Template talk:Album chart/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

New edits suggestions

Per a relevant discussion at Template talk:Single chart#"Unprofessional" format, at the sandbox I have removed websites in titles of Hung Medien-published sources (i.e. "australian-charts.com" or "charts.nz"). I also removed "Albums" in chart names (i.e. Australian Albums (ARIA) → Australia (ARIA) to make it simple, straightforward, and consistent with the format "Country (Organisation)" of the singles format. I have tested both cases at Template:Album chart/testcases#Testing all templates (Oct. 2021). I believe these edits are necessary to keep the format professional and accessible, and I hope an authorised editor could implement these edits in the template if possible. Ippantekina (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes May I ask do you also edit this template for album chart? Ippantekina (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ippantekina: The diff shows some changes which do not seem related, is it intentional? --Muhandes (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Muhandes Hello, I assume you are talking about the "Spain2" parameter. This "Spain2" seems to have been left out of the main Template, but it somehow still exists in the Sandbox. Shall I remove this "Spain2" in the Sandbox as well? Ippantekina (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ippantekina: Yes, if these are not your edits, remove them. A good idea before starting to edit to sandbox is to sync it with the main template. I use the sync-template-sandbox script. --Muhandes (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The Spain2 edits were mine. I made them in the sandbox with the intention that they be promoted by someone with the rights to do so, but that never happened. Regardless, they are valid and do resolve an issue that was identified months ago that I made a potential fix for. Please see the relevant discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Y2kcrazyjoker4 In the meantime you can test Spain2 on your own at testcases (which I did the same for my sandbox edits). If you see no issue, then you can proceed to ask for help from Muhandes to include Spain2 in the main template. Ippantekina (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: Just let you know I have removed Spain2 for the time being, so that the current template can be synced first. I will re-add it later. Muhandes Please check my edit and sync the template if there is no issue left. Ippantekina (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina:  Done. There was still an unrelated diff which I undid, I hope this is the only one. --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Please revert this change. Such a change to a widely used template should be put to a longer discussion informing more editors before it is made. It is not simple or uncontentious; it's not a little fix to update a URL format. Editors all across Wikipedia have adapted entries in year-end charts sections and manual entries in wikitables to match "[Country] Albums (Publisher)"; this edit now made them mismatched. As the editor who probably makes the most use of this template, I've never had a problem, nor do I know of any other user besides the one who suggested this that they have a problem with the inconsistency between what Template:Single chart and Template:Album chart state. One user's suggestion to the template should not have been so easily implemented. Please revert this so it can be more widely discussed, otherwise I will ask an admin to do it for me. Thank you. Ss112 17:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ss112: eraser Undone. --Muhandes (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Thanks. Just to be clear, I don't have an issue with changing anything beyond "Australian Albums (ARIA)" to "Australia (ARIA)", as I notice there were other elements that were changed. I entirely disagree with Ippantekina's assertion that this template needs to match the format of single chart entries (when nobody before now has had a major issue) or that it's somehow "unprofessional" looking to have one wording for singles and another for albums. They are hardly ever used on the same article, so why we "need" consistency between templates intended for different articles I am not sure. Ippantekina should start an RfC or separate thread asking if this should be implemented. Ss112 17:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The consistent issue is just a cherry on top, not my main issue. I believe it is much more straightforward to say "Australia (ARIA)" than "Australian Albums (ARIA)"; we all know on an album article that a chart is an album chart already. The "unprofessional" point I was talking about was the website names in citations' titles. Ippantekina (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC on this template's format

I have two edit suggestions to make:

  1. Website names be removed from citations' titles (i.e. Australian-charts.com – [artist] – [album] to just [artist] – [album]) per a relevant discussion at Template talk:Single chart#"Unprofessional" format. Suggestions: a--Website names can be included in the publisher field (i.e. Australian-charts.com. Hung Medien); b--similar to Template:Single chart, include the chart name in the publisher field (i.e. ARIA Albums Chart); c--Adding website names into the |website= field (i.e. Australian-charts.com. Hung Medien).
  2. "Albums" be removed from the output, simply keep the country names (i.e. Australian Albums (ARIA) to just Australia (ARIA))

I believe these edits make the template straightforward and cohesive. The similar formats adapted in Year-end charts can be changed. And as much as I welcome any and all comments, I would like to say such comments as "This is the way things have always been done" are not constructive. Thank you very much, Ippantekina (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If the website name is to be moved (which I agree with), why not move it to the "website" parameter and put Hung Medien in the "publisher" parameter? One of the two pieces of info should be italicized, but not neither. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. What has been done on one template is not necessarily best for all, and there is absolutely no proof beyond one person's opinion that this is an "unprofessional" format. I believe it's straightforward as is. "Albums" in the template output helps differentiate the albums template from the singles template; although as acknowledged by myself above, the rare instances where they are both used in the one table together, even more so. I also believe users have grown used to the format used for albums templates, and this helps them differentiate between the two (I know for me it does). The "similar formats" manually written out are not just in year-end charts tables; they are also manually written out this way in weekly charts tables for charts that do not have a template entry on thousands and thousands of articles. The work that would be required just to make this consistent according to one user's opinion would be extensive. No good reason has been suggested for this changes other than "it will match the single chart template" and it really just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It simply does not need to. Ippantekina seems to have a misunderstanding of what the actual (or equivalent) publisher= field is for (as I raised on their talk page at User talk:Ippantekina#Changing chart publishers). They have put the names of charts in the publisher= field. Charts are published by organisations; they do not publish themselves, and we should not be misusing this field for that. That's enough for me to ignore any change suggested in point 1. Website names should be in website=; that is what that parameter is for. We should not misuse the publisher= field to avoid making something italic, and especially not shoving in Hung Medien next to a website name too (Hung Medien republishes data; it does not originate the data). Ping @Lk95:, who like me, also makes extensive use of album chart templates. Ss112 03:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • 1) Removing website names from citations' titles was recommended by Nikkimaria and The Rambling Man at this FAC on grounds that it creates an inconsistent reference style for a quality article (I will let the two users comment here, if possible). If the website names cannot be put together with the publisher, than we can format it so that it matches the |website= parameter of {{Cite web}}. 2) What good is "Albums" in differentiating its use from the single chart template when the name of this template itself, "Album chart", already signifies its use? Ss112 bases this argument mostly on their experience as an old-time user, so it seems I, a newcomer, am not the only one guilty of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, assuming that I am guilty in the first place. Ippantekina (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • One can only see the template name when they edit the page. I was referring to the differentiation in its output that users have familiarised themselves with, and how they are differentiated when used together (e.g. EPs of certain lengths can chart on singles charts in different countries, but will chart on albums charts in others—this helps differentiate in cases like that, but that's not my main argument at all). As for trying to parrot IDONTLIKEIT back at me, you are the one trying to change the template. You need a better reason to change something no other user has had a problem with in the time the template has been around than you don't like the look of it and "want consistency" when there's no functional reason consistency should be required between the templates. We would default to keeping it the way it is if the best reason a user can produce is "one word is more straightforward than two" (e.g. somehow "Australian Albums" is so much more complicated than "Australia"), whereas I and obviously other editors, based solely on the fact there has been no request to do this prior, clearly already find it very easy to understand and straightforward. Now, Ippantekina, you said you welcomed all comments. Of course, anybody is allowed to reply to those they have a difference of opinion with, but I hope you are not the sort of user who endlessly replies to oppose !votes. It doesn't help sway the consensus in your favour in an RfC or invalidate other votes. I'm not interested in a back-and-forth with you based on the reasons presented thus far. Ss112 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • IDONTLIKEIT applies to both those who want changes and those who do not. And thanks for explaining stuff that you already have. Ippantekina (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That's great. You still need better reasons for wanting to change the template than you've presented, which amount to not liking it as is. Ss112 03:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 1 and no opinion on 2. Having website names in reference titles is completely inappropriate. Perhaps we shouldn't use these templates at all if they can't be made to better align with the general approach used on {{cite web}} for example. There's not one single good reason to have the website in the title of the reference. Not one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I agree, the website probably shouldn't be in the title (even if this presumably comes from the title of the browser tab when the website is opened). However, website names shouldn't be in publisher= as this is seemingly designed to get around the use of italics in website=. Website names should be in website=; that is where they belong. The websites themselves are not "publishers". Chart names should also not be in publisher= because it's simply incorrect. For example, ARIA Charts doesn't publish anything—it's the name of the Australian charts. The Australian Recording Industry Association publishes the ARIA Charts, so if anything, that should be in publisher=. Ss112 11:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain that to me. I've been using citation templates correctly for 15 or more years. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: ...Because you said you support 1, which says "Website names can be included in the publisher field [...] or [...] include the chart name in the publisher field". That means you would support putting websites in publisher= when they should be in website=, or chart names in publisher= when charts aren't publishers themselves. Point 1 did not simply say "move the website name out of the title". If you agree neither of those are correct, then perhaps you should have raised this or specified where the website name should go instead. Ss112 11:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, as I'm sure you know there's no true consistency across Wikipedia on website display format, e.g. BBC Sport could be argued as a website but is usually not italicised. But hopefully this isn't going to be one of those situations where my opinion is badgered. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I was asking for clarification on where you would agree to put a website or chart name after you told me you know the correct way to format them, which to me contradicts Ippantekina's first point you claim to agree with. That's not badgering you over a stated opinion. Ss112 11:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. I've already pointed out to you the clear and apparent inconsistency in Wikipedia on this point. Do me a favour and drop the stick now. And use your preview button. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I had to seek clarification on what you meant for you to even explain said "inconsistency", then was accused of badgering you. I do use my preview button; I simply want to add to what I've said after the fact. You can also drop your stick and stop replying, you know, because you're getting into ad hominem territory now. Ss112 11:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not interested in this "back-and-forth" with you, and stated as much earlier. So now, just drop it, go and badger someone else. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • If you're "not interested" then why do you keep replying? Ss112 12:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. The first example simply reflects the information you get when you hover over a browser tab, which I sometimes use in the "title=" field for citations as well, when there is no clear indication of a heading. Furthermore, it would simplify the citation style way too much. As soon as you scroll down for a list of sources, you find yourself lost in a jungle full of the same citation titles, contemplating what to click on cause of a lack of information. The second stance I consider to be very helpful to the reader as well. In my opinion, it makes a huge difference if the segment just says "Australia", as opposed to "Australian Albums", which is a very clear differentiation from the single charts template. I have always found it very reasonable that way. If we were just to use the countries' names for albums, it would cause massive confusion as to what chart we're looking at. The additional "Albums" specification provides a short but clear indication about the chart. This short piece of information hurts nobody, nor does it go beyond the constraints of a template's width. Lk95 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Website names in |website= (or |work=) field can help readers reflect where the information is retrieved from as well. It's like in a bunch of "[Album] review" articles you can always look at the |work= field to see where the review comes from. Ippantekina (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This RfC is getting confusing. My comment at Template talk:Single chart#"Unprofessional" format was that I don't like the citation starting with the website name, which it appears everyone so far agrees with. But I agree with Ss112 that this should not go in the publisher field... in fact, I didn't even know these templates had this field, it seems obsolete. Richard3120 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I commented above that another solution is to move the website names into the website field. Ippantekina (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: It seems like the changes you proposed were opposed by most editors. However, reading more closely I think there is agreement that moving the website to the |website= field is beneficial, which in essence is what you proposed. If you still interested in pushing this forward, I suggest you create some examples of that change only, and start a new !vote/RfC. --Muhandes (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

New Billboard look

Billboard has updated their look. Thankfully, the artist pages for the template are still existing, but it looks like we're going to have to update the urls. Compare Madonna's previous location to her new location (in the url, "music" changed to "artist", and the chart code is now lowercase, but the url is not case-sensitive). ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 01:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: Would you be able to do this or do you need a user to mock it up so you can copy it over? As ResolutionsPerMinute said, it's only that "music" in all the Billboard URLs has changed to "artist" and the chart codes are all in lowercase (for example TFM → tfm). The same applies for all instances of Billboard Template:Single chart too. Also @Muhandes and ResolutionsPerMinute: have either of you ever requested a bot script at WP:BOTR? This might be worth requesting for all the manual Billboard URLs out there (namely on discographies) that now no longer work as they use "music" where "artist" now is in their URLs. (It appears the cases of the chart code are less important as the URL changes them to lower-case automatically upon pressing enter.) Ss112 11:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ss112 and ResolutionsPerMinute: I made the requested change in the sandbox, but I can't really test it because the current version of the testcases does not include real examples for all charts. Specifically, I'm not sure "Digital Albums" works. Please verify this all works, fix the sandbox as required, and then I can move it to the main space. As for bot request, sure, this seems like a straightforward AWB bot run. There are thousands of these URLs. --Muhandes (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ss112: I'll take care of testing the single charts if you do the album charts, if that's okay. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes and ResolutionsPerMinute: I've tested all the album chart URLs with "artist" in place of "music" and all the (old) letter codes still work, even if they're typed in uppercase (as like I said, Billboard—at least currently—just changes it to lowercase anyway). Looks good to me so I think that can be moved into the main space. Muhandes, when you said the URL change looks like a straightforward AWB bot run, did you mean you're capable of doing that (I don't use AWB so I don't know how simple it is to use) or that it's still worth putting a request in? Ss112 13:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ss112: I've tested the singles charts but came up with five issues. Four templates no longer load, and one requires a subscription to view. See the talk page. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ss112: I am assuming you tested "digital albums" too, it has a little different URL and I have no test case to test it on. If you didn't test it, please do. Anyway, we have nothing to lose so I moved the sandbox code to main space. As for bot request, I went ahead and made the request. --Muhandes (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Thanks so much for the request and moving it into mainspace, looks good. As for Digital Albums, it appears Billboard doesn't publish the chart anymore and once it's gone from their roster of charts, they seem to no longer archive it (case in point the European Hot 100 Singles and Pop 100 charts). I don't think it ever got a code, although I do think Billboard kept its data up until this recent refresh if digital-albums was still entered in the URL. Ss112 15:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ss112: I started discussion about defunct charts at Template talk:Single chart, I suspect the same may apply here as well. --Muhandes (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Update names and redirects? (moved discussion)

The following request was made at Template talk:Single chart and moved here by me. --Muhandes (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  • [[Oricon]] → [[Oricon Albums Chart]]
  • [[Gaon Music Chart|Gaon]] → [[Gaon Album Chart]]
  • [[GfK Entertainment Charts|Offizielle Top 100]] → [[GfK Entertainment charts|Offizielle Top 100]]  Done
  • Organisation or chart name in bracket? Add link to Dutch Albums and replace "Album Top 100" with Dutch Charts? Otherwise what with linked Canadian Albums (Billboard)?

Eurohunter (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I made the third change you requested, it is a minor uncontroversial redirect avoidance.
As for the rest, I'm leaving the request here for some time to see if there is consensus for the changes you requested. I personally think we should be as accurate as possible, so the chart name should be made clear especially if there is any chance of confusion. I'm not sure what you are suggesting about the Dutch and Canadian albums, please be clearer, perhaps using the sandbox to demonstrate what you mean. --Muhandes (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Billboard Greek album chart

Does anyone have the three-letter URL code for the Greek album chart listed for individual artists on the new Billboard website. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@QuintusPetillius: Sorry for the late response, I just noticed the question. If this is still relevant, the three letter code for the Greece Albums chart is gra. --Muhandes (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Germany update

I've emptied out Category:Album chart usages for Germany2 and merged them to Germany4 @Muhandes: so this category can be deleted. I'll be working on Category:Album chart usages for Germany3 as well to merge to Germany4. I'm not doing the main Germany template (the Musicline ones) as that's a huge category. I wouldn't mind your help or others to merge the 390+ to Germany4 as that's easier. Most of the changes would either be like this or that. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Album chart usages for Germany is still only 960 entries though... that's doable (bearing in mind I'm working on the 40,000+ albums that still don't have class and/or importance ratings). I should see if I get time over Christmas to work on those... it would be great if everything was in Germany4, and it could then just be renamed "Germany". Richard3120 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: That'd be awesome! Then, would a split between Germany/West Germany happen? Also, a year parameter would be needed for cases like Thick as a Brick that peaked before 1978 & after 1978. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: I removed the Germany2 option from the code and tagged the category for deletion. Let me know when this is all done, we can certainly move everything to Germany like we did with the singles chart. --Muhandes (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I noticed that Germany2 is still active, even though I emptied it out months ago. It's still being used right now (5 usages). Can this template/code be deleted again once it's emptied so it doesn't appear again? Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Now cleared out. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I was responsible for one of the five – I also didn't realise that this category was still active. I agree that it would be good to close off this category as part of the process so that eventually Germany is the only one still active, and there is no possibility of confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: It seems like last time I didn't remove Germany2, I just merged it with Germany4. I now removed it completely. --Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Links update

Links to charts:

Chart

This is something that has been confusing me lately. The year(s) that are besides the "Chart" that would look something like this:

Chart (2000–2002) Peak
position

Are they supposed to represent the chart run of the album/single or are they only represent peak year(s)? Moh8213 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Peak years... songs and albums often peak in different years in different countries. Richard3120 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then why albums such as Hybrid Theory (released in 2000) have its chart peak years listed (2000–2002), when the album only started to enter the charts in 2001 and peaked in most of 'em in 2002, the only chart where the album debuted in 2000 is in the Billboard 200 but it took more than a year to peak at number 2 in 2002.

Another similar case we have with the album Tragic Kingdom, which was released in 1995, have its chart peak years listed (1995–1997), yet its chart entries were in 1996 and almost all of its peaks were in 1997.

So is the album/song release date should be included to the chart peak years? Moh8213 (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Nvm, thanks for the clarification. Moh8213 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Top Current Albums?

Hi, I was wondering if a chart identifier could be added for Billboard's Top Current Albums chart. I know that a similar chart, Top Album Sales, is supported, but Top Current Albums removes all of the older catalog albums from its chart; thus, giving a lot of newer or less popular artists the chance to appear on a chart. It was also referred to as the Current Album Sales chart as well. Xanarki (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I second that! Reidlos (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: would you consider adding this by chance? Sorry, not sure who else has the ability, your name is the only recent one I see. Xanarki (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xanarki: I certainly don't mind adding it, if this is the consensus. I asked at record charts to see if there is any objection. --Muhandes (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against it, but I think some sort of clarity as to whether both the Top Album Sales and Top Current Albums should be included in a chart table... it seems to me that it would be like the current situation at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS where one is a component of the other and we only include Top Current Albums if it doesn't appear on the Top Albums Sales. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xanarki and Reidlos:  Done There were no objections so I added it. --Muhandes (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

South Korean Albums

South Korean charts changed its name from Gaon Charts to Circle Charts. Can that be changed as well as the site link? If you may, thank u. Deibu2007 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Deibu2007: I'd like to help you with this but the request is incomplete. Changing Gaon to Circle is easy, but what about the URLs? The templatre uses three URLs:
Can you please supply the new URLs? --Muhandes (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Here are the links.

Both National and International Album Chart is only 2010–2018 while the Overall Album Chart is continuous.

Sorry for my grammar if it's incorrect. Deibu2007 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deibu2007:  Done The original said you need to click "국내" or "국외" and this does not seem to be required anymore so I removed it. Please verify that I did it correctly and let me know if something needs correcting. --Muhandes (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

New name for Official Charts Company

I totally missed this one, but the Official Charts Company officially changed its branding to Official Charts in September 2022. The article has moved and everything. The old name remains the legal entity but for all public facing activities, the organisation is now known as Official Charts. As such, can we please rename all charts that list (OCC) in brackets to (Official Charts). Similarly, can we also stop using the abbreviation OCC as this is no longer correct. Finally, can we change all links to Official Charts as opposed to the redirect. The same will need to be done to {{Single chart}} >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The website's logo has said "Official Charts" for years (since at least 2015). While I acknowledge "Official Charts" is what the logo says and one of the ways it refers to itself (and that the Wiki article was moved in September 2022), this seems a bit heavy-handed to change when the OCC acronym is still in fairly common use among a variety of media sources. The website still uses "Official Charts Company"—see its chart rules page and also in its website titles (when you have the website open in a browser tab). Recent uses of "OCC" and "Official Charts Company": two days ago by OCC themselves, Billboard two days ago, The Scotsman two weeks ago, Billboard a month ago, OCC over a month ago, Yahoo! two days ago, Music Week in 2020... there are many more recent uses. So I would say since the OCC themselves still refer to themselves as the "OCC" and all these other media sources including Billboard do, it absolutely is "still correct". Ss112 15:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Name of UK Downloads Charts

As a side note, the UK Digital Albums Chart is now called the UK Album Downloads Chart, similar with the UK Singles Downloads Chart. Can we please change the name of the templates to match the names of the webpages? Similarly, the streaming chart is now called Audio Streaming Chart. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. Ss112 15:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Lil-unique1:  Half done I renamed UK Digital Albums to UK Album Downloads as you requested. I'm not sure that the other requests are as I don't see any streaming chart in this template. Muhandes (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ireland

I think there's a single/album chart in Ireland that which is not here in the article. irma.ie Deibu2007 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why we are not using irma.ie. We have the top 50 from OCC but irma.ie covers the top 100. Maybe one of the other sources covers it? Pinging Richard3120, IndianBio, Ss112, who took part in the discussion when OCC was added four years ago. Muhandes (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes: It would be hard to code links to irma.ie because its URL doesn't change when you click on different links from the drop-down menus on its outdated website. The links to its album page is https://www.irma.ie/index.cfm?page=irish-charts&chart=Albums or http://irma.ie/albums (which then changes to https://www.irma.ie/#chartTab2, which if copied, doesn't actually take you to the album page) and http://irma.ie/index.cfm?page=irish-charts&chart=Singles or http://irma.ie/singles for singles. But the top 100 archive on irish-charts.com is covered by using Ireland2 for albums and Ireland3 for singles. Ss112 07:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Ss112: we can implement a manual search, but I see what you mean. If all the data exists in another source, then we should not encourage manual searches. Muhandes (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Czech charts

Please, could someone update the command to select a week to show peaks in Czechia? Now it's "Number of the Week. Týden (Week) Year", not longer "YYYYWW" (Year and Week). As well, there's no longer the word "Zobrazit" to select the week, only a click on the requested one is enough currently. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@LuanCampSouza93:  Not done I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you are requesting. Can you please edit the sandbox version with the change you request? Alternatively, explain it in full details, as in "replace X with Y". Muhandes (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes: For example, when you get an article about an album or a single and there's a peak in Czechia, appears the following command: "Note: On the chart page, select YW (Year/Week) on the field besides the word "Zobrazit", and then click over the word to retrieve the correct chart data." But when it's done, it shows a message in Czech with the 404 error: Stránka nenalezena (Page not found). Do you know if there's some way to correct this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuanCampSouza93 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@LuanCampSouza93:  Half done The URL of the page seems to have changed from http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=P to https://ifpicr.cz/hitparada/14 and I fixed that. However, the bigger change is that now instead of using a date YYYYMMDD, the use a week number, e.g., https://ifpicr.cz/hitparada/14?weekId=2800. I could fix this too and require |week=, but how are we going to handle all the pages already using the older format? How about, if |week= exists, I direct to the correct URL. Otherwise, I leave a message saying "search manually for the appropriate week (týden) for YYYYMMDD"? Or do you have a better wording suggestion? --Muhandes (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I would suggest something like this: "On the chart page, select "Week.Týden Year" on the field besides the line "CZ - ALBUMS (OR SINGLES) TOP100" to retrieve the correct chart data" (more or less like the command to search peaks in Korea). Using, for example, the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Beach, the appopriated message for this one would be: "On the chart page, select "10.Týden 2010" on the field besides the line "CZ - ALBUMS TOP100" to retrieve the correct chart data". I think it isn't perfect, but it's my suggestion for this at the moment. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@LuanCampSouza93: I see what you mean. I implemented it in the sandbox and tested it on the test cases, see Template:Album chart/testcases#Testing Czech and tell if this is what you meant. The first line uses |week=1999 and the second one uses the old |date=201010. --Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
re-pinging LuanCampSouza93 --Muhandes (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply, I was so busy and there's no many time for me to edit here now. It apparently seems good, there's only some little adjustments to complete this. For example, the word "Zobrazit" is not longer needed, so it could be removed from the command. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@LuanCampSouza93: Apologies, the change was reverted. Please check now. Muhandes (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Now it's perfect. Thanks for the effort. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@LuanCampSouza93  Done Hopefully this will be used. Muhandes (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Unsure if this is as a result of the above-mentioned changes made to the template, but the chart position has now disappeared from the Czech Albums entry on Proof, Be, Map of the Soul: 7, and likely all other album articles where it is in use. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I've noticed this too. The change has had the effect of making the chart position not display for the Czech chart. Ss112 07:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Carlobunnie, @Ss112 Apologies, I did work with the sandbox and test cases but apparently both LuanCampSouza93 and myself focused on the citation and missed this problem. It's fixed now. Muhandes (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Another problem with the Czech chart entry is that the accompanying "Note" violates MOS:BOLD by bolding some terms. These should not be bolded at all. Perhaps they can be emphasized using Template:Em instead. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks for pointing it out, I removed the offending bold. Muhandes (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Billboard Japanese chart

I see that there is a Hot Albums chart in Billboard Japan - [1], and the chart entries appear to be different from Oricon [2]. Is the Billboard Japanese album chart a valid one? I don't see the option offered here, is it a chart that's worth adding or would it cause confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzh (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Polish charts

For a few days there's a change in Polish charts, which should be implemented in this template and which I've explained here: Polish music charts. From technical side the thing is that website http://olis.onyx.pl/listy/index.asp is not updated anymore, but it still exists and has the full archive of the time it was updated (October 2000 - January 2023). New charts are published here: https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-sprzedazy/albumy. Unfortunalety, this new website - at least from what I see - has archive only for the time this reform is applied (since January 2023), doesn't have an English version and cannot generate links to single charts - they can be seen only via changing dates under "zmień zakres od–do:" or by exporting to txt/csv/json/excel (on the bottom of the page). King10 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@King10 Sadly the code and the standards for the singles and albums templates are very different. I tried to mimic the Poland chart and created an entry for Poland2. Please see the results at Template:Album chart/testcases#Poland2 and tell me what you think. Muhandes (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes Looks great! Thank you. King10 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@King10  Done. Muhandes (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes Hi. By the way, I have noticed that the Polish certifications are also being updated at the following link now, not longer on ZPAV site: https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-wyroznien. And now, it's possible search certs for artists individually, not only on lists, differently from ZPAV site. There's some way to adjust this, please? LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes Sorry, I just noticed this link is working as a ref now. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Italicise album names

Hey! Can someone change the syntax so that the ref titles italicise album names, as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE? Many thanks in advance. Ippantekina (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Muhandes: pinging the editor who seems to be active when it comes to this template-- Ippantekina (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ippantekina: Due to the way this template was written, it's going to be a huge amount of work and a source of endless bugs. I am very hesitant to spend so much time on something that very few people care about. Muhandes (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
That's ok, if it is that complicated then let it be. Thanks for letting me know. Ippantekina (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous UK charts

Would it be possible to get other UK OCC chart categories (for example Vinyl Albums) to the template? XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@XxLuckyCxX: Sorry for the late reply. Since these seem like component charts of the main charts, you will need to show consensus that they are needed and intent to use them widely. If you just need them for one article or two, don't use the template. Muhandes (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the reply! :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Page renames

Hello, I would like to request that the Top Latin Albums parameter be modified to link to its current page name Billboard Top Latin Albums. Same with Top Heatseekers being changed to Heatseekers charts. Thank you. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

USMV

The default source for the Billboard Music Video Sales chart is no longer valid. This needs to be either updated or removed. The documentation also needs to be revised as Billboard.biz has been merged into Billboard.com. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Korean and UK charts

Hello. I noticed a few things while looking at Template:Album chart and Category:Album chart usages:

Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Album_chart/Archive_3&oldid=1218105054"