Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Canadian Country Charts

Classified it as "Bad Chart" for failing to file archive. For this there http://www.webcitation.org/ and http://archive.org/web/web.php.

Are YouTube view counts required

Do YouTube view counts really matter? I can't help but feel that YouTube falls under the same category iTunes as single network. I think don't think they deserve mentions except under special caes (like Gangnam Style), but am I forced to use them? Am I allowed to remove them if I'm improving an article? Erick (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's really an issue that falls under the record charts policy. However, I do agree with you; it does represent a single network issue and doesn't represent a world view. Youtube does not hold a monopoly over video streaming and in many parts of the world is not the most popular website for such. But it does have some value. Some, like as you say Gangnam Style, have some notable youtube relate issues - most views ever, most views in 24h or what have you. I would discourage it's use for spurious things. I recently removed one that stated a certain song had more views than a Justin Beiber song. This song was a hugely hyped and world wide marketed song; the Justin Beiber song wasn't even named and turned out to be a sideline video of his that was not released or marketed worldwide. -an unfair comparison attempting to unduely big up the other song. That sort of thing is unfortunately endemic in music related articles, where fandom editors big up the songs to the point that the articles just are ridiculous. But even "it received X amount of views on youtube" adds very little information to the reader -is this alot? -its not quantified information. Most of the big names regularly rack up hundreds of millions of views so more often than not it is not some impressive fact. Plus its not a world view.

I'd say use commonsence. If something is obviously spurious and is not quantified -remove it. Less obviously spurious uses, or places that may be controversial -take it to the talkpage.

I would, however, support a formal policy on it discouraging the spurious use of "it received X amount of views on such and such single website". Whether the Record chart policy is the place for it... is another thing. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Charts tables with few entries

Is there a guideline or recommendation (chart-specific or not) of a minimum number of table entries? Is there a point in having a table with one chart? Eg [1]. Adabow (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Additions to charts

Can these be added to WP:BADCHART?

• Melon. (South Korea) Most likely a one-vendor chart similar to the iTunes chart, listing only its sales.
• KKBOX. (Taiwan) Seems to be a streaming site with a chart.
• 5 Music (Taiwan) Seems to be a one-retailer chart.
• Hit FM not sure about the country of origin, but seems to be a streaming chart for its site.
• HMV (Japan) Similar to Amazon.com.
• Odyssey (Philippines) Another retailer chart.

And these to WP:GOODCHART?

• G-Music. (Taiwan) Seems to be the only reputable chart for Taiwan, although since I don't understand Chinese I'm not sure of its methodology. Doesn't allow linking to specific weeks, so it would be necessary to indicate the week and year in order to access.
• Sino Chart. Seems to be the only reputable chart for mainland China. This is a Google-translated version of its methodology.

--Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Country abbreviations in chart tables

Is there a standard for this? I used to always favour ISO 3166-1 (so using IE for Ireland, DE for Germany, ES for Spain, etc), but they all got changed (so IRL for Ireland, GER for Germany, SPA for Spain). Recently I noticed that an SK for Slovakia was changed in an article to SL. That's the ISO code for Sierra Leone, but as we don't use those, it could also mean Slovenia, or several others that start with S and contain an L. So I just wondered if there was a standard, and if not, should we implement one (I say we probably should)? –anemoneprojectors– 09:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it really matters. Two-letter and three-letter codes seem to be used interchangeably. Like AUS instead of AU for australia and NZ instead of NZL for new zealand. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it, in some cases a three letter code like "GER" is more obvious than "DE". But there will always be cases where there's confusion, as with SK or SL, so a reference or link will hopefully explain it. Even AUS could be confused with Austria. –anemoneprojectors– 12:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The codes are always wikilinked to the relevant record chart which in turn says what country its from. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless it's linked to International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which the SK in the article I refer to does (though the reference does state which country it is). I just thought it might be good to have a standard set of abbreviations and codes. –anemoneprojectors– 16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Few issues with the singlechart and the certification template

Hello everyone, there are some issues I saw in the single chart template which I wanted to bring to notice. In the {{singlechart}} template for Hungary, the urls generated are for the mahasz.hu website, however, that website has migrated off to a new url. Could you guys please take a look since the week and the year given does not generate the archive url anymore?

Secondly, can we have the year and week for the Irish singlechart as part of the title also? Like "Irish Singles: Chart Track: Week 43, 2013" or something from the week and year information in the template? The title at present, just "Chart Track" simply does not give any indication whether the link is for a singles chart or album chart etc.

Lastly, the certification entry template for Italian certifications do not generate the Week and Year in the reference, making the addition of the template pointless. It says "Select Online in the field Scegli la sezione. Select Week -- and Year ----. Enter Lady Gaga in the field Artista. Click Avvia la ricerca". Here the week and year should have been replaced by the values given in the {{Certification Table Entry}} for Italy region, however it does not do so. Let me know your thoughts on this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Zobbel.de

This site is being used as a source for certain articles, specifically as a source for UK chart positions lower than 100. However, the site itself implies that it is getting its information from UKchartsplus.co.uk which is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. Therefore, I think Zobbel.de should also be added to BADCHARTS as it is unreliable. Soultruck (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - yes, I agree it is unreliable. --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Chart Policy

Can we have the decision on the Scottish Chart written up into the actual rules page please.

Some have called for it to be added to the BADCHARTS, however the consensus from the numerous previous discussions on the UK and Scottish Charts have been against an outright ban, deciding that it is only to be used when the chart placement is different to that of the overall UK chart.
Some of the reasons given in discussions are because its a dependent component chart (Scotland is 8% of the UK; England+Wales+Scotland+N.Ireland=UK; sales in Scotland contribute to the UK chart); the chart placement on the chart is usually the same as the overall UK chart; the charts are compiled by the Official Charts Company who refer to the Scottish chart as a "Regional Chart", and you are only said to have had a #1 if you are number one in the overall UK chart; there is only one national industry body - British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - and (as the name suggests) Gold, Platinum (etc.) certifications are only awarded for overall UK chart sales.

Discussions have popped up now and again over the years, but it's never been written into the actual policy page.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've always felt that the Scottish chart should never be used as it is simply a component chart of the UK Chart. We do not allow components of the US Billboard charts so we shouldn't be allowing this one. I agree it would be helpful to have something written on the Record Charts article page regarding this though. 88.104.24.102 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Scotland is a country, and there's no other case where a national chart has been denied listing on the basis that the country isn't important enough to bother with. The positions are usually different, although I agree that they are generally similar. Most importantly, since there's no policy that would forbid their inclusion (most charts on WP:BADCHARTS actually fail content policies like WP:RS and WP:NOTADVERTISING), all an effort to forbid it would result in is edit-warring, with the editor that was trying to remove it ultimately winding up blocked.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Scotland may be a country, but it is a country within a country and the larger country already has a national chart: The Official UK Chart. I understand it's a unique issue, but looking at the matter properly shows that the Scottish chart is simply a component of the UK chart. Based on the fact that we already forbid US Billboard component charts, the same could and should apply here. The OCC merely list the Scottish chart as a "regional chart" rather than a "national chart". I once read someone state that "well the UK is part of the European chart, but we still include that." However, the European chart is merely a composite summary of all the countries that have their own national charts. The official UK chart comprises England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - and there is no separate chart for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, therefore the analogy is not the same. Soultruck (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)