In the few days, i re-examined the criteria of the two Italian albums charts: FIMI and Musica e Dischi. I discovered that at least until the early 2009, Musica e Dischi covered more point of sales than FIMI.
I think that at least until early/mid 2009 we would include it in the table of the reliable charts (for the albums).
I don't know for the singles, i know that's used by MTV Italy and includes physical and digital singles, but physical singles sales are very poor and FIMI covers more digital stores than Musica e Dischi. Maybe before 2008 could be used because FIMI considered the Physical Chart the main singles chart and Musica e Dischi from 2006 used also the download in its single chart. At the moment, i haven't got sufficient material for to affirm what of the both singles charts covers more point of sales before 2008. SJ (talk) 1:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus among the RfC participants for "example 2", which closely paraphrasing Iknow23 means "put a country's main chart first, then genre charts in alphabetical order".
There is no consensus on Btljs's proposal that "The genre charts should only be included if the record failed to appear in the main chart." Since the proposal was introduced late into the discussion and few editors commented about it, no conclusion can be drawn about whether it has support. I recommend that editors open a new RfC to resolve this question if desired.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Example 2: It says in the MOS that "charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order" which makes perfect sense, but what about when the chart section also lists a number of genre charts such as the UK Rock Chart or Billboard's Alternative Songs chart in addition to the overall singles charts. Should it be listed as true alpha or by putting the primary country chart first? Obviously, one can get the same result by using the sort function in the second example, but I would think the main chart would be listed first for a specific country rather than being mixed in with a bunch of other subcharts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
UK Rock Chart
UK Singles Chart
US Alternative Songs
US Billboard Hot 100
US Mainstream Rock
UK Singles Chart
UK Rock Chart
US Billboard Hot 100
US Alternative Songs
US Mainstream Rock
Example 2: I favour listing the main chart first, i.e. example 2. It is possible to manipulated the way these charts are sorted, so that even when forced to sort alphabetically, the main chart will be listed first (e.g. US Billboard Hot 100 can be sorted as USAAA). Adabow (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Example 2: I agree. Please put a country's Main chart first, then genre charts in alpha order.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way "charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order" to me anyway, means just that: in Country alpha order period. When multiple charts for a country appear, the country's MAIN chart should appear first. Then list the others in alpha order.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 1: Example 1 is definitly correct. It respects a correct alphabetical order and it is more easy to read a table like this one, especially when there are numerous charts for the same country. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also I would like to point out that the "importance" of the chart (eg. the Billboard Hot 100 over the other Billboard charts) should not be taken into account. After all, charts from other countries are always listed in a correct alphabetical order, so why the UK and the US charts should be an exception to the rule ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you give some examples of where other countries charts are always listed alphabetically, unlike the UK and US? Azealia911talk 02:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Belgium/France/Netherlands charts (and I imagine there are other examples) are always listed alphabetically. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No they aren't. At Happy (Pharrell Williams song), which started all of this, the two main Belgian charts are listed ("Flanders" and "Wallonia") but then under "Wallonia", is the "Flanders Urban"... Azealia911talk 02:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
They are put in a correct alphabetical order: Ultratop 50 Flanders then Ultratop 50 Wallonia then Ultratop Flanders Urban. The alphabetical order is respected. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
But the genre chart is still listed after the other two.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
...in order to respect a correct alphabetical order. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
How do you know? The editor that added the material may have put the genre chart under the other two because it is a genre chart. No way to really tell, either way...because the outcome is the same.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who added it in the article. The alphabetical order is respect and it's better like this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You totally missed my point. It may have been only by coincidence that it appeared in alpha order. The intent may have been to list genre chart after the others.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea who added it and I really don't care about it anyway. I doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. Again the alpha order is respected and it's perfect this way. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The only exception to the alphabetical order here are the Adult Contemporary charts in the US and the Rock charts in the UK. Why making exceptions when it becomes more complicated to read for the reader, seriously ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but it is "more complicated" for me to read when the Main chart isn't listed first.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been a reader for a long time and I know what I'm talking about. It's always better to see a correct alphabetical order than a chart table with an incorrect alpha order in it (and most of the time it's the place of the Billboard Hot 100 that disturbs me). Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A lot of us here are longtime readers/editors, and using "I know what I'm talking about" is not good rationale for two reasons: (1) it implies that everyone who disagrees with you is not intelligent, which borders on violating WP:NPA; (2) it doesn't cite P&G to back your claim up. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Again I really don't see any reason not to respect the alphabetical order for UK and US charts. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Because the first time a reader sees a country, they expect to see the primary, most important chart for said country. If you want alphabetical order so badly, what is stopping you from using the sort feature? –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 2: Agree with Adabow's reasoning having the main chart first, then the country's subsidiary charts following it. Also, we can have it both ways when headers are sortable by alphabetical order Azealia911talk 02:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 2. It benefits the reader to list the main chart before any genre charts that serve as aspects of the main chart. In the case of the Hot 100, charts such as Alternative Songs measure genre-specific airplay which is included in the Hot 100 along with all other airplay, sales, and streaming. Readers who want a purely alphabetical order can use the sorting feature as others have pointed out. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 2. Definitely the main chart should be listed before its component charts. — Tom(T2ME) 21:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 2 DEfinitely makes sense to have any country's most important chart as the first chart, then following it up with any genre or sub charts alphabetically. —Indian:BIO[ ChitChat ] 09:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither. The genre charts should only be included if the record failed to appear in the main chart. The lists are too long and it isn't notable that something that reached number one in a main chart also reached number one in a genre chart. Synthwave.94 is correct that a flat list should be sorted by only one criteria. In this case it's alphabetical order. Otherwise split the list (e.g. by category) or at least indent. Thus:
By the way Genre charts are not necessarily unnotable. I'm sure there are many occasions where a song/single may chart HIGH in its own genre, but still chart low when commingled with ALL the genres in the Main chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I agree there are times when this happens and then they should be included. Trouble is - as the guidelines stand they don't say that discretion should be used in choosing which charts to show so if someone tries to exercise it (by taking out some of the dozen or so charts that e.g. Happy has been number 1 in) they get reverted and pointed at these guide pages. So I started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Number_of_US_genre_charts_included
On the subject of chart order. The consensus is clearly that main charts for a country should precede minor genre charts. Unfortunately, this is one of those occasions when the consensus is right in intention but not in execution. Synthwave.94 is right that a single list should be sorted according to a single criterion. A list should never be alphabetical AND by category or chronological unless the row headings or structure make this quite clear.
So you could have:
US Billboard Hot 100
US Billboard Adult Easy Listening
US Billboard Rock
Or you could have
US Billboard: Hot 100
Of course I'm right. A correct alphabetical is always more important than chart components. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
What you are creating is nested lists and you can sort a sub-list on whatever is appropriate. Btljs (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The current chart order is clearly incorrect. As pointed by Btljs above. We need to chose between a correct alphabetical or a importance regarding charts. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
In case you didn't read any of this thread, there is clear community preference for ordering based on importance (the main charts for each country), then alphabetical order for secondary charts. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've read it, but it's incorrect : the mix of the two simply doesn't work and, as you may have remarked, you cannot have a correct alphabetical if you include a new parameter (here the order of the importance of US charts). It needs to be changed to a new version which doesn't take into account the importance of charts components. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I've yet to hear a solid defence of the current system (apart from "this is what has been done up to now" and "this is supported by most people") Btljs (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal to add "no flags should be added to chart tables"
I'm somewhat bemused by a discussion that has opened up at David Bowie discography, about how best to show the chart peaks of records that charted on multiple different occasions. For example, Bowie's "Space Oddity" reached the UK charts in 1969, peaking at number 5, and then, when reissued years later on a different record label, reached number 1 in 1975. It has now entered the charts again. The view that seems to be taken by editors (current and past) at that article is that only the 1975 peak should be mentioned in the list, and the 1969 chart peak should not be mentioned at all (or, at best, only in a footnote). This seems to me to be wrong. All the official chart lists and books that I have seen list both the 1969 and 1975 chart entries, and it seems to me to be a disservice to readers to omit any mention of the earlier chart peak, which is necessary to give a full overall perspective on his career. At the same time, I'm aware that there is an argument that listing every chart peak could become complicated. Has this been discussed before and a consensus reached? What are editors' views now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)