Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Billboard - deadonce again

Hey guys, for the last few days I've been unable to access the European Hot 100 over at Billboard.com. Is anyone else having same issue? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the chart list has been taken off the main site. Most of the international charts are gone. Individual artists charts still include it, though.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Not if your name is Nicole Scherzinger. Equally it appears to have stopped updating some of the 'lesser' (I use the term loosely) charts. E.g. some Euro positions have not been updated either on Billboard or Allmusic. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
She really charted in the European Hot 100? Is the apocalypse upon us? I'd give it a week before we panic on the chart.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so. It was reported UK radio. There was actually a number of artists (mainly UK ones) that I've been trying to verify but its quite difficult because even things like this look like they havent been updated in a while. And to make things worse the story pages seem to be going dead too and not even google caches can save them ... *sighs*. Webcitation.org doesn't work well with the Billboard's site. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite annoying, isn't it? Especially frustrating when I find a peak, say, in the nineties, and it's not in the top ten of biggest jumps, and it's not archived, either, so it's gone within a week forever. Anyway, your story was published by Reuters here, and the European Hot 100 exists here. Yves (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the story in Reuters however the Euro Hot 100 link goes dead when you try searching too far back. I was trying to verify something between last week on November and throughout December. Its ok... its not that significant I don't think. :) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
November 27, 2010, eh? And December 11, 2010 works, but dates beyond that don't? Hmmm well you could always use the magazine. I wonder what happened… Yves (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Its ok, Kww will tell you I often have troubles updating or fact verifying with billboard. Sometimes allmusic pulls through. other times it doesn't. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Error on UK charts dated 26 December

People may wish to note this article here which notes that The Official Charts Company made some errors in the christmas countdown chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tell me, folks: is this related, or am I just not discerning a difference between two sources?
We have The Official Chart with Reggie Yates from BBC Radio 1, whose sole source (as I understand it) is The Official Charts Company. I can look at the 2010 singles list currently live here, where it's labeled as "Singles of 2010" as well as "The biggest tracks of 2010". There's also the archived copy from Lil-unique1 linked above, which I presumed was before the weighting error was detected. In both of these lists, Rihanna's "Only Girl (In The World)" is shown at #6. In fact, the two lists are identical, AFAICT.
But there's also a Press Release at The Official UK Charts Company's site which differs somewhat. "02/01/2011 - Cardle at No 1 again - Eminem/Rihanna & Take That scoop 2010 crowns" includes a singles list labeled "2010's Official Biggest Selling Singles", where ONLY GIRL (IN THE WORLD) - RIHANNA is shown at #4. Many (though not all) of the other songs are identically placed in both lists.
So what's the difference? Is the press release (bearing Sunday's date) based on the old, erroneous list? Or is there some other difference I'm not seeing? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The archived links I've posted above are the official cumulative end of 2010 charts. Whereas the source about (about the Christmas countdown) chart is the 2nd to last chart week of the year (or so I was led to believe). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need some official clarification on this. The BBC Radio 1 chart stuff is labelled... Chart of the Year - Biggest Tracks of the Year. The Official Charts stuff is labelled "2010's Official Biggest Selling Singles". Could there be a technical difference? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Did this get clarified somewhere else, and I missed it? Or are we all just ignoring the question? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think its been ignored cus I've seen edit warring over it. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tastemakers

Can anyone clarify exactly what the Tastemakers Album chart is? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Billboard, "an influential panel of indie stores and small regional chains." I guess just the smaller local chains, and not the Wal-Marts, Targets, and whatever other big stores they have in the States. Yves (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Two valid Swiss charts?

Apparently Switzerland is like Belgium. There's a Romande chart? see here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been pretending to ignore it (to some extent because I don't want to see the Belgium situation repeated). AFAIK, the Romandie list is rather new; at least it appears to have been added to the Hung Medien listings only in the last few months. I can't judge whether it's widely recognized yet; in the German-speaking area, one hears only of "the Swiss hitparade" which refers to the lists we see on hitparade.ch/swisscharts.com.
Anyway, the French part of Switzerland (Romandie) is only about 20% of the population, whereas in Belgium the Dutch/French ratio appears to be about 60%/40%. My opinion is that we needn't be in a rush to add peaks from the Romandie chart (and I think I may have even reverted its addition once on the grounds of insufficient notability). I'd be interested in seeing what other editors will have to say about it, though. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I only mention cus I'm tempted to remove it from Sale el Sol... but I dont want the whole "your discriminating against xyz" argument again. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Greek charts

In case someone is interested in older Greek charts (I notice only 2010 on http://greekcharts.com/) some are archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ifpi.gr/chart01.htm, I'm going to use them mainly to reference certifications. --Muhandes (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Latin song charts

A couple of months ago, I made a proposal about changing the standards for the Hot Latin Songs part. I'll just repeat to see what some of you think: "I think there should a change to the "if the song has not charted Latin Songs" to "if it has only charted on the Latin Songs". It doesn't make to sense to have only a Latin chart and ignore the other charts (Latin pop, Tropical, Regional Mexican). Billboard hands out the best performing singles each year for these charts. In addition, the Billboard Latin Music Awards has a "Hot Latin Track" for each of these categories. But if these charts are not mentioned and wins one of these awards, how would it make sense to viewers? The reason I say only on Latin charts, is because I understand that there are songs that #1 on Latin songs and topped other charts in parts of the world. Take "Loca" by Shakira. It has charted #1 on Latin songs, but it has also charted #1 on various countries, in which I can see why the Latin Pop, Tropical, and Regional Mexican would not be significant." Magiciandude (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Latin Pop is an airplay component chart, and it wouldn't be appropriate to include it if the song has made Latin Songs. Tropical and Regional Mexican are genre charts that don't factor into the placement on the Latin Songs chart, so they should be treated incorrectly. Don't take this as gospel, though: I'm not as familiar with these charts as I am with others.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about the Tropical and Regional don't factor into the placement on the Latin Songs chart. I also would to ask about lists. Someone made lists of number-one Latin pop songs, but I'm not sure if they'd be appropriate since it wouldn't mention on the article itself. Magiciandude (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Billboard has component and genre charts: two separate concepts. A component chart is one that gets directly used in making another chart. For example, Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 Sales get directly combined to make the Hot 100. Same rules for inclusion, exactly the same coverage, so it's just a math problem to go from the components to the main chart. Tropical Airplay and Regional Mexican Airplay are genre charts: they are measures of two different groups of radio stations that describe themselves as having two different formats. There are a lot of songs that show up on both charts, but the charts themselves are completely unrelated.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
So if I got this right: The Latin Pop Songs chart are used directly with the Latin Songs, but the Regional Mexican and Tropical aren't. So that would make the Tropical and Regional Mexican charts relevant, but not the Latin Pop songs? And what the inclusions of lists and the singlechart template? Should they stay or are they inappropriate? Magiciandude (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't include Latin Pop Songs in the chart table (either manually or with singlechart) if the song had charted on Latin Songs. I don't deal with the list articles: I don't think they should exist, so I don't pay any attention to them.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But otherwise the Tropical and Regional Mexican charts are alright then? Magiciandude (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Then should the guideline about "not charted on Latin Songs" be updated? Thanks your input, Kww. Magiciandude (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's see if anyone objects.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed something odd about the inclusion of Billboard charts. It says that if a song has or has not charted on the Billboard 100 songs, then the "Tropical Songs" chart may be used. Yet at the same time, it says that the "Latin Tropical Airplay" may be used if it hasn't charted on the "Hot Latin songs". "Tropical Songs" is the name Billboard calls "Latin Tropical Airplay" on their website just like "Latin Pop Songs" and "Regional Mexican Songs". Magiciandude (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

singlechart with no artist/song fields

They made a change to Mediawiki that affected reference generation. That made an error case in {{singlechart}} behave strangely, and produce a truly strange looking ref. I'm going to fix the error handling sometime today, but if you see one and it bothers you, just add the artist and song parameters to the call.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Should take about 3 days to propagate. If you see anything bizarre cropping up, let me know.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Rhythmic Airplay Chart

When is it appropriate to use the Rhythmic Airplay Chart? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Official Greek airplay chart

Billboard Greece just launched in Greece, and they are now publishing the top 100 (of 200) official airplay chart on their site. (See [1]) Bottom of charts say "Official IFPI Greece Airplay Chart powered by MediaInspector". I think this should be added as the airplay chart on WP:GOODCHARTS. Greekboy (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion on this? Greekboy (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As it's Billboard, it seems legit, but it is a Beta. I warn you that there was a Brazilian Billboard chart site for about five months before they apparently gave up on it. I would personally like to know something about chart methodology, and I always wonder about charts that do not combine sales and airplay, or that only track airplay and not sales. Sales show the actual reception of a recording, while airplay, particularly in so small a territory, is so easy for the whims (if not something more illicit) of a single PD or DJ to tilt the scales. (In Brazil, somehow a Mariah Carey song that was not particularly big anywhere else was number one for something like five months, an embarrassment which I suspect was the reason why the franchise nixed the site.) Abrazame (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be radio airplay only. The chart compiler is a company called Media Inspector, and they list on their website ([2]) "Stations monitored: 135". I am not sure about the specifics though. Regaring DJs tilting the scales, interesting enough I read rumor in the press about some Greek record labels claiming that the ANT1 Group is overplaying and unfairly promoting their artists (from their label Heaven Music) on their owned and operated radio stations, while keeping certain other artists and songs out of rotation. The rumor said that they were not happy about it and want something done. Who knows the truth to that though.
Regarding digital sales, Billboard says they plan to introduce that chart (and more) in the future. Presumably when they get out of Beta. Those with a Billobard.biz account can actually already see it there. I think Nielsen provides that one. (Side note Nielsen also has/had a rival airplay monitoring service, with fewer stations monitored, but it appears IFPI Greece went with Media Inspector instead for their collaboration after some sort of falling out according to the media.) Not sure how much of a gauge taht will be for such a market that is overrun with piracy. The chart is posted on various forums (who knows if accurate though) and claims that sales are only in the hundreds weekly. For example, the chart in the forums 2 weeks ago claimed JLo's new song was number one with 270 legal downloads that week, and 579 total to date. Pretty pathetic, even in a smaller market. But again who knows if that is true, only those who have a Billboard.biz account can know for sure. Greekboy (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Given our experience with Billboard Brasil, I advise waiting a few weeks. If it looks like it will stay stable, it's worth adding.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Only charts with accessible archives get listed on WP:GOODCHARTS. Can you show me an archive?—Kww(talk) 19:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well they just launched recently, but it appears the three charts they posted thus far are all viewable here: [3] Weeks 27-02-2011 to 06-03-2011, 06-03-2011 to 13-03-2011, and 13-03-2011 to 20-03-2011. Greekboy (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually looking at the site further, if you view any given week there is a link at the bottom that says "Πλήρες Αρχείο Charts" (Full chart archive) that takes you to their main chart page. [4] That terminology suggests they plan to keep each week archived on their site. Greekboy (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chart trajectories

Despite wikipedia stating that adding the number of week in a chart table isn't allowed, this rule makes no sense. This article I created Thanks for the Memory (Wham Bam Thank You Mam) has recently had the weeks table removed. What doesn't make sense to me as this actual single has eight different chartings and yet wikipedia states that all chart information such as the weeks can be mentioned in the article. No reader is going to want to sit there reading through all the charts and weeks in a jumbled paragraph when a table would be much more efficient and friendly.Ajsmith141 (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While the guideline does not say so, I think mentioning the number of weeks spent in each and every chart in the article constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information just as much as mentioning them in a table. It makes sense to mention one or two important charts, especially if the number of weeks is especially high/low. --Muhandes (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't see that being the case - suppose the song charts twice, in different years? Suppose it spends eight weeks at number two, instead of one? Suppose it gets re-issued and shoots up the charts a second time after an initial dropoff? Chart trajectories are often important indicators of a song's impact and popularity; I don't see that as indiscriminate at all. Chubbles (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't find it particularly notable unless something very unusual happens, such as setting a record for most weeks on the chart or something along those lines. And full trajectories were removed ages ago - those things are a mess and definitely an indiscriminate collection of information. - eo (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. Originally I thought up the idea of adding total weeks to the chart table myself as the table is sortable anyway, it seemed a good idea to add a list of weeks so the reader can also sort the table by most weeks. Also, if any reader simply wanted to quickly find a sum of all the chart positions for an album or song, the table is there straight away - easy to read. I must admit I have done this table for many albums, particually for 80s artists which I haven't had any problems about the total weeks column beforehand.Ajsmith141 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "no trajectories" guideline is long-standing, and quite sensible. Articles quickly become messy, and tables become overly-long and complicated. People need to focus on writing articles about the song, not on collecting statistics about it.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
However the tables are not at all overly-long and complicated for the articles, the one extra column looks fine. If the entire reason of not allowing a total weeks column is because the table will get too long then why is wikipedia stating to simply write long paragraphs about the subject for every country? The article above has eight different chart positions which would be much more logical to put in a table next to the peak position rather than write a long paragraph on the subject. Nobody said about needing to focus on writing articles about the song, not on collecting statistics about it. I thought to reach notability, the single needs something like chart positions. The data of total weeks can show each countries reception to the certain artist at the time of release. A reader may want to check the next linked single and see how that compares.Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The description in paragraph form can and should be removed for the same reason. A trajectory is still a trajectory when described in words.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia states on this article "Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart may be mentioned within the article text."Ajsmith141 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"May" is a key word. It doesn't say "must", and the habit people have gotten into of providing a laundry list of this in text is a problem. The purpose was to be able to include some description in the text: "I'm the Urban Spaceman", which topped the UK charts for a record 18 weeks in 1967, was the first single by The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band to ..." is certainly a statement about duration, and there's no reason to exclude it from an article on the basis that this guideline says not to include trajectories. That doesn't extend to a chart-by-chart, country-by-country, week-by-week description of positions and weeks.—Kww(talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course must isn't there as the statement states that it is optional. If different countries are allowed in the peak position table then why can't they be mentioned in the article? There would be little use of only including certain total weeks in the article and leaving others out. Adding a sortable wikitable with just the peak positions leaves the entire right side space blank whereas adding total weeks adds towards that side which doesn't make it cluttered anyway, for example here Very (album)#Chart performance.Ajsmith141 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the purpose of an article is not to be a collection of trivial statistics. There's no reason to include the chart duration on every chart. It serves no purpose.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the time, "total chart weeks" is not available for all charts, as a peak position is. Having a table with a bunch of blank cells will look bad. If you don't have the total weeks for all of the countries, then don't have them at all. It's just delving to deep into trivia. Unless it's out-of-the-ordinary then there is no use for it. - eo (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, may be so. As previously stated a reader, like myself, may want to know chart runs. There is a particular Slade album which peaked at #1 in Sweden, remaining on the charts for 12 weeks where the same album peaked at #2 in Norway and yet remained on the chart for 22 weeks. This can be easily used for research which Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment states things such as "content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." Total weeks does no harm. I don't see anywhere on wikipedia's guidelines stating that weeks are of no purpose. The chart performance is only one section of an article, nobody said it makes a whole article of statistics. Total weeks only adds more information into the article, surely it doesn't matter if it's in form of an extra column next to the peak positions or in a paragraph. All chartings are significant so it wouldn't be right to ignore some. I don't see any missing cells on any links provided here. There may indeed be some missing cells in other articles but the entire point of an article is to expand. Again, stating that chart weeks are trivia is an opinion. Wikipedia's purpose of album/song articles is to provide a range of information, serving the needs of different readers whilst remaining consistantly on topic.Ajsmith141 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus so not one person said we shouldn't include trajectories or chart runs in the table. That consensus formed this MOS for charts. You will have to convince the community to change the guideline. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. There was quite a long and drawn-out discussion about trajectories in particular a while back. Many, many song and album articles included very complicated, unsourced, meandering tables with a week-by-week chart-position trajectory. Sometimes people would boldface the peak positions, sometimes people would have it all on one line so that it ran off the screen, etc. It was a mess stylistically and consensus was that these violated WP:NOT#IINFO, so away they all went. The "total weeks" inclusion in charts table is a different topic, but again we are entering trivial information here. Giving a song's peak position in various countries serves a purpose and provides useful information, but does the average reader need to know that "Song A" spent 15 weeks on the Hot 100? It's minutiae. - eo (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The actual articles in question though are not in boldface, complicated or unsourced. As stated perhaps readers would be interested, if not interesting for a particular reader then the data is just there in a tidy fashion for anyone who is.Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ajsmith, not all chartings are significant. We ignore hundreds, if not thousands, of chart listings for every song. Component charts, single vendor charts, single network airplay charts, single station airplay charts, charts derived from user votes. Keeping an article manageable requires keeping statistics out of it, and wholesale additions of durations is part of what this guideline seeks to exclude. You haven't shown any consensus at all for include a duration column: you are the only one arguing in favor of them.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The chartings that are related to the articles in question are significant, they are not on the list of Deprecated charts ([[5]]). If the case is to keep an article free of statistics then I will immediately remove all chart performance sections that I have created. Users are stating that many tables were boldface, complicated or unsourced etc and yet these tables are perfectly readable and tidy.Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them. I certainly won't stop you.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody refer me as to how I can nominate the articles for deletion.Ajsmith141 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, instead of being rather demotivated over this, I will instead remove the weeks chart for the hundreds of tables created and replace it with a far superior paragraph of total weeks. Wikpedia guidelines allow this. I have already for this article [6]. Ajsmith141 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest reading WP:POINT before you proceed further. There's a pretty clear consensus here that the material you are trying to add is inappropriate: playing with the format to make a point is also inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all adding inappropriate information. The wikipedia guideline states that this information is allowed in the article, just not in the table. I am well aware of the WP:POINT but where on wikipedia does it say that I cannot add number of weeks in chart in the article. It doesn't and therefore I am obliged to add the information. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm doing this to prove a point but I'm simply taking action by changing the info to fit with the guidelines. I am also not happy with the entire tone of this discussion which has indeed turned into a debate. As many wikipedians have before, they feel superior to me and therefore act superior by using certain tones etc. If you can show me where wikipedia writes that no number of weeks in total are allowed to be explained on an article then I will of course accept that however I see nothing.Ajsmith141 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only point you at the above discussion where most other editors in the discussion have said the material is inappropriate. Consensus is generated by discussion, and the discussion here has been virtually unanimous. Feel free to let it run on for longer, and see if later respondents disagree. Right now, any effort you made to add the material would be counter to consensus. Intentionally going against consensus is usually considered disruptive.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to butt in unnecessarily, but....

  1. It's not that users feel "superior" to you, Ajsmith141, in any sort of way, but they have been around longer. In the case of someone like User:Kww — who's a Wikipedia administrator — it would be smart to take their views into consideration.
  2. The whole thing about weeks on a chart is that editors in previous discussions have said that this is essentially trivia. A peak on a chart can be considered trivia as well, but it's basically something that is considered notable — i.e., a song going to #1. Weeks on a chart, on the other hand, don't really indicate much unless there's something notable about it in anyway. For example, I'm Yours (Jason Mraz song) lists the number of weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 because it created a record for longest-running song on that chart. The fact that any other song was on a chart for ten or eleven or twenty or thirty weeks or whatever is nice to know, but not exactly valuable information.
  3. (On a related note...) Although you're putting in valuable information, your sourcing NEEDS to be stronger. Fan pages aren't enough, nor is linking to a general chart home page. You must provide the specific link showing that a song has hit whatever position it has.

Again, no one is trying to think that they're better than you or trying to force you to leave, but there are just certain rules/guidelines/policies in place that have to be met. That is all. SKS (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fine - I am not at all trying to start a heated debate and if things were said in a more positive manner before then I would have undoubtedly accepted it there and then. I do take in Kww's views and understand that is what guidelines state. I simply believe that whilst some users may not agree, as a reader I find total weeks to be useful. Furthermore I don't see how it hurts to have the column there as to some readers it is bound to be useful. All the responses stated was the complicated look and trivia. As SKS2K6 stated, peak on a chart can be considered trivia as well but an article is said to be notable as long as the single charts - which could be at #100 so having a number of weeks cell is really similar. The information isn't going to be completely useless for everyone but for some it will be and it does add to the article which of course building an article up is important. Whilst not everyone agrees here, nobody has minded the week column on many other articles from different bands/artists which surely shows that nobody minds the information there. What I am trying to say is that an article could benefit from having the weeks in charts for reader/research purposes. The above comments never sounded caring in the slightest in terms of myself. I have spent much time searching for the chart information which to me is simply being uncaringly removed whereas if a certain user was to say for example "I understand what your saying ajsmith but..." then I would have felt much more happier with the situation, instead comments such as "Feel free to remove them. I certainly won't stop you." etc only ask for trouble in that sense, regardless of who's right or wrong. Conclusion is that I would have liked a more friendly approach as we are all on wikipedia - editing on our own freewill and all need to be considerate of others. In regard to the sources - I will certainly provide specific links from now on and furthermore try to find more sources.Ajsmith141 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that because consensus is against you, your work will inevitably be wasted: the columns will be removed, efforts you make to restore them will be reverted, and eventually articles will conform to our norm. Certainly there are rare counter examples, but editors will fix them. Ignoring consensus is always a timewaster.—Kww(talk) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Again this isn't friendly to me which for an administrator is suprising. My work on the weeks column ranges back from weeks to months ago - a long time before this discussion had begun, I haven't restored any edits - I never ignored the consensus? Although I am not a newcomer - this is still relevent [7].Ajsmith141 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you read my statement as anything but friendly advice. You should read it again, bearing in mind that that was what I had in mind.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Friday (Rebecca Black song) article

I was going to put this in the last section, but this seems to be a different topic. Per the conversation in the last section, would the following, which two users keep removing this citing WP:BADCHARTS, be warranted in this context:

"Within a week after being released on iTunes it has jumped the iTunes sales chart to 19 as of March 19, 2011.[1][2][3]
  1. ^ Cassidy, Meghan (2011-3-18). "Rebecca Black's GMA Bullying: Best Friday Ever". Forbes. Retrieved 2011-03-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Sinclair, Jessica (2011-3-20). "Rebecca Black : Rebecca Black Friday". Long Island Press. Retrieved 2011-03-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Barnett, Emma (2011-3-21). "Social media hatred sends Rebecca Black up the pop charts". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2011-03-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)"

? --Oakshade (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is ok to mention in context with the controversy. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Its removal is completely warranted. iTunes positions are frequently sourceable, but it's still a single vendor chart. It isn't proscribed because of self-promotion, it's proscribed because single-vendor charts are inherently distorted.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Didn't say it was false. Nothing about being reported by multiple reliable sources mandates its inclusion, just makes it eligible, subject to editorial judgment and relevant guidelines. The relevant guideline says not to include it, and my editorial judgment says that there are no special circumstances that warrant overriding the guideline. If you showed me, for example, that the number 1 song on iTunes didn't make a Billboard chart because of some exclusion rule, and music critics were saying that exclusion rule was unfair, I'd agree that you had made a case that there was a special circumstance that justified overriding the guideline. I could imagine numerous special cases that would justify overriding the guideline. Three reviews noting the iTunes position isn't unusual at all: it's normal for high-ranking song, and precisely the kind of coverage the guideline was intended to exclude.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not being listed as a "chart" but reported by multiple reliable sources which, not only makes the content true, but in this case makes the content notable, particularly as it relates to the song which this article is about.--Oakshade (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely being mentioned in the context of being a sales chart. Just because it isn't being used in the sales chart table doesn't magically transform it into something other than a chart.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You keep skirting around the fact that multiple reliable sources found this fact significant about the song and are reporting it. The basic tenant of deciding content is what reliable sources publish. You seem to be saying "Reliable sources might be reporting this, but wikiepdia has a guideline that says they shouldn't." Sorry, we go by reliable sources, not a few user's opinion of them. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't skirt around anything: I agree that reliable sources reported it. As I said, that makes it eligible to include, but doesn't make it mandatory. There's no policy or guideline that says every fact reported by reliable sources has to be included.—Kww(talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Oakshade here. Single vendor charts are obviously not appropriate for discography tables, but in the article prose I really don't see any good reason to exclude such relevant information when it is reliably sourced. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"This is a list of charts which should not be included in Wikipedia articles.". Nothing limits its scope to tables, and it is always been applied throughout the prose.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
As "charts", not as part of the prose, particularly as reliable sources have reported the content which is extremely relevant to an article topic. You even admit above that this makes the content eligible to include. There is nothing about this guideline that makes reliably sourced content ineligible. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The iTunes position is a part of the iTunes chart. The sentence you are trying to provide even calls it the "iTunes sales chart". "Chart" isn't a term that only applies to table entries. The guideline makes no exception for prose. It makes no exception for reliable sourcing. Your addition has been reverted by multiple editors based on the guideline. I really don't understand what your argument is based on.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess I need to type this again. Multiple reliable sources are reporting this. Is that clear? It's what all content is based on or should be based on per our guidelines. You seem to be trying to make the point that this MOS sub-guideline bans this content, even though reliable sources have reported this. It doesn't. YOU even admit the content is eligible. BTW, it was actually only two editors who reverted. --Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll add the first paragraph of this guideline states:
This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles. The chart positions should be organized into one table, and the table should be formatted using class="wikitable sortable". (bold mine)
This guidline as clearly states is about displaying chart information, not banning any content related to charts listed in the BADCHARTS section. --Oakshade (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be purposely not listening. This guideline says not to include it. You haven't provided any argument for this being an exceptional case. If you add it again, there will be a third editor that reverts it. Such content is routinely removed when it shows up. There are lots of charts that can be reliably sourced that are removed due to this guideline: all the charts from Los 40 Principales, Galgalatz, MTV ... the list is long. You seem to be arguing that no guideline can state that material that meets WP:V can ever be excluded, and I don't see why you believe that to be the case. And yes, certainly, all charts that can be included should be listed in the chart table. The iTunes chart should not be included at all.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The guideline says not to include it in a chart, that's what this guideline is charts in tables. That's the first paragraph of this guideline. Not in in the context of prose that's cited by reliable sources. That quote you make buried way down in the guideline is just grammatical semantics and you seem to be gaming the system with it. And sorry Kww, you don't decide content. Reliable sources is what we base our content on. I don't recognize your authority. --Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not gaming the system. I haven't even removed the content (yet, although I probably will if you re-add it). You are confusing the words "table" and "chart". It's not grammatical semantics. It's the way this guideline has been used since its inception. Any mention of the charts listed on WP:BADCHARTS gets removed from all articles, with vanishingly few exceptions. You are here because two other editors that I haven't even talked to about this case removed your material. They did so because they recognize this guideline as being applicable. I recognize this guideline as being applicable. It's generally considered applicable. It's not my authority that you don't recognize, it's that you don't seem to be willing to read the words in this guideline to mean what they say. That first sentence defines the scope: "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles." The iTunes sales chart is a record chart, and Friday (Rebecca Black song) is a music-related article. Certainly most of the guideline is about the table of charts, but it isn't limited to that section: it applies to prose as well. It contains specific statements related to prose.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The guideline is about displaying charts in tables. Even that sentence you quoted "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles." is about "displaying" charts, not writing prose when supported by multiple reliable sources. You keep running away from the fact multiple reliable sources are reporting this. --Oakshade (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Kww, some us are having a hard time understanding your position. Your explanation that single vendor charts are "inherently distorted" (as if other charts aren't) may be a valid argument for excluding such charts from tables or other direct comparisons with "GOODCHARTS", which I always understood to be the primary purpose of the guideline, but elsewhere in articles, I would contend that common sense dictates that information relating to iTunes charts should be treated in a similar manner to any other information relating to the subject's notability. If you have any further rationale for your very strict interpretation aside from the fact that it says so in the guideline and guidelines should be obeyed, perhaps you could explain it to us? Guidelines are supposed to describe best practice rather than dictate, and I honestly don't think there is any broad consensus to forbid any mention of reliably sourced information on iTunes chart positions from all parts of all articles. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, now that the song has charted on the Hot 100, I think that iTunes Store positions are irrelevant. The Hot 100 is a better measurement of commercial success. If editors wish to discuss the Digital Songs charting in the prose, I see no problem with that, but now that Billboard has published US charts iTunes chartings are trivial. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a very good point: I was more concerned about the general principle, which would perhaps have been better discussed in a different section. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The application of WP:BADCHARTS to all article content is long-standing, CMP. I'm far from the only editor that does so. Witness the fact that, as I said, two other editors removed the material that Oakshade is fighting for, and they cited WP:BADCHARTS as the reason. That's historically been the way the guideline has been applied. Notice the word that Oakshade is refusing to highlight: the guideline is about using chart data in articles. As for why to exclude single-vendor charts, that's because single-vendor charts are inherently distorted. No one is arguing that single vendor charts don't report their own positions accurately, the argument is that the data is distorted due to selection bias. Stop thinking "iTunes" for a moment, and think, for example, the "Tokio Hot 100": I can certainly find positions quoted in reliable media sources. I can find the chart copied all over the web. It is, however, a single station chart: it's got an inherent selection bias based on what the station chose to offer its listeners. Los 40 Principales is similar: it's an airplay chart for the Los 40 network, and is biased towards the programming choices of Los 40, and rarely tracks the overall airplay charts of the countries it is in. iTunes isn't as bad as either of those, but it still has the same problems: it has some exclusive marketing arrangements, and overrepresents the positions of that material. Amazon and other competitors have exclusive marketing arrangements as well, so iTunes underrepresents them. It's a biased selection. Since it has a biased selection, it's considered a single vendor chart. Since it's a single vendor chart, it's on WP:BADCHARTS, and has been there, unchallenged, since October 2008. Charts on WP:BADCHARTS are routinely purged from articles. There's never been a consensus to make any kind of exception of iTunes, or any other single vendor or network chart. Could such a consensus be forged? Possibly. I'd fight it like hell, but it could be discussed. Right now, it's being treated just like any other chart on WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 04:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I never imagined for a moment you were the only editor doing so, but I believe it's entirely possible for a small group of dedicated and prolific editors acting in good faith to create an illusion of far wider consensus than actually exists. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

European Top 100 Albums

Is this chart an applicable U.S. charts? Dan56 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a US chart; It is based on European data. See the WP article. It may be used on any article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

iTunes in "Deprecated charts" list - Not appropriate anymore

I think its time we revisit the decision to include iTunes sales charts as a "deprecated chart." As iTunes accounts for at least 70% of worldwide music sales,[8] it can only be semantically considered "one vendor" and in reality the vendor and the most precise gauge of music trends as the iTunes charts are directly correlated with a majority of music sales. --Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

70% is only 70%. It remains a single vendor chart. It's also mechanically difficult: no archiving and floating positions based on sliding windows of time.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Historically, Billboard — for that matter, any music chart — was never a representation of 100% of music sales. In fact, even in the SoundScan era, various strategies are employed by Billboard to weed out certain sales as if they did not count, such as surges in catalog titles. (They do this because they are an industry tool to promote new releases by artists currently actively promoted [$$$] by labels, and not merely a presentation of that week's actual most-played or bestselling recordings.) There are criteria for Billboard charts that weed out certain airplay as well, because it is "recurrent" (after falling a certain degree on the chart) or "oldies" (from previous years). So to say that a chart that purely represents "only" 70% of world sales across all genres and eras is neither unique nor broad enough to report on alongside these views distorted for promotional corporate purposes by an industry tool seems backward, and makes us lapdogs for throwing so much focus and weight on the promotional tool of one trademark at the expense of another.
So I would heartily support revisiting the "single vendor chart" consensus given those factors. However, it seems like it would be a moot debate, since we would come up against the problem noted by Kww: If I see the chart at one point on a certain day, the #1 will be different than when you see it at a different point on that day, or on the next day. And I have no way of proving what I saw, nor do you, as by the time it becomes an issue for a third party to review it has likely become something else. And a song going to #1 for a period of an hour or however it works there is simply not notable when we are comparing it to other charts that rank for more significant time periods. So my problem is because there seems to be no published or archived rank representing cumulative rankings for a given time period (week is preferable). Abrazame (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It's the sample set that bothers me, not the sample size, and having a single vendor is a bright-line rule for me. I could probably devise a fairly accurate chart that sampled 2 or 3 percent of airplay and provide an accurate representation of airplay across the country, so long as I was rigorous about devising a fair sampling methodology. iTunes dominates, certainly, but there are songs that cannot be purchased there. Conversely, there are songs that can only be purchased there. It's an unfair sampling methodology.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above arguments. Also, if it charted high on iTunes, then it would chart at least on the Billboard Hot Digital Songs chart, so using iTunes as a source would be pointless. If it didn't chart well, then what's the point of listing it? SKS (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(Edit: I don't see a problem with it being mentioned on an article — I think Friday (Rebecca Black song) lists it fine — but it shouldn't be listed as a "chart".) SKS (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would be a good idea to begin incorporating Itunes charts data into chart tables, which should remain nation/genre/market-specific. However, in cases where someone does very well on Itunes's charts and not elsewhere, and particularly in cases where media outlets report on an artist's Itunes success, its use in the prose of an article should absolutely be admissible. Chubbles (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's an action I disagree with, which appears to be supported by this guideline. I think the guideline should be change to discourage its use in chart tables but allow it where it is germane, and not attributing undue weight, in article bodies. Chubbles (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Any iTunes chart information should/must come from reliable third party sources to be included in the article and not from referencing iTunes itself. Otherwise, BADCHARTS can be cited as a reason to remove information regarding its chart position. WP:CHARTS does apply to more than just the chart tables within articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That doesn't seem to be what's happening. Users are removing iTunes data citing WP:BADCHARTS even when it is supported with third-party sources. The implication, which is given credence by this guideline, is that iTunes's charts should never be mentioned in an article anywhere. That's what we're trying to change here. Chubbles (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. I don't like the blanket removal of the iTunes chart removal. However, its mentions in third-party sources are rarely about reaching a specific position but an achievement by reaching that position, so noting it should be used with care. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with the repeated removals: iTunes is a single vendor chart, and shouldn't be mentioned except in extremely unusual cases. What makes this case unusual? Nothing. Nothing at all. Being mentioned doesn't make it unusual: we wouldn't include an Amazon position, a Walmart sales position, or any other single vendor chart because of a mention.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
For a simple data point like sales figures, reliable sources are reliable sources. If those sources find a single vendor chart notable enough to report on — and considering that the iTunes chart represents 70% of all the music sales in the entire world, you can't actually deny you see how this case is unusual as obviously no other single vendor chart now or ever in history can claim anything close — then it is reasonable to note that in article text.
The OP seemed to be questioning whether it was appropriate to put iTunes positions up in a table alongside other chart positions, and Kww's point in his first response is why that is not at this time practicable. But removing textual mentions of reliably sourced coverage about an iTunes charting is a misinterpretation of the intent of the policy, and as that is apparently not clear, then we need to change the wording to make it so. If a reliable source notes that a chart representing 70% of all music sales in the world registered the sales of a particular release at X position, then that is notable and even if it is inappropriate to place in a chart table (as all other titles that equalled or surpassed that rank may not have had such reliable sourcing, and/or other titles that appear in the same table may have ranked at favorable positions on that chart but also without such sourcing, presenting an inaccurate assumption and comparison), it is appropriate to mention in text about sales and charting.
The mention should link to an article about the iTunes chart, which presumably includes an explanation of the ways the chart is superior to some other charts we currently use and the ways in which it is inferior, which is true about any chart article. For example, we routinely conflate sales-only charts with sales-and-airplay charts in the same table; most people have no idea about the sampling size or even the fact that it is a sampling and not an actual ranking; and we of course conflate the vastly differing criteria from one era to the next within the same chart, such as Billboard. We do this not because we are sheep that fall for everything the "music bible" gods tell us, even when they rewrite their own bible, but because the source is what it is, and other sources accept it as such. Abrazame (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I wrote WP:BADCHARTS in the first place, and still do the lion's share of its maintenance, I can promise you that I'm not misinterpreting its intent. You may not like what it was, and feel like it should be changed, but the intent was to remove all references in all articles, tables and text alike, in the absence of unusual circumstances. If we interpreted it your way, for example, most pop songs would include references to the Galgalatz charts in the text, but it couldn't be placed in the table. The Galgalatz charts are widely reprinted and reported in Israel, but is included on WP:BADCHARTS because it represents airplay on a single radio network. iTunes is similar. Finding two confirmations of an iTunes position is trivially simple. I'd estimate that you could find it for half the songs that hit the Hot 100, and a disproportionate number of those listings would be in the top 10. That's because iTunes tracks chart positions over an extremely short time, and a song that may only hit #87 on a weekly chart can be #3 for a few hours when initially released. There have been cases of fan clubs intentionally timing purchases to distort the chart.
WP:BADCHARTS isn't a ban ... no guideline is a ban. There could be controversies about chart manipulation that warranted a text mention. I can even see extremely low positions being mentioned ("... reaching only #3413 on the iTunes sales chart, the single's failure signalled to the group that their comeback was also a failure..."), but a smattering of reliable mentions of iTunes positions isn't unusual: it's par for the course, and the kind of coverage that the guideline was intended to exclude.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a question in Rebecca Black section (below) about whether there is consensus to remove Itunes from "Depreciated Chart" list - since that's exactly what this section is asking I thought I'd get the ball rolling...

AGREE - ITunes should be removed from "Depreciated Chart" list. 70% is a greater share than vote in most democratic elections; any ranking system has issues but being able to report based on the overwhelming majority of sales seems like a pretty credible methodoly. Cambridgegames (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But it's essentially a sales chart at one retailer. Why should iTunes be used when each country that iTunes is in has a valid national chart? SKS (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
For all of the reasons explained by Kww above, iTunes absolutely should stay in this list. It is just one of a zillion different ways people purchase music. There is no reason why this one retailer should get special guidelines. - eo (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposal does not say country charts should not be used; just that Itunes should also be acceptable. The reason would be simple right of conquest - if 70% share is accurate (I haven't noticed it being disputed) that means that Itunes covers over twice the volume of all other channels put together, hardly "one of a zillion", any more than MS Windows is "one in a zillion" operating systems. If reliable sources are getting into the habit of quoting Itunes chart positions then isn't it kind of out-dated to be deleting the content on sight? On the other hand most of what I believe has been said better up above by Oakshade, Abrazame, Chubbles, etc. - really just looking to see where the consensus might be landing Cambridgegames (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it being disputed either, but I also do not see any proof for that percentage. Even if it is true, it is still one retailer. 70% is not 100%. Genre charts released by notable charts organizations that represent countries (R&B, dance, country, etc) is not the same thing - that's comparing apples to oranges. A more comparable scenario would be articles about books referencing Amazon's sales chart rather than the New York Times Best Seller List. It just does not make sense to single out one vendor unless the situation is extremely out-of-the-ordinary. It doesn't have anything to do with being "out-dated". - eo (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
edit, just saw the link. striking. *facepalm* - eo (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a guideline, just like any other guideline, and can be overridden when it seems best. There are certainly cases where iTunes positions can be mentioned, but it shouldn't be a routine thing, because of both the single vendor issue and floating, manipulable timeline issues. I could see having a reasonable discussion about what kind of unusual circumstances warranted mention, and incorporating those results into the guideline.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts)

I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.—Kww(talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian charts

I guess that Russian Airplay Chart should be excluded from BADCHARTS due to links on Russian Music Charts and also 2m-online provides the singles chart based on sales since 2010. Pablitto (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this one. I would rather see better sourcing than we can find on Russian Music Charts, but the source that's there certainly suggests that we've missed something. Do you have any more sourcing for tophit.ru?—Kww(talk) 20:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It has a minor citation in English, but mentioned here: http://www.celebriton.com/edward_maya http://escdaily.com/articles/9175 and in this list: http://www.livecaast.com/radio-charts Pablitto (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Singles Chart

"Croatian Singles Chart at hrt.hr. Single network, voter-generated chart." It looked on the official page and it says something like "The Radio Airplay Chart is based on the sum of the radio charts of the main stations in Croatia". HRT1 is also the main radio station in Croatia, I think the chart is reliable, but I don't know the criteria for being a "good chart". I want to know, can this chart be listed as the official Croatian chart? Here is the link (on Croatian): http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=323&tx_ttnews[cat]=356&cHash=c59c3d3d08 --Greeneyed soul (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually having a look at this... if you open the file for April 4, 2011 here (warning its an excel file that will download) it actually lists lots of stations which are surveyed for the chart. The note at the top says From 40 radio stations across the Croatian Landscape: Otvoreni radio, HR1, BBR, HR-Radio Osijek, HR-Radio Dubrovnik, HR-Radio Rijeka, Hrvatski radio Čakovec, Hrvatski radio Vukovar, Radio 101, Radio Dalmacija, Radio Kaj, Radio Martin, Radio Slavonija, Radio Varaždin, Slavonski radio, Županijski radio Istra, Županijski radio Šibenik, Radio 057 Zadar, Radio 1, Radio Baranja, Radio BnM, Radio Centar, Radio Ivanec, Radio Laus, Radio Makarska Rivijera, Radio Megaton, Radio Moslavina, Radio Mrežnica, Radio Našice, Radio postaja Novska, Radio Ritam, Radio Rovinj, Radio Samobor, Radio Stubica, Radio Trsat, Radio Vallis Aurea, Radio Unidu, Radio Zelina, Radio Zona, V-FM.

Kev what do you think? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll support this. As Lil asked, what about you Kev? Novice7 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Give me a day to look into it. There were issues here involving charts for Croatian artists that were good (but useless, because only Croatian artists were listed) and international charts that were voting based. That may have changed.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Years separation

The separation of years that is currently in the rules seems pointless. It disturbs the flow of the article, especially the charts section. While I do think it is somewhat helpful for holiday songs such as "All I Want for Christmas Is You" (because of their multiple yearly appearances), it is not helpful to songs like "Mean" or "Overprotected". The prior established peaks prior due to digital sales because of the album release and the latter just took some time to find peaks, going over the calendar year. I think that this should be encouraged for holiday releases or albums or songs that get re-release, but not for all scenarios. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. It is much simpler to have one table combining the 2 (or more) years it charted. Most people don't care about the different peaks over the change of year. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
AGREE. Certainly in cases such as when a single happens late in one year, it is more notable to know the TOP peak position (between both years) and not report separate peaks of Dec 2010 and then a peak of 2011.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Journey's single "Don't Stop Believin'" charted on the UK Singles Chart at number 62 upon its 1981 release. It peaked at number 6 in 2010, with a recent surge in popularity due to widespread media use, and was still in the top 100 in January 2011. Are you saying we label the column in this case "Chart (1981–2011)"? Yves (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that's an exception case that warrants a table split. The normal case of songs that chart in a period that crosses the year boundary doesn't warrant a table split.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(To Yves) For myself, I am not saying that. That is quite an unusual case. In fact when I first seen that, I thought it was an error that is was charting recently. I am talking about a 'carryover' in charting activity between late of one year into the beginning of the next.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Svensktoppen

Should Svensktoppen be on WP:BADCHARTS? I looked through the archive but couldn't find it mentioned specifically. --Muhandes (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:USCHARTS

I have made some changes to WP:USCHARTS to avoid confusion and redundancies and to include some charts that were not previously there. If you don't like it, don't make a fuss; feel free to revert. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC nearing end

Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC has been relatively unattended, and I would like to hear more voices.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation of the word "platinum"

Is there any particular reason why words like "platinum" and "gold" are usually capitalised when referring to certification levels? Since English is not my mother tongue, I thought someone with authority could provide me with a proper answer. SnapSnap 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Within the music industry the term "platinum" has been commonly used to signify sales of one million albums or two million singles since the 1960s and is not capitalized. However, in most Wikipedia articles the term specifically refers to the name of a sales award given by the RIAA, in which case it is capitalized. Piriczki (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
What if it's a platinum sales certification by the BPI or the ARIA? SnapSnap 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no opinion here, but as I recently redid the certification sections in quite a number of articles, I can say it is a very common practice (close to 100%). That does not mean it is correct though. --Muhandes (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
With an certification i don't think there's a specific rule. Though Platinum, Gold etc. refer to the name of a sales/shipment award thus it could be argued capitalisation is appropriate. As long as the style in an article is consistant there shouldn't be an issue. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Platinum and Gold are trademarks of the RIAA, and as such are proper nouns such as any other award or title. It is a specific rule to capitalize RIAA awards. I cannot swear to any other certifying agency having trademarked their awards, but I can't imagine that the presumption to style all awards as if they were official titles or trademarks, given that precedence, would be incorrect. Rather than have people wonder why we capitalize the RIAA awards but not others, I think our style rules should note the RIAA trademark and then direct that all other instances of such awards internationally be similarly styled. To not do so is confusing, sloppy, and makes it seem like a whim or an error. It would be more responsible to set a style that non-trademark certifications be considered trade names (and thereby capitalized) rather than that trademark names be lower-cased to fit those that may not be. Abrazame (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. {{certification Table Entry}} capitalizes them all. --Muhandes (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lil-Unique. It doesn't matter whether they are capitalised or not, as long as an article is consistent. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Revamped

Per the unanimous result at WT:Record charts/RFC, I've restructured this guideline to separate content guidance from style guidance, and restored WP:Record charts as a guideline. I've tried to fix any shortcuts, but if I've missed any, please fix them.—Kww(talk) 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RIAA certifications

This is not strictly related, but certifications seems to often get lumped with charts so I thought I'll ask here two.

RIAA has completely changed the way the certification database is queried, rendering most of the links to the database mostly useless. I have tried to figure out how the new database is queried but I'm not a professional in the area and can't seem to figure it out. Is there anyone who would like to assist? Can anyone suggest another place where help can be found? --Muhandes (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh buggar. This will require endless cleaning up. *sigh* Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if Bundesverband Musikindustrie pulls that on us we are protected, as almost all references use either {{cite gold platin}} or the newer {{cite certification}}, which is why I created it to begin with. We just need to figure out the specifics, and then clean up once, and we are covered for future changes. Anyway, *sigh* indeed. --Muhandes (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, a rough format that works is http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=search terms. Separate terms by plus signs. So far I have only been able to search by artist and title — "MT" doesn't help in bringing up master tone certs — but you can click on the buttons to refine the search. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll start with that. I was hoping to find a way to search for single vs. album vs. video and to distinguish between Latin and "standard" certifications. --Muhandes (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{cite certification}} now uses this simple format, and gives hints on how to get more, for example {{cite certification|region=United States|artist=Andrea Bocelli|title=Amor|type=album|Spanish=yes}} gives
"American album certifications – Andrea Bocelli – Amor". Recording Industry Association of America.
I'd really appreciate better ideas. --Muhandes (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
My main comment on the template is that you need to add error checks. If you make mistakes with {{singlechart}}, it spits out big red error messages. Until I did that, about 25% of the calls were being coded incorrectly and never checked. There was a case last week where I was missing an error check on the Dutch40 call, and 4 editors couldn't figure out their mistake without sending me a message. Your template is less complex, but you are basically in the same position as I am: the more the template responds to errors, the less you will hear about it and the more people will be able to figure it out on their own.—Kww(talk) 12:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The philosophy is different - unlike {{singlechart}}, {{cite certification}} is often used with partial data, e.g. artist with no title, or with no year. There are some omissions which can probably be treated as strict errors, and I should indeed mark those with big red error messages, but most are "legal". Thanks for the idea anyway. --Muhandes (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Single chart within an album article

Is there any guideline on how to list single chart peaks in an album article? Is it recommended at all, when the singles all have their own articles, for example, Awake (Skillet album)?--Muhandes (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Separate tables for separate years

"Albums and singles which peak on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the more recent year(s) in a separate table below the earlier table(s)" Really? Why? What's wrong with placing all the charts in one table and heading it Chart (2006–07)? —Andrewstalk 04:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the year represents the year the song/album peaked in each country. 2006–07 is a range and a peak position occurs at a specific time not over a range of time. It either peaked in 2006 or 2007, so a separate table is made for the countries in which it peaked in '06 and those in which it peaked in '07. I would think if it's going to be combined, however, it should be "2006/07", giving a better indication that the peak was in either '06 or '07 not from 2006 to 2007. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
An album can peak across years, can't it? --Muhandes (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
How? The peak position is when an album first reached its highest spot on the chart. Anything else would not be a peak. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Why "first" reached? If an album reaches #1 on December 20 and stays there until January 10 the next year the peak was in both years, wasn't it? I guess I'm talking as a mathematician. Is the first time the highest spot is reached referred to in literature as "peak"? --Muhandes (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Because it reached its highest point on December 20 and never got any higher. To describe it as a range would be a trajectory of its chart run. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Supports Star's points. --Efe (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I was speaking more like a mathematician. --Muhandes (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of use

I think this article could be better defined and/or more strongly worded in certain areas to prevent any misinterpretation occurring. I've come across numerous instances in the past few weeks where several users with admin privileges have engaged in edit warring behaviour over the use of Original (manual) chart format vs. Chart macros format. The line, "The singlechart template is available for formatting chart tables for single articles." appears to have been misread/misinterpreted by some to mean that the Chart Macros formatting style should only be used in articles for Singles, and is therefore precluded from use in single articles (as originally worded), as in any individual article, be it for an article referring to an album or a single. The rest of the paragraph, "The use of the macro is strongly encouraged, as it automatically creates a correct reference for the chart entry, allows changes to sourcing sites to be accommodated by editing a central location instead of edits across thousands of articles, and will permit future implementation of a bot to assist in vandalism reversion" clearly states it's the more appropriate formatting for all individual articles, excluding discography pages. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me at an example of admins edit-warring over this? I am willing to support any necessary rewording, but I have a hard time believing that anyone is truly edit-warring over such a trivial thing.—Kww(talk) 01:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you talking about this? That's not really over the macro, that's over how the tables should be built. SnapSnap isn't an admin, BTW. I think it would be best if the album articles stopped using that format for charts as well, but that should be a centralized discussion, not an individual article. I would probably be considered biased, as I designed the format used by singlechart.—Kww(talk) 01:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm also curious who these "users with admin privileges" are. Can you point to three of these numerous instances? It would help understanding the problem. --Muhandes (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again.

I thought this was talked out nearly 2 years ago at RFC Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts/Archive 11#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes here. While no formal consensus was reached, editors want succession boxes for We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together. At least, as a result of that discussion, not one article for a song that reached number one on any of the three charts that this one has used succession boxes since Grenade (song) in early 2011 and as their general use has become somewhat obsolete through implicit consensus, so I don't know they want to start it up again on this one. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Procession or Precession??

Hi everyone! I have seen on several albums articles that the section for the number one charts table is either named "chart procession and succession" or "chart precession and succession"; is that normal? --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As to whether they are good thing or not, there was an inconclusive RfC. As to spelling, "procession" is correct here; precession is something else. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not a procession either. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Surely just the word "succession" would do, or another word for it? The song in the article succeeds the one before it and is succeeded by the one after it. –anemoneprojectors– 11:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think either 'procession' or 'precession' are correct here. Neither means the one that came before. I agree that 'chart succession' is adequate on its own. --Michig (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course, they shouldn't even be added into newer articles until a consensus can be reached, but they are just succession boxes, so there is no need for any type of header title at all. Succession is for political office and the like. No one refers to the order in which albums reached number one on a particular chart as a succession in the real world. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unapologetic

I see no need to add this to album (or song) articles. In this case, it's listing where an album peaked during the year after its actual peak. So if an album debuted at number one in December 2012 then falls to 3 in January 2013 and never goes higher than that again, we should list both positions. And if it's still on the chart in 2014, say at 99 and never higher, we should list that too? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of listing peaks in multiple years is to indicate multiple chart runs. It's useful for holiday albums and for albums that come back on the charts later (due to the artist's death or similar events). It should never be used to document multiple years of a single run.—Kww(talk) 19:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that is the case here though. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Christmas #1 hits on UK charts

There a discussion taking place as to what week ending chart constitutes the #1 Christmas hit for the year in the UK. Please feel free to chime in — MusikAnimal talk 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Chart order

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.

Cunard (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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)
  • 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? Azealia911 talk 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"... Azealia911 talk 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 Azealia911 talk 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 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:

Btljs (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For US please review/consult WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS#Single charts & WP:CHARTMATH. The policy is already established.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
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:
  • UK Singles
  • US Billboard Hot 100
    • US Billboard Adult Easy Listening
    • US Billboard Rock
Or you could have
  • UK: Singles
  • US Billboard: Hot 100
    • Easy Listening
    • Rock
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)

Incorrect chart order

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 know this is already covered under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Inappropriate_use_2, but I sometimes see flag icons being placed on music charts and discographies and I think there should be a guideline that says something like "Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Inappropriate_use_2, flag icons should not be placed on music charts". Any objections? Erick (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 Per the unanimous support on the talk page, I have added a guideline that tells users to not put flag icons on chart tables. Erick (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music chart articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple chart peaks

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)

The discussion itself is taking place at Talk:David_Bowie_discography#Singles_Table_is_confusing. Thanks, Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
But it raises more general issues - not only about Bowie - that could usefully be resolved centrally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Record_charts/Archive_12&oldid=1142512427"