Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chart lists

Why is there a need to color code table headings for such lists of #1 songs charts such as List of number-one country hits of 2010 (U.S.) and List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2010 (U.S.)? It adds nothing and I'd just prefer using the wikitable format and being consistent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The blue and purple look better than your plain, generic attempt. Nowyouseemetalk2me 05:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Citations, please.
No, really; what if you say they look better, and I say they don't? Frankly, the weird colors look goofy to me, because I know the table is supposed to be gray.
But if you really believe the blue and purple look better (which is it?), then please go get the color for wikitable defaults changed, because Wikipedia is filled with standard gray tables. Sounds like our first priority should be to change the default (although the film & TV project people have had, uh, some difficulty achieving consensus, even amongst themselves). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The country list was blue (until that user above changed it) and the AC list is purple. This seems like such a trivial thing to have been brought up in a discussion, it's only about a color, I think it's strange that you two could have such a problem with something of such little importance. I mean seriously, I'm concerned for the two of you for being so concerned over something so trivial. Nowyouseemetalk2me 09:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your concern. It makes me feel better knowing there are random wikipedians who care about me. Dealing with formatting, stylization is what I do for a living when submitting potential articles to trade journals, so I guess you just insulted my entire profession. Well, I'm glad you didn't care enough about how it looks, that you still had to change it back. LOL. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Caring is what I do best, so glad I made you feel better honey <3 Nowyouseemetalk2me 22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There should be no special formatting or colors. It's frivolous and there is no reason why the US country chart should have a special table. class="wikitable" and standard column headings are enough. - eo (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Pandora

Normally when I used Pandora for Archived Australian Charts this link usually pops up the page which usually lists all the archived PDFs. Am I doing something wrong because I can't seem to access them now. (btw this is manually trying to find the pdfs, so that i can verify the position to use the singlechart macro). --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It won't work for me either, if that matters. Nowyouseemetalk2me 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Also tried searching manually through but cant find a link for Aria Charts. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I use this link: It lists all the charts which are archived. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Billboard "component charts"

The lead specifically mentions "component charts" and a detailed explanation, however when I follow the link there is hardly a mention of what is a component chart or a detailed explanation. Even the chart articles themselves do not mention "component charts". Should this be rectified? Fixer23 (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there used to be an article for it but I think it got deleted in the last few months (around the time the WP:USCHARTS section was incorporated). I still occasionally see redlinks pointing to the old article.
I'd love for there to be an overview of which charts are components of what, but I got the impression that Billboard is so secretive about its methods that its impossible for outsiders like us to divine the component-main relationships. As it is, we don't seem to even have an explanation of what component charts are (anymore). And the info at Billboard charts is apparently rather dubious. Sorry. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I was completely unaware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Component chart. It's created a gap that we need to address.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Brasil Hot 100

The Brasil Hot 100, now is published by Billboard Brasil magazine. Thus, it is now a chart reliable? --DeivsonPrescovia (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It says this on the main page. Jayy008 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember, though: the Brazil chart at cannot be used, nor can the chart at You must reference either the magazine or, and the only way to use the charts at is by using WebCite to archive them properly.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Greek certification

Is there any way to obtain the certifications for the greek albums from IFPI or Hung Medien? At present the website lists the chart for the current week only, while the old charts are not available. They are instead archived at Hung Medien, but this website doesnot list the certifications along side it. Can anyone help out? — Legolas (talk2me) 08:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Certifications column heading links (pointer to MOS:DISCOG discussion)

We already had a lengthy discussion a few months ago here (now archived at Alternative Proposal regarding Sales/Shipments/Certs) about this, so I won't lay out arguments again, unless it proves useful. In any case there is now a (lethargic) discussion over at WT:MOS:DISCOGS where I'd like to see more activity, even if it's all simply in favor or all vehemently opposed.

The reason our nominal consensus at the time of our previous discussions here in March–April hasn't been more widely applied is that it's different from MOS:DISCOGS, which is treated as part of the Manual of Style, even though it appears to be not technically part of the MoS. So FL and FA reviews and applicants fear to diverge from the guidelines there, so I'm trying to stem resistence by getting consensus there, changing it there, and moving forward.

I'd also like to know people are (still) as interested in seeing the change in record chart tables in individual song or album articles as in the larger tables in discography and artist articles. As a quick reminder, the idea is just to remove one link and the word "thresholds" from the column heading, as here:

Change FROM:

Chart (or rest of discog table) Certifications
(sales thresholds)

Change TO:

Chart (or rest of discog table) Certifications

For arguments and background, which I don't want to plague anyone again with here, see the discussion at WT:MOS:DISCOGS. Please do join that discussion, if you haven't already, but feel free to leave a supporting or dissenting comment here too regarding "record charts" usage in particular. Thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Chart template formats

I've just updated the chart macros to support the UK from the Official Charts Company. I'm sorry, but it can only be done by date because of the incompatibility between the OCC's search function and Wikipedia's URL formatting. I've also updated the reference format based on feedback.

The next issue is the format of the table entries themselves. I can see that the format difference causes resistance, and I would like to come up with an agreed upon format that everyone likes well enough that they will stop driving backwards by removing chart templates.

First, an explanation of why it is different in the first place. When I was first trying to do these things, one of the things that struck me was the listing of what are essentially imaginary charts. For example, what is a "Dutch Singles Chart"? It doesn't really exist. There's a Megachart 100, a Megachart 50, a Dutch Top 40, and a Dutch Tipparade. It's not just them:Belgium is worse, with a language split chart. Japan has Oricon and Billboard, and the dreaded WP:BADCHART, the Tokio Top 100, and all three get called the "Japan Singles Chart". Naming something the "suchandso Singles Chart" works only in a handful of cases. For most countries, it ranges from vague to downright wrong.

So, there's the issue: what can we put in the chart line that is:

  1. Consistent looking
  2. Sortable by country
  3. Specific as to what chart is being listed.
  4. Attractive enough that people won't complain all the time.

I'd like to see some concrete proposals. I did my best, and it obviously wasn't good enough.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind concrete objections, either. I'm just frustrated by vague "I don't like it" comments without enough meat for me to actually act on.—Kww(talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been behind and playing catch-up all day (or really, for 8 or 9 years), so I may have to save my best suggestions for later, when I've thought of them, but for now, a few quick remarks:
  1. It's very cool that you do this work on the templates. I would be glad to see them more widely adopted. Thank you.
  2. Since it appears you've just finished reworking the references, it's probably a bad time to whine about how "your" refs are different in format from {{cite web}} et. al. templates, which of course aren't always the same as other formats used by WP editors. It'd be nice if {{singlechart}} and {{cite web}} could meet somewhere and shake hands.
  3. For the fictitious-chart problem, one thing we might do is establish a stronger culture of building these chart tables by country name, that is "Australia" instead of "Australian," "Netherlands" instead of "Dutch." This part would be unlinked whether macro- or hand-crafted, followed by the actual chart name. I believe {{singlechart}} always(?) does this already, but we'd have to give the standardization a bit of a push by changing over the tables when we visit music articles for editing, pointing "over there" (or here) to where we reached consensus to do it that way. Then the results wouldn't look so different (eventually) and scare people into reversion.
  4. The big goofy exception to the idea above is that we regularly report positions on the Canadian Hot 100, which {{singlechart}} builds as Canada (Canadian Hot 100)[2]. This might look a little too redundant to some folks. I think the other countries/charts work out more smoothly, although I may be ignoring one or two.
  5. Irish Singles Chart, Swiss Music Charts, UK Singles Chart, Canadian Hot 100, and most if not all of the BB charts have directly linkable articles (I'm cheating a little with Swiss Singles Chart, which redirects.) The other Foovian Music Chart texts generally redirect, be it to IFPI, VG-lista, Megacharts, etc. I think this also encourages the form "Foovian Music Chart" instead of "Foo (IFPI)" or "Foo Hot 42". Again, my thesis here is that our exact little macro looks too different from those now-usual forms. Eek. Rv oddity.
  6. Most folks mucking around with charts positions have a good clear idea of "Hot 100" being the name of a chart, so they intuitively understand "Megachart 50" or "Iberian 60 Singles" when they see them, even if they didn't guess their existence before. Then we confuse them with non-charty-sounding monikers like RIANZ and IFPI and ARIA coming out of that dang-nabbed macro thingy; I wonder if this adds to their resistance? And if so, how can we reduce that while still using accurate nomenclature?
Since there are only two things keeping me from adding {{singlechart}} at every opportunity, I can't pretend to understand what holds others back. My guesses above are only guesses. But maybe all we need is a few of us pushing the template's use a bit more, combined with patient education about its use.
Oh, the two items holding me back? 1. Reference format not matching other formats as I usually see them (quote marks for page titles, periods following most ref elements, etc.); and 2. Fear that other editors will complain because the template is weird/different/complicated, esp. as for the last few months I've understood these things to be still in trials and not necessarily ready for the big push. Are we now?
Good thing I decided to be quick. 8-o — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to be in complete conformance with {{cite web}}. Unfortunately, I never noticed the periods. I'll add those.—Kww(talk) 01:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Periods added. The references should now match those generated by "cite web". If they don't, please point out where they don't. Of course, I missed the damn quotation marks, so I have to make another pass.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Quotes in there now. I can't believe I went this long without noticing the punctuation was wrong, and that no one ever specifically said "You are missing periods, and there should be quotes around the page name".—Kww(talk) 03:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, who knew you'd be such a responsive developer? I guess I could have complained earlier. As it is, I've been looking at your changes, and I'm quite impressed, although I'll have, uh, a few notes for you about some coding details. Probably best to post those over at Template talk:Singlechart when I get ready. When I'm done with all my whinging, you'll hardly complain you never got any feedback. Although, um, where is everybody else? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Re point 5: take a look at the problematic ones. Dutch Singles Chart redirects to Dutch Top 40, even though 90% of the time people are using the Mega Single 100 from Japanese Singles Chart redirects to Oricon, even though most people use Billboard. Belgium Singles Chart redirects to Ultratop, which describes all four. UK Singles Chart directs to a historical article that spends half of the text debating what chart should actually be called the UK Singles Chart at any given point in time. These just aren't specific labels.—Kww(talk) 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we seem to have systematically generated a slew of random articles. Some talk about one real chart (which in many cases really means one chart which used to be a differently named chart, which used to be two others...); some talk about charts and their publsher but not their methodologies; some are about charts which are actually chart shows, where we get more info about the presenters and what time and channel than about the relevance or basis of the actual chart; some articles just list songs that have been successful on those charts.
It'd be swell to go through and attack these articles in a project-like way, establishing content guidelines and then filling them in, but I fear we'll quickly hit a dead-end. The recent flurry of excitement regarding Billboard's charts and their renaming here died out (AFAIC) when it turned out nobody really knew anything about how BB determined the chart results. Lil-unique1 fed me some talk about airplay and non-airplay, but in the end it seemed he wasn't sure about what charts were components of what. We don't seem to even be able to get a complete list of all of BB's charts, much less map them by dependency.
That Ultratop article actually looks like one that could be easily improved. It starts off with the schizophrenia you mentioned showing in its first sentence: "Ultratop is the official Belgian record charts." The second sentence says they is/are two, because of the languages; the third says it's two (album and singles) in each language. Then Ultratop is the organization, too, but then there are two more Ultratip charts to throw on the heap. Dang, I'm gonna fix that one up myself; I can't make it any worse. Would you agree with leaving the (several) charts the focus of the (more clearly phrased) article, or should we shift it to be the organization, which also produces some charts?
But enough moaning and wailing; what should we do? Do you propose we simply start pushing {{singlechart}} to address the misdirection problem? People may be skittish with that scary templatey stuff, but if it generates the ref for them (and they remember to check before saving), they might like the trade-off. I can tell you, BTW, I've recently seen a few template-using pages where the {{{song}}} fields (or other) were just left empty. I guess that's no worse than not having a ref at all, as often happens without templates.
Lemme finish my testing and results for you (later today), and when we're done (whether anyone else speaks up or not), I'll start whacking the things into articles I work on. A lot of my WP life is spent cleaning up music article formatting, so I won't be without opportunities to evangelize.
It still leaves our various charts articles in an inconsistent muddle, though. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll make the error cases noisier. Take a look at User talk:Kww/singlechart, and you can see that it bitches mightily if you try to source to the Official Charts Company without a date, and only a little less loudly if you don't tell me the artistid for a Billboard chart. As for the articles, I currently use piping to handle that: if there's a good chart article available, clicking the provider name takes you to the chart article.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
As for what to do, I'm tempted to precipitate things. Once people agree that the reference formats are good, it's time to upgrade all the Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus articles in one fell swoop. That's sure to get people discussing things, at least.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I second almost everything JohnFromPinckney said before (the six points paragraph), but since there's already too much to read, I'm just going to have my say. As much as I appreciate the initiative itself, I'm not pleased by the "Country (Provider)" format displayed by the chart macros (despite it being deemed "vandalism-proof") and still consider the "X Singles Chart" format (used in Lady Gaga articles, for example) to be more visually intelligible and aesthetic. If only chart macros displayed the "X Singles Chart" format, I'd definitely embrace them; this way charts like the Dutch Top 40 wouldn't be changed to Dutch Singles Chart and so on. Hope I was able to make my point. SnapSnap 17:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, not so much. What would you propose get listed that would distinguish the five different Dutch charts, the four different Belgian charts, the two different Japanese charts that would distinguish them in the table, and still be consistent? Obviously it can't be "Dutch Singles Chart", "Belgium Singles Chart", and "Japan Singles Chart".—Kww(talk) 18:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok i've had a brief look at i sit somewhere in between comments made by Kww and JohnfromPinckney/Snap. could charts not be displayed as in the following way? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Those look good enough. What would the consistent format be for Sweden, Norway, and Finland?—Kww(talk) 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the linking strategy in this proposal. Is "Belgium" supposed to link to Ultratop, as the chart provider? The piped link for Japan Hot 100 down there goes to the article about huge advertising signs, but even if it went to the magazine's article, I'm still not sure what we're aiming for here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
i've just added a few more examples. i believe the single chart template currently focusses on country and chart provide or country and single chart. I think Kww wants us to agree on a standard format that takes into account the variations in chart names. The enw way would try and pipe country names to chart providers and bracketed links to the country's chart. p.s. the japan article should link to the billboard magzine article now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Except for Norway, yours is at least consistent, and I assume your Norway listing is an error. Country name linking to chart provider certainly isn't my preferred technique, but I wouldn't refuse to cooperate if everyone else likes it.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, erm what's norway supposed to link to? i've linked it to VG-lista as i thought that was the official chart. but yes its for demo purposed so the links would have to be refined. Hmmm i was trying to work out the ways that you could effectively standardize how the charts appear but if people are determined to have the chart provider as part of the format then you might as well link country name to chart providers to reduce the number of redundent pieces of info. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I really like Lil-unique1's formatting and structure and I second that version. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm more interested in getting people to agree than agreeing myself, but I have to say that I find this proposal a bit strange. That said, if I understand right, what is being proposed is:
  1. Lead with country name, not adjective (i.e. Belgium, France, Netherlands; not Belgian, French, Dutch).
  2. Link the country name to the chart provider. Note that this will result in US linking to Billboard (magazine), and "Netherlands" linking to places like MegaCharts and Dutch Top 40.
  3. If there is only one chart, call it the "Singles Chart" and link it to a chart article, if possible, the provider again, if not.
  4. If there are multiple charts, use an abbreviation of the chart name and link it to a chart article, if possible, the provider again, if not.
It can be done. I'm going to encourage people to keep discussing, because I don't want to do this multiple times. I dislike the inobvious linking.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ever since the introduction of {{Singlechart}}, I've felt that this template was forced onto articles, and WP:CHARTS became all more creepy. Aside from formatting issues, such as the template always generating music charts from the United States as "US" (when U.S. is used in the United States), the lack of italics were the belong (like Billboard and whatnot), it was a break from the, should I say, "normal" convention that had been set for several years. I'm not sure if there was a discussion regarding the new format, but if there was, I completely missed it—I had an extreme loss of interest in writing articles starting late last/early this year, which resulted in my lack of participation in several pages like WP:CHARTS, but I digress... As far as the proposals go, I generally like Lil-unique1's first proposal, though I'm not fond of linking the chart provider through the name of the region. We didn't do it before, and I don't see a compelling reason to do it now. I'd prefer a plain United Kingdom (Singles Chart) format, but that's just my two cents. — ξxplicit 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple comments:
  • by sheer volume, the most common thing to do is to force pipe the single chart to the country article, i.e. [[Pottsylvania|Pottsylvania Singles Chart]]. I always hated that.
  • I'm going to have to dig around to find it again, but I'm positive our MOS dictates "US" over "U.S.". I'm American, and I certainly use US and USA. Addition: I may be wrong on that. I can easily change it.
  • As for forcing it on people, I'm sorry if it ever came off that way. I've been frustrated from the beginning by people's lack of constructive commentary on the formatting. I'm happy to change it to anything people can actually agree on.
Kww(talk) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Like i said myself i'm not fond of piping the chart provider to the country but then it is the only way that you can format all of the charts equally. It allows all the charts to appear the same and the only way we can distinguish between the 4 Beglian charts, 5 Dutch ones and so on. I've noticed in some articles that's what's done to certifications e.g. [British Phonographic Industry|United Kingdom]. I'm happy to look into this a little more. Give me a few hours and i'll see what i can do. =P Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Kww: I think you may be referring to WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations, which states In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States. As an American myself, I use U.S., otherwise I have the tendency to read "US" as the pronoun "us". As for the chart macros, the issues that arises is that it doesn't mirror the {{cite web}} template, which I agree with JohnFromPinckney that it should.
@ Lil-unique1: From what I've seen and use, the certifying bodies are pipe linked to the respective article. See Songs in A Minor#Certifications, for example. I'm not sure why one would link [[British Phonographic Industry|United Kingdom]], as I'd expect that to take me to the United Kingdom article. — ξxplicit 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The MOS does say "U.S." is the preferred way, except when used with non-dotted abbreviations such as "UK". Guess which country is most commonly right above the U.S. charts?
  • As a left-pondler myself, I prefer the "U.S." form to "US", and that's how I tend write outside of WP. For WP articles where UK or similar are present, I just rely on "US" being upper case. Sometimes it helps if a sentence can be recast to use "the", as in "...was released to US radio" recast to "...was released to the US radio market".
  • Kww has done great work on the template recently, and the refs it generates match {{cite web}} much more closely now.
  • Yes, linked country names should go to country articles. (I don't know what to say about Music of Scotland-type articles; they make me itchy, somehow.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The page states When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, so it doesn't necessarily state that the same applies to tables. To be honest, I avoid using "U.S." in the body of the article, especially when the sentence ends with "U.S.". You either get "U.S." or "U.S..", and they both just look wrong to me. I'm not really going to get into the whole issue, but my opinion is this: if the song is by an recording artist or band where they use American spelling, "U.S." should be used; recording artists and bands from non-American spelling regions should use "US". — ξxplicit 23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding in print like some obnoxious, wikilawyering jerk, I ask you to read the rest of the sentence you quoted, which in its entirety says, When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). and so doesn't have much to do with our topic here. It's immediately followed, however, by For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK, and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K., and the P.R.C.).
That's the basis I use for turning "U.S." into "US" thoughout entire articles wherever I see that "UK" is present. I know it's a bit hard to adapt to and a lot of competent USian writers are surprised by it. I think it's also a sign that the MOS is so huge that we tend to skim through it (as I suspect you did) as fast as possible because we don't have time to read the whole damned thing. Respectfully, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess my pedantry scared off those who were discussing this. :-( — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
@Explicit, Agree piping links to other articles are not really useful and can be misleading. What do you think of the proposal (below) alongside the original? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If it doesn't match {{cite web}} now, please tell me how it is different.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll use Example 5 from {{Singlechart}}, the Japan Hot 100 reference (ref number five). Billboard should be italicized and the publisher would be Nielsen Business Media (by the way, what's "Japan Hot 100 for Shakira" standing all by itself? I can't tell if it's part of the title or something else. It can't be the publisher). — ξxplicit 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I used "Billboard" for publisher. Yes, Nielsen Business Media would be better. As for "Japan Hot 100 for Shakira", it's the "work" parameter. What would you suggest? The page linked to is a page that represents Shakira's performance on the Japan Hot 100. That means that the work isn't just "Japan Hot 100", it's something else. I'm open to suggestions.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Like in the cite web template, Billboard should be in the |work= parameter (assuming an equivalent parameter exists or can be added), as it's a magazine, and magazines are italicized. As mentioned, Nielsen Business Media would then go into the publisher. The whole "Japan Hot 100 for Shakira" should probably be part of the title. I hate how Billboard doesn't specify chart names in their titles which I think they had in the past, but we've been stuck with that since their redesign, so I've went ahead and took that route since then. — ξxplicit 23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I used the cite web output as a template. There's no actual argument to play with. I'll question using italics in the work name for a website: if I was reference the physical magazine, I'd agree, but I only reference websites, which, to the best of my understanding, should not be italicised. Legolas2186 was certainly insistent on that.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Regarding {{cite web}}, it differs primarily in how the work/Web site name is used. The discussion is ongoing over there, and elsewhere, but the last time I looked, the work parameter of {{cite web}} was meant to be filled with the name of the Web site (Billboard or, depending on whom you ask;; allmusic; etc.), which then gets italicized, on the basis of it being "like a book". I've personally never subscribed to that idea and I hope discussions continue until consensus gets to My Way and then stops, but that's a difference between the templates; {{Singlechart}} seems to include that name in the clickable title, and nothing's italicized. But I understood that to be the deliberate intent of some of the latest changes. Other finicky details from my template tests are in my post here. I can do more detailed comparisons (or reporting, hah) if anybody wants me to. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like to add a couple of thoughts I've been wanting to share, even though we've been going so fast here I've had trouble keeping up, and it looks as though we're already deciding on final options below.

  1. I've actually been quite happy with the look of the template as recently changed. I've adapted my mind-set to it and like the way its results look.
  2. The "Singles Chart" shown in most tables (including the default for the new proposals below) is almost always redundant; we are invariably providing current peak positions for either a single or an album, usually in an article which is specifically about that single or album. Additionally, these listings typically have Chart as the column heading. What singles chart is actually named "Foo Singles Chart"?

— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Face-confused.svgAs a bit of a follow-up to this stalled discussion, I'd like to report that I've been seeing more of the template's output lately, since I've been adding {{singlechart}} to more and more articles. I stand by my appraisal above: I like the tables it builds. Although I could choose (or maybe propose) some next-favorite format, my preference is still the current table output and reference text. Are the rest of you still interested in seeing changes made? Are you still reluctant to use the template in its current form? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So if the discussion stalls like this, do we take it as consensus not to change anything? Does that mean we decided not to replace "US" with "United States", and not to remove the (Billboard) and other providers? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What do the new proposals look like?

To help the matter i've done a quick mock up of what the new proposals might look like against the old. Its based on some of the chart positions for "She Wolf" by Shakira. Leave comments below. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, I'd go with proposal two here per my comments above. Face-wink.svg But I have to wonder, how would the Billboard Hot 100, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, etc., be formatted? — ξxplicit 22:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added them and funnily enough it solves the US vs U.S. problem. =) Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added Spain to all three examples, please do edit the Proposals if I've misrepresented/misunderstood what you suggest.
  • I really can't get comfortable with Proposal 1, linking twice to the same place. The Belgian example sticks especially, since I know the links to "Ultratip" all currently redirect to "Ultratop".
  • I much prefer the small text to the bullet; to me, a bullet indicates a list, and we'll only have one item there (right?). Besides, it appears to take a lot of space.
  • I wasn't aware ultratip redirects to ultratop. It is demo/model. In proposal 1 the country links to the chart provider and the brack/single chart name links to the relevant single chart article. Btw both the spain link's you've added should have been the Spanish Singles Chart not the spanish chart provider. sorry i wasnt aware of the Spanish redirect either. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do I understand correctly, that we're (or Lil-unique1, anyway is) suggesting we omit the Billboard indicator (as with all the providers) for all charts which aren't named with it (i.e., Billboard Hot 100)? I thought somebody argued for its inclusion a couple of months ago when we were renaming the articles. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • correcting bullets and per WP:USCHARTS we did actually go ahead and removed Billboard from all chart names except for Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard 200. To be fair before the introduction of {{singlechart}} i was never aware of it being a requirement to list a chart provider. It was just done by default with Billboard. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've now also added some UK and BB charts to the proposal summary tables.
  • I consider the current expansion of UKchartstats to "United Kingdom" to be a mistake as it's not consistent with the "UK" and "US" expansions of other Chart IDs in the template.
  • I've got a question open with Kww about what the current expansion of UKchartstats should be: UK Singles (Chart Stats) or UK Singles (Official Charts Company). I don't know what's right.
  • Please take a look at what I've surmised the proposals for Country and Digital Songs to be. The Proposal 2 form has no links, per the pattern. OK with you?
  • Also, if the template's about to be changed based on our discussions here, follow the links for Pop and Radio Songs. Those are redirects, even in the current template. What should we be using and displaying?
  • Resize your browser to wide and narrow sizes. I know we've crammed three tables next to each other here, but consider a possible Certifications column, and the fact that some readers will be using different size screens, fonts, browsers, etc. Do we really need to spell out the country names UK and US? And again, do we have to say "Chart" in every case?

— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are many links for those charts. I've added in. Also the whole point of saying United States instead of US or U.S. is that MOS states that the language dialect should be consistant per the subject content. Therefore a Beyonce single would contain U.S. but a Jay Sean single would use US because he is a non-US subject and so its written from an international point of view. By default certificates should not be adjoined on to chart tables. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you:
  • changed Pop Songs to the actual target of its redirect
  • trimmed the word "Chart" from Country Songs
  • corrected the link target for Radio Songs (my mistake), but did not change its display text to the actual target of its redirect
  • trimmed the word "Chart" and in fact changed the display text for Digital Songs Chart, but not to the actual target of its redirect
  • left the word "Chart" on the end of other chart names, including the longest, Independent Singles Chart
I'm not bitching at you and I don't want to kill us with details but there are a few inconsistencies here, and we'll need some consistency and exact info (if the rules are consistent, he can guess) for Kww to make any changes. As he points out, no need to do it multiple times (again).
I'd be interested to know where you've seen the non-adjoined-certificates default described. Or is that more just your viewpoint? In reality I see it a lot around here. Fortunately, I don't spend much time in reality. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I corrected UKchartstats. "Ultratip" does not redirect to "Ultratop", it redirects to "Ultratop#Ultratip". That's a significant distinction in my book.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yay, thanks. Looks neater. And you are correct about the redirect target; I am significantly and distinctly abashed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:USCHARTS i changed the charts to their actual approved names that we recommend people to use. Would you like to see 'chart' and 'songs' removed from the end of the proposal? Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, not really. Hardly at all, in fact. WP:USCHARTS says, "When listing the chart in chart tables list it exactly as its page is named: Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs)." With the exception of the last three BB charts there, most of Proposal 2 does not use the approved names. And that's not terrible, IMO, but it means that we must either (1) make a table here (or at WP:USCHARTS, which may need some editing) listing the actual chart and what we want the template to display for it; or (2) just trust Kww to pick something to display for each chart as he sees fit, and then 'never, ever complain about it.
To your second question: The word "Songs" isn't bothering me; it seems to be part of the chart name, and some of the charts' simplified names only make sense with them there (United States Pop, Country, Digital, Radio). I'd be happy to see the word "Chart" disappear, though. It seems to be part of few actual names: UK Singles Chart, UK R&B Chart, Rhythmic Airplay Chart, Latin Rhythm Airplay Chart. Otherwise (and even for those four, I say) it's redundant in a column headed Chart. It might take a moment to adjust to; if we look at the example of Spain, Proposal 2 would be just: Spain (Singles). But again, one reason I was asking about it is that you removed it from some proposed cases but not others. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As a rare contributor to this project, but nevertheless creator of several chart tables in my WP-career, please allow me to provide my 2 cents to this discussion. (1) Thanks to everyone for putting a template together for this purpose; we could definitely use some streamlining for chart tables. (2) I believe that linking the country name to the chart provider (as in proposal 2) would be against WP:EASTEREGG. (3) I don't really see why the chart provider is needed in the chart template at all. A link to the article about the relevant chart should be sufficient, and the few people who would like to know who collects the data should read that article. An exception to this rule could be done when the chart provider is part of the chart name, like Billboard Hot 100. (4) For those three reasons I much prefer proposal 2 over proposal 1. (5) I would even take it a step longer, and make a separate column for the chart name (instead of the current brackets after the country). That would allow merging country cells when the single entered several charts in the same country (i.e. one merged cell for "United States" spanning over 7 rows). (6) And why not making an extra column for Certifications, as already proposed by JohnFromPinckney. This could of course be done in a second phase to keep things apart. (7) Why is the template reserved for singles? Album chart tables have exactly the same format, except for the chart name. It's common practice in a lot of articles out there to have one common table for chart positions and certifications. It could probably be handled easily with a parameter "type" that would take values "single" or "album". – IbLeo(talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"albumchart", "singlecert", and "albumcert" are under construction. I've been waiting for singlechart to be better accepted before rolling them out. As for changing the number of columns the template occupies, that would be nearly impossible at this stage: it's deployed in about 400 articles in its current form.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Also for consistancy ... i recommend that even charts which are entered not using the {{singlechart}} should appear the same way. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Lil-unique1's revised proposal comparison tables (below) are now gone from his sandbox (although I guess they're still viewable via the revision history). I made some proposals in my sandbox, to provide alternate (and more complete listings of) versions of Lil-unique1's proposals. The versions in the JFP2 and JFP3 tables differ in that JFP2 is meant to show some kind of actual chart name, where JFP3 tends to just show "Singles" or similar. If we liked those, we'd have to make a few more decisions about names to use, so I invite discussions on those details. I still prefer JFP1, which is the status quo, the unchanged templates. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

proposal modification

Ok per John's request and questions above i've mocked up some more examples and actually i agree. From the new tests based on proposal 2 here Chart formats (my user sand box) i would support proposal 2b personally. it gives room should people want to add certs immediately afterwards. i would be interested to see what other user's think. Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer 2a with the full chart names. - eo (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
in 2b you have the UK charts as "Top 75", the uk singles chart is a 200 position chart. Mister sparky (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Kww what do you think? are you 'feeling' any of the proposals or ideas? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If I lived in a vacuum, I'd stick with what I have. I don't, so I'd like to see one of these emerge a clear winner from this discussion. I lean towards 2c, with the caveat that I think you meant "Latin Songs", not just "Latin".—Kww(talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 singles

I have been busy creating lists of top 10 singles for various years. The format I have decided upon for the lists is shown in the 1992 list. I would appreciate some help from editors on some of the other years, or possibly help with changing the tables in already existing articles, e.g. the 2006 or 2008 lists. Please let me know on my talkpage if you can help. How do people think the 1992 list looks?

Secondly, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/UK top 10 singles (redlinks). Can editors please create stubs for the redlinks as I add them. Thanks. 03md 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should be creating stubs for the majority of these singles. WP:NSONGS says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --JD554 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with JD554; these songs don't necessarily need an article. Even though they've hit the top 10 in the UK, they might not be notable (or reliably noted) enough for a WP article.
As to the critique you asked for:
  1. The octothorpes in the Peak position column disturbs me, as they're usually not used in music articles I've looked at. I suggest they be removed (and if I'd come across this page without you asking I'd have likely deleted them myself).
  2. I assume the column heading Weeks in top 12 is a mistake, and "top 10" is what was meant.
  3. If you know the date in the Date peak reached columns are going to always be the same year within a table, you could remove the year from the entry. I see you have three tables on that page, where the '91 and '93 tables seem to be devised to handle the overlap with adjacent years. Is that right?
  4. I think I'd prefer the dates being centered in their respective columns.
  5. Especially if the table has a strong preponderence of alignment, e.g. centered as above, but in any case, the table markup could be simplified a bit. A table has a default alignment anyway, but it appears that the 1992 article specifies align="center"| or align="left"| for every single table cell. I would edit the first line of the table to {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;", delete all specifications of |align="center"|, delete the alignment specification for the column headings, where they currently have no effect, and use style="text-align:left;" on the remaining individual cells which should be left-aligned (Single and Artist).
  6. If I were the person making this table from scratch right now, I think I'd use a heading like Entered for the first column, rather than Top 10 entry date. It's a teensy bit shorter, and I think it matches the Weeks in top 10 heading better.
  7. Again, if I were starting fresh, I believe I'd make the Weeks in top 10 come second, right after the Top 10 entry date in the first column. This leaves the Top-10 columns together, the peak columns together, and the Weeks at number 1 off on the end. I think will pay off with a slight gain in usability, since the main table is so long, and it's hard to remember what columns mean what if they don't seem logically grouped to the reader. The zeroes in the last column will be a subtle reminder that it can't be a peak or even the number of weeks in the top 10, and everything else should be easier to discern, once the reader has seen the column heading once or twice. Which leads me to:
  8. Long tables are harder to use, but it's not too hard to put column headins on both ends of a table, even if you don't repeat them every 20 or 30 rows. See the tables in List of music recording sales certifications for examples of double-ended headings.
  9. Even with the existing headings, I think it would be better to allow boldfull-size on all the columns, including the last two. Maybe I do too much WP editing, but they just look broken to me. Again, eliminating the years (#3) might help with the widths. Date peak reached could be just Peak reached. Peak position might be merely Peak.
  10. The tables allow for no specific column for references (Cf. List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1992 (U.S.)) and appear to contain no individual refs. The page itself shows only two references: one is a search page at, the official nature of which I do not know, while the other is, which appears to be considered reliable here despite its anonymity and sub-official appearance. The everyHit page lets me verify peak position and month, no more. Chart Stats gives me peak position on a week-by-week basis, with a date for each week, but I have to manually count the number of weeks in the top 10. In both cases, however, I am required to do a bit of effort to verify the stated dates, peaks, and week counts. It'd be much better if each week or each title had a ref link which took the reader to a source page which the info already on it, rather than, say, the Chart Stats home page (which looks like some hobbyist did it in his spare time).
My items #6 and #7 above are quite a bit of work, if you decide to adopt them, since there's no easy way (that I know of) to edit tables on WP. Of course, any preferred arrangements are still better decided now, rather than after making multiple copies... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input John. I will try and take these into account but I would need some help as it is quite a monotonous task and I have already adjusted the style of the articles several times. 03md 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
03md:I have taken the liberty of extracting your unsigned interjections you put within my numbered comments above, and copying them here (below), where I have also added numbers referring to my original numbers above, which I have now repaired. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes it was. The 1952, 1953 and 1954 lists all feature a top 12 so it was accidentally copied over.
3. The additional tables are for songs that entered the top 10 in one year but peaked in another, yes.
4. Done.
5. I have enacted those changes.
6. Done.
7. Is this what you mean?
Entered top 12[A] Weeks in
top 12
Single Artist Peak Peak reached[A] Weeks at
number 1
10. If you can suggest anywhere that I could find references, that would be very helpful. Sources seem to be sparse for years before 2000.
Above section consisting of additions in the form of unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC), presumably IP form of 03md moved and refactored by JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as how my #1 was completely ignored, even though it'd be the easiest change of all to make; and #4 and #6 both say "Done"; and #5 says effectively the same; yet the table at List of top 10 singles in 1992 (UK) remains completely unchanged, I am left to conclude that we are talking about completely different things, so I don't really want to waste any more time talking about references or the revised table headings you've shown here. First, what article are you really talking about? And how does this align with what you and Kww were talking about below? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made these changes to the 1952 list (which follows the same format but had less entries to change). Sorry that I did not make this clear. In answer to your second point, this is not related to the discussion below as I am not aware of policies on these sorts of articles. I am trying to develop them into high quality articles.03md 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well, I hadn't noticed the jump from 1992 to 1952, as I apparently skimmed through your note, assuming you'd be talking about the same thing as before. Now you want me to critique a completely different page from the one you originally asked about. OK. But just ignoring concerns about whether an article is legal or not because you are "not aware of policies" is, well, silly, isn't it? If you spend a lot of work making a set of articles which the WP community thinks should be deleted, what have you achieved? Well, I guess it keeps you off the streets at night.
Regarding List of top 12 singles in 1952 (UK): I repeat my #6 and #9 above, as well as my remark about heading alignment in #5. The wikitable code would start more like this:
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"
!Entered{{ref label|Chart date|A|}}
!Weeks in top 12
!Peak reached{{ref label|Chart date|A|}}
!Weeks at number 1
|style="text-align:left;"|"[[Here in My Heart]]"
etc., which would render like this:
Entered[A] Weeks in top 12 Single Artist Peak Peak reached[A] Weeks at number 1
9 November 18 "Here in My Heart" Martino, AlAl Martino 1 15 November 9
I also still think you need inline references, if you're going to do a page like this at all (see below, again). That means dropping the two general search-page refs, and providing specific citations; it might be something like this for "Zing a Little Zong": <ref>[ "Chart Stats - Bing Crosby And Jane Wyman - Zing A Little Zong"]. Chart Stats. Retrieved 22 June 2010.</ref>
One more thing, the footnotes on that page need fixing, so that they link back up to the table instances.
Does this help you proceed? Remember, I'm just one voice here. You should get more input. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thankyou for the advice. The problem is, when I have used Chart Stats references in that way (ie for individual entries in number-one singles articles) in the past I have been told that a general reference to the site is better. I am not sure which is the best approach to take. My other point about not being aware of policies was only given because I thought you might have a better idea of what would be considered copyright infringement than I do. Why are articles listing number-one singles not considered in breach of copyright? I only started these lists because I find I can create them very quickly and thought they would be a useful addition to the site, as long as they are deemed legal. I will not proceed further unless I get assurance of this. Thanks. 03md 20:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the very existence of this kind of article. Articles that do nothing but tabulate and index a copyrighted list are themselves a copyright infringement, and have no place on Wikipedia. —Kww(talk) 19:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Surely that is what all the record chart articles are doing? 03md 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Not the good ones. Articles that describe the history of a chart, what its selection rules are, etc., are fine articles.—Kww(talk) 01:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That is why I am trying to develop these articles but I may need some help with that task. 03md 00:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to amplify my comments, so I will. I think any article that simply reproduces chart positions without commentary violates the copyright of the chart producer. Let's take an obvious case: let's say an editor sat down every week and created articles corresponding to every Billboard chart for that week. I don't think anyone would dispute that that injures Billboard: why would anyone buy a subscription to if the information was available, verbatim, on Wikipedia? To justify our use of information that was generated by Nielsen for Nielsen's profit, we have to add value: commentary, historical information, or analysis. Mechanical transcription doesn't cut it. It's basically a fair use issue. These articles that reproduces lists of number ones or lists of top tens cause less damage, but they fail on the same basic test: the Wikipedia article isn't adding anything of value, it's just transcribing copyrighted information.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying. The influence for these articles was the already existing Top 10 singles articles for the Billboard Hot 100. Do you think all such articles should be deleted? 03md 23:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Does that not make articles like List of number-one dance singles of 2010 (U.S.) also a candidate for deletion because it recreates chart information with no commentary? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • But through development of these articles we will be adding commentary. 03md 09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Wrong order of development. You can't violate a copyright for years/decades with the promise that you will correct the problem at some future point.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So what do we propose then? We would like to propose a mass deletion of such pages? In which case the 'chart success and procession' boxes come into question as to whether then they become redundent or not. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll bring up the topic at an RFC. Give me a few days. It's been an issue that has bothered me for some time, but I haven't taken action on it. Certainly it's nothing to move forward on without a consensus that my interpretation is correct.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fair play. Its something I've been growing concerened with myself... (mainly more to do with the usefulness of nav. boxes which in my eyes pad out an article and lead to the creation of such lists). --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As a test case I've nominated one such article for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one dance airplay hits of 2010 (U.S.) ---- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility Issues

A recent update to the accessibility guidelines at WP:ACCESS#Data tables requires the use of "scope="col"" and "scope="row"" for table column and row headers. This is so that screen readers will repeat the relevant column and row headers when moving from cell to cell in a table.

The current samples given don't include the scope for either columns or rows. For columns it is easily added (and the use of colspan etc doesn't cause problems). There is an issue over the row header however.

Using the existing samples as a base these could be re-worked.

What do people think? Either way we need to modify WP:record charts so that we take into account the accessibility changes. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My preference is for the first one on the left! And if we could discourage people from making the columns sortable, I would be ecstatic. - eo (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the sortable thing though I'm personally indifferent about the ref column thing. I've added some more charts to show what it might look like in the future. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want the table sortable, isn't it useful to see how many countries a release made it to a certain number in the charts? Anyway, I would prefer to see the citation by the chart position as that is what the reference is verifying. To that end you could use {{Sort}} so that it worked like this: