Wikipedia talk:Record charts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Record Charts (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

South Africa[edit]

Music ZA publish a top 100 singles chart stating "Peaks are from August 2013 - Chart is based on independently sourced sales from iTunes, included is airplay and chart points from local radio stations. The SA Top 100 is independently calculated and is not associated with iTunes officially." It also publishes an Album Chart Top 20 and the EMA Airplay Top 10. Could we consider this as a legitimate chart for South Africa with the use of WebCite? It seems very reliable to me, they also have interviews with high profile local artists. - Lips are movin 11:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bump @Kww: @IndianBio: @Bluesatellite: @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: - Lips are movin 23:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[edit]

In 2011 the website was added to "Websites to avoid", apparently after this discussion. With great pain I read the 2011 discussion referenced above. The quality of the arguments is abominable. I actually dispute most of what was said at the time. As it stands right now, the entry says: – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources.

The link goes to the website, but from the remarks I gather what is meant is actually the weekly publication "UK Charts Plus", as the website itself does not present any chart informaton itself;the only exception are the year-end charts that a downloadable for free.

Year-End Charts on[edit]

then I do not understand "Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources." Like all the charts the weekly magazine "UK Charts Plus" prints, these year-end sales charts are also fully licensend from OCC. What could be uncertain about any "methodology as to annual figures"?

In the 2011 discussion referenced above it's alledged that the BPI list of annual best sellers deviates from what UK Charts Plus publises. I checked the BPI file with the 2009 UK Charts Plus Annual, and to my surprise I found that this alledged difference is a misunderstanding (or a malicious falsehood, so stupid it is): The BPI lists artist albums together with compilation albums in one sequence, but UK Charts Plus lists seperately the Top 200 Artists albums and the Top 200 Compilations. The BPI list is so far unusual, as since 1989 there is no longer a combined weekly albums charts: there's a weekly Artist Albums chart, and seperately a weekly Compilations albums chart. So it strangely combines these two charts, which might have a purpose for a trade body, but less so faor chartwatchers.

Weekly Charts in UKChartsPlus Magazine[edit]

  • The BPI does neither own or publish the OCC charts
  • The BPI is one co-owner of the OCC as a company, together with ERA
  • OCC controls the charts and lets another company Millward Brown gather the data
  • OCC licenses the charts to dozens of users, apart from record companies and trade bodies, it's mainly publishers and websites
  • On the list of official OCC Partners UK Charts Plus is indeed listed (bottom row, second from the left)
  • The website and the weekly magazine fully credit each and every OCC chart to OCC, charts from other sources (like Airplay) are credited to their originators
  • UK Charts Plus has lawfully licensed all the weekly charts and the year-end charts from OCC and vouches for their accuracy
  • UK Charts Plus is the only publication to carry Artist Albums positions 101-200, Singles positions 101-200, Download Tracks positions 101-200 and Budget Albums 1-50, to name but a few.

Unless further evidence is given, I intend to delete from "Websites to avoid" and add a reference pertaining to positions 101-200 in "Recommended charts". -- Bleddynefans (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I support bleddynefan's arguments. I'm a UK Charts Plus subscriber for years and even to doubt their accuracy seems fanciful. should be a recommended source despite the paywall issue for the weekly magazine. The annual charts are online for free. All charts are licences from OCC and facts are crosschecked. I can only highly recoommed UK Charts Plus as reliable UK chart source. -- (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Bleddynefans. It is not your place to revert something for which a consensus was gained. At the time of the 2011 discussion, there was overwhelming evidence that UKChartPlus's data and their methodology was suspect to say the least (I know because I was part of the discussion at looked at the evidence presented at the time). It even failed on WP:RSN and was added to "Websites to Avoid" for a valid reason. If things have now changed, then I'm sure everybody will be prepared to discuss the matter and look at the evidence as it now stands, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus should remain in force. You can't make a decision to change it by yourself. Soultruck (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Chart Log UK ([edit]

Having read several archived disucssions here about the reliablity of UK chart websites, I found the views expressed about baffling. Editors express their personal views, eg. they find it unreliable, or they spread hearsay. I never found any concrete evidence to support these opinions, to the contrary. Nowhere is an statenment that says "zobbel says A but B is correct"... Nowhere.

"The problem with Zobbel is that it returns soundtrack and other special albums as having charted on the main albums chart, when in fact they are not even eligible for it." (is mentioned here). Looking at any zobbel page, there's a key at the top (plus there's a link at the bottom to the homepage with detailed explanations), making it clear which charts are referred to, and albums charting on the "compilations albums chart" have a special bold symbol in order to distinguish them from albums that charted on the "artist albums chart". I can't see any confusion about this at all; perhaps dome editors can't be bothered to read the key?

On chart dating (another point raised in 2010): the UK charts are traditionally dated to the Saturday after publication, in effect the date used by the printed Music Week magazine; ie. the chart published this Sunday April 5, 2015 is actually dated "April 11, 2015"-- that's the traditon in the UK for 50 years. Whether a week is stated as "week 5" or "week 6" can be debated, but zobbel uses a reliable system (cut-off date is January 9th).

PS: sources all its charts from Hit Music (1994-2001) and successor magazine UKChartsPlus, all official licensees of OCC charts.

So where is the evidence against -- Bleddynefans (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you show any evidence that it's licensed to publish and archive the data? The keying you refer to wasn't present when those comments were initially entered here, by the way.—Kww(talk) 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Why would someone (eg. a website like, or a book publisher like Guinness/Virgin/Whitburn, etc) need a license from OCC to publish and archive the data? Isn't wikipedia doing the same, ie. archiving summary chart postions data (eg. peak position and number of weeks)? Does wikipedia need a license from OCC? I checked several editions of the Guinness British Hit Singles & Albums books, and they do thank CIN and NME for their charts but nowhere is any licensing agreement mentioned, or that the data is not their own copyright. Certainly, the original Top 20/50/75/200 charts themselves are copyrighted, but not any derivative data. And that's what we're talking about. -- Bleddynefans (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of record chart alphabetical order[edit]

See here. Anyone who is interested may join this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanish chart[edit]

Why differences beetwen [1] and [2]? Eurohunter (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of US genre charts included[edit]

The lists of charts on song articles is skewed towards the US by the inclusion of lots of genre charts. See for example: Uptown Funk#Charts or Happy (Pharrell Williams song)#Charts and certifications. For a major international hit, is its performance in one country's genre charts actually notable? If they must be included I would suggest a separate list entirely (they have also caused a long discussion about list order). Clearly if a song is say, classical, then classical charts round the world are going to be appropriate, but no other country seems to have the plethora of genres which really mean little to the average reader (what is 'rhythmic airplay'?) which basically describe which radio stations in the US are playing which songs. Btljs (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For me it is sure on Polish wersion Wikipedia we use only sales list and only once national list for Sweden, United Kingdom, United States and other. I think last good example is pl:Heroes (singel Månsa Zelmerlöwa). Eurohunter (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It truly is overkill, but where do you limit it? I certainly don't see a need for a chart table listing the Hot 100 along with AC, Adult Pop, Triple A, Rhythmic or other such narrow and specialized airplay-only charts for international hits that have also charted in a dozen or more other countries. For example, "We Are Young", with success on pop, rock, and dance charts currently lists eight Billboard charts in addition to the Hot 100. Maybe just show Pop (Mainstream Top 40), Rock, and Dance to show its crossover appeal. The others, while they may show the popularity of the song among different radio audiences in the US, don't give a broader understanding of the song's success to the general reader. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it has more to do with people not abiding by the guidelines at Wikipedia:Record_chart#Billboard_charts. For example it says that in the conditions: "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the following →" and then lists the charts you can add. Or for specific geners it says in the conditions for example: "If a song has charted on neither Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs nor Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay you may add any of the following →" and then lists the charts that may be added. If people stuck to these guidelines it wouldn't be so much of a problem. And I should point out that no "Rhythmic" chart is listed in the guidlines that should be included at all.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Just because Billboard publishes a lot of charts, doesn't mean they can't be included. It's like saying Australian Urban or UK R&B can't be included. Note that U.S. component charts are not allowed to be included in tables, like R&B Airplay or R&B Digital for example.  — Calvin999 11:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, that's just it, component charts can be included if the criteria is met. For example in the guidelines see where it says: "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the following →". It then goes on to list the various component charts that may be added in this situation, which I think is fine so long as people stick this and only add the component charts if the song has not charted on the Hot 100.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My original point is not about component charts which, as QuintusPetillius says, are dealt with in the guidelines. I think what I am looking for is some sort of guide about when a genre chart position is notable. So, if something charts low in the main charts then it is perfectly reasonable to include a high position in a genre chart. However, if it charts high in major charts then I see no value in a string of genre charts because, although mathematically they are not components of the major charts, a song can't realistically be successful in a major chart without being successful within its genres (and its genres are covered elsewhere). There is also nothing to stop summaries being added to the descriptive 'chart performance in the US' section - I just don't think lots of peak positions in the table are particularly informative. Btljs (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, but where would you draw the line ? There would have to be a bench mark by which if a song charts below a certain position on the main chart then it would be eligible for genre charts to be included. However there are limitations as to what genre charts can be used anyway if you read the guidelines. For example it says that: "If a song has charted on neither Rock Songs nor Rock Airplay you may add any of the following →". It then goes on to list less important rock genre charts that can be included. Thus if people stuck to this criteria it wouldn't be so much of a problem. Likewise for R&B,Rap, Hip-hop the guidelines state that: "If a song has charted on neither Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs nor Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay you may add any of the following →", and then lists less important charts for that genre that can be included. If these guidelines were adhered to then you would not get the endless lists of genre charts for one song, but it is clear that editors are ignoring this and just adding as many as possible.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Finnish chart[edit]

I'm having trouble with someone entering the Finnish component chart position instead of single chart position on Ghost Town (Adam Lambert song). The person who did it claimed that the wording on WP:GOODCHARTS allowed him or her to use component chart. The song did not chart on the single chart, but appeared on the download chart. Given that you cannot enter chart positions for Billboard digital sales in the Hot 100 chart, I'm wondering how this can be done for the Finnish chart, or how to differentiate the component chart from the main chart for the Finnish chart. The chart as it appears doesn't make any distinction that it is the download chart. I don't know how widespread this is, but it needed to be fixed if people are adding component chart ranking into Finnish chart ranking - it needs to be explained in the template whether this is the download, airplay or single chart. Hzh (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, never mind, the clarification is in Finnish. I think those who wrote the template needed to use English because it is causing a lot of problem with people who assume that it is the single chart, and change the chart ranking in the discography page, which cause lots of unnecessary reverts. Hzh (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Related discussion here. Widr (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Scotland chart[edit]

Scotland chart is necessary because United Kingdom is main list. Eurohunter (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll bite, where is said chart? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Official Charts Company publishes it. Despite frequent protestations, it isn't a component chart and Scotland is a country.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Official Scottish Singles Chart and Official Scottish Albums Chart. I agree they are not component charts; a component chart is made up of some of the formats (digital, streaming, vinyl etc.) of a larger chart not some of the regions. Otherwise the existence of a European chart would render individual charts for every country in Europe redundant. Btljs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Scotland is only part of United Kingdom like California in the United States. Tmies when it was counry gone. If I said "component" I meaned Scotland is only part of United Kingdom, it looks like add Basque Country or Bavaria chart. Eurohunter (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it is very ill-advised to compare different regions around the world in this way as it can appear disprespectful. In any case, read the guidelines: nowhere does it mention a chart relating only to a country (which Scotland is anyway); merely that it should be from a reliable source and multiple outlets. The paragraph on component dependent charts doesn't mention geographic distinctions either. I have no particular opinion on whether California or Bavaria should be included assuming they meet all the above criteria only that the inclusion of a chart should make the page more informative. I notice, for instance, that Happy (Pharrell Williams song) only reached number 2 in Scotland despite famously topping the UK chart three times - that is notable. What I don't particularly like are endless genre charts when a record has peaked high in a general chart for the same region - I would rather see different regions to be honest as a region is real people whereas a genre is something dreamed up by the charts companies and radio stations. Btljs (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


Why you use different or false names of charts? Why you use "Ultratop Flanders" not "Ultratop 50" by Ultratop (organisation), if you use Single Top 100 Dutch chart by MegaCharts. Why you write there (Single Top 100) about other charts (albums and other) if this is singles chart? You should created article about albums and singles lists in Sweden, Norway and much other charts separated like UK Singles Chart and UK Albums Chart by The Official Charts Company. There are three things: organisation artcle, albums chart article, singles chart article and optional articles about other by genres or airplay charts. Eurohunter (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)