Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"note" parameter now supported by singlechart

If you need to add a note about a particular version being used in a chart, you can now add "note=<text>" with the singlechart template. It is automatically forced to small italic text under the main chart name.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Billboard is changing an album chart policy

• [1]

Nielsen SoundScan has announced major changes coming to the way it tabulates the weekly album sales chart. The SoundScan/Billboard 200 will now include catalog releases in the official chart alongside new albums. The chart had previously only listed releases from the previous 18 months, with older releases moved to a seperate chart. However, with this year's massive sales figures for Michael Jackson and Beatles albums, their numbers were missing from the official weekly charts.

Reuters reports that the changes go into effect for the sales week ending November 22, making the November 25 sales chart the first as a "comprehensive" chart. Jackson is the second-biggest selling artist of 2009, after Taylor Swift, and his best-of set Number Ones was the best-selling album in the country for six weeks earlier this year, though it wasn't reflected on the official chart.

In other Nielsen SoundScan news, the company has released new data on vinyl and digital music sales in 2009. For the SoundScan era, vinyl sales have set a new high point, with over two million vinyl records already sold this year. This breaks last year's record of 1.9 million.

As for digital music, four artists have broken Rihanna's digital tracks sales record (she sold 9.9 million digital songs in '08) already. So far, 11.3 million digital Michael Jackson songs have been sold, 11.1 million Lady Gaga songs have been sold this year, with 10.3 million Black Eyed Peas tunes and 9.98 million Taylor Swift songs.

Nielsen SoundScan reports that next week, the 2008 year-end digital album sales total of 65 million will be broken, as well as the one billion track sales mark. - eo (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting policy

There's also this which may be worth keeping an eye on. They're playing around with digital sales due to album leaks, seems like Nielson caving into the whinging of record labels to me.

"50 Cent's album was originally scheduled to drop on Nov. 23, but it leaked to the Internet nearly a month before that, prompting his label, Interscope Records, to push its release forward. The digital version of "Before I Self Destruct" was rush-released to Apple's iTunes Store in the U.S. last Monday (Nov. 9), ahead of the CD's bow on Monday, Nov. 16.

Because of this situation, Interscope has requested that Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan uphold an existing policy regarding album Internet leaks. In a rule instituted nearly a year ago based on industry input, a label may ask Nielsen SoundScan to hold the digital sales count of an album for up to one week -- and for Billboard to delay charting that album -- when a leak situation has resulted in a digital album beating its physical counterpart to market. As a result of this rule, "Before I Self Destruct's" first-week digital sales will be added to its overall retail sum for the week ending Nov. 22 and the album will debut on next week's chart.

Billboard, along with Nielsen SoundScan, will review the merit of maintaining this rule." kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard news

Source: Editor & Publisher closing after 108 years
By ANDREW VANACORE, AP Business Writer – Thu Dec 10, 1:22 pm ET
"The Nielsen Co. is selling some of its most prominent trade journals — including The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard..."
—Iknow23 (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

radiocharts.com

in article Más (Nelly Furtado song) radiocharts.com is used as source for swiss and german airplay chart? is radiocharts.com reliable source? --SveroH (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've spotchecked the German airplay chart, and it has always been accurate. Musictrace.de seems to be a real, reliable source, and they point at radiocharts.com as a valid publisher of their charts. The main problem is archiving: there isn't one at radiocharts.com. The charts at swisscharts.com and germancharts.com are archived. In general, it's best to simply repoint the reference to swisscharts.com or germancharts.com.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, tnx, i did --SveroH (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands (NVIP)

Why does there certification site only go up to 2006? Jayy008 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There has been an ongoing argument at She Wolf (album) related to succession boxes. Thestreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding a succession box for the French Digital Albums chart. Lil-Unique and I have both removed it, but he keeps re-inserting it.

Lil-Unique's argument was apparently that if the chart wasn't important enough for the list of charts, it isn't important enough for a succession box, either. For the record, I disagree with this argument: a succession box is a navigation tool, and the 18 chart limit shouldn't interfere with navigation.

My argument is that a succession box where neither the predecessor nor the successor has an article isn't a useful navigation tool. The purpose of a succession box is to allow the reader to click the "next" links over and over and see the articles for each thing in the class. Things like "Presidents of the United States" are great examples. "Billboard Hot 100 Number Ones" is another, because every single that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 is likely to have an article. Most albums on the French Digital Albums chart haven't got articles and never will.

If I revert him again, I'll wind up violating 3RR, so I'm going to lay off it for a while. I'd like to see other people's opinions on this.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think both arguments are valid. For Lil-Unique's point, imagine if we had iTunes succession boxes or radio chart succession boxes or whatnot. It would be a hot mess. As for Kevin's point, succession boxes are meant to aid in navigation, not just to show an order. If the box doesn't lead anywhere, then what's the point, right? SKS (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your examples are for charts that are forbidden, and I agree that those should not be included. Minor charts that rarely make the top 18 but have a fairly complete set of articles are a different topic in my mind.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the same for digital and physical sales in French Albums Chart, but the real question is "the charts succession are reserved just for American or England artist ?" is a bit unfair compared to other major markets like Japan, Germany, France, which have rarely articles in English wikipedia for a number one album in their chart (Thestreamer (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes aren't reserved for US and British charts. They aren't reserved for charts at all. They are for anything with a complete or nearly complete set of articles, because they are a navigational aid, not for informational purposes. Can you please explain how you think a succession box with no link for the predecessor or successor aids navigation?—Kww(talk)

This is where we disagree, the succession box is here to indicate the number of weeks spent in first place, have a page on previous or following albums that's not the question(Thestreamer (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WP:SBS: "Succession boxes are template-created wiki-tables that serve as navigational aids..." --JD554 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say otherwise in my last comment, I said that the charts succession informs us on the number of weeks in first place for an album by country and whether the previous or next album was a page on wikipedia was not the question(Thestreamer (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time: succession boxes are not to present information. They are not to document the number of weeks on a chart. They are not to document anything about anything. They are a navigational tool. To be a navigational tool, you have to have things to navigate to. In the case of a succession box, those are the preceding and succeeding albums. Can you please explain how a succession box without a preceding article or a succeeding article helps people navigate? You have been asked that question several times, and you have never answered it.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Admit that you're right, so if I understand if I create a page for albums of Renan Luce and Benjamin Biolay, the problem will be solved is not or there will be another one? (Thestreamer (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You would have to create an article for every album that has ever been number one on the French Digital Albums chart for it to be a good idea. If you don't, you just created new problems at the Renan Luce album and the Benjamin Biolay page. The best thing to do is to just delete the succession box.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no chart succession on the albums page of Renan Luce and Benjamin Biolay the problem will be resolved. Also a point that I'd like to raise and that going against your argument, for example the number 1 in Switzerland before She Wolf by Shakira is Touch Yello by Yello in their page we can see that there isn't chart succession and it's far from being an isolated case, so it's probably imperative that the previous and next album have in their page an chart succession but not all albums before them. I suggest you go check all the pages of albums in wikipedia to check, good luck.(Thestreamer (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it won't be resolved. You are not using succession boxes properly. Yes, there are a lot of incorrectly used succession boxes. I correct problems when I notice them. The only time there is a problem is when an editor refuses to understand the corrections, refuses to follow guidelines, and edit-wars his changes in. Please remove the succession box from She Wolf (album) and drop this matter.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not over and still not resolved, however anyone would remove the Succession boxes of She Wolf (album), the discussion started by a succession box (for the French Digital Albums chart) but someone delete the entire section without having reached agreement here. I hope you will come to an agreement and restore the entire section with or without the succession box of French Digital Albums chart. Thanks D6h ^!? 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of Year charts?

I don't see anything on the project page about using Best Of Year charts. I don't believe that they should be included in the table of charts, but may be mentioned within the article text.
I don't recall seeing these kind of charts used before. The occurrence that got me to wondering is HERE, U.S. Billboard 200 Best of 2009.
So what do we all think about this?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"End of Year" charts are frequently provided as a separate table. I don't care much for them.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much for them either, but now that you mention it, I think I have seen them in a separate table. But they should definately not be intermingled with the 'peak position' charts.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

HERE's an example I found of one in a separate table.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate tables look like a good idea to me for multiple end-of-year charts. I don't think they should appear in the same tables as weekly charts, but I would leave it to editors' discretion whether to use a separate table or article prose if they want to include that information. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be logical to use the same policy as with normal chart tables; if there is multiple sourced and notable charts, create a table. If not, put it in the article's prose. kiac. (talk-contrib) 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with verification

For some reason, my "Billboard's site must be buggy" alarm is going off. Can anyone validate a single one of the charting claims made in Lip Gloss (song)? I can't, but suspect that it's a sourcing problem.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

billboard appears to show that the song didnt chart. Althought acharts appears to show that it did. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that it proves anything but Allmusic doesn't list it as a charting single, either. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay much attention when Billboard says that. It also states that "We Belong Together" by Mariah Carey "this song hasn't charted" but it reached #1 for fourteen weeks and is the biggest song of the decade. My point being that even the biggest song of the decade isn't listed. Yet acharts.us is always reliable for official charts. Besides I remember Lip Gloss charting anyway but it charted at #10 on the Hot 100 I thought? Jayy008 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The highest position I could find on the Hot 100 was #10 on June 30, 2007, using the site's Top Ten weekly archive tool [2], which confirms what acharts says. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like Jayy008 said. I have noticed the inconsistency within Billboard. Ideally they would have their site set up to automatically update through ALL their pages regarding albums and songs, but alas they do not. Whenever I see "this song hasn't charted", I know that that is UNreliable.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I think maybe GOODCHARTS should list Billboard Hot 100 for acharts, then this problem ideally wouldn't crop up again. Jayy008 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, you mean kinda like Canada "aCharts.us archives Canadian Hot 100 only." Thing is; first of all United States would have to be added to GOODCHARTS (remembering that Kww said earlier that it is not in there!)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to the artist page's chart history on Billboard, it is usually pretty reliable and up to date. The album pages seem to regularly come up with the bugs. kiac. (talk-contrib) 07:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly like that IKnow23! I think for Billboard charts it is the best place. I see where you're coming from Kiac but you says "usually" with acharts.us it is always up to date. So I propose adding Billboard Hot 100 to GOODCHARTS. Jayy008 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning "usually" from what I haveve seen. I've never seen it out of date - but I'm no measurement as to whether it is up to date or not. I can't be certain. As far as I'm concerned, when Billboard publishes it, we know it exists, before that and it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:21, 19

December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean out of date, sometimes it just hasn't got it on there. Using what you said "when Billboard publishes it, we know it exists, before that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia" then "We Belong Together" should be removed because Billboard doesn't list it. That is not a good idea. Jayy008 (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem with Billboard is in their internal 'archiving'. They cannnot be trusted. With many songs that have been 'published' and 'listed' in weekly charts, when you attempt to search this info later you get the "this song hasn't charted". I have attempted Webcite on multiple occasions of the weekly charts but Billboard does not allow this to occur (archive fails).
Regarding adding US Billboard Hot 100 to GOODCHARTS, there would also need to be some kind of mention of the other "GOOD" US Billboard charts. Otherwise their absence makes it look like we are saying they are not GOODcharts. Perhaps add a sub-section heading of US Billboard within GOODCHARTS?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ericorbit (I think) had made a guide to all the Billboard charts. If someone can find it, it would probably be best to just point to it from the sourcing table. It's too complex to mix in the same table with the other charts.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AGREED, too complex. I did not mean to put into same table. Put into a sub-section titled "U.S. Billboard" with its own table.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well as one of the biggest music markets in the world, it deserves some kind of mention so people know it's allowed. Jayy008 (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely!—Iknow23 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Argentinian Albums Chart

The Argentinian Albums Chart publish by ArgentinaTop100.com.ar is a copy of the official weekly album chart of CAPIF (http://www.capif.org.ar/). It should be considerer as a source, because the CAPIF website doesn't have an archieve, but ArgentinaTop100 does.--HC 5555 (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feelings on this. The main problems I have is that they are anonymous and the other charts they publish aren't from reliable sources. CAPIF does archive their monthly chart, and my basic feeling is that we should live with that. I wouldn't fight too hard if enough people argue the other way.—Kww(talk) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears "If U Seek Amy"

Billboard lists it as charting at #10 on "France Songs" but Hung Median and any other charts that I can find for France do not. Also it was changed to Digital Chart for the chart box but I can't find that on Hung Median either.

This is another example of Billboard being unreliable? Should I remove the chart? Jayy008 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

'If U Seek Amy' charted at #11 on the French digital chart. http://lescharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=si&year=2009&date=20090418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorant (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Billboard just must be incorrect as always. Jayy008 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Más (Nelly Furtado song)

In article Más (Nelly Furtado song) Charly1300.com is used as source for Italian Airplay Chart, Euro200.net is used as source for Polish Singles Chart. Are this sources relaible? --SveroH (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Charly1300.com has just been added to the "websites to avoid" list, and the Polish Singles Chart at euro200.net has been on WP:BADCHARTS since the beginning.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) i've seen Polish National Top 50 on WP:BADCHARTS, but i haven't seen for wich website does it mean, but now i know :) --SveroH (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

aCharts is linking to WP:Record charts!

aCharts is putting a superscript "W" (for Wikipedians) hover link after some of its chart listings and the clickthrough page then has a link to WP:Record charts. Just the text is shown below as I did not code all the links. Just sharing the news :)—Iknow23 (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikpedians, thank you for you using αCharts.us as your chart source. The charts displayed on this website are chosen to give the best as possible quantitative impression of the happenings in the global music industry. Though a group of Wikipedians believe otherwise, therefore we would like to point out to you the guidelines on Record Charts and in particular the paragraph Deprecated Charts. This means that the following charts should not be included onto Wikipedia: Bulgaria Singles Top 40, Portugal Singles Top 50, US Airplay Top 100, World Singles Top 40 and World Albums Top 40. On a side note, The Italian Charts are not official. Thank you for respecting the Wikipedia Community.

Naww how nice of them. This could save us a lot of headaches. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's actually been there for quite a long time, maybe even since last year when we decided the United World Chart shouldn't be used. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I found something new? Anyway because I read it I then used this for an edit summary, "Remove Italian Chart.See aCharts(the ref used)at http://acharts.us/help#wikipedia "The Italian Charts are not official."//Invite to relist it if you can provide a good ref. Check atWP:GOODCHARTS

Yes, this general FAQ entry has been there for some time. They have updated it a couple of times, especially to provide links back to us and provide some clarifications. Still, it is definitely appreciated that they recognise our use of their site and our concerns with some of the data. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AirCheck India - Indian chart?

Have ypu guys noticed this site called AirCheck™ Broadcast Monitoring. They claim that, Monitoring identifies and analyses commercial and song airplay on radio in the top 17 major Indian cities. AirCheck™ monitors 24 hours a day and delivers almost real time radio airplay data from the 88 most important radio stations in India. The Aircheck India National Network delivers advertising agencies,radio stations and record companies an instant online local and national perspective of their clients' airplay. Aircheck India produces independent verification of airplay and provides market Live Reports, Market Share, Brand and Category Analysis, Exception Reports and Song Rotations. They have a weekly chart here consisting of top 20 positions. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be archived, which reduces its usability. I also note that none of the songs are songs that are likely to have Wikipedia articles. It's certainly reliable enough, so it doesn't belong on WP:BADCHARTS, but doesn't appear to be useful, either.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did see articles like "Chiggy Wiggy" using it and even "Jai Ho". We might as well make a note of it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mariah-Charts.com

According to Mariah-Charts.com, Britney Spears' single "Outrageous" charted at number 1 in South Africa, which is weird since the song was only released in the US and Japan. Mariah-Charts is the only site with this information, so I'm wondering if it's a reliable source. And if not, I think it should be added to "Websites to avoid". Pancake (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Madonna-charts.com

this site should also be added to wesites ot avoid: for example [3] see how many charts are shown, at last half of them is/or should be on WP:BADCHARTS--SveroH (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

or at least emphasize not to use as the site itself states, "Certifications in green are taken from non-official sources, not confirmed."—Iknow23 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Billboard.com charts questions

I haven't delved into music charts until recently, so I'm new to this. In Shiny Toy Guns Singles section there are 3 links cited as the sources, all of which are now dead. "Le Disko" I found here, but there's no reference to the #114 on Billboard Hot 100 as the article currently lists; it doesn't make sense to me that it would be #114 anyway on a Top 100 list. I can update the source, but I'm wondering if I should just remove the #114 in the chart or leave it? Also, for songs like "You Are The One" the Billboard link is here but it doesn't refer to being on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart. I guess I'm wondering if I'm just not looking in the right places for sourcing these peaks, or if I should remove them. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, You might like to review/contribute also above at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Help with verification as there is a discussion about Billboard there.
As to position #114, see Billboard charts#Singles and Tracks Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles listing. So #114 is part of the "twenty-five position addendum to the Hot 100" as in Hot 100 position #114. So any position of #126 or higher is definitely BOGUS. It can also be displayed as #14 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart where in this display any position of #26 or higher would then be BOGUS. I hope I said that in not a too confusing fashion?—Iknow23 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help me understand that. I'm not sure if I should leave it though, since I can't seem to find a source for that number now. I do see here that the album that "Le Disko" is on charted at 114 on Billboard 200, so perhaps that was mixed up at sometime and I suppose I should just change it?

I read over the other discussion and now am not sure what to do, it makes it sound like the Billboard charts aren't that reliable on their website?  :) – gRegor (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Billboard certainly isn't consistent throughout their website. I reported it to them but I guess nothing is going to be done? I don't know how to do it, but I would guess that they could set up a database that will automatically update/revise chart info fields across all the pages/articles on their entire website; that is, a change in one will be reflected in ALL.

Re:Shiny Toy Guns Singles section You may like to use this as a ref: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0pfexq9sldje~T51 At least some of the chart info is there.

I would like to call to your attention the project page "Note that references should be individual and specfic to each chart that is being used. Sources per column or table are insufficient." Thus the references clustered at the Singles "Peak chart positions" should be moved to the individual chart name cells. The albums chart does so with the reference "9" in the "US" cell. Of course the other album charts need refs too.

Re: Other 'dead link' or unreferenced material. It's up to you. If you can't find a reliable source, you can delete that material or tag them with the 'dead link' or 'citation needed' for a while in the hope that another editor could provide the ref.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes, are they effectively 'affiliate advertising'?

I believe that Succession boxes [relating to music articles] are an indiscriminate collection of information as "Excessive listing of statistics" that is not notable to the subject. In my opinion, it is notable that the "Song" or Album appears on a reliable and sourced chart, but to provide previous and subsequent holders of number 1 chart positions is unnecessary and excessive. I am even more shocked to learn from above that they are presented not as information, but only as a navigation tool? Why is it necessary to give a link to material that has nothing to do with the article other than in sharing the distinction of charting a number 1 position?
An example of a navigation tool that I do support is the "For other uses, see [Song or Album name here] (disambiguation)" to assist in going to the page the reader is actually seeking if different than the one they are on.—Iknow23 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, especially to the following that previous and next albums are not essential and have nothing to do on the album page, and yes it's "information" that tell us how many weeks an album was in first place, it must be the only published information (Thestreamer (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, succession boxes are unnecessary to show the number of weeks in peak position [which in these cases is number 1] as it is a 'Key fact' of its Chart trajectory and may be mentioned within the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the boxes serve as a navigational aid and do not add any substantial content to any individual song or album article. If someone has an interest in the list of number ones, they can simply go to the many lists of number one singles pages that exist or they can be created. Many "number one" categories already exist so the lists should not be hard to find from any specific article on a number-one song or album. The chart positions are actual information about the song or album, but the succession boxes on some song and album articles are getting out of hand and just add clutter it seems. My preference would be too include sourced chart information (the 18 limit can be used for sub/genre charts within a country; ie. if more than 18 charts, just principal chart from a country) and make due without succession boxes at all on these articles. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the articles can be and probably already are placed in a "number one" category if one exists for the chart. Chances are that if the chart does not have a "number one" category, there is not much interest so then why should it be made a big deal on an individual song or album page to show the prior and subsequent number one position holders? It should be sufficient to show that it charted at number one in the chart table and can mention the number of weeks that it held the number one position in the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Succession boxes have the effect of being 'affiliate advertising'. They are a "navigation tool" to other number one "Songs" and Albums that really have no connection with the page they are on. Kinda like saying, "Hey, I see that you are visiting this article, perhaps you'd be interested in these others that also charted at number one around the same time." The other two [prior and after] can also show a link back to the 'current' article visited. Even better than 'outside' affiliation as you don't have to wait for the webmasters of the other pages to link to you. One person can put succession boxes on all three articles [current, prior and after].
Another problem is that succession boxes are being utilized as a 'loophole' to display Chart information that does not qualify for the table of Charts, such as component charts. I do support mentioning within the article text about charting at number one in a component chart [if it never charted at number one in the Main chart] and other RELIABLE and SOURCED charts, even when not eligible to be used in the Chart table, as I consider that a number 1 position there constitutes a 'Key fact' that is notable of its overall charting infomation. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone want to support Succession boxes being on music articles? I'm sure that there must be other opinions.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't defend them. I don't even think song articles should include chart positions, but I lost that argument long ago.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've linked this discussion on the WikiProject SBS talk page as there was a discussion there regarding placement of succession boxes for songs, where more than one version reaches number one. Notification on the WikiProject talk pages for songs and albums may be in order as well to gather consensus. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Wolfer for an excellent suggestion. An "INVITATION to discussion regarding the use of Succession boxes at Wikipedia talk page for record charts" has been extended on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs pages.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I support removing succession boxes, but I think we ought to indicate how a user can navigate to a list that includes the current song/album. So, for example, if a particular song topped a particular chart in 1980, there ought to be a link to the list of other songs that topped that chart for that particular year. Perhaps the target list will cover more than that year; that's OK. The intent is to put the song in context of the other songs (or albums) that were popular at that time, but not limited to the entries immediately before and after it. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe a "see also" section would call for that, which should contain a link to, for example, list of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1980 (U.S.) (assuming it exists). In fact, I think that's a great idea, instead of including those cluttering succession boxes. — ξ^xplicit 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support removing per Explicit's suggestion. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What about songs like "Poker Face" that were number one in many countries, that would be a very long "see also" section, list of number-one singles in the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden, etc. And also what happend with songs that were number one by two different artists, for example "Venus" topped the Hot 100 in 1970, and was another number one song in 1986, this time covered by Bananarama. The "see also" for this song would be even longer. I don't think "see also" sections would make any difference, perhaps a limit should be placed to the succession boxes to avoid things like this or this, only for the biggest markets, with priority for the English-speaking countries since this is the English Wikipedia.

I see your point. Hmm. Sometimes it seems as if we need two policies for everything on Wikipedia; one of the normal articles and one of the articles on overly popular things. They're two completely different things to control. Anyways. I think one of the first things we should be thinking about before this is anywhere near implemented, we need to go through each page with a box and add and cite the chart in a table or the prose. A lot of singles pages particularly were created simply so these boxes could exist non-interrupted. kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I remove chart success boxes from articles for a number of reasons. One, it's chart trajectory, and that should only be dealt with in the prose if there are enough sources making noise about it. Two, the information contained in the boxes is often unsourced (particularly the dates) and relies on other Wiki articles to determine what came before and after the article topic on the charts. Three, it gives undue weight to the number one position. Yes, being number one on the charts typically means you're the best selling artist that week, but there no reason you couldn't make succession boxes for acts who made it to number two, or even number 67. It's the same reason we have a guideline saying not to put the number on in bold in discography pages, which people used to do all the time. Just like there's no need to navigate between song that reached number 89 on the charts, there's no reason to navigate between songs that reached number one, aside from the assumed "importance" of the placing. Fourth, you often end up with an ungodly amount of succession boxes that do more harm than good to the article layout. Fifth, records that reach the same chart ranking are only related by the number they peaked at; there's no direct connection that would logically require navigation like, say, a succession of records by the same artist. Reaching a certain chart ranking isn't a position, an award, a post, or an honor; it's a number on a chart. Really, they need to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to the "See also" suggestion and to the comments above about popular songs that hit number one in many countries.

• I like the "See also" suggestion. A list is simpler and has almost no effect on page layout. It represents far less weight than the current succession boxes and given the links are to list pages, there's no particular emphasis on the entries that came just before or just after the subject song or album.
• Clearly, we don't want to have a "See also" section with 50 links to chart lists. On the other hand, we shouldn't strip useful content from an article because there's a lot of it. It's unlikely that hitting number one on many charts is notable enough to include a link to a list. I think we ought to be careful about creating overly-specific rules about which charts to list; there may well be cases where a song hitting number one in a small, non-English market is notable for some reason.

I am a strong supporter of removing the succession boxes. I like the idea of adding "See also" entries, but it's not critical. One could certainly argue that unless the prose mentions something about the chart—what type of songs were popular at the time, unusual sequences of number ones, etc.—then the link is unnecessary. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For those truly interested, they would simply click on the link to the chart article from the chart table. The articles on each chart typically have a see also section to a "list of number ones". This really should be enough for someone curious on the topic. Chart researchers/fanatics would more than likely go from the chart lists to the individual songs rather than the other way around. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure we should have pages that list releases that have hit number one on a particular chart, for part of the same reason I feel we need to do away with the succession boxes. But that might be best left to another discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to give another view, I don't support this at all. The succession boxes are great and give an idea of a songs place in history through previous and subsequent number 1s, encourage editors to create articles for number 1 songs that don't exist yet and aid navigation, encouraging readers to dig deeper into Wikipedia in the same way that wikilinks do. Cavie78 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support a rule mandating the removal of succession boxes from all album/song articles. The need to switch from one number-one song/album article to another can be covered by articles such as List of number-one albums of 1984 (U.S.).—indopug (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cavie: I think this is particularly interesting in the case of songs which have been #1 hits more than once, to give an added sense of historical context. One good thing about the succession boxes is that if you're not interested in that information, it's very easy to ignore (which wouldn't be the case if one had to wade through it in the article prose). I don't think that an established practice should be forbidden just because it's unnecessary or because this usage of succession boxes differs from their original purpose. Policies are generally supposed to document accepted practice rather than dictate it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With or without succession boxes, what the previous and subsequent singles are would/do not have to be included in the prose, unless otherwise notable. I do believe there is historical context to the boxes in terms of relating the #1 chart achievement. If they are kept, there needs to be far better guidelines set up. There are numerous issues on how they are being maintained. Plus they should be collapsible (see Boom Boom Pow for an example). All that being said, overall opinion (as opposed to consensus) favors their removal. How does one determine when consensus is reached and how is that implemented afterwards? Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I could support the collapsible version as it does not clutter the page. However the example of Boom Boom Pow titles it "Achievements". I say it should be titled, "Chart procession and succession" so that readers will know the type of content and not think that it lists Grammy awards, etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They are so HUGE. Is this really necessary for an encyclopedia? When I first seen one, I was like "What IS this". I could barely comprehend the "data" it was trying to relay. This article for example, the whole bottom of the article is nothing but tables. Five to be exact, on top of one another. What about people on mobile devices? I guess the other tables are another story, as I think they should be in prose. I'm not sure if the "chart procession and succession" is a table or a template. If the later, it should be taken to TfD, IMO. If all else fails, at least have an option to collapse the table. —Mike Allen 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the 'mystery writer' above. Your first whole line is how these things struck me also. I'd rather the default be the "chart procession and succession" display as collapsed with an option to [show].—Iknow23 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I forget to sign my name when I'm in a hurry. :( —Mike Allen

No problem, I knew who it was as it shows in my watchlist, but didn't want to tell it in case you wanted to remain anonymous :)—Iknow23 (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I couldn't get the template header to say, "Chart procession and succession" but I found a better template match and applied it at the example we have been discussing, "Boom Boom Pow". It is the template that displays the header "Order of precedence" Template:S-prec. "This template creates a header to be used with succession boxes for orders of precedence..."
Precedence! ha what could be more appropriate.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And see Order of precedence, "An order of precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of items."—Iknow23 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be a lot better. I was thinking that such a chart should be at the very bottom of the article. —Mike Allen 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really pay them any attention other then they are an annoyance (my personal opinion), but my peripheral vision usually notes that they are at the bottom of the text. I wouldn't dispute if anyone put the 'lil' collapsed header above the ref section. I mean either directly above the navbox or the ref section would be fine with me.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New chart in Finland

The Finnish chart has changed in 2010. YLE will no longer publish it. Instead, it is published by IFPI at http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/. They only have the album, mid-price and DVD charts at this point but they will also publish a singles chart. The complete charts can be seen by clicking "Näytä koko lista". YuckieDuck (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Video chart positions in prose

I am wondering if I could get some third party opinions/discussion on some video chart positions in a prose section of an article that I and another editor are having? The particular article is Kellie Pickler and this is the last edit where User:CloversMallRat added back the information about the video charts, [4].

I am against using this information because they are unofficial charts per this guideline and unreferenced material. CloversMallRat thinks the information is okay since it is not listed in a table and this guideline is only for chart information in tables. I think the first sentence of the guideline, "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles.", applies since a singer's article is a music-related article. I also feel this information could easily be challenged since there is no reference to the chart positions.

I appreciate any and all responses to my inquiry. Thank you, Aspects (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that they definitely don't belong in chart tables (which is the main idea of these guidelines), but I think they are valid enough to warrant mentions in the article. Not really much different than mentioning a win in a fan-voted awards ceremony, or a placement on a country music website's 'Best of this Year' and such. In this particular case its a Top 50 Videos of 2009, in which she placed two songs on, so I think its a nice accomplishment that might not be really vital to anything, but it doesn't detract from the article at all. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with GAC, but if it is notable within the genre I would accept it. However even then (as with any material) it would still require proper sourcing with reference as "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."—Iknow23 (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The other mainstream country music channel, CMT, has an actual fan-voted music video awards show. While the channel in question doesn't quite take it to that level, there's nothing inappropriate about its mention in the article. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aspect, that the guideline is not only for tables but for the body of the article as well. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Individual network countdown charts are not acceptable in either charts or prose, and this guideline most certainly includes prose.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is all about the guidelines for what does and doesn't belong in song's chart tables, but it doesn't mention anything about the actual article itself. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. This guideline is about how to handle record charts. It spends a lot of time on the chart format, but it applies to the prose as well.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing on this page that specifically points to guidelines on the prose, only chart tables. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read more closely. It contains such statements as "Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1). Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart may be mentioned within the article text." The guidelines about not using information from WP:BADCHARTS are certainly enforced throughout the article, and that extends to single retailer charts such as iTunes and Amazon. The chart you are attempting to add is an individual network countdown: completely unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Emancipation of Mimi

In France the album is listed as certified Gold (sales certified 100,000 units) Yet on the IFPI certification thresholds Platinum is listed as 100,000 for France, has the certification levels changed for France since 2005? Jayy008 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the certification levels changed for France in July 2006, then in June 2009. See Disque d'or and SNEP site. -- Europe22 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Question: When certification thresholds change, you MUST keep it at the level it originally obtained? Yes? In other words, do not change it to reflect a new threshold that is applied LATER.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances where the threshold changes you must keep the album's certificate at the original level. By tradition (see Whitney discography) one should note next to the certificate "old criteria" or something along those lines. Because at the end of the day at the said period of time in quest the album was certified. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. I really like that. I do not support changing the cert, but can appreciate the noting of "old criteria". By the way (as it is possible) are you aware of any instance(s) wherein the cert levels where changed to make them harder to achieve? It seems to me that they are changed to make it easier.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Finnish sales

this link is the Finnish certification for Mariah Carey's "Music Box" the numbers next to it, do they represent sales? I tried an online translation but the word wasn't in their dictionary that describes the column where these sales are. Jayy008 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Google Translate:

Artist, album, record company, year
Mariah Carey
Music Box
Sony
1993
"Total Sales 47,382" "1994 Music recording sales certification" but it doesn't say what certification level it achieved as far as I can tell. But you can look that up based upon the Sales figures, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It says the certification next to the year "Kultalevy" when translated says "Gold" maybe the certification levels have changed in Finland since 1994 because now 47,382 would be Platinum. Anyway thank you for your help, I will use Google Translation from now on. Jayy008 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha another chance to ask my question from above. 'Hmmm. Question: When certification thresholds change, you MUST keep it at the level it originally obtained? Yes? In other words, do not change it to reflect a new threshold that is applied LATER.'—Iknow23 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good question. However, I will object strongly to it being implemented. Back then as the certification levels were much higher, it was harder for an artist to reach. Once the certification is given, the provider doesn't change it so I don't think we should change it on Wikipedia. I'm finding this very difficult to explain, I hope you know what I mean lol. Jayy008 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Sorry I never saw your question from above! Jayy008 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand. If so, I agree that we should not change the certification level given out based upon later changes to the levels. Thus Music Box will remain at "Gold".—Iknow23 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Jayy008 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So now all you need to do is to add the Finland certification with ref to Music Box :)—Iknow23 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I had done it already lol Jayy008 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have said to add it to the Music Box listing at Mariah Carey discography page.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it now! Jayy008 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New Chart Macros

Can the new chart Macros be added to WK:Charts yet? I know there are some problems but underneath a note could be made "For now Beyonce (and whoever else has ' in their name) can't be used with the macros)" Something like that because people keep reverting the macros because they're not shown on GOODCHARTS. For the most part they work it's only Beyonce and Esmee Denters I can see a problem with. Jayy008 (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I also SUPPORT this addition so that 'outside' editors can be aware of the Macros as everyone obviously is not going to read our Talk page. Then when they are found to be reverted, it can be undone with an Edit summary such as "SEE WP:CHARTS, Macros may be used." I would like for it to be noted that 'the Macros may be used (optional)'. I do not support making them mandatory.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem adding them to WP:Record charts if people think it's time. Just curious, how prevalent is the reversion problem? It would be nice to understand why people revert them, because that may be a sign of resistance to the concept.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree IKnow23, it should be optional. Kevin, most people that revert my edits are just IP's who don't write why they change them back, so I'm assuming it's because most of Wikipedia has the original format so they think that's the correct one. Also some people when reverting my edit say "Changing charts per WK:CHARTS" or something because they don't know about the macros. I don't think it's resistance I think it's more lack of knowlage. If it's clear that both are allowed then I can't see any resistance. Jayy008 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Songs use in Charts & Discographies

Although it seems the consensus of a discussion was to not include airplay charts such as the Top 40 Mainstream included in the charts section for songs and discographies for artists, I think that this needs to be changed. Since the Pop 100 has phased out, the T40Mainstream, now Pop Songs is the only equivalent of a genre chart to use for the pop genre, as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot Country Songs have for their respective genres. Also to point out, all other airplay-only charts have a singles/airplay/etc chart to serve as the basis, as pop does not. Anyone else agree? Candyo32 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Songs is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100 therefore it shouldn't be added in charts tables or discographies. Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot Country Songs, as far I know, are not. That's the main difference. Decodet (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack albums also charting in Main charts and Genre charts

Glitter (soundtrack) at Billboard? It is listed as charting in Soundtrack, R&B/Hip-Hop and the Top 200. Actually couldn't all THREE be displayed in the Chart table in the Glitter article as R&B/Hip-Hop is a genre chart and I think that Soundtrack chart should also be eligible.
What does everyone think?—Iknow23 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection for that one, Glitter has no direct consensus on what it is so included both charts would be better. Jayy008 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

VRT Top 30

I think the above should be included as a previous chart for Belgium. Prior to 1992, Hung MEdien was not in existence and VRT was used to measure a song in Belgium. Hence it's better to have it in the sourcing guide for a reference for the pre-1992 songs. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any information available about how this chart operates and what it measures?—Kww(talk) 06:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Brasil / Official Brasil Charts

right once and for all can we establish what the consensus is on this? Im aware that in July 2009 it was said that we would wait until the site was improved. In October 2009 i saw comments on various pages saying that Billboard Brasil is still not fully functional. Recently i've been absolutely bombarded by users adding the chart Billboard Hot 100 from billboard brasil even though the source takes you to the hot 100 airplay. What is the state with Billboard Brasil? are we calling it a legitimate chart or a problem child? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If the chart is cited to the actual physical issue of the magazine, using {{cite journal}}, I think it is fully within all policies. Citing it to the website is unacceptable because of the lack of archiving.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What about for #1's (online source) because then a succession box can be created for the chart? Jayy008 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a stable, online source for #1 positions?—Kww(talk) 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can make a Wiki page like you do for the albums chart or add it to Billboard Brasil's wiki page and list all the number ones of the chart. I will personally keep updating it everytime the #1 changes. Is that ok? Jayy008 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the physical copies of the second and third edition, so I can help you if you want to use physical references. Yes, all charts are fully displayed on the physical copies. Decodet (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK so according to what has just been discussed what do we feel about the use of the billboard brasil source in this example: "IWTKWLI"? is it acceptable? Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if Decodet would verify it against his physical copy, but yes, that would appear to be acceptable.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Jayy008's suggestion, no. I just point at the official source, but I can't be used as a source. Same goes for you. You are free to keep track of good sources, but you can't be the source yourself.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Kww ... but that is not verifiable? ??? *confused* look. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's verifiable. Not conveniently verifiable, but any Brazilian editor can easily look it up and verify it. The rest of us would have to work harder, but we could obtain copies of the physical magazine. Per WP:V:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". A cite to a magazine provides all the information necessary for an editor that truly wanted to verify a piece of information to find the appropriate copy of the appropriate magazine and locate the page on which the information is contained.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I can help everyone who wants to know peak positions of November and December since they are not available anymore in the main site. I do not have January edition but I have access of it since a friend of mine have it. Decodet (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Kww I was under the impression that sources which are limited in access should not be used as any editor could not verify the information. That is why sites which require log-ins are generally not allowed because it is not accessible to everyone. So we are to take someone's word for it that the single reach number 1 despite their being no other mentioning of it? and despite their being no online source? Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Should not" and "must not" are different things. Yes, a reliable online source is generally preferable to a printed source, simply because of ease of verification. That doesn't mean that printed sources are forbidden, or even discouraged. There are huge sections of Wikipedia that are based primarily on paper sources. In this case, there is no reliable online source, but there is a reliable paper source. Nothing in Wikipedia policy could reasonably be construed to forbid its use.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that whatever the official stance winds up being on this issue should be elucidated at the Billboard Brasil article and should be strong enough to change this article's position on Brazil's Hot 100 chart. If WP:Record Charts' stated position on Brazil's Hot 100 is not changed, then editors will continue to wage wars over inclusion of the data point at each article for a chart-topping single going forward, including, as another editor notes, the "I Want to Know What Love Is" article. If the chart is official, it should change Wikipedia's position on inclusion of that chart; if Wikipedia's position has changed, this article should note that. If this article does not note that, then no amount of talk page commentary will prevent the edit wars over the data points across the project by good faith editors who check this article to verify the authenticity. Comments I made at Talk:Billboard Brasil were not adequately responded to. All related articles need a section giving a heads-up on any change to the official nature of that chart and our recognition of it. Abrazame (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see this is going to be a contentious/controversial issue. Therefore can i suggest that we wait until more opinons are added and can we stick to the point of whether Billboard brasil is being accepted as a valid single's chart. Bare in mind that although there is a valid Billboard Publication questions arose about the methidology of record charts in Brasil. It is an ongoing issue and I personally believe that it is too easy to manipulate the situation. In the example i gave the user first tried to use the website source but then because Wikipedia doesnt approve of Billboardbrasil's website, under Kww's guidance has used the {{cite journal}} template to bypass verification. Although i would like to assume WP:Goodfaith it is difficult in the situation especially since the user failed to discuss and there is no mention of the song reaching number 1 in brasil in news articles. This is definately a shady gray area which needs to be addressed with proper guidelines. Its clear that current rules do not have a clear stand point. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to restate my position in full, for clarity. First, the notability and reliability of the chart isn't in question. As a Billboard franchisee, Billboard Brasil gains instant notability. Their airplay charts are produced by Crowley Broadcast Analysis, and Crowley is a reliable, notable organization. Our only problem here is the stability of sourcing. That means what we need to evaluate is the details of the sourcing.

The site, www.billboard.br.com, only holds a transient copy of the chart. That means it is not suitable for reference. The magazine is a permanent copy. As much as I dislike it, there isn't a policy-based argument for rejecting citations to the magazine. Citations to journals are considered acceptable, even obscure scientific journals of extremely limited circulation that are extremely expensive to obtain. Billboard Brasil is reasonable in price, and available in newsstands across Brazil, Portugal, and probably a handful in New York and Tokyo as well.

Lil-Unique's fear of fraud is well founded. I've used that same argument at WP:RSN#Everyhit.com as an argument in favor of allowing archives like everyhit.com as an alternative to using references to ChartsPlus. But read over that argument ... I'm close to invoking WP:IAR, and no one is contesting the validity of quoting physical copies of ChartsPlus.

I think our path forward from here is to modify WP:GOODCHARTS to explicitly point out the problem, explicitly allow references to the physical magazine, and explicitly point out the naming problem with hot100brasil.com. We need to rely on Decodet and some of our Brazilian editors to keep an eye on the situation with physical citations. I expect that we are going to have some trouble with fraud, but we can't protect against that in advance.—Kww(talk) 05:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Decodet has been very helpful and is doing the #1's on the chart for me. I agree with you Kevin, then people can just ask the brazilian editor to add it for them if it's "noteable enough" Jayy008 (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an brazilian people, ask for me. I add the Billboard Brazil in charts. Ok?? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey "Angels Advocate"

moved discussion to Talk: Angels Advocate Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hrtop20

Hrtop20 should be listed on WP:GOODCHARTS because it is official croatian singles chart. Main problem is that it lists only croatian singles, but it can be used on English Wikipedia in articles like "Možda volim te" --SveroH (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

When we discussed this before, didn't we come to the conclusion that this was a single-network chart?—Kww(talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

no. hr top 20 from croatian hrt radio 1 is single-network chart. hrtop20 makes chart from over 60 radio stations from Croatia. if you google it you'l find many web sites linking to hrtop20.--SveroH (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't find an archive, and consensus is getting pretty strong that unarchived charts shouldn't be listed on WP:GOODCHARTS. Can you point me at one?—Kww(talk) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

archive is here. as you'll see, there are two category's: pop-rock/hip-hop/dance/house music, and folk music.--SveroH (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

HRTOP20 list airplay of singles. it should be listed under Singles - Airplay, not album sales.--SveroH (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazil singles

I Hate This Part by PCD certified Gold in Brazil How can a single be certified Gold in Brazil when they don't sell songs on iTunes? for Katy Perry singles it says "downloada" next to it Jayy008 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of dozen legal digital music download sites in Brazil, including label-owned and -operated sites, and several songs are certified Gold in Brazil each year. Brazilians purchase music through their cellphones or their computers. Abrazame (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, is there an official digital chart anywhere? Jayy008 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No digital sales yet, only airplay unfourtunately. Decodet (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help everyone. Jayy008 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived charts

With this edit, I have removed all unarchived charts from WP:GOODCHARTS. It seems to reflect growing consensus on the topic. Note that I have specifically not added them to WP:BADCHARTS. The underlying charts are all valid, but the reliability and stability of the source needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Music Week Trial

I have just recieved my four week Music Week trial so if anyone needs help with verification of sales, chart positions or anything like that. Post a comment here and I'll help. Jayy008 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me with what exactly is in this article. I don't have access. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I confused again? The part that I can see states "The 522nd and last sales week of the first decade of the 21st century..." ? I thought that each year has 52 weeks, so times 10 years is 520, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, just thought of a possible answer. Perhaps the decade started and ended in the MIDDLE of a week, and they put the extra bits in there to make them full weekly periods?—Iknow23 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There were 53 charting weeks in 2000 and 2006, that is why there are 522 weeks in the decade. This happend when the first charting week of the year is dated January 1. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's basically a summary of sales of the past decade in the UK, a brief account none the less. Since I'm guessing you're particularly interest in Lady Gaga. It tells you Bad Romance sales the week it retured to #1 for the second time. (76,265). Info about a few of her other songs "With Paparazzi climbing 61-48 (9,354 sales), Just Dance moving 67-54 (8,593 sales) and Telephone rising 74-67 (7,171 sales), GaGa – who made her chart debut a year ago this week – increased her weeks on the Top 75 in 2009 to 154 – a record for any artist in any year." pasted direct. & this: "Bad Romance’s share of the singles market last week – just 1.81% - is the smallest ever for a number one." I hope that helps. If it wasn't Lady Gaga you needed tell me the artist and I'll paste the info about it. Jayy008 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to know if the article mentions Poker Face and that it topped the year-end chart. Many thanks --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jayy008 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

MegaCharts again

Just wanted to clarigy that MegaCharts is the main work behind Dutch Top 40 and Mega Single Top 100, and Mega Single is a component chart of Dutch Top 40. Right? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOODCHARTS shows at Netherlands in the Singles column "GfK Dutch Single Top 100 (Mega Single)". Unless it is unknown at this time to be in error, I can only presume that it is correct and am editing accordingly.—Iknow23 (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting MegaCharts in it? MegaCharts is like Billboard I believe, while Dutch

Top 40 and Mega Single are like Hot 100 and Hot Digital Songs. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

oh, OK. IF MegaCharts is like Billboard? I gotta say that a chart named "Mega Single Top 100" better be affiliated with MegaCharts as both are listed for the same country. It would be weird if it is not so.—Iknow23 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The article for MegaCharts indeed lists them both and clarifies that Mega Single is the component of Dutch Top 40. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely a component chart, the main chart works a different way and takes into account airplay. Is there a specific reason you brought it up? Anything I can help with? Jayy008 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. I think I understand now.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

top40.nl

Is this website reliable? Someone added it to 22 (song), but Hung Medien doesn't state that it charted in the Netherlands, so I removed it. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for someone who knows better to answer about the site reliability. I tried (from a history edit view) the link they gave. It goes to year 2008? But the single is released in 2009! After doing some searching around on the site I found this:
http://www.top40.nl/index.aspx?week=34&jaar=2009 listed at Chart position 20, but it is only for the 'B-side' "Not Fair". The following week it goes up to "11" and I didn't bother to look more.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Dutch Top 40 is the official chart of the Netherlands, the one at Hung Medien is the Mega Single Top 100, which is provided by GFK, but is only for single sales (they have another chart for downloads). The Mega Single Top should only be included if the song didn't chart on the Dutch Top 40.Frcm1988 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

yes top40.nl is the dutch top 40. dutchcharts.nl is the mega single top 100. two completely different charts. Mister sparky (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. Now, top40.nl says "22" charted at 18, but dutchcharts.nl says 79. Which one should I use? I mean, I have a FL with Hung Medien as a source for the Netherlands. If top40.nl is the official one then does that mean I should replace the source? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dutchcharts.nl = GfK Dutch Single Top 100 aka Mega Single Top 100.

www.radio538.nl/top40 = Dutch Top 40.

per WP:GOODCHARTS, "The Mega Single Top 100 is a component of the Dutch Top 40, and should only be used if the single did not chart on the Dutch Top 40." Thus if when you said "top40.nl" you mean "www.radio538.nl/top40" then use the 18.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Spotify

Today I reverted someone who added Spotify's top 100 chart to an article. I don't know much about Spotify but I understand that its chart would be based on user requests. Can it be added to the Bad Charts list? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks to be a single vendor chart. I tend to prefer to not add things to WP:BADCHARTS unless it becomes a common problem, but I won't object if someone else adds it.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Spotify is definitely based only on stuff uploaded by anyone with an internet connection. I'd say that's a big NO. - eo (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So what can we actually use then?!!

After monitoring the featured list discussion for the Interpol discography (see also post above from SteelersFan_UK06) I'm massively confused about what is and what is not a reliable source for UK charts. Apparently everyHit.com, Zobbel, Alpha Charts, aCharts and ChartStats aren't good enough (despite ChartStats been quoted on the Record Charts page) and the only one that is is Charts Plus which seems to be a subscription service. OCC is again quoted on the Record Charts page but only seems to have info for no.1 records and current week charts. Can we get some consensus on this issue please? Cavie78 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On WP:RSN, Goodraise has agreed not to oppose FLC based solely on the use of everyhit.com. That's probably as good as you are going to get, aside from crossing your fingers that he doesn't review your candidate article.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodraise is incorrect to oppose(but fine to question) Chart Stats. In my view reliable sources for

• UK Singles Charts are in order of quality:

1. The Official Chart Company (short term archive)
2. Chart Plus (but this is WP:PAYWALL)
3. Chart Stats (Top75 only) (Top100)
4. Music Week (not link friendly - subscription required. Top75 only, short term archive) (Good for sales, end of year info, breaking news)
5. BBC (Top40 only, no archive.)
6. Polyhex.com (not link friendly - have to search. Top75 only)

Other sites such as everyhit.com, aCharts and Zobbel are generally not as good quality and I wouldn't be adding them to any FA type article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyhit.com is recommended on the BBC website and has a few other reliable sources referencing it, which allows it to arguably pass WP:RS. What can you tell me about polyhex.com?—Kww(talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Polyhex is done like Chart Stats with anonymous archiver. So I doubt a time would come up when anyone would desire to link to it from chart information on wikipedia. It's functionality is more useful as a tool for research and cross checking then a source for links. SunCreator (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is BBC recommendation? Couldn't see in Google. Could be they have Video or Movies info that other sites don't have. SunCreator (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I reluctantly retract my object to everyhit.com Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ChartStats is all the way to 100 not Top 75. It is the best for use on here because of it's statistical tables and easy linking without subscription. Besides the new macros are being used more frequently and ChartStats is the one used. Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake Chart Stats is Top100(edit:used to be Top75 only until mid 2007). I agree for Wikipedia Chart Stats is the best solution. SunCreator (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO also chartstats is the best for wiki, you can link directly to an archive page off all an artists songs and albums, not to a search page. and also archives the top 100 for albums and singles forever. Mister sparky (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

←The best sources for chart positions are the books: The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles and The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums. The most recent editions of these books (which are officially licensed by the OCC) have all releases listed by artist which have charted up to position 75 of the relevant chart - up to 2008 for the singles and 2009 for the albums. To use these books, editors have to go to a library or buy them, but they are more reliable than ChartStats, Everyhit, etc. The UK music industry's trade magazine, Music Week, also publishes officially licensed charts and all copies are available from the British Library. These options take effort, but are the best sources for UK chart positions. Unfortunately editors (myself included in the past) tend to go for the easier option of the archive websites which may be accurate but generally fall short of the reliable source guidelines. If anyone wants any chart positions confirming, they can drop me a line on my talk page as I have both the Virgin books. --JD554 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone. Cavie78 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

JD, perhaps you should suggest that for UK, The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles and The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums be mentioned in WP:GOODCHARTS? along with their date range coverage—Iknow23 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ARC Weekly Top 40

I'm surprised this went so long without recognition. I have looked all around and not been able to find any verifiable information on the history of this chart, how it's tabulated, who publishes it, etc. Even Gnews turns up only 2 hits, which is a lot fewer than even the non-notable United World Chart got. This should definitely be deleted. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC Weekly Top 40. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Korea charts are now online.

See this website for more details. It's set up by the KMCIA (the current RIAA equivalent); they are what MIAK became.

If you go to the site, you'll see a heavy focus on digital charts. I really don't see the difference between the "digital" and the "online" charts; I'm assuming that the digital includes the mobile rankings. Thankfully, the charts are fairly comprehensive, and include "international" artists in their data, which is compiled on a weekly basis.

For non-Korean artists, this is a legitimate chart to use for any chart data. For Korean artists, this should replace any charts based on single vendors, as the GAON chart combines the data from all music sites. Keep in mind, though, that the earliest data is from December 2009, so for anything before then...you're outta luck.

Any questions, post them here. I'll try to answer what I can. SKS (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How can one translate the page. I put the url into Google translate but that won't do it.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

...You can't, as far as I can tell.  :( I don't know much about web design, and all I know is that it's frame based, but there's no real way that I can tell to grab even the week frames. So first off, when using it as a link, you're gonna have to specify the week in the reference. Second, any foreign artists are listed in English (yay!) so you can try looking for specific artists. In terms of the different charts, on the GOODCHARTS page, I listed the instructions as to how to access the different pages. Hope that helps. SKS (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Instructions = help :) Thanks.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Babel Fish to the rescue. — ξ^xplicit 06:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha...Babelfish almost makes it worse, considering the amount of English written in Korean...but I suppose it's better than nothing. :P SKS (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So it's just Digital? Where on the third one along it's only international on a charts column I'll call it "Korean International Singles Chart"? and the other one simply "Korean Singles Chart"? Which ones should be used, I'm for using both because although International is a component I think it's benificial to show both. Also what is the difference between Digital comp and Online charts?? Jayy008 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The album sales chart is not digital, but any song-related charts are purely digital, because there are no physical Korean singles. As I stated earlier, the impression that I get is that the digital comprehensive chart takes into account mobile downloads, whereas the online chart only takes into account online retailers. For example, if you download the song on your phone to your phone, that would be part of the comprehensive chart, but not part of the online chart. It would be the difference, say, between buying a song from iTunes on your computer and buying it directly from your iPhone/iPod touch. For now, I think it would be good to use only the comprehensive chart, as using any other chart would just make things complicated. There should be no issue with using the international chart if it did not go into the combined chart, but listing both would bring up component chart issues. SKS (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here is a Korea Times intro to the chart, in English. The digital chart includes streaming counts as well...but the whole thing is flaky at the moment. Certainly official, though. SKS (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.slokylie.com

http://www.slokylie.com is used in some kylie minogue articles as source for charts. most of charts from slokylie.com are listed on WP:BADCHARTS. it should be added to Websites to avoid listl--SveroH (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A pretty indiscriminate list of unimportant charts.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Chart Stats, Zobbel, everyHit and αCharts.us

Just wondering, in terms of a featured list candidate (Interpol discography in this case), what are considered the reliable sources when noting the charts of singles and albums? The above four have been thrown around, but the reliability of all three has been questioned in the mentioned article's candidacy. Please help! Thank you in advance. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Acharts is reliable enough but ChartStats should be used where possible. However ChartStats I do not believe is licensed either it just has the flow diagram on there which no other UK sources have. ChartStats should be used according to Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS as it always seems reliable and it's the only one that can be used with the {{singlechart}} macro system.

However for those using the old chart format, everyhit isn't allowed, which I don't know why because it's from Radio 1 as a link. When I put everyhit before it got removed so I don't recommend putting it anywhere. Zobbel I remove when I see it, there is no clear consensus on it's reliability, it seems reliable and no problems have been found but the 100-200 positions aren't available to the public so it's unlikely whoever runs it would have the data.

Official Charts Company website has an archive off all top 40 charts which is probably the most reliable out of all of them however positions 40-100 are not archived. I hope that was helpful. Jayy008 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If your article is about recent enough things, use the Official Charts Company. They only archive the last 100 weeks, for sometimes, that's enough. Acharts should never be used for a good or featured article. As for the others, I would rank it everyhit (because we can provide examples of reliable sources using it), chartstats (comprehensive, with no implementation problems), and then zobbel (a few implementation problems yielding incorrect results in some cases).—Kww(talk) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So in terms of an FA, we're only talking EveryHit and ChartStats? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally. Official Charts Company is what I would use for an article about a recent song, because it would save a lot of arguments during the FA review, but it will have to be replaced eventually. I could justify Zobbel on a case-by-case basis, but there would have to be a compelling need. Using Zobbel is basically a case of WP:IAR, and that's not something to be taken lightly.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Imo ChartStats should be considered without question. OCC can't really be used in the article in question as most of the charting singles are from before the 100 weeks. It is stated on Zobbel that it is compiled from ChartPlus, the only publisher of all 200 singles every week. Surely this is enough in terms of reliability? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Zobbel is that it returns soundtrack and other special albums as having charted on the main albums chart, when in fact they are not even eligible for it.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. You say that soundtrack albums are NOT eligible to appear on the main albums chart. What about Glitter (soundtrack) at Billboard? It is listed as charting in Soundtrack, R&B/Hip-Hop and the Top 200. Actually couldn't all THREE be displayed in the Chart table in the Glitter article as R&B/Hip-Hop is a genre chart and I think that Soundtrack chart should also be eligible.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's Billboard, not the Official Charts Company. Different charts, different companies, different rules.—Kww(talk) 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So what about wiki? Should we display it if Billboard 'says' it?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost in this conversation. What are you saying that relates to the issue of how Zobbel stores charts from the Official Charts Company?—Kww(talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Glitter was allowed on the UK albums chart at #10 because it was a studio album. Kevin, ChartsPlus might include the real 200 albums, with no rules, perhaps? Jayy008 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's the Official Charts Company chart. I'm not sure how Glitter qualified. The case I dug through was one of the Hannah Montana soundtracks that didn't make the UK Album chart because it wasn't eligible, but Zobbel was reporting it anyway. I checked a few more and found the pattern. It'd take me a while to reconstruct.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's strange. Hmm. I don't think Zobbel should be allowed. There's no proof they have a ChartsPlus account and they could make things up. Unless one of us gets an account. I don't think postions 101-200 should be allowed for the UK. By the way, I've signed up to music week for a 4 week free trial, so once it's come through I should be able to verify all of Zobbel or does Music Week not post 101-200? Either way I will subscribe to one of them permanently which should be helpful for charts on here. Jayy008 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayy, music week has a 1-75 position chart. Positions over are sometimes found in the weekly articles if very interesting. I have access, also have copies of weekly reports. SunCreator (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They were returning the right chart positions, it's just that when they return a position, they don't tell you whether it is for the soundtrack chart, compilation chart, or album chart. You have to sort that out yourself, which is why I don't recommend Zobbel.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Well it's down to personal preference if it's included then I guess. Jayy008 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Was a decision reached about Zobbel? Should it be added to WP:BADCHARTS "Websites to avoid"?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, add it to BADCHARTS and say some editors find it unreliable and cite this diff. SunCreator (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, did it. It had seemed to be generally unfavorable about Zobbel, but I didn't see any resulting action.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Zobbel has a place on Badcharts. Perhaps not on Goodcharts, but there is no reason to rule it out completely, it's a convenient and trustworthy source in my book - where are these mistakes? Are they just the soundtrack charts being mixed in with the national chart and people getting confused, or what? There's no basis behind this claim that "some editors find it unreliable". kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention that it just be listed on BADCHARTS, I think an explanation is due. It's not bad, but it's not good either on account of at least some editor(s?) had a problem with it. I would be happy if you amend the entry on BADCHARTS to add some explanation. SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please edit it to explain when it can be used?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For example is this relaible?? http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/100213cluk.txt —Iknow23 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that for User:Kiac or myself? I don't know if the link you provided is reliable or not. I found no chart errors on that link when cross checking it, but the date information I do question. It says at the top 'Update 13.02.2010 (wk5)' - that is for the dates and the chart matching from 07/02/2010 until 13/02/2010. The OCC tell us that's Week 6 and not wk5(Week 5). See TOP 40 SINGLES ARCHIVE :: WEEK 06 : 07/02/2010 - 13/02/2010. SunCreator (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to answer. Actual case is that I see it is being used at Kesha discography for UK positions in excess of 100 and wonder if its reliable for such use? —Iknow23 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The UK charts published by The OCC today are a Top100 as you can see on there website, those are obviously official. Positions 101 and above are produced by Chart+Plus, these are no doubt an accurate reflection of sales, yet are they actually part of the official chart? The situation seems unclear. SunCreator (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Let's hope that others will be able to help us out a bit here.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

They're obviously official on some level, because they are true and them being published by this website, to me, makes them verifiable. Quoting someone else saying that 'people' have said that the site is unreliable hardly makes the statement true. The only complication I have ever, in two years of using it and other UK chart sources, is the soundtrack issue. Which can easily be cross-checked and erradicated. Putting it on Badcharts requires some concrete evidence that it is unhelpful for the project. kiac. (talk-contrib) 11:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Zobbel is being edit warred at Kesha discography for UK positions in excess of 100. Is it reliable for such use?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

R&R :: Going For Adds

Of no use for radio. See Talk:Telephone_(song)#Flaw_with_airplay_citation. Add this to BADCHARTS? SunCreator (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• to keep it simple... Yes Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Radio add date doesn't pertain to Record charts, does it?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but we don't have a WP:BADRADIO. SunCreator (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know. But shouldn't we keep the Project page within its scope?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I was thinking this talk was WP:SONGS. SunCreator (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

k, no problem :) —Iknow23 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WCharts - World Charts RELIABLE?

Is THIS a reliable site?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been a reliable blogspot chart yet.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. It sources Mediatraffic, the original United World Chart and deleted from Wikipedia. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering if it was somehow connected to the United World Chart that I see on WP:BADCHARTS and didn't really think blogspot would be reliable either. But thought I would ask. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay

Is the U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay a component or subcomponent of the U.S. Billboard Hot 100? I still wish that someone could make 'relationship tree tables' showing the relationships between all the US charts.
"One Time" is where I noticed Pop 100 Airplay being shown when the Hot 100 is also. Seeing that made me wonder, so I thought to ask here.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well to start off with, the discontinued Pop 100 can be included in the charts section & discographies. WP:CHARTS says "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart." It failed to enter the main chart (Pop 100), however charted on a component (Pop 100 Airplay), thus why I included it. Candyo32 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, with the Pop 100 is not a component and can be used in the tables, since the P1A can be used instead since it charted there, I see no room for conflict where the Hot 100 is. Candyo32 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

::: That means that if it a song doesn't enter the hot 100 component charts can be used. Hot 100 Airplay (Now Radio songs 1-40 only available to the public) is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100 and since it charted on the Hot 100 (One Time) Hot 100 Airplay shouldn't be used. Jayy008 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But Jayy. we are talking about the Pop 100 Airplay.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: I know, I'm just saying that Pop 100 Airplay is a component of The Hot 100 so it isn't allowed as it is a component chart Shown Here. "Component charts shouldn't be used unless the song fails the enter the main chart" that rule is based on the Hot 100 thus being the main chart to which Hot 100 Airplay contributes. Hot 100 Airplay has never been allowed when the Hot 100 has been. I hope I'm making this clear. Airplay only charts are component charts and should not be used unless it failed to enter the main chart (Billboard Hot 100) Jayy008 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But again, this discussion is regarding Pop 100 Airplay which if the UNSOURCED wiki article is correct has been discontinued by Billboard in June 2009 when the Pop 100 was discontinued.
Anyway, at Shown Here, I see that the Pop 100 Airplay is a component of Pop 100 but don't see it said that Pop 100 is a component of HOT 100.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::Yes I know but it goes down to the Hot 100. Pop 100 wasn't a component chart because it took into account sales, airplay & digital just like the Hot 100. Which is why it was allowed UNTIL it was dis-continued then it became unsourcable. Hot 100 Airplay is a component of both of the top charts the Hot 100 and the Pop 100. Wikipedia:Record Charts says component charts shouldn't be used when it charts on the main chart. Why is this an issue? It's been like it forever (Well since I've been here). Jayy008 (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pop 100 Airplay is not a component of Hot 100 Airplay, it is a component of Pop 100. Top 40 Mainstream/Pop Songs is the pop component chart to the Hot 100 Airplay. Candyo32 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Candyo (forgive me if I am incorrect) is saying that Pop 100 is an allowed Genre chart and as it did not chart in the 'Main' Genre chart that its Component is allowed.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the above. I was thinking "Hot 10 Airplay" not Pop 100 airplay. Yes IKnow23 that's what the user means but that rule has only ever applied for the Hot 100 and it's components. Pop 100 was allowed, Pop 100 Airplay was only allowed when it failed the Hot 100. Pop 100 Airplay AND Pop 100 were both allowed if it didn't chart on the Hot 100. I hope I'm clearer now. Jayy008 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone could make AGREED UPON 'relationship tree tables' showing the relationships between all the US charts there would be so much less confusion and edit warring.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Kww he should reply soon, he pretty much made the rules. But basically the way I say it:

• Hot 100 #1 (tick)
  
• Pop 100 #1 (tick)
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #1 (NO NO)
  

When the song fails the Hot 100:

• Pop 100 #57 (tick)
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #57 (Tick)
  

Both are allowed if it doesn't reach the Hot 100. Anything is allowed when it doesn't reach the Hot 100. But when it does the only charts that are allowed to go with it are: Hot Adult Contempoary, Hot Dance/Club Play, Hot Rap Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop and Hitseekers I do believe? But I agree IKnow23, Billboard charts are an issue, but doesn't this clarify? Jayy008 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly confusing. That is why I came here. :)
As 'main Genre charts' are allowed even when the Hot 100 appears, for consistency regarding Component charts I agree with Candyo that when a 'main Genre chart' does not appear then its components are allowed.
I disagree with "Pop 100 Airplay AND Pop 100 were both allowed..." I say that ONLY the Pop 100 should be allowed and that Pop 100 Airplay (a component of the larger Pop 100) should not be allowed.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

They were allowed, well I had seen them, but it doesn't matter now it will NEVER happen again, it is only in "One Time" that the issue was created ans the chart is no longer around, it won't be an issue again. The only reason I have a problem with this is because it's an "airplay only" based chart and "airplay only" based charts are component charts in the definition of component charts. But yeah it won't happen again so if you want to add it back to "One Time" I won't revert again! Jayy008 (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What I think

• Hot 100 #1 (tick) AGREE
  
• Pop 100 #1 (tick) AGREE
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #1 (NO NO) AGREE (it is a component of a chart that appears, the Pop 100)
  

When the song fails the Hot 100:

• Pop 100 #57 (tick) AGREE
  
• Pop 100 Airplay #57 (Tick) DISAGREE (it is a component of a chart that appears, the Pop 100)
  —Iknow23 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A component of ANY chart that appears should not be used. I would apply that to ANY Genre chart—Iknow23 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't make the rules: I've just been following them for longer than most. Pop 100 is hard to source, but if you have a source for it, it's fine. Pop 100 airplay is a component of the Pop 100, and standard component chart rules apply: if it charts in the Pop 100, don't list the Pop 100 airplay. If it doesn't make the Pop 100, a listing in the Pop 100 Airplay is generally fine. I tend not to list Pop 100 Airply if it made the Hot 100, but that's a personal preference, not found in guidelines or policy.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add the Pop 100 or Pop 100 Airplay charts if they can be properly sourced from the magazine. And yes, Pop 100 Airplay should not be added if the song charted on the combined Pop 100. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see Kww, I thought it was a rule, not a preference, my mistake. Jayy008 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Something that stretches. (Italian Singles)

I do not understand this, "Smooth Criminal" from "Hitparadetitalia.it" is set in the # 11 ranking, and "Smooth Criminal" from "ItalianCharts.com" has the # 6, I do not understand, is not meant to be the singles of italia?, ought be the same. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitparadeitalia.it isn't the official FIMI chart. Italiancharts.com is.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Danish charts before 2001

Hi, I was looking at past issues of Billboard magazine (1996). And found that they used to publish charts around the world, the UK Singles Chart, Germany, France, etc. Well one of the charts is from Denmark, thet have both albums and a singles chart, apparently published by IFPI and Nielsen Marketing Research, I was wondering if this is a valid chart for singles and albums before 2001. I have reviewed some of the other charts, and they are correct, the ones from the UK, Germany, France, Austria, Ireland, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands. They also have some others charts that could be useful because there is no other database, the Euro Hot 100, Spain(AFIVE), Italy(Musica e Dischi/FIMI) and Portugal(AFP, albums only). Here is one of the magazines, most of them are available at Google Books, the entire magazine is available for me I don't know perhaps in other countries it won't show up.[5] Frcm1988 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing to an archived copy of Billboard should be fine. Use {{cite journal}}, like {{cite journal |year= |title= |journal=Billboard |volume= |issue= |pages= |url= }}, filling out the appropriate page, volume, and issue, setting the url to the Google books source, and the title to the chart title.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Charts

I am wrong, the page file of the Irish charts are not displayed on my computer, Irish Charts. Is it just me or happens to you too?.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am wrong, too; irishcharts.ie will not load on my computer, either. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Is it the homepage you can't see or is there something missing inside the site? SunCreator (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Broken here. Server doesn't respond. Looks like temporary site trouble.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The site is working, I think the issue is further afield unless them have done a georgebush and blocked foreign traffic. SunCreator (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be at DNS level. www.irishcharts.ie doesn't even resolve. Got an IP address for the site?—Kww(talk) 18:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I do that? SunCreator (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Presuming you are on a Windows machine, open a command prompt window and enter "tracert www.irishcharts.ie". It'll be pretty obvious on the output.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ready, the site looks fine on my computer, just had to take time.Irish Charts. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The site does this from time to time, it does get fixed after a couple of days. Jayy008 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I get "Could not locate remote server".—Iknow23 (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to record charts

With this edit I've moved the original chart format under it's own header, and kept the page intro and just prose. I think this will help people identify that "Original Chart Format" and "Chart Macros" are allowed. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. Jayy008 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart references

Per Wikipedia:Record_charts#Original_Chart_Format - 'references should be individual and specific to each chart that is being used. Sources per column or table are insufficient.' Has anyone else notice Today's featured article fails this in the chart section. Being on the front page somewhat (unhelpfully) encourages other editors to repeat it's formatting. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got to remember how old that song is, most old songs you'll find are unreferenced. I'm trying to go through and sort the "older songs" out but there are sooo many. Jayy008 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary

This IP, 188.129.253.214 continues Chart vandalism at "Fight for This Love" ignoring the instructional comment that provides how to follow through to obtain the information at 'per Field selections, "Lista" = Single (track) Top 10 lista, "Ev" = 2010, "Hét" = 7'.
I recommend that "Editors' Choice rádiós játszási lista" be listed at Badcharts and a note in Goodcharts left to mention to NOT use this chart. THAT must be the chart that 188.129.253.214 is using as it shows "18" that they are always editing it to. "Editor's Choice" does NOT seem like a proper chart to me. It sounds more like a critical rating than a real chart. What do you think?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have not followed up on your talk page message, but yes, I agree: an "editor's choice" chart isn't usable.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you're busy. Is this enough of a 'no-brainer' to ADD to BADCHARTS, etc as I've requested?...or is more discussion required?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request a "Subcharts" stipulation for Billboard albums chart

Billboard has numerous albums charts outside of the main Billboard 200 albums chart. These charts include, but not limited to: Billboard Alternative Albums, Billboard Hard Rock Albums, Billboard Rock Albums, Heatseakers chart, Billboard Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums, Billboard Top Digital Albums, Billboard Top Internet Albums, Billboard Tastemakers, and so on.

While devoted fans and information completionists feel it's necessary to include every single chart that a given album appeared, I feel in most cases that these charts are superfluous and unimportant. For example; the Billboard Rock Albums chart is simply a subchart of the Billboard 200, only removing any albums that Billboard doesn't deem to be in the rock genre. Wiki-Articles to albums such as Death Magnetic, Crash Love and Sonic Boom are littered with charting information to these subcharts. In light that all of the aforementioned albums come from established acts and debuted in the top 20 of the Billboard 200, information on the charting history of the subcharts is unnecessary. Since Death Magnetic debuted at #1 on the Billboard 200, of course it was #1 on the Billboard Hard Rock Albums, as well as being #1 on Billboard Rock Albums, etc.

I am requesting that a "Subcharts" stipulation similar to the already existing "component charts" requirement that "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart", be implemented for Billboard albums charts. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• For the record (no pun intended), what is the component charts requirement? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I read it somewhere, can't find it now. Reworded accordingly. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just click 'Project page' tab above. It is near the top of the page there. "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables,..."—Iknow23 (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew I read it somewhere. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It also appears in more summarized versions elsewhere. I think this is the most comprehensive one.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no current stipulation on Wikipedia regarding the various Billboard albums charts as there is for the component charts regarding singles. That is what I am trying to gather consensus on here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they're relevant at times. Nothing Personal reached #4 on the Billboard 200, but was number one on the Alternative, Rock and Independent charts, which has to be worth pointing out? Especially when there is little to no charting other than the US. I do agree that the exampe you put forth is a worthless usage. Digital charts are components, so shouldn't be used. Remember not to get the 2 (subchart and component) mixed up! kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your example with Nothing Personal proves my point. If the album didn't chart at #4 on the Billboard 200, then it'd be worth pointing out if it charted on the Alternative, Rock and Independent charts. Instead, the page gets littered with additional, and I would argue, generally superfluous charting information. All the Alternative chart is doing is removing any albums that Billboard deems non-"alternative" from the list. Hardly notable when the album itself peaked in the top five of the Billboard 200. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The ref link used for them all is one of those (roll eyes) dead Billboard ones.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you can blame Billboard for that. I'm not going through and changing every Billboard link i ever added... it's referenced properly and is easy enough to verify. My point was that I think number ones have a greater relevance. Nevertheless, this is something which I don't think requires regulating, unless we want to restrict it with tables that are bigger (once you hit 10 charts, remove the extra US charts..?). kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel this requires regulation. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we already have that. No component charts as long as appears on 'main' charts. Genre charts are also allowed. A component of a Genre chart is allowed if it does not chart on the 'main' Genre chart, etc. —Iknow23 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And yes, kiac, I DO blame Billboard for all those dead links :X —Iknow23 (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, can you please provide a link to where that wikirule is stated? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard has turned into one ghetto-pimp mess, pardon the language. That said, I agree to a banning of component album charts when an album has charted on the Mega Billboard 200. However, genre charts can still be added. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a rule limiting the total number of Billboard charts to be included, so as to not give undue weight to US charts vs. other countries that have fewer charts? Or was that something that was just kicked around in discussion? TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything official. Hence why it got brought up here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's Bulldog, I'm not sure if it is EXACTLY stated as a wikirule but I do remember this recent discussion above at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay that touches on this matter.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, thank you for the link. Since it's not exactly stated, I'm looking to see if there's consensus to make a wikirule for the albums Genre charts that similar the consensus reached regarding the component charts listed in the link you provided. Fanboys and completionists are are very determined to have every single Billboard chart listed on the pages they claim ownership of. There would need to be an official wikirule in effect to reference the proper use/nonuse of the various albums charts to prevent edit wars. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So my position is that component charts of ANY allowable chart that does NOT actually appear are allowed. Either (US example) Billboard 200 or Hot 100 as MAIN charts of a counrty or (main) Genre charts. Thus the material (or portions thereof) is not given DOUBLE credit (undue weight)...by itself and as part of the MAIN country chart or main Genre chart because it failed to appear in those 'main' charts. The allowing of Genre charts was probably a compromise between listing ONLY the MAIN country chart and listing EVERY verifiable CHART there is; that is using ALL the component charts ALL the time.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that genre charts are only appropriate if a given album either failed to chart on the Billboard 200, or if it charted really low on the Billboard 200 yet charted high on the genre chart (example: album X charted at #159 on the Billboard 200, yet charted at #8 on the Alternative albums chart). Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Same rules are in effect for both albums and singles as this is WP:CHARTS. We do not have separate WP:ALBUMCHARTS and WP:SINGLECHARTS. WP:BADCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS both include albums and singles. SUGGESTION: Perhaps at least one of the Project page example charts should be an Album chart? They are ALL singles charts. At least albums are mentioned in the text in the examples, "Albums and singles which appear on different charts..."—Iknow23 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an albums example should be included as well as wording that genre charts need not be included unless an album either a) fails to chart on the Billboard 200, or b) charts low on the Billboard 200 yet high on a given genre chart. Otherwise pages will continue to be littered with numerous (upword to six or more) Billboard charts. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be hard to codify, wouldn't it? You would have to define specifically 'low' and 'high'. I admit to not being as familiar with album component and Genre charts but is Billboard Hard Rock Albums a component of Billboard Rock Albums? I admit that it does appear odd to have both of them listed at Sonic Boom.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If defining 'low' vs. 'high' is a problem, then I'm for just stating that genre charts aren't allowed unless an album doesn't chart on the Billboard 200. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but you probably couldn't get a consensus for that. Can't some of them be trimmed from Death Magnetic under the component chart rules?? again stating I am not that familiar with the varios Billboard album charts. —Iknow23 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a rule for trimming some off. Go ahead and try, fanboys and completionists will simply put it back if there's no document supporting its removal. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

← I'm not familiar enough with the Album charts to do it. All I'm saying is: If some of them can be removed under the 'component chart' rules, go ahead do it and cite WP:CHARTS "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart."—Iknow23 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's amend the verbiage to include album genre charts: "Billboard genre and component charts should not be used in the tables or articles, unless the album or song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart for singles, or a genre chart for albums." This stipulation (or one similar to it) would make the removal of additional Billboard charts from articles legit. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I would would not support that. It is a BIG change to what is currently being done. Charts are frequently being removed under the component chart 'rule'. I ask again: Can't some of the charts in the examples be removed under the existing component chart 'rules'?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwin, so far no one has supported your proposal. I have removed the components, since they shouldn't be there anyway. I'm pretty confident that no experienced editor will return them. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiac, please don't make incorrect statements. If you read through this discussion, there are other editors that appear to agree that there are more Billboard charts listed in articles than need be. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, as per your suggestion, I can try using the component chart 'rule', though I do expect a few over zealous editors to argue that there is nothing stated specifically for albums. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly true that overzealous editors (fans) often add component charts. As Wikipedia is open to editing, that can not be prevented. I'm sure that it is not always being done to subvert our 'rule'. They are probably unaware of it (as I myself once was). So what I do to educate them when deleting component charts is to put in the Edit summary something like this, "Per WP:CHARTS "component charts should not be used in the tables, unless [it] fails to enter the main chart." _{Note that I link the 'WP:CHARTS' so they can click-through and see it for themself.} You can also add a hidden instructional comment to the Chart positions table section of the page as well. These suggestions that I have seen others use and adopted myself may be helpful to you.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help and info Iknow23. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Enjoy spreading the word :) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As predicted, resistance has been met here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per edit disputes and previous discussion at Talk:Crash Love#Removal of 'component' charts and Talk:Crash Love#Request, I remain unconvinced of Darwin's Bulldog's arguments with respect to the various Billboard charts. These chart positions are verifiable and relevant to the respective albums, and ultimately it's not up to us to decide which facts about an album may be relevant to our readers and which aren't. This is an encyclopedia: we present facts and let readers decide what is important to them. A reader may want to know that an album held a certain position on the Billboard 200, but they may also want to know what position it held with respect to other albums of the same genre, which is what these Billboard charts are designed to show. From all of the arguments I've seen, the major bias against including Billboard's individual genre charts is that it tends towards US-centrism. But that's not Wikipedia's fault. Rather, its seems to be a function of the fact that other countries don't bother to break their charts down by genres. If the UK albums chart had separate subcharts for different genres, I imagine we'd include those too. The only case in which it seems redundant to include the individual charts would be if an album reached #1 on the Billboard 200, which would mean that it also reached #1 on whatever genre charts it was also ranked on. But of course the vast majority of albums don't reach this postion. By definition, only 0.5% of the albums on the Billboard 200 can hold the #1 position at any one time. So we are left with albums that may have charted higher on one of the genre charts than they did on the 200. And who's to say that's not of interest to a reader? I, as both a reader and editor, certainly find it of interest that though Crash Love ranked #12 on the Billboard 200 (in comparison to all other albums of all genres), it ranked #4 in comparison to other hard rock albums. There's a reason Billboard bothers to create separate charts for different genres. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla, if you read through this discussion, you'll see that other editors besides myself question the need to include multiple charts from the same publisher. In light of the Crash Love example that we've gotten to know each other so well on, there are as many American (Billboard) charts listed on that page as there are foreign country charts. I'm not arguing that all the various Billboard charts are verifiable, but it gives undue weight to one publishers chart. It's great that Billboard filters out the main chart to show how the various sub-genre albums respectively perform against one another, but inclusion of the numerous charts from one publisher contributes to the excessive listing of statistics with lists that may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles as noted in WP:NOT. For example: what position did Crash Love peak at? Was it 12? 4? Or 5? All three positions are listed. Admittedly, the Crash Love article doesn't have the extreme number of charts listed as the Death Magnetic example I listed at the beginning of this thread. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

True, and I did agree that the sub-charts become a bit superfluous in a case like Death Magnetic which reached #1 on the Billboard 200 (meaning that by default it also reached #1 on any Billboard sub-charts), but this is only the case for a small minority of albums. When an album has a higher position on a sub-chart, that communicates a different set of information: "This is how the album performed against all other albums released, and this is how it performed against other albums of the same genre." That's not superfluous, nor is it undue weight just because Billboard happens to be the one organization that tracks info this way; undue weight applies to fringe viewpoints or ideas...we're talking about simple raw data. I don't feel that it's excessive (in the sense of being "long and sprawling" as described by WP:NOT) in the great majority of cases. Even 4 or 5 Billboard positions doesn't "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" in the vast majority of cases. It would be really difficult to come up with a one-size-fits-all "rule", which from the above seems to be what you're proposing, and I don't think it's our place to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel posting multiple Billboard subcharts is an ideal example of giving undue weight and that much of the information derived from the subcharts is superfluous as they are calculated via a filtering process from the Billboard 200. I understand that our views are different on this, and I respect your opinions, but just because we disagree doesn't mean that you get your way and can claim that removal of the excessive charts is vandalism. There are no set rules on this topic, and there are as many, if not more album articles (including FAs) that do not include subcharting information. I think it'd be in the best interest of the community to have this well defined for reference. This has been done for component charts, why can't it be done for genre charts as well? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

The reason Billboard has so many different charts and subcharts is all down to sales and marketing. I could swear it was once a rule here but maybe I only read it in a discussion, that you could use the main chart (Hot 100/Billboard 200) and only 1 genre chart for whatever genre the artist was (choice of which genre chart was most appropriate was open to interpretation). Including every single genre chart is superfluous. Thank god that other countries don't have their charts split out in multiple ways like Billboard does. Imagine the amount of space it would take up in every article. I am not against the inclusion of any genre charts where a release appeared on the main chart but I am against including every genre chart; one is plenty. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(Restating what I said above) No component charts as long as appears on 'main' charts. Genre charts are also allowed. A component of a Genre chart is allowed if it does not chart on the 'main' Genre chart, etc.
I always presumed that goes for BOTH singles and albums, does it not?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting thought, JazzDalek, but then of course the question becomes how do you select which subcharts to include, and which to exclude? Choose the one on which it charted the highest? The one which you think best reflects the band's genre? It seems all options lend themselves to POV and UNDUE problems, particularly with genre (which we know all editors just politely agree on all the time :rolleyes:). Plus the "subcharts" are not merely by genre, but also by distribution. For example there is the Top Independent Albums chart, which ranks albums released by non-major labels. I think it's worth noting, for example, that This Addiction, released through independent label Epitaph Records, was #1 amongst independent albums, as well as among rock and alternative albums, despite the fact that it was only #11 on the Billboard 200. Doesn't this seem like information relevant to the album's history, reception, sales, and notability? What reason do we give for excluding this information, other than the fact that some editors just don't like having more than 1 Billboard chart? Darwin's Bulldog, I respectfully disagree that listing various Billboard chart positions represents an example of undue weight, though I do agree with you that it's in the best interest of the community as a whole to establish a guideline on the subject. For the record, and to the best of my recollection, I never called your removals vandalism. I'm merely perturbed that removing the chart positions from Crash Love is in direct opposition to the consensus established on the article's talk page 5 months ago, a discussion in which you were a participant. Iknow23, I'm a bit confused by your statement: how do you differentiate a component chart from a "genre chart" (or "sub-chart"), such as Alternative Albums or Indpendent Albums? As far as I know there aren't any "component charts of genre charts", but I may be mistaken. In order to get a broader input on this topic I have posted a note at WT:ALBUMS in hopes that members of the albums project will find their way over here. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm a bit disturbed by Darwin's Bulldog removal of sub-chart information even from the prose, which I have to vehemently disagree with. Regardless of your thoughts on what should be displayed in an article's tables, there is no call to remove pertinent, referenced information from the prose. Doing so seems very heavy-handed, and continuing to remove charts in any case while we are mid-discussion on their usefulness seems inappropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by the term, 'sub-charts'. Do you mean EVERY chart that is NOT the main OVERALL chart? I believe that currently Genre charts are allowed even when charting on the 'main' overall charts (Billboard 200 or Hot 100). But ANY 'component chart' of a chart that does appear in the Chart table is NOT allowed. Let me use singles for an example as I am more familiar with those.

Hot 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main overall chart)

Pop 100 - (charts on), so show in Chart Table (Main GENRE chart)

Pop 100 Airplay - (charts on), do NOT show in chart table (component of Genre chart Pop 100, that appears above)

Note: Pop 100 Airplay is allowed if it does not chart in the Pop 100. But MOST may not bother to put it, even though allowed.
—Iknow23 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we're talking about different things. You seem to be talking about singles charts, which use component charts to calculate their positions (the Pop 100, and other genre-specific 100 charts, are used to compile the Hot 100). I'm talking about albums charts: the Billboard 200 and its various, genre- or release-specific "sub-charts" such as Top Independent albums, Top Alternative Albums, etc. These aren't component charts, because the Billboard 200 is not compiled from their chart positions. Rather, the Billboard 200 and the various subcharts are compiled the same way, it's just that the subcharts use a more specific data pool. The Billboard 200 is created by comparing an album's sales with all other albums' sales, while the Top Independent Albums chart compares that album only to other albums on independent record lables, or the Top Alternative Albums compares it only to other Alternative albums, etc. We've been referring to these as "genre charts" or "subcharts" of the Billboard 200. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I admittedly used singles charts for my example above. I presumed that the album charts also used some type of 'component chart' system? Looking at Billboard charts#Albums, I would dispute seeing in any article both Billboard 200 and 'Current Albums' listed.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should discontinue using the term " 'subcharts' of the Billboard 200" as that is ambiguous. The prefix 'sub' (to me anyway) implies it to be a 'sub-set' or part of the following item, so " 'subcharts' of the Billboard 200" (to me) means 'components' of the Billboard 200. Why can't we just say 'Genre charts'?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, whether we use the term "sub-chart" or "genre chart" doesn't really matter, as as they're synonymous. But for clarity, I will henceforth use "genre chart" as per your request.

The example IllaZilla made regarding This Addiction is a poor example. #11 on the Billboard 200 is a very high position. So the fact that it was #1 on the Independent albums chart isn't important since it peaked so high on the Billboard 200 and since they're both calculated via the same method (sales per Nielsen SoundScan). As TheJazzDalek stated, it's just for marketing. Now, if This Addiction peaked at say, #132 on the Billboard 200, and was #1 on the Independent albums chart, then I would agree that it's worth including the genre chart information in the article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a major problem with this discussion is that it's not entirely clear what we're discussing. Where are the Wikipedia articles about these charts, so that we could cite the methodology and determine to what degree a chart is an overlap or of a component nature?

I mean, reviewing the three examples given above, what the hell is "Tastemakers"? As someone who read Billboard religiously for years but has not done so in several years, I'd like to say that none of these variations on the main chart mean a thing without linking to something that actually defines the chart, and discerns what makes it different from the other charts. Without knowing it for a fact, it does seem likely that any hard rock album that happens to be #1 on the Rock Albums chart will also be #1 on the Hard Rock Albums chart, or that any independent album that is #20 on the 200 chart will be #1 on the independent albums chart if nothing higher on the 200 is an independent release. But in this thread it looks like we are making editorial determinations based on how things seem, rather than on how things are.

As has been said above, the greatest value in the data point is for those albums that weren't across-the-board, multi-format smashes. But, having said that, where's the editorial objectivity if we are only picking Top 200 runts to shine the light on these other chartings? Additionally, to the uninitiated, it may suggest that an album that appeared on the Top 200 didn't make one of these other charts, and while it's largely fans or chart watchers that add the material, we're supposed to be editing these articles for people who don't already know all we contemplate deleting, and who may look at one album's chart table featuring a single U.S. #42 peak (on the Top 200) versus another album's chart table featuring a few U.S. #22 peaks (on Modern and Independent et al), and take away a sense that the second was the more successful or that it enjoyed its success across a more varied audience. So devising a policy based on examples of albums that went #1 or #2 on all these charts is failing to take into account what seems to be the purpose of these charts, which is to acknowledge how lesser or up-and-coming hits of a specific genre fare against one another, without the distraction of all the other genres, while promoting them as more successful (and therefore more appealing, and so perhaps ultimately becoming more successful) than they would otherwise be, lost in the shuffle. Yet more to the point of where the conceptual rubber meets the editorial road, who among us is going to make the decision that one position on a chart, be it #41 or #131 or #201, is okay to include genre data for, while one position higher is not?

To further explore my first point, these genres are very much merely a distraction when nobody at Wikipedia has made the effort to note what the chart is and put it into perspective viz a viz the other charts. I have much less problem with noting the actual fact that a product has placed somewhere on a sales chart than I do with not being able to link to anything fundamentally about the chart itself, and despite the fact that clearly some in this discussion are not aware what that is, nobody yet has actually seen that as the real issue here, since it's likely fueled by the minimalists vs. completionists rather than the real issue of what it all means. Nobody's going to confuse Metallica with disco or Kiss with jazz, but there is no explanation of the difference between Hard Rock Albums and Modern/Alternative Rock Albums, or, alternatively (no pun intended), the overlap between them that allows these albums to appear on both. I realize we have articles about the different music genres, but how does Billboard go about deciding which albums deserve consideration on which charts? Is it because they're marketed as such by their record companies? Is it because they're reviewed as such by a single magazine editor? Who and how many people have to make that call? Is it focus-grouped? And further, is it just a factor of throwing up the main 200 chart and "deleting" all those titles that do not fall into the category, or is their sampling giving greater weight to genre-specific retail outlets?

Finally, to the argument that there is undue weight given to the varied U.S. charts vs. other countries' sole charts, it's a factor of whether we're accurately reflecting the relative weightings in the size and impact of the market, which of course we're not by a long shot when we limit the U.S. charts to one or two. For an extreme example with singles, if Brazil's singles market is so small and unvalued that their charts are only compiled monthly, and are themselves split between local and international music, then putting a peak on that chart up on a table beside peaks on the weekly Hot 100, the Hot Adult Contemporary, the Top Pop Singles, the Hot R&B, the Dance Club Play and the Dance Singles Sales charts is giving undue weight to the Brazilian chart peak, not to the six U.S. charts. I choose singles as my example because I'm unclear on whether Brazil even has an albums chart. Abrazame (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Record charts/sourcing guide/Brazil. The album chart is there, but pretty pathetically maintained. I used to track it, and gave it up as busy-work.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how successful the album was. For example, for an album that only made one of these Billboard subcharts, it would be important to document that. In comparison, if a record topped the main albums charts from several countries, there's no real need to list less-significant charts. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitary section break 2

An example I'd like to present comes from the source itself. Each Wednesday, Billboard publishes an online weekly article giving a rundown of the best selling albums in the U.S., posting actual sales numbers of the top 10 best selling albums in the country and additional information including new debuts, large jumps/drops, etc. This week's article is "Ludacris Lands Fourth No. 1 Album with Battle of the Sexes". There are no separate weekly articles giving a rundown for the subchart/genre charts such as Alternative Albums chart or Tastemakers, et al. Billboard itself gives weight to an album's position in the Billboard 200 chart. Subcharts/genre charts are rarely, if ever, mentioned by Billboard in these articles and typically when an album is referenced in another article, it's position in the Billboard 200 is stated, with no mention of its position on any other chart given. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So? They publish them weekly, just because they don't acknowledge them verbally does not mean they are not valid. You're just attempting to discredit them, rather than putting forth an actual argument which complements your viewpoint.

For clarity; Component charts are charts which are used to calculate a more primary chart. For example: the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Singles Sales and Hot Digital Songs charts are all used to construct the leading singles chart in the United States, the Billboard Hot 100. Component charts should not be confused with sub-charts. Sub-charts are often simply off-shoots from the main chart, as opposed to charts used in the formation of the main chart. Examples of sub-charts are the genre-specific Rock Albums and Alternative Albums charts, which off-shoot from the Billboard 200. Iknow23, you would have read this before?

I think we really need to follow Abrazame's lead and find our feet, attempt to understand what we are including/excluding. Only wanting 1 single Billboard chart is a null argument I think. It is the biggest and most concise, reliable and accurate source of charting information across the globe - restricting it would restrict Wikipedia. We have to realise, component charts are not relevant because they are a smaller portion of a larger more reliable chart - subcharts/genre charts are an entirely differet conundrum, let's keep them separate. kiac. (talk-contrib) 22:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any practical way to restrict Billboard album subcharts. As Kiac points out, and everyone needs to remember, most of these are not component charts. In fact, I think "digital albums" is the only component album chart. The rest are genre charts, which are acceptable for both singles and albums. Editors can try to write as many guidelines as they want against them, and will only wind up edit-warring against the masses.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinions align most closely with those of Kiac, WesleyDodds, Abrazame, and Kww. To address something Darwin's Bulldog brought up:

• The example IllaZilla made regarding This Addiction is a poor example. #11 on the Billboard 200 is a very high position. So the fact that it was #1 on the Independent albums chart isn't important since it peaked so high on the Billboard 200 and since they're both calculated via the same method (sales per Nielsen SoundScan). As TheJazzDalek stated, it's just for marketing. Now, if This Addiction peaked at say, #132 on the Billboard 200, and was #1 on the Independent albums chart, then I would agree that it's worth including the genre chart information in the article.

See, my point is that it's not our place to be dictating which chart positions are or aren't important to our readers. I think it's significant that the album was #1 on Independent, Alternative, and Rock albums, and clearly Billboard thinks there's some significance to showing this data in this manner, so who are we to say "this isn't important to our readers, only this other thing is important to them"? Who are we to say that it's only important to show subchart positions if they differ by a wide margin from the Billboard 200? That's censoring out facts based on what we think is or isn't important to our readers, which just isn't our place as editors. There's nothing wrong with presenting facts and letting editors make up their own minds about how much weight they want give that data. That's part of our role as an encyclopedia.

I think Abrazame's comment really sums up the larger problem here: our own Wikipedia articles about the various Billboard charts are pretty poor. Looking them over, hardly any of the charts have a description of what they're about, and there's very little information on how they're calculated or the relationships between the subcharts and the 200. We really need to devote some effort to improving those articles before we can claim "this chart is less important than this other chart", because right now we can't even link to decent articles about them! --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiac, I don't believe that limited the number of Billboard's charting would be restricting to wikipedia. I did not claim they were invalid, but please try to understand that they are subcharts of the Billboard 200. All of the charts are calculated by their sales as compiled by Nielsen SoundScan, Billboard then goes a step further and filters the subcharts per genre. Just because Billboard publishes additional charts doesn't make them more valid. As per my example above, even the publisher that publishes these various charts refers to charting on the Billboard 200 chart over the subcharts/genre charts in their published articles. So the argument isn't null. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, we've moved against calling them "component charts", so I'm a bit confused as to why that's coming up here again. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's significant that the album was #1 on Independent, Alternative, and Rock albums, and clearly Billboard thinks there's some significance to showing this data in this manner, so who are we to say "this isn't important to our readers, only this other thing is important to them"? Who are we to say that it's only important to show subchart positions if they differ by a wide margin from the Billboard 200? That's censoring out facts based on what we think is or isn't important to our readers, which just isn't our place as editors. There's nothing wrong with presenting facts and letting editors make up their own minds about how much weight they want give that data. That's part of our role as an encyclopedia.

It's as Abrazame said when he stated that it's "minimalists vs. completionists". Yes wiki is an encyclopedia, but not every bit of information should be noted here as per WP:NOT. To a degree, it is subjective as to what one considers "pertinent" and "superfluous". Some editors think it's important to have all subcharts/genre charts listed, others do not. There needs to be guidelines established for this. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I stress the need for clarification on this as I feel Illazilla's reverting edits I've made regarding this subject followed by his threatening to report me to be inappropriate and inexcusable behavior as he has no entitlement in having "his way" in this. He does not have ownership of articles. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a matter for this group of editors to decide. WP:BADCHARTS is enforceable because it reflects WP:RS, a policy, and is presumed to represent consensus. It's the only rigidly enforceable part of WP:Record charts. The rest of the guideline is supposed to reflect consensus, not dictate it. We've had restrictions of the total number of charts, but those fell to the wayside, because they didn't reflect common practice. We've got a pretty good local consensus that succession boxes suck, but that's not in the guideline, because it doesn't reflect common practice. You can win this discussion and place a rule about the Independent Albums Chart in the guideline. Once you started trying to enforce it, you would find yourself edit-warring, despite it being a guideline. That's because there isn't a large community of editors that feels strongly against it, and there is a large community of editors that wants to include them. There's no good policy argument against them, because Billboard is both notable and reliable.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As seen throughout this discussion thread and in numerous articles, it seems like there isn't majority for either way. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I stress the need for clarification on this as I feel Illazilla's reverting edits I've made regarding this subject followed by his threatening to report me to be inappropriate and inexcusable behavior as he has no entitlement in having "his way" in this. He does not have ownership of articles.

I've never claimed ownership of anything, Darwin's Bulldog. I've reverted your removals of chart positions from articles (including ones I've never edited before, BtW) because, in each edit, you've cited as your reason this guideline and its "component charts" statement. But as we've clearly established, the charts you're removing aren't component charts, and this page gives absolutely no guidance about including or excluding the various genre charts or "subcharts" of Billboard. Hence it is wholly inappropriate for you to be going around removing sourced chart positions from articles, citing WP:CHARTS as your reason, when the entire reason we're having this discussion is that WP:CHARTS says nothing about the charts in question, and we have no consensus either way on the matter. Making edits like these [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] while we are in the midst of discussing the matter here at WT:CHARTS is not exactly emblematic of good faith, nor is it consistent with the consensus process. Put bluntly: you should stop removing chart positions from articles until some consensus results from this discussion. And again for the record, I never "threatened" to report you; I merely said that if you continued to edit in this fashion, which had reached the point of edit-warring, I would have no other option but to go to ANI. I put the ball squarely in your court, and what did you do with it? You accused me of making personal attacks, when of course I'd done nothing of the kind. I've commented only on your edits and their content, not on you.

I find your removals of chart positions from articles to be inappropriate given the lack of guidance and consensus on the page you are citing as your reason. This is particularly true at Crash Love, where a discussion 5 months ago, in which you were a participant, resolved clearly in favor of keeping the charts in the article. It's that specific behavior (editing against a clear consensus in an attempt to prove your point) that I find unacceptable. In any case, I also find it inappropriate of you to be dragging our little tiff into this community discussion. If you've got a problem with me or my contributions, I'd appreciate it if you'd address it to my face (as it were). I tried to discuss your edits with you on your own talk page, but you'd have nothing of it. Regardless, we shouldn't let our personal disagreements color this larger community discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason behind the removal of the genre charts on the Sonic Boom page was as per what was being discussed towards the beginning of this discussion. The genre charts were removed after this conversation began but before it exploded into what it's become. There was never a clear consensus to our discussion on the Crash Love talk page five months ago. As Kiac stated towards the end of my participation then: "This is going nowhere, in fact, it's gone right back around to the first statement I made to create this discussion". [12]

• I've never claimed ownership of anything

While you have never made an overt statement about claiming ownership of an article, your actions and constant reverts have spoken this in volumes as your behavior has been in the nature of disrupting the article to prove a point, then dumping the burden of proof solely on my lap to justify their removal. You ask "why they should be removed?", and my rebuttal is, "why should they be included?". My reasoning behind their removal have been factual (they are subcharts calculated via the same methods, give undo weight to one country, all originate from the same publisher), while your reasons have been biased and self-serving based on your own opinion ("I feel they are pertinent"). This bulldog behavior of yours is in character of claiming ownership, since an edit you don't agree to can't be made without you reverting it simply because you don't agree to it despite the reasoning for it. Since there is no rule stating why the genre chart should or shouldn't be included doesn't entitle you to get your way simply because you disagree.

At different periods in our edit-wars you've mentioned that you will be left with "little choice" [13] or "no choice" [14] but to report my behavior to ANI, despite the fact that I have been very open in discussing this on various talk pages (your page, my page, the Crash Love talk page). The recent ANI statment you made to me felt as a personal attack based on your tone and the manner with which this statement was made. You didn't feel it was personal (and I'm sure it wasn't your intention), though I felt it was. As usual, we are at a disagreement (surprise, surprise right?). That being said, I agree that we should not let our personal disagreements be voiced here. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it up on one of our respective talk pages. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand how frustrating it is for someone else, when you are just clearly not getting the point? My statement, 6 months ago - "This is going nowhere, in fact, it's gone right back around to the first statement I made to create this discussion" - alluded to my first statement in that thread: "Darwin, the charts you are removing are not even component charts." An issue which then, you failed to fathom, thus why I said it, and now you seem to still be struggling (posting edit summaries saying WP:CHARTS is the reason you have decided to remove charts which are "not even component charts"). Please stop announcing your innocence in this issue, there is absolutely, positively, totally and utterly no reason for you to be removing those charts from articles. If there's no rule either way, there's no reason to be removing sourced information. End of story. Now lets hope Abrazame's comment below rings true, and we can move on and use our time better by improving those chart articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiac, you fail to fathom that my reference to your statement was to point out that a clear consensus had not been reached several months ago. Since the wrong terminology had been used, my argument then had lost credibility (as you also pointed out then). Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: the Billboard 200 is the overarching album chart in the US. Everything thing else is secondary to it. When people say "topped the American charts", that's what they're referring to. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody in this discussion would disagree with that statement by WesleyDodds, but 1.) That statement is not actually made at The Billboard 200, so those outside of this discussion who do not already know or think that are not going to learn it at Wikipedia, and 2.) That statement could be made about the Hot 100 as well, but clearly does not preclude us from observing genre distinctions there. I daresay a 3.) could be that The Billboard 200 is "the overarching album chart" in the world, but that doesn't prevent us from examining each state of the European Union individually, as we do other territories.

To the editorial aspect of the prior posts, I think it's established that A.) Darwin's Bulldog's removal of this material took place before it was clear this discussion would develop the way that it has, and that B.) Because of A and the current guidelines and as the material is not of a defamatory or pointy nature, it is not appropriate to remove any such material going forward until and unless there is some greater clarity and consensus against it. I think that even if Darwin's Bulldog's stance on this matter is not ultimately upheld by consensus, his bringing this issue to the fore here is likely to result in an improvement to the project, insofar as I hope those with not only a copy of the magazine but a greater familiarity with its editorials and columns in recent years will not only cite the explanatory blurb I presume is beneath/above the charts in each issue but cite the editors of the magazine in their elucidations about those charts that they put in their columns or articles. I would expect that defining those charts in our article/s on them would help us to see more clearly why they should or should not be included.

To the issue of whether a chart has its own weekly magazine article or not being a determining factor of the weight or significance, I would again point out that any of the international charts may or may not have columns about them (and my recollection is that Billboard selects which international charts it's going to comment on in each issue, rather than presenting a column about each international chart it compiles or reprints); in their first publication in their own countries, some may have none whatsoever, while others may have a column as big or bigger than that for the U.S. yet this would not be the factor that determines how they should be weighted against the U.S. 200. Abrazame (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"I daresay a 3.) could be that The Billboard 200 is "the overarching album chart" in the world, but that doesn't prevent us from examining each state of the European Union individually, as we do other territories." That argument is flawed because there is no world chart that supercedes the national charts. For that matter, is there an EU chart? Each nation determines what chart it uses. Also, just because The Billboard 200 doesn't say it's the overarching album chart in the US doesn't mean it isn't; it just means that article's missing an important piece of information. The reason I wanted to remind people that the Billboard 200 is the main album chart in the US is because it's important for people no matter what side of this debate they are on to operate under the knowledge that every other Billboard album chart is subordinate to it. You have to acknowledge that before you can tangle with the finer details of this issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The following from the Death Magnetic page:

• According to Billboard Magazine, in the September 27, 2008 issue, Death Magnetic landed at number one on the following ten charts: Billboard Top 200, Billboard Comprehensive Albums, Top Rock Albums, Top Hard Rock Albums, Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums, Top Digital Albums, Top Internet Albums, Top European Albums, Tastemakers, and Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks ("The Day That Never Comes").

Please note, of the 10 charts listed, Top European Albums is the European adaptation of the Billboard 200, and Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks is for singles.

There are references to these statements given in the article, but is there really "absolutely, positively, totally and utterly no reason" for trimming this down? Is there a need for a paragraph that's effectively stating eight times over that the album was #1 in the American market? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)