Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Rap Songs chart

Me and Iknow23(talk) are in a dispute about the Rap Songs chart being on the Berzerk article. I already took a look at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS#Single charts and that's not a legitimate reason to not have it there because it's not listed as a depreciated chart and it's on almost every song article on wikipedia where it shows a chart position for that chart so it seems to be a very reliable chart, but other than that he claims that the chart is a component chart of the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and that it's only based on airplay, when it's actually based on both airplay and digital sales, just like the Billboard Hot 100 and R&B/Hip-Hop songs. So therefore it is not a component chart and should remain on the article. The Pop Songs chart is only based on airplay so that's basically a component chart and should be removed then right? Hometown Kid(talk) 10:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's clear the air here. I never said "it's only based on airplay". The Project Page states "If a song has not charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs you may add any of the following → ... Hot Rap Songs." Please see Billboard Chart Changes here "R&B Songs and Rap Songs will serve as 25-position distillations of the overall Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, highlighting the differences between pure R&B and rap titles in the overall, wide-ranging R&B/hip-hop field." Thus any song on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs automatically will appear on R&B Songs or Rap Songs as the latter two charts are derived from parts of the former chart. In other words R&B Songs + Rap Songs = Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Also you state that WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS#Single charts is "not a legitimate reason to not [list Rap songs chart] on the Berzerk article [table]. Then please show where is your consensus to change this Project Page to your position?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
About you first point, that is not necessarily true, not every single song on the Hot R&B/HH Songs chart also appears on the Hot Rap Songs and the Hot R&B Songs chart, in other words the R&B/HH chart does not consist of exactly 25 Rap songs and 25 R&B songs. Generally though I agree with not listing the Rap Songs chart, because it is a component of the greater R&B/HH chart, and is not calculated differently from the R&B/HH chart or the Hot 100 as it used to be. No song appears on the Top Rap songs chart and not the R&B/HH chart, so it becomes excessive.STATic message me! 23:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
"R&B/HH chart does not consist of exactly 25 Rap songs and 25 R&B songs". Ok, as the Top 50 positions of R&B/HH chart may vary in the mix of R&B and Rap songs, e.g. 30 Rap songs and 20 R&B this week and then 26 R&B and 24 Rap the next week...if I catch your drift?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, recent examples would be "Levels" and "Collard Greens". STATic message me! 00:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
But, but the time it gets down to the Top 25 Rap songs on the R&B/HH, those songs also chart on the Hot 100, so the chart is kinda irrelevant ya know? It used to be compiled from urban radio stations and other specific places, but now it is just the top 25 rap songs on the Hot 100/Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart, which is compiled widely with no radio specifics anymore.STATic message me! 00:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment. We do accept Genre charts, but Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs is a "double genre" chart. If it did not exist, we would accept Hot R&B and Hot Rap as genre charts since they are then not included in a "double genre" chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what I am saying, I hope @Hometown Kid: sees this and understands. No hard feelings guys, its always best to just talk it out instead of edit war, remember WP:BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRRRRD LOL. STATic message me! 00:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
RAP Songs and R&B Songs are a SUBSET of the same stations. They are each 25-part distillations of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart which is the main urban music chart in the US. The only difference between Rap Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs is that the Rap Songs chart excludes purely R&B titles. This is taken from Billboard themselves. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Thanks.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Are YouTube view counts required

Do YouTube view counts really matter? I can't help but feel that YouTube falls under the same category iTunes as single network. I think don't think they deserve mentions except under special caes (like Gangnam Style), but am I forced to use them? Am I allowed to remove them if I'm improving an article? Erick (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


I'm not sure if that's really an issue that falls under the record charts policy. However, I do agree with you; it does represent a single network issue and doesn't represent a world view. Youtube does not hold a monopoly over video streaming and in many parts of the world is not the most popular website for such. But it does have some value. Some, like as you say Gangnam Style, have some notable youtube relate issues - most views ever, most views in 24h or what have you. I would discourage it's use for spurious things. I recently removed one that stated a certain song had more views than a Justin Beiber song. This song was a hugely hyped and world wide marketed song; the Justin Beiber song wasn't even named and turned out to be a sideline video of his that was not released or marketed worldwide. -an unfair comparison attempting to unduely big up the other song. That sort of thing is unfortunately endemic in music related articles, where fandom editors big up the songs to the point that the articles just are ridiculous. But even "it received X amount of views on youtube" adds very little information to the reader -is this alot? -its not quantified information. Most of the big names regularly rack up hundreds of millions of views so more often than not it is not some impressive fact. Plus its not a world view.
I'd say use commonsence. If something is obviously spurious and is not quantified -remove it. Less obviously spurious uses, or places that may be controversial -take it to the talkpage.
I would, however, support a formal policy on it discouraging the spurious use of "it received X amount of views on such and such single website". Whether the Record chart policy is the place for it... is another thing. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Charts tables with few entries

Is there a guideline or recommendation (chart-specific or not) of a minimum number of table entries? Is there a point in having a table with one chart? Eg [1]. Adabow (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Country abbreviations in chart tables

Is there a standard for this? I used to always favour ISO 3166-1 (so using IE for Ireland, DE for Germany, ES for Spain, etc), but they all got changed (so IRL for Ireland, GER for Germany, SPA for Spain). Recently I noticed that an SK for Slovakia was changed in an article to SL. That's the ISO code for Sierra Leone, but as we don't use those, it could also mean Slovenia, or several others that start with S and contain an L. So I just wondered if there was a standard, and if not, should we implement one (I say we probably should)? –anemoneprojectors– 09:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it really matters. Two-letter and three-letter codes seem to be used interchangeably. Like AUS instead of AU for australia and NZ instead of NZL for new zealand. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thinking about it, in some cases a three letter code like "GER" is more obvious than "DE". But there will always be cases where there's confusion, as with SK or SL, so a reference or link will hopefully explain it. Even AUS could be confused with Austria. –anemoneprojectors– 12:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The codes are always wikilinked to the relevant record chart which in turn says what country its from. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Unless it's linked to International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which the SK in the article I refer to does (though the reference does state which country it is). I just thought it might be good to have a standard set of abbreviations and codes. –anemoneprojectors– 16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Few issues with the singlechart and the certification template

Hello everyone, there are some issues I saw in the single chart template which I wanted to bring to notice. In the {{singlechart}} template for Hungary, the urls generated are for the mahasz.hu website, however, that website has migrated off to a new url. Could you guys please take a look since the week and the year given does not generate the archive url anymore?

Secondly, can we have the year and week for the Irish singlechart as part of the title also? Like "Irish Singles: Chart Track: Week 43, 2013" or something from the week and year information in the template? The title at present, just "Chart Track" simply does not give any indication whether the link is for a singles chart or album chart etc.

Lastly, the certification entry template for Italian certifications do not generate the Week and Year in the reference, making the addition of the template pointless. It says "Select Online in the field Scegli la sezione. Select Week -- and Year ----. Enter Lady Gaga in the field Artista. Click Avvia la ricerca". Here the week and year should have been replaced by the values given in the {{Certification Table Entry}} for Italy region, however it does not do so. Let me know your thoughts on this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Zobbel.de

This site is being used as a source for certain articles, specifically as a source for UK chart positions lower than 100. However, the site itself implies that it is getting its information from UKchartsplus.co.uk which is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. Therefore, I think Zobbel.de should also be added to BADCHARTS as it is unreliable. Soultruck (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - yes, I agree it is unreliable. --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Scottish Chart Policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we have the decision on the Scottish Chart written up into the actual rules page please.


Some have called for it to be added to the BADCHARTS, however the consensus from the numerous previous discussions on the UK and Scottish Charts have been against an outright ban, deciding that it is only to be used when the chart placement is different to that of the overall UK chart.
Some of the reasons given in discussions are because its a dependent component chart (Scotland is 8% of the UK; England+Wales+Scotland+N.Ireland=UK; sales in Scotland contribute to the UK chart); the chart placement on the chart is usually the same as the overall UK chart; the charts are compiled by the Official Charts Company who refer to the Scottish chart as a "Regional Chart", and you are only said to have had a #1 if you are number one in the overall UK chart; there is only one national industry body - British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - and (as the name suggests) Gold, Platinum (etc.) certifications are only awarded for overall UK chart sales.

Discussions have popped up now and again over the years, but it's never been written into the actual policy page.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've always felt that the Scottish chart should never be used as it is simply a component chart of the UK Chart. We do not allow components of the US Billboard charts so we shouldn't be allowing this one. I agree it would be helpful to have something written on the Record Charts article page regarding this though. 88.104.24.102 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Scotland is a country, and there's no other case where a national chart has been denied listing on the basis that the country isn't important enough to bother with. The positions are usually different, although I agree that they are generally similar. Most importantly, since there's no policy that would forbid their inclusion (most charts on WP:BADCHARTS actually fail content policies like WP:RS and WP:NOTADVERTISING), all an effort to forbid it would result in is edit-warring, with the editor that was trying to remove it ultimately winding up blocked.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Scotland may be a country, but it is a country within a country and the larger country already has a national chart: The Official UK Chart. I understand it's a unique issue, but looking at the matter properly shows that the Scottish chart is simply a component of the UK chart. Based on the fact that we already forbid US Billboard component charts, the same could and should apply here. The OCC merely list the Scottish chart as a "regional chart" rather than a "national chart". I once read someone state that "well the UK is part of the European chart, but we still include that." However, the European chart is merely a composite summary of all the countries that have their own national charts. The official UK chart comprises England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - and there is no separate chart for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, therefore the analogy is not the same. Soultruck (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not a component chart, actually. A component chart occurs when multiple charts are merged together based on a weighting factor and produce a composite chart, such as the sales and airplay components of the Billboard Hot 100. The UK and Scottish charts are overlapping charts, but each is independently computed over its coverage area. We permit a lot of overlapping charts: most of Billboard's genre charts overlap with at least one other genre chart. Try to draw a crisp line between Rap and R&B these days, for example. My basic feeling is that if the OCC believes there is sufficient reason to prepare an independent Scottish chart, it's not our place to decide they are wrong.—Kww(talk) 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
They're not computed indepedently of each other, the UK chart is computed by the OCC for all of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish chart is then just the sales from Scottish retail outlets from the OCC's overall list of sales that week. It is essentially a component of the UK chart and not a separate entity (the methodology and precise definition of "component" may not be exactly the same as the US Billboard charts, but it's the same principle). When we have the Scottish chart listed in chart tables on Wiki articles along with the UK chart, we are basically making it look that a record/artist has been more successful than they actually are because their record is being counted twice. Soultruck (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And that differs from being listed on the Rap and R&B genre charts because ... —Kww(talk) 13:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Add to BADCHARTS. It is not a country. Neither is Wales, nor Northern Ireland, nor Cornwall, et cetera et cetera. Nor is there any argument that their choices differ meaningfully from counties to the south. If anyone disagrees, could you please provide some specific examples? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Any argument that begins on a false premise (such as Scotland not being a country) can't be given much weight. Scotland most certainly is a country within the United Kingdom.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Ex-country. Not independent officially or in practice for three centuries. Speaks the same language and is integrated into the larger UK society and culture. If some album doesn't chart in UK overall but slips into the bottom of the Scottish charts for a week, ought WP to assume of its article "yes, this is notable, keep it"? Is this a useful rule of thumb? I don't think so, but you could turn me around, through specific examples or no-they-really-are-different-and-here's-why arguments. But "Scotland is a country and that's that" is unconvincing. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It being a country really isn't a matter for you to decide. The more important issue is that the OCC feels that Scottish charts are sufficiently distinct and important enough to separately compile and publish them. I tend to think that we give too much credence to charts as a source of notability, but I'm also very strongly of the opinion that treating it as pretty much a bright line indicator of notability saves us from a lot of arguing and edit warring. As rules go, we could do a lot worse.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the BPI and Official Charts Company do not regard Scotland as a "country" for charts - they call it a "regional chart". For the purposes of charts, official number ones, and certifications, the only country is the United Kingdom. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The OCC doesn't decide who's a country or not either.—Kww(talk) 01:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You've missed the point completely. Its not deciding what is a country or not; these policies are about record charts- its where you can have a number one and where you can be certified gold/silver/platinum. You cannot have a #1 in Scotland; you cannot be certified platinum in Scotland (neither in England, N.Ireland or Wales for that matter). OCC and BPI award those accolades for the UK as a whole. The policy is about record charts - not national boundaries --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Up

Ok, its been 4 days since any comments, and the discussion seems to have come to the conclusions as past discussions. The same reasoning that was previously mentioned in those discussions - and which i surmised when I opened this discussion - have come up again.

A quick summary of the views expressed:

  • 88.104.24.102 - Should not be used as it is a component chart.
  • Soultruck - Should not be used as it is a component chart; also raised issues regarding WP:NPOV as Scottish chart being used to inflate an artists perceived success (number ones and certifications are only issues by the BPI and OCC for the UK as a whole, not for the UK's component countries individually).
  • Hobbes Goodyear - arguments surround that Scottish charts are only a regional chart, and that the overall UK chart is the one that should be used - which seem to be comments linking to to the above component chart and BPI/OCC issues of above users.
  • I myself agree with all of the above; I had initially suggested Scottish charts only be used if it was different to the UK; but I will go with the others in the discussion.

The only one against has been: Kww who's arguments have surrounded Scotland's political identity as a country.

Past Discussions As I have mentioned the past discussions, I will link to them just for clarity and transparency.

  • April 2010 - all four involved concluded it was a component chart. One of those was actually Kww: "I agree that Scotland should be treated as a component chart of the UK singles chart.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)".
  • June/July 2010 - 5 against using it (2 saying it could be used for songs which had not charted in the main UK chart); 1 neutral; 1 against.


Conclusions
This is now the third time consensus has been reached against inclusion, with strong consensus each time that it should be listed as a component chart.
It has also been mentioned that it should be added to WP:BADCHARTS, however, there does not appear to be consensus for that move.
A previous discussion suggests flexibility to allow the Scottish Chart to be used for songs that have not charted in the UK chart, but this discussion has not really touched on this. It appears to me a fair and sensible approach, but, as there is no consensus for inclusion in this discussion, I will start a separate discussion regarding its inclusion or not.

As this is now the third time editors have come to the same consensus, I think we are safe to close the discussions and mention the chart under the component chart section of the main page. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just as an after note, I've added a list of examples of charts mathematically related on each other (dependent/component) to the main page. I had played with the idea of rewriting the paragraph to include the above discussion, but I think just a simple list is most sensible and clear; it also leaves room for any other charts to be listed. --Rushton2010 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Using Scottish Chart for songs which have not charted in the overall UK charts

Following the third agreement of the Scottish Chart as a component chart, I would like some input as to whether the Scottish Chart could be used if the song has not charted in the overall UK chart.

The policy states "In unusual cases, the subordinate chart can be mentioned: take, for example, a single which had no airplay because of objectionable content, but still charted extremely high on the composite chart due to sales. This would be unusual enough to potentially warrant mention."
It appears to me that charting in the Scottish regional chart but not the UK national one would be such an "unusual case" where "the subordinate chart can be mentioned". However, the actual policy is a little wishy-washy and open to interpretation.


What are other people's thoughts?

  • Does the policy as it stands allow such use of a regional chart if the song has not charted nationally?
  • If not, should it?
  • If so, should a specific mention of the Scottish chart be included to clarify that?

--Rushton2010 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. First, you misread my argument above: my point in mentioning Scotland's status as a country was simply to demonstrate that Hobbes Goodyear's arguments were completely without foundation. That remains true: any closing that gives any weight to Hobbes Goodyear's argument is invalid, because Hobbes Goodyear's argument is incontrovertibly false. That's not a matter of opinion, it's simply a fact.
  2. Second, the edit you made to the policy was also demonstrably false: the Scottish chart is not mathematically related to the UK chart. Scottish sales are not weighted by formula when composing the UK chart, they are simply counted: same as English and Welsh sales.
  3. I don't really have a strong objection to providing guidance that the Scottish charts are subordinate to the UK charts, but you need to come up with a phrasing that doesn't misdescribe them as "component" charts, and gain a much wider consensus than three editors that use demonstrably incorrect reasoning to get the result they desire.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First and foremost, if you believe consensus has changed from the discussions, the onus is on you to start a discussion and prove it. The original discussion was unanimous, and broad consensus has been reached two more times now. In the most recent discussion you were the lone voice against, while all others involved were in absolute agreement. Unanimity minus one as they say. The consensus has been there for the chart to be mentioned on the main page for almost 4 years. As the lone voice in an otherwise unanimous decision, constantly removing it would be very tedious and disruptive. Hence, if you believe the consensus was changed - start a discussion on it.
As for your other comments, I don't really intend to pick apart every little thing, as, as I say, - this has been in agreement since 2010; but: as for Hobbes Goodyear's arguments, they are entirely valid. The status of the component parts of the UK are not definitively defined, as it depends on a mix of circumstance of use, chosen definitions and personal choice- leading to them to be refereed to variously as countries/states/regions/nations/former-countries/former-states/former-nations etc. His chosen definition is that the UK is the "country" - ie. a "country" is a sovereign states and as the component parts are not independent of each-other, it is the UK over all which is the "country". Incidentally, that is the same way the UN and EU treats us; it is the UK as a whole which they regard as the country/sovereign state. -but there in lies the problem: this issue is not regarding any wishy washy definitions of claims of different status. This policy is about music charts.
The policy forbids charts dependent/component/mathematically related -regardless of issues of statehood/country-hood or anything else. The Official UK chart and the Scottish (and any future other regional charts) may not be related in the same way as the Billboard example listed, but that is given as an example, not as the rule. The consensus in the three agreements has been that the Scot chart is dependent/component/mathematically related. -again that originally agreement was 2010; this has just confirmed it for the 3rd time.
But for a bit of context, if we look at the rest of the policy we can see the aim behind it: "any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on both other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article." The aim appears explicitly to be to stop obvious clutter (and of course the potential NPOV issue was raised in the discussion). In exactly the same way as the Billboard example, any song charting on the UK chart can be presumed to chart on the Scottish one.
Finally, I had a quick read through your comments to see if I had missed anything out. I think I did broadly cover everything. In good faith I will add in your comment that no other "nation chart" has been excluded; but this is again a political issue resting whichever favoured way someone has of referring to the component parts of the UK. I didn't include your comment "there's no policy that would forbid their inclusion", because obviously the policy against component charts forbids component charts, and I thought including it would kind of undermined you. I will add it in good faith again.

So yes, with a unanimous agreement in 2010, reaffirmed with two discussions reaching the same consensus (this last being Unanimity minus one as they say), your more than welcome to start another discussion to see if that's changed. But please don't try and start edit warring on the main page. If you're worried about how it is framed as an example, improve it. Perhaps it would be better under BadCharts where it can be explained that discussions have deemed it a component chart, rather than just listing it as an example?
Either-way, as the lone voice against, while all others involved were in absolute agreement, ignoring those discussions and just constantly removing it would be very counterproductive, tedious and disruptive. --Rushton2010 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing discussions you open and closing them in favor of your own position is pretty bad form, so I wouldn't be talking to me about being disruptive. I also suggest that you study up on exactly what a policy is on Wikipedia, because WP:Record charts is not a policy. Its status as a guideline has even proven controversial in the past.—Kww(talk) 04:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding demonstrably false material to a guideline, Rushton2010. The section you keep adding this to is for charts that are related by mathematical weighting, and the Scottish chart is not mathematically weighted to construct the UK chart. The charts you have grouped it with are charts that use formulas where positions on the individual charts earn points, and then the composite chart is constructed by sorting the point scores. The UK chart is not constructed from the Scottish chart in that fashion. If you want to document consensus that the Scottish chart should normally not be used in the presence of a UK chart position, come up with a way of saying that that does not misdescribe the chart.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Something more like this, for example.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think a definite policy blocking all regional charts would be a very good idea.
However, you cannot just go adding and removing things willy nilly as you fancy. These pages are built through discussions.
Thus I have removed it from the main page and started a proper discussion below.
Best -Rushton2010 (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Additions to charts

Can these be added to WP:BADCHART?

  • Melon. (South Korea) Most likely a one-vendor chart similar to the iTunes chart, listing only its sales.
  • KKBOX. (Taiwan) Seems to be a streaming site with a chart.
  • 5 Music (Taiwan) Seems to be a one-retailer chart.
  • Hit FM not sure about the country of origin, but seems to be a streaming chart for its site.
  • HMV (Japan) Similar to Amazon.com.
  • Odyssey (Philippines) Another retailer chart.

And these to WP:GOODCHART?

  • G-Music. (Taiwan) Seems to be the only reputable chart for Taiwan, although since I don't understand Chinese I'm not sure of its methodology. Doesn't allow linking to specific weeks, so it would be necessary to indicate the week and year in order to access.
  • Sino Chart. Seems to be the only reputable chart for mainland China. This is a Google-translated version of its methodology.

--Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) I've only made a superficial review (e.g. of the listing and reasoning given above) but it loos sound and reasonable. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ARIA Hitseeker

I was wondering if the ARIA (Australian) Hitseeker chart is a chart that is permissible to use. I am working on an article for a recently released album (Thrive by Casting Crowns), and the album listed in the weekly ARIA Report under 'ARIA Hitseekers', but did not appear on top 100 albums list. The Hitseeker chart ranks the top 20 albums from artists that haven't reached the top 50 of the ARIA Album chart yet. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is correctly labeled and described, I don't think there's any reason not to include it.—Kww(talk) 01:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Cudisco.org a reliable source?

Here's the website. It's from Uruguay. Erick (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

IFPI lists the Uruguay office as
URUGUAY CAMARA URUGUAYA DEL DISCO
Juncal 1327 D of.603 Montevideo,Uruguay
Tel: +598-29163656
Point of contact: Carlos Millot
That would seem to support this being the official IFPI site.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sino Chart

Is this an official chart? I can't read anything on the About page, but it does have a link to the IFPI's list of certification thresholds. Adabow (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Policy Proposal by KWW

User Kww as attempted to add the following to the policy. As of course policy decisions require discussion, I have removed it from the main page and brought it here for discussion:--Rushton2010 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regional charts
In general, charts reflecting small regions are not used. For example, the Billboard Brasil charts representing the individual Brazilian states, while published by reputable and reliable source, have never been considered suitable for inclusion. Individual city charts are not considered suitable for inclusion. Scotland represents a borderline case, and there has never been a strong consensus either for or against conclusion. Its use is generally less controversial for works that have not charted on the main UK chart.

Discussion

  • I think it would be good to have a specific policy forbidding the use of regional charts. However, I would not support the proposed in it's current form.
Given now 3 verdicts (one unanimous, and one unanimous minus one), that the Scottish Chart represents a componant/dependant/mathmatically realted chart, it needs to be stronger. As I mentioned above, I believe occasions when songs have charted in Scotland and not the UK to be the "unusual cases" which the existing policy allows; ergo - this could be an opportunity to explicitly say that within the policy.
So I propose replacing "Scotland represents a borderline case, and there has never been a strong consensus either for or against conclusion. Its use is generally less controversial for works that have not charted on the main UK chart", with "The Scottish Singles and Albums charts may only be used in unusual cases for works which have not charted on the Official UK Charts." --Rushton2010 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a policy, it's a guideline. Its role is to explain how Wikipedia policies relate to a particular topic area. That's an important facet of a guideline. There really isn't a policy argument in favor of not listing the Scottish charts.
As for the "consensus" that it's a component chart, there isn't one. One of your discussions was a 3-2 split (you forgot Legolas2186), and one of the early proponents of treating it as a component chart shifted in later discussions. There's also the problem that no matter how many people say it's a component chart, it factually isn't. No one is saying that a Scotsman is worth 60% of a Brit or anything of the sort, as they do when they rank airplay, streams, and sales in a single chart. For the Scottish chart, they count all sales inside Scotland. For the UK, they count all sales inside the UK. If a record happened to sell only inside the Scotland, those sales would count on the UK chart exactly as they would have if the sale had occurred in England or Wales. No component processing. No weighting.
Finally, the net effect of the two discussions is identical: guidance that people shouldn't use the Scottish chart if the song charted in the UK. The reason I weakened the language is two-fold: first, your improper close of the above discussion despite being a participant and ignoring my objection to said close. Second, because there is no policy leg to stand on. WP:SINGLEVENDOR is based on WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. WP:BADCHARTS is based on WP:RS and the associated deletion discussions. The argument against Scotland is based on a handful of editors that misuse the term "component chart" and dislike the idea of treating Scotland as a country. If we add things like that into the guideline with forceful language, we lose legitimacy as a guideline at all.—Kww(talk) 04:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Trying to split hairs between policy and guidelines is foolish. The use of the terms are widely interchangable cross this website, and with Wikipedia having no firm rules anyway....
And, for clarity, when everyone else has agreed it is, you saying "it factually isn't", does not make you right and everyone else (who happened to have all be in broad agreement) wrong. It makes you look potentially disruptive, and makes it look as if you seem to believe no one else's opinion matters but your own.
And I wouldn't go making such bold crystal ball statements about people's motivations. Mine had nothing to do with any political notions of state/region/country or whatever; this is a guide for music charts, and my decision was about music charts.
And I admit I had been slightly intimated about listing the decision of the above discussion with the "Bad Charts", because BADCHARTS in capitals looks very "bad". But it is just a list of "Depreciated" charts- charts it has been agreed should not be used - and that is exactly what has happened three times now (and yes I went back and checked my numbers, and no I had not forgotten Legolas), so there is no reason not to list it with the other ones which have been agreed not to use. It would allow a fuller explanation of why it is listed; at least until the above is approved/disapproved.
And, you think my version of the text is too harsh; I believe your's to be far to wish washy (and plainly false given all discussions have come down on the side of not using Scot Charts), so maybe you'd like to suggest a middle ground alternative? -Rushton2010 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The difference between policy and guideline is quite crisp, and not hair-splitting at all. That's why policies are marked "Policy" and guidelines are marked "Guideline" (as this one is). If you tried marking this page as a policy I think you would be amazed by the backlash. If I tried it, I'd probably be desysopped, because I'm presumed to know better.
The difference between fact and falsehood is sometimes fuzzy, but in this case it's not. The objection to Scotland may be being phrased as "component", but when you look at the argument people are making, it's that it's in a region that is incorporated inside a larger charted region. I'm doing my best to respect people's intent without making statements that are counterfactual.
And no, WP:BADCHARTS is not "just a list of charts that people have agreed should not be used". It's a list of charts that have been found, though discussion, to violate Wikipedia policies about source reliability and guidelines about source notability. That's why it doesn't include any chart published by a reliable source, with the exception of single vendor/network charts that violate WP:NOT#ADVERTISING.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The issue of the Scottish chart is going to keep coming up every once in a while until it's resolved permanently. In relation to the proposed Regional Charts guideline above, I agree that regional charts should not be used. The OCC make it quite clear that the Scottish Charts (which is only a Top 40) is a regional chart, though I have no objection to the Scottish chart being used only when a record does not chart on the larger UK Chart (though I think instances of this will be quite rare since if a record makes the Scottish Top 40, it will at least make the UK Top 100). Of course, should Scotland become an independent country later this year, and if the BPI/OCC sever their ties so Scotland can install its own music body to compile their music charts, then it can be included in its own right as any country would be. Soultruck (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Selfie (song)

There seems to be some problem with the {{singlechart}} at the "Selfie" song article. Are the artistid required again? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. The Chainsmokers had to be added to Template:BillboardID/T. Eric444 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

multiple US charts appearing in album article's Charts section

I thought I'd read a guideline about this in the past but can't seem to find it now … Question: is it acceptable to list more than one national chart per country/territory in an article's Charts section? I'm looking at the McCartney album articles Band on the Run, Venus and Mars and Wings at the Speed of Sound, all of which give US chart peaks on Billboard 200, Cash Box and Record World. Seems slightly excessive (in my opinion); not only that, but the inclusion of all three charts (or even two) makes other album articles appear incomplete, when they list only Billboard. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the three magazine's surveys were accurate they should all produce similar results, making the inclusion of all three somewhat redundant. Plus, I don't know of any reference books for Cash Box or Record World album charts so sourcing is a problem. If an album reached #1 in Cash Box or Record World but not Billboard, that could be mentioned as a #1 album in any of those publications would have been significant, or if there was a significant difference between charts. Piriczki (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Most likely methodologies were different for each or they used different radio stations to measure airplay and surveyed different outlets regarding sales. In terms of a reference book, Whitburn recently released a complete resource for the history of Cash Box Top 100 chart positions, very similar to his Billboard books. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think they were different. For instance, I've read that Billboard's listings used to take radio airplay into account, which, even in the mid 1970s, made Cash Box the "industry standard" as far as sales went. And yes, I'd also seen that Whitburn book on the Cash Box Top 100, from the link on the project page (very tempting ...). Anyway, Billboard is obviously the US chart of consequence for wikipedia articles.

I can see a reason for including mention in the text of an album or song's position on Cash Box, say, if it's higher than the peak that Billboard listed – the Ringo album would be an example of this, number 2 on Billboard in December 1973, but number 1 on both Cash Box and Record World. But in the case of those Wings albums I mentioned, where the alternative listings appear in the Charts box itself, I can't see they add anything. (In fact, it sort of puffs up the strike rate, imo.)

Thanks to you both for your input. Hopefully a few others might weigh in here – but would you agree, we ought to delete them from the Charts box? The alternative is we look to add them in other articles where possible. I've got a Bruce Spizer book that gives all US chart peaks for Beatle solo albums and singles on Apple Records, and I've got Melody Maker chart runs for the same; but, as you can tell, I'd rather not add them at all. JG66 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Top Heatseekers

If an album appears on a US Heatseekers chart, but later appears on the Hot 100 or Billboard 200, is it appropriate to list the Heatseekers chart? Adabow (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Or even any scenario where an item charts on a national heatseekers/hitseekers (or equivalent) and then later appears on the main chart. Adabow (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Adabow No, Heatseekers chart should only be used where the Billboard Hot 100 or Billboard 200 aren't used. It can be listed in the chart performance e.g. "XYZ album first charted at number 1 on the Heatseekers Album Charts, before later peaking at number twenty on the Billboard 200." → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Brasil

Not sure if people already know about it, but Billboard Brasil started publishing their monthly chart online. Yay! Here's the current Top 100. I assume this makes everything so much easier for us, because until now we had to source the Brazilian peak positions with the physical magazine. However, as of now, all of the songs are marked as "debuts" so we don't have their actual peak positions. decodet. (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to navigate to previous weeks but it doesn't seem to work Decodet → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Good news. Let's hope it isn't another ray of false hope like the last time they did this. If it lasts until next month, I'll provide a singlechart option for it. Singlechart currently does have an entry for Brazil that pulls the positions out Billboard, but the resultant page is unlabeled (see http://www.billboard.com/artist/277142/Psy/chart?f=1221 for example). The positions do verify on billboard.biz. —Kww(talk) 16:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In possibly related news, hot100brasil.com appears to be down. This nonsense may finally be approaching a sensible conclusion.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1 They don't have previous months charts. It's like the chart debuted this month. All of the 100 songs appears as "debuts" even though most of them charted in the last months according to the physical magazines. decodet. (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Big news! The Billboard Brasil chart is now a weekly chart and it is being published on the site! It's on its second week of chart already. Happy to see that everything is finally working out for the brazilian chart! decodet. (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Billboard removed chart info?

It seems that Billboard has removed the chart history from the Katy Perry artist page completely. Same for Lady Gaga. Is it a glitch? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Highly likely a glitch. Billboard is the buggiest website in the world. Allmusic provides a good interim solution (they have the majority of chart listings for most artists). Also you can you use billboard.biz to verify the charts. The charts section of the website is free to search. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
That has been going on for awhile, Billboard glitches like that. As Lil-unique1 said, the searchable database on Billboard.biz can be used to verify any chart positions. It can glitch too so try to only search the song name or only the artist name. AllMusic could be used too, but I have noticed their listing are usually outdated or largely incomplete. STATic message me! 15:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

South African Albums Chart

RSG post a weekly top 20 for albums in SA on their main page, compiled by the Recording Industry of South Africa. Could this be considered as an acceptable chart in the same vein as SA's EMA airplay chart by use of archiving like in here for example [2] —CoolMarc 18:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I think yes, to both. In the case of the singles chart on Springbok Radio, it was presented by Springbok, according to this site, anyway, but it seems to have been viewed as the national singles chart during the 1970s and the '80s. JG66 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Who will be able to authorise this as an acceptable chart? Anyone? —CoolMarc 07:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hot Rap Songs, a component chart?

I noticed a user removing Hot Rap Songs in a song article because "it is a component chart of R&B/Hip-Hop Songs". Where is this stated in the Hot Rap Songs article? Is there perhaps a source for this? I see Hot Rap Songs being used in FA and GA-class song articles like "Not Afraid" and "Love the Way You Lie" though? Can someone please clarify? Thanks —CoolMarc 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

From Billboard: "R&B Songs and Rap Songs will serve as 25-position distillations of the overall Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, highlighting the differences between pure R&B and rap titles in the overall, wide-ranging R&B/hip-hop field." See WP:USCHARTS for a general guide to conditions for which charts should be tabulated. These give us a consistent framework and help to reduce tedious details in terms of charts. Adabow (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a billion! —CoolMarc 07:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
However, that does only apply to songs that peaked on the chart after October 2012, which is when they changed the way the Hot Rap Songs chart was tabulated. So it should remain on those two song articles you specified. STATic message me! 13:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian chart

Unlike a few years ago, it seems that the Russian Albums Chart published by Lenta.ru is now based solely on sales from iTunes, which would go against WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Thoughts? SN▲P • SN▲P 19:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Russian Albums Chart and Russian Singles Chart were published together by 2M and Lenta.ru only from October 1, 2010 [1] to December 28, 2012 [2] (they existed earlier, but were published by 2M directly). Also, in the final 2M report it was said that sales of physical copies had been decreasing gradually from year to year and fell on 57 % from 2011 to 2012 in particular. So since 2013 (when 2M terminated its activity) Lenta.ru only publishes official weekly charts based only on iTunes sales while Russia has neither widely recognized nor comprehensive music chart and has even no national certifier. But iTunes is the only large music distributor available in Russia and since Lenta's methods of making charts are clear (only digital sales within a week) and there are only ten entries published, I think it's possible to keep on using these charts as Russian Digital Albums and Russian Digital Songs as there are no counted physical copies and no other large digital distributors. And, by the way, article Russian Music Charts is outdated a bit.--demistalk 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I suppose we can continue to use those iTunes-only Russian digital charts published by Lenta.ru then, considering iTunes is the only major music distributor in Russia. In a similar fashion, FIMI replaced its main singles chart with a download-only chart back in 2008. And yes, the Russian Music Charts page does need some updating. SN▲P • SN▲P 22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
However, FIMI included multiple digital retailers. I'm not sure we should use a chart that is based solely on iTunes. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 10:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot to point that out about FIMI. I was initially unsure about using an iTunes-only chart as well, but now I don't know if the fact that it's apparently the only major digital retailer in Russia should have any weight on this. SN▲P • SN▲P 15:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Only" and "Only major" are very different things. If it's a single-vendor chart, it shouldn't be used.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Should we place a note under WP:BADCHARTS? SN▲P • SN▲P 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone point at a reliable source indicating that it is now iTunes only?—Kww(talk) 03:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Within Lenta it is called as the iTunes chart ([1] „Russian iTunes chart is being published since the beginning of December, 2012’) and it was said at least once, that sales data was provided by Russian Apple branch ([2]). Also, I found out that iTunes isn't the only big name on the Russian music market since Google Play is available too. So now I think that the charts published solely by Lenta (2013—…) are WP:BADCHARTS. But the charts of an earlier period are still fine.--demistalk 07:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Kpop Hot 100

The Billboard Kpop Hot 100 chart was discontinued on May 17, 2014 as stated on Billboard.com, but yet over at Billboard Korea's website, the chart is still running. Should I trust on using the chart data on the latter or not? Rockysmile11 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything besides that discontinued announcement on the chart itself about Billboard no longer publishing the chart on its websites nor the reason why. However, it appears they are still covering Korean acts and, in this article dated June 12, it links to the same Billboard Korea version of the K-Pop Hot 100 chart. How does that site archive its chart history though? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I also noticed that as well. I did sent an email to them so hopefully they respond. As for archiving, Billboard Korea keeps their chart history through the url. An example is that if you want to look at last week's chart, added "&basedate=20140604" to the end of the url and it shows up as this. It works with any date that is on a Wednesday up to July 3, 2013 and covers the entire chart. Rockysmile11 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
According to this article, the chart may still return at some point. Widr (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Australia

ARIA is an official chart. Is http://australian-charts.com a recognized mirror? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. That's why it's listed at WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 05:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It was piped to Hung Medien which is why I didn't see it. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian Airplay Chart

This chart was listed as 'bad' for more than two years and since its deletion nothing has changed at all. However, user Bluesatellite thinks this chart is now notable, since there is an outdated article Russian Music Charts (which just covers this subject partly — which doesn't make the chart notable). Should this chart be deleted from the 'bad' list? Discuss.--demistalk 13:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, it's clear that the deletion consensus was to delete the then-unsourced article Russian Airplay Chart, not specifically to include it in WP:BADCHART. Or else, can somebody point me out where is the consensus to include the chart in WP:BADCHART? I've searched all the archive of this talk page, but it seems no clear consensus regarding this chart. The deleted article has been recreated (by someone) with several third-party reliable sources, colectively on Russian Music Charts. So, listing "This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart" as the reason for it being a bad chart is not relevant at all. The article does exist now and nobody tries to delete/question the content. Outdated or updated content has nothing to with the WP:N of an article. This chart is notable, not according to me, but according to WP:RS [3][4][5][6] Bluesatellite (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not having a thorough look before. I've checked sources, especially on the Russian Wikipedia, which contains way more third-party notable sources about the Tophit charts. For example, Tophit is used in the media for representing artists' popularity (Billboard Russia [1], Zvuki.ru [2] — both have their own articles on ru-wiki), yearly charts are mentioned and are analyzed from time to time too. On the other hand, I couldn't see any third-party sources which are focused only on Tophit as on the main subject, especially which describe it as the national chart. But, all in all, now I'm about to support its notability and will try to find in the meantime some more relevant information about it. Thanks again.--demistalk 16:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you're a Russian, aren't you? Yeah, that's what I mean. Listing TopHit.ru into WP:BADCHARTS because of its "non-notability" is completely misleading. Many third-party reliable sources have used/referenced the chart, so it clearly passes our main guideline WP:N. So, I believe we can remove it from that list. Whether it should be on WP:GOODCHARTS or not is another thing, cause we need further discussion about it. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think at the moment we still have to wait for some other opinions. If this chart would be neither ‘bad’ (=will be deleted from the list) nor ‘good’, it means it would be neither prohibited nor recommended, so people will be able to use it. But there still are some unclear things. First of all, Tophit offers several charts. The main, ‘General’ chart (published since 2003) doesn’t represent any specific territory, it’s a mixture of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarus radio stations — so it’s definitely not a ‘Russian Airplay Chart’. They do offer this separate chart, but this one was launched only in 2011 so it is relatively fresh.
Secondly, Tophit.ru publishes the charts of 100 entries, but for a specific song there might be positions like 432, 207 etc. Some songs peak at #293, for example. So what is the criteria to include such kind of peak in the table? Top-40, top-100, top-250, top-400? That minor thing may lead to a very huge problem. The first criteria in WP:NSONG is ranking in any national chart. Let me give you a bright example how hundreds of songs may suddenly become notable and have their own articles just because of an appearing in the Top-400. I just picked a random single, „The Coast“ by Court Yard Hounds. This single has peaked on #293 [1]. So this minor peak can help this song a lot to meet the notability, but only if this chart will be recognized and recognized as national. Find 1-2 reviews or mentions and that’s it. South Korean GAON chart has already helped a lot in that case.
In total, it’s not that easy to let this chart be used, I think. Some restrictions or rules must be made up since the music market of Russia is one of the smallest (formerly a Gold certificate was given with just 1000 copies sold and now the national certificator do not even exist anymore). Songs and charts in particular are a significant area of attention on Wiki, so just two people can not decide anything. Funny thing is that I could not find any single source claiming „this is the national airplay chart“. So yes, the chart can be notable itself, but it can not be notable as a Russian chart. And if a chart is not national, then it should not be used at all. I have no more thoughts, leave yours. Thanks for the interest. --demistalk 10:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I do agree with your points that there would be certain rules/restrictions to make it a recomended chart (WP:GOODCHART). But, this chart is definitely not a WP:BADCHART at all; the company is notable, the metodology is clear, and the chart has been often used/referenced by various WP:RS. Moreover, such minor music market as Russia doesn't have a 'proper' singles chart to determine a song popularity, thus airplay is the only thing to look up to. So, I believe that using this chart in certain circumstances would not violate any policies in Wikipedia. Regards Bluesatellite (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place where you can change rules without the consensus. You can not allow this chart to be used only by your own, isn't this obvious? Wait a month at least so other people could see and leave their opinions. I'm against this edit at the moment for several reasons.--demistalk 07:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Twitter Real-Time charts

Should the Billboard Twitter Real-Time chart be allowed to be used in song articles? It changes so frequently, I think it is quite trivial to be used. STATic message me! 18:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is always changing. Plus how would one source where a song peaked on it? Billboard does, however, compile weekly Twitter charts that, I assume, use the same methodology as Real-Time, only with 7 days of data. - eo (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As trivia, sure. As a comment on something notable, no. Weekly charts are sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I tend to view this chart like others that update hourly at Amazon and iTunes; the latter two charts pertain "to only one specific retailer" and "should not be used" according to WP:BADCHARTS. Similarly, this "real-time" chart compiles data from only one specific website (Twitter) so I would put it in the same category.  Gongshow   talk 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I would think that WP:SINGLENETWORK applies, even if only in spirit. Don't they have a social networking chart that mixes Twitter with Facebook and others?—Kww(talk) 19:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, WP:SINGLEVENDOR does apply. Yes Kww they do, the Social 50, but it ranks artists not their works. This should be mentioned in WP:BADCHARTS then, since I have seen this chart added to song articles.STATic message me! 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree too, this is just way too much. We have already allowed to use dozens of Billboard charts, while the others usually only have one national chart. Besides Twitter is not the only social media, per Kww. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You can find the peak on the artist chart history.  — ₳aron 09:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaon chart new links

I noticed that the Gaon chart has changed its http's, thereby disrupting all the charts that have used the old format. It also displays just the top 100 singles so finding ones rated 101-200 may be difficult (subscription?). -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, Can you provide a link for 2013 year-end ranking for "Blurred Lines"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It didn't make it onto the overall year-end chart [7] but appeared at the year end non-Korean songs at number 84 [8] -AngusWOOF (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

FDR Charts

I have recently found some pages that reference the FDR Charts. I am not sure if they will help to get it removed from WP:BADCHARTS, but I will provide them anyway:

  • Kalush FM - mentions FDR Top 40 as chart used for Top 40 countdown
  • TV.ua - (Not 100% sure this isn't a blog, but seems to be like a TV guide for Ukraine with entertainment news)
  • http://www.kart.edu.ua/en/academia/vtsu - radio station with Top 40 countdown from FDR and mentions it as an official chart based on weekly radio playlists throughout Ukraine
  • If I Were A Boy - FDR charts are also used for peak positions on the Ukrainian wikipedia / FDR Charts have their own page on Ukrainian Wikipedia

I will continue trying to find references Moonchïld9 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found a lot of Ukraine FM websites that mention the FDR charts and/or use it in some way on airplay (such as Top 40 countdowns). Also, the FDR Charts have their own page on several international Wikipedias.
My main goal is to find a chart that can be used as a reference / archive for Ukraine, and I'd be happy to create a page for another chart if someone finds it.
However, the Singles charts of the FDR charts may have to be prohibited if it is removed from WP:BADCHARTS; the methodology of their order is a bit unclear.
I think the issue is that most people only look at the Single charts instead of the Top 40 charts (Top 20 in genre specific charts), and it makes the charts look less accurate, relative, etc. than they are. Moonchïld9 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What you need to do is find sources that use the FDR charts that you can show are reliable. Other Wikipedia versions don't count for anything, nor do blogs, celebrity gossip sites, or similar places. Find some newspapers, commercial radio stations, or similar sites that reference the FDR charts.—Kww(talk) 22:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying! Currently I have found Kalush FM, which is the only one I'm sure is a commercial radio station. But, as you said, it will take a lot more than this. Moonchïld9 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if FDR charts are notable or not, but I have to mention that the chart's site does not contain any archives. Most of the links which are used for sourcing these charts on the Wikipedia look like http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/###/ (1, for example). These links are inappropriate because they source not even a chart, but a compilation album, that's why all the tracks are placed in an alphabetical order.--demistalk 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Only one RS site using that? It looks like you really have a lot more to do. As given by others, this chart cannot help you in your main goal.Forbidden User (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 year end charts?

Resolved

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Amazon, Spotify, iTunes, Beatport under digital charts

Proposal withdrawn facing snow outcome. Mkdwtalk 22:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since a lot of music is sold via the mentioned digital music distributors i like to suggest to reflect this in the Wikipedia record charts, under a new table for digital music distributors. These providers appear to be affiliated with IFPI and i see no reason why Wikipedia is excluding them. Further are many charts on these sites only available there, such as for indie music genres PsyTrance, Goa, Progressive, Trance etc. I guess when it comes to indie music there are some exceptions. An estimated 35% of the global music industry's revenue is coming from digital channels, (2013 numbers), the wikipedia should include those. Related reading http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2013/11/the-indie-musicians-guide-to-digital-distribution.html Further are sales from digital distributors frequently cited in the media. prokaryotes (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

They aren't excluded, per se, because they are all covered in Nielsen's measurements for the Billboard charts. Individually, they are too subject to manipulation and promotion to be included, as well as being calculated in cases where there aren't statistically significant markets.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I find your argument a bit at odds, after a quick look at the related page (Nielsen ratings), which offers a rather extensive section on Criticism of ratings systems. At the same time, there could be said a lot about Billboard charts manipulation. Also in light of sales numbers through the major digital distributors i wonder if the current approach of Wikipedia is still warranted, and if it is still warranted to argument about potential manipulation of the related charts. A quick google for the indie genre "Nielsen Psytrance", offers nothing substantial, and nothing to work with to improve Wikipedia. Thus, i rather have the use of digital media charts acknowledged by Wikipedia, where there is no analog, such as for music genres Goa, Psytrance etc. The point about manipulation of digital markets, is mood, since the same argument is valid for the classic consumer level (i.e. buy your way to number 1). My argument remains, we should include what is often considered by secondary sources as the new standard. prokaryotes (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Single vendor charts are much more easily manipulated than multiple vendor charts, and are generally more promotional than meaningful. I don't care about Nielsen being the collector so much as I care about it being an aggregation of sales through multiple vendors.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, the section on single vendors/networks, mentions (though in regards to country) "can be included if no other suitable charts can be located", hence in the case of indie releases, digital charts should apply (when not obtainable via Nielsen networks). Thus, maybe we could add such an extension of charts, with a scope for indie releases. I would assume that the potential for manipulation through indie charts is likely also less, because of less money circulates in regards to these "indie" releases. But i agree with you Kww, that it is also likely easier to manipulate. Ultimately, assumptions and positions of strong arguments, about alleged manipulation might be better backed up by secondary sources. Because, it might be isolated, negligible or based on rumors, the extent is unclear. If we could extent the current extension on "can be included if no other suitable charts can be located", we might exclude the manipulation discussion, for now. prokaryotes (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Except that you would be adding the most manipulable and least useful charts with your exemption. You could probably buy the number 1 position on a small country's Psytransce chart for a hundred dollars, especially since you only have to be number one for an hour to make the listing.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you (and others) think of an extra clause, which only allows the use of digital charts, once an artist gets at least one release in the overall rankings (which is likely a few figures above your suggestion, or what you can read on sensational articles), or several rankings? Yes, there are manipulations, however this problem is not without consequences (i.e. getting banned). Insiders welcome these affords, thus it shows serious commitment and transparency. Because some cheat shouldn't punish everybody, and until there isn't a systemic problem, platforms should be allowed. And only if there isn't an alternative chart from Nielsen available. Also notice that it appears as if the main "fakes" do not concern the genres discussed here. Thus, it concerns charts where there are in fact alternatives. prokaryotes (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Proposal - Criteria for allowing charts, per WP:Notability guidelines, from indie music genres from digital distributors, such as Amazon, Beatport, iTunes, Spotify (and related services), which are not yet covered by accessible genre specific charts of the current Wikipedia chart selection.
IFPI affiliate
Based on sales
At least one overall Top100 ranking, or at least three rankings in a genre specific Top10 ranking
Must be an indie music genre, such as Goa, Progressive Trance, Psychedelic Trance, and similar
Artist should be signed by a major scene specific indie label

prokaryotes (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for the reasons outlined in the discussion above.—Kww(talk) 23:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - as has been pointed out, the issues discussed, do not concern the music genres discussed here (at least not to a degree which would be notable), otherwise i ask you to provide some reliable secondary sources. Theoretical manipulation, as an argument for objection, appears to be based just on assumptions. And since issues discussed, have been documented with various charts, currently considered, it doesn't seem right to punish the mentioned genres by complete exclusion. Further is the existence of niche dance charts, at major digital music providers notable. prokaryotes (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quite simply, placing on one of these charts is not an indication that an artist is sufficiently important to be included, in contrast to a significantly high placing on a country's national sales chart. Also Amazon for example is atrocious when it comes to correctly classifying artists by genre. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The latest figures from IFPI show 39% of the music industries sales is generated through digital channels, with 5.9BN revenue in 2013. The report states QUOTE The digital download model remains a key revenue stream, however. Downloads still account for a substantial two-thirds of digital revenues (67 per cent) and are helping to propel digital growth in certain developing markets such as South Africa, Hong Kong, Philippines and Slovakia. Downloads have seen a slight decline in overall value globally, although digital album sales remain on an upward curve as consumers still show strong demand for owning the album format. END As outlined, this proposal does not intend to rival the existing approach of Wikipedia's charts guidelines, instead to include charts which are currently not covered. Assumptions about importance of charts currently not included, are very speculative. And if for instance Amazon does not offer specific enough genre categories, we won't use them. prokaryotes (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The point is, if either of these individual charts contributed in a significant way to a country's national chart, or even a recognised national genre chart, then a single that made the top ten on, say, the Beatport chart would also appear in the top 50 of the country's national chart, and the fact is that they don't. --Michig (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe because it is beyond a national chart, hence based on global sales? Does global sales count, do you know that? And why focus on national charts anyway? This concept is an artifact from a time when only Billboards where around, no? The point appears to be that the current guidelines where created to apply to Billboard charts only. With the growth of the digital music markets, which just begun in recent years to emerge as a major, do not conform to these guidelines, which are fixed on a national perspective. prokaryotes (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Further does a quick research reveal a broad range of secondary sources, establishing notability in regards to the charts currently excluded from Wikipedia. Exclusion of charts from the major digital music distributors, purely on grounds which still remain unclear and speculative. Wikipedia's inclusion policy shouldn't be guided by speculations alone, and i doubt it does. prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If there was a recognized worldwide chart that wasn't from a single vendor and stood up to scrutiny then I would say we should include that, but I doubt the level of sales on some of these vendor charts is sufficient to make them free from manipulation for one thing. If reliable sources started recognising those charts as meaningful indicators of 'achievement' if you like, then that would be when we should take notice of them. Remember that what we're saying with these guidelines is that if subject x meets criterion y then they're probably significant enough to be included; Whether or not a chart itself is notable or has received coverage is not relevant other than to an article on that chart. --Michig (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, now we make some progress, and this means we have obviously decide on a case per case basis, i will look into it and report back here. prokaryotes (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No where has it been established that these online "charts" have editorial control or oversight. I could get a song comprised of farts charted if I published it at 12:01am on iTunes then got 20 socks to buy the stinker.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Source, your stomach feeling? prokaryotes (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. No single vendor charts. Who would even get to decide which vendors are notable enough to be included? Let's avoid that mess. - eo (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Also adding that a lot of these charts are displayed and ranked in real-time or daily, as opposed to weekly (iTunes), and none of the charts are archived anywhere. So how to source them? Beatport, by the way, does not report their sales figures to Neilsen Soundscan. - eo (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Beatport charts can be accessed via http://www.bptoptracker.com/ (and via the main site too) prokaryotes (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I understand the principal behind the idea for musicians and albums but I think the current row Amazon is facing with book authors highlights why they and other retailers should not be an indication of notability in any category. Mkdwtalk 20:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
For those not aware, Amazon is facing significant criticism over manipulation of lists:

The dispute between the online retailer and the publishing conglomerate began this spring, and revolves around the pricing of ebooks and contract details for distributing Hachette’s books. Much of it remained private – as most contract negotiations between giant corporations do – until Amazon halted sales of some Hachette books, making some unavailable to purchase, delaying deliveries of others by weeks and months, and advertising alongside some titles with a banner of “similar items at a lower price”.

— The Guardian (Source)
The fact that hundreds of some of the world's bestselling authors have either supported or signed petitions against the retailer show there is substantial weight to these allegations. It further shows that these lists are subject to commercial interests and cannot be relied upon to indicate notability. While it is unclear how far reaching, the sheer fact that it's subject to this type of oversight makes it a very fallible representation. Mkdwtalk 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposal for Beatport only, i invite you all to discuss it here. Thanks for participating. (Note to admin, i retract this proposal and it could be closed, if required.) prokaryotes (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charts: Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines

For those how may have missed this above, see discussion here. Semitransgenic talk. 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Old publishers of Belgian, Mexican and South African singles charts

I've been digging through some ancient copies of Billboard on Google Books from 1964 and 1965 to search for some worldwide chart positions for various songs of the day in the "Hits of the World" sections to add to their articles ("Oh, Pretty Woman", for example) and I've found some chart positions from both regions of Belgium, Mexico and South Africa. However, Billboard doesn't list the individual publishers of the charts from that era, and they seem to be the only available records of those charts at the time: as such, does anyone know which organisations were publishing the Belgian, Mexican and South African singles charts in 1964 and 1965?

I know this is a bit of a long shot but, presuming the charts are indeed direct replicas of the national charts in place at the time in those countries (which I presume they are, since they accurately match the UK charts available at the Official Charts Company's site), I don't know where else I could find this information before I add the positions into the article. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oricon daily positions and WP:CHARTMATH

The Japanese chart provider Oricon posts daily positions for their singles and albums chart (here and here), as well as their standard weekly positions. Many articles at Wikipedia list these (though unsourced), but it is possible to source data for these positions with the use of webcitation/web archive.

However, would the logic behind WP:CHARTMATH apply to these positions? As the new releases are generally released simultaneously on Tuesdays, the majority of releases that charted weekly can be said to have a similar daily position, and that the daily chart can be seen as a subordinate chart. WP:CHARTTRAJ precludes the use of the release's raw data, meaning only a single daily position is listed, outside of its weekly context. For example:

  • "Face to Face" | -(mon) #1(tue) #1(wed) #1(thu) #2(fri) #2(sat) #3(sun) | Chart box listing: #1 daily, #1 weekly.
  • Koko ni Ita Koto | -(mon) #1(tue) #1(wed) #1(thu) #1(fri) #1(sat) #1(sun) | Chart box listing: #1 daily, #1 weekly.

In some cases daily positions can change wildly (especially in the case of idol groups, or releases with a limited number of copies), which means there could potentially be releases where a page would benefit from such information, much like the 'unusual' cases mentioned in WP:CHARTMATH. A few years ago there was an instance where the weekly #1 album never made it to #1 on the daily chart, which also would be unusual enough to mention. For example:

  • "Campus Life (Umarete Kite Yokatta)" | -(mon) #3(tue) #5(wed) #5(thu) #4(fri) #20(sat) #6(sun) | Chart box listing: #3 daily, #5 weekly (#20 and #6 mentioned in prose, perhaps).
  • Speciality | -(mon) #2(tue) #3(wed) #3(thu) #4(fri) #4(sat) #4(sun) | Chart box listing: #2 daily, #1 weekly (daily positions mentioned in prose, perhaps).

Should daily positions that aren't 'unusual' be discouraged, much like Billboard Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 sales, and included in the charts mentioned at WP:CHARTMATH? --Prosperosity (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the daily positions are too erratic to be meaningful. Aren't there days where the peak position has only a few hundred sales?—Kww(talk) 02:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It's possible (especially if there's a typhoon or a holiday), but most of the time it gets down to only thousands of copies. On the other hand, there are AKB48 releases regularly have daily sales in the millions of copies, which are pretty nuts. But you're right, often the position itself doesn't mean much by itself. --Prosperosity (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hot Country Songs

In the Miranda Lambert discography page, an editor removed all the chart positions for Hot Country Songs before 2012. The argument seems to be that the Hot Country Songs chart before 2012 is the same as Country Airplay (this chart was re-introduced when streaming and sales was added to the Hot Country Songs chart). To me that doesn't make sense since the chart positions listed should be the same as the ones given in Billboard, not someone's idea of what the chart positions should be. In some other discography pages such as Carrie Underwood discography, the solution is to merge the two columns before 2012 in the Singles table (that seems reasonable), I wonder what the opinion is on what's been done in the Miranda Lambert discography? Hzh (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

-- Apologies if the explanation given for the edit was not well articulated. The removal of Hot Country peaks was to be consistent with how the chart positions are handled on other country music artist discographies (see Blake Shelton discography, Jason Aldean discography, Lady Antebellum discography). Billboard has been inconsistent in where those chart peaks are located on their site (with the current status being displayed in both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay). I actually think the merged columns as done in Carrie's discography page is a great solution, and would be open to making that the "unofficial standard" across these and other relevant discography pages.

Which chart to use, say in the the 2000s section(s), is a tricky situation since technically the chart then called "Hot Country Songs" was tracking airplay performance (hence why it has been changed to say Country Airplay on the discographies), but the actual title and the chart name used on individual song articles is "Hot Country Songs". Songsteel (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we surely should use whatever ranking Billboard uses (i.e. both the same in this case). If Billboard changes its mind, then we would change, we are after all only reporting Billboard's judgement on this, rather than making up a rule for ourselves. If Billboard itself is inconsistent, then unfortunate as it may, we would be the same as well on Wikipedia. The explanation would go in the pages for Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay, which they currently do (although I think those two pages could be organized better). I do think the solution on Carrie Underwood discography is a good compromise. Hzh (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Country Charts

Classified it as "Bad Chart" for failing to file archive. For this there http://www.webcitation.org/ and http://archive.org/web/web.php.

Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles chronology

Please, check my topic Talk:Shake_It_Off_(Taylor_Swift_song)#Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_chronology, thank you. --188.135.197.238 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you want us to see Talk:Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song):Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles chronology and comment on your opinion that Wikipedia is too US-centric. As a Canadian I disagree with you. US sales charts are made no more important on Wikipedia than any other sales charts. If you wish to make similar templates for other artists or other charts, feel free too, but don't remove material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Please, read carefully, because I didn't write that "Wikipedia is US-centric", I just stated that the inclusion of the US number-ones chronology in the song template is US-centric. I've never seen any "UK number one chronology" or "Australia number one chronology" (yes I know that once these chronologies where used to be placed at the bottom of the articles, under the Charts section, but it wasn't only for US and if they were removed I believe there was a reason). --188.135.197.238 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. You're correct. I see a lot of articles and templates for other soccer teams that my soccer team doesn't get. Does that mean that Wikipedia favours those other teams? No. It means that I and the team's supporters are either too technically challenged, too lazy, too busy or too disinterested to create those templates for my team. Alternately, it could be that there are fans of those other teams for whom such templates are important. I hope my point is sufficiently clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: i don't think it's appropriate to use sarcasm in this situation. 188.135.197.238 is making a good-faith effort to explain their reasoning for a bold edit and is not satisfied with the explanations they received for the rv, which is fine. however, i do agree with your point, so...
@188.135.197.238: i have to agree with the other users involved. the Billboard charts are very important, and relevant in most english-speaking countries, even though other charts also exist in non-US countries. i think one reason templates do not exist for other english-speaking-country charts is that they probably would not be significantly different from the Billboard charts. this is a bit of a guess, as i do not really follow popular music charts extensively, but i think the Billboard chart is a good indication of what music is popular at a given time. it would be fine to make more templates for the other charts, but the best situation would be if we had the other charts and the Billboard chart. removing Billboard doesn't get us any closer to that goal. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that these chronologies were all removed a couple of years ago? They used to be big bars down the bottom of the page. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The chart position field in the infobox was deprecated in 2007. The use of succession boxes at the bottom of the page was taken to RfC in late 2010/early 2011 and no consensus could be reached. You will see few of them in articles of songs and albums released since that time because of that lack of consensus. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
wow, my bad. next time i'll hold my tongue before i know the full background! ~ Boomur [☎] 23:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

UK Chart Stats website

Does anyone know if the UK Chart Stats[dead link] website is still archiving positions below 75 ? Or have they been stopped by OCC ? I don't mean listing the weekly charts, which I know they don't do anymore, but archiving the peak positions ?QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lescharts.com gone off

The domain Lescharts.com seems to have expired and no chart archive present for France. Does any one know how to update the {{singlechart}}, {{albumchart}} template for archive links? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is ocasional problem. It happened also in history. Eurohunter (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Austrian IFPI

What happened with Austrian IFPI? I remeber they added in archive some time ago Cheese Stromae's album with Gold status. Now in this place is Racine carrée, propably him add data was changed. What happened? What to do? Eurohunter (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs, Hot Dance Club Songs, and Dance Mix/Show Airplay

This should be updated: Based on the press release by Billboard, the components of the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart (the primary dance chart) are the following:

(Yes it is, that's why this must be updated.) Chihciboy (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion about this. And based on another discussion here, both Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Electronic Songs were kept as the latter was just a new chart back then. So Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Mix Show Airplay should not be confused with one another and should be kept unless the the song charts on Dance/Electronic Songs. Chihciboy (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This sounds logical to me. Adabow (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But, if you look at the charts, we generally don't include airplay charts unless they have charted on the main chart. For instance, we don't include the main R&B/Hip-hop and the R&B Airplay chart, as the former is made of sales, airplay, streams etc., whereas airplay is just airplay. The Dance Airplay chart is no different, and shouldn't be an exception to the already established rule. Dance Club and Dance/Electronic are two different types of music. You also have to bear in mind that this can end up making tables unnecessarily long if we start introducing component charts and saying that all of the digital and airplay charts can be added too. There needs to be some boundary that we adhere to otherwise we could end up with 10-15 Billboard charts in our tables, but I did used to think "what is the problem with this" not too long ago myself. I've presented arguments for both sides here, but the main issue that you are getting at is that on "Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)" I removed the Dance/Mix Airplay citing WP:USCHARTS, you reinstated it citing a discussion you had (which was all it was, a discussion, nothing was changed and no consensus was put forward), I then removed it saying that you needed to adhere to the rules on WP:USCHARTS, to which you reverted again, citing the discussion, and I removed it once more, and then you did as I suggested and opened this discussion. What I think you was misunderstanding was that just because a couple of people kind of saw your point, you took that as gospel and a reason to revert me, whereas in actual fact, you was ignoring what I was saying and ignoring our current guideline, which is that Dance/Mix Airplay is listed as a component chart which cannot be added unless a song did not chart on either of the two main charts, as it clearly says on WP:USCHARTS. — ₳aron 12:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that adding it might make the table seem too long, but people are going to think that the Dance/Mix Airplay is listed as a component of Hot Dance Club Songs (which is not). And the reason why the current guideline has both the Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Electronic Songs are inside the same cell in that guideline is because that cell used to belong to Hot Dance Club Songs alone and didn't have the Dance/Mix Show Airplay in the next row (see here). In fact, both Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Mix Show Airplay are included in the "Regardless of other chartings, you may add any of the charts to the right.". Upon the introduction of Dance/Electronic Songs in 2013, someone just figured out to just merge all of them. This should be updated as Dance/Electronic Songs is the main chart whose components include the Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Mix Show Airplay (according to Billboard). So this makes it beyond the issue on "Stronger". Also, by that logic of "we generally don't include airplay charts unless they have charted on the main chart", some of the songs in here must have their Country Airplay entries removed in favor of their Country Songs entries, regardless of the previous consensus. Chihciboy (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
By looking into the history page, it turns out it was Adabow who merged them. But now it seemed logical to him/her. Chihciboy (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Dance/Mix Airplay isn't actually included in the list of charts "to the right" regardless of other chartings, so I don't know why you said that. I guess both of the Country charts are permitted because there are only two of them, that's why I said "generally" we don't include airplay charts. Bearing in mind that there are 5 dance charts collectively.  — ₳aron 12:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is... Take a look again. And FYI, there are six published country charts on Billboard.com Chihciboy (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The difference today is that the Country Airplay isn't the airplay component of the Hot Country Songs chart, and the same with the Rock Airplay and R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts. The airplay portion of Hot Country Songs is based on radio play of country songs on all radio stations while Country Airplay is based on a measurement of radio play on country music stations. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The reason why two country charts are permitted for inclusion has nothing to do with the number of country charts in the table. It's because consensus determined that Country Airplay isn't a true component chart to Hot Country Songs per se because of the difference in their methodologies. As Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars noted, Country Airplay is based on radio airplay impressions from the country radio format, while Hot Country Songs is based on downloads/streams/radio airplay impressions from all formats, just as how the Hot 100 is tabulated. So in that sense, Country Airplay is just about as much of a "component" as any of the major airplay-based charts (Alternative Songs, Mainstream Top 40, Rhythmic, etc.) are.
By extension, one could therefore say that any of the format-based airplay charts should be permitted for inclusion in the "Regardless of other chartings..." section, because the exact same situation with the Country Airplay chart applies to them as well, and based on that established consensus, they're technically not components of their respective parent Hot (genre) Songs charts either (this point was also brought up in the discussion which led to that consensus, but for some reason only Country Airplay was added to the list—I actually attempted to add Dance/Mix Show Airplay and several other airplay charts some time ago only to be reverted by an editor saying that Country Airplay is the "only exception" to the rule; this would imply that the chart's relationship in relation to Hot Country Songs is somehow different in nature to, say, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay to Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Alternative/Mainstream Rock/Rock Airplay to Hot Rock Songs, Christian Airplay to Hot Christian Songs, and so on, which would be incorrect). So using that consensus Dance/Mix Show Airplay wouldn't be a component of Hot Dance/Electronic Songs, and certainly not a component of Hot Dance Club Songs (which is based on playlist reports from DJs). Holiday56 (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Record Report

Hello. So, since Record Report is not on the list, it means that we can use it? AleD (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Take another look at the "Acceptable Charts" list. Record Report is on it.—Kww(talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Digital/download charts, and more

Hi. I'm looking for a little guidance establishing notability for songs in South Korea. Pretty much every song released in Korea charts on at least one version of the primary national chart in that country, Gaon. (There was Billboard chart for about three years but it has folded.) Thus, according to Wikipedia's notability requirements, every song, no matter how minor, qualifies for an article. We have a huge glut of articles of what are realistically non-notable songs, and I could use some clarification with the following scenarios:

  • It takes physical sales of less than 800 units -- in a affluent country with a population of over 50 million -- to reach the top 20 of Gaon's sales charts. That gives you an idea of just how few units must sell in order to reach a spot of 100 or so. Literally, an artist's friends and family buying the record alone can net the song notability on Wikipedia. This surely isn't the intent of Wikipedia.
  • A significant number of songs are released only as digital singles. Some do very well, but many barely scrape onto the Gaon digital chart and/or downloads charts, these songs also technically meet notability requirements with even a tiny number of sales.
  • When albums are released in digital form (as well as physical), every song is available for purchase separately. So if someone buys every song on the album, all the songs on the album hit the digital and/or download charts, making (by Wikipedia standards) every single song on the album notable.

So in the end, we have a gazillion songs that all claim notability, because charting on a major national chart is the only notability requirement for songs, as far as I can tell. Yet these are songs that pretty much no one ever heard other than hardcore fans. This is genre filled with very passionate, very inclusionist editors, so they take those requirements entirely literally when justifying these articles. I'm going to post this over at the songs Wikiproject for their perspectives also. Thanks for any guidance. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically yes, a song could chart at #100 on the Gaon chart (or even the international subchart) after selling a hilariously low amount, and by Wikipedia's standards this counts the song as notable. I'm not convinced this is an issue though, since if it had charted so lowly, surely it'd be quite unimportant anyway, and good content for the article would be practically impossible to find. Could you point to any instances where charting lowly on Gaon was used to justify an article's existence that did not have a lot of content? I can think of some Lady Gaga and Beyonce articles like this, however most of them are extremely detailed (like the featured I Miss You (Beyoncé song) and Rather Die Young) --Prosperosity (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your time~ Here are some examples:
* I'm Different (NC.A song) - all songs by this artist charted very low, as did the EP they're all from. But they all technically charted, so...
* Shine (J-Min EP) - low sales, no singles charted, most sources are charts and artist's own websites
* Don't Go (Exo song) - almost every song from this song's album XOXO (album) has an article, yet only two songs ("Growl" and "Wolf") were singles. Content is padded by listing who wrote/produced/etc the song (taken from liner notes or artist's own website) and then listing other artists that individual worked with. The song charted digitally - since all songs from every album do - but was not released as a single, was not promoted, has no music video, etc. This group is quite new yet has something like 25 song articles.
Thanks for your help! Shinyang-i (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
We recently had a discussion about this. Charting is not enough. It's a sign that the album/song could be notable, but without meeting WP:GNG, it's still not notable. So if an album charted at No. 1 on an obscure "national chart" but received no press, it's not considered notable. If an album never charted on the Billboard 200, but got a lot of press, it's notable.

Charts for Chinese language countries

Hello. I would like some information about acceptable charts for mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. I saw some discussion of them in the archives, but nothing seems to have been added to either the good or bad charts on the main page. There was a suggestion that Sino be the only acceptable chart for mainland China - does that rule out Baidu? (Baidu is used on a lot of articles.) I'm most concerned about mainland China at this time. The China Wikiproject's entertainment working group seems to be dead and in the process of being merged, so I skipped asking over there. Thanks for any guidance! Shinyang-i (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw charts for Republic of China and People's Republic of China but I don't remember their. I don't know their are completly correcty. When I found it I will inform you about that. When you want I have correct Japan and South Korea. Eurohunter (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I already know Korea (Gaon, Billboard's Kpop Hot 100) and Japan (Oricon). :) Shinyang-i (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think at one time was exist album chart in Indonesia, because I readed this article. Eurohunter (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you but I'm interested in what charts for mainland China Wikipedia considers reliable and should be used in articles and considered when assessing notability. Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The question of Chinese charts hasn't really been studied and agreed upon. The basic guidelines are no different than they are for any other country:
  1. It can't be a chart of airplay over a single station or a single network.
  2. It can't be a chart of sales through a single outlet
  3. It cannot incorporate fan-voting: it has to measure actual success, such as airplay, paid downloads, streams, or physical purchase.
  4. There have to be references to it from mainstream media that show it is being used as a measurement of success.
Find a chart that meets those criteria, and it should be acceptable.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't speak Chinese and have no way of obtaining that information. Kpop articles are using Chinese charts to claim notability for minor songs that were released in both China and Korea. I can't AFD them until I know whether or not the Chinese Baidu chart they're using has any legitimacy, and we need to know whether or not this chart should be listed in articles to begin with. All I can find online are reference by fans to kpop songs topping the Baidu charts. So for now do we say that no Chinese charts are acceptable? I do know Baidu is always in trouble for illegal music downloads; hard to imagine their chart would have much integrity. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a few specific examples, and I will see if I can determine anything about them.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. Often cited are Baidu Charts, Sino Charts, Sina Charts, and Weibo Charts. Thanks for any help you can provide! Shinyang-i (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
"Specific articles with specific links to specific chart positions" might have been more clear.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
For Taiwan, G-Music is the source I've been using for 2005~ positions. It's not on the list, but it's a steady tracking body that covers multiple sources of information, Rose Records and Tachung Records stores, with a clear methodology (I figured I'd get no comments on the record charts talk page trying to add it, so I just WP:BOLD'ed until I find someone who thinks differently and we can actually discuss it). Another source is 5music, but it's not the greatest for Wikipedia since it's single source and doesn't have an overall chart (just subcharts).
I've seen sino-chart.com and Baidu for PRC positions, but I have no idea about their methodologies and if they're appropriate at all for Wikipedia. I know that the World Music Chart was removed from Wikipedia due to its non-transparent system for ranking songs, so if no references to sino-chart or Baidu's methodologies can be found then it's probably safe to call them WP:BADCHARTS. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! Looks like there might not be any PRC charts that are usable. Eek! Shinyang-i (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, @Kww and Prosperosity:. I believe this is the page outlining how the Baidu music charts are calculated. (http://music.baidu.com/king/legal) Based on a rough Google translation, I think it indicates the positions are derived from sales/downloads/streams (?) on its music subscription service. This would render it inappropriate for Wikipedia. However, I'd like some verification. Any idea how I could get some Chinese-reading eyes on this? Thanks so much! Shinyang-i (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I suspect they incorporate aggregate trending data from search engine use. Given it's the second largest search engine in the world, would that change the single source aspect at all? --Prosperosity (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Are record charts primary sources?

Hi. I've got a bunch of articles for albums, songs, etc that presently use only record charts as sources. Obviously this is not okay but I can't figure out the right tag to put on the article to say "you need to establish notability and not just verify facts." Apparently it's not okay to put the "may not meet notability requirements" tag on in this circumstance. Are record charts examples of primary sources? If that's the case I could use the "uses too many primary sources only" tag, I think. Thanks for any help! Shinyang-i (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Korea Gaon Charts

Hi! Could I request an update/clarification of the information on the page regarding South Korea's Gaon chart? http://gaonchart.co.kr/

  • First, only the music charts should be used. The social chart is how much they think people are posting stuff on Twitter, Youtube, and Weibo, which doesn't make a lot of sense because how can people be posting stuff legally on Youtube?
  • Second, among the music charts, there is one for albums and six for singles. Each chart has a tab for weekly, monthly, and yearly charts (in that order), and black buttons for overall sales, sales of domestic artists, and sales of foreign artists (in that order). I think this part is already pretty clear to people and is mentioned on the page.
  • However, what many editors don't understand is the aggregated data. The digital sales incorporates the download, streaming, and BGM charts. So people should not be listing those three charts out separately.
  • The other charts are the mobile (ringtone) and 노래방 (noraebang, aka karaoke) charts. They are not aggregated within any other charts. Are they appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia or not?

I bring this up because some articles have huge tables for songs with every Gaon chart listed with little other article content, so we need top be very clear on the aggregate data and exactly what charts can and cannot be included. Kpop editors usually don't speak/read Korean, are generally inclusionists, and things quickly get out of control without firm "yes or no" limits. We just need something to be able to point to for guidance. Also, any more news on mainland China charts? Thanks! :) Shinyang-i (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Christmas #1 hits on UK charts

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

Official UK Charts Company website has changed

The official UK Charts Company website has been upgraded and now includes top 100 singles in the archives.[9] The Wikipedia formatting will need to be updated in order for the templates to work.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

One has to be careful, though. Their data for Singles positions 76-100 does for a period not concur with the charts that were published at the time. Tobias Zywietz (zobbel) refers to the difference between the compressed and uncompressed versions in his 2005 chart bibliography:

I carefully do not refer to the singles charts as Top 100 since The Next 25 was a section in Music Week, although listing positions 76-100, applying specific additional rules. "Records which would have appeared between positions 76-100 have been excluded if their sales have fallen in two consecutive weeks, and if theirsales fell by 20 per cent compared with last week."

— Tobias Zywietz, [10]
Later on he refers to a change what Hit Music published in November 1994, but crosschecking this myself (comparing the original pages of Hit Music with the OCC website) I found that Hit Music actually published the uncompressed version all along (probably until 2001, will have to take a closer look to confirm this date).
So we now have a huge problem:
  • In 2015 OCC adds to their website a free database with chart data going back decades
  • that website shows Singles positions 76-100 for several years as the compressed chart
  • the charts published at the time in Hit Music were (for positions 76-100, from November 1994 76-200) the uncompressed chart
As no other publication than Hit Music published anything beyond the Top 75 at the time (referring here specifically 1994-2001), I think that OCC rewrites history and (for that period) the OCC website cannot be take as reliable for Singles positions 76-100 until 2001.
On another point: the OCC website has Singles 76-100 only from 1994-02-06, ie. when Millward Brown took over from Gallup: It seems that OCC didn't acquire the rights to the longer charts published before taht date from Gallup. --- Bleddynefans (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of record chart alphabetical order

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

Spanish chart

Why differences beetwen [11] and [12]? Eurohunter (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_12&oldid=1146669742"