Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 9

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

Sources for Geman Charts

am i right in think this link: [1] is a bad source for German charts? Also is the Deutsche Black Charts a valid german chart? Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Media Control is the Official German Chart. Every weekly chart (sales or/and airplay) compiled by them on Germany would be valid, but on the official website of the Deutsche Black Chart is not written that's compiled by Media Control. SJ (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC+1)

The MTV links are accurate reflections of the Media Control charts, but they also carry private MTV charts. Because of that, I change them to one of the sources in WP:GOODCHARTS when I notice them. It keeps confusion down. Using the MTV mirror of the Media Control chart isn't a good reason to revert an edit, though.
Our article on the Deutsche Black Charts appears to be completely incorrect. I'll look into this one more.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The chart description is at It doesn't look too bad. Its dropout rule is strange (no song can stay on the chart for over 10 weeks), but dropout rules are always strange. I'll do a bit of notability searching next.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to think that since MTV Germany believes Trendchart's charts to be notable, they probably are. I'm open to discussion, though.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
when i source german positions in discographies i always use just type the artist name where is says "suchbegriff" hope this helps :) Mister sparky (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
So are we calling the mtv source a bad one? a good one? or a use with caution?Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
i'd say use with caution, if possible use better ones first Mister sparky (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a bad source, and the information can be presumed to be accurate. The reason I replace them is just because people tend to think "if one chart from MTV is good, then all must be good", when in fact many of their charts are really MTV playlists.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

UK Chart Archive

The Official Chart Company's website now has complete archives up to position 75 for the main singles and albums charts. Available here. --JD554 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Where is Justin Bieber? REGIONAL CHARTS, HERITAGE CHARTS and others seems to be new charts. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps you could use the feedback button as I don't think this archive is very old. --JD554 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Now it only archives Top 75, it looks like we'll have problems with positions 75-100 if ChartStats sources it's info from there?? Jayy008 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The OCC only used to archive the actual charts (top 40 positions only) for the past two years. Before this the only place to get top 75 archives to the beginning of the charts by artist was from printed publications or from the dubious sources of chartstats and zobbel. --JD554 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good in terms of timeframe. goes back to 1963, which is a lot better than most of these online archives. I'll get UK and UKocc added to {{singlechart}} added today.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Going to be a bit more work than that, but I will get the archives added over the next few days. People should note that the main archive only includes the main singles chart, but there now is an official archive for the UK R&B chart among others.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this. It looks pretty comprehensive. Maybe we should add it to record charts. e.g.:

  • Source 1-75 from the
  • source 76-100 from chartstats?

this would encourage people to use the source more often? Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Now that there is an official archive for the top 75 positions, I'm not sure that any of the other electronic archives should be used at all because of the historic controversies over them meeting WP:RS.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(Good stuff) Perhaps we should revise the UK chart guidance then and state that only top 75 positions should be used unless there is a specific credible source such as press release which states a chart position over 75? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
OMG! about friggin time!! now if they would only archive positions 75-200 as well *hopes* happy happy happy! :) Mister sparky (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh my goodness me, the Scottish Singles Chart is real?! anemoneprojectors talk 20:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Scottish chart? no offence but i've never really considered that Scotland might have a seperate chart. I assumed that their sales counted towards the UK Singles Chart after all the UK = england + scotland + wales + northern ireland. we should probably make a note about not using scott chart? Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Scottish chart must be a component of the UK chart. But it's there, in the archive, under Regional. anemoneprojectors talk 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Truly nasty, unpleasant technical glitch. They don't support the standard escaping for spaces in the URL, meaning that a standard URL such as won't parse. They want a space, which means that a URL like [ Cole Cheryl Cole's page on Official charts]<nowiki> formats as link to <nowiki>"", not Cole". Searching for a way that we can work around this, but let's not go crazy including this archive until we can figure out how to do it right.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

update:To add links today, use %20 for space, as in There's a bug fix coming, and I'm going to wait to put it into singlechart until things are stable.

I have gone ahead and added the UK R&B chart, because there is a pressing need to get those articles correctly sourced. It uses UKrandb as the chart name, and requires a date, as in:

  • {{singlechart|UKrandb|3|artist=Taio Cruz|song=Break Your Heart|date=2009-10-17}}
Kww(talk) 04:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now added the UK Independent Singles Chart (UKindie) and Scotland (Scotland). I agree that Scotland should be treated as a component chart of the UK singles chart.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

the scottish charts being on the archive at least now proves they are official. but definitely components. Mister sparky (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Update with Top100

Top100 has returned for both singles and albums Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

consensus concerning a song's wiki page

for the past couple of days, I've been having problems concerning the situation involving the Between The Lines wiki page. What I find redundant is the fact that the Alternative Songs is removed from the page because of the idea that the chart itself is a component to another. I think it's a bad thing to do. Look at every rock song's wiki page. They all have the three Billboard rock charts. The reason the Alternative Songs chart got removed from the Between The Lines is because it peaked higher in the Rock Songs chart. I know a few songs that peaked higher in Rock Songs than in Alternative (examples: The Good Life by Three Days Grace, Your Decision by Alice in Chains) and I never once saw the Alternative Songs chart removed from those pages. And that's why I'm requesting for the Alternative Songs chart to be shown again on the Between The Lines song's wiki page so that I don't have to be blocked for a extended period of time.David1287 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on this at Talk:Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song). Input from other editors here would be appreciated, however, as I know very little about the US charts. Cheers --Jubileeclipman 03:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You can't change Wiki rules, now they're set rules, listed HERE on Billboard Charts sourcing guide, I personally don't think Alternative covers just rock, so I don't think it's a component chart of it. But it is, and we can't change that. Component charts are not allowed, I'm affraid to say end of story, you can't change already made consensus. Jayy008 (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No rules, it's a guideline and a draft one at that. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing set in stone, Jay. Consensus can, has, and will change. Not sure it needs to in this case, but no rule is permanent, and the "component chart" guidelines are very subject to change, because they are based on editorial preference, not on policy.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

just to inform you that WP:USCHARTS is moving from a draft to guidelines. Billboard says: "Hot Alternative Songs the most popular alternative/modern rock songs, ranked by airplay detections as measured by Nielsen BDS." The of Rock Songs it says "the popular alternative, mainstream rock and triple A songs, ranked by radio airplay audience impressions across those genres measured by Nielson BDS". That undoubtedly makes Alternative Songs a component of Rock Songs. Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider Alternative Songs a component of Rock Songs. They are two different charts.David1287 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was it was only a few days ago this "draft" was brought in, so one user can't change what Billboard calls or defines one of it's charts. As Lil-Unique said it's becoming guidelines anyway. Jayy008 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
In response to David1287's comments im afraid in this case Billboard clearly states that they are NOT two different charts. Alternative Songs is an airplay chart which is used as one of three charts which define Hot Rock Songs. Therefore if a song has charted on Rock Songs it then Hot Alternative Songs cannot be added to the charts table. I would love it to be otherwise but billboard itself has defined these charts. I admit with some of the other charts there is a degree of ambiguity but in this case it is clear-cut. Adding Hot Alternative Songs if a song has charted on Hot Rock Songs would be a clear breach of WP:record charts and WP:USCHARTS. What users consider correct is one thing but wikipedia is very clear about component charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
why it would be a clear breach? I don't consider it when all the rock songs were charting in bothDavid1287 (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you aware of what component charts are? sorry i'm not being rude i'm just trying to understand how much you do and don't know about billboard charts. Basically WP:record charts says that "It is not recommended that Billboard component charts are used in tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart." Then in accordinance with what says it clearly says that Hot Alternative Songs is an Airplay only chart. Hot Alternative Songs + Hot Mainstream Songs + Hot Trip A Songs = Hot Rock Songs. Therefore by wikipedia and billboard definition HOT ROCK SONGS is the master/main/genre chart whilst the three airplay charts that make it up are component charts of the Hot Rock Songs. Therefore if a song charts on Hot Rock Songs then only Hot Rock Songs can appear in the charts table. Hot Alternative Songs can be mentioned in prose (chart performance paragraph IF the chart performance is significant. This ruling is no different to that about the Hot 100 and the Hot 100 Airplay. If a song charts on Hot 100 then Hot 100 Airplay charts cannot be the added to the article. It is a closed case i'm afraid its very clear cut in this instance. I would personally love to be able to say that yes we can include all charts. Soon we may not be able to include Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), Adult Top 40 or Adult Contemporary (chart) either for the same reasons. We're not vindicating the Hot Alternative Songs its simply clarifying a wikipedia and billboard policy that for a long time has been inconsistantly implemented. At the end of the day a hot alternative song is a rock song but a specific type.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
So, just to clarify, is Hot_Mainstream_Rock_Tracks a component chart of Rock Songs then? If so, it needs to be removed from articles of songs that have charted on Rock Songs as well. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes. Billboard has itself clarified that. And it is at WP:USCHARTS which althogh i accept is labelled as a proposal will be promoted to guidelines soon.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so then this should be mentioned in the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks article as well. David1287 (talk · contribs), I'll mention this on the "Between the Lines" talk page, but I'm removing the second component chart from the article in accordance with WP:USCHARTS and corroboration from this discussion.

Dutch Top 40 vs Top 100 and sources

Ok two questions.

  1. Which chart should be used? which is preferred?
  2. Is this a good source for top 40? [2] i didnt wanna remove it till i'd checked. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The Megachart 100 is a physical-only chart, while the Dutch Top 40 is an airplay/sales chart. There's also the Mega Top 50, which is an airplay/sales chart. I've never found a good archive for it. Technically, the Megachart 100 is a component of the Mega Top 50, and the Dutch Top 40 is an independent chart. In practice, the normal recommendation is to treat Megachart 100 as a component of the Dutch Top 40: use the Dutch Top 40 if it charted there, and use the Megachart 100 if it only charted on the Megachart 100.
As for, it is a mix of private charts and reprints of public charts. We've gone through FMC while discussing Marc Mysterio, an act that only charted in Cyprus, the Ukraine, and the FMC. The conclusion was that the FMC wasn't notable enough to consider a chart. Its reprints of public charts are probably valid enough, but is the licensed publisher and should be used instead.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kww. Very helpful, thats gr8. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another question though: is the Dutch Tipparade different to the Single Top 100? Its use on Gypsy (Shakira song) has baffled me.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just use the one listed on Hung Median, like say "Dutch Singles Chart" to make it simple, and use the chart pos from there? Jayy008 (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dutch Tipparade is more like Bubbling Under. I don't object to people listing the Megachart 100 from Hung Medien even if it made the Dutch Top 40, but it's redundant to list both. Acharts archives the Dutch Top 40, so some of the listings you see with "Dutch Singles Chart" are really the Dutch Top 40 and some are the Megachart 100: there's no way to tell without checking the sources. That's why I object so strongly to people listing things as "country Singles Chart": it's vague and misleading.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Which does the macro do? Should we just leave it at that? Jayy008 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I listed this same situation under the Belgium charts discussion but no one replied. Anyway, what i think is up there. Candyo32 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The macro uses the Megachart 100 from if you specify "Dutch100", and the Dutch Top 40 from if you specify "Dutch40". There is no "Dutch" option.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Top 40 is the official chart in Netherlands. In this site there is also an archive. SJ(talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What I usually do is if Hung Median list a song as 40 as above I'll put "Dutch40" and if it's over 40 I'll say "Dutch100" I guess that was very wrong. Jayy008 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep. When I do a macro conversion, my last step is to click all the links and verify the numbers. If you did that, then you will at least have put an accurate number into the article.—Kww(talk) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
But the wrong chart lol, Hung Median is always official for all charts, so should we just used Mega Single Top 100 for all articles as it's the one from Hung Median?? Jayy008 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Both charts are valid. This points out one of the reasons that it is important to verify the generated links: if you click the generated link and actually make sure the article matches the position on the chart the generated link takes you to, everything would be fine: you would never wind up matching a Dutch Top 40 position to a Megachart 100 chart.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Got it! Jayy008 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

IMPORTANT Changes - Airplay, Digital and Billboard

Hi all. It has come to my attention that some editors are still confused about the usuage of component charts in particula: Billboard component charts. To conclude the work being done to WP:USCHARTS i would like to pose the following:

  1. All US radio airplay charts are demoted to component charts of the Hot 100 Airplay to reflect the fact that songs charting on Hot 100 Airplay must have charted on at least one of the following (but not limited to, below are the most popular examples):
  2. The rules be changed to reflect the introduction of 21 new digital genre charts by Billboard.
    • For example Hot Dance Club Songs will still prevail over Hot Digital Dance/Electro Songs.
  3. Dropping the billboard part of the chart except for the Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100 for consistancy with This would result in charts appearing as:

Please can you give your opinion, each time referring to proposal 1, proposal 2 or proposal 3 so that we can clearly see what the consensus is. Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First, keep in mind that we are not the people who decide what a component chart is. That is a decision made by the chart provider. A component chart is one where the transformation from the component chart to the main chart is a purely numerical transformation (i.e., "3 points for position on airplay chart + 2 points for position on sales chart"). The charts you are listing are genre charts: they are compiled by monitoring airplay on a subset of stations identified by Billboard as associated with that genre, and cannot be numerically weighted into the Hot 100 airplay. Therefore, I vociferously and adamantly oppose proposal 1. Proposal 3 doesn't matter much to me. Proposal 2 seems like normal maintenance: the purpose of WP:USCHARTS is to provide a tabulation of the impact of our "component chart" rule. If these new charts are not component charts, they cannot be treated as component charts, and the correct treatment needs to be added.
Second, bear in mind that there is no way to "promote this to policy". It's a guideline, and will live or die by it's level of public acceptance.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with 2&3 and only agree with 1 if Pop Songs is an exception and is still allowed. Jayy008 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with #2. #1 - I think Pop Songs should be an exception, and also Rhythmic Top 40/Rhythmic Airplay because it effectively points out successful urban & pop crossovers. #3 - I think if we are removing Billboard, then what's the point of keeping Billboard Hot 100? Might as well call it US Singles Chart if we're changing everything else? Candyo32 (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Because it's called Billboard Hot 100. The others haven't got Billboard in the name. Jayy008 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Jayy008; w/proposals 1, 2 & 3. Dan56 (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Kww: Actually WP:USCHARTS is currently listed as a proposal so it had yet to reach guideline/policy status. I've spoken to JubileePoliceMan who is currently auditing the music part of WP:MoS and we've come to agreement that the information could be rationalized into WP:record charts under a US Singles Charts Heading. In response to all other comments... Billboard is only the chart provider and since we do not use this for other charts i see no point to do so for billboard. The Hot 100 is the only exception because it is the only chart which actually has it in its name. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely it can become a part of the guideline. I have a real problem with having it try to stand alone as a separate guideline (much less as a policy). It shouldn't be trying to change the existing guidelines, though, just explain them. Trying to redefine component is not a good way to change a guideline. If people decide some genre charts aren't worth mentioning, that's one thing: trying to do it by saying they are component charts when they aren't is another.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No thats the point. Im glad i opened the discussion because you've pointed out that there is a valid reason as to why Pop Songs can be used but other airplay charts not used. I was in no way trying to re-define a component chart. Rather the opposite... based on the information we have i was trying to draw the clearest conclusion possible. Im trying to iron out the glitches before the info is rationalised to record charts. There is some more work to be done on the digital charts bit. but the main bit at USCHARTS aparts to be ok. what do you think? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Prop 1, strong agree with 2 and 3. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No idea about 1. Agree with 2 but what applies before the new digital charts by Billboard? Agree with 3. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well in terms of two.... i am going try and produce a list of the 21 charts available. There will need to be some new rules like Digital Dance/Electronic Songs is of lesser importance that Dance club songs therefore use dance club songs. Also like Rhythmic Digital Chart will also take a backseat to the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


If song hasn't charted on ultratop 40/50 that then is added position of song on belgium tip parade. my suggestion is that if song has charted on tipparade we add, for flandres 50+tipparade position, and for wallonia 40+tipparade position. example: song has charted on #7 on both flandres and wallonia.

I disagree... it doesn't exclusively say that the tipparade is bubbling under the ultratop. The Tipparade is simply a chart that songs may chart on before the acscend to the ultratop. i dislike the idea of doing it with US charts and propose the same for this chart too. As an editor from the UK (where we dont have bubbling under charts) i personally find example two much easier to use than example 1 as well as more navigable. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Lil-unique. It was a bad habit people got into with the Bubbling Under charts, and I see no reason to spread the practice to other charts. Ultratip links to a reasonable place, so it should be used as the chart identifier.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
ok. i see your point:)--SveroH (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
AGREE with example 2, as it shows the EXACT proper chart name and the position on it.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Example 1. By experience, I have been confused and did not know that the Tip charts were bubbling under, and I know other people will also. Example 1 gives the exact charting not where it bubbled under as, or whatever. Candyo32 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Btw, this probably needs to be discussed in another topic, but the Dutch charts have a bubbling under also. And I think on the music articles the Dutch Top 40 and the Single Top 100 are becoming confused, because Hung Medien, the another common source for international charts other than acharts, uses the Single Top 100. However, I think the Dutch Top 40 is the preferred because it is single and airplay, and the Single Top 100 is only physical singles & downloads. Candyo32 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Example 1. The Belgian chart system works like "bubbling under" --Triancula (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Join Discussion

Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Billboard_charts_guide#Rhythmic_Top_40_2 Thanks! Candyo32 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Important discussion regarding the future of the guideline

Please participate in /Billboard charts guide#Time to move forward and formally propose this page as a Guideline?. The questions raised there go beyond the future of that subpage. I have suggested that this main MOS be split into two pages: MOS and Content. Thank you --Jubileeclipman 13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  • On hold indefinately while the whole structure of the MoS itself is under discussion: see the ongoing debates at WT:MOS --Jubileeclipman 17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone?

I know Rolling Stone is a reliable source for charts and discographies of musical artists but is the website working? I am facing issues while trying to access it. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they've revamped their website. Artist bios, which used to be at, now appear to be at and then some code. It also looks like a lot of album reviews have disappeared. --JD554 (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Good lord, those strings are so bizarre! How are we gonna update the urls? This is even worse than Billboard. Atleast they had the news article number intact while changing the url. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Crickey... the code really does have to be there. I tried removing it from those I clicked on to get but ended up at a 404 page. E.g.;kw=[artists,8665,36823] works but doesn't. What the heck are they up to? --Jubileeclipman 09:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Dang. I forgot about those brackets... That makes it even harder! You need to convert the brackets into code, as well:
[ becomes %5B and ] becomes %5D
Hence, Neil Young is found at;kw=%5Bartists,8665,36823%5D in fact. Ugh... --Jubileeclipman 09:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Blimey, there are so many links to Rolling Stone. And fuck, their search is more crap than Billboard's. None of the existent articles come up in the old search. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bump - any thoughts on how to sort this out? --Jubileeclipman 17:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. I have been adding the journal entries for the existing links for the pages I watch. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Should russia be added to bad charts?

Today i came across a strange occurance whilst editing. I've noticed the use of to source russian airplay. I've usually left it in or left it down to other editors to use their discretion as to whether it should be used or not. However for the song "I Got You" by Leona Lewis i found the following:

  • It was the chart position 210 based on the chart Airplay Detection TopHit 100.
  • The disclaimer/note at the bottom says (translated) "Data for the last past week, are in this column, from Monday to Tuesday change every hour, in accordance with information received from radio stations. At midnight from Tuesday to Wednesday the position of the track on a weekly chart TopHit 100 fixed and then remains unchanged.".

Based on that are we to say this chart has an acceptable methidology? i've seen it appear quite a lot in articles so if we decide its methidology is dubious it should be added to Badcharts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the position is stable once it is archived, but data from the current page can't be trusted. That isn't too much different than our situation with charts that have a page that updates every week and a stable archive.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a stable archive for Russia? I've already encoutered pages like this used to source charts before.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I should add this to WP:GOODCHARTS: 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Support'.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree Jayy008 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


It is proposed that Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide be merged into WP:record charts. Please comment over at the RfC merge proposal. Thanks --Jubileeclipman 01:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Music Notability

Hello, I'm opening a discussion about the refinement and clarification of notability criteria. your opinion here would be appreciated. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OFFICIAL Polish Airplay Chart and Video Chart (NOT Polish National Top 50) - please, add! :)

From Polish Music Charts:

Official Polish Airplay Chart is provided by Nielsen Music Control Airplay Services. The Top 5 spots of the airplay charts is published at the official Nielsen Music site every week.

Since 2010 ZPAV publish extended version of Polish Airplay at the official ZPAV site:

  • Polish Airplay TOP 5 - the most popular songs on polish music stations (radio and TV);
  • Polish Airplay TOP 5 - New - the most popular new singles this week;
  • Polish Airplay TOP 5 - UP! - the biggest jumps this week;
  • Polish Airplay TOP 5 - Video - the most popular videoclips on MTV Polska, VIVA Polska, VH1 Polska and;
  • Polish Dance TOP 50 - the most popular songs in the clubs;
  • Polish TOP Store Chart 50 - the most popular songs played in music shops and shopping centres.

Please, add polish airplay or polish TOP5 Video here. MecenasMuzyczny (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

These used to be on the list, and I agree that they are valid charts (except for the Polish Dance Top 50 and Polish Top Store chart 50 ... if you have links for those, I'll look into them). The problem is that they aren't archived. Once a new week's charts are added, there's no way to see what was there before. Consensus was to removed all unarchived charts from WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, links:
  1. - Airplay TOP5 (archives:;
  2. - Video TOP5 (archives:
  3. - New Singles TOP5 (archives:
  4. - The Biggest Jumps TOP5 (archives:
  5. - TOP from music stores (archives are not available yet)
  6. - TOP from Clubs (archives:
MecenasMuzyczny (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see they had added the archives. I'll get most of these added in the next day or so. I'm still not seeing an archive link for "Top w dyskotekach", though.—Kww(talk) 21:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. :) It's a new site and I'm so happy that ZPAV (FINALLY!) publish TOP5 Airplay and TOP5 Videoclips and Poland has official airplay and video chart (not only the album's chart). Women from ZPAV told me, they are going to publish more than 5 positions but not yet - in the Future. Airplay TOP5 and Video TOP5 are most important for me, as music fan from Poland but it's great to see "Top5 New Singles" or "Top5 Jumps". MecenasMuzyczny (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2010
"Top w dyskotekach/Dance Top 50" or this one with music shops... well, as I said -it's a new site. I see that they publish Dance TOP 50 every TWO weeks and now we can see only first chart (14-30.04.2010). So I guess archives will be published in next week/month or something. (UTC)MecenasMuzyczny (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Top 5 chart. I'll add the shop and club charts after the archiving starts.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Could you add TOP5 of video too? Is it a good chart? MecenasMuzyczny (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's reliable enough, but there aren't any other video charts on WP:GOODCHARTS. I'd have to see a general discussion saying that listing video charts was a good idea before I would do it.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop 100

Is it back in action ? its on having songs charting now. Candyo32 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How on Earth do French certifications work?

Someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old, because I simply don't get it. I'm trying to determine what the correct certification for Achtung Baby is, but SNEP seems to be confusing me. In 1995, the album was certified double platinum, but a year later, it was certified platinum.

According to the SNEP website, they currently certify like this:

  • Gold - 50,000
  • Platinum - 100,000
  • 2x Platinum - 200,000
  • 3x Platinum - 300,000
  • Diamond - 500,000

Well, from reading the SNEP Wikipedia article, it seems as if they have re-done their certifications several times. In 1995-1996, this is what the certifications would have been like:

  • Gold - 100,000
  • Double Gold - 200,000
  • Platinum - 300,000
  • 2x Platinum - 600,000
  • 3x Platinum - 900,000
  • Diamond - 1,000,000

Does this mean that the album was certified for 900,000 copies in 1996? Or was the platinum certification in 1996 not an additional certification, but one that was retroactive to the album's release? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the 1996 chart is listing a platinum received in 1991, while the 1995 chart is showing a double platinum received in 1995. I'd go with the 1995 listing.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Scottish charts

We need to discuss on the Scottish Charts available at TOCC website. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


We also need to move the archives to the new name, else they would be lost. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, let me know if I missed any or screwed anything up. — ξxplicit 05:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Danish single charts

It should really be on this page but ... somehow a discussion about the danish single charts got underway at Talk:Fascination (Alphabeat song). - Meewam (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism notice

Singlechart got vandalized today to simply output an obscenity. If you see charts that are expanding that way, purge the article. There's a new button on the new skin (which I don't use). The reliable way is to add &action=purge to the URL and load up, i.e. . That will forcibly update the article to the latest, unvandalized version of the template. I've semiprotected the template to try to reduce the probability of a reoccurence.

Kww(talk) 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Polish National Top 50?

Is the "Polish National Top 50" chart the same as the chart "Poland Albums Top 50"? Polish National Top 50 is listed as a band chart which is supposed to be found at ACharts, but I can only find Poland Albums Top 50 here. Sorafune +1 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the album chart is an archive of the legimate ZPAV chart. You should make your reference to , but is useful for searching. acharts has apparently dropped the Polish Singles Chart from the site, so I've dropped the note from WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, they also apparently dropped Polish National Top 50. Should that be removed as well? Sorafune +1 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, because the Polish National Top 50 is alive and well at . Still a WP:BADCHART.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was a chart published only on ACharts. Thanks. Sorafune +1 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


I was wondering if the daily and monthly charts should be included in the articles for Japanese releases? The reason I ask is because unlike the weekly chart when the day and month changes, the previous day or month for that chart is no longer accessible. I mean it will be accessible if someone archives the charts during that certain day or month, but most people that edit those articles do not do so. So should they be excluded from the article? MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, Oricon daily and monthly information is accessible through a paid subscription of some sorts. Sorafune +1 22:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Even then, the link needs to point to the URL of the information on the paid site. It can't point to a page that changes daily or monthly and doesn't include the information that the reference claims to support.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that's true. I would support removing unsourced charting information on daily and monthly ranking, although it wouldn't be too easy, considering the vast amount of Japanese discographies and album articles out there. Sorafune +1 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian charts

When does a new month's Brazilian chart debut? I have only been peripherally following this issue, but my understanding was that, while there was no chart archive, a current chart could be found online. Yet upon a claim at I Want To Know What Love Is that Mariah Carey's version had charted at #1 there for five months, which they parenthetically claimed was 19 weeks, I scratched my head (as November through February is actually more like 13 weeks) and checked Wiki's Brasil Hot 100 Airplay article. There I found no March data, despite its being March 11. I then visited the link at Billboard Brasil, (because there is no reference for the material at Brasil Hot 100 Airplay), and found no current data for Brazil's charts, only a link to the U.S. charts for the week ending March 13.

Is it common for there to be a lag time between when the prior chart is removed from the site and the next one posted? (Why on earth would that be so? The only reason I can think of is that they are indicating that the chart is not meant to represent a whole month, but merely a representative week of that month?) Perhaps I'm checking during the couple of minutes the page is being reconfigured for the new month? Have the Brazilian charts been discontinued after a mere five? I'd be interested to know if anybody has any insight on this.

On a related issue, there is List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Brazil) and a List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (Brazil). The inaugural chart was in October 2009 and it is a monthly chart, meaning that there are only 3 charts that year and only 12 charts in any year. The first #1 ran for two charts and the second #1 for three (albeit spanning two years), so the first list consists of two singles.

Additionally, there is a List of number-one pop hits of 2009 (Brazil) which happens to be the same as List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Brazil) (ditto for 2010). And then of course there is the domestic chart, List of number-one popular hits of 2009 (Brazil), which is a lone Brazilian artist for 2009 and another for 2010 to date. I note that List of French number-one hits of 2009 — which is a weekly chart — is split into physical singles and digital singles. The French list then adds the same data for albums as well as a top 10 of the year in both sales categories for both singles and albums.

Considering that there are only four singles represented across these six Brazilian articles covering five months' worth of three charts, doesn't it make sense to combine the scant data in a similar manner that we combine the more frequently updated data at the French article? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From December to now makes 17 weeks. But for example say Beyonce was #1 for november, it was actually #1 for October because it updates at the beginning of the month. So for all intents and purposes the song has been #1 for around 20 weeks if you look at it like that. It's not Billboard Brazil that sourced that it was something else, I can't remember what but the source used compiles the charts for Billboard Brasil. Billboard Brasil's charts seems to be down but their compilers are still up and running (you can find it somewhere). I hope I explained that well. As for combining that data, I think Billboard Brasil should be completely combined and the #1's just have their own date. I don't think it should be noted that Mariah Carey's song is the longest running song on the chart because it's still a new chart. It's actually the longest running airplay song is Brazil since forever, because they've always had an airplay chart, just not run by Billboard before. Jayy008 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Although I thank you for the acknowledgement of the "longest running" and combining points, respectfully, your logic is in error regarding a number of points.
Firstly, look at the French chart I linked above. There are several instances of a title falling from number one for a week or even two and then regaining the top spot. Just because a chart is only updated every month, rather than every week, does not change the possibility of such a dynamic. So we have no proof that a single that averages out to #1 over the course of a month was actually the #1 single for each week of that month, and the data given does not allow us to draw the conclusion that it was. We could extrapolate that a song that was the #1 song for twelve months was the #1 song for a year, because the metric is each month and twelve months from now is a year from now, it's simple logic. But just as you surely know that we do not presume the #1 song of a specific year (as is measured in several articles here at Wikipedia) was not actually the #1 song each month of that year, neither can we presume the #1 song of the month was actually the #1 song of each week of that month. We apparently can't know that it wasn't, but neither can we presume that it was; we must present the same metric officially presented by the chartist, in this case a monthly figure.
Secondly, the fact that any published chart is obviously representing figures from prior to the time it "went to press" doesn't change the fact that a song making two or three charts is still a song charting for only two or three chart periods, in this case months (but again the same is true for weeks). So if Beyonce was #1 for the October and November charts, it was actually #1 in September and October, still just two months. And if Mariah Carey was #1 for the December, January and February charts, that's representing the three months of November, December and January. So then a March chart would reflect February, a fourth month, not a fifth one. When you say "from December to now makes 17 weeks," it seems you are forgetting there is no source cited for the claim that she is the #1 single now, and as you note that whatever the #1 single on a March chart would be is actually not representing now but some point before the end of February (if, as you state, it is updated at the beginning of each month), and it takes until April to determine what is number one now, again, this is a conflation of metrics. After all, if as you suggest there is an official rundown of weekly charts, then why do our Brazilian lists fail to acknowledge that, in favor of a monthly metric?
Thirdly, if the Billboard Brazil chartings are being sourced to something other than Billboard Brazil, that should be evident by the reference cited on each page a Billboard Brazil chart figure is being presented. While it is extremely hard to track down chart references for pre-internet-era recordings, it shouldn't be this vague to what we are sourcing a contemporary charting in 2010. Abrazame (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
for a start, this place is to discuss charts not songs, it isn't even listed on the article on wikipedia that it reached #1 for 20 weeks...So why are you bringing it up? But it is listed as #1 with a reliable source. What you say about going 2-1-1-2 in a month is impossible because it's a monthly chart, only. So I Want to Know What Love Is has been number one November, December, January, February, March. This is radio provider in Brazil What's listed in the Article now is that it reached #1 and it's reliably sourced. Nothing else. Jayy008 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points to address in this discussion. First, Jayy008 is correct that Crowley compiles the chart, and Crowley has compiled Brazilian airplay charts for a long time. However, (and this is a big "however"), they did not publish a national airplay chart, only regional ones. Thus, there is no history before the publication of the first Billboard Brasil to make a valid comparison to.

Second, the Billboard Brasil website is a shambles. No archiving, days where all the charts disappear, links to US charts appearing in inappropriate places. The website cannot be used as a source, only the magazine.

Third, as for articles that reproduce lists of number ones or otherwise reproduce chart data from proprietary sources, I maintain that they should all be deleted as copyright violations. Discussions of folding them or how to format them are moot: if the purpose they serve is to reiterate a chart, they shouldn't exist.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

All I mean it, in the article for "I Want to Know What Love Is", nobody has mentioned "#1 for 20 weeks etc" so what does it matter? I just can't see the relevance. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That's because Abrazame removed the claim based on the argument he is presenting here.—Kww(talk) 01:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it, there's no source for the 20 weeks thing anyway and the provider doesn't archive it, so it shouldn't be used. Jayy008 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks, Kww, for clearing that up. But my issues remain unresponded to, which is even more troubling a week after I first noted them. Not unlike Legolas' comment in the Argentina thread below about CAPIF, I am unclear on the purpose of mentioning or linking in this thread. Is the current national airplay chart posted somewhere at the Crowley site? Is there a searchable database there? If so, can we post a site map on how to get there for English language users? I'm troubled that we're 18 days into the month and a chart that by the explanation above was supposed to have been available two and a half weeks ago is still not cited in the articles I mention above. The link I pasted above from one of our article cites is still blank. This does not seem to be the way a major operation like Billboard handles data they find encyclopedic and worthy, and presenting as our most recent data in the second half of March material from a February chart that, as Jayy008 notes, actually represented airplay in the month of January, raises some red flags to me on how seriously we should take this as a reliable chart.

To Jayy008, you say that the song has been number one in February and March: where have you gotten that information? Again, this is about the chart, not about the song, but of course the purpose of the chart is to make claims about songs, and it perplexes me how you and others are doing that.

I thank you, too, Kww, for your response about the Brazilian albums chart in the thread below. Abrazame (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

An anon added March figures to the Brazil singles charts on March 21. The page is still empty, more than three weeks after I first noted it. So where are these figures coming from? Why is there no source cited whatsoever for a current and very specific promotional data point in the internet era? And what's the deal with I mean, how many purposes are there for that site other than to note the Brazilian chart positions? Abrazame (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I am starting to have serious doubts about Billboard Brasil myself. Its site is essentially dead. This article, published only two weeks ago in Jornal de Economia describes it as a weekly publication (although our article describes it as monthly), and gives no indication that it is defunct. I've caught some editors forging references, using positions from and creating citations to show it as taken from the physical magazine. I'd like to hear from some of our Brazilian editors that can confirm the magazine is still even on the stands.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kww. I've noticed that people seemed to have realised that they can apparently source chart positions physically but there is no evidence to suggest the magazine is in circulation. its highly unsual that there is no online version/archive and that the magazine is not mentioned by Brazil's equivalent of IFPI. but i do wonder because regularly reports on how carey songs are doing in brasil citing the billboard brasil magazine as a source.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Kww if you translate the article it actually says the traditional weekly publication has a monthly basis in Brasil. also this article appears to show the magazine as still active as of Jan 2010. [3] Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Not too surprising that I make mistakes when reading Portuguese. Not a language I'm very fluent in (I mainly recognize words that I know from Spanish and Papiamento). That cover would seem to correspond to the last chart published before the website went dead.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Tis ok... I used Google Translate to help with the translation. Erm yeah cus the website i've given as an example usually posts the cover of the magazine regularly. A quick search on google, reuters and google news reveals very late about the fate of the chart or even if it is active.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, my translation software says the Jornal de Economia article reads: "The magazine Billboard Brazil is a weekly publication, where its rankings are based on in such a way digital sales, how much physical and in the amount of times that music was touched in the radios of all country in the week." Though of course I don't take their word for this under the circumstances. Abrazame (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw Kww's notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil, and yes, I confirm the magazine is still on the stands. Unfortunately, they cost quite too much for me to keep them at home only to serve as physical references, although I sometimes check them to find out information on singles I might want to work on. Victão Lopes I hear you... 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear of a sighting. There is something funky going on, though. pt:Anexo:Lista de Canções número um em 2009 (Brasil) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Brazil) disagree. We have a List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (Brazil), but there is no pt:Anexo:Lista de Canções número um em 2010 (Brasil).—Kww(talk) 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
pt:Anexo:Lista de Canções número um em 2010 (Brasil) may be just a matter of time. As of the diverging information...I tried to check the website, but the lists are not being displayed. Victão Lopes I hear you... 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The dead website is what started this discussion. We are left in the position of having to trust magazine references, and are in the unfortunate position of having some Brazilian editors that are taking advantage of the situation to add false material.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's something to worry about. I hope the list comes back soon. Victão Lopes I hear you... 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So ten days later, now in the second week of the following month, and still nothing at Any effort currently being made by Brazilian editors? (Are there any Brazilian Wikipedians interested in contemporary music other than Victao? One guy who "sometimes checks" the newsstands is not enough for us to maintain coverage, and if Billboard isn't making it available online, they clearly don't wish there to be widespread notice taken.) Any objection to my opening an AfD on our lists? Abrazame (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And now it's been another week, still nothing at, and still no help from any Brazilian editor. Anybody care? AfD? Abrazame (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, perhaps I missed something, but why would you want to delete an article because hasn't been updated? Which articles are you specifically targeting, and would merging the info not be a better approach? Huntster (t @ c) 08:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but you would have a very hard time at AFD. Denying the notability of the Billboard brand name would be difficult. Since the magazine appears to exist, it will meet W:V. If you want to give me a test case of my belief that all articles that reproduce charts for the sake of reproducing charts should be deleted as copyright violations, I'll support on that ground, but that's only one support. I doubt you would get others.
As for other editors, Decodet is a responsible Brazilian editor that edits music articles—Kww(talk) 15:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The magazine does exist. If you guys need anything from Brazil, just talk to me. I'm watching this page. Victão Lopes I hear you... 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not noticed this discussion before, so I was not able to leave comments before. I'll try to clarify and confirmsome points: The magazine does' exist, as Victor Lopez mentioned, and it's still a monthly release. That reference cited above has a wrong information. The website is not dead either, although they don't post chart anymore. It's still being updated with news and you guys can also see they updated the cover of the month on the site, another proof the magazine's still being published. Like Victor, I do not buy the magazine because it's a little bit expensive but I have two copies of the magazine - the December and January editions. That's the main tool I use in order to create physical references. In case you need support, feel free to contact me. I'll try my best to help everyone.
PS: I'll try to buy the April edition, since one of my fave groups is featured in the cover, so I'll be able to help everyone with this month's chart. Decodet (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this now a suitable interim solution? it appears to be the official publication by Crawley Broadcast Systems who are responsible for Brazilian charts. I think it would need manual archiving with WEBCITE or something similar though. [4]Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses at long last! I was a bit perplexed that with all the discussion thus far that it wasn't clear that what those lists need are at least one Brazilian editor with some English proficiency who is willing sometime in the first week or so of the month to visit their local library or book store and note for us the #1 singles and albums of the month in the two or three genres we have seen fit to cover. (Ideally it would be someone motivated enough to be doing this for their own knowledge and enjoyment, and not dogged responsibility to an unending Wiki list.) There are pages, like List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (Brazil), that are completely unreferenced. They could use confirmation and updating. (Victão Lopes has helpfully done that for the last three months of the 2009 list, though all seem to be referenced to an October edition.)
To summarize the long and digressive thread, it is Wikipedia practice and there seems to be consensus to combine these numerous Brazilian charts (Domestic and international songs/singles/airplay, and albums) as they do in other notable countries (I noted France), particularly as they are monthly and not weekly charts, to make it more convenient and comprehensive and clear for an interested reader/researcher to discover what is happening on those charts and to present more than twelve (or, given the sluggishness of the charts, however many fewer than twelve) data points each list would ultimately be presenting. The question of which to place first, second, etc., would ideally be done as a reflection of their market share (i.e. the U.S. charts would have the Hot 100 before the Country music, though perhaps the Brazilian market for domestic artists is greater than that for the international fare).
To clarify the obtaining of the data, purchasing it isn't required: If an interested editor's local library does not currently carry the periodical, chances are they have official forms you can fill out to request they subscribe to the magazine or to the paid version of If they decline or are unable, it is possible they can find out if another local library in the region does carry a subscription, and they can arrange to have that copy circulated to your branch after the first week or so, or you can visit the neighboring town to do the research. (At least that's the way things are handled in U.S. libraries.) Here, some individual newsstands may frown on browsing through a magazine but others do not; bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders and music retailers like Virgin carry Billboard and allow browsers to take notes and even have free Wi-Fi to upload directly from there on a laptop or other device, perhaps that's so in Brazil as well? The #1s in the U.S. magazine are all listed on the first inside page, so it doesn't even require paging through the magazine, you can find it in an instant.
A specific question: is there any source whatsoever that publishes the weekly data from this Crawley Broadcast Systems to which people keep referring? If they are a notable, independent, legitimate entity (and, indeed, if they are not), we need an article explaining their mission, their purview, like Nielsen ratings.
I've never nominated an AfD and did not actually wish to in this case — my actual wish is that every nation has its own music chart and that there is an accurate, updated and referenced representation of such here at Wikipedia. Many thanks to those interested in understanding and following their local music charts and representing them here. Perhaps consolidating the Brazilian charts together on one page and setting a good Wikipedia standard for referencing them (particularly given the lack of web access) will spread the word and get others interested in reading and responsibly updating the lists with the new figures each month. Best, Abrazame (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes this had been cited by Universal Music as an Official Source from Crawley Broadcast Systems that would need manually archiving i think.Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that it's been another ten days and not a single effort to cite or combine the lists (I reverted two uncited additions for April).
I would also point out to Decodet that he is partly incorrect when he says "The website is not dead either, although they don't post chart anymore." The site is still designed to present the data on these pages, they simply are blank. While the site as a whole is not a dead link, it is a dead site from the perspective of the very point of Billboard, the presentation of chart data. Billboard has always had news from around the world, so the fact that news continues to be updated at is not particularly illuminating. It's not that I don't take editors at their word that Brazilian Billboard continues to be published, it's that our acknowledgement of something of a monthly nature that apparently nobody is interested in citing sources for or updating on a monthly basis is as perplexing and shoddy as is Billboard's handling and promotion of the Brazilian chart.
I return to the question from the standpoint of Wikipedia editors: why no effort in all this time to cite and update and combine the lists?
I return to the question from the standpoint of Billboard: If Billboard stands behind the accuracy and newsworthiness of the Brazilian charts in the international forum, why have they failed to update their site to present the last few months' #1 chartings as they do on the U.S. site? If there is some reason to treat the presentation of Brazilian #1s differently than the presentation of U.S. #1s, then A.) What is that difference, and B.) Why would they not redesign the site to remove the pages/links that purport to present them? Abrazame (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I bought the April issue of Billboard Brasil, then I can help anyone who wants to verify peak positions. Decodet (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, Decodet, thank you; more than two months since I began the thread and three weeks since your purchase, I'll summarize the points repeatedly made above that the help required is for you to log in to your account and properly cite that magazine issue as reference for whichever months' positions it confirms in the chart lists. This will prevent the lists from being tagged for wholesale deletion as being completely unreferenced, insofar as there is apparently no other accessible source anyone is willing or able to cite there. Abrazame (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Either someone else is confused here or I am. I was under the impression a month and a half ago that Decodet was finally going to cite those lists (to the degree his one issue of the magazine can). He has not edited those pages since. Is this going to happen, or isn't it? Are those lists important enough to anybody for them to ref them, or aren't they?
On the related matter, has there ever been a statement by Billboard as to why they began a policy of, and created pages on the site for, promoting the Brazilian number ones, yet have apparently made the major change to abandon that policy? It seems to me that the record-breaking run of five months at #1 for the Carey track would be just the sort of smash-hit blockbuster news they would be using to draw both national and international attention to the charts they've recently begun legitimizing—unless, as I have said, there is some reason for suddenly pulling back and rescinding their online promotion of the charts. And in connection with that question, again, as this is a record charts page, and as Brazilian editors haven't really been helpful here, is there no issue of the original U.S. version of that magazine in the course of a month that reprints the Brazil charts among the hits of the world? Somebody here gets the magazine, no? Abrazame (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

UK singles chart

The UK Singles Chart article suggests that the UK Singles Chart is a 200 positions chart (not citing any references), but the Single Charts page at the shows only 100 positions (and the page title is "Singles Top 40"?). A user reverted my edit to the Alphabeat discography article and posted a comment on my talk page. Am I missing something here? - Meewam (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

as stated, positions 101-200 are only available to a subscribers-only magazine, ChartsPlus. Mister sparky (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
the OCC mentions the Top 200 itself on its own website here in an article about Michael Jackson Mister sparky (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the Official Singles Chart specifically mentioned as a top 200; "The Official Albums Chart includes 6 Jackson titles in the Top 20, 8 in the Top 40, 9 in the Top 75 and 12 in the overall top 200" and "In turn, Jackson dominates the Official Singles Chart too, with 5 titles in the Top 20, 13 in the Top 40, 27 in the Top 75 and 49 in the overall top 200." Strange that several single charts are mentioned, and one is mentioned twice as the "overall top 200" which only adds to the confusion. ChartsPlus is a different entity from - they can make whatever charts they want. You keep ignoring the link I provided for the Single Top 100. Why? - Meewam (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I can offer no explanation as to why the OCC only publish the top 100 on their website, only they can do that. However, I have copies of some of the back issues of ChartsPlus and looking at one right now (Issue 214 dated 1 October 2005) the singles chart goes up to position 250 while the album chart goes up to position 200. Both charts are marked "© The Official UK Charts Company 2005". --JD554 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I can vouch for the same too from my issues. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
ChartsPlus is a different entity from - they can make whatever charts they want. Agreed? The copyright is most likely mentioned because the chart is compiled from data collected by The Official UK Charts Company. The Official UK Singles Chart is a 100 position chart - look at the page link I supplied! - Meewam (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because the OCC's website doesn't back up the assertion, other reliable sources do (ie ChartsPlus). At least two editors have confirmed this. If you do not believe us, you are more then entitled to get a back copy of ChartsPlus yourself and check. There is a link on their website here which will allow you to purchase one. --JD554 (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The Billboard website only showed positions 1-50 of the Hot "100" until recently. So does that mean only 50 positions of the Hot 100 are reliable Meewam? No. It's simply they like to charge for you to see the full charts, they are still the official charts, it's just you're not allowed to see them unless you subscribe. Jayy008 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
the "top 20", "top 40", "top 75" and "top 200" you refer to you in your comment above are all the same chart, the Official Singles Chart, not different ones.... chartsplus do not make whatever charts they want, they publish the various different genre charts that the occ compiles. the occ only used to publish the top 40 on their website, thats why the top of the page still says top 40, its only in the past couple of months they bumped it up to publishing the full top 100. Mister sparky (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes need to be made to U.S. charts permitted

The following charts should be removed from the table of those that can be used when a song has charted on the Hot 100:

  • Adult Contemporary
  • Adult Pop Songs
  • Christian Songs
  • Country Songs
  • Gospel Songs
  • Jazz Songs
  • Latin Songs
  • Rap Songs
  • Pop Songs
  • Rock Songs
  • Tropical Songs

Per these charts' pages on, they only track radio airplay and are thus components of the Radio Songs chart, which itself is a component of the Hot 100. The only genre chart that also tracks sales, according to the Billboard website, is the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. Including a bunch of spin-offs of the radio chart for songs that have already charted on the main chart, the Hot 100, is unnecessary and will only drag the chart table out longer than it needs to be. –Chase (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the dance chart would apply, as club play seems individual from radio play. –Chase (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
None of those are component charts, those are all genre charts. A component chart is a chart that has a purely numerical relationship to a parent chart, i.e. "3 points for each position on the sales chart, 4 points for each position on the airplay chart, then rank the results." Genre charts are done by filtering based on venues, not numerical weighting.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Billboard says that these charts only track airplay. Therefore, wouldn't they essentially be the split-offs of the chart that's 4 or however many points towards the Hot 100? –Chase (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
"Split-off", in a sense, but not a "component". The outlets a song is played in conveys actual information. If a Katy Perry song made the Jazz Songs chart, wouldn't that be a surprising thing? The potential to surprise is what makes something information.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is more complicated as some of the charts track more than one form of airplay. e.g. Rap Songs consists of Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay and Rhythmic Airply

Rock Songs is made of: mainstream rock airplay, triple a airplay and alternative airplay.

The problem with this issue is that you can become very nitty gritty. for example per your comments we should disallow Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs because that charts consists of R&B/Hip-Hop Sales (which itself is a component of Hot 100 Sales) and R&B Hip/Hop Airplay (which is a component of Hot 100 Airplay). The key factor here is that essentially all genre charts can in someway be described as a component of the main single's chart. Hope that helps, Regards.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the common misuse of the word "component" is what is causing this problem. R&B/Hip-Hop Sales is not a component of Hot 100 sales. It is a sales chart that reflects the sales from a filtered list of releases and outlets. It is a component of Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs, because Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs is computed by weighting Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Sales.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Download Chart I've seen this mentioned as a "component chart" of the Canadian Hot 100, but the case of the Canadian download chart is different from that of the US Digital Songs Chart. From ~2005 until Billboard unveiled their own Canadian chart, the top 10 of the download chart was published in the international section of the Billboard magazine as the chart of Canada - naturally they would replace this with their own chart when they created it much like I'm sure they replaced Japan's Oricon Charts as the "official" chart when they created the Japan Hot 100. This chart existed PRIOR to the creation of the Hot 100. It is still published by one of Canada's largest internet resources - Canoe - in the National Charts section of the entertainment site - Jam!. Now, the chart was official for Billboard for 2 years, so I fail to see how, just because Billboard decided to utilise the data used to compile this chart, it has suddenly became a component chart. This is to say that if Billboard decided to make a chart in France based off numbers used by the SNEP Download Chart and airplay data, the SNEP chart would become a component chart as well. I think that the Download Chart should be allowed to be listed in chart boxes as a standalone chart, seeing as it exists as a standalone chart on a major (and native Canadian, may I add) internet publication. At the very least I think that number ones should be kept track of in an article - perhaps similar to this page (UK Download Chart) or how number ones on the Digital Songs chart are kept track of, and in the event that a song reaches a significant position on the Download Chart (i.e. Top 10 or Number 1) but not on the Billboard chart it should be mentioned in the "Chart Performance" paragraph of a song's article. Chele9211 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Where can I find a reliable archive of this chart so that positions can be verified?—Kww(talk) 20:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Jam! does not keep archives. Sporadic archives exist at forums, and the Wayback Machine (*/ This has also been a problem with the official Canadian Albums Chart, where debuts on that chart go undocumented on Wikipedia and peaks remain erroneous on Wikipedia articles. The only way to consistently cite is through self-archiving the page through tools like or Google Docs, which is what you must use if you are going to include the chart position on an article. Chele9211 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Polish charts. Yes, again.

I'm sorry to raise this topic again when it seems to have come up frequently before, but (1) I've just come upon my first occasion to care about Polish charts, and (2) I'm confused about a few things.

First of all, I don't mean to be talking about the Polish National Top 50, which from my research appears to have been much discussed and much deleted. My direct concern is something called the Polish Airplay Chart.

I spent the afternoon working over Oceana (well, I enjoyed it), and I tried to rehabilitate the peak positions shown for her singles in Poland. (I feel comfortable about the albums chart, which Polish Music Charts clearly says is official, with agreement at WP:GOODCHARTS, and good availability at OLiS.) The existing ref for Oceana's Polish singles was to, which includes a bunch of archives, each labelled "POLSKA AIRPLAY TOP 100" from some week.

I'm not sure I should be using these, though. For one thing, the Web site looks a lot like Some Guy's Site (the archived charts mention "This Polska Airplay Top 100 is compiled by Charles Pons"). It's actually a nice-looking site, but I can't tell where he's getting his data, or there'll just all unlicensed copies. Secondly, WP:GOODCHARTS doesn't point anywhere near there.Well, unless you count the big link in the fifth column, there. –JFP, 04:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Thirdly, it's not clear from Polish Music Charts that there are any official singles chart, although I believe there must be (I'm picturing more than 5 songs a week, though). And lastly, I found this recent discussion from May, which talks about a "Polish Airplay TOP 5" being published by ZPAV. There are currently 10 of these archived charts spanning the ages all the way back to March (that's 50 - FIFTY! - songs, folks) and I gather that they are all very official, although they haven't made it into WP:GOODCHARTS yet.

Do I understand correctly that the five ZPAV archives mentioned in that archived Discussion are the only Polish single charts we want to use? That the is definitely not to be used? Shall I delete the Polish column from the Singles table at Oceana? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The airplay chart from ZPAV most certainly is in WP:GOODCHARTS. The other ZPAV charts suffer from lack of archiving, or, in the case of the video chart, novelty: there are no other music video charts listed in WP:GOODCHARTS. is a "some guy's site" problem, and is listed at WP:BADCHARTS#Websites to avoid. You shouldn't be using any charts from under any circumstances.—Kww(talk) 03:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the Polish dance chart is now being archived, but, unfortunately, it's on a biweekly basis. I'll add it when I can figure out how to describe it.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, K; somehow I completely overlooked the link in GOODCHARTS. For one thing, it said "Nielsen", which was very non-Polishy after all the Przymbleczky stuff I'd been looking at, so I guess I ignored it. Also, I didn't even realize we had an Airplay column in the table. I'm forever getting to the middle of the table and thinking, "OK, the singles are to the left, then albums, then certs, no wait: or was it, albums, then singles, then certs? Thanks for your patience. There are none so blind as those who can ask for help from somebody smarter. Or something. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Double-sided hits

What would be the best method to handle double-sided hits? For instance, a look at Razzy Bailey's discography shows that he had a few songs where both the A-side and B-side went to #1 — namely, "I Keep Coming Back"/"True Life Country Music" and "Friends"/"Anywhere There's a Jukebox." I spoke to Razzy about this last week and he said it means that stations were playing both sides, but it was treated as one single on the charts. What's the best way to list these, both in the single articles and discography? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 15:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Well the usual thing to do is if a single (containing two songs e.g. a double A-side like Leona Lewis "Better in Time" / Footprints in the Sand") is released in the discography both songs should appear as in the first example. However if only one of the songs was the a-side hence the other being the b-side then only the a-side appears.

In the second example, "A Moment Like This" is the A-side (the actual song released) and so only it appears in the discography. However if its b-side (a cover of "Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word") had charted then that should appear on "A Moment Like This"'s page. Normally b-side songs should not be given their own page unless they meet WP:NSONGS criteria per usual. They certainly should not be treated as seperate releases from their respective a-side singles. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Most sources list them with a slash, as they currently are in Razzy's discography. There's still the question; what should the article's name be? Just the name of the A-side? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yup. Songs released as an A-side with a B-side should always be called just by their A-side. Where it is a double a-side it should be called "Song 1 / Song 2". However if in the cases of "Better in Time" and "Footprints in the Sand" or "Million Dollar Bill" and "I Look to You" the song/single is only dual release in some cases and not in others its best to have seperate articles - inline with WP:NSONGS. And per MOS:DISCOG the whole point of a discography is to list all the songs which were released independently of the album not all of the charting songs an artist has. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think this is a more interesting and nuanced and not easily pinned-down issue than the responses belie.

Firstly, the OP asked a question specifically about B-side chartings, and the answer given related to Double A-sides that could not have charted independently versus B-sides that did not chart, which is not in any manner an answer to the question.

Wikipedia apparently has a policy wherein we ostensibly write articles not about singles but about songs. This means that if artist X writes a song that is released as a single, and artist Y covers that song and releases it as a single, then artist Y's cover is addressed in the article about artist X's song. There are any number of good arguments against this approach, but if this is Wikipedia's approach, we can accept that. As we accept that, we have to then recognize that a different song that charts for an artist—which as a charting song would have been notable enough to deserve its own article if the A-side of the single it was on did not exist—that different song warrants its own different article.

This issue is complicated by the fact that there are music markets and music charts where the chart methodology is only one factor of that single's success (only sales, or only airplay). By using the UK chartings of Leona Lewis as your example, you're choosing a chart that is a sales-only chart, where obviously there's no measure of the relative success of any individual song on that single, and inherently a B-side cannot chart on a sales-only chart. It is the whole product that charts in a sales-only chart, and the whole product of an A- and B-sided single is known by the A-side's title. If it is a double-A-side single, there is no B-side (three-plus-track singles notwithstanding), and of course both A-sides require mention in the title because that is the way it was marketed, equal prominence on the same product, regardless of whether one part of that marketing spurred more sales than the other. (In this sales-only example, the bottom line in a chart table is the whole product, and the whole product has two names, both A-sides'.) Conversely, when a chart is a radio-only chart, then a B-side (or the "other" A-side) only receives airplay and only bears qualifying in a charting-oriented discography table when the powers that be at radio stations decide to play it. (In this airplay-only example, the programmers may choose to ignore the marketing, and the bottom line in a charting-oriented discography table isn't what the product was named but which song earned that airplay.)

If radio decides to play a record's B-side (which is a different situation than a single that is marketed as a double A-side whether the public receives it as such or not), that is the B-side of the same single—and would justifiably be handled in an article about that single if articles about singles are what we published here at Wikipedia—but it is also a different song, and given that articles are not about singles, and instead about songs, it is justifiable to handle in a different article about that different song. You can argue all you want that a radio programmer only played the B-side because nothing else was available and there was a demand for more material by the hit artist, but then quite often an artist's major hit, in incredible demand, is followed up by a single absolutely rejected by radio and/or listeners, for whatever reasons not the least of which is that they'd still prefer to hear the prior hit.

The responses bespeak another misunderstanding, and it's probably the result of a combination of ethnocentrism and recentism endemic to this page, given that the examples cited are all Leona Lewis UK chartings. In a chart whose methodology is or includes radio airplay, the airplay for a B-side is not necessarily going to be equal to the airplay to that record's A-side, nor is it necessarily going to have the same chart trajectory. In other words, the two songs may both be played immediately upon release, or the A-side may peak before the B-side is turned to, no pun intended, or the B-side may actually be preferred by radio, and it's the B-side that actually gets initial or higher or even the only airplay points and thus a higher chart peak.

Further to the recentism angle, with points we have another problem: isolate a single country, say the U.S. instead of the UK as the U.S. has a more comprehensive methodology, and isolate a single source, say Billboard as it's currently the unrivaled chart company here, and isolate a single chart, say the Hot Country charts, as it was actually the chart relevant to the artist the OP was asking about, and you still have a highly complex manner of determining charting, one that has changed over the years, sometimes fairly arbitrary and sometimes highly technical, but which nevertheless we should consider, how the chart compiler handles the facts of how the product is marketed vs. how it is played at radio.

Chart methodology is not the same across all of a single organization's charts at the same time nor in a single chart throughout history, and has changed several times. Using my primary frame of reference, the Hot 100, there have been rules that a song has to be removed from the chart after X number of weeks and X degree of drop-off from its peak, regardless of whether it still has enough "points"—meaning sales and/or airplay figures combined and then compared relative to other singles actively marketed at the time which have not so fallen past the cutoff point—that it would otherwise deserve to chart. It's not clear that the approach to B-side chartings has always been consistent, nor what it was at any given time in history (which is the only thing that is relevant to a particular record's charting), nor that it was the same on all charts published by Billboard at a given time. (For example, the mix of sales and airplay has not always been equal across the three primary charts of Hot 100, Hot Country and Hot R&B/Black/Hip-Hop in a given week.) But I can tell you as my anecdotal recollection (you'll have to find a ref supporting it) that at one point the way it was handled on the Hot 100 was that the question of whether sales points were separate or combined was essential to how it was treated on the charts. If a B-side received airplay concurrent with the charting of the A-side then they were combined as one single with two sides recognized but one position. My recollection is that if a B-side charted after the A-side has fallen off the chart, the single was treated as a completely different title, because essentially the whole single begins to sell again on the strength of the second song, and is recognized as two positions.

If we're going to use UK acts as an example, I would offer "We Are the Champions" and "We Will Rock You", two different songs written by the same band, Queen, tracked consecutively on the same album, and released as a single's A- and B-sides, respectively. As two distinctive songs, each with distinct styles, meanings and histories, each deserves its own article. Indeed, with "We Will Rock You" as the B-side to "We Are the Champions", it would be not only jarring but counterintuitive and inappropriate to find the boyband Five's UK #1 cover of Queen's B-side song in an article titled after (and so ostensibly about) Queen's A-side song. Indeed, Five's cover is irrelevant to the song "We Are the Champions", regardless of how that song was initially marketed. It is, however, a notable part of the history of "We Will Rock You" (it charted one point higher on the UK chart than the original). This, I think, is a better example of why songs deserve their own articles regardless of how they are marketed, yet even as these songs do have their separate articles, they are mentioned in the Queen discography#Singles in the same field, separated by a slash mark, as this is how the industry responded to such releases when acknowledging their chartings. To my point of a few paragraphs earlier, most U.S. DJs who played both songs played them not only concurrently, but consecutively, resulting in a single chart peak.

Full disclosure, I don't recall ever having edited any of the articles I cite as examples.

Directly to the OP, I'd determine if the U.S. Country chart you're citing included airplay points during the period(s) those B-sides charted (it's inconceivable to me that they wouldn't have, or why else would a B-side have charted?). If you can't do this (or in its stead) you can incorporate logic and reason to arrive at the answer. Obviously if the chart peak date is the same for both titles, then the methodology is combining the airplay of the two songs as well as the sales points. In this case the songs should be combined with a slash in a single field and their single combined peak must be noted only once, and unless there is historical (prior or since, not necessarily for the duration of that particular release) variance to the articles, the songs could be covered in a single article. (There's no point in creating two distinct song articles if they're only going to be two stubs sitting there mirroring one another.) If the chart peak date is different for the two titles, then the methodology is obviously separating the airplay of the two songs. In this case I would separate the two in different fields in the artist discography. If their chart history is on the same chart and there is no additional history to either song separate from that release, it makes sense to address the B-side only in the A-side's article. If the two songs' chart history is different and there is additional history to one or the other song, it makes sense to address the different songs' different histories in different articles. Abrazame (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Chart format

I was just wondering, why can't a chart have a seperate 'refs' column like this...

Chart Peak
Australian Albums Chart 1 [5]
Argentina CAPIF 1 -
Canadian Albums Chart 1 [5]

I'm not complaining that it can't be like this, I'm just wondering why. Thanks! Zylo1994 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because it's inconsistent with the existing ones, and doesn't serve much of a purpose. It would be best if the reference was next to the position, but that interferes with making charts sortable. We've compromised on putting the chart reference next to the chart name. It also doesn't expand well: if the chart has a certification column, would you add a new column for certification references?—Kww(talk) 06:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultratop Music DVD chart

Hello. I am facing a problem while accessing the Ultratop Music DVD links. For the present week, the link seems to be present. But if I click on the link for the previous week, it generates a unique link, but nothing seems to be present in it. Can anyone shed any light on this? Regards, --Legolas (talk2me) 11:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

&lang=nl is required at the end of the URL, i.e. 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Kevin. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Musikindustrie dead again?

Is the German certification link dead again or is it just me? --Legolas (talk2me) 12:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be dead :S Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
URL change: . Fixing in WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you got the page to show up (and good detective work, that). Have any of you gotten the search to actually turn up results? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried searching for any Beyonce or Whitney Houston certifications but it didn't appear to work. Hmm... more thorough testing is required. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to execute

Its so frustrating, is it just me or does "Commander" no appear in Kelly Rowland's artist history? The source at shows that the song charted on the European Hot 100 here but i can't cross reference it manually because it appears to be lower region of chart which isn't published online and surprise surprise lovely doesnt have the song in her artist history. Any ideas anyone? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty common problem. It got credited to "Kelly Rowland featuring David Guetta", and then got lost. It isn't accessible through either artist. If you have a range of dates on the European Hot 100, I might be able to figure out a ref that will show it, even in the low positions that they try to hide.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well according to it appears that the song first charted for the chart dated July 2, 2010. That puts the dates at somewhere between 21 June 2010 to the current day. Also is there anyway of finding Australian positions above 50? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Here you go: debuted at position 59 this week. I don't know an automated way to search Pandora. I've looked for one, but can't figure one out.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I despise that site. That link worked when I posted it.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Here you go: a stable version that won't fade and come back: 17:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Kevin!, Does Pandora at least archive the full Top 100? I can search for Commander manually by date then. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the full 100, and also things like the Australian Urban chart.—Kww(talk) 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Promises, promises. Well, Lil-unique1 seems satisfied, although I don't see "Commander" (or Kelly Rowland at all, for that matter) on that page. Is it my outdated eyeglass prescription, or did Billboard change the page again since you posted it? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It still works for me: it should be a listing of the 10 highest gainers on the European Hot 100 for July 2, 2010. "All the Lovers" in position 4, "Kickstarts" in 11, ......, "Commander" in position 59.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope. For me it's disappeared. A different list of songs now comes up Kevin. Same as John was saying :S Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. What is the date on the chart you are getting, and what is the list? This is insane, but there has to be a way to make a stable URL.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Now it's happening to me. Looks like the availability of the July 2 chart is sporadic, and when it can't find it, it offers up the June 26 chart without complaining. Let's wait a few days and see if the site finally figures out what day it is. I can't believe they replaced a good site with such a piece of crap.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


I ask for don't remove Crowley Broadcast Analisys in charts, because it is an official institution of research. So is not a BAD charts, is a good charts. Vitor Mazuco Msg 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Added a note with some warnings to WP:GOODCHARTS. It mystifies me why an advanced country like Brazil can't manage to have one reliable chart website, but Billboard is proving that the US can't manage it either.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

#1 albums categories

Why do we have categories for #1 singles (eg, in "Girlfriend," Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles/Number-one singles in New Zealand) but no categories for #1 albums? (eg, in The Best Damn Thing, no categories for the Billboard 200 albums, etc). It can't be that in Wikipedia's entire history that nobody ever attempted to create such pages, but I honestly can't see why such categories would've been deleted. Can someone point me to the discussion on why they don't exist? --Prosperosity (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempts have been made and they have been deleted in CFD, stating that a list approach is better suited than categories. These lists do exist and you can find them in Category:Lists of number one albums. Part of the rationale against categorizing albums is that they are non-defining in the sense that there is no relationship between one number-one album and the next. As an exaggerated example, one album can sell 5,000 copies and be a number one album as long as that is more than any other album that week. Another album may have to sell 200,000 copies just to be number one because a few other albums released sold over 100,000 copies each in the same time period. Also, many albums will debut at number one and fall off drastically in the immediate weeks. Many number-one albums turn out to be poor-selling albums overall. Another is overcategorization, particularly for albums that reach number in a multitude of countries. Is there going to be a category needed for every country? I've heard about if you're going to have a category for number ones, why shouldn't there be a category for number twos, and so on.
These are reasons that you would think would apply to number-one song categories as well, but the main difference is number-one album categories have been taken to CFD and deleted by consensus while the song categories haven't. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Using Billboard Charts in Discog.

Just wandering is there an approved abbreviation for the U.S. Hot Dance Club Songs chart when using in discography pages?

One user suggested U.S. D/CP → Short of U.S. Hot Dance/Club Play, which I personally disapprove of as the current incarnation of the chart is different.

I am currently using U.S. DAN but I wonder if U.S. DCS or something else would be more appropriate? Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about US Dance/Club? or US [[Hot Dance Club Songs|Dance/<br/>Club]], so that it breaks and isn't too wide?
When it comes to anything more exotic than Hot 100 or R&B, I think we have to make our own judgment (sort of case-by-case), since it appears to be slightly different in every such table I come to. They get pretty wide sometimes, so I tend to toss out "Hot" and "Songs" and keep the differentiating bits. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Year Single Peak chart positions Album
2010 "Need You Now" 1 1 1 1 1 Need You Now
"American Honey" 1 1 1 1 1
"Our Kind of Love" 1 1 1 1 1
  • I use 'Dance' which I like the best, but I also like 'D/CS'. I don't like the fourth option, it's too much. Nowyouseemetalk2me 08:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    I use the first one and the third one occassionally, except I don't capitalized DAN, I just use US Dan. The second one doesn't make sense to me at all, and the fourth one, I agree is too much. The fifth and final one is redundant to me since the chart is long Dance/Club Songs. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    I think the first one is the best, and if not that then one of the ones that uses DCS (with or w/ out the slash). And I definitely think DAN looks really stupid, and the Dance/Club is a bit long. CloversMallRat (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    I disagree. I think that US Dan is most appropriate. The chart has undergone much renaming over the last few years and a lot of people are still confused over the correct name. It is something I explored very much when introducing WP:USCHARTS. My issue is that MOS:DISCOG shows (and the GA / FA equivalent of discogs) that the columns should be equally aligned, clearly showing the information present. US Dan seems most appropriate to me because it is almost immediately obvious its the Dance Chart. The others could be confusing and lets not forget that wikipedia is worldwide not just in the US. Billboard Charts are already confusing enough for non-US editors. --00:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
All you have to do is change the widths of the columns from '25', to '30' or '35', to make them equal size and fit 'Dance'. I think '25' is small anyway. I'm confused as to why you even asked this question to begin with, at the top you specifically asked other editors which version of 'Dance' is best, and then below now you are stating that you think your original way is most appropriate? So why even ask if you aren't even open to opinions, and think your way is right? Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And by width=25 im referring to the article you are engaged in an edit war with, Kelly Rowland discography. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • sighs* perhaps its cus I'm tired by comments were not clear. I asked if my suggest was more appropriate. Now I've commented based on the information provided and taking into account other editors opinions. No one loves creating drama on wikipedia... but I asked other editors opinions to see what else was being used on wikipedia and to see if there is a general consensus or guideline for what should be used. It appears there isn't although there is some support for the first and third examples which confirms that using the US Dan is an appropriate way to attribute/abbreviate the chart. Without being rude myself I don't understand why there is a need to be rude by assuming that I am not open for opinions. I didnt ask for someone to come up with a solution I merely wanted to see what other editors do in the same situation in the absense of a guideline. This is exactly why I campaigned for clarity on Billboard Charts. I took other people's opinions on board but see that there is nothing wrong with my original suggestion. I am aware that you can increase column size but don't see the need to do so just to include a full word when there is support for an abbreviation. I don't want to fall out over something trivial but your last comment didnt seem to assume much WP:good faith. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's very unfortunate that you saw my comment as rude, I don't see it as rude and didn't mean for it to be. I am not happy with you accusing me of assuming bad faith, because I wasn't, I think that's a little out of line. Nowyouseemetalk2me 02:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And its unfortunate that you are unhappy with that. I am not out to offend anyone. I've left a more direct response on your talk page. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


This page for the CRIA certifications hasn't been updated since May, does anyone know of another site that has June and/or July? Nowyouseemetalk2me 08:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is great progress. Up until lately, the CRIA site has been completely useless for certs of any kind (they were "working on it" for months). Let them have some time to get the latest info up. And anyway, how often/how fast do they certify stuff in Canada? I would be entirely unsurprised if a CRIA staffer told me that there's nothing for July to post yet anyway. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No need to be rude, it was just a simple question, I'm not an expert on Canadian certifications. Nowyouseemetalk2me 10:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came across as rude; I certainly didn't mean it that way. I was just excited to discover that Canadian certs can be looked up/backed up at all.
And now, having taken another look, I've decided I may be off base here anyway, as it appears the pages of old certs (your link) has been active all this time (and I didn't realize it), while the page that lets us search for so-and-so artist or such-and-such song is what's been under construction forever. In which case, no cause for rejoicing, really, although you have helped me find a resource I can now use (albeit less efficiently than if the search worked). And, obviously, I'm not an expert on Canadian certifications, either. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Singles Chart

I have recently noticed an increase in the number of song articles which make reference to the Scottish Singles Chart, apparently it's been around since 2001 yet I personally have only just heard of it lately. Is anyone else in agreement that the Scottish Singles Chart should be listed under the 'Bad Chart' criteria, I understand that it is sourced, but what makes it more important than single sales solely in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and until this changes I see no reason why this particular chart should be emphasised on Wikipedia - what's next North Yorkshire Singles Chart?!?! Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it should only be used for songs that haven't charted in the UK Singles or Albums Charts. In fact I thought we had already decided on that. AnemoneProjectors 20:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
^ I second the comments above. The Scottish Singles Chart is a component of the UK Singles Chart however rather than a genre component its classified as a regional component. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I would slightly digress with you two. This situation feels like saying that lets not include France in the chart tables, since its a part of the European Hot 100, isn't it? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't "slightly" disagree. I disagree whole-heartedly and without reservation. The Scottish Singles Chart is not a component chart. It is calculated in the same way as the UK Singles Chart, but is restricted in geographic scope. Legolas2186's analogy is correct: the Scottish Singles Chart is to the UK Singles Chart as the French Singles Chart is to the European Hot 100.—Kww(talk) 11:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Amplifying a bit: Scotland is a country. North Lancashire is not. If there was an English Singles Chart, I would support including it. I can't think of another situation where we exclude a reliably sourced and archived chart that covers an entire country.—Kww(talk) 11:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, Scotland is a country WITHIN a country (namely the UK which already has a national chart) whereas France is a country within a continent (much like Brazil and Argentina are separate countries within the continent of South America). There is a world of difference here, and until Scotland ever obtain national independence, they are still part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Scottish singles and albums charts are only components of the UK charts and their sales tally is collected and included in the UK listings made by the Official Charts Company. It's little more than just a regional demographic, and as such they should not be used separately unless a record only charted on the Scottish charts (such as a limited local release by a local Scottish band). This is similar to the rule Wikipedia uses for the various US Billboard charts. (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Except that it is not a component in the same sense that Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 Sales are components of the Billboard Hot 100. You can't weight the position on the Scottish Singles Chart and add it to a weighted position on some other chart to generate the UK Singles Chart. It's generated by screening and filtering the data by location of sale or airplay, much like the genre charts that we happily allow. Since that location does correspond to a country, it still seems unreasonable to exclude it. The relationship of countries and kingdoms is complex (as I grew to appreciate living in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, where three countries are about to become four), and it's not for us to say that some countries are real countries and some are not.—Kww(talk) 06:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with national politics or boundaries. Nobody is saying Scotland is not a real country, but it is still a country within a country and the larger country (the UK) already has a comprehensive chart. This is not called the English chart, or the England and Wales chart, it is the UK chart. The Official UK Charts Company compile the UK chart each week based on sales and downloads from all over the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland. However, the sales data from the three television regions of the UK that cover Scotland and the far north of England are also used to create an additional listing which becomes the Scottish chart. It's a relatively recent listing but it is really nothing more than a regional demographic that is useful for record companies and radio stations. In fact it isn't really even entirely Scottish since the Borders television region includes the far north of England as well as the south of Scotland. The OCC's official website states all of this. It's not quite the same as the way in which the Hot 100 Airplay and Sales are components of the Billboard 100, and perhaps calling the Scottish chart a "sub-division" of the UK chart rather than a component is more accurate, but it is certainly not a genre chart nor is it comparable to one. The same priciples that we use for component charts for inclusion on Wikipedia should apply here otherwise we will be giving undue weight to certain artist discographies by effectively counting their sales twice. As said earlier, if for some reason a record only sells in Scottish retail outlets and therefore it charts on the Scottish chart but not the full UK chart, then by all means it should be included (preferably with a note to clarify it was a limited regional release if this is applicable). Furthermore, as a slight aside, all record sales in Scotland are included in the certifications process by the British Phonographic Industry (Scotland does not have its own separate record industry organisation) which helps to clarify the issue of relationships and borders in this instance. (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the Scottish Charts should be used either, except for the rare circumstances which have been mentioned above. Whether people want to see it as a component or (as the last poster put it) a subsection, the fact remains that the sales data used to compile this chart is just from the same overall data used to compile the main UK chart. The issue of "undue weight" is also a relevant problem because by including the Scottish chart in a discography table where there is already a UK chart cell, we are essentially duplicating data. To use the most recent number 1 albums in the UK, Kylie Minogue's "Aphrodite" album reached number 1 in the UK chart, narrowing outselling Eminem's "Recovery" which was the number 1 album the week before (Eminem's album returned to the no.1 spot a week after Kylie). But there is also a separate entry on Kylie's album chart table for Scotland (in which the album reached no.1 as well) even though sales in Scotland were already counted as part of the UK chart. Had the Scottish chart been completely separate from the UK chart, Kylie's album may not have reached number 1 in the UK chart. Therefore this "double dipping" adds undue weight (most likely by over-zealous Kylie fans) to make it appear that she has accomplished more than she actually has. Don't get me wrong, I love Kylie, but this is Wikipedia, people, not a Kylie fansite. Soultruck (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)