Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Sourcing in example charts

One thing just struck my eye: the sample charts in WP:Record charts haven't got any references. Any objections if I install reference tags next to every position in the example charts? We need to reinforce to people that you must source all figures, and the references need to be next to the figure sourced (not at the table head or next to the chart name).—Kww(talk) 11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Had the same thought myself actually. Thanks for bringing it up. – IbLeo (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is such a good idea... It looks crowded and, also, a reader who is not familiar with Wikipedia formatting may be confused as to wich number is the actual peak (the written one or the one from the reference). I think it is better if the source is listed next to the name of the chart.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this notion, next to the chart would be preferred. More readable, doesn't clash with other numbers - either way, definitely need citations in there somewhere. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Two arguments. The first is philosophical: the reference goes next to the information being derived from the reference. No one is sourcing the existence of the Lower Slobovian Singles Chart, they are sourcing the position on the chart. The second is that it gets confused with the instructions about how to notate an alternate version of the same song, which involves putting superscripted numbers next to the chart name.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Third argument: The trend in articles about recent hit albums is to incorporate the certifications (and sometimes sales figures) into the same table as the chart positions. (Which, after all, I think is a most reasonable thing to do as those things are highly related. Why don't we have any guidelines for this? Okay, let's leave that for another discussion, it is out-of-scope here). See for example 21st Century Breakdown, Life for Rent, Working on a Dream, Number Ones (Michael Jackson album), and Only by the Night. I think it is highly illogical and confusing that while the references for the certification are placed on the certification itself, the reference for the chart position is placed on the chart name. I would definitely prefer to see it on the chart position. – IbLeo (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorting with references included

Well, there is an issue that's come to light that makes this worthy of fresh discussion. Compare the sortable table here and here, and try to sort each table by position. The difference is the inclusion of the "sort" macro. Sorts fine with no references in the figure column. I guess the real question is whether we expect people to sort by position, or just by name.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you would think people would be curious as to where a release went number one - so I would say yeah they would sort by position. It's a bit far-fetched to make people put the sort template in every single table. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Billboard's charts aren't renamed at all?

This is an interesting email I received from Billboard's Silvio Pietroluongo. I didn't write to him specifically but I emailed Billboard to bitch about how their (subscription-only) .biz site still has all the old chart names and that chart data there seems to always get updated late, as opposed to the (free) .com website which is nice and revamped and pretty and interactive, displaying all the new chart names (I still hadn't had my coffee yet that morning and I was pissy). This is what he wrote back (emphasis added by me):

"...The charts on .biz do not necessarily have old names. We tweaked the names of some charts on .com to make them more understandable to visitors to that site who are more consumer-oriented and might not be as chart savvy as our longtime readers. The chart names in the print addition of Billboard mirror .biz for the most part. So there are some charts that are referred to differently depending on where you view them...."

So I don't know whether to revert articles to their previous titles? Any thoughts about this? - eo (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Have they said any such thing in the .com site anywhere? Then probably we can just add the new names in the original articles and link to the line that they have tweaked the names of some charts on .com to make them more understandable to visitors to that site who are more consumer-oriented and might not be as chart savvy as our longtime readers. For eg in the Hot 100 Airplay article we can insert a line saying that on the .com site the chart is known as Radio Songs and then add the reference. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we can stick to one source with this, needs to be taken on a case by case basis. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, but then which source do we use? Billboard.com or Billboard.biz? If .biz is supposedly for the "chart savvy readers" then shouldn't those chart titles be used? Legolas's idea of mentioning the "alternate" name make sense, although a personal email I received from Pietroluongo can hardly be used as a source for the explanation. - eo (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks merger

Discussion has been minimal for 2 weeks, need some more eyes on the issue. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Album component charts

About: "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart."

For singles the digital chart and genre charts are usually accepted and the page says "song" instead of "album". Can that be clarified? I was asked whether to include a digital albums chart in an article. Hekerui (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it should probably say "release". Digital albums charts are okay to include, as long as it hasn't charted on the main chart (that the digital chart is used to calculate). For example; Album X has not charted on the Billboard 200, so it is okay to add its peak at 35 on the Billboard Digital Albums chart - if it reaches the Billboard 200 however, remove the Digital Albums peak. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Kiac's altercation of the guideline. I've seen many digital album charts in tables while the album charted—or even topped—the Billboard 200. Digital album charts should be treated just as equally as digital song charts (though "component chart" may need a redefinition here). — Σxplicit 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Also agree - the concept of "component" should also apply to album charts. - eo (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitparadeitalia

Hitparadeitalia.it is sometimes used as source for the Italian charts in songs articles. However, after a comparison with Italiancharts.com, it appears that Hitparadeitalia doesn't provide the FIMI chart positions (their lists are different). I think it should be listed as WP:BADCHARTS. Europe22 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The website doesn't seem to be linked FIMI in any way. Reading over a horrible translation page, it doesn't seem that they use any proper methodology. — Σxplicit 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
They seem to be based on a defunct magazine's charts for their earlier charts, and no indication of what they do now. Google says that there are no links to their site, and even Italian Wikipedia makes little use of it. Where they do use it, it is for very old songs, apparently predating the FIMI's electronic database. I tend to agree that it should go on WP:BADCHARTS. I'll add it tomorrow if no dissent occurs.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Billboard.com updates, causes problems

I noticed this morning that Billboard updated their website, both cosmetically and the change in URL (it's now www.billboard.com/#/ as opposed to www.billboard.com/bbcom/index.jsp). Unfortunately, with their update, several pages are now dead links (Error 404), including artist chart histories, individual chart peaks and probably much more. This is going to be hell trying to repair this links, but I thought I'd bring this to the attention of those who aren't aware of the change. — Σxplicit 18:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC) All their articles are also dead links. They really screwed us over. — Σxplicit 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. - eo (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What we really need is a way to have a bot do this for us. I'm trying to think of a way, but everyone concerned should ponder the problem.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that as well, but it might not be possible. For example, the artist chart history I posted above was Aaliyah's. The "ID" number for her chart information is 36610. The problem with the new system is that they have divided the different type of charts. For example, they now have a separate URL for chart, one for the Billboard 200, one for Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, etc. Since all tables are differently organized (some have one U.S. chart while others have more), a bot wouldn't be able to do determine something so complex. As far as the Billboard articles go, those don't seem to be comparable; for example, this URL is significantly different from this one. These will definitely need to be done by hand. And on a different note, I can't seem to locate the component charts anywhere on the site. I may have missed them, but this could be yet another problem. — Σxplicit 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I keep thinking of something semi-automatic, where we could put something in the chart like {{chartname|song name|artist name}}, and it would expand into the correct reference. At least that way, we'd only have to do a mass change once.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The only semi-automatic I'm thinking of is the gun I want to put to my head after realizing the scope of this task. - eo (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that Billboard.com isn't archiving its "Bubbling Under" charts right now, creating a roadblock for verifiability. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol at eric. But seriously, even a number of charts have been completely renamed: like Hot 100 Airplay to Radio Songs, Top 40 Mainstream to Pop songs. Also, component charts like Dance Airplay or any other airplay and sales chart have completely vanished as well as the news archives. God! --Legolas (talk2me) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
My solution is to declare Billboard unreliable and delete all reference to it from Wikipedia. I think a bot could fairly easily take care of that task! (perhaps the next step is to create a policy doing away with all record chart type material?) ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Might as well delete all the songs. On a serious note, I don't believe that bots will be able to do it, when there is so much of difference in the URLs itself. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to scale the problem, per this search, there are current 25,133 links to billboard.com from Wikipedia. Maybe the answer is to beg Billboard for help.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is going to fall on deaf ears. Billboard never listens to anybody, at least my experience says so. Grrrr. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... umm. I think we may as well shoot ourselves in the head. I first pondered this happening when the BPI screwed us over, but man... this is devastating. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Good news: they released an API to get data from the site. It probably won't be fun, but using the API to develop a set of macros and bots to deal with this should be possible. We are going to have to find someone that really enjoys a challenge, though.—Kww(talk) 04:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
How does this API work. Grrr, for me the API doesnot open even though the actual Billbaord site is still opening. Anybody worked on it? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to make up a new table for what's what. New charts are popping up like Rock Songs, then we also have Hot Alternative Tracks and as said before, they've changed Top 40 Mainstream to just Pop Songs, does this mean it now incorporates sales or what?! k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget "Active Rock" and "Heritage Rock".... "Rock Songs" being a combination of Alternative, Active and Heritage. The Billboard articles in general need to be majorly cleaned now that R&R has been blended in. There is also a new "Heatseekers" singles chart which is similar to the Heatseekers Album chart. And it would certainly be nice if their websites reflected these changes, rather than having to see them only in the print editions. Their pay website (billboard.biz) still lists all the old charts with their old names, which is kind of ridiculous at this point. - eo (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed the links for the singles charts on Radiohead discography and Phoenix (band), so at least those two things are done. Also, a few artists' discographies like Pink Floyd and The Who link to Allmusic instead of Billboard because it uses the same information (but unlike Billboard's site, features chart positions from before 1987). I think that's also an alternative for Billboard chart peaks (from at least before this year because they don't have Modern Rock/Alternative chart information on songs like "1901" by Phoenix) for now (at least for me. Newer chart peaks, like the afformentioned Phoenix single, i'll use Billboard's new site). Well at least I know what i'm spending my weekend doing! Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen Allmusic as incomplete. Not as in an artist is missing certain chartings in a particular chart, as in some artists are just plain out missing entire charts they have featured in - that Allmusic would have usually covered.
I can see that. In fact, Billboard and Allmusic now no longer list the song "The Only One" by The Cure as charting on the Modern Rock/Alternative chart, when it indeed did last year. I don't know what's up with that one, for instance.
That above comment about The Cure is mine. I seemed to have not signed it. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Fezmar actually mentioned to me that perhaps that new Heatseeker Songs chart is the Bubbling Under Chart, anyone know if this is possible? If no, who would be against using Internet Archive to recover some Bubbling Under Charts? Is it worth it? I think for some singles it would be for notability. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... Well "Ain't No Rest for the Wicked" by Cage the Elephant is currently on both the Billboard Hot 100 and this new Heatseeker chart, and "Panic Switch" by Silversun Pickups, which previously appeared on the Billboard Hot 100 is also on the chart. I don't know if Bubbling Under = Heatseeker Singles, but if it has, they've certainly changed the rules around. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
They are not the same. Billboard had the explanation on it, although I can't remember if I read it online or in print. It is basically the same concept as the Heatseekers album chart — artists who have never been above #50 (I think) are eligible and once a song reaches that peak all of that artist's songs are removed. And it has nothing to do with that artist's album ranks.... so someone could have a #1 album but still be on the Heatseekers songs chart if they never had a big single. - eo (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
They're not "removed" it's that after they appear in the Billboard Hot 100, they can't appear in the Heatseekers Songs chart again. Also, Billboard left this site up. The charts, like the Billboard Hot 100 are all updated to this week's (and probably will keep being updated), but the artists chart pages won't be updated again, apparently. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually they are removed, just as they would be on the albums list. For example, if a Heatseekers album climbs above 100 on the Billboard 200, it is "removed" from Heatseekers immediately - it doesn't stay on the Heatseekers chart for the length of its run... it just stays on the main chart. Same for the Heatseekers songs. - eo (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but those two songs I mentioned (by Cage the Elephant and Silversun Pickups) are still on the Heatseekers singles chart. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Right.... because those two bands have yet to climb above position X on the Hot 100 (I think it is 50). Once that happens, they'll be gone from Heatseekers. - eo (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Reading the description in both Heatseekers Songs and Heatseekers albums, it seems that songs and albums that don't reach the top 100 can chart in these charts. — Σxplicit 19:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Another problem to watch out for. See: North by Something Corporate, which apparently charted at #5 on the Jazz Albums chart. It's not a Jazz Album, and well, Elvis Costello's North was in fact the charting that it's referring to. Well done Billboard, can't even decipher two completely different albums. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the amazing problems above

As it was pointed out, Billboard has altered and added various new charts. There are several issues that need to be sorted here. For example, we need to track down the charts that were simply renamed and modify the guideline accordingly; we also have to take note of the new charts and figure out which are component charts and which aren't—skimming, I see a Mexico chart, tropical chart (whatever the hell that is), and Yahoo! and AOL charts (I'm sure these two will fall under the "do not list" pile). I'm also seeing additional problems—peak positions are not lining up as they should be. For example, this says that the album Jeremih peaked at number 15, when in reality, it peaked number six. Not sure how far this extends, but will definitely be a problem if they have the peaks completely wrong. — Σxplicit 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be trusting Billboard with the UK charts at this stage, we're still working out the simplest charts. We need to create an entire list of the Billboard charts, put it in a dropdown list of hideable list or something and shove it on the Policy page. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You probably read an early reporting of the sales and charting for Jeremih, which in my experience have only been accurate about half the time. Billboard releases new charts on Thursdays, and typically a few days before that, sources will publish various charts, but for some reason they are occasionally wrong. For example, on October 8, 2009 (a Wednesday) Blabbermouth.net published here that Declaration peaked at number 101, but then the following day Billboard listed the same album with a debut of 104 here. This was just the first example to come to mind, but I have seen it many times. I think it's just best to wait for Billboard's charts. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
But it's Billboard's own site that's wrong (with itself, if that makes sense). The first link clearly states that on the Billboard 200, it "peaked" at #15, and last week it was at #6. The second link is also using Billboard stats. SKS (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Although I'm not a reliable source, the album did in fact debut at number six. I've also begun to compile the new Billboard inclusion chart, for those who are are willing to go through the charts. — Σxplicit 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you were talking about. Well, if you go to the artist's chart history on Billboard here it is listed as #6. It also shows a peak of #6 if you launch "The Visualizer" from the floating sidebar here. It looks like the website just has "peak" confused with "last week's position" on the album page. Maybe just a bug with new site? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think I got all of the charts listed, but I didn't finished the inclusion part. — Σxplicit 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Straightening out the facts re: "Rock Songs" chart

I just did some quick lookups on allmusic.com and billboard.com for Green Day single chart stats. I compared the two sites, and it turns out that "Rock Songs" = Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, and "Alternative Songs" = Hot Modern Rock Tracks. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The "Rock Songs" chart gets its information from airplay from alternative, active rock and triple-A radio stations instead of just Active Rock like Mainstream Rock. But I think that they did indeed merge the history of Mainstream Rock Tracks in this new Rock Songs chart. Alternative Songs, however, is indeed Modern Rock Tracks with a different name. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as Billboard stories go, I've pretty much figured out the change in URLs. Basically, all you need is the ID number from the stories. Below is a list of examples on how things work. (Note: changes in new URL will be in bold)

Cover story
Chart Beat
Hot Product

In a nutshell, here are the changes:

  • /bbcom/ → /#/
  • /esearch/ → /news/
  • article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= → title of the article separated by hyphens. The URL only includes the letters of the alphabet—punctuation is completely omitted. Anything titled "hot product" or "chart beat" stays as simple as that in the URL plus the ID and ending with .story.

I have no clue how to get a bot running to do this, I'm no bot expert… or bot beginner at that. If anyone knows how or can ask someone else to set this up, we can get this replacement done at a much faster rate. I'm not touching discographies though, those get too complex. — Σxplicit 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, but I noticed that for reviews its not the same. The original url for a, suppose, single review has a big chunk like "sjidfhksjfghwehfwuehwhguwehguhweugew" but in the new one it is simply replaced by a concrete number. Hence I don't know how reviews can be updated. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you happen to have any examples? The only review I can get my hands on at the moment is for Battlefield (old, new). Both links seem to work fine. — Σxplicit 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I faced the situation while updating the dead bb links for Miles Away. The old bb link for the Hard Candy review was this but now it changed to this. The numbers at the end are significantly different. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any relation with the two links—the first link is a random string of characters, while the second one has the ID number. Those will have to be done by hand. — Σxplicit 05:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Sigh! --Legolas (talk2me) 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this billboardmagazine site is going to stay live. It is stil being updated and is seemingly exactly the same as the old Billboard website, just with a different URL. If this stays live, we could use the Bot to do a simple url change from billboard.com to billboardmagazine.com and it'd be done with. Then we would probably have to still progressively change the url's manually to the updated website. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that seems to be updated are the charts, which is fine at this point. I wouldn't mind this solution as long as we continue to have access to billboardmagazine.com. — Σxplicit 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! I didn't notice that the URL was moved! I agree; the bot should change the dead link URL's if possible. I'll reinstate some quickly. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no...not again

Well, billboardmagazine.com died today, so only the "new" billboard site exists. The bubbling under charts and that good old chart search function are no longer here. :( Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's another option demolished by our great friends at Billboard. That means no Mainstream Rock and no Bubbling Under. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
They are really IRRITATING. :( --Legolas (talk2me) 03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Billboardmagazine.com now redirects to billboard.com. Component charts seem to be impossible to verify as well as year end charts from the past (I searched for them when this first began to no avail). We really are screwed. — Σxplicit 06:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
allmusic.com still has them all mirrored, right? Like they also have the old charts from before the Soundscan era. At least the peaks. Hekerui (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
They have defunct charts archived, like the Pop 100. They've never touched the component charts, though. — Σxplicit 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually allmusic does list the Rhythmic Top 40 and Top 40 Mainstream and other such Top 40 charts. I guess Billboard is trying to get profits off payments to view the Bubbling Under and such charts. Well it's a recession, but are they not aware of free content like Wikipedia?! :( And apparently there's no other website that'll host these charts for fear of copyright infringement I guess. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This is going to cause big problems. Is there any sources besides the one that was removed with archived Top Heatseekers charts? • вяαdcяochat 08:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Allmusic does, but I'm not sure their archiving covers 100%. Guess we have nothing to compare it too now though. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a blogger's archive of a Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart from October 2008. But that was when billboard actually had its great search function! Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of using a blog, honestly. There's no way to verify that those chart positions weren't messed around with. — Σxplicit 20:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ZoneMusicReporter as Criteria 2

Does anyone have a view on whether a ZoneMusicReporter chart satisfies Criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (music)? The chart - claiming to be a "Top 100 Radio Airplay Chart" - contains a list of what are to me very obscure songs indeed. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Zonemusicreporter was previously known as New Age Reporter (name change earlier this month) and is often cited in Wikipedia articles (FWIW). Their current chart includes Philip Glass and Tangerine Dream and is drawn from airplay data of broadcasters all around the world (list here [1] then click 'Select Stations/Playlist'). Many of the broadcasters have entries in Wikipedia. (Note: I am the subject of the article that Tagishsimon has put up for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Anthony_Jay so have a Wikipedia:Vested_interest) Burningpetals (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sadly there is no evidence beyond inference, that the list of stations in "[2] then click 'Select Stations/Playlist" actually contribute to the chart. Indeed, from a long trawl of the site, I cannot establish how many submissions go to make the any chart. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • That information is available, but (due to the value inherent in it), only to paid subscribers. Regardless, there aren't many charts in existence that give exact details of how they are compiled: otherwise, artists and record companies could effectively abuse the system. Burningpetals (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • The site may or may not be notable, but I would venture the chart is not usable in Wikipedia articles. Contrary to Burningpetals's statement, most legitimate charts do publish details of how the charts are compiled. The list of rules for the Official Chart company goes on for pages. Your question about criteria two seems to really be "Does charting on the zonemusicreporter chart count for meeting criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC?", and I think the answer there is a resounding "no."—Kww(talk) 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
            • When you say "rules" it sounds like you are referring to things like eligibility. That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that very few charts tell you exactly which stores/stations are used in each chart. For example, sales charts use a sampling of different stores from week to week (so as to avoid chart rigging). Airplay charts may use a sampling of broadcasters returns or receive returns at different times from different stations. Consequently, I stand by my statement that "there aren't many charts in existence that give exact details of how they are compiled". Burningpetals (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't even appear to have a scope. Top 100 Airplay of what? Ambient, which is mentioned in the page title? It doesn't even describe its contents, let alone establish any kind of notability. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

BPI Website

There could be light at the end of the tunnel: I've just received an email from the BPI to say that the certification database should be back online in the next couple of weeks. The delay has been due to extra testing they're doing for some additional search options that there will be. --JD554 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thats wicked, because i can't promote a discography i'm working on till its back online! its soooo annoying! unless anybody knows of any other sources for uk certifications? Mister sparky (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The awards database is finally back online[3] --JD554 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Hallelujah! --Legolas (talk2me) 03:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Dance Chart

With one of the articles I that have been working on, a user has included the UK Dance Chart in the chart table using this as their source. Is this particular chart permitted? Note that the song has already charted on the official UK Singles Chart and Irish Singles Chart. • вяαdcяochat 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Permitted"? I would think so. I would have to see the particular article to say whether I thought it was a particularly good idea to include it, but there's nothing forbidden about it.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is Ready for the Weekend (song). • вяαdcяochat 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem in my mind. The single is essentially unknown outside the UK, so having two UK charts isn't any kind of undue weighting. It's a dance single, so the dance chart is highly relevant to the topic.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you happen to know if that particular chart is archived because I know BBC update it weekly? • вяαdcяochat 23:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't believe it is. Technically, that isn't an obstacle, because the chart is printed in Music Week and Charts Plus. The ref should really indicate a printed, stable source, not the unstable internet version.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian charts

The RPM chart is not listed in the good charts table, so is it reliable for albums and singles positions between the 60s and the 90s? 190.233.8.10 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Also the table should have Slovakia since the chart is from IFPI and have the same layout of the Czech one. And what about the Romanian Top 100 and the Russian Airplay chart, are those considered reliable. 190.233.8.10 (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me a link to the Slovak chart and RPM charts, and I'll add them. I've never been sure about the Romanian chart and the Russian Airplay chart. Can anyone provide any sourcing that shows that these charts are legitimate?—Kww(talk) 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Slovakia is complete.—Kww(talk) 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The RPM charts are archived by Library and Archives Canada[4] (which also has a potted history of the magazine and it's charts). As the Candian music industry trade magazine, I think it can be classed as reliable. --JD554 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thse is the one from Slovakia [5] and this is for the Czech Republic [6], they look almost the same, the page in Slovakia said "SNS IFPI", the other "CNS IFPI". 190.233.8.10 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Romanian chart[7]. They said they are based on airplay and claims the following: "recunoasterea internationala de catre Billboard (prin divizia europeana Music&Media, intre timp desfiintata)", something like they are recognized by Billboard's european magazine Music&Media. 190.233.8.10 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC) And this is the russian chart[8], don't know if the methodology is correct. 190.233.8.10 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be much better if we could find a statement from Music&Media saying they recognized the chart.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if we can find that kind of information - I hope we can - but the chart is recognized...at least in Romania. Romanian Top 100 is back, Dan Balan is on the top spot in RT 100, The band Firma, a comeback in RT 100, Corina, going up quick on the RT 100, Morandi, the first place in RT 100, Kristine "attacks" the Romanian Top 100, "Baby Get Up And Dance". The point is the chart is being recognized and used by all the major artists and publications. Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and also, the chart is being broadcasted on most of the Romanian radio music stations in the weekends. Sure, you can't check that but...Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a start. Your link to telagrafonlin isn't working. Can you fix that?—Kww(talk) 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Radio show here is the scheduele for the radio show. I've fixed that link. Alecsdaniel (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Books archives Billboard magazine

This is the place to find info on charts no longer archived on billboard.com I suppose. However, it's limited; it's not every week and it stops at Nov. 29, 2008. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the chart page for "Illegal", by Shakira and Carlos Santana. I can't find the right combination of "Shakira", "Carlos Santana", and "featuring" to bring it up.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...but Billboard says it never charted...... SKS (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. BMI says it was a hit on Hot Dance Club Play.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Billboard isn't exactly perfect. For example, the album Loso's Way topped the Billboard 200, but the charting history says it never charted. This problem seems to evident only in some albums that charted after Billboard's new design. — Σxplicit 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't that: Oral Fixation charted in 2006, so its singles are from 2006 and 2007. Allmusic.org claims it hasn't charted as well.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Croatian Singles Chart

We need to discuss the Croatian Singles Chart at www.soundguardian.com/airplay-radio-chart. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22www.soundguardian.com%2Fairplay-radio-chart%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t doesn't give promising results at all. If I step back to http://www.google.com/search?q=%22www.soundguardian.com%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t then things get a little better. A discussion at WP:Croatia#Record charts has assured me that the chart claims to aggregate multiple airplay charts, but no word as to who is behind it. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.barikada.com/&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en links to it, but it doesn't look a whole lot better than a blog. Opinions? Does this go in WP:BADCHARTS, or stay in that limbo of not being listed in either BADCHARTS or GOODCHARTS?—Kww(talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need to have QUESTIONABLECHARTS? :P To be honest, I don't know. I've always left it alone whenever I came across it, but it's always been iffy every time I tried to look into it.... SKS (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Based on discussion at WT:WikiProject Croatia, I've gone ahead and added it to WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, U.S. "Bubbling Under" chart positions

The new edition of Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles (12th edition) was just released and in this version all bubbling under positions have been integrated into the book. If there is no online source available, the ISBN is 0-89820-180-2. Note that the book covers 1955 until the end of 2008. Anything current will need a web source. - eo (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet version of Cashbox

Is the new version of Cashbox considered to be a notable and reliable source of info? Specifically, I'm interested in http://cashboxmagazine.com/CashboxCharts.htm, and even more specifically their Brazilian singles chart and their Mexican singles chart. I'd like to plug some of those holes we have in discussing Latin American songs and Latin American chart positions.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Billbaord.com

Take a look at www.billbaord.com. It's the old site. Whois indicates that it is a legitimate site owned by Nielsen business media.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It redirects me to the regular Billboard site for me. — Σxplicit 02:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
That is bizarre. Could it be a geographic based redirect? Try http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/index.jsp and http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/esearch/searchResult.jsp?No=30&exp=y&Ntt=Rolling+Stones&Ntk=Keyword&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&nor=10&an=bbcom&N=36 . Work fine for me, complete with the old Billboard search engine that actually worked. For example, http://www.billbaord.com/bbcom/esearch/searchResult.jsp?exp=y&Ntt=illegal&Ntk=Keyword&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&nor=10&an=bbcom&N=37+4294125687 is the missing "Hot Dance Club Play" listing for Shakira's "Illegal" that the new site claims never charted.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, now it works. I can't say I'll depend on it, though. It might end up like billboardmagazine.com and get redirected to the new site without warning. — Σxplicit 02:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth using WebCitation or somesuch and backing up any available data worth saving. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Already back down. It's a real shame that they have the better version of the website apparently available to bring up by snapping their fingers, but insist on keeping the new one on-line. I wish they would at least add the search facility back in.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they're just playing games. Apparently, you have to link in at least one level or you get redirected.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Turkey dead?

Can one of you with access to www.billboard.biz check to see if there are any announcements regarding Billboard Turkey? The site has apparently been dead all week.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never, ever seen a Turkey chart within .biz. I always was kind of suspicious about the validity of the source that has been used in the past. The following countries are listed in the "International" section of Billboard.biz (note that Canada and Japan are the only ones compiled by Billboard): - eo (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Argentina (albums only)
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Belgium/Flanders
  • Belgium/Wallony
  • Brazil (albums only)
  • Canada
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Greece (albums only)
  • Germany
  • Hungary
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • Mexico (albums only)
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Portugal (albums only)
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • United Kingdom
  • Eurochart (albums and singles)
  • Global Dance Tracks


Hm. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/04/prweb517593.htm would tend to add legitimacy, and http://billboardpublicitywire.com/releases/2007/04/prweb517593.htm looks pretty. Is http://billboardpublicitywire.com/ legitimate?—Kww(talk) 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Billboard Turkey still continues to release its charts through the published magazine. But they have ended the website and radio. Rumor has it they are working on a new website. --Sakrileg (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Heatseekers Songs

Should the Heatseekers Songs charts be used, or is it a component chart? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Heatseekers song is not a component chart. Hence it can be used only when the song has not charted within the top-fifty of Billboard Hot 100. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought the usual method was if it was a component chart, then only include it if it hasn't charted on the main one? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Heatseekers isn't technically a component chart, but it is a subordinate one, since making it on the Hot 100 makes the artist ineligible for Heatseekers. Once a single has made it on the Hot 100, listing Heatseekers is redundant for that song.—Kww(talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ChartStats.com

hey guys, just a reliability query regarding this site. it is listed at WP:GOODCHARTS in the sourcing guide as a recommendation for the uk singles chart archive. however, when some discography articles have gone up for FL review a couple of reviewers have insisted that this source is removed because it is unreliable. this puzzles me greatly. why is it listed at [GOODCHARTS] if it is apparently unreliable? i asked the reviewer and they said that just because it is listed here it doesnt guarantee its reliability. but i was under the impression that was the whole point of [GOODCHARTS], a guide of reliable sites perfectly acceptable for sourcing. or am i completely wrong? can i have some opinions guys please? :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most sources here have limitations, and in particular, chartstats.com may have some holes in it, but I have over two years compared it against the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles on several occasions and found it to be more reliable than other sources. The problem with GBBHS is that it is only published every two years, whereas the guy who does chartstats.com is at least trying to keep it up to date and will accept corrections; to those who criticise it, I'd say, "Well, find a more reliable source". We shouldn't have to wait up to two years for the next edition of GBBHS. Rodhullandemu 23:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
plus if you try and use the GBBHS it cannot be verified by anybody who doesnt have the book, so its a bit pointless really. Mister sparky (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That's somewhat irrelevant here, because as long as the book physically exists somewhere, even if it's some second-hand bookshop in Hay on Wye, that satisfies the requirement of verification; although it's probably easier to order a copy from the British Library, which is legally entitled to a copy of every book published in the UK. Even mine. I must send them a copy some day. Rodhullandemu
I think a reviewer that rejects chartstats.com needs to indicate what he would consider to be more reliable. I have not yet found an error. I wish it was licensed, but that is the only defect I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You can always verify the accuracy (or even replace) the charts with The OCC or Everyhit - that's the good thing about the UK charts, good range of sources. Chartstats remains my favourite though, best archive to source from. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I also favor chartstats, it has the most detailed information and I don't doubt it's accuracy. The problem is that it is essentially a hobbyist web site when it comes to reliability. That's probably how the FL reviewers see it. I like the idea backing it up with the British Hit Singles book but still citing chartstats so everyone can see the data verified with the book. My only question about chartstats is that with older records it's unclear which chart they used, Melody Maker, New Musical Express, Music Week? Piriczki (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
it is also really helpful because it's the only archive which covers the entire top 100 and has a search facility. with the OCC site you have to look through each individual chart and it takes foreve and Everyhit.com only covers the top 40, polyhex.com covers the top 75 but again there's a reliability issue. Mister sparky (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
One way to handle it is the way I handle acharts.us (which I won't use as a source unless forced to) and the bad search facilities on chart-tracks: I use acharts to give me the date of the peak, and use that to search chart-tracks. You can do the same with chartstats and the OCC for anything in the top 40.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Double Disc CD

Are albums that come with 2 CDs still counted as double RIAA certifications?Like if an album ships 1.5 million copies, but is a double disc will it be certfied 3x platinum?I'm pretty sure it used to be like that, but I'm not sure if that still applies. Id really appreciate it if someone can explain to me the policies and how it works..thank!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RIAA Certification: "Multi-disc albums are counted once for each disc within the album if it is over 100 minutes in length or is from the vinyl era." - can't find a source on this, should be mentioned somewhere on the RIAA website. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

acharts again

Has anyone got a clue as to the source for their Japan chart? I've matched it against Billboard, Oricon, and the Tokio Hot 100, and can't seem to make a match.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the Billboard Hot 100. It's just a week behind, and having the acharts chart written in romaji and the Billboard chart written in real Japanese didn't help in recognizing the match.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean teh Billboard Japan Hot 100 I guess? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this one disturb me, especially when the tables have 2 or 3 references for a dozen charts. We need to be more insistent about not using acharts as a source, notably when they think it trumps over using 10 more reliable sources (because it is easier just to add one). Can something be noted in the good charts guide saying that it is extremely discouraged to use an individual source for many charts? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I would say, because I tend to link to one of the Hung Medien summary pages and reference everything I can to that. You are just fooling yourself if you link separately to australian-charts.com, lescharts.com, swisscharts.com, etc., and think you are linking to separate sources: it's all the same site with different skins on top. The difference is that Hung Medien is a licensed provider, and acharts.us is unlicensed. I've given Hung Medien a nicer symbol, top billing in the chart, and marked the symbol by acharts with "using a licensed source is preferred". I'm open to suggestions as to how better to steer people away from acharts, while admitting it's the only source we have for a couple of charts. Find me a licensed archive for the Japan Hot 100 and Dutch Top 40, and I'll go for some very strong language, but without that, acharts.us has to be tolerated.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Well a simple "usage of alternate sources is preferred and encouraged" would suffice. Is this not the Dutch Top 40 website? Or is it not official? I don't mind it being used for those of which there aren't better sources available, that's unavoidable - however, I just think it's lazy to link to it for the Billboard Hot 100 and even all the Hung Medien charts, when they have better (, official) sources. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I was having a serious senior moment with relationship to the Dutch charts. Japan Hot 100 still needs a good archive, though. I will argue that the Hung Medien sources are official: licensed is licensed. Given that, the Japan Hot 100 is the only chart I'm aware of where it is the only good source. I'll strengthen the disclaimer a bit, but I don't feel comfortable going too far.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought Billboard did the Japan Hot 100. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Video Phone

Anyone got a legitimate source for Bubbling Under R&B charts? I know that if I remove the chart position from Video Phone and redirect the it the parent albums as an uncharted stub I'm going to cause some angst among those that just can't wait to make new articles, so I'd rather just get a real source and avoid the problem.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to Billboard.biz archive, the song "bubbled under" at #14 on November 29, 2008. I redirected "Video Phone (song)" and "Video Phone (Beyoncé Knowles song)" articles previously and (I guess I should have checked it before), I find it hard to believe that "Video Phone" had no article attached to it prior to this?? Nothing was deleted to make room for this was it? - eo (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Videophone exists. Can you edit it to provide the link to .biz? It's forum sourced right now, and that makes me itchy.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I had to login to .biz in order to confirm it. - eo (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A link to .biz is fine: there's no rule against references that you need an account to verify.—Kww(talk) 11:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Billboard chart names

Should we be using the current names of charts? For example: Should we now use Alternative Songs instead of the old Hot Modern Rock Tracks. Or should it be relevant to the time the song was released, eg. a song released last year would link to HMRT. To me this is a no-brainer, to adjust the chart name for each song's timeline is just bloody confusing, we should use the current chart names to keep it simple and consistent. Reason I say this is because my AWB edits have been removed unexplained: [9] [10] [11] k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's mainly because Billboard didn't change the chart names. They just use the wrong names on the new site because they think it's easier for people that don't understand charts to use the wrong names. Or something like that. I still can't comprehend how such a reasonable site got transformed into such garbage.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
When referring to chart names in articles, it is best to use the name of the chart at the time rather than the current chart name. Or just try to be more general (the R&B chart, the country chart, the alternative rock chart). For example, "When Doves Cry" was a number-one R&B hit or a number-one hit on the Hot Black Singles chart, since the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart did not yet exist. The same goes with Album Rock Tracks from the early '80s (instead on Mainstream Rock Tracks) and Easy Listening in the late '60s/early '70s (rather than Adult Contemporary Tracks). Beyond being accurate to the time it charted, another benefit to using the chart name at the time, is that no one has to worry about changing them in articles when chart names change. They will already nicely redirect to the current chart name anyway. It's still wait and see, I guess, on the current Billboard names with the disconnect between the online and print editions of many of the charts. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Why though? Why is it better to confuse people by changing the names like Billboad have? I personally had no idea what the Hot "Black" Singles chart was until I clicked the link then - why not just stick with the current Hot R&B chart format? I just don't understand what the need is to complicate things - do you really want to look up "Ben", then find where it has charted, then find what Billboard was calling each chart at the time? Seems like that's just being too specific. As you said, we still need clarification from Billboard, yes. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Because we're not changing the name, we're using the name that was used at the time. If you used the current name, you're just as likely to confuse people who remember it charting on the old name. --JD554 (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to use the title of the chart at the time. It shouldn't be too confusing for readers if a piped link takes them to an the article with the current chart name. Plus, sometimes the current names reflect changes to the charts over the years. For instance, to say that a song from the early '80s was on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart might give the reader the wrong impression because the term "mainstream" refers to a distinction between rock radio formats which arose later but didn't exist at the time, or at least was not recognized by Billboard. By the way, it looks like billboard.biz is finally getting around to updating the chart titles. Piriczki (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oftentimes the sources you are citing indicate the chart name at the time. Allmusic does this. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks

Should we be including Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks? and if so how should we reference it? As far as I can figure it is only available from billboard.bizz but requires a fee so linking to the reference would violate WP:EL. Thanks. J04n(talk page) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Subscription links are fine as references. I don't see a reason to include Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, but being a subscription link isn't a problem for a reference.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Using Allmusic for charting

In Ne-Yo discography Allmusic is used as the main source for charting. Is this considered a reliable charting source or not? If so why isn't it listed in the sourcing guide?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the holes in the sourcing guide is that the US isn't listed. That pretty much explains Allmusic's absence. As for reliability, I'd say it's better than Billboard after that last site revision. I still can't believe how thoroughly they ruined their site.—Kww(talk) 14:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Allmusic should be used with caution. It has a large number of missing chart positions, and doesn't always list them in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart macros

I'd like people to look at User:Kww/charttemplate and {{singlechart}} (you'll have to look at the source to see how they work). I'm not going to move much further without some feedback. The concept is pretty simple: plug in a chart, position, artist, and title, and it automatically generates the referencing. I'll be able to expand it to do a few nicer things: automatically flag invalid chart names, and a bot that periodically verifies that the position provided is accurate (keeping things up to date and automatically preventing vandalism). Billboard is doable, but nastier, because someone is going to have to plug in the chart number. Still, take a look at how it gets used, and let me know if you think I'm on a reasonable track or not.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you make it so entering Australia will wikilink to ARIA Charts? That'd be very helpful. Neat work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll add Wikilinks for the charts. That's not a big deal.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

B-sides

Should singles discography tables include B-sides where applicable and sourced? I usually remove them as being unsourced, but Joel Whitburn's books almost always list the B-side if the single had one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would depend on whether the B-side became notable enough. Generally B-sides are overshadowed by the actual A-side single and hence doesnot become notable enough. Including B-sides in those cases will make the discography a songography then. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've always seen it as too much information for no real reason. It's something that should really be taken case-by-case, but MOS:DISCOG does say no b-sides. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have never seen a published discography that did not include B-sides. It is an essential component of a discography, along with the format, release date, label and catalog number. Unfortunately, most singles discographies in wikipedia contain none of that information and as a result they are part discography and part chart history and are incomplete in both regards. Many appear to have been created by copying info from allmusic.com which only provides a limited chart history and not a full discography. Consequently, non-charting singles are sometimes omitted and album tracks that appeared on airplay charts are incorrectly listed as singles. To me, it appears the MOS:DISCOG guidelines were based on what information is readily available online, primarily at allmusic.com, and not on the information that is normally included in a discography. Piriczki (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that MOS:DISCOG is a proposal and not a policy (and if you want to debate whether or not it should become official policy, its talk page is probably the best place for it). My view is that a complete discography should include tracklistings of all releases (including singles) which do not have separate articles, and that trying to prevent this would inevitably lead to the creation of numerous separate articles for singles whose individual notability could be highly questionable: however, this is not really a matter for a Record Charts guideline. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that Piriczki has a point. With the Billboard archives mostly gone, those of us with Whitburn books have a little more leverage in the discography department. And the latest Whitburn books do list the b-sides; I don't really see it as indiscriminate if it's sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And what about the releases that have multiple B-sides, for example Madonna used to release different ones for Northamerica, Europe and Japan. I believe that if every one is included the discography page would become too long and cluttered. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Official chart names

I removed the ARIA in Australian ARIA Singles Chart on the project page, which was reverted. This is something that has been discussed before and it really deserves some concrete consensus. Saying Australian ARIA Singles Chart is literally saying "Australian Australian Recording Industry Association Singles Chart". JD, you said it is offical - according to the ARIA Report it is the Australian Top 100 Singles Chart and the ARIA Charts website calls it the ARIA Top 50 Singles Chart - so I think it's something which is obviously debatable... it makes no sense for us to assume we have to include ARIA in the title, especially when we then have to also specify 'Australian' and in turn, repeat it. So, should titles include the name of the relevant association? If so, we should be labelling all the charts properly (eg. UK Official Charts Company Singles Chart, Canadian CRIA Singles Chart). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. There was no reason for JD to revert your change. This is how I have been formatting all the music articles that I edit. It seems totally ludicrous to use ARIA after Australian. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I gave reason for the revert in my edit summary and k.i.a.c repeated that above, so saying there was no reason is incorrect. That said, I was under the impression it was the official title, but k.i.a.c makes a good case and has shown that I was wrong, so I have no objection to it being changed again. --JD554 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing against you mate. Everyone okay with me wikilinking the charts too? As you would in a normal chart. I think we also need to separate some of the information in the lead into sections too, but that's another story. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the addition of the term ARIA was used to separate the songs that charted in the actual ARIA chart from the ones that did in the Kent Music Report back in the 70s and 80s, and i have seen pages with the name for Canada, CRIA dosen't make the chart,(Canadian RPM Singles Chart), i think than in this case this addition is to differentiate the time period of the chart.190.233.44.60 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a wikilink to Kent Music Report would suffice then. In the end, it was the official "Australian Singles Chart" back then, and now the ARIA Charts is, so either way it should work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Turkey again

sorry to bother you all agian. Since billboard made some changes on Billboard turkey link to turkey top 20 is not vail anymore. i do not speak turkish, and i can't find on that site billboard turkey top 20 cahrt. can anyone find it? --SveroH (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried clicking everywhere for it, and I can't find the chart anywhere.... Perhaps someone who actually understands the site can help? SKS (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe ask at Wikiproject Turkey?—Kww(talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI (Billboard Korea)

The introductory site's up. It says it's supposed to open up in October, so hopefully we'll finally have a good national chart for South Korea...... SKS (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Latvian Airplay Top

I recently asked Xymmax to reconsider the decision to delete the article on the Latvian Airplay Top... charts, and was advised to seek consensus here. It appears to me to be a legitimate chart, and I think relevant factors were overlooked during the very brief deletion discussion. Here's the conversation I had with Xymmax:

Greetings. I have not actually read the article in question but I was surprised to discover that it had been deleted and consequently this music chart is no longer considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latvian_Airplay_Top

There was minimal discussion and the reasons are not entirely clear to me, especially without access to the original article and its subpages. "Unsourced since 2007", yet one of the subpages also deleted was Latvian Airplay Top number-one hits of 2008. Was this page also unsourced? If the 2008 page was sourced, surely the same source could have been cited on the main article instead of deleting it?

"dubious chart, no hits unrelated to Wikipedia. "Latvijas rokziņu aģentūra" turns up 7 hits, Wikipedia and mirrors." Apparently "Latvijas rokziņu aģentūra" is "Latvian rock-news agency" which now yields 220 Google hits, and much more to the point, the phrase "Latvian Airplay Top" produces about 131 000 Google hits. I had a cursory look at the first few pages of results, and it appears that most are not directly related to Wikipedia (especially when you get past the first page or two).

This chart is listed at "Charts All Over the World" http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/ and I don't think the limited information on the organisation behind it (which may be due to some sort of translation error for all I know) is sufficient reason to discredit this very widely cited music chart. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I did close the AfD. There was no AfD notice at the top of each of the subpages, so I only deleted the main page. After I closed the AfD, TenPoundHammer, the nominator, added speedy deletion tags to all the subpages, and Dank deleted those including the 2008 page you mentioned. Looking at that chart, it does have the link to www.lanet.lv, and no such link was on the main page. I also see that http://www.lanet.lv has made it onto the WP:BADCHARTS list, presumably as a result of the AfD. Since the AfD I closed never considered that link, I agree that it isn't appropriate to exclude lanet.lv based on that discussion. I don't normally edit in that area, so I don't know whether there was some other AfD where it was decided to exclude the link or not. What I suggest is that you try to get consensus over at WT:Record charts, which is the talk page for BADCHARTS, to remove lanet.lv from the BADCHARTS list. If they agree that the source is legitimate, I'll restore all the pages. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the Latvian Airplay Top whatever or the related Latvian Singles Chart should be considered of major importance in global terms, but there may be cases where these are worth mentioning and I don't think they should be blacklisted. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The sub-articles were sourced only to the chart website. What no one has ever been able to find is any sign that anyone considers this to be a notable chart. Can you provide links of newspapers, published magazines, anything that is not a Wikipedia mirror, a blog or a forum that references this chart?—Kww(talk) 16:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because the chart is may not be notable for an article on Wikipedia, does that automatically make it a "bad chart", even if it is the official airplay chart of Latvia? Just wondering. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Nor does it make it a good chart. We need evidence as outlined by Kww that it is reliable. --JD554 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone could actually demonstrate that it was "official", that would be enough for me. There are a lot of self-proclaimed "official" charts, and it needs more than a website claiming to be official to actually be official. It tends to correspond pretty well to notability: there has to be a reliable source supporting the claim that the site is official and isn't from a single vendor or single network.—Kww(talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for not making myself clearer: I meant a reliable chart as opposed to a reliable source (although one probably follows the other). --JD554 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we have a few issues here.

Just because the chart is may not be notable for an article on Wikipedia, does that automatically make it a "bad chart", even if it is the official airplay chart of Latvia? Just wondering. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A very good question, and one which is important enough to warrant a separate discussion thread: I would not want to prejudice consensus regarding the wider principle by tying it to this particular case.

I have done some research and the "Latvian Singles Chart" which was also the subject of a deleted Wikipedia article does not appear to exist: I believe it to be either a misnomer or a predecessor of the Latvian "Spice" Music Chart (listed on Latvian Wikipedia as Latvijas Spice) which is an airplay-based chart specifically for Latvian music, documented at the same website as the Latvian Airplay Top chart.

Kww, "reliable source supporting the claim that the site is official and isn't from a single vendor or single network" may be a bigger ask than you realise: if you take a look at the UK Singles Chart article you will see that although it is much more detailed than the deleted Latvian Airplay Top article, UK Singles Chart has only 3 footnote references, only one of which contains any reference to the chart's methodology (an article mentioning that digital downloads are counted and speculating that planned Beatles download releases could dominate the charts). Another cited link probably said something similar but the article is no longer there. The UK Singles Chart article is probably based almost entirely on information published by The Official Charts Company itself, but would we question its validity?

Methodology

Mirrors of the old Latvian Airplay Top article state that the chart was compiled at that time based on airplay data from 15 radio stations. The current Latvian Wikipedia article (alas lacking citations) states that 18 radio stations and TV channels are used: these are listed in a table and some have their own articles. Both these articles may be out of date: the website which publishes the chart lists 19 component charts currently used (since Dec 2008) for the Latvian Airplay Top, and 7 for the Latvian Music Chart.

Sources

I have found a variety of sources other than the ubiquitous blogs, YouTube videos and Wikipedia mirrors which refer to this chart. Since magazines and newspapers were suggested, I have a webpage from Diena, a Latvian newspaper
http://www.diena.lv/lat/search?where=1&query=Latvian+Airplay+Top&order_by_date=yes

and this appears to be another newspaper or magazine site
http://www.tvnet.lv/muzika/Video/demo/article.php?id=160091

CHART LIST WEBSITES:
These list both Latvian Airplay Top and Latvian Music Charts (all link to the same main chart pages at lanet.lv):
http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/ (evidently part of the same website which hosts current and archived Latvian charts)
http://www.alaskajim.com/charts/currentsingles/international/latvia.php main charts & some component charts (some links no longer work)
http://www.useyourears.co.uk/music-industry/music-charts/world-music-charts.php
http://www.btinternet.com/~Huggesey/charts.htm includes some component charts with links to radio station websites but not directly to the actual component charts

These list the Latvian Music Chart but not the Latvian Airplay Top:
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/music_directory/music_chart.php
http://www.vocalist.org.uk/music_charts.html


WEBSITES REFERRING TO LATVIAN AIRPLAY TOP POSITIONS
Mostly music artist webpages, some from artists' official sites, some third-party (a few examples: more exist)
http://www.a-ha.com/news/languages/english/archive/AHA_fullStory.aspx?PostID=1934
http://www.parishiltonsite.net/starsareblind.php
http://www.last.fm/music/Jenny+May
http://darrenhayes.eclub.lv/en/news.html#charts010506
http://muzictime.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hips-dont-lie-shakira-feat-wyclef-jean/
http://www.brainstorm.lv/?mid=47&pname=main&lang=3&mid2=48
http://www.thisdayinrock.com/index.php/1997/02/
http://home.lanet.lv/~julita/sa/ this one is unofficial but mentions component charts

MISCELLANEOUS
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Latvia/Entertainment/Music/?o=a Yahoo directory listing Latvian Airplay Top 20
http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/pop_culture_randall.htm Academic paper (published by the University of Washington; presumably a good or at least acceptable example of a well-researched study) referencing the Latvian Music Chart.

Both these widely recognised charts appear to be legitimate and generally accepted as official Latvian charts. I propose that they should be removed from the Badcharts list and accepted as sources in Wikipedia articles. I would also like the Latvian Airplay Top article and its subpages restored. As for the Latvian Singles Chart article, perhaps it could be userfied to enable me to use its contents as the basis for a new article with a more accurate title if appropriate? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue that you haven't made a valiant effort. Let's go through them one-by-one.
  • First, this references the Latvian Airplay Top 40, while others reference the Latvian Airplay Top 50. Not even clear it the same chart. When you click through, the article provided doesn't discuss the chart at all.
  • Of all the sources you have provided, this one comes the closest: it identifies a Latvian Airplay Top 50, and claims it is an airplay chart summarizing all Latvian radio stations. If it clearly identified what chart it was referencing, and the publisher, this would nearly do it.
  • Self-reference
  • Lists charts without regard to status, makes no claims about this one.
  • Lists a mix of unofficial and official charts, makes no statement about this one.
  • User page on BT Internet
  • Framed Google search result
  • Another mix of unofficial and offical charts, makes no statement about the Latvian charts
  • Mix of official and unofficial charts, no statement made about this one.
  • Old Wikipedia article: self-referencing
  • blog
  • Questionable source, and lists a large range of official and unofficial charts.
  • Contains mix of official and unofficial charts, no statement made about this one
  • Self-reference
  • No statement about Latvian Airplay Top itself
So, in summary, you have one acceptable source that doesn't contain a specific enough statement to do anything with. I think the results of this exercise demonstrates that the listing on WP:BADCHARTS is quite reasonable.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
On review, I missed a couple:
  • One reference, not detailed about the chart itself, and incredibly poor scholarship. The chart's methodology description indicates that it purposely inflates the popularity of foreign music, and this paper uses the result to claim that foreign music is popular.
  • Another directory, with no claim made about the chart.
—Kww(talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review these sources. I think it's quite obvious that the "Latvian Airplay Top 40" and "Latvian Airplay Top 50" do refer to same chart (which also publishes annual Top 500 charts). The very reason the previous Wikipedia article was Latvian Airplay Top not Latvian Airplay Top 40, Latvian Airplay Top 50 or whatever is that the number quoted can vary. You would assume that UK Top 40 and UK Top 75 are part of the same chart wouldn't you? (I don't know where you're from so apologies for choosing the UK charts as an example if you're not familiar with them: I just picked an example which is familiar to me for comparison).

http://www.tvnet.lv/muzika/Video/demo/article.php?id=160091

"Of all the sources you have provided, this one comes the closest: it identifies a Latvian Airplay Top 50, and claims it is an airplay chart summarizing all Latvian radio stations. If it clearly identified what chart it was referencing, and the publisher, this would nearly do it."

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It describes a track's performance in the Latvian Airplay Top 50 chart which it names and defines. Obviously naming the publisher too would be even better, but the article does clearly identify the chart.

That's actually more than can be said for the only cited reference on the UK Singles Chart article which makes any reference at all to how the chart is compiled. The cited article states:

Consequently, with singles and album charts now calculated by taking into account online music sales many have now predicted this will lead to a complete whitewash of both the Top 10 and the Top 40 as fans scramble to get their hands on all time classics like Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Revolver and hits such as Hey Jude, Penny Lane and Help!

It does not actually specify the name(s) of the chart(s) to which it refers, let alone provide details of their publishers.

With respect, are you seriously demanding a higher standard of verification for a chart representing a country about half the size of Scotland than for one representing the whole UK? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't defend the practice of labeling anything the "UK Singles Chart". I can provide you with quite detailed referencing and information on all the charts published by the Official Charts Company, down to the details of how a product has to be marked to gain entrance to the chart. The various convenience archives are basically convenience links. Charts on acharts.us, for example, are only acceptable if they can be traced back to a reliable source and shown to archive it accurately. Its UK chart passes that test, so that's an acceptable link. Its Italian, Brazilian, Bulgarian, and World charts do not, so they aren't acceptable. As for presuming that the Latvian Airplay Top 20, Latvian Airplay Top 40, and Latvian Airplay Top 50 are all the same chart, no, not without a reliable source indicating that.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the chart website's archive page, you'll see it links to "Archives of all Latvian Airplay Top 20's, Top 30's, Top 40's and Top 50's (since April 3rd, 1994)". A look through the archives reveals that the change from Top 40 - Top 50 took place from Week 52, 2004 to Week 1, 2005. If you check the "this week" and "last week" positions, they match up: it is the same chart, expanded to include more positions. You will also find that the song mentioned in that newspaper website I cited was in the chart during this changeover, so it was in both the Latvian Airplay Top 40 and the Latvian Airplay Top 50 but these were not separate charts: the expansion explains why a source would refer to its success in the Latvian Airplay Top 40 when the official title of the chart in which it featured most recently was Latvian Airplay Top 50. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting closer. Find another couple of references of that quality, and I'll buy that it passes WP:RS.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, more Latvian sources so you might want to put them through Google Translate or something: they all name and briefly define the Latvian Airplay Top 50 or Top 40 chart.
http://www.platforma.lv/news/article.php?id=3542
http://www.ventspils.lv/NR/exeres/D0E5D26B-AACD-4EF6-998C-8DA0BD02CDB7
http://www.mikseris.lv/?doc=1394
Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at these in more detail tomorrow. Any hint as to why all of these sources are four years old?—Kww(talk) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I picked the ones which actually say something about what the chart is. When it was expanded from Latvian Airplay Top 40 to Latvian Airplay Top 50, the compilation method was also expanded to include a more comprehensive list of radio stations, so that's probably why it was mentioned in media reports from that era. There are certainly more recent articles which refer to the Latvian Airplay Top 50 without defining it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for more input from other editors

I'm a bit conflicted on this one. Contains Mild Peril has provided some useful links.

  • Looks reasonable. Identifies the chart. www.tvnet.lv appears to be a fairly major media review site for Latvia.
  • Again, appears reasonable: a record company referring to the Latvian Top 50
  • Not as good: apparently a local municipality plugging an act that will play there. Still, not immediately discardable.
  • Again, not great, but not awful, either. A Latvian music portal with an article referencing the chart.

So, in summary, the sourcing is not great, but it isn't non-existent, either. It's apparent that reasonably reliable sources inside of Latvia refer to the chart. That goes a long way towards saying that it meets WP:RS.

Its stated methodology, combining data from multiple stations, isn't bad. They purposely distort the chart to emphasise foreign music, but every chart in the world is guilty of methodology distortion.

The main problem I see is that this still seems to be a hobby chart. It is compiled by Atis Klušs, who maintains a home page at http://www.lanet.lv/users/akluss/ . I'm not sure that we are in the position of saying that hobby charts are necessarily unacceptable, though. If it is referenced by Latvian news sources, does that pull it out of "hobby" status and into "as much as you can expect from a small country like Latvia" status?—Kww(talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, the size of the country (and its music industry) will always be the main problem. We have a small country with just over 2 million people. So there probably won't ever be a major national, certified chart.
That said, we have what appears to be a hobby chart that appears to have been referenced elsewhere, making this the de facto chart of Latvia. But does that really matter? Is the chart notable? Is a song's chart position on the Latvian chart of any consequence? This obviously wouldn't apply to local/national songs, but if a major recording artist/band (say, Mariah Carey) has a single that charts worldwide, is it necessary or even desirable to list the song's Latvian position? SKS (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Note (additional comment): the IFPI apparently doesn't track Latvian sales (as per the index to the 2009 report). SKS (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
True enough, but with a listing on WP:BADCHARTS, we don't even allow people like Latvian entrants into the Eurovision Song Contest to list the success on the Latvian chart. I don't know if we have any consensus for "this country is too small to bother with for an international success story". That's really what the 18-chart limit was intended to do, but that has fallen by the wayside. I certainly don't try to enforce that guideline, because it only seems to lead to edit-warring and pissing contests.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the limit of 18. No, you're totally right. But there must be some sort of way of saying "for international success stories, please limit charts to the major markets tracked by the IFPI" (although this would be debatable...sigh). And as you said, BADCHARTS should be for, well, bad/fake charts, as opposed to questionable-and-semi-legit-but-too-minor-for-anyone-to-care charts. I don't know. I wouldn't oppose delisting it, but it appears that if a chart is not a "bad" chart, it's automatically a "good" chart, which shouldn't be the case either. SKS (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Good points. I think we do need a category for "questionable-and-semi-legit-but-too-minor-for-anyone-to-care charts" or something. I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to include every tiny country indiscriminately in chart tables for major international hits, but for example if Latvia were to win the Eurovision Song Contest I would expect the song's Wikipedia article to mention its domestic chart position. Please see my proposal below. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

UK Charts

Hello there. I've always used ACharts for all my GA/FA after EveryHit's about us page was deemed not reliable at FAC. What's the official party line on using Zobbel and/or ChartStats? RB88 (T) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion just above. This still needs to be clarified, so comments are still welcome here. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Does being used as a source by the BBC and, to a lesser extent, a Member of Parliament not make it a reliable source?[12][13] --JD554 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Which source are the links about? RB88 (T) 17:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Everyhit.com. --JD554 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ohhh. Damn you JD, where were you with this stuff when I needed you at the FAC! lol Anyway, I'll be adding it back then. RB88 (T) 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, in that case, it should replace ACharts which has zilch third-party reliable coverage. RB88 (T) 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
hmm problem with everyhit.com is that it only covers the top 40. chartstats is my preferred uk source as it covers the entire top 100. zobbel is the only web archive that covers positions 101-200. Mister sparky (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyhit should be ok if the song enters 1-40 though, no? Jayy008 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears as though it's a good source, yes. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Polish Singles Chart

Seems that a Polish Singles Chart is making its way into articles using this website as the source (83.21.243.108 (talk) is making these additions). Seeing as I have to leave to school in a few minutes, I really don't have time at the moment to get too deep into this, though I felt it was a good idea to bring this up to those who will be around while I'm at school. — ξxplicit 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. It's the Polish National Top 50, one of the original WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thanks for looking into it so quickly. — ξxplicit 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Polish Singles Chart a Wiki: Bad Chart??? Jayy008 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Polish National Top 50 chart seems to be a hobby chart, and there's no source for who creates it, how, what the methodology is, anything. It just doesn't pass WP:RS. It gets copied all over, though: apccharts.com, charly1300.com, top40-charts.com, everyone that needs to claim they have a Polish chart copies it. There is a good Polish chart published by Nielsen, but only the top 5 positions are publicly published and no one has ever found a good archive of it.—Kww(talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Use all Billboard charts that relate to the subject.

{{helpme}} I apologize if the helpme template is unappropriate here.

The project page states, "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart...."

Why is this? Billboard is a recognized industry leader. Any Billboard chart that contains the subject should be shown as a matter of course. To do otherwise is to put one's own spin or POV upon it as saying it is UNimportant. Doesn't that violate WP:Npov. If Billboard deems to create a chart, why can't it be stated. It is verifiable and encyclopedic.
Iknow23 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Right place, but you don't need the 'helpme' - hopefully others will see your comment here, and respond. If you want to get more input, you might ask folks on the reliable sources noticeboard to pop in here, with a short note on there saying something like, "Please could some people comment on my question re. Billboard, in [[Wikipedia talk:Record charts#PROPOSAL: Use all Billboard charts that relate to the subject.]]"  Chzz  ►  03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You. This is my first venture other than editing and ARTICLE talk pages.
While you're here, what do you think of this?
Iknow23 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It's simply a redundancy issue. Every song or album that hits the Hot 100 (or Hot 200 for albums) will hit a physical chart, a digital chart, an airplay chart, or some combination of them. Most strong singles will hit all four. Then they hit an urban chart, or a country chart, or some other genre-specific charts. This causes a situation where the success in the US winds up overstated compared to most other countries. To keep that under control, component charts aren't included if the main chart is entered. If a song has good airplay, but too weak of sales to make the main chart (or vice versa), the components will be listed. If it it does well enough to make the main chart, that's the only one that gets listed. That way, everyone gets one chart, and that chart gives a good indication of how successful the song was.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
On a separate note, I don't see why WP:RSN would get involved in this at all.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Firstly, do you understand the meaning of "component" charts? They are charts used to accumulate more significant primary charts. For example, the Hot 100 Singles Sales, Billboard Hot 100 Airplay and Hot Digital Songs charts are all used to construct Billboard's leading chart, the Billboard Hot 100. We simply can't include 12 US charts, it's systemic bias, and charts tables would definitely become overly weighted towards the US. Plus, once they've been used in a broader chart, their relevance recedes. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. I did not understand "component" charts. PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN.
Iknow23 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't be sorry, you have to pose a question to get an answer. :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Pop Songs

Right, since the Pop 100 (a non-component to Hot 100) was dis-continued a few months the replacement (Pop songs a component to Hot 100) keep being deleting and putting back. So there is obviously mixed feelings on whether this should be allowed.

Although Pop Songs is a component to the Billboard Hot 100. Billboard itself calls Pop Songs/Mainstream Top 10 a direct replacement for the Pop 100.

So What is everyone's thoughts on the status of this chart on wikipedia? Jayy008 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pop Songs is basically the Top 40 Mainstream chart isn't it? Airplay only? I don't think it's required where the Billboard Hot 100 is present, has no weight compared to a much larger chart. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes it is but it's a direct replacement for the pop 100 which is why people keep adding it. I think if it's not allowed it should be listed on WK: Bad Charts as it's own chart and not because it's an airplay only chart. Jayy008 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please not on BADCHARTS. That has been limited to sources that are unreliable or excessively biased, and it needs to be kept that way. As it stands, we can argue that edits that violate it are policy violating edits. If we let it become a list of charts we don't like, it loses its effectiveness.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Not because we don't like it because it's the Mainstream Top 40. The only change is that it's now called "Pop Songs" so thinking about it, now that's the only thing thing that's changed if it wasn't allowed before then it shouldn't be now? I'm surprised this hasn't generated more interest. Jayy008 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated charts: a new proposal

An issue highlighted by some recent discussions (e.g. concerning Latvian and Croatian charts) is that the current classifications of "GOODCHARTS" and "BADCHARTS" may be oversimplistic and in some cases it may be more helpful to have some sort of middle ground. AnemoneProjectors asked:

Just because the chart is may not be notable for an article on Wikipedia, does that automatically make it a "bad chart", even if it is the official airplay chart of Latvia? Just wondering.

which is a very pertinent question. The policy of blacklisting charts whose articles are deleted appears to have become established via precedent rather than proposal and discussion of the principle. Music charts may be a special case, but if every source cited on Wikipedia were required to fulfil the necessary criteria to merit its own article, we could be in a lot of trouble! Conversely, it might not necessarily follow that a chart with its own article is a "good" chart. There are also charts which have never been the subject of a Wikipedia article, whose status may be difficult to verify.

Proposal (see amendment below)

I propose that in place of the "BADCHARTS" list we should have the following categories:

BOGUS CHARTS: Charts which are known to be fake, or which have no known official status, affiliation with any professional organisation or recognition by Reliable Sources. These should never be used as sources.

UNOFFICIAL CHARTS OR LISTS: This category would include things like single vendor charts, TV "countdowns" and other editorial or vote-based charts published by reliable sources. These must not be used in chart tables or lists, but may be mentioned in article prose (and may contribute towards verifying notability of an article topic) provided they are appropriately sourced and the status of the chart or list is made clear (i.e. it will not be mistaken for an official chart).

QUESTIONABLE CHARTS Charts which appear legitimate but whose notability, verifiability and/or methodology is in question. This category is likely to include charts representing very small countries. These charts should not be added indiscriminately to discography tables, but may appropriately be used under certain certain circumstances, e.g.

  • if the song, album etc failed to chart in any (permissible) major chart
  • if it charted in very few permissible charts
  • if it achieved a higher position in the minor/ questionable chart(s) than in any major chart
  • if the artist or release has a connection with the country to which the questionable chart belongs, e.g. if it is the artist's home country or the song was a Eurovision entry for that country.

Any thoughts? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it excessively complicated things, especially your "questionable" charts category. I think all we really need is to gain consensus that non-IFPI charts are to be used only for the home country of a the musician, composer, or major sponsor (i.e Eurovision). That way, we can move things like the Latvian chart onto the GOODCHARTS list safely, but not suddenly be dealing with people trying to get Los 40 Principales into the picture. Record charts are promotional in nature, which makes them troublesome to begin with, and single-vendor charts cross the line into complete unacceptability.—Kww(talk) 13:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we more or less had consensus about limiting the numbers of charts in tables to prevent indiscriminate listing of all the minor charts, but as you've already noted that doesn't always work. I would still prefer a separate cateogry for questionable charts, but I would support a policy that charts from non-IFPI countries should only be used in special cases. I'm wary of making the wording to be too rigid lest we unintentionally exclude releases with a legitimate reason for mentioning that chart that we may overlook when formulating the policy. Could we go with something like "Charts from non-IFPI countries should not normally be included in tables, and should only be used in cases where there is a very specific reason, such as charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries)." It's a little clumsy but it says what it needs to, and maybe we can work on the exact wording.

As to the issue of major single vendor charts, vote-based charts etc, I think the ruling should be that these must not be listed in the discography or chart performance sections of articles, nor in separate discography articles. I think it may occasionally be legitimate to mention something like that for example in a biographical section describing a band's rise to fame. For example, in cases where an editor questions the WP:Notability of some relatively obscure foreign artist or release, other editors should be free to include any reasonably verifiable evidence of notability. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any serious problem with your wording about non-IFPI charts. I still oppose any mention of single-network or single vendor charts. I do wish that someone else would chime in on this discussion.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kww on all points, and I am particularly strongly against including single-vendor and countdown-type charts anywhere in an article, even in the prose. I cannot think of a single example where it would be appropriate to include something of that nature. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. And Kww, it's because policy discussions should not be held on weekends. :P SKS (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tbh JazzDalek, I can't actually think of a real example where referring to single-vendor or editorial/ vote-based "charts" would be appropriate either. The latter tend to consist of songs which have already entered major legitimate charts, so their inclusion in an article would probably be somewhat redundant and amount to trivia. Hypothetically, if a song or album which never achieved a high chart position later became regarded as a classic and topped a TV poll, this could be considered notable; and with the existence of so many charts whose archives appear to be unverifiable it's also possible that a single-vendor chart may sometimes be the only one for which data relating to a genuine hit are actually available.

OK, since my separate categories idea seems unlikely to gain consensus, I hope striking my original proposal and adding this here is OK - I don't know the proper protocol for amendments

Amended proposal

Charts from non-IFPI countries should not normally be included in tables, and should only be used in cases where there is a very specific reason, such as charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries).

By reducing indiscriminate inclusion of minor charts, we can allow for a slightly more lenient policy when it comes to considering such charts as reliable sources where appropriate. A chart's "goodchart" or "badchart" status should not necessarily depend on whether or not it is the subject of a current or deleted Wikipedia article, although factors considered during deletion processes may also be relevant in consideration of Reliable Source status. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I don't think that the rule is "if it has a Wikipedia article it's good, if not then it's bad". I think the charts that had articles deleted were placed on the bad list for the same or similar reasons that the article was deleted, not because it was deleted. Likewise, if a chart is notable enough to deserve an article, it is far more likely that it is a valid source, but an article doesn't prove its validity. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Los 40 Principales and Tokio Hot 100, for example, have articles, but are listed on WP:BADCHARTS. Top Latino entered WP:BADCHARTS the day it was deleted, but that was because the deletion discussion didn't turn up any reliable sources to document how the chart worked or that anyone found it notable. Similarly, if the conclusion of the Latvia discussion is that the chart is reliable enough to use for Latvian artists, it wouldn't go on WP:BADCHARTS even if people decided it wasn't notable enough for an article. The two discussions are linked, but don't always match.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose I was looking more for clarification on that point than any actual change to the rules: when the explanation provided for several BADCHARTS states "This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology" and I couldn't find any previous discussion on this talk page or its archives specifically relating to the Latvian Airplay Top chart, I inferred a causal relationship.
So we're actually more or less in agreement now then? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
On adding this text to WP:Record charts, yes. I'm still waiting for more discussion on the issue of the Latvian chart itself. The main reason for the constant "deleted by deletion discussion" text is to provide a link to the public discussion. If the chart clearly fails the criteria, it usually gets added to WP:BADCHARTS without extensive discussion. Similarly, I'll add something to WP:GOODCHARTS once I'm able to verify that it comes out of a reliable charting agency.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
We might get some more comments on this as well: as SKS pointed out, it is a weekend. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_5&oldid=1150999982"