 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main GENRE chart)

Pop 100 Airplay - (charts on), do NOT show in chart table (component of Genre chart Pop 100, that appears above)

Note: Pop 100 Airplay is allowed if it does not chart in the Pop 100. But MOST may not bother to put it, even though allowed.
—Iknow23 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we're talking about different things. You seem to be talking about singles charts, which use component charts to calculate their positions (the Pop 100, and other genre-specific 100 charts, are used to compile the Hot 100). I'm talking about albums charts: the Billboard 200 and its various, genre- or release-specific "sub-charts" such as Top Independent albums, Top Alternative Albums, etc. These aren't component charts, because the Billboard 200 is not compiled from their chart positions. Rather, the Billboard 200 and the various subcharts are compiled the same way, it's just that the subcharts use a more specific data pool. The Billboard 200 is created by comparing an album's sales with all other albums' sales, while the Top Independent Albums chart compares that album only to other albums on independent record lables, or the Top Alternative Albums compares it only to other Alternative albums, etc. We've been referring to these as "genre charts" or "subcharts" of the Billboard 200. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I admittedly used singles charts for my example above. I presumed that the album charts also used some type of 'component chart' system? Looking at Billboard charts#Albums, I would dispute seeing in any article both Billboard 200 and 'Current Albums' listed.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should discontinue using the term " 'subcharts' of the Billboard 200" as that is ambiguous. The prefix 'sub' (to me anyway) implies it to be a 'sub-set' or part of the following item, so " 'subcharts' of the Billboard 200" (to me) means 'components' of the Billboard 200. Why can't we just say 'Genre charts'?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, whether we use the term "sub-chart" or "genre chart" doesn't really matter, as as they're synonymous. But for clarity, I will henceforth use "genre chart" as per your request.

The example IllaZilla made regarding This Addiction is a poor example. #11 on the Billboard 200 is a very high position. So the fact that it was #1 on the Independent albums chart isn't important since it peaked so high on the Billboard 200 and since they're both calculated via the same method (sales per Nielsen SoundScan). As TheJazzDalek stated, it's just for marketing. Now, if This Addiction peaked at say, #132 on the Billboard 200, and was #1 on the Independent albums chart, then I would agree that it's worth including the genre chart information in the article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a major problem with this discussion is that it's not entirely clear what we're discussing. Where are the Wikipedia articles about these charts, so that we could cite the methodology and determine to what degree a chart is an overlap or of a component nature?

I mean, reviewing the three examples given above, what the hell is "Tastemakers"? As someone who read Billboard religiously for years but has not done so in several years, I'd like to say that none of these variations on the main chart mean a thing without linking to something that actually defines the chart, and discerns what makes it different from the other charts. Without knowing it for a fact, it does seem likely that any hard rock album that happens to be #1 on the Rock Albums chart will also be #1 on the Hard Rock Albums chart, or that any independent album that is #20 on the 200 chart will be #1 on the independent albums chart if nothing higher on the 200 is an independent release. But in this thread it looks like we are making editorial determinations based on how things seem, rather than on how things are.

As has been said above, the greatest value in the data point is for those albums that weren't across-the-board, multi-format smashes. But, having said that, where's the editorial objectivity if we are only picking Top 200 runts to shine the light on these other chartings? Additionally, to the uninitiated, it may suggest that an album that appeared on the Top 200 didn't make one of these other charts, and while it's largely fans or chart watchers that add the material, we're supposed to be editing these articles for people who don't already know all we contemplate deleting, and who may look at one album's chart table featuring a single U.S. #42 peak (on the Top 200) versus another album's chart table featuring a few U.S. #22 peaks (on Modern and Independent et al), and take away a sense that the second was the more successful or that it enjoyed its success across a more varied audience. So devising a policy based on examples of albums that went #1 or #2 on all these charts is failing to take into account what seems to be the purpose of these charts, which is to acknowledge how lesser or up-and-coming hits of a specific genre fare against one another, without the distraction of all the other genres, while promoting them as more successful (and therefore more appealing, and so perhaps ultimately becoming more successful) than they would otherwise be, lost in the shuffle. Yet more to the point of where the conceptual rubber meets the editorial road, who among us is going to make the decision that one position on a chart, be it #41 or #131 or #201, is okay to include genre data for, while one position higher is not?

To further explore my first point, these genres are very much merely a distraction when nobody at Wikipedia has made the effort to note what the chart is and put it into perspective viz a viz the other charts. I have much less problem with noting the actual fact that a product has placed somewhere on a sales chart than I do with not being able to link to anything fundamentally about the chart itself, and despite the fact that clearly some in this discussion are not aware what that is, nobody yet has actually seen that as the real issue here, since it's likely fueled by the minimalists vs. completionists rather than the real issue of what it all means. Nobody's going to confuse Metallica with disco or Kiss with jazz, but there is no explanation of the difference between Hard Rock Albums and Modern/Alternative Rock Albums, or, alternatively (no pun intended), the overlap between them that allows these albums to appear on both. I realize we have articles about the different music genres, but how does Billboard go about deciding which albums deserve consideration on which charts? Is it because they're marketed as such by their record companies? Is it because they're reviewed as such by a single magazine editor? Who and how many people have to make that call? Is it focus-grouped? And further, is it just a factor of throwing up the main 200 chart and "deleting" all those titles that do not fall into the category, or is their sampling giving greater weight to genre-specific retail outlets?

Finally, to the argument that there is undue weight given to the varied U.S. charts vs. other countries' sole charts, it's a factor of whether we're accurately reflecting the relative weightings in the size and impact of the market, which of course we're not by a long shot when we limit the U.S. charts to one or two. For an extreme example with singles, if Brazil's singles market is so small and unvalued that their charts are only compiled monthly, and are themselves split between local and international music, then putting a peak on that chart up on a table beside peaks on the weekly Hot 100, the Hot Adult Contemporary, the Top Pop Singles, the Hot R&B, the Dance Club Play and the Dance Singles Sales charts is giving undue weight to the Brazilian chart peak, not to the six U.S. charts. I choose singles as my example because I'm unclear on whether Brazil even has an albums chart. Abrazame (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Record charts/sourcing guide/Brazil. The album chart is there, but pretty pathetically maintained. I used to track it, and gave it up as busy-work.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how successful the album was. For example, for an album that only made one of these Billboard subcharts, it would be important to document that. In comparison, if a record topped the main albums charts from several countries, there's no real need to list less-significant charts. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitary section break 2

An example I'd like to present comes from the source itself. Each Wednesday, Billboard publishes an online weekly article giving a rundown of the best selling albums in the U.S., posting actual sales numbers of the top 10 best selling albums in the country and additional information including new debuts, large jumps/drops, etc. This week's article is "Ludacris Lands Fourth No. 1 Album with Battle of the Sexes". There are no separate weekly articles giving a rundown for the subchart/genre charts such as Alternative Albums chart or Tastemakers, et al. Billboard itself gives weight to an album's position in the Billboard 200 chart. Subcharts/genre charts are rarely, if ever, mentioned by Billboard in these articles and typically when an album is referenced in another article, it's position in the Billboard 200 is stated, with no mention of its position on any other chart given. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So? They publish them weekly, just because they don't acknowledge them verbally does not mean they are not valid. You're just attempting to discredit them, rather than putting forth an actual argument which complements your viewpoint.

For clarity; Component charts are charts which are used to calculate a more primary chart. For example: the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Singles Sales and Hot Digital Songs charts are all used to construct the leading singles chart in the United States, the Billboard Hot 100. Component charts should not be confused with sub-charts. Sub-charts are often simply off-shoots from the main chart, as opposed to charts used in the formation of the main chart. Examples of sub-charts are the genre-specific Rock Albums and Alternative Albums charts, which off-shoot from the Billboard 200. Iknow23, you would have read this before?

I think we really need to follow Abrazame's lead and find our feet, attempt to understand what we are including/excluding. Only wanting 1 single Billboard chart is a null argument I think. It is the biggest and most concise, reliable and accurate source of charting information across the globe - restricting it would restrict Wikipedia. We have to realise, component charts are not relevant because they are a smaller portion of a larger more reliable chart - subcharts/genre charts are an entirely differet conundrum, let's keep them separate. kiac. (talk-contrib) 22:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any practical way to restrict Billboard album subcharts. As Kiac points out, and everyone needs to remember, most of these are not component charts. In fact, I think "digital albums" is the only component album chart. The rest are genre charts, which are acceptable for both singles and albums. Editors can try to write as many guidelines as they want against them, and will only wind up edit-warring against the masses.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinions align most closely with those of Kiac, WesleyDodds, Abrazame, and Kww. To address something Darwin's Bulldog brought up:

• The example IllaZilla made regarding This Addiction is a poor example. #11 on the Billboard 200 is a very high position. So the fact that it was #1 on the Independent albums chart isn't important since it peaked so high on the Billboard 200 and since they're both calculated via the same method (sales per Nielsen SoundScan). As TheJazzDalek stated, it's just for marketing. Now, if This Addiction peaked at say, #132 on the Billboard 200, and was #1 on the Independent albums chart, then I would agree that it's worth including the genre chart information in the article.

See, my point is that it's not our place to be dictating which chart positions are or aren't important to our readers. I think it's significant that the album was #1 on Independent, Alternative, and Rock albums, and clearly Billboard thinks there's some significance to showing this data in this manner, so who are we to say "this isn't important to our readers, only this other thing is important to them"? Who are we to say that it's only important to show subchart positions if they differ by a wide margin from the Billboard 200? That's censoring out facts based on what we think is or isn't important to our readers, which just isn't our place as editors. There's nothing wrong with presenting facts and letting editors make up their own minds about how much weight they want give that data. That's part of our role as an encyclopedia.

I think Abrazame's comment really sums up the larger problem here: our own Wikipedia articles about the various Billboard charts are pretty poor. Looking them over, hardly any of the charts have a description of what they're about, and there's very little information on how they're calculated or the relationships between the subcharts and the 200. We really need to devote some effort to improving those articles before we can claim "this chart is less important than this other chart", because right now we can't even link to decent articles about them! --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiac, I don't believe that limited the number of Billboard's charting would be restricting to wikipedia. I did not claim they were invalid, but please try to understand that they are subcharts of the Billboard 200. All of the charts are calculated by their sales as compiled by Nielsen SoundScan, Billboard then goes a step further and filters the subcharts per genre. Just because Billboard publishes additional charts doesn't make them more valid. As per my example above, even the publisher that publishes these various charts refers to charting on the Billboard 200 chart over the subcharts/genre charts in their published articles. So the argument isn't null. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, we've moved against calling them "component charts", so I'm a bit confused as to why that's coming up here again. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's significant that the album was #1 on Independent, Alternative, and Rock albums, and clearly Billboard thinks there's some significance to showing this data in this manner, so who are we to say "this isn't important to our readers, only this other thing is important to them"? Who are we to say that it's only important to show subchart positions if they differ by a wide margin from the Billboard 200? That's censoring out facts based on what we think is or isn't important to our readers, which just isn't our place as editors. There's nothing wrong with presenting facts and letting editors make up their own minds about how much weight they want give that data. That's part of our role as an encyclopedia.

It's as Abrazame said when he stated that it's "minimalists vs. completionists". Yes wiki is an encyclopedia, but not every bit of information should be noted here as per WP:NOT. To a degree, it is subjective as to what one considers "pertinent" and "superfluous". Some editors think it's important to have all subcharts/genre charts listed, others do not. There needs to be guidelines established for this. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I stress the need for clarification on this as I feel Illazilla's reverting edits I've made regarding this subject followed by his threatening to report me to be inappropriate and inexcusable behavior as he has no entitlement in having "his way" in this. He does not have ownership of articles. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a matter for this group of editors to decide. WP:BADCHARTS is enforceable because it reflects WP:RS, a policy, and is presumed to represent consensus. It's the only rigidly enforceable part of WP:Record charts. The rest of the guideline is supposed to reflect consensus, not dictate it. We've had restrictions of the total number of charts, but those fell to the wayside, because they didn't reflect common practice. We've got a pretty good local consensus that succession boxes suck, but that's not in the guideline, because it doesn't reflect common practice. You can win this discussion and place a rule about the Independent Albums Chart in the guideline. Once you started trying to enforce it, you would find yourself edit-warring, despite it being a guideline. That's because there isn't a large community of editors that feels strongly against it, and there is a large community of editors that wants to include them. There's no good policy argument against them, because Billboard is both notable and reliable.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As seen throughout this discussion thread and in numerous articles, it seems like there isn't majority for either way. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I stress the need for clarification on this as I feel Illazilla's reverting edits I've made regarding this subject followed by his threatening to report me to be inappropriate and inexcusable behavior as he has no entitlement in having "his way" in this. He does not have ownership of articles.

I've never claimed ownership of anything, Darwin's Bulldog. I've reverted your removals of chart positions from articles (including ones I've never edited before, BtW) because, in each edit, you've cited as your reason this guideline and its "component charts" statement. But as we've clearly established, the charts you're removing aren't component charts, and this page gives absolutely no guidance about including or excluding the various genre charts or "subcharts" of Billboard. Hence it is wholly inappropriate for you to be going around removing sourced chart positions from articles, citing WP:CHARTS as your reason, when the entire reason we're having this discussion is that WP:CHARTS says nothing about the charts in question, and we have no consensus either way on the matter. Making edits like these [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] while we are in the midst of discussing the matter here at WT:CHARTS is not exactly emblematic of good faith, nor is it consistent with the consensus process. Put bluntly: you should stop removing chart positions from articles until some consensus results from this discussion. And again for the record, I never "threatened" to report you; I merely said that if you continued to edit in this fashion, which had reached the point of edit-warring, I would have no other option but to go to ANI. I put the ball squarely in your court, and what did you do with it? You accused me of making personal attacks, when of course I'd done nothing of the kind. I've commented only on your edits and their content, not on you.

I find your removals of chart positions from articles to be inappropriate given the lack of guidance and consensus on the page you are citing as your reason. This is particularly true at Crash Love, where a discussion 5 months ago, in which you were a participant, resolved clearly in favor of keeping the charts in the article. It's that specific behavior (editing against a clear consensus in an attempt to prove your point) that I find unacceptable. In any case, I also find it inappropriate of you to be dragging our little tiff into this community discussion. If you've got a problem with me or my contributions, I'd appreciate it if you'd address it to my face (as it were). I tried to discuss your edits with you on your own talk page, but you'd have nothing of it. Regardless, we shouldn't let our personal disagreements color this larger community discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason behind the removal of the genre charts on the Sonic Boom page was as per what was being discussed towards the beginning of this discussion. The genre charts were removed after this conversation began but before it exploded into what it's become. There was never a clear consensus to our discussion on the Crash Love talk page five months ago. As Kiac stated towards the end of my participation then: "This is going nowhere, in fact, it's gone right back around to the first statement I made to create this discussion". [9]

• I've never claimed ownership of anything

While you have never made an overt statement about claiming ownership of an article, your actions and constant reverts have spoken this in volumes as your behavior has been in the nature of disrupting the article to prove a point, then dumping the burden of proof solely on my lap to justify their removal. You ask "why they should be removed?", and my rebuttal is, "why should they be included?". My reasoning behind their removal have been factual (they are subcharts calculated via the same methods, give undo weight to one country, all originate from the same publisher), while your reasons have been biased and self-serving based on your own opinion ("I feel they are pertinent"). This bulldog behavior of yours is in character of claiming ownership, since an edit you don't agree to can't be made without you reverting it simply because you don't agree to it despite the reasoning for it. Since there is no rule stating why the genre chart should or shouldn't be included doesn't entitle you to get your way simply because you disagree.

At different periods in our edit-wars you've mentioned that you will be left with "little choice" [10] or "no choice" [11] but to report my behavior to ANI, despite the fact that I have been very open in discussing this on various talk pages (your page, my page, the Crash Love talk page). The recent ANI statment you made to me felt as a personal attack based on your tone and the manner with which this statement was made. You didn't feel it was personal (and I'm sure it wasn't your intention), though I felt it was. As usual, we are at a disagreement (surprise, surprise right?). That being said, I agree that we should not let our personal disagreements be voiced here. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it up on one of our respective talk pages. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand how frustrating it is for someone else, when you are just clearly not getting the point? My statement, 6 months ago - "This is going nowhere, in fact, it's gone right back around to the first statement I made to create this discussion" - alluded to my first statement in that thread: "Darwin, the charts you are removing are not even component charts." An issue which then, you failed to fathom, thus why I said it, and now you seem to still be struggling (posting edit summaries saying WP:CHARTS is the reason you have decided to remove charts which are "not even component charts"). Please stop announcing your innocence in this issue, there is absolutely, positively, totally and utterly no reason for you to be removing those charts from articles. If there's no rule either way, there's no reason to be removing sourced information. End of story. Now lets hope Abrazame's comment below rings true, and we can move on and use our time better by improving those chart articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiac, you fail to fathom that my reference to your statement was to point out that a clear consensus had not been reached several months ago. Since the wrong terminology had been used, my argument then had lost credibility (as you also pointed out then). Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: the Billboard 200 is the overarching album chart in the US. Everything thing else is secondary to it. When people say "topped the American charts", that's what they're referring to. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody in this discussion would disagree with that statement by WesleyDodds, but 1.) That statement is not actually made at The Billboard 200, so those outside of this discussion who do not already know or think that are not going to learn it at Wikipedia, and 2.) That statement could be made about the Hot 100 as well, but clearly does not preclude us from observing genre distinctions there. I daresay a 3.) could be that The Billboard 200 is "the overarching album chart" in the world, but that doesn't prevent us from examining each state of the European Union individually, as we do other territories.

To the editorial aspect of the prior posts, I think it's established that A.) Darwin's Bulldog's removal of this material took place before it was clear this discussion would develop the way that it has, and that B.) Because of A and the current guidelines and as the material is not of a defamatory or pointy nature, it is not appropriate to remove any such material going forward until and unless there is some greater clarity and consensus against it. I think that even if Darwin's Bulldog's stance on this matter is not ultimately upheld by consensus, his bringing this issue to the fore here is likely to result in an improvement to the project, insofar as I hope those with not only a copy of the magazine but a greater familiarity with its editorials and columns in recent years will not only cite the explanatory blurb I presume is beneath/above the charts in each issue but cite the editors of the magazine in their elucidations about those charts that they put in their columns or articles. I would expect that defining those charts in our article/s on them would help us to see more clearly why they should or should not be included.

To the issue of whether a chart has its own weekly magazine article or not being a determining factor of the weight or significance, I would again point out that any of the international charts may or may not have columns about them (and my recollection is that Billboard selects which international charts it's going to comment on in each issue, rather than presenting a column about each international chart it compiles or reprints); in their first publication in their own countries, some may have none whatsoever, while others may have a column as big or bigger than that for the U.S. yet this would not be the factor that determines how they should be weighted against the U.S. 200. Abrazame (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"I daresay a 3.) could be that The Billboard 200 is "the overarching album chart" in the world, but that doesn't prevent us from examining each state of the European Union individually, as we do other territories." That argument is flawed because there is no world chart that supercedes the national charts. For that matter, is there an EU chart? Each nation determines what chart it uses. Also, just because The Billboard 200 doesn't say it's the overarching album chart in the US doesn't mean it isn't; it just means that article's missing an important piece of information. The reason I wanted to remind people that the Billboard 200 is the main album chart in the US is because it's important for people no matter what side of this debate they are on to operate under the knowledge that every other Billboard album chart is subordinate to it. You have to acknowledge that before you can tangle with the finer details of this issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The following from the Death Magnetic page:

• According to Billboard Magazine, in the September 27, 2008 issue, Death Magnetic landed at number one on the following ten charts: Billboard Top 200, Billboard Comprehensive Albums, Top Rock Albums, Top Hard Rock Albums, Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums, Top Digital Albums, Top Internet Albums, Top European Albums, Tastemakers, and Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks ("The Day That Never Comes").

Please note, of the 10 charts listed, Top European Albums is the European adaptation of the Billboard 200, and Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks is for singles.

There are references to these statements given in the article, but is there really "absolutely, positively, totally and utterly no reason" for trimming this down? Is there a need for a paragraph that's effectively stating eight times over that the album was #1 in the American market? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Argentina

Where the hell are the archives for the older charts in CAPIF? Why isn't it writeen as to how to search for the archive when the whole website is in Spanish? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I can help you with this, from the main page go to Rankings Y Estadisticas at the top bar, then go to the right and there is plenty of options. Ranking Quincenal (Every 15 days), Ranking Semanal (weekly), Ranking Mensual (monthly), Ranking Anual (yearly). Discos de Oro y Platino is for the certifications, and the ones with the word DVD are for the DVDs sales. I believe that only the monthly chart have an archive. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Frcm. This should be definitely mentioned in the comment box which is extremely unclear. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add one. I tend to forget that many people don't have even primitive Spanish. Rfcm1988 is correct: only the monthly chart is archived.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The R3-30

Appears to be a radio station (or network?)-centric chart show. Is this really notable? And whether or not the show is notable, are lists of every single #1 notable enough for inclusion? TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like AFD fodder to me.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances is a national radio network run by a national public broadcaster a "non-notable" chart — especially when it's the only chart source that can be referred to for the genres of music that it covers. It's the Canadian equivalent of Triple J, and thus not one bit less notable than any of these. This new criterion basically wipes out entire genres of music as being impossible to ever quantify chart notability for, literally straitjacketing us to the utterly laughable proposition that only mainstream top 40 artists can ever be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and I have yet to see any genuine explanation for why that should be. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bearcat, it's still debatable. It's a national radio station, but it's only on Sirius radio (when did CBC get a 3rd radio network???). The top 30 portion apparently uses only airplay data, but it's only from their own CBC stations. Is there proof that it's considered the de facto chart of Canadian indie radio? It's impossible to say that CBC Radio 3 is the only broadcaster of indie rock in Canada. SKS (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A station which is operated by a national public broadcaster and is readily available to the entire nation (and internationally as well) on both satellite radio and the web still counts as a national/international radio network for the purposes of WP:MUSIC — because that distinction is defined by the service's total geographic footprint, not just by doing a raw count of transmitters. And yes, Radio 3 is the primary authority for Canadian indie rock; the CRIA certainly doesn't compile any chart of its own for the genre, and the only other broadcasters that touch it at all are The Verge (XM) and aux.tv — neither of which does a chart either. And aux.tv, which is less than a year old in its current form, isn't particularly well-known yet — and The Verge's reputation can literally be summed up as "Radio 3's ugly stepsister". Two defunct music magazines which now publish only as websites, chartattack.com and !earshot, do still publish charts, but since they're not CRIA-compiled they would be inadmissible by the same standards that are being used here to invalidate R3. And trust me, if there were any other chart source possible for the genre besides the ones I've mentioned here, I would know about it.

R3 is, in addition, the primary sponsor and broadcaster of one of the most legitimately notable Canadian music awards in existence, the Polaris Music Prize — and in that award's entire history, there has never been a year in which there wasn't at least one CBC Radio 3 host on the award's jury. And they're the only media outlet about which that can be said, which certainly demonstrates that they are considered a legitimate and authoritative voice within the industry. And while Radio 3's article could still use some additional sources, as written it does already demonstrate sufficiently referenced notability to be considered just as valid an authority within its field of expertise as Triple J or BBC Radio 1 are — and I'm sure you already know how much blowback you're going to get from the British and Australian contingents if you attempt to erase those two services from Wikipedia's pool of valid chart sources. So why is Radio 3 any different, other than "Canadian shit doesn't matter because it's Canadian"? Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll qualify my earlier comment. I don't think there's a problem with having an article about R3 (or Triple J), but I don't think there needs to be an article keeping track of the number one positions on their charts. I remove references to single-network charts on a daily basis: Triple J, Los 40 Principales, the Israeli Singles Chart, iTunes, etc. There's a big difference between saying that the existence of a chart should go undocumented and saying that we should track positions on it. Certainly references to any of these charts do not belong in articles about singles. I don't have any strong objection to the existence of articles about the charts themselves.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. My earlier comment was solely for the inclusion of R3-30's chart data, not for the article itself. SKS (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But if you're disqualifying the only chart that even exists for the genre, then songs within that genre have no way to demonstrate chart notability at all — and most of the time, an artist can't actually survive AFD unless at least one documented hit on a music chart can be pointed to. Which has the effect, whether it's intended or not, of creating an "only mainstream pop artists can ever have articles" rule, because it makes it pretty much impossible to demonstrate the notability of any artist who's operating outside that idiom, if the only chart you can point to when some witless wonder squawks about how artists aren't notable unless they've had documented chart success is disallowed because of some arbitrary rule that somebody just suddenly pulled out of a hat last week.

Now, I should clarify that I'm not generally a fan of articles about individual songs; I think our rules have been way too lax sometimes, with the result that we have a lot of bad articles about songs that don't really need them. But my concern, as a person who's done a lot of work on Canadian indie rock artists, isn't about the songs — it's about the fact that you're wiping out the only chart I can point to if somebody decides that Great Lake Swimmers — not their individual songs, which don't have articles anyway, but the band themselves — don't merit an article because they've never actually had a mainstream Top 40 hit. The only chart I can use to demonstrate that Hannah Georgas should be considered notable enough to merit an article. The only chart I can add to Dan Mangan or Shout Out Out Out Out or The Weakerthans or Basia Bulat or Plants and Animals. It's not about the songs; it's about the fact that disqualifying the only valid national charts that even exist for an entire genre of music puts a lot of legitimately notable artists in jeopardy too. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not an isolated problem. Listing Los 40 Principales and Top Latino on WP:BADCHARTS created problems for musical acts from Latin American countries, most of which don't have any valid charts at all. Latvian musical groups have a tough row to hoe as well: the only chart of Latvian music is a hobbyist chart, and there was no consensus to make an exception based on the "Latvia is so small, they won't ever come up with anything better" argument. I think the solution is language at WP:MUSIC to handle the situation of an unchartable group, not to turn a blind eye to the status of a chart.—Kww(talk) 05:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if a rule — one which utterly fails Wikipedia's injunction against arbitrary inclusion rules, I might add — makes it that difficult/impossible for entire continents to adequately demonstrate the notability of even their biggest and most famous musical artists, then some thought needs to be given to the possibility that the rule is unrealistically strict. I can understand excluding charts compiled by a single music hobbyist through completely arbitrary criteria that may not include anything more scientific than their own personal taste. And I can understand excluding single-station charts in the CFXJ-FM or KEXP-FM sense of the term "station". But if a national public broadcasting service which is universally recognized as one of the primary authorities on the music scene of a country of 35 million people can't meet the rule, then there's clearly something wrong with the rule, not with the CBC or with me. If it becomes utterly impossible to demonstrate the notability of any artist who hasn't had a mainstream Top 40 hit in an English-speaking country, then there's something wrong with the rule. When, exactly, did being the national recording industry association's own self-compiled charts become the only criterion of validity for a music chart? When, exactly, did we decide to disregard the fact that there may be other perfectly valid but less oppressive criteria for making that determination?

I can't speak for Latvia; I'm not familiar with their situation. But I find it exceedingly hard to believe that any remotely reasonable person could look at what you said about Latin America and not think that if the rule creates such an obstacle for an entire continent, then maybe the rule, not Latin America, is the problem here. And going back to the issue that I'm most familiar with, I'm talking about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is one of the most reliable and authoritative sources in the entire world for absolutely anything else — okay, it's not the BBC, but it's up there — and yet the fact that they're suddenly such a bad source on this one isolated issue doesn't say more about the rule than it does about a media organization that's one of the best gold-standard sources you can add to any other article on Wikipedia about anything else but this? Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Even a "national broadcaster" ultimately has its playlist determined by one man. Clearing up one misconception: the BBC broadcasts the chart compiled by the Official Charts Company, which are based on sales and airplay. A BBC playlist chart would be as unacceptable as any other single-vendor chart. The guideline calls for IFPI affiliation, but that is pretty loosely followed. When I look at adding a chart to WP:BADCHARTS or WP:GOODCHARTS, I focus on the reliability of source and whether the chart mixes sales or airplay from multiple networks or retail outlets. Charts are a marketing and sales tool for the recording industry, and a chart which reflects sales or airplay from only one outlet is basically a marketing tool for that single outlet.

What we need to focus on is weaning ourselves from charts as the key notability marker. There's too much of the world that doesn't get covered by them, and they are too easily manipulated by the industry. They also wind up with too many weird cases: does it really matter that an Ashley Tisdale song was at position 270 on the Russian Airplay Detection Chart for one week? Is that song truly more deserving of an article than one that fell one position below Billboard's Bubbling Under chart?—Kww(talk) 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Certifications

Does anybody remember which month the 2008 certifications were added to the IRMA website in 2009? Because it's been 3 months since 09 and I'm just wandering when it's going to be updated. Jayy008 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Top 100

Kww removed all unarchived charts from GOODCHARTS which was a good idea but this chart confuses me, does it have an archive? How do I navigate it all? Jayy008 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Missed that one. It's unarchived, so I'll remove it from WP:GOODCHARTS. Remember, though, that doesn't make it a bad chart. If someone uses a webarchive or something similar to archive a position, that's fine.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it thanks! Jayy008 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Shipments and Sales in box

So I know technically this isn't the place, but this has more people viewing it than the Certifications list page. I know Legolas agrees with me but I don't think shipments should be listed in the certifications Wikitable. It makes it look messy and users can easly click on the "Certifications" writing above to go to the actual page. Just wandering what other people thought so if you agree that it shouldn't be included then put "agree" if not put "disagree" I'd like to keep this simple, it doesn't require discussion. The shipments box is simply not needed. I do however think, if every certification has a separate source with it's own sales (Not a shipment figure) then a sales box should be included). Jayy008 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally refute the use of shipments and/or sales derived for a certification - that is what the link to Certifications is there for. We should not provide vague information in every single article when it can be accessed easily in a more relevant article. It's just a guideline to the value of each cert, which should really stay in the cert article.kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that's a much easier way to explain it to people. Jayy008 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend not to like them, primarily because people blur sales and shipments together. I will point out that you cannot calculate shipments from certifications unless you know when the certifications were issued.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Omit: I hate seeing either thing in the tables for reasons mentioned by Kiac and Kww: (1) Nobody knows the difference, and mentioning one or the other only confuses/misleads them; (2) We can usually only estimate the shipments based on the certs, and the sales are even more of a guesstimation based on the certs; (3) When we do happen to have sales figures discussed in a press source, it's more often than not (IME) based on the cert levels anyway, not any actual research into units sold; besides which, (4) these tables are generally wide enough, aren't they?

As a minimum, the column header where the putative sales or even shipments figures are shown should include the word "Estimated", as for example here. The rare exception is when we have reliable sourcing of exact sales figures, with refs next to the numbers. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that, it's to removed the column completely whether it says "estimate" or not, I have made the change to A Mariah Carey album, much tidier, no arguments on how much it's sold or anything Jayy008 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, i support the arguments by Jayy008, Legolas and Kiac. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with everyone. The mentions of shipments according to certs gets messy. The reason being because that leaves us all guessing how much Gold was in 1993. It's complicated and confusing, I do however think on the bottom of each chart it should mention Note: Most of these certs are from old criterion and are higher than current, something like that.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep agreed, I've done that to most MC pages, it'll take a while but I'll go and do Whitney too, I'll leave Celine Dion for obvious reasons. Jayy008 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

lol, sounds good, except I like Celine Dion so I will...:)...We have a consensus here.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Also like the notice discussed by Jayy & Petergriffin. Few comments though regarding the one at Music Box (album)#Chart performance; I would suggest putting the word 'Note' at the beginning and rewording the '(Sales may be higher than the certification level says now).' as it seems a bit awkward to me (says now?).

Hey! But wait just one minute. Column headings of 'Certifications (sales thresholds)'??? Isn't this FALSE? (I just realized this.) Shouldn't it be 'Certifications (shipment thresholds)'?? Following the link at the Rihanna example on the word 'Certifications' takes you to Music recording sales certification but then it states "Music recording sales certification is a system of certifying that a music recording has shipped a certain number of copies." WHAT? Sales certification = shipments? But shipments do NOT equal Sales! They equal POTENTIAL sales.

Next look at (sales thresholds) under the 'Certifications' in the Rihanna example. '(sales thresholds)' links to List of music recording sales certifications. There it is again! "Sales certifications" instead of "shipment certifications". No wonder people are confused, as the terminology used is INACCURATE.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with having it say "shipments" threshold, I only put sales because that's what all articles have and yes maybe a different wording for "the note". Jayy008 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no winning in this game. Some countries (Brazil, for example) do certify for sales, not shipments.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd like to suggest ONLY put the word "Certifications" in the column headers. This would then be CORRECT for all countries.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but make sure it's still hyperlinked to the "List of music recording certifications" page. Jayy008 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Link to List of music recording sales certifications, but L@@K at the column headers there! "Sales thresholds per award" < Again with the SALES. Which is MOST prevalent in the world? Cert for shipments or ACTUAL sales? Whichever one it is should be used in the column headers there with the EXCEPTIONS properly noted.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No I mean just have "Certifications" at the top of the column but hyperlinked to the "list of music recording sales certifications page". But that not actually be written. You just simply click "certifications" Jayy008 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No matter :). I think this is sorted now, I've began making the edits anyway, but I guess I can use this to back it up when I get reverted. Jayy008 (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: You can write that "the album was certified gold in the U.S." and you can write that "the album was certified gold in the U.S. (500,000)." Both are correct. Linking to the current certifications levels page is misleading as levels changed over the years. For exaple platinum album in France is 100,000 copies now and before 2006 it was 300,000. In my opinion, if an editor does't know the certification level, he can leave only "gold". But if he knows it, it should be "gold (500,000)". Max24 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read discussions before you comment on them, there's notes on album pages for that exact matter. Please don't over complicate a solution has already been figured. Jayy008 (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very important thing: certifications levels changed over the years, so till the Wikipedia page with the current certs won't be improved with information how they changed, linking it in the chart table is misleading. You can avoid that by adding the number to the article if you know it. Max24 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Max brought up changes in cert levels. MORE improvement needed to List of music recording sales certifications article to state these. Perhaps it should have a MONTH / YEAR indicator added for those that need it, such as

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Sales thresholds per award
		Month / Year	Silver	Gold	Platinum	Diamond
France	National Syndicate of Phonographic Publishing (SNEP)	8 / 2006		50,000 (50,000)	100,000 (100,000)	500,000 (500,000)
		PRIOR		150,000 (150,000)	300,000 (300,000)	1,000,000 (1,000,000)

I don't know if the PRIOR levels are correct. I just tripled all the 2006 ones to use as example as Max said that the Platinum used to be triple.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like that IKnow23, very much it's perfect. Diamond in France was 1,000,000 not 1.5 Max like to say these things to make Celine Dion articles look better. Jayy008 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Max said Diamond was 1.5 million. I just put that for example to put a number in the table.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You said Max said it was 3x the ammount, that makes 1.5 million. Jayy008 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Months are also important. And certifications changed few times over the years. I could help with some data in free time. Max24 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised Table. Picked a month at random.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree I know I was the first person to propose this format and I use it in the articles that I edit. This is a clear way of noting the certifications as well as directing the user's to the clear threshold page also. I have done a similar thing at The Fame if editors would like to see an example. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 02:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we need to research and include the date spans of certification thresholds.

However, I have a question about subsequent sales for recordings from a prior threshold period. For example, when the U.S. initiated multi-platinum awards in the early '80s, several '70s and '60s titles were certified at the new thresholds created (in fact prior years' releases were the majority of certifications). But when U.S. singles sales thresholds were reduced in the '90s, I seem to recall that singles — which once had to sell 1 million for Gold and 2 million for Platinum (and therefore had to sell another two million copies, for a total of four million copies to reach the third threshold of Double Platinum) — were not eligible to be up-certified when the new figures went into effect (in other words, that the new thresholds were not retroactive). Yet what I'm not clear on is whether a record released during the previous threshold period still needs to reach the old threshold levels in order to be certified at subsequent levels, or whether any sales after the threshold change are now subject to the new threshold levels. So, say a single released in the '70s or '80s or early '90s sold 1 million, going "only" Gold; does it still need 1 more million in sales in the decades since the 1990s change to reach Platinum, and another two million to reach Double Platinum, or does it "only" need to sell an additional 500,000 beyond the first million in order to go Platinum, and another million to go Double Platinum? Perhaps someone knows of a magazine column in Billboard or someplace that addresses this specific question? Thanks to anyone who might know. Abrazame (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. I never even thought of that. Just goes to show that things are almost always more complicated then we may think. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Invite to discussion prompted by section above

Based upon our discussion above, I believe that some improvement/clarificaton is needed at List of music recording sales certifications. To this end I have posted in the Talk there.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Alternative Songs

This is a component chart and shouldn't be used in articles unless the song peaks in the main charts. So on the Record charts article, the US Billboard Alternative Songs is used as an example, but the peak number is "1". So if a song reaches #39, then is there cause for removing the component chart from the article? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Alternative Songs is a genre chart, not a component chart.—Kww(talk) 05:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm pulling my info from the Alternative Songs article: "The chart is based solely on radio airplay and is a component chart of the Hot 100." Am I reading the wrong article? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Teaches me to think I know things without looking them up. That means that "Alternative Songs" shouldn't be listed if the song appeared at any position on "Hot 100 Airplay" or "Hot 100".—Kww(talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kww, I wasn't sure, either way. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive for Australia.

I've noticed that someone has added an Australia chart position for "Give It Up to Me (Shakira song)" however its for the Physical Chart using the source http://ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_physical_singles.asp?chart=1S50 However the link does not appear to show this information. Is there anyway of verifying the chart position and of accessing an archived source to add into the article? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Those charts are archived at http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790, but there's a bit of delay (about 3 weeks), so an individual position may fall through the cracks for a bit. This archive is documented at WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal regarding Sales/Shipments/Certs

Trying to keep up with discussions above and over here, I've found it difficult to keep track of what consensus is building and where we might be headed. We seem to be talking about 2 or 3 different articles about record charts and certifications, as well as several individual articles about albums or artists which "do it wrong". I get the impression that some editors here are busy editing articles for Mariah and Celine and Madonna back and forth based on quick mutterings on two or three Talk pages (plus some user talk discussions).

In any case there seems to be a serious problem with the confusion between sales and shipments, and with the sourcing of either one. As a result, our reporting of either one or both is problematic, confusing, or just plain wrong.

I tried to summarize the situation for my own understanding, and I present it here for the brave and knowledgable to wade through. See how my suggestions compare with the table mods being discussed above.

Individual articles

We have some individual (artist/album/single) articles, with Certifications tables contain column headings like:

Certifications
(sales thresholds)

Country	header 2	Certifications (sales thresholds)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum

BTW, I always expect(ed), when seeing that column header, that the table cells will contain entries in the same format, namely

Country	header 2	Certifications (sales thresholds)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold (80,000)
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)
Slobovia	row 3, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)

but they never are. That's okay, though; the reader can go find out what constitutes platinum if s/he wants to. Instead, I propose that the table headings be changed to (something like):

Country	header 2	Certifications (basis)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum

In this case, we don't mention sales, shipments, or even the word thresholds. That lower link just points to an explanation of the individual valuations.

The use of sales or shipments as table columns in individual articles should be discouraged.

WP Discographies Manual of Style

In the MOS:DISCOG article, the Per-release should be changed to deprecate the use of columns for points 7 and 8 (the exception would be where reliable sources for actual sales figures are available for the majority of the works in a table. Otherwise, a note in or near the table, or a discussion in the text would be preferred).

List of music recording sales certifications

The article List of music recording sales certifications starts with the sentence, "The global music industry typically awards recordings with certification awards based on the total units sold to the retailers." This sentence might be changed to use "sold or shipped" or perhaps "sold (or shipped" for the benefit of those who don't read further but just jump down to the tables.

The tables below that include a column labeled Sales thresholds per award. This should be changed to Current thresholds per award. An additional column following the thresholds could be labeled Based on and would include "Sales" or "Shipments" for each country.

For each country (or at least each country which has changed its thresholds), a note should be added indicating an "As of" date. This might be in the Country column, in the Certifying body column following the ref note, or maybe in a new separate column. The As of-date would be a tip-off to readers whether the numbers shown in the threshold column are relevant to their needs; otherwise, they should follow the link to the article for the certifying body, which article should include the historical thresholds and the exact dates of changeover.

Note that in the example of Canada below, I've added a note visible in the table, although even our current table has a similar note in one of the refs (which may go unnoticed by readers).

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Current thresholds per award				Based on
		Silver	Gold	Platinum	Diamond
Argentina	Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers (CAPIF) Note: Only as of 1 January 2001	—	20,000 (20,000)	40,000 (40,000)	250,000	Sales
Australia	Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) Note: As of 1997	—	35,000 (35,000)	70,000 (70,000)	—	Shipments
Canada	Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) Note: Only as of 1 May 2008	—	40,000 (40,000)	80,000 (80,000)	800,000 (800,000)	Shipments

A note preceding the tables could explain about thresholds changing and that users should click through for older numbers. (Note: I have entered "Sales" as the award basis for Argentina strictly to show such an example; I do not have any idea how the awards are determined, as our article [[q.v. fails to tell me that.)

Compared with the example table from Iknow23 in the discussion higher up, this model would provide a more concise table of just the current thresholds, but require users to click through to get historic threshold info if they needed it.

Music recording sales certifications

The Music recording sales certifications article... has been changed to a redirect back to the List article. So I can't make whatever clever suggestions I was going to here. I don't see why that redirect was made. Was it to avoid explaining some details? What else got lost when that article got thrown away?

If we really don't need or want what we had in that article, then we can go back up and throw away the (basis) (or its current sales thresholds equivalent) in the column headers and just have the direct link. We should also change the MOS:DISCOG to no longer recommend the two separate links.

Record Charts

This article right here, Wikipedia:Record charts says almost nothing about sales or shipments, or sales vs. shipments, so maybe we don't need to change anything here. Which leads to the question, why is this discussion here? Oh yeah, more traffic. :-)

Thoughts? Opinions? Criticisms? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal of yours, however, we can change the word "basis", can't we? Just keeping the certifications is fine by me. That way, as you say, users can directly look into the shipments and the article won't reel of adding biased sales and stuff like that. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over. Yes, I'm not that attached to the word "basis". It could be (What is this?) or something. But as Iknow23 mentions below, if we don't have two articles to link to, we don't need to find the best word. I'm just still wondering what happened to the other article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed above. Only show Certifications being linked to List of music recording sales certifications as in

Country	header 2	Certifications
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum

Someone qualified could make a bot to change the table section headings throughout Wikipedia.
I REALLY like the "Based on" column as that answers one of my main problems of the current situation.
It could just show CURRENT levels, or a more comprehensive listing that shows 'historical' levels if can be verifiably sourced.
AGREED, Project pages should be updated to reflect these changes.
PROPOSED language. "The global music industry typically awards recordings with certification awards based on the total units sold or the total units shipped to the retailers depending upon the country/territory certifying body."—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for reading through it all. One problem with the "Based on" column is that we might not actually know the basis. I guess we just leave those cells blank then, until somebody can find out.

I like your text, too, except maybe the repetition of "awards". How about (Alt 1): "The global music industry typically gives recordings certification awards based on the total units sold or the total units shipped to the retailers depending upon the country/territory certifying body." or (Alt 2): "The global music industry typically awards recordings with certifications based on the total units sold or the total units shipped to the retailers depending upon the country/territory certifying body." Of course, here I'm quibbling over one or two words when the more important matter is whether the statement is true and complete. I don't know nearly enough about certs, except that different countries/bodies have differing ways of divining their totals, be they sales or shipments. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

God, I just hate this topic. This issue makes me nuts. As a citizen of the great country of Slobovia, I'd like to say I agree with this proposal and also would suggest changing "basis". So long as we have the current and previous levels of certification clearly sourced and easily accessible, there should not be a problem. In a perfect world? I say disallow any claims of "sales" and stick only to certifications. Sales figures vary so much, from so many sources, it makes one's head spin. Can you imagine if sales figures were no longer allowed? I think the Wikipedia edit count would go down by about 50%. - eo (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You make that sound like a bad thing. ;-) Thanks for your input. When you say you'd suggest changing "basis", do you mean changing (to what?) or removing? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article with current certification leveles should be extended with information about earlier levels. Some official websites include the history of certifications in their countries.

We're talking about chart table all the time, right? Not about some sourced numbers in the article body? Max24 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with either (Alt Text): offered by JohnFromPinckney. My suggestion had the word 'awards' doubled because it is in the current version, I am not beholden to that however.
  
• Could we RENAME the article to 'List of music recording certifications'? Wouldn't it be best to not have that word sales, in there?
• Yes, the 'Based on' (or could also be just called 'Basis') column MUST remain blank where not verifiable.
• I think most are agreeing here with the exception of only showing CURRENT levels or including HISTORIC levels.
  

I PREFER including the HISTORIC levels if can be verifiably sourced.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute. Think about what you're all saying. The first stated reason in the above thread for omitting actual sales/shipment numbers is that "it looks messy". Yet the table with the centered data in parentheses on a second line is far clearer, more informative, and neater and more elegant than the versions people are saying they prefer. Why go to all the trouble of making a table and then including just one data point (certification)? How many clicks and how much scanning do I have to do to find out a single country's threshold when I've discovered it in a single's infobox? Now what if I'm not interested in a single country? As a given recording is likely to be at widely divergent certification thresholds in different territories, I need to have photographic memory and mad math skills or a pencil and paper to be able to make one series of hops and scans to the threshold chart rather than going back and forth. Fredonia and Slobovia don't both have 100,000 as a platinum threshold, nor, as everyone knows, do recordings that are popular in Fredonia enjoy equal popularity in Slobovia.

As to the issue of not all recordings having a sales figure for all territories justifying excluding the data point, this seems no different than chart tables. The only chart tables that don't have blank fields are those harshly pruned to only include fields for which data points can be included for every last row, which of course can be misleading.

As to the sales or shipments argument, we should pick the more commonly cited/published figure and have that be the default data point, with the alternative figure noted with superscript or asterisk for a footnote at the base of the table. It is important that we don't simply conflate these figures. Particularly unsettling is the way the bulk of Wikipedia articles conflate singles sales with digital song sales, which of course include all versions of the song, from remixes and other alternative versions to album and video downloads and ringtones, etc., and so are double-, triple-, quadruple-, octuple- counting. If threshold levels and even the metric (sales or shipments) have changed, this is not something we should gloss over or not note because we don't know exactly when it was, it is something we need to face and represent.

Finally, as I wrote above, I think it's vitally important that we research and note in the table at List of music recording sales certifications the threshold differences within respective territories, as in Freedonia gave Gold awards to singles for shipments greater than 50,000 units between 1966 and 1992 and for shipments greater than 35,000 since October 1992.

Finally, there are a lot of comments here that "we may not know" this or that data point; our lack of knowledge is not something we should gloss over or use to alter the way we present information. The whole idea about being an open project is that if we indicate the difference between data points we know are not applicable (did not chart, did not sell well, was not certified, etc.) from data points we don't know about (can't find a chart for that country for that year, or only have access to number ones or Top 10 or Top 20 of the chart for that year — as is often the case in archives), then someone who happens to know or be in a position to more easily find out, or simply is interested in tracking it down, may do so and contribute to our understanding. Abrazame (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Abrazame. I prefer this table:

Country	header 2	Certifications (sales thresholds)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold (80,000)
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)
Slobovia	row 3, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)

This way I can have the number in the article I am reading and I don't have to look for the data in other article. Max24 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really understand Abrazame, but maybe that is just me. Max, the problem I have with that is that is shows "sales thresholds" when it might not be true for ALL the items that are (or will be later) listed in the table. I think it is best to just state Gold, Platinum and link the column header to the 'List' if the reader wants to know the specifics of the cert level.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the version Max reposts here is the one I prefer. Iknow23, if you specified what it was you didn't understand, I could clarify. To your comment to Max, I've written that we would note it is a Sales threshold column if most of the numbers that will be found there are in fact sales figures, and note with a footnote or asterisk which data points depart from that metric — shipments, not sales. So if Australia and Slobovia figures are for sales, we will note that this is a sales column and put an asterisk or footnote next to the Freedonia figure. Then, immediately at the base of the table (as opposed to the bottom of the article), we point out that the Freedonia figure is for shipments, not sales.

It would be convenient if all territories presented the same metric (only sales, or only shipments) at all times in their history, and of course we should make every effort to find the most specific number we can, and to figure which metric is the most commonly used (perhaps in the '60s and '70s the only singles figures are shipments, so all '60s and '70s song article tables would have shipments columns with the rare sales figure getting footnoted, while in the '00s and '10s the predominant singles figure is sales, so all '00s and '10s song article tables would be sales columns, with any shipment figures being the odd footnote). To paraphrase a former public official, tongue-in-cheek, we have to work with the data we have and not with the data we wish we had. Obviously if an official figure is available, it has been used elsewhere and will be added here by subsequent editors, so if we know the figure, and know the figure is not the same as all the rest (again, if it's a shipment figure when all the others are sales figures), we don't pretend there is no clue about sales in the territory, we present the figure we have and then indicate it is a different type of figure. I hope that's clear. Abrazame (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks...I got that better. But another problem that I expect will happen by having the numerical equivalent specified in the individual articles is fan inflation of the totals. I think it best to just have these totals avail on the 'List' page where the reference is cited. Hopefully there will be less vandalism to the numerical equivalents on the 'List' page than in the individual song/album articles.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think that's a valid argument. Yes, inflation (both by fans and by vandals, which are two separate phenomena) is a problem, but your argument could just as easily extend to any data, indeed the project as a whole. You're saying that it isn't just as easy for someone to change "Platinum" to "6x Platinum"? Or that it peaked at #40 to that it peaked at #4? (Or the trite #1) I find that often at articles, whether or not they include sales figures. Why not omit mention of anybody's age given what a magnet for contention and vandalism that is? While we want to avoid excessiveness, we don't omit useful data from a table because some people have a spartan aesthetic, and we don't omit useful data from a table because somehow that material strikes someone as more likely to be vandalized than any other data point. If a fan intends to inflate the article, or a vandal, she'll do it from whatever starting point she finds.

One benefit of listing the actual sales threshold is in the case of people who may be familiar only with a certain era's threshold, for example, someone who grew up only knowing the current threshold and so when they see a recording from a previous era with a certification level, they presume it to be at the current rate. Or vice-versa, someone familiar with a previous era and presuming current songs are still selling at that level.

And what about an artist whose career straddles a threshold change? Without specifying sales figures, and only certifications, an artist with consistent success would erroneously appear to have suddenly experienced a breakthrough with a particular song. Alternately, a previous era's artist may seem to have lost steam, going from high to medium certifications or from low to none, resulting in a hiatus, while a new era's artist may look to have come out of the gates with high certifications, when in fact they're comparable in numbers and it was the whole industry that subsided, and the thresholds lowered. I'm a proponent of saying click on the link and read the other article to avoid interrupting the flow and thrust of the writing to go into textual detail on some point, or complicated backgrounds, definitions, etc., or to avoid giving tangential or problematic issues undue weight, but it seems very much less valid an argument when dealing with raw data points in a table. "Gold" and "Platinum" are, after all, trademarked promotional tools (with, as we've noted, shifting and sometimes incongruent thresholds), while actual sales (or shipment) figures are the rawer, less partial data point I'd think purist Wikipedian sensibilities would prefer. I'm certainly not arguing against noting certifications, but it's clearly the less informative of the two if we were to choose between them. Abrazame (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing the numerical data if it is true data, and not just the display of the numerical equivalent gleaned from the certification. That info can be found in the 'List'.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the last column in the table should be just called: "sales/shipment" without going into details? In most countries we have only certifications levels to put there, for example platinum in the UK (300,000). Only in few cases, for example the U.S. Soundscan we can get sales, not only RIAA shipment. In that case I suggest to put both numbers in the table or the highest one. Max24 (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"The table": do you mean the table where we show certifications in an individual article (artist/album/etc.)? We've been talking about different tables in different articles.

We're trying to get rid of the sales/shipments columns there. (Please read the rest of this discussion and the ones I pointed to in the first sentence.) I'll reiterate some of the reasons: (a) Including such a column only confuses or misleads readers. (b) Including sales figures when they're incomplete is a bad idea, and they are almost always incomplete (I think you've experienced that yourself, and I note your second sentence). (c) Using both in the same column isn't a good idea because we typically lack reliable sales data, so we only have shipments, which aren't always reliable either. (d) Extrapolating shipment figures based on certifications is an acceptable exercise for the interested reader, but if we put some number in a table and say "that's how many shipped based on the certifications and a bit of arithmetic we did ourselves", people will stop at "that's how many shipped" and think they've learned something from us. (Actually, they may still think they learned how many were sold, which is even worse.) (?) And, "the highest one"?!? We're not trying to help people set any records, here. We're trying to document reality, or at least those notable aspects of reality with reliable third-party sources. What makes you think "the higher number" is necessarily more accurate than the lower? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you in all the things you said. But please clarify one thing for me. We are talking here about a column in the chart table. But in the artcile body we can still use some numbers, right? For example, Canada: "after shipping 1 million copies the album was certified diamond" (source would be CRIA). Max24 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You agree with whom? Me? Cool! Well, maybe; without identation or names it's hard to be sure. (And I'm not asking for a lot of name-calling!)

Okay, I think that if you have some reliable sales figures and if they are of some interest and of relevance to the article, then yes, sure, sales or shipment info could be included in the text. We've got some more room there to explain what we're talking about, and why. We're also not as hard-pressed in the text to indicate a number for every country or market or song when we have only partial information.

As for your specific example, however, I probably would discourage such text— Hmmm, or maybe not. I don't know, really. Mostly, it seems redundant and messy. Why not just say it earned a diamond award? Or: "JohnFromPinckney's fourth album, Revert Unsourced went diamond in Japan six days after its release"? If that's not enough for the reader, s/he can click to find out what diamond means, and they'll find out that for Japan it means 1 million shipped. (Actually, if they pay close attention, they learn that it isn't called "diamond" in Japan, but "million".)

Maybe what you want to know is this: I am not proposing a blanket moratorium on sales figures or shipment figures if they're from reliable sources and improve the article. I just don't personally find the numbers themselves too interesting, and that's even before I think about the questions of what was counted and how. I do suggest we stop encouraging a column of (some) numbers on the certs tables in individual articles. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Article names: Music recording sales certification and Music recording sales certifications

Following up to my own post and my attempt to propose a holistic approach to a range of articles, I point you to the section above that starts like this:

Music recording sales certifications

The Music recording sales certifications article... has been changed to a redirect back to the List article. So I can't make whatever clever suggestions I was going to here.

I don't know where I got my sample charts table we've been using for examples in these discussions, but it has a different link than in some other articles. Upon closer inspection, it seems we have two articles with almost identical names:

• Music recording sales certifications is a redirect to List of music recording sales certifications
• Music recording sales certification is the article I'm used to going to when I click on the upper "Certifications" link in the charts tables that have them.

So, (I think) we need to:

1. get rid of one of these articles, or have one redirect to the other, and have neither of them redirect to the List article (um, right?).
2. discuss (somewhere, probably on those article's talk pages rather than here), the removal of the word "sales" from the articles' titles.
3. continue/complete/extend our discussion about use of the word "sales" in the text of the surviving Certifications article and the List article.
4. figure out how to fix the individual articles which link to one or the other of these (3!) articles. This depends on what consensus we reach about what the certs column should ideally contain in the first place.
5. do some other things I haven't thought about.

I'd be glad if some Wikipedian senior to myself would point us to where and how we should proceed. This page is getting kind of long and unwieldy, and I'm not sure all these discussions belong here. And that's before we even get into the latest RIAA nastiness. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

HUGE smile upon reading 2 and 3 :)...it was like, wait for it, wait for it, there it is :D—Iknow23 (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There should be just one article regarding the matter. I'm not sure how difficult it will be changing all of the articles that link to one of two of the articles but my guess is it will vast. could we get a BOT to do it? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested a bot earlier :) But don't ask me how they are done, as I have NO idea.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Subcharts

First off when I brought up a discussion about the UK R&B Chart, I was told it shouldn't be used when it charts on the main chart, which is fine, I assumed the same goes for Australian Urban Chart, but I'm met with resistance and reversions when I make these edits, so I thought I'd bring it up for discussion to see if everyone has the same opinion on whether it should be allowed.

Secondly Legolas always removes my sub charts adding on the Lady Gaga songs his reasonsing "I don't want to give more emphasis on the US charts, but equal importance to all the territories an artist charted. Remember, every charting retailer has many sub-charts, so if you allow one, like Billboard, you will be challenged like why not allow the subcharts of the others? I agree with this but I think there should be a solid rule on both matters. Jayy008 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh? I thought that the UK R&B Chart IS allowed as a Genre chart. Again I don't like that term 'sub-charts'. I would allow the Australian Urban Chart as a Genre chart IF that is what it is and not a component of their MAIN chart. If a component then allow it ONLY if it does not appear on the MAIN chart. This is to be consistent with how (according to my understanding) we handle US Billboard. We MUST apply the same to the rest of the world, same 'rule' or 'regulation' for all.
Jay, have you been adding iTunes charts or something similar? Why is Legolas telling you "...Remember, every charting retailer has many sub-charts"? Project page states, "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer (such as iTunes, Amazon.com or Wal-Mart) should not be used."—Iknow23 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no, I'm not stupid, I added Dance/Club Songs and Latin Songs, not components but they keep being removed, so if they are allowed by a rule then they shouldn't be but I agree with Legolas's reasons. As for the R&B chart etc, if you look up the discussion page, I brought up before about clickable links and people said it should be used when it charts on the main chart. I just wanted it clarified. Jayy008 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then Legolas must have misspoken? Instead of "every charting retailer" meant "every charting country/region"? The consensus is to allow Genre charts. I recall some prior discussion of 'equal weight' being used to limit US Billboard, so we do NOT show every single US Billboard chart that a song/album appears on if the same info is included on a larger overall chart under the component rule. Perhaps ALL this arose as a compromise between showing EVERY single chart and ONLY one for the US? But the consensus was reached.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, now I'm confused! Jayy008 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard component charts

I thought I knew most of the Billboard component charts, but after seeing some recent edits and looking at Component charts I am confused. I have seen Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, Top 40 Mainstream and Hot Country Songs removed claiming they are component charts. Reading the articles, nothing is said about them being component charts, but reading Component charts says they are component charts of Hot 100 Airplay. This edit in November, [12], added the following sentence to the article without a source, "In turn, the Hot 100 Airplay is comprised on the various airplay-only charts, including but not limited to Top 40 Mainstream, Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, Alternative Songs, and the Rhythmic Airplay Chart." I can find nothing on Billboard or around the internet to support this sentence, which seems ironic given the editor the month before had placed a unreferenced template in the article.

I have also seen Pop 100, Hot Dance Airplay and Hot Dance Club Songs removed as being component charts, but I see no evidence and in the case of the dance charts, Component charts says they are not. I would appreciate other people's opinions on this matter. Aspects (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

you raise a very good point here. I'm glat its being discussed. Its time we produced a definitive list of charts which are allowed and those which are not. Those which are deemed components and those which are not. Anything chart listed as Mainstream is a component e.g. mainstream top 40 is a component of the hot 100, hot mainstream rock tracks is a component of the rock tracks chart. We need to look into the matter. On a personal level i feel that genre charts should be allowed specific to each song. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all the wiki articles on all the US Billboard charts need improvement for consistency. They need to properly show any and all relationships that they have to each other.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we create a summary page for Billboard Charts which shows which charts are definately allowed and then shows which charts are components of the ones that are allowed. Then we can have notes explaining when component charts can be used. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok i've done a brief stint of research based on Billboard and wikipedia and this what i've found:

• Billboard Hot 100 - no issues
  • Hot 100 Airplay - often mistaken to be different from Radio Songs the two charts are exactly the same. it is one of three components of the hot 100.
    • Rhythmic Airplay Chart - component of hot 100 airplay
  • Hot 100 Single Sales - physical chart which is component of the Hot 100, if a song has not charted on the Hot 100 then this chart is preferred over the airplay chart.
  • Hot Digital Songs - digital chart, main component of the Hot 100, if a song has not charted on the Hot 100 then this chart is preferred over the airplay chart.
• Bubbling Under Hot 100 - appears to have been was deactivated and replaced by the Heatseakers Songs and Heatseakers Albums charts.
• Pop Songs - often labelled on wikipedia as a component chart but Billboard explicitly calls it a genre chart. Additionally it is being labelled Mainstream Top 40 but again there is no evidence to support this. I'm not sure the rational used for calling this a component chart
• Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks - often mislabelled, Billboard referrs to the chart as Adult Contemporary Songs so it should be renamed to this. no evidence of being a component as it is specifically taking into account sales of songs + airplay on light-pop radio.
  • Adult Pop Songs - although an official billboard chart its methidology is dubious. There is little information know about how a song qualifies on this chart. I think is its a component of the Hot Adult Contemporary Chart and should be banned from use if not for being a component then for having dubious methidology.
• Hot Dance Club Songs - though only an airplay chart is NOT a component of anything. however it is incorrectly named on wikipedia. it should be labelled Dance/Club Play Songs because the play part indicates that it only takes into account disc jockey airplay. it is nevertheless a genre chart.
• Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs - again for some reason its labelled "Hot" even though this is not mentioned on Billboard. It is not a component chart of anything and takes into account both airplay and sales.
• Rap Songs - genre chart mainly using airplay but still not a component of anything.
• Alternative Songs, Hot Country Songs, Hot Jazz Songs, Hot Gospel Songs, Tropical Songs, Christian Songs, European Hot 100 - all are fine for use on wikipedia. All are genre bar Euro Hot 100 which is a geo chart.
• Latin Songs - fine for use.
  • Latin Pop Songs - appears to be a component of the latin songs chart as latin pop is sub-genre of latin songs.

hope that helps people.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we make it simpler somehow? Like for example if the song charts on the Hot 100 these charts are allowed (follow with charts). If it doesn't then there are no restrictions? Jayy008 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the time that Lil-unique1 put into the above. I find it verrrry interesting that wiki has several of the charts improperly named. This certainly helps lead to the overwhelming confusion. Certainly no offense, but unfortunately some is unclear and needs verification as in 'seems' or 'appears to be' is not definitive. Probably should RE-SOURCE everything (including rechecking any refs in the Billboard chart articles) as "This article does not cite any references or sources." "This article may contain original research." is on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay article for example. We can hardly cite these for our conclusions. I believe that Lil-unique1 did the best they could under the current situation. I would like to suggest again that ALL the wiki US Billboard articles be revised/corrected/verifiably rewritten as necessary if we are trying to follow a consensus regarding 'component' charts and 'genre' charts as it IS UNCLEAR what many of them really are. Also I would like to see the 'new' names in the article titles as well; such as, Hot 100 Airplay (Radio songs).
I admit to some confusion over the 'preferred' status given to some of the component charts. If a song does not appear in the Hot 100, but does appear in ALL of the components (Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Single Sales, and Hot Digital Songs) I thought that they ALL are eligible to appear with the only one NOT allowed being Rhythmic Airplay Chart as its 'level up' chart of Hot 100 Airplay is seen. But if it does not appear on Hot 100 Airplay, then the Rhythmic Airplay Chart is allowed along with the Hot 100 Single Sales and Hot Digital Songs (still using the example of NOT charting on the Hot 100). (my understanding)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Right well i think that's our answer then. I've used words like 'appears' or 'seems' where the wikipedia article for that chart is unsourced. our main problem here is going to be that Billboard does not provide any information on how the chart is gathered (unless i've missed it). So we have very little idea about how each of the wikipedia articles for the charts was written. my major concern is that without any sources to verify how a chart is formed we end up not being able to modift the status of the chart. I support IKnow23's motion to rename the charts but i would go further. e.g. I would like to see Hot 100 Airplay become 'U.S. Radio Songs (Hot 100 Airplay)' etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See below for an example of what could be implemented. We can modify this as we decide fit e.g. if we decide that a chart is incorrectly named or if some charted are premoted/demoted to component charts. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Condition	Applicable U.S. Charts
If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →	Adult Contemporary Songs Alternative Songs Christian Songs U.S. Country Songs Dance/Club Play Songs European Hot 100 Hot Gospel Songs Tropical Songs Latin Songs Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) U.S. Rap Songs R&B/Hip-Hop Songs U.S. Rock Songs Hot Jazz Songs
If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →	Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) Hot 100 Physical (Single Sales) Hot 100 Digital (Digital Songs) U.S. Rock Songs Dance/Club Play Songs R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) Hot Gospel Songs U.S. Rap Songs Alternative Songs U.S. Country Songs European Hot 100 Adult Contemporary Songs Hot Jazz Songs Tropical Songs Christian Songs Latin Songs
If a song has not charted on the Latin Songs Chart you may add any of the charts to the right →	As well as charts in line with the conditions above (depending on if the songs charts on the Hot 100 or not) you can add the Latin Pop Songs chart.
If a song has not charted on the Adult Contemporary Chart you may add any of the charts to the right →	As well as charts in line with the conditions above (depending on if the songs charts on the Hot 100 or not) you can add the Adult Pop Songs chart.
If a song has not charted on the R&B/Hip-Hop Chart you may add any of the charts to the right →	As well as charts in line with the conditions above (depending on if the songs charts on the Hot 100 or not) you can add the Rhythmic Airplay Chart 'and R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay Chart'.

Perfect! Although, I personally think the right column should be bulletpointed and listed rather than prose, but that might just be me. Jayy008 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

modified and done. Now we just need to work on improving the articles and also perhaps renaming some of the charts :P Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect, I support Jayy008 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Idea: Would it perhaps be even more perfect if the upper section (If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100) listed all the applicable charts (as it does above) and the lower section (If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100) started off with "All (or any?) of the above charts, plus:"? It'd make the lower listing shorter and the info maybe easier to use.

I can't tell though, because I think my preference would have been the tree-like presentation hinted at by Lil-unique1's analysis. With this (clean-looking!) table approach, it seems that the relationships aren't as readily apparent.

Consider (if I may display my mental sluggishness) the situation where a song has not charted on the Hot 100. May I use the Rhythmic Airplay Chart? From the upper portion of the table it appears so, because it's listed in the has not lower section up there. But what if I'm using the placement on Hot 100 Airplay, also in the lower has not section? The lower portion of the table says no, because it (Rhythmic Airplay Chart) is a component of Hot 100 Airplay, but I have to look for it at the bottom after I've already seen a kind of "OK!" at the top. I think some editors will miss that.

Maybe you see what I'm getting at. A tree (if we could devise a nice one) would let me see everything immediately. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a differentiation should be made between (for back of better terms) component charts and genre charts. Many genre charts are in fact components but I think carry more weight and importance, for example Rock Tracks, R&B tracks, Rap Songs, Country songs. When we start splintering down to very specific subsets of audiences then I think the brakes need to be put on: Rhythmic Top 40, Adult R&B, Dance Singles Sales, etc. The only one I can think of that is not a direct component is Dance Club Play, as that realm is not connected to any other charts and has no bearing on them. - eo (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I did toy with the 'all of the above' idea but it didn't really fit in with what i was trying to achieve. I do understand what your saying. Perhaps the lower section should be seperated from the upper section? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AHA - I knew I had started a page on this topic at some point in the past: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion. Perhaps we can clear that page off and start from scratch? It would keep this conversation in a centralized location. - eo (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup that sounds wise. this is an open discussion at the moment and is active on the talk page maybe its better to discuss it all here considering that a consensus appears to be developing. Also what do you think about me placing a message template on every billboard chart page on wikipedia (*sighs*) notifying editors that billboard charts are under review? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think separation is the cure, although I felt more comfortable with the table inverted (Hot 100 at the bottom); what's bugging me might be the forcing of items into two different namings.

Look at the upper portion of the (current) example. The upper-most heading talks about songs not appearing on "the main chart". Then we have a table where, sort of, the left hand column should be labeled "Main chart", so as to match it up with the component charts in the (correctly labeled) right column.

But then there's that darned Hot 100 Airplay chart in the 2nd row; it's not a main chart because we just showed it as a component in the 1st row. However, it's got its own component chart, so to make sense with the heading it has to be a main chart.

It also seems that the left column is always the condition column, and the condition is always — with one exception — "If a song has not charted on this chart you may add any of the charts to the right". Right? And the exception is, of course, where the song made it to the Hot 100, but in that case, we want to revoke the permission our table gives. So if the left column is given the (admittedly unwieldy heading, "If a song has not charted on this chart you may add any of the charts to the right (but see exception for songs on Hot 100)", we could then make our last row say, "If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 do not use any of the charts to the right."

Hmmm, even I don't like this. Forget that last bit; take a look at this approach: (— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Flow-chart approach

Top-down decision table to determine what U.S. Billboard song charts may be used
You may use any of the following 14 Billboard charts at any time
Pop Songs Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks Hot Dance Club Songs Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs Rap Songs Alternative Songs Hot Country Songs Hot Jazz Songs, Hot Gospel Songs Tropical Songs, Christian Songs European Hot 100 Latin Songs Rock Songs
Additionally, you may be able to use other Billboard charts. To determine the appropriate charts, start with Step 1 and follow the instructions in "Next step" downwards.
Step	Test	Result	Next step
1.	Did the song chart on Billboard Hot 100?	Yes: OK to add Hot 100 chart (but no charts listed below).	STOP
		No: Possibly OK to add others.	Continue with Step 2.
2.	Did the song chart on Latin Songs?	Yes: OK to add Latin Songs chart.	Continue with Step 3.
		No: OK to add Latin Pop Songs
3.	Did the song chart on Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks?	Yes: OK to add Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks chart.	Continue with Step 4.
		No: OK to add Adult Pop Songs
4.	OK to add any of Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Singles Sales, Hot Digital Songs, and Rhythmic Airplay Chart.		STOP

It's a little too computer-sciencey, probably, but I find it easier to read. (Of course, I'm a little too computer-sciencey.) You'll notice I had a problem with the Rhythmic Airplay Chart: From the current table prototype it looks like it's a component of Hot R&B/Hip Songs (as well as of Hot 100 Airplay), but in the tree analysis above, that doesn't seem to be the case. Which is right? I dunno, so it's certainly wrong here.

It'd need general checking for correctness (I may well have bungled some copy-and-paste) and the chart/article naming still needs addressing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok the main problem i have with the flow chart is that it assumes that if something charted on the 'Hot 100 airplay' it automatically charted on the 'Hot 100' which we know is not the case. I do understand your concern though and i did modify the table to try and correct it. I think the answer to the problem is a lot more simple. I've removed 'Rythmic Airplay Chart' from the lower half and then its sorted. please take another look at the table now.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, wha? It doesn't assume that at all. The only time a user is supposed to consider Hot 100 Airplay is when it didn't chart on Hot 100. There's no assumption in either direction. Since you thought otherwise from looking at the table I have to conclude that it's not as helpful as I had hoped. I don't see how you got confused into concluding that but if you came to that conclusion, regular users will be even more lost.

For my part, I also don't see what removing 'Rythmic Airplay Chart' from the lower half solves. What's confusing is the upper half, where the use of Rythmic Airplay Chart hinges on the song's failure to chart on both Hot 100 Airplay and Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs. That's in conflict with your analysis higher up. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I missed some of your edits somehow. The time change is messing up my tracking of things, I think (or maybe I need a new brain). Here's mine again, with merged cells for better visibility (I hope). Your version does more to explain the component concept, while the flow chart doesn't even mention the reasoning behind the steps. That makes yours superior, I'd say. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart names/pages

I've been through and checked a sample of around 10 of the different Billboard chart pages and i'm finding myself thinking the methidology is not sourced. Here's a crazy idea but how about merging everything into one Billboard chart page. For example we could have just four pages in totals named as follows:

• Billboard Hot 100
• Billboard 200 (Albums)
• Billboard Genre Charts
• Billboard Component Charts

Each page can have sections for specific charts. Good idea/bad idea? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea Lil-Unique, and I think Eo's idea of clearing the page he created and doing the discussion there is wise. Jayy008 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've informed Kww of this discussion because the moving of billboard charts will effect the chart macro. I'm going to start working on each of the charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you leave the existing chart article as a redirect to appropriate section in the new one (a good idea in any event), the macros won't be impacted.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

are you ok with changes being proposed? do you think we're thinking along the same lines.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed format sounds reasonable. I'd do it in a sandbox first.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Because this would have taken too much time i've instead proceeded to move some of the billboard chart pages so it now makes more sense. see below for the changes i've made. I've tried to be WP:Bold so please assume WP:Good Faith.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Former Name	New Name
Billboard Hot 100 Airplay	Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs)
Hot 100 Single Sales	Hot 100 Physical (Single Sales)
Hot Digital Songs	Hot 100 Digital (Digital Songs)
Hot Country Songs	U.S. Country Songs
Rap Songs	U.S. Rap Songs
Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs	R&B/Hip-Hop Songs
Hot Dance Club Songs	Dance/Club Play Songs
Pop Songs	Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40)
Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks	Adult Contemporary Songs

Remember, I support the correct naming of the charts. A thought though. Don't the OLD names need to remain active and be Redirected to the new names so that ALL the 'old' names in use in articles won't change to redlinks? Perhaps this is why the new names redirect to the old ones, as in 'U.S. Country Songs' redirects to 'Hot Country Songs'? An editor uinfamiliar with our discussion may have noticed redlinks occuring at the old name, so put on the redirect as their solution ro resolve it. Anyway, I believe that the redirect should go the OTHER WAY, namely the old name should redirect to the new name. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of having wiki articles...

• Billboard Hot 100
• Billboard 200 (Albums)
• Billboard Genre Charts
• Billboard Component Charts

Question, the Component Charts article will have sections for Hot 100, Latin Songs, Adult Contemporary, R&B/Hip-Hop... as they all have 'components'?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 'condition' and 'flow' charts...I am going to speak on the presentation methods only (not accuracy as that requires greater scrutiny, even IF I would recognize any errors!)
I had similar thought as JohnFromPinckney before I saw what he said, "Idea: Would it perhaps be even more perfect if the upper section (If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100) listed all the applicable charts (as it does above) and the lower section (If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100) started off with "All (or any?) of the above charts, plus:"? It'd make the lower listing shorter and the info maybe easier to use."
I would also like to suggest putting the chart names in Alphabetical order after the renaming process in the 'Applicable U.S. Charts' area of the table. If not ENTIRELY alpha, then perhaps by sections of 'Genre charts' and 'Billboard 100 component charts'. [more to come] Iknow23 (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

with regards to the charts i am having some resistance. One user has reverted the U.S. Country Songs back to Hot Country Songs simply stating that is the name of the chart. I tried making the point that it only appears like that for Billboard.biz customers but for the general public it is simply Country Songs. From all of the pages i move i created redirects so the old pages were active. This is going to be a more length process than i thought. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that Billboard.com is more commonly referenced, so we should use the naming it provides. Alternate names for the charts should be mentioned in the articles like we do for performers in stating their 'performance names' and their 'birth names'.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... i like your thinking. I would like to move Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) to U.S. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) because i think it makes more sense and if we're going to go ahead with the move of all Billboard Charts how about having all genre charts as U.S. for example: U.S. R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, U.S. Dance/Club Play Songs etc.? This standardization would make editing articles easier no? Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it also be better to add the word 'chart' to the new names? I'm from the U.S. and unsure if EVERYWHERE else in the world is familiar with 'Country songs' and might think that U.S. Country Songs is a list of ALL songs from artists from the country of U.S.?? Even if known I still think its better to state that the article is really about a chart and not a list of individual songs for the other charts as well. So it would be U.S. Rap Songs (chart) for example. —Iknow23 (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That could become tedious. Is U.S. Rap Chart not a better solution? or are we missing the boat here? Is it something more obvious like U.S. Chart: Rap Songs?Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AGREED. 'U.S.' Standardization leads to greater clarity. I've always wondered why they didn't all have U.S. on them as Billboard does operate and have charts in other countries/regions as well.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've improved the conditions table (matrix) from above all that remains to alphabetically list the charts. But with regards to moving the charts i have no idea how we're going to achieve it. User:TenPoundHammer was quite forceful in stating that country Songs should remain Hot Country Songs end of. =( Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hmmmm...if you look at the example charts on the project page, they all show the word 'chart' except for the U.S. How/why did this occur? So for standardization with the rest of the world the U.S. charts should have the word 'chart' even the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 should be U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you invite User:TenPoundHammer to come here? If they see the full scope of what is being discussed it may make a difference. They are only focused on the name of one chart, I take it, whereas we are attempting much more.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So are we then suggest the mass proposal should be U.S. Rap Songs Chart, U.S. Country Songs Chart etc. or U.S. Rap Chart, U.S. Country Chart? I will do so now although i did point out that a discussion was on-going. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see 'songs' in there to disambiguate from albums charts + Billboard uses the word 'songs', correct?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to see this implemented but we've already had another user now revert the Adult Contemporary Songs, stating that its not the proper name. *sighs* im off to bed now. but i think we're gonna need a proper consensus here. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

True. Invite them all here to participate also.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The names of the chart articles should be what the "official" name of the chart is—if the name of the chart as it appears in the printed magazine is the same as on the .biz site, that should be the name of the article. And adding parenthetical asides like Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) or disambiguation like U.S. Rap Songs (chart) is just plain wrong per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The name of the article should be the exact name of the chart; if an article about a different subject already exists at one of the titles, then—and only then—disambiguation should be added to the title. Clarification, like "Radio Songs" can be spelled out in the lead paragraph of the article. I am, on the other hand, all for the suggested trimming down of the number of separate articles. Before the final culling of articles occurs, I would like to see a list of articles that are targeted for termination. Note that the correct format of the suggested titles should be Billboard Hot 100, Billboard 200, Billboard genre charts, and Billboard component charts. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit table

There isn't the link of the BPI in the certifications of the singles in UK and there isn't the link of the RIAJ for the certifications in Japan (from 2003 to date for Gold & Platinum and Million from the launch of the award) http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/index.html -- http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/index.html . Furthemore, the CRIA certified also in the RPM era, not only in the SoundScan era (it's divided in the table). SJ (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC+1)

I fogot to signal also the link of the Norway official chart that include an all-time archive. http://lista.vg.no/ Also the link for the Diamond Award in Poland. http://www.zpav.pl/plyty.asp?page=diamentowe&lang=pl SJ (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC+1)

Heatseekers Songs again

Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 5#Heatseekers Songs suggested one or two ways to treat this chart: only if the song didn't chart in the Top 50 of the Hot 100, or not at all. User:CloversMallRat seems to believe that it shouldn't be included at all, yet I have one editor who wants me to add it back to Jaron and the Long Road to Love. Can we please get a consensus one way or the other? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)