Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 3

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


Philippines charts

If anyone encounters a "Philippine Hot 100" or "Philippine Hot Hits" on any non-Filipino song article, remove it since it is a hoax. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Many times since these IPs formulated "Philippine Hot 100". Absolutely its a hoax. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been cropping up once again so I ask the mainstays of this page to remove it when they it. –Howard the Duck 04:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fake" charts?

There seems to be a problem with "fake" charts, which is getting worse. Is there a running list of countries that do NOT have an official national chart? I know one of the Japanese charts is not official (I don't remember which one) and I've seen edits removing charts from Hong Kong and Bulgaria as being fakes. Perhaps these should be documented so that they stop getting added to so many song articles? - eo (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though I would suggest such a list should be limited to the talk page rather than the main article. Let's see, we have: Hong Kong, Bulgaria, non-national Philippines charts (per above), and non-Billboard Turkey charts (something I've been dealing with). I wonder if such a list might be put into a right side box under the Archive box? Huntster (t@c) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think an ongoing problem will be that people use as a source. In fact, its listed as a source in this guideline. The thing about that site is that their information IS correct and very thorough for charts that are official (U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, Ireland, etc.)... but they also include the minor markets and I'm not sure where they get them or why they include stuff like, for example, Bulgaria. So what to do? - eo (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dare I suggest that we establish a strict recommendation regarding which charts/countries to consider and which to avoid? There's no easy way to go about this and remain neutral, and I only say this since this guideline already sets a limit to the number of charts to include.
When I do pare down charts, I typically go in this order of inclusion: Local market > geographical surrounding markets (sometimes) > English-speaking markets (since this is the English wiki) > other markets based on size and perceived market power. I find this gives a decent cross-section, and it tends to significantly cut out a lot of the questionable/unsourceable chart figures. It isn't...completely...NPOV, but it has worked well so far. Huntster (t@c) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So, is this Billboard Turkish chart real? Funk Junkie (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the confusion comes from Billboard reporting charts from around the world and posting them online and in their print editions. I don't know which particular charts they pick from each country, but they do have a "hits of the world" section. The way they have it displayed, with the Billboard logo up top may lead people to think that Billboard compiles the charts, but as far as I know, they only create charts for the U.S. and Canada. - eo (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Billboard also does the new Japan Hot 100. [1] Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Where must succession boxes be placed: after references, after chart tables, or before references? Funk Junkie (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While there is no hard guideline that I know of for this, I suggest that, because it is a kind of navbox, they should always be placed as in example one. However, not just after references, but after all content (if any) except for other navboxes (which should be the last thing on the page). Huntster (t@c) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Funk Junkie (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

20 or 18?

This sentence seems contradictory to me "The number of charts should include no more than ten national charts, and up to ten additional charts, but no more than eighteen charts total.". I mean can we add 20 charts or 18? If it's only 18 then I think it can be worded better. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit strange, but it is a maximum of 18 charts. Basically, up to ten national charts + up to ten additional charts, to a maximum of eighteen charts. Mix and match as you will, but say if you only have three nationals, you may still only have up to ten additional, for a max of 13 charts. This is just to limit the number on any given article, given that you'll occasionally find that one with 30-odd charts. Huntster (t@c) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:Record charts a style guideline?

This says that it's part of the Manual of Style in the infobox, but it's not in the Style sidebar, and it's not in the style guidelines cat. The current thinking on style guidelines is: anyone can create them, and they're as official as they need to be, until and unless we have reason to believe they're not. Does anyone know of a reason why this shouldn't be in the style guidelines category? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because this rather rapidly grew from a fairly small proposal to maturing and someone slapping the guideline template on it, and going no further. Feel free to add/propose it if you wish, but something tells me it would need to be discussed somewhere before it gains real inclusion. Huntster (t@c) 04:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Huntster. I posted a notice at WT:WikiProject Music; if you know anyone else to ask, ask away. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide charts?

What about Worldwide charts and EU charts? I would argue they should come last, since they act as a summary for everything else. Any opinions? Drewcifer (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally rather put charts in alphabetical order, just like it's seen in most of articles. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So you would put Worldwide in between Turkey and Zimbabwe? (Only country names I could think of close to W). That doesn't make much sense to me. Drewcifer (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I always place conglomerate charts (typically only Worldwide) at the end, both because they act as a summary and because it makes no sense to mix them in. But, I don't see any need to regulate such placement. Huntster (t@c) 20:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I second everything Huntster said.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 12:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Japan Hot 100

Apparently Billboard will now publish a Japan Hot 100. Details here. Anyone know if this chart can be considered Japan's official singles chart? - eo (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would consider it "official", or at least accurate, as compared to the Tokio Hot 100, which a lot of articles use. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it can be considered "official" any more than Billboard is "official" here in the U.S. Accurate, most likely, but don't call it official unless something else calls it as such. Kind of pedantic, I know, but an important clarification I believe. Huntster (t@c) 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

References in single chart tables

Where should the reference for a chart position go in a table, beside the chart name or beside the position? Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally recommend placing refs beside the number, since we are, after all, citing the figure first and foremost, not just the chart. As with the above "Worldwide charts?" section, however, I see no need to regulate placement. Huntster (t@c) 07:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The 10/18 national/other chart rule

"The number of charts should include no more than ten national charts, and up to ten additional charts, but no more than eighteen charts total."

This seems to be causing a lot of conflict and confusion across various pages. This is partly due to haphazard editing of song/album pages with certain editors fixating on specific songs to limit the chart entries to just 10 national charts (having made no other contribution to updating the page itself through its history)and arbitrarily removing charts at will with no real value judgment as to what should and should not stay. This then causes frustration when other songs/albums aren't policed as strictly. If the chart limitation was policed across the board it would cause far less conflict. But that's just a procedural thing.

To me the major problem with the rule is it's US-centric. By allowing upto 10 extra genre charts (8 if you have your full quota of 10 national charts) it panders to Billboard and the USA's genre-specific music scene. Outwith the USA, these separations aren't considered anywhere near as noteworthy.

For major worldwide hits it is far more informative to include just the Billboard Hot100 position from the USA and then 17 other national charts (if you want to keep the 18 chart limit). This gives breadth to the scope of the song or album's achievement and place within the history of charting popular music.

As such the national chart of the Netherlands is far more important the Billboard Dance Club Play yet the former can not be posted if ten other national charts already exist, whereas the latter can. That is placing an unnecessary restriction on what is a worldwide encyclopedia.

I propose a change to 18 charts in total and a removal of the artificial 10/18 rule. Leipzigger98 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I also agree, especially concerning non-U.S. hits. - eo (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the table should include more than 20 charts overall. What happened to the old chart tables? They use to be lengthy, but now because of this they are all shorter compared to what they use to be. JayJ47 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of the editors who go around haphazardly removing charts. To me, it just looks gross when there are 50 chart listings for a song, especially when the country's music market is small. Does an article really need to know Latvia's chart placement? Or three different Europe charts (note: these are charts regarding Europe as a whole, not charts from 3 European countries)? If a song charts mostly in Asia or Europe, I see nothing wrong with adding more national charts, but having every single position from every single national chart available seems trivial. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Digital Charts

Should digital download charts be included in the chart? Grk1011 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason why not, I suppose, so long as it wasn't a component chart. Which chart is it? Huntster (t@c) 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, wouldnt a digital chart be the same thing as a sales-only chart? That to me is a component chart and should be included only if it does not hit the "main" chart. - eo (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I usually included Hot Digital Songs at least, since it doesn't seem to be a component chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For songs that made a high debuts or Hot Shot Debuts on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, means that they got a lot of downloads, so the Hot Digital Songs chart should remain on the Fearless, because that song made a "Hot Shot Debut" on the Billboard Hot 100, and people should know out of the top-25 digitally downloaded songs what position it would be at. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said any song that makes high debut or hot shot debut on the Billboard Hot 100 chart means that it got a lot of downloads, so for those articles we should include the Hot Digital Songs chart. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't including the main chart enough? Why do you feel that including a component chart is necessary in that situation?—Kww(talk) 15:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hot 100/Bubbling Under

Is there a consensus as for the proper listing of a song that has entered the Bubbling Under Hot 100 but not the actual Hot 100 chart? Several editors, including myself, use #'s 101 thru 125 for Bubbling Under positions; for instance, Ashton Shepherd's "Takin' Off This Pain" peaked at #16 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, so I put 116 in the Hot 100 column. Is this an acceptable method of indicating a Bubbling Under peak? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 17:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what I do, but again, I'm unsure about what the actually consensus is. Billboard and Joel Whitburn both consider the Bubbling Under Chart to be a continuation of the Billboard Hot 100, so a #1 on the Billboard Bubbling Under would translate to #101. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart

I've noticed that United World Chart has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, due to problems with source coverage. Does that mean that we should still keep the chart positions; or remove them in thousands of discographies, song and album articles, because the chart has no article and is non-notable? I'm really interested to know. RaNdOm26 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically I guess it should be removed, right? Ugh, what a task that will be. Hot100Brasil was also just deleted, so there's even more things to get rid of. - eo (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What happened? This chart has been allowed so a number of song-related articles passed as FA. --Efe (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Why was the article deleted in the first place? It is significant, and should've been improved upon not deleted entirely. JayJ47 (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: No the chart positions shouldn't be removed because it is a significant chart. JayJ47 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Just go to the link I gave above, and no, its not a significant chart. Does this mean that we should delete the chart positions from ALL articles? I'm surprised - this should've been brought up long ago. RaNdOm26 (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not now. It must be a concrete concensus before removing this chart. It has been widely used so its a waste of time removing and adding without final decision. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we really need to remove information regarding UWC per --Efe (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of the term "chart"

Something that is glaringly absent from this standard is a definition of the term "chart," as it pertains to whether or not a record is notable on the basis of a given chart. Within the music industry, it is generally accepted that for a record to have "charted," it must have reached #40 or higher. As such, and to avoid the common argument brought up at AfD, this standard should be updated with a statement to that effect. --Winger84 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh? I'd love seeing a few source that state it must be over 40. While I'd actually like this to be a standard of this page, I'd rather not make such a requirement without some evidence to support this, or at least a consensus amongst editors. Huntster (t@c) 23:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think finding documentable sources for that may be difficult. Unfortunately, this is a situation where something is commonly accepted by a group of people (in this case, those of us who work in the music industry [I am a CHR/Pop radio station Program Director, myself]). For example, you won't see record companies get excited with promotional emails to PDs and Music Directors saying that "Song X Charts!" until it hits #40 or better. Tough one to call, but that's where I'm coming from in the request. --Winger84 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio Disney Hot 30

The various Disney star articles are riddled with the Radio Disney Hot 30 charts. Two questions:

  • For a Disney star, is it reasonable to include this chart in the article?
  • If so, can anybody find a reliable source to verify the numbers against?
    Kww (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing Radio Disney from articles for ages. Under no circumstances is this any kind of recognized chart - it's basically Disney channel promoting their own Disney artists... no calculation of sales or non-Disney-Radio airplay. Nuke 'em, nuke 'em all..... - eo (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to include it in a "Disney star's" article or anyone else's. Disney is not a reliable source for notability of its own acts any more than, say, HBO is for notability of its shows (though a show on HBO is probably notable and a "star" on Radio Disney may or may not be. An artist whose music never makes an impact beyond Radio Disney giving them some play is not notable. As a result, placement on a chart from Radio Disney (even if somehow verified) is moot, IMO. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ericorbit here. Radio Disney is just a means of promoting Disney-oriented singers, nothing more. The charts are not a majorly recognized chart, like Billboard/Radio & Records, Mediabase 24/7, or even Music Row. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if it's self-referential and not notable per se, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be mentioned in an article. It's conceivable to me that, if verifiable, it could be mentioned in the text, perhaps to illustrate how Disney promoted the artist or piece. However, it is almost never verifiable. The "chart" isn't archived as far as I know, and it's rarely mentioned even in disney PR blurbs. Gimmetrow 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But the people vote in - Cheetahbrian (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's still not verifiable. Disney or Radio Disney can alter the rankings however they choose. And Radio Disney has zero bearing on the U.S.'s national charts. - eo (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Component charts

The guideline states: "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart." I have to say, I strongly disagree that component charts should be included in an article at all. Songs that enter only these charts and not any significant chart are articles that are likely to be created as stubs and will remain stubs. I've failed to see any article that does go beyond a stub that hasn't charted beyond component charts and if there is, is full of original research and fancruft. I'm proposing that the line aforementioned should be reworded to state "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables. Songs that fail to chart in any significant chart do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article." Any thoughts? DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the reason for this was for previous Billboard chart policy and the failure of songs like "Don't Speak" to chart on the Hot 100 due to a lack of a commercially available single. Number one in airplay is significant without a Hot 100 entry. That's not going to happen today though and I would tend to agree with your statement above for 21st century songs. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be careful with saying "Songs that fail to chart in any significant chart do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article." Many notable songs have not charted for one reason or another (i.e. "Stairway to Heaven", etc.). I think it would be a tricky task to word the guideline to somehow apply it only to 21st century songs - who would be the ultimate decision-maker on what non-charting-21st-centry-song merits an article? I do get the jist of what you're saying tho.... the fancruft and stub articles are a frustrating problem (Radio Disney anyone?). - eo (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe it should be reworded. There are a couple of songs that did not chart on any chart but still have an article (like "Suga Mama"), but these articles are fine as they pass WP:NSONGS: Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. And as far as "Don't Speak", the song charted on many significant charts, so it wouldn't apply there. "Stairway to Heaven" has enough verifiable material to warrant an article, so that again, passes WP:NSONGS. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 20:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
My comment only had to do with the listing of a component chart in the chart table, not about a song's notability. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Weeks at number 1 notation

Currently the guidelines state "Weeks spent at peak position should be mentioned within the article text and not inserted into the table." I propose that this be changed to allow weeks spent at number 1 to be indicated by a number in ( ). This has become a standard notation in most music publications and would be a more concise way to note this information than writing it out in an article or comments section. The weeks spent at number 1 may be important to many readers and is a quick way to show relative impact of a hit on the charts. A song or album that spent many weeks at number 1 should be noted in a table for it’s information to be considered complete. Does anyone object? (MHS1976 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

This was originally done on Wikipedia, however, it got a bit out of hand, with some articles indicating time at number one, some indicating total time on the chart, and other variations, and no real way to tell which article was doing what. While we could certainly say to only place weeks at #1 in the parentheses, but I can only see this become a problem again. It is simply clearer to leave such info out of the charts, and explained in the prose. Also, when adding a new section, always place it at the bottom of the page. Thanks! Huntster (t@c) 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think weeks at peek position should be permitted. It is the most concise way to relay the information and excluding it means withholding information which some may consider important - which I think is contrary to the mission of this site. For what it is worth, I vote to change the guidlines. (MHS1976 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia isn't excluding it at all. The information can easily be added anywhere to the article's body, though it would be concise to place it under "chart performance" (note that "chart performance" and "charts" sections are used differently). DiverseMentality(Boo!) 03:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be easy to do when you have a table that includes only one or two charts, but when you have a table with multiple charts, the only practical way to provide the information without using a lot of memory and lengthen the article is to include it in () in the table. Again, I see no reason to try to exclude a notation that has pretty much become standard in many music industry publications. (MHS1976 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC))
As I said, this was done before and was determined to be a "bad thing". I see no reason to back down that road again. Huntster (t@c) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Who determined it to be a bad thing? (MHS1976 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC))
I still strongly agree with the current guideline. "Weeks at" is just not necessary. The tables need to be displayed concisely, cleanly and without extra "stuff". Morevoer, they need to be presented neutrally - therefore a number-one song should be shown with no extra fanfare as a number 10 song (which is why they should not be boldfaced either). It also looks bad when, for example, U.S. and UK may have the "weeks at" number one, but Germany and Ireland do not. Another past issue was "weeks at" numbers being placed next to non-number-one peaks, for example noting a song spent two weeks at number 17 (completely ridiculous and not notable). Mentioning total weeks at number one is appropriate for the article text but not inside the table. - eo (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Bolding is not being discussed here nor is weeks at peek position other than number 1. Indicating weeks at number 1 in the table with () is the most concise and clean way to relay that information and can be an important piece of information. A song that was number 1 for 10 weeks is a significant piece of information regarding a song and an artist, but the current guidelines would make no differentiation between it and a song that may have been number 1 for only 1 week. It is not practical to note weeks at number 1 in the text of an article for artists that have had numerous number 1 songs on various charts such as Elvis Presley or the Beatles. (MHS1976 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
Whether it spent ten weeks at number one or two weeks at number one, the peak position is still "1"... and that's it; that's the point. Spending "only one week" at number one doesn't make a song less successful, less important or less notable - it's still a number-one song. There is no need to clutter up tables when individual song articles can delve more into the details within the text. Non-bolding and no-week-info-for-non-number-ones do factor into the discussion because the real point is to present the information as neutral as possible. - eo (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated charts

I think it's time to start building a formal list of deprecated charts. I know that United World Chart, Radio Disney, Bulgarian National Top 40, and Brazil Hot 100 are shoot-on-sight. Are there others? Shouldn't we have a nice, handy list of them including in WP:CHARTS with a handy shortcut like BADCHARTS?—Kww(talk) 01:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need to compile a thorough list of what charts not to be included in charts, and of course back it up with good reasoning. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First one I thought of was iTunes charts. Maybe Mediabase charts as well, as Mediabase doesn't maintain an archive and its peaks are therefore very hard to verify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 01:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree, this is a very good idea. I have a feeling we'll get lots of complaints the bigger the list grows ("but it's always been accurate before!"), but it is a necessary step. Huntster (t@c) 03:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. We need this. United World Chart, Radio Disney, Bulgarian National Top 40, Brazil Hot 100 and, especially, iTunes. While I hate Radio Disney more, iTunes is everywhere. A new single by teen band x comes out and an iTunes hit is claimed within 24 hours. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a draft at User:Kww/badcharts. Update until we think we are done, and then I'll call for an RFC.—Kww(talk) 12:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything found at the Euro200 site shouldn't be included, per the Bulgarian discussion...but I'm not sure how to go about listing that. Anyway, I added a few of my own that I remember from memory. And this is a great idea. Yay!... :P SKS2K6 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal of iTunes charts due to the stated reliability problems. JBsupreme (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea! What is the status of -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, support, support - I go nuts trying to keep up with these and the list at "badcharts" looks good so far. The iTunes thing, by the way, is already mentioned in the guideline. - eo (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the unanimous support, I went ahead and added it. DiverseMentality obviously agreed, because he ran so fast to create the WP:BADCHARTS redirect that I got an edit conflict when creating it.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome? Tongue.png DiverseMentality(Boo!) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm grateful. Every once in a while, it's a little unnerving to realise that your actions are immediately noticed by people that lives thousands of kilometers away.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese National Top 50/APC-Stats

What about the Portuguese National Top 50? Though it never had an article, I believe it's worth being added to this list as it's in the same vein of the Polish National Top 50 and the Bulgarian National Top 40, and it's widely used throughout single articles. Any opinions? Funk Junkie (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, as I wrote earlier, anything sourced by APC-Stats/Euro200 shouldn't be used, as per the Bulgarian AfD. Portugal is one of them. But people think they're legitimate because they're found on and other such chart sites. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Bulgarian AFD hinted that way, but I have a hard time putting my finger on an exact consensus for eliminating all the APC-Stats charts in that discussion. Most people didn't state anything specifically about them. I reformatted this discussion so that we can have such a discussion, with a handy place to point to later. I agree that that there doesn't seem to be any sign of any relying on APC-Stats aside from blogs and fan-sites. The only contact for them is a gmail address, which doesn't increase my faith in them. I'd happily nuke all APC-stats charts.—Kww(talk) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
While charts created by APC-stats (which also include the Belgian National Top 40 and the Spanish National Top 40) were deemed unverifiable, the site contains a section that displays the current European Union charts nationwide; most of them are accurate except for the self-created charts and a few others. I'm not sure if it was helpful. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
But where are their sources? And how are we supposed to know which are legit and which are fake? That's the main problem I have with the various European charts, as very few of them have actual official sites that list their charts. Either that, or we're just not using them, because most of the pages here use euro200/apc-stats or acharts (or or something close to that). SKS2K6 (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What if we placed "/APC-stats" next to "Euro 200"? Funk Junkie (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I would be cool with that. - eo (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

UK Airplay/Download charts

Could it be mentioned in the main body of the text that the UK Airplay and Download charts should not be used? As far as I'm aware, they are component charts of the UK Singles Chart (similar to Billboard). ~~ [ジャム][talk] 16:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should call them out specifically, because they are valid charts, and, in some cases, component charts can be used. I think the more general problem is that we haven't got a list of "component charts", and we need to build one.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea - perhaps we should start one then? It might also be a good idea to make it more explicit regarding when component charts can be used - I think the explanation is sort of lost in the lead text. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 17:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
As per the Billboard policy that we have, component charts should only be used when for whatever reason, they don't chart on the main one. The problem I have, though, is that supposed "airplay" stats are taken from forums or self-created charts (see UK Airplay and European Hot 100 Airplay on "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time", which I've gotten sick of removing from that page). Are there official sites that list these statistics? SKS2K6 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The Official Charts Company looks after the official UK charts. In their terms, the UK Singles Chart, UK Albums Chart and UK Download Charts are the only official charts. That said, the UK Download Chart should probably only be used if the single doesn't chart in the UK Singles Chart (highly unlikely, since I'm sure those charts are very closely tied... if not effectively the same). ~~ [ジャム][talk] 08:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The official UK charts website has a download chart archive here. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

UK R&B Chart

I feel that this chart is unecessary. Any thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As per my comment on official UK charts above, it isn't one. See here for the official charts - Singles, Albums and Downloads. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 08:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Euro 200

You count Euro200 as a bad chart provider?! I totally disagreeOlliyeah (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion regarding Euro200 (and related APC) charts. There is no proof of their legitimacy or verifiability. Until that's done, it cannot be considered a "real" chart. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can find a legitimate source for Euro200 or APC-stats to determine how they compile their charts then by all means provide it. The two websites are linked to each other but no further evidence exists as far as I can see, no one seems to know where their rankings come from. - eo (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Question: what bear is best?Should iTunes stats be mentioned anywhere in the article? For example, if an article states that after its digital release, it was #1 on iTunes for a day or whatever, is it notable enough to include in the chart section (in prose, that is)? I see it fairly frequently, and I know that it shouldn't be listed in the charts, but...yeah. My feeling on it is, if it charts well in iTunes, it'll chart well on the national chart, which means that the iTunes standing is irrelevant. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be worth mentioning at all, and generally strike such comments when I notice them.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Argentinian chart....

This is albums only, right? I can't find a singles chart on the site. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian charts

Can people take a look at ? Is this finally a reliable Brazilian chart? I really hate going through and stripping out Brazil from the chart tables ... I'd really rather replace the information with reliable stuff, and I'd like to be able to point Brazilian editors at a reliable chart.—Kww(talk) 12:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One point to note: it seems stale. It's currently reporting "Research made September 23rd to 30th".—Kww(talk) 12:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems legitimate, but I have no idea, because I focus on singles charts. But if you look on the home page, it looks like a legitimate source.... SKS2K6 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm holding off until I see an update. 5 days later, and it still shows "September 23rd to September 30th". I also can't find an archive, which means that even if it's accurate, it's difficult to verify in the future.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
9 days have elapsed now, and no update, so even if this site was a good source once, it's dead now. A real shame. It causes a lot of tension when I remove Brazil from articles about Latin American songs, but I don't have any real alternative.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Order and links

In this guideline, the charts in the tables aren't linked, but in most articles, they are. Should the guideline be changed reflect this, or at least have a note saying to link where appropriate? Also, the guideline has the U.S. Billboard first (seems like a priority, which I think should be avoided), and having every other chart below it in alphabetical order; in a lot of articles, the charts are just in alphabetical order, with the U.S. Billboard charts near the bottom, where they should be placed if there is not priority in the order. Should this part of guideline also be changed to reflect this? DiverseMentality 08:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about that too but never got around to changing it. Unless anyone has a reason, charts should be listed in alphabetical order by country. It seems PoV to put the U.S. charts first. I also don't see why charts shouldn't be linked. It's done for discographies, so it seems completely appropriate to do so here. Spellcast (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The idea was that the home country's charts would be at top, with all others in alphabetical order. It certainly wasn't intended for Billboard to always be at the top. Perhaps a non-U.S. oriented example should be included to show this in action? Huntster (t@c) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
In songs from the UK, you generally find the UK Singles Chart and the Irish Singles Chart at the top of the charts. Similarly in Ireland, you generally find the Irish Singles Chart then the UK Singles Chart. See The Promise (Girls Aloud song)#Charts and B*Witched#Singles for examples. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 04:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not just keep the charts alphabetically ordered? It'll sustain consistency throughout all song-related articles. Not to mention, a lot of articles created nowadays have the charts alphabetically ordered anyways. DiverseMentality 06:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer alphabetized, seems the most neutral way to list them. - eo (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Two more links to add to list?

How legit is this? Seems to be similar to acharts, and their "About" page doesn't say anything about how their charts are compiled. I see this link popping up a lot, as a source for charts from China, India, Ukraine... do these countries have national music charts? - eo (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be at all. I read the "About" page too, and it just seems like these random "executives" founded the site and are making their own stats up. But the thing is, people tend to believe them (I've had a lot of problems with this site on a few pages). Personally, there's nothing I find on the site that lends it credibility. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Blacklist it. — Realist2 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
One great thing about the site is that I found out I was eligible to win a free iPod! At least that's what all the pop-up ads said. Congratulations to me. - eo (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
An ipod, is that all? No, I'm their 1,000,000 customer, not you! I win an elephant. — Realist2 21:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This site is a complete joke. I don't think half of the charts listed on the site are legit and some haven't been updated in ages. I agree, backlist it! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
774 links to this one, so it's nearly as bad as the United World Chart was (which, by the way, is very close to being gone). I see no signs of notability.—Kww(talk) 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Their Brazil Top 20 is just the first 20 elements of the Brazil Hot 100.—Kww(talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I put a pointer to this discussion on Wikipedia talk:MUSIC and WP:RSN to try to get a few more participants. There's serious enough consequences to putting a chart on this list that I don't want to get accused of doing it without enough discussion.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine does have a national top 40 chart... FDR... the FDR Charts are the ones posted on here..

"In cooperation with FDR Radiocenter, Top40-Charts presents the Ukraine Chart

Based on airplay data from 170 radio stations, the chart is published on a weekly basis, every Wednesday.

FDR also publishes Rock and Dance airplay charts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another worldwide chart, incorporating airplay charts from over 10 countries, with site visitors being allowed to vote on their favorites. Looks like an obvious loser to me, but I don't add these things unilaterally.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, blacklist if possible. :-) — Realist2 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree! It's just a random website that posts unofficial charts. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Update needed

OK, last chance, is there consensus to add and/or to the list. If we have consensus I'll be adding them within the next few days. Please give final thoughts. — Realist2 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure? At this point, there's nothing proving their credibility or legitimacy. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. These should be added to the list. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. - eo (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it me, or do we need a WikiProject Record Charts? DiverseMentality 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Light bulb turns on, possibly a good idea there. — Realist2 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There is one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts - eo (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. It was hiding from us. DiverseMentality 19:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I joined. — Realist2 19:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll be adding them shortly. — Realist2 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hot Digital Songs

Is Hot Digital Songs a "component" chart or not? I've seen it in some discogrpahies but not others. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider it a component. It's the same as Hot 100 Sales, which was relevant when people purchased physical product. Digital sales are only a part of the "main" chart, so unless it doesn't appear on the Hot 100, I wouldn't include it. - eo (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Component of Hot 100, along with Hot 100 Singles Sales and Hot 100 Airplay.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's listed as one in component chart. DiverseMentality 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag usage

Should flags be used in record chart tables? Examples: Black Ice & Death Magnetic. I am of the opinion they shouldn't be used, because they are simply a waste of space. Have viewed WP:MOSFLAG also, and neither article explains anything substantial regarding this issue, i believe some kind of guideline should be manufactured to remove doubt. Something concrete would be helpful, thanks. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 07:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no personally. I don't even think the country should be listed in chart performance - if the chart is notable enough, it will have its own article that will explain which countries the chart is for. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Having a wikipedia article exhibits notability, true. Not having a wikipedia article does not mean a topic/chart is not notable, it could just mean no one has bothered creating an article (how many WP editors have an interest in Swaziland's national charts?). So removing all charts that don't have WP articles, to me, is silly.
I choose to use the Country|Provider|Chart method because, for example people use Australian ARIA Top 50 Albums Chart, when in fact the actual name of the chart is ARIA Top 50 Albums Chart - so technically Australia shouldn't be included, if it isn't then you're just expecting the reader to know what country ARIA represents. The country is what's important, not the name of the chart. Anyway, this was meant to be about flags, flags! k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 09:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not - per WP:FLAGS. These examples are really excessive and obviously just done as decoration. If I do see flags in the tables I always remove them. - eo (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An obvious aesthetic preference of some editors but not allowed. It ruins the true beauty of the page, diverts the attention of the readers to the colorful flags, and insignificant (especially when an icon is added beside the name of the country), too. --Efe (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I say no because it violates WP:FLAGS and is highly distracting. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of component charts

I think this guideline needs to expand the meaning of component charts. With the wording and the link to component charts, it's read as if the component charts only exist within Billboard, which of course is entirely untrue. Not only that, but the component charts in the article is an uncomplete list, and I'm starting to see charts from Billboard like Hot Videoclip Tracks, iLike Profiles: Most Added and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Recurrents, and component charts from other countries (unfortunately, I can't find any examples at the moment, but pulling things from my bad memory) like Japanese Airplay Chart, French Hot Digital Songs and so on. If we want to properly keep component charts completely off charting tables, we need make an extensive list of component charts, both from Billboard and all international charts. DiverseMentality 04:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'm also getting rather ticked off, forgive me, when I see a chart table that contains as many as 5 positions on various US billboard charts. America is one country and we should display one chart on the article, the most important chart the song appears on. I know that's a controversial opinion, but could we at least pretend this is an international encyclopedia, just for the lulz? — Realist2 05:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For realz. - eo (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Realist, if a song fails to chart on the Billboard Hot 100, but charts on the Pop 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, who's to say the Pop 100 is more important than the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, or vice versa? Though I do understand where you're coming from, multiple charts for the United States, one for every other country. DiverseMentality 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always assumed that Hot 100 was the most important, then Pop 100. Everything after that was kind of...blah. Maybe we should be providing some clarification on the matter. Whatever the outcome, if it were any other country that had this rather odd charting system we wouldn't put up with it. It's a double standard that everyone's prepared to accept...— Realist2 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty objective opinion that if a song qualifies for the Hot 100 or the Pop 100, and makes it, then that's the most important chart, simply because those are the two most general charts. The only time I can think of listing a chart other than those two if it made one of those two is if the rules prevented consideration of the song. Billboard's charting methods make it hard to have only one chart for the US, but I agree that the articles with 6 Billboard charts are overkill.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone hold me down

OK, this takes the biscuit. On Womanizer (song), an editor is determined to have 3 US charts on the table despite the fact that the table is already very long. Can we make some new, clear rules in relation to Billboard charts please. — Realist2 03:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Because the Hot Dance Club Play and Pop 100 are both genre-related subcharts that are important to that particular song's genre. They are both important to have. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless, the limit is 18, so using three slots for US charts is inappropriate. I just took the list down to 18 by having only one US chart and removing the 6 smallest countries from the list.—Kww(talk) 04:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Terrible idea... there's gotta be a much better way to solve it without throwing out some countries just because they have a few less ppl in them psssh... CloversMallRat (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It's better than violating WP:CHARTS. — Realist2 04:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Why is it being done this way all of a sudden? When like 99% of other songs aren't? I'm confused... I vote for raising the limit, it's just too restrictive and its causing mayhem CloversMallRat (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Stop edit warring against policy, if you want to change the policy that is fair enough, but you can't go against the policy we currently have. — Realist2 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHARTS is a guideline, not a policy. Realist, this edit of removing charts was completely undiscussed and had no consensus to remove them. There actually are a lot of articles with more than eighteen charts and these articles usually split the charts into two columns, like this, this, and this, and note how all three a featured articles. There's absolutely bar restricting chart tables to include more than eighteen charts (and let me emphasize again that this is a guideline, not a policy). Saying one country's chart is less important than other is matter of opinion and direct POV, especially when reliability and notability of a certain chart is established. We might need a community discussion about this whole ordeal of limiting the number of charts and the number of Billboard charts to use. DiverseMentality 06:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I do agree with Realist, to a degree, although I do agree with DiverseMentality's main point as well (with POV and whatnot). Hot 100 and one, maybe two, other main US chart(s) (Pop 100, R&B, Mainstream Rock, etc., depending on the song genre) should be enough. And if the song doesn't chart on either "main" chart (hot/pop100), then questions of notability come into play, no? For example, see "Reach Out (Hilary Duff song). 18 charts shouldn't be strictly enforced (like 19 = immediate removal of one chart), but isn't 30+ overkill? ("Touch My Body" has almost 40, while "4 Minutes (Madonna song)" has 28. I've repeatedly tried to remove charts from "Touch My Body", but Mariah fans won't let me.) We're gonna have to draw the line somewhere. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
With regard to me removing the charts as linked by DiverseMentality above, I did intend to replace the charts with different ones, something I didn't think was controversial. However after removing the Billboard charts there was a dispute, I didn't come back to it, it was 4am in the morning... I do think this page should be presented to reflect a more international perspective though. Anyway, to clarify my point, I don't think there should be anymore than 18-20 charts and America should have no more than 2 positions on any given article. — Realist2 18:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I re-added the charts to "Womanizer" based on what was mentioned above; if it gets too long, someone can divide it into 2 columns, but they should not be removing charts just because they feel like it. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Raise the limit above 18

Recently some people have been removing additional U.S. charts, and other countries' charts because a star like Madonna or Britney, for example could very well have up to 30 useful charts that should be included. I think that 18 is too low, and it should be raised. Besides, it seems the rule is almost never followed anyways. Why limit them anyway? Sure it may get long, but why should be not include every possible reliable chart that a song lands on... then its misleading if it isn't allowed to appear.

Let's make it like 30... or eliminate the restriction. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a few reasons to have the restrictions. One is that these things are a bitch to verify. I've been going on a binge lately of trying to bring articles into compliance with having a reasonable number of actually verifiable charts, and I can tell you it's a slow, painful process. Very few songs have over 18 charts, BTW, but even the ones with ten or twelve take a long time, and what I frequently find is that the chart tables are a tissue of lies. Raising the limit to 30 or 40 would make the problem nearly impossible to deal with.
On a practical note, some countries are less important than others. I occasionally find the chart of one of my local radio stations here in the Netherlands Antilles listed in articles. I delete it on sight, for the simple reason that sales and airplay here are of no importance whatsoever. Our total sales volume on any single probably never reaches 500 copies. Platinum certifications in markets where it only takes 1000 sales to reach platinum is much the same.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - 18 is perfectly reasonable, other less notable ones would be trivial and lack notability. One chart per country (unless your America, in which case your allowed 5/6). — Realist2 04:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think 18 is reasonable, although I do believe that there can be a few cases where a few more than 18 is justified. Honestly, I think it has more to do with the particular country and how it ranks within the world's music markets. There are those rare international hit songs that go to the top five in like 25 countries and I think it is notable to display them. However, above all else, each chart position should be verifiable and not fall under the BADCHARTS group. As far as genre-specific Billboard charts (Hot Country, Hot R&B/HipHop, Hot Dance Club, Adult Contemporary), I think these are important also - non-U.S. countries don't seem to have genre-specific charts that are as high-profile and/or are difficult to find in order to cite them. That said, three Billboard genre charts should be sufficient, rather than a zillion...i.e. RingMasters, VideoClips, Recurrent charts, Adult R&B, Top40 Mainstream, etc. Those I find to be overkill. - eo (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
But how do we limit it? What are the boundaries? Do we just have editors make the judgment call in each case? If a song barely charts on the Hot 100 but manages to hit #5 on Adult Contemporary Radio, does that make it notable enough to list? And if a video charts, do we list those charts as well? I'm being slightly facetious, but it's hard to define what should and shouldn't be listed, and I feel that a fairly definite line should be drawn. While I understand that a song that is #1 on adult contemporary radio for 30+ weeks should have that chart included, does that mean that only #1 sub-charts are acceptable? Top 5? Top 10? And which dance chart is acceptable? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What I notice about this whole limiting ordeal, we only talk about charting singles, but no one tries to talk limits one albums that have charted in over twenty charts. Out of curiosity, am I the only one has noticed? DiverseMentality 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, album sales are album sales, for the most part. It's not there are different interpretations or readings of sales numbers. I've noticed, though, that people are finding "international" charts and adding them in. See Best of Hilary Duff. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed this too - lots of non-English speaking countries have a "regular" singles/albms chart and an "international" chart also... which complicates things further. And yes, a definitive line should be drawn but I don't know where. I guess I hoped that common sense would define things (i.e. Lil Wayne gets R&B & Rap charts, Celine Dion gets Adult Contemporary chart, Foo Fighters get Mainstream & Modern Rock, etc., etc.) but that just isn't reality. - eo (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, albums are an issue too. Clearly the is a problem that should be addressed here. We've had a guideline for quite some time that says no more than 18 positions (for the most part, something we haven't, but should, be trying to enforce) yet we don't have a guideline that limits the number of US chart positions. In theory, and probable practice, we could have an article with 18 positions, 5 of which are American. That would be completely acceptable according to our guidelines, frankly it's wrong. — Realist2 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there are cases with a severe U.S. overkill - however, I think that the U.S. charts in general are looked at with quite a bit more relevance than other countries. And I don't mean that as a "Go USA!" bias; I mean it as a truth within the music industry. The U.S. charts are referred to moreso than just about any other country with the exception of perhaps the UK and it's not some shocking revelation that most artists, producers, labels want to "make it in America". Other countries simply don't have an elaborate genre-based breakup of multiple charts the way Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan have done it for the U.S. It just doesn't exist. Therefore I do think some of these charts are notable and should be included... and I do mean some... a select few... not every friggin U.S. sales or airplay chart in existence. - eo (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm all in favor of us drawing up a list of "notable" US charts and see where we can go from there. If we could at least reach a point where we can agree that Billboard charts A,B and C lack notability in the greater scheme of things that would be a helpful start in cutting down US clutter. — Realist2 20:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm definitely in agreement with that. - eo (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Then let's take "Apologize (song)". What US charts should be included in this? Should R&B/HipHop automatically be excluded because it charted fairly low? And if so, isn't that somewhat of a bias? SKS2K6 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because removing it is making it appear as though it didn't chart at all. This is a site of reference for people. Low peaks shouldn't be discluded, and some should not be discluded just because they're a less populated country or something like that CloversMallRat (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
But it's about notability. Wikipedia's is not meant to be an exhaustive resource for every single statistic possible. If a song hits #68 on, say, New Zealand's chart, would it be notable enough for inclusion? That's why I ask the question, because on one hand, we can't include every single possible source-able chart position. On the other hand, we can't violate WP:NPOV either. SKS2K6 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because the New Zealand chart is notable. Every notable chart should be allowed on there; something like Brazil Hot 100 doesn't belong because it isn't notable. If a song charts in 20 notable countries, then 20 ought to appear on the list; not 18. Low peaks are just as notable... a massive success is not always gained everywhere. And several U.S. charts should be allowed, because of the way Billboard bases their whole system around genre subcharts. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Apologize song, since it's peaked highly on the Hot 100 and Pop 100 the other charts seem redundant. We can tell from those charts whether or not the song was a commercial success, which is essentially all that's important when it comes to charts. Was the song a hit or not? That's what we need the charts for. In this case, I think the positions on the Hot 100 and Pop 100 answer that question. — Realist2 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because it was successful on the Hot 100 doesn't mean that the R&B chart is not important. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's redundant, we have to draw a line somewhere, Wikipedia is not some random collection of information. — Realist2 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Random? Including info about its peak on all notable charts isn't random. It's useful. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments like "I like it", "but it's true", "but it's useful", are really poor arguments that are frowned upon. — Realist2 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So is "I don't like it" and "it's useless/random". DiverseMentality 06:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

How about we simply eliminate discussion of sales ranks? Total sales are a pretty good indicator of success, and this fascination with week-by-week handicapping is more effort to police than it's worth.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying, do away with chart tables? — Realist2 19:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, although sometimes clicking on wikilinks in my comments can help place them in context.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
And I thought I was stirring the pot by saying cut the number of US chart positions. Wow, do you realize how hated we would be on Wikipedia? I've got news for you, I'm not exactly popular as it is. Would there still be tables for actual sales? Would chart positions be discussed at all in the pro's? — Realist2 19:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It was worth throwing in the suggestion. Let's see if anyone bites. I think that a good argument can be made that the only thing that really needs to be discussed is worldwide revenue generated, and everything else is excessive detail.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I dunno about this. Aside from the absolute impossibility of keeping the "no charts at all" rule in effect, it's also much easier to source chart positions, especially with older titles before the advent of Nielsen SoundScan. I think a chart position is something of notability within the realm of pop culture. - eo (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this would put less notable countries at an even greater disadvantage as sales data is difficult to find. I think it erode an international perspective further. — Realist2 20:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
But if the charts are questionable at best, then they shouldn't be included, no? For example, if the only source we have for, say, an Indian chart is, then it shouldn't be included at all. If you look at Music industry#Total Value by Country, it's clear which countries have notable music industries and which don't. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of them? No way! This website is suppose to be a source of reference, and that is something I for one come here to check quite frequently CloversMallRat (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The removal of all of this could also pose a problem for older titles. There are several, in fact many, published books with chart positions (i.e. Joel Whitburn and others geared for the UK chart's history), yet I don't know of any published work with a detailed history of sales totals. - eo (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of limit all together, it cannot be enforced apparently

Since the guideline of having no more than 18 charts is not being upheld/can't be upheld (as seen on Womanizer (song)) it seems only logical that we should do away with the guideline all together, it's being trodden over as it is. It also seems that this guideline means nothing in general, thus I might start adding badcharts to articles (no-one can stop me apparently) just to be pointy. I'm removing this page from my watchlist and will never listen to it or follow it. — Realist2 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) to the rest of us that are still here, what do we do? It's not really enforced because not many editors know about it, IMO. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is based on the fact that we can't find a consensus on the Billboard matter. DiverseMentality 06:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

He has one point, but is wrong about others. I've been pretty successful about getting people blocked for edit-warring in bad charts: there's a good, widespread consensus that crappy sources are crappy sources, and people shouldn't add them. The "18 chart" chart limit hasn't got a good basis in things like WP:RS ... it's stylistic. That makes it hard to enforce. I'm certainly not going to go to ANI and try to get an editor blocked for adding the 19th chart. There's an argument that says a guideline that is essentially unenforceable and widely violated shouldn't be a guideline at all.—Kww(talk) 11:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
But your acting as if more than 18 charts means the rest are not notable... if we have 25 charts that are notable, they should all be represented fairly. CloversMallRat (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "you" is me, Realist2, or both of us. My argument is not that any particular chart is non-notable, but that it isn't our goal to be a chart database. Our goal is to indicate the success level of a particular song, and it is never necessary to list 30 charts to do so. I'd even be happy enough to treat the individual EU countries as components of the Eurocharts Hot 100, and only list individual charts if it failed to make the EU chart.
I primarily focus on this as a maintenance issue: we haven't got a way to maintain these articles automatically, and the charts are vandal magnets. Keeping the count at a manageable level seems very desirable to me.—Kww(talk) 12:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the comment about sources - at this point in time, everything on the charts list for "Womanizer" has a reference next to it. They're more often vandalized on the big discography pg singles chart than on their own pages... and there's a vandalism problem possibility with everything put on Wikipedia so you can't use that as an excuse. CloversMallRat (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
What did I say about sources that you are arguing with? Please go back and read what I said again, and if you think I said anything about bad sources justifying an 18 chart limit, point it out so that I can fix it.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not literally going to insert badcharts, however it seems that we can't enforce anything stylistic, be it the number of charts allowed or chart trajectories. As long as it's accurately sourced by reliable sources we cannot stop anything being added to articles. Basically we need to rethink where we are taking this guideline page. It doesn't seem appropriate to have information on a page, some of which can be enforced, some of which we don't have a leg to stand on. — Realist2 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Billboard charts: consensus

I've created Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion. Feel free to add your comments there. Keep in mind that page is for U.S./Billboard chart discussion only; let's try not to go off on tangents. Please keep non-U.S. chart discussions on this page - the less confusion, the better. - eo (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In practice, I think the rules are:

  • Pop 100 and Hot 100 are always listed
  • Any and all components of the Pop 100 and Hot 100 are listed when a song doesn't make the Pop 100 or Hot 100
  • The RnB charts can be listed in addition to the Pop 100 or Hot 100
  • All other charts (adult contemporary, etc.) are not listed if either the Pop 100 or Hot 100 is listed.
  • Extreme niche charts (Top Kid Audio, etc) are generally not listed.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

An achievable proposal

I think there's a general consensus that something needs to be done to install a limit, and a general consensus that the limit needs to be enforceable. Here's a proposal that I think represents actual good practice. It's chart heavy for my tastes, but we all have to bear in mind that our tastes are not a very important criteria for making these decisions. It's more important to encode what actually seems to be good practice that a real consensus can be built for.

  • The chart representing the native country of the group or singer is always acceptable.
  • Charts representing the 30 countries listed in Music_industry#Total_Value_by_Country are always acceptable, so long as those charts meet the requirements of WP:RS.
  • For Spanish language songs, México, Perú, Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Panamá, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador are acceptable, so long as those charts meet the requirements of WP:RS.
  • For French language songs and Quebecois performers, Quebec-specific charts are acceptable.
  • Overall European figures can only be represented by Billboard's Eurochart.
  • Multiple charts from a single country are permitted only for the native country of the group or singer, or for the United States.
  • Some limit on Billboard charts exists, but that is a separate discussion.
  • No absolute numeric limit on chart counts exists.

Like I said, I don't like those rules, but I think they are the actual rules that exist in practice. —Kww(talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good CloversMallRat (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised at how little reaction this has gotten. The way I see it, the problem we have is that the guideline on charts doesn't represent anything that approaches current practice. No one can say that it is truly backed by consensus. Because it isn't backed by consensus, it's meaningless. I've proposed something that I think is very close to current practice, and one that consensus could be achieved for. It cures what I think is the most pressing problem: chart counts being inflated by the introduction of dubious charts from small countries. Trying to figure out whether a song truly reached a stated position in Croatia, Latvia, or Zimbabwe is difficult, and ultimately meaningless, because a number one position in those countries represents a negligible percentage of the world markets. By defining the list of charting countries at the 95% market point, we are very safe in saying that sticking to that list produces an accurate measure of success and sales, and have made the verification problem manageable. Right now, I could list the charts of Equatorial Guinea, Netherlands Antilles, Guernsey, Greenland, Monaco, Wallis and Futuna, Tuvalu, Iceland, Vatican City, and a handful of Billboard charts and meet the guidelines. Anyone want to argue that that would be a chart list that had consensus?—Kww(talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's doable. My only question would be if there are legitimate charts for those countries listed. For singles, a lot of editors use for Latin America, and the site itself is really sketchy. And I'm afraid that editors will take one look at this, say, "Oh, I can insert these charts", and then put them in without even thinking about WP:RS. I mean, if is considered by some editors as a reliable source, then we have some issues, no? Also, WP:SONGS lists in their external links section, although with a caveat ("Has been known to give false information"). SKS2K6 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I fixed WP:SONGS. So far as I can tell, is reliable in the sense that it reliably reports the charts it archives. It's just that some of the charts it archives are crap.
As for the legitimacy of charts, I think this would serve to put boundaries on the problem. For a list of 30 countries, it would be practical to produce a list of reliable charts to refer to. With 260 candidate countries, it's not.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The music industry article has a list of the world music markets. That's at least somewhere to start from. - eo (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IFPI also has a PDF file of international chart companies. DiverseMentality 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. This is awesome. Anyone have time to write out a guideline with official links? :D Seriously, though, if, per User:Kww, we want to do something that can be implemented, then I think that we have to be somewhat specific, as in saying this (link) is the official Mexican chart, etc etc. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably not until the new year (I don't think my mother would appreciate me flying to the states to visit, and then spending my whole trip editing Wikipedia). That list is useful, but not specific enough: we really need to get to the URL level for each country.—Kww(talk) 10:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well see, there's your problem. Why visit your mother? Cancel all plans - holidays are for sitting in front of the computer and removing BADCHARTS from Britney Spears articles; everybody knows that. - eo (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I always have to question why I go into the Arctic wasteland called the USA in December instead of them coming to the Caribbean, but family matters usually don't make sense.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To Eric: I think we should just block Britney, we all know she's editing her own articles.
To Kww: The PDF does have the links to those charts (except Portugal, for some reason). I think SKS2K6 has a good idea of listing the sites of official chart companies. DiverseMentality 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My spot check shows no charts at Japan, Brazil, Portugal. If there's an Argentinian singles chart there, I don't see it. It's a great starting place, but not complete.—Kww(talk) 18:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Oricon is Japan's chart, is it not? That, and the Billboard-published Japan Hot 100. Brazil's site is basically like the site, so it lists best-selling albums] and certifications, but no charts. I admit it's not complete, but it's a stsrting point. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Block Britney, I agree, it's all her fault. Her articles are so hard to maintain, I never realized she had fans. It's official, down with Britney Spears! — Realist2 17:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't discriminate against artists in your edits. I was told about that when making edits to Miley Cyrus. And two things... yes she has fans, or else she wouldn't have sold so many albums, and I highly doubt she's on her vandalizing things about her CloversMallRat (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It was a joke, chill. — Realist2 13:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I knew it was a joke, although admittedly you probably should have made it more obvious that you were joking. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 15:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is definitely a good idea. As for the limit on Billboard charts, we really should establish more clearly which charts are generally not acceptable. I'm still finding plenty of Hot Digital Songs, Hot/Pop 100 Airplay, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 15:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chart template

Do you think there is anything achievable in perhaps writing a chart template? I'm thinking of {{VG Reviews}}, where a list of reviewers (I guess compiled by WP:VG) is basically set in stone, and people use that template to add review scores and sources. It could be based on the chart table used, but with only set fields for charts we know are verifiable (perhaps using the IFPI list provided in earlier discussions?) ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would love it if I could get charts for Equatorial Guinea, Netherlands Antilles, Guernsey, Greenland, Monaco, Wallis and Futuna, Tuvalu, Iceland, & Vatican City. I have one for Iceland But not sure how accurate it is. (MoovieStarz (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
Can you provide links for it so that it can be judged? --Legolas (talktome) 05:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The chart performance chart template

Can we change the template from this

!align="left"|Chart (2008)
!align="center"|Peak<br />position
|align="left"|Australian ARIA Singles Chart

to this?

!Chart (2008)
!Peak<br />position
|Australian ARIA Singles Chart

The only line that really needs alignment is the position number, right? --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If it works both ways then you can use it that way, but you don't have to change everything to that if that's what you mean. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the way I always do it. The exclamation point automatically boldfaces and centers the text, so there's no need for "align=center". Same for the pipe, which keeps things left-aligned. It's just extra code that isn't needed. - eo (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the alignments are nothing but redundant, I went ahead and removed them. DiverseMentality 03:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish Music Charts

Someone added this to an article (again, it's Britney related *rolls eyes*). The Polish Music Charts article was originally created as the "Polish National Top 50" but the title was then changed. I assume someone changed the title when we banned the "PNT50". Furthermore, the article was originally created by a now banned user. Can I revert the edit on the Radar article and what do we do about this latest polish issue. Cheers. — Realist2 13:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The chart appears legitimate. The problem I have found is people putting PNT50 positions in articles and then referencing them to the official chart. If it's the real ZPAV position, keep it.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If the source is legitimate, should we add it to the badchart list for people to see and use? — Realist2 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The archive is at the olis link, and that's already mentioned in WP:BADCHARTSKww(talk) 14:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mirror site of the UWC?

I've seen people use this site for worldwide sales. This site and the site that do the United World Chart both give the same album sales figures. I'm not sure who "calculates" the sales first, but they both give the same states on various issues. They could be plain mirrors of one another. — Realist2 18:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Could be. A blogspot source is shoot-on-sight for factual data, anyway.—Kww(talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, anything on blogspot is not a reliable source anyway. - eo (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Record Charts

I think we need to start putting WikiProject Record Charts a little more out there. At the current state, it only has five members, and five alone can't cover thousands of articles where record charts appear. We definitely need more enforcers of WP:CHARTS as a whole and to find a consensus in this discussion, which seems to have died out. Thoughts? DiverseMentality 05:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Let's start hounding people. - eo (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think hounding people is the answer. I never join projects, but I think I've been at least moderately helpful in this respect. I'm back from vacation now, so I will start building the master list of acceptable charts. Using that instead of the mealy-mouthedness and unenforceable limits currently in WP:CHARTS will go a long way.—Kww(talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I was joking about "hounding". I'm not one to bother people with stuff like that if they don't wanna get into it; I'll just ask once. So did you join yet? Did you join yet? Did you join yet? Did you join yet? Did you join yet? Did you join yet? Did you join yet? Did you join yet? - eo (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You make me laugh Eric. Tongue.png Well Kww, we don't necessarily have to make other join the project, just enforce WP:CHARTS a little more. There was a horrible long battle in Touch My Body were a user and two IPs would continually revert edits to restore bad charts, until the user got a final warning, it seems that he/she gave up. We definitely need to finish up that Billboard inclusion discussion and get on with the list of acceptable international charts. DiverseMentality 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I rejoined the Wikiproject, you guys clearly need me...anyway, we should probably remove User:Be Black Hole Sun from the project members list. He's not coming back to the Wiki. — Realist2 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
So, finish the Billboard discussion already. I put my two cents in at WT:Record charts#Billboard charts: consensus, and got no replies.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Missed that I had responded in the wrong place.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

bad charts vs good charts

Although the Project has explicitly listed charts that should not be used, can it actually list those that have been deemed useable? Lately I have seen editors adding such charts as the "Croatia aircharts" and "Slovania aircharts". These maybe valid, but if there was a list we could scroll through and know it has been discussed and deemed appropriate would be a major assistance in controlling the chart expansions with possible no relevance. Willing to assist in building such a list Eight88 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion above under "An achievable proposal". I'm planning on getting started on this soon. If someone beats me to it, I won't feel insulted.—Kww(talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

reliable source?

I have been reviewing an article at WP:FAC. I made the comment that this was an unreliable source. Would I be correct in that belief, the article nominee seems to think it's OK? — Realist2 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I always prefer direct sources, but seems to be a reliable archive. I've spot-checked it before, and just did it again against some Britney Spears singles, and everything checked out.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
KK, unless anyone else has anything else to add, I'll go strike that comment. I'm certainly in favor of starting a Good v Bad link section. — Realist2 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have used it before and it appears to check out. I have never found that any of its data is incorrect. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The beginnings of WP:GOODCHARTS

Far from done yet, but the basic table and a handful of countries can be seen at User:Kww/goodcharts. Comments appreciated, and feel free to add some rows. I've started with as my basis.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Well done Kww :). ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That's very good work there, Kww. I'll be adding some as I scavenge for them. I think there should be a key for what each symbol means, though; not too sure what the whole green star, red circle things mean. DiverseMentality 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Think of nice ways to say "So far as anyone can tell, the archive contained at this site for this country is reliable" vs. "If you use this archive for this country, your eyes should be gouged out with red-hot pokers". Acharts, for example, is a generally good site, but it archives junk like the United World Chart and the Brazil Hot 100. is a bizarre mix of homegrown crap and a very reliable archive of some official charts. I tried to go through the exercise of removing, and found that removing it was generally just a formality ... they had correctly archived the numbers from the host chart. Their charts like "Official Top 40 World Airplay" don't seem to have any validity at all.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Bloody sexy. It should also be noted, Ultratop gives chart positions for many european and Oceania charts. — Realist2 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
They do it for albums and singles. — Realist2 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Should probably add Ultratop in as an archive, with a pointer about usage.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, I think it's a very useful tool and I'm so loving the table. — Realist2 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Your work's greatly appreciated.  :) SKS2K6 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I added Canada with a disclaimer. I can't find an archive for album charts.... SKS2K6 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hot Dance Airplay

I think Hot Dance Airplay charts should be included along with other Billboard charts, since it is not a component chart. Hot Dance Airplay measures the dance airplay strength of a single and is not incorporated to decide the song's position in Hot Dance Club Play charts. "Legolas" (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to its own article, it's a component chart of the Hot 100. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We are trying to cut down on US chart data, not increase it. — Realist2 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Australian ARIA Single Chart

I really don't think the chart name needs the 'ARIA' in it. That would be mentioned in the article, so therefore the chart name should be just left as 'Australian Singles Chart' Hometown Kid (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, isn't "Australia" part of ARIA? It's not like we say, "US Billboard Hot 100", but "Billboard Hot 100" (in most cases). Therefore, shouldn't it just be "ARIA Singles Chart"? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Australian ARIA Single Chart? That's wrong! ARIA = Australian Recording Industry Association. This chart is now called "Australian Australian Recording Industry Association Single Chart". Twice the word "Australian"? Should be changed to ARIA Singles Chart or to ARIA Top 50 Singles Chart. BTW the official name is "ARIA Top 50 Singles Chart". See (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but we have to look at this on an international level. I live in Australia, so obviously I know what ARIA is but people from the Americas, Europe, Asia etc aren't. That is why we can't have
"ARIA Top 50 Singles Chart" because the region of the chart provider is not evident. I suppose that is why we use "Australian ARIA Singles Chart" • вяαdcяochat 09:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm from Europe. :) ARIA should always be linked to ARIA_Charts. There is everything explaind what ARIA means. Until now, a very unsatisfactory solution. Australian ARIA - it just looks wrong! (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I usually link is as [[ARIA Charts|Australian Singles Chart]]. Wouldn't that work as a compromise? — Σxplicit 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would use [[ARIA Charts|ARIA Singles Chart]], the wikilink provides all the info to people who are unaware of ARIA's meaning. Also, the funny thing about it being named the "ARIA Top 50 Singles Chart", is that well, it is actually a Top 100. Or at least the ARIA report lists a Top 100. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this the official Finnish singles chart?

Is this? My feeling is no, it looks like some TV music countdown, but does anyone know? Currently at the article on the "Poker Face (Lady GaGa song)", a Billboard source says it's at number 2 but this odd source says it's at number one. One editor is saying that's the official Chart. Cheers — Realist2 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's listed at User:Kww/goodcharts, but has a slightly different address. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
KK, looks reliable then. — Realist2 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
These are the sights I use ( & ( The first one updates before the second one, but they are the same chart.(MoovieStarz (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
Second one is better to use since it allows archiving. --Legolas (talktome) 05:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop 100

Shouldn't the Pop 100 chart be right after Hot 100 chart in the table sequence ? According to Billboard, these are the two most important charts comprising airplay+digital+sales. I know its a new chart but Billboard considers it to be important. Can it be changed in the Guideline so that we have a standard.? "Legolas" (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The charts are ordered alphabetically, not by importance of the chart. DiverseMentality 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Pop 100 is basically what the old Hot 100 used to be before they decided to included all radio airplay into the Billboard chart. Not sure why they didn't just start a new chart under a new name and continue with the Hot 100 as it has always been a reflection of Popular Music in the US. It's one of the reasons I believe that it's a good idea to include it with any Hot 100 listing. Many of the Country, R&B songs that hit the Hot 100 now might never hit the chart if they were using airplay from Top 40 radio stations only. I like to track those "Should've, Would've been Number One Songs" and the Pop 100 confirms my thoughts on these songs at times. It's always a good idea to look at it to see if the #1 song on the Hot 100 is being influenced by non top 40 radio stations. (MoovieStarz (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
The Pop 100 uses a subset of pop/top 40 radio stations, it has nothing to do with how the Hot 100 "used to be". It is simply a newer chart introduced as a tool for pop/top 40 radio stations and labels who distribute that kind of music. - eo (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Archives for international Billboard charts

Is there an archive for the international Billboard charts? I'd prefer a free link, but if they are only available by paid subscription, that's life.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with

I'm very close to done with User:Kww/goodcharts. One column needs filling in, and I'm not very experienced with The key is pretty simple:

Green star => Fine archive of this chart, OK to use as a source
Yellow circle => This particular chart is archived reliably, but the site has too many bad charts on it to continue to use. Not necessary to remove this chart from an existing article, but new links to this chart should not be added.
Red circle => This archive of this country's chart is an archive of an unreliable chart.

I don't think anything in gets a green star, and I've already handed out a red circle to its Brazilian charts. I don't know how to allocate yellow and red circles to it's other charts, though.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I just make a practical observation about Mariah-charts? Is it a Mariah Carey Fan site that developed into something bigger? I simply cannot imagine a source like Mariah Charts getting through a GA or FA review. — Realist2 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I can be persuaded that way myself, but I'd like to hear some more discussion on it. The effort to remove it from all articles would be pretty large, so my inclination is to have a consensus on when it's worth removing and when it's not. Hopefully, once we get a decent chart guideline in place, any article going for GA or FA would only have official charts or blessed archives in place, and Mariah-charts and top40-charts would be removed on that basis.
The problem with replacement of it as a chart is that it is very time-consuming. I can delete a Brazil Hot 100 reference in a few seconds. Going through an article that is based on mariah-charts and changing every link and verifying every number takes a bit of time, and I'm not inclined to do it if the numbers were probably accurate in the first place.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing reliable about myself...nothing but a fansite, no matter how widespread. For that matter, is there any reason to keep on Goodcharts at all, since it is already under BADCHARTS? Huntster (t@c) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Same basic argument there. The charts that top40-charts archives are generally fine, the charts that top40-charts creates for itself are the problem. 714 articles make use of the archived charts (I've purged nearly all of the crappy charts already). It's easy to say "there shouldn't be any references to top40-charts", but much harder to do. The United World Chart took an enormous amount of effort, and the Brazil Hot 100 is still being fought. I'd rather choose our battles.
If the consensus is that is too bad to allow any references to, fine, I can live with that. is bad, but manageable, and eliminating it can be done slowly over time.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain

"Chart trajectory: A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article, even if it is verifiable. Including the chart trajectory constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories should instead be briefly described in the text of the article or in a table for charts."

Umm.. err.. how do i put this. "Trajectory should not be included in an article..." or "trajectories should instead be briefly described in the text of the article". It contradicts itself. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Some articles used to include a separate table that showed the position on each chart for each week it was on the chart. If it was on the chart for 60 weeks, there would be 60 separate entries. That's basically not allowed anymore.
Personally, I think it's best not to describe it in text, either, and would happily change the guideline to say so if I could garner widespread agreement.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering about this too. I think what was originally meant was that charts showing the full trajectory were unacceptable, but briefly mentioning it in the article is okay, if the movement is notable. Like, "'Song' shot up from #84 to #3 in its second week due to digital downloads." That sort of thing. But I do feel it should be reworded, because this is a reason some people just verbally describe the trajectory (as in, "Album went from #2 to # 5 then #6, where it stayed for two weeks, then went back up to #5."). SKS2K6 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The sentence should read something like this: "Including a song/album's chart trajectory in a table constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. If verifiable, chart trajectories should instead be briefly described in the text of the article." k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Chart VS. prose....

Question: should information already listed in a chart be duplicated in a paragraph on the page? I'm not saying it should be strictly an either-or thing, but I feel that a chart is for listing peak positions on charts, and prose is for listing any notable achievements and backgrounds to said charts. For example, the fact that "Touch My Body" was Mariah Carey's 18th #1, or the fact that "Run" by Leona Lewis topped the charts due to very high digital sales, are notable facts and should be listed. But isn't it pointless to name all the peak positions on various charts AND list them out? Case in point: "I Hate This Part" by the Pussycat Dolls, or "Bye Bye (Mariah Carey song)". (I realise that this would be hard to enforce/mandate, but it's impossible to do anything right now because there's nothing that forbids it.) SKS2K6 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always fix it, but I agree that on a PCD article, the chances of getting any sensible change to stick for over an hour is small. I don't think it's reasonable to try to write a guideline that gets into that level of detail ... it would be much like the "18 charts" rule, which is unenforceable. These guidelines are only really enforceable when you can trace them to policies, the way that WP:BADCHARTS can ultimately be said to be an extension of WP:RS.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

UK midweek charts

Hey all. What is the guideline regarding UK midweek charts? It seems that a lot of anonymous/newbie editors are now adding updated peak entries for the UK Singles Chart from the midweek charts (which aren't usually published to the general public, but are made available as a "forecast" for the end of week chart to certain places). Should the midweek charts be included (only when reliably sourced of course)? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I've seen this too. Nuke 'em. Totally not notable. - eo (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mid-week. It's the official end-of-week positions that matter; it's not like a song that hits #1 midweek will actually be a #1 single. And isn't the weekend when most of the purchases are made? SKS2K6 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably SKS. Could the midweeks be added to the bad charts so I can direct users to that? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not rush. One of the reasons that BADCHARTS has been enforceable is that people see that it reflects consensus, and that means I like to be slow to add things, and make sure there's discussion. Is there an article or two where they've been trouble that we could place a pointer to this discussion?—Kww(talk) 12:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly I think non-inclusion of midweeks is a no-brainer. These are not official positions and once the weekly chart is published, midweeks mean nothing. - eo (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
So do I, but the problem is that they are a reliable and official publication. What we are really objecting to them on is basically WP:NOT#NEWS ... something like there's no need to be so fast including information that we are forced to include an estimate 72 hours before the actual figure is available. That's a perfectly legitimate argument, but we can wait 72 hours for this as well. Post a notice or two in a likely spot, make sure that we counter any objections that come along, and then proceed.—Kww(talk) 13:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent as this follows Kww's original post)
Issues (song) is one example. The Loving Kind is also another example. It seems that "midweek chart inclusion" has stopped now, but it is likely to start up again.
With regard to the midweeks being "reliable and official", this isn't strictly true because the public doesn't have access to it directly, like they do to the end-of-week chart. The public only has access through certain third-party resources (Digital Spy for example), and they tend to be summaries, rather than "this single is at this position"). ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 14:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Tagged them with a notice. Sorry for coming off as a process-wonk, but this guideline has worked really well so far, and I don't want to screw it up by opening it to accusations of being the work of a handful of people working in isolation. How reliable of a source is Digital Spy in general?—Kww(talk) 16:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it - I know there are processes to follow and I appreciate that. I just thought I'd suggest it and see what the feeling was.
In general, I believe Digital Spy is considered to be fairly reliable, although it does sometimes jump onto unreliable sources, publish a related news story and then have to retract it at a later stage... ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 16:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Singles charting in two separate years

Hi all, if a single charts in two separate years, according to the guideline, we should separate the charts in to two years (like Just Dance), but which position should be taken in to account? Suppose a single enters the chart at 2008 but peaks at 2009, which year the chart should be moved 08 or 09? There is confusion among the users regarding this. The guideline also specifically doesnot state anything. Lets discuss this."Legolas" (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The number listed has to correspond to the year it is listed in. I see three choices:
  1. Rewrite the guideline to make it state that "separate years" is for cases separated by years, as in when a single re-enters the chart years later because it is used as a theme song or something. In cases where a single is released in November or December, the two years should be combined as one, and only the peak should be listed.
  2. The peak should be listed under a separate chart for the year it peaked in, and that's the only listing it has.
  3. List the peak for each year under the chart for each year.
That's basically my preference order, as well.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there should be any dating in the tables. The table should just be for the 1 peak position, whatever year that comes in. The details on specific years and recharting are best suited to the pro's. Let's keep the tables simple. — Realist2 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then shall we change the guidelines? "Legolas" (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO, I think it would be better to add date. You know, its not mentioned in the text. And about the confusion, I think it would make sense if we refer to the date the single first appeared. --Efe (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your first choice. A song within a single chart run can only have one peak. If a song is at #4 in the final week of December and #3 in the first week of January, than its peak is #3, regardless of year. I've seen for songs that run across years something like Chart (2004/2005) used, but I'd have no objection whatever year is put in. I do think that the same chart could be listed twice (under different years) for songs with two distinct releases, such as "The Twist" or UB40's "Red, Red Wine". --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PJK Charts

I've seen this "chart" being added to articles. Anyone know anything about it, might it be the next UWC. — Realist2 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it until now. Looks dodgy to me. I tried to do a google search for a website or something about the "charts", but found nothing. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Apologies if this has been resolved already but is this a legitimate chart for Mexico? [2] This is not the same source shown in Kww's goodcharts page. Moreover, there is a wikipedia page on it: México Top 100, and there are number-ones lists for Number-one Hits of 2003 (Mexico), Number-one Hits of 2004 (Mexico), Top Latino number-one hits of 2005, Number-one Hits of 2006 (Mexico), List of number-one hits of 2007 (Mexico) and List of number-one hits of 2008 (Mexico). The "source" for the by-year lists is right from a blog, which is a huge no-no, the last time I checked. Was going to nominate them all for deletion but thought I'd check here first to hear from others. - eo (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally suspicious of, but have not managed to the research yet to say "yes" or "no" on it. Are you sure that it doesn't just mirror the official chart for Mexico?—Kww(talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Like User:Kww, I'm kinda iffy on them too...but I have yet to find definitive proof either for or against any chart on Their methodology page appears questionable at best, and it's apparently run by a random 24-year-old guy, and this page lists a gmail address for contact.... Honestly, considering it's absolutely void of industry links (no IFPI endorsement or anything), it's really questionable. (As an aside, it doesn't appear to be merely a mirror of other bad charts, like Hot100Brasil, because they have differing positions, although all the songs appear to be generally correct.) SKS2K6 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)