![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Hey guys, for the last few days I've been unable to access the European Hot 100 over at Billboard.com. Is anyone else having same issue? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently so. It was reported UK radio. There was actually a number of artists (mainly UK ones) that I've been trying to verify but its quite difficult because even things like this look like they havent been updated in a while. And to make things worse the story pages seem to be going dead too and not even google caches can save them ... *sighs*. Webcitation.org doesn't work well with the Billboard's site. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
People may wish to note this article here which notes that The Official Charts Company made some errors in the christmas countdown chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we need some official clarification on this. The BBC Radio 1 chart stuff is labelled... Chart of the Year - Biggest Tracks of the Year. The Official Charts stuff is labelled "2010's Official Biggest Selling Singles". Could there be a technical difference? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify exactly what the Tastemakers Album chart is? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Switzerland is like Belgium. There's a Romande chart? see here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In case someone is interested in older Greek charts (I notice only 2010 on http://greekcharts.com/) some are archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ifpi.gr/chart01.htm, I'm going to use them mainly to reference certifications. -- Muhandes ( talk) 11:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, I made a proposal about changing the standards for the Hot Latin Songs part. I'll just repeat to see what some of you think: "I think there should a change to the "if the song has not charted Latin Songs" to "if it has only charted on the Latin Songs". It doesn't make to sense to have only a Latin chart and ignore the other charts (Latin pop, Tropical, Regional Mexican). Billboard hands out the best performing singles each year for these charts. In addition, the Billboard Latin Music Awards has a "Hot Latin Track" for each of these categories. But if these charts are not mentioned and wins one of these awards, how would it make sense to viewers? The reason I say only on Latin charts, is because I understand that there are songs that #1 on Latin songs and topped other charts in parts of the world. Take "Loca" by Shakira. It has charted #1 on Latin songs, but it has also charted #1 on various countries, in which I can see why the Latin Pop, Tropical, and Regional Mexican would not be significant." Magiciandude ( talk) 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
But otherwise the Tropical and Regional Mexican charts are alright then? Magiciandude ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed something odd about the inclusion of Billboard charts. It says that if a song has or has not charted on the Billboard 100 songs, then the "Tropical Songs" chart may be used. Yet at the same time, it says that the "Latin Tropical Airplay" may be used if it hasn't charted on the "Hot Latin songs". "Tropical Songs" is the name Billboard calls "Latin Tropical Airplay" on their website just like "Latin Pop Songs" and "Regional Mexican Songs". Magiciandude ( talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
They made a change to Mediawiki that affected reference generation. That made an error case in {{ singlechart}} behave strangely, and produce a truly strange looking ref. I'm going to fix the error handling sometime today, but if you see one and it bothers you, just add the artist and song parameters to the call.— Kww( talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
When is it appropriate to use the Rhythmic Airplay Chart? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 04:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Billboard Greece just launched in Greece, and they are now publishing the top 100 (of 200) official airplay chart on their site. (See [1]) Bottom of charts say "Official IFPI Greece Airplay Chart powered by MediaInspector". I think this should be added as the airplay chart on WP:GOODCHARTS. Greekboy ( talk) 05:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Despite wikipedia stating that adding the number of week in a chart table isn't allowed, this rule makes no sense. This article I created Thanks for the Memory (Wham Bam Thank You Mam) has recently had the weeks table removed. What doesn't make sense to me as this actual single has eight different chartings and yet wikipedia states that all chart information such as the weeks can be mentioned in the article. No reader is going to want to sit there reading through all the charts and weeks in a jumbled paragraph when a table would be much more efficient and friendly. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replies. Originally I thought up the idea of adding total weeks to the chart table myself as the table is sortable anyway, it seemed a good idea to add a list of weeks so the reader can also sort the table by most weeks. Also, if any reader simply wanted to quickly find a sum of all the chart positions for an album or song, the table is there straight away - easy to read. I must admit I have done this table for many albums, particually for 80s artists which I haven't had any problems about the total weeks column beforehand. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia states on this article "Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart may be mentioned within the article text." Ajsmith141 ( talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course must isn't there as the statement states that it is optional. If different countries are allowed in the peak position table then why can't they be mentioned in the article? There would be little use of only including certain total weeks in the article and leaving others out. Adding a sortable wikitable with just the peak positions leaves the entire right side space blank whereas adding total weeks adds towards that side which doesn't make it cluttered anyway, for example here Very (album)#Chart performance. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In your opinion, may be so. As previously stated a reader, like myself, may want to know chart runs. There is a particular Slade album which peaked at #1 in Sweden, remaining on the charts for 12 weeks where the same album peaked at #2 in Norway and yet remained on the chart for 22 weeks. This can be easily used for research which Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment states things such as "content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." Total weeks does no harm. I don't see anywhere on wikipedia's guidelines stating that weeks are of no purpose. The chart performance is only one section of an article, nobody said it makes a whole article of statistics. Total weeks only adds more information into the article, surely it doesn't matter if it's in form of an extra column next to the peak positions or in a paragraph. All chartings are significant so it wouldn't be right to ignore some. I don't see any missing cells on any links provided here. There may indeed be some missing cells in other articles but the entire point of an article is to expand. Again, stating that chart weeks are trivia is an opinion. Wikipedia's purpose of album/song articles is to provide a range of information, serving the needs of different readers whilst remaining consistantly on topic. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The actual articles in question though are not in boldface, complicated or unsourced. As stated perhaps readers would be interested, if not interesting for a particular reader then the data is just there in a tidy fashion for anyone who is. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The chartings that are related to the articles in question are significant, they are not on the list of Deprecated charts ([ [5]]). If the case is to keep an article free of statistics then I will immediately remove all chart performance sections that I have created. Users are stating that many tables were boldface, complicated or unsourced etc and yet these tables are perfectly readable and tidy. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Can anybody refer me as to how I can nominate the articles for deletion. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 20:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, instead of being rather demotivated over this, I will instead remove the weeks chart for the hundreds of tables created and replace it with a far superior paragraph of total weeks. Wikpedia guidelines allow this. I have already for this article [6]. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not at all adding inappropriate information. The wikipedia guideline states that this information is allowed in the article, just not in the table. I am well aware of the WP:POINT but where on wikipedia does it say that I cannot add number of weeks in chart in the article. It doesn't and therefore I am obliged to add the information. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm doing this to prove a point but I'm simply taking action by changing the info to fit with the guidelines. I am also not happy with the entire tone of this discussion which has indeed turned into a debate. As many wikipedians have before, they feel superior to me and therefore act superior by using certain tones etc. If you can show me where wikipedia writes that no number of weeks in total are allowed to be explained on an article then I will of course accept that however I see nothing. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to butt in unnecessarily, but....
Again, no one is trying to think that they're better than you or trying to force you to leave, but there are just certain rules/guidelines/policies in place that have to be met. That is all. SKS ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That is fine - I am not at all trying to start a heated debate and if things were said in a more positive manner before then I would have undoubtedly accepted it there and then. I do take in Kww's views and understand that is what guidelines state. I simply believe that whilst some users may not agree, as a reader I find total weeks to be useful. Furthermore I don't see how it hurts to have the column there as to some readers it is bound to be useful. All the responses stated was the complicated look and trivia. As SKS2K6 stated, peak on a chart can be considered trivia as well but an article is said to be notable as long as the single charts - which could be at #100 so having a number of weeks cell is really similar. The information isn't going to be completely useless for everyone but for some it will be and it does add to the article which of course building an article up is important. Whilst not everyone agrees here, nobody has minded the week column on many other articles from different bands/artists which surely shows that nobody minds the information there. What I am trying to say is that an article could benefit from having the weeks in charts for reader/research purposes. The above comments never sounded caring in the slightest in terms of myself. I have spent much time searching for the chart information which to me is simply being uncaringly removed whereas if a certain user was to say for example "I understand what your saying ajsmith but..." then I would have felt much more happier with the situation, instead comments such as "Feel free to remove them. I certainly won't stop you." etc only ask for trouble in that sense, regardless of who's right or wrong. Conclusion is that I would have liked a more friendly approach as we are all on wikipedia - editing on our own freewill and all need to be considerate of others. In regard to the sources - I will certainly provide specific links from now on and furthermore try to find more sources. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Again this isn't friendly to me which for an administrator is suprising. My work on the weeks column ranges back from weeks to months ago - a long time before this discussion had begun, I haven't restored any edits - I never ignored the consensus? Although I am not a newcomer - this is still relevent [7]. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I was going to put this in the last section, but this seems to be a different topic. Per the conversation in the last section, would the following, which two users keep removing this citing WP:BADCHARTS, be warranted in this context:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)"
? -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Oakshade here. Single vendor charts are obviously not appropriate for discography tables, but in the article prose I really don't see any good reason to exclude such relevant information when it is reliably sourced. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
class="wikitable sortable"
. (bold mine)Personally, now that the song has charted on the Hot 100, I think that iTunes Store positions are irrelevant. The Hot 100 is a better measurement of commercial success. If editors wish to discuss the Digital Songs charting in the prose, I see no problem with that, but now that Billboard has published US charts iTunes chartings are trivial. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 04:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this chart an applicable U.S. charts? Dan56 ( talk) 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think its time we revisit the decision to include iTunes sales charts as a "deprecated chart." As iTunes accounts for at least 70% of worldwide music sales, [8] it can only be semantically considered "one vendor" and in reality the vendor and the most precise gauge of music trends as the iTunes charts are directly correlated with a majority of music sales. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a question in Rebecca Black section (below) about whether there is consensus to remove Itunes from "Depreciated Chart" list - since that's exactly what this section is asking I thought I'd get the ball rolling...
AGREE - ITunes should be removed from "Depreciated Chart" list. 70% is a greater share than vote in most democratic elections; any ranking system has issues but being able to report based on the overwhelming majority of sales seems like a pretty credible methodoly. Cambridgegames ( talk) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.— Kww( talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess that Russian Airplay Chart should be excluded from BADCHARTS due to links on Russian Music Charts and also 2m-online provides the singles chart based on sales since 2010. Pablitto ( talk) 20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"Croatian Singles Chart at hrt.hr. Single network, voter-generated chart." It looked on the official page and it says something like "The Radio Airplay Chart is based on the sum of the radio charts of the main stations in Croatia". HRT1 is also the main radio station in Croatia, I think the chart is reliable, but I don't know the criteria for being a "good chart". I want to know, can this chart be listed as the official Croatian chart? Here is the link (on Croatian): http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=323&tx_ttnews[cat]=356&cHash=c59c3d3d08 -- Greeneyed soul ( talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Kev what do you think? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Give me a day to look into it. There were issues here involving charts for Croatian artists that were good (but useless, because only Croatian artists were listed) and international charts that were voting based. That may have changed.— Kww( talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The separation of years that is currently in the rules seems pointless. It disturbs the flow of the article, especially the charts section. While I do think it is somewhat helpful for holiday songs such as " All I Want for Christmas Is You" (because of their multiple yearly appearances), it is not helpful to songs like " Mean" or " Overprotected". The prior established peaks prior due to digital sales because of the album release and the latter just took some time to find peaks, going over the calendar year. I think that this should be encouraged for holiday releases or albums or songs that get re-release, but not for all scenarios. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Should Svensktoppen be on WP:BADCHARTS? I looked through the archive but couldn't find it mentioned specifically. -- Muhandes ( talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made some changes to WP:USCHARTS to avoid confusion and redundancies and to include some charts that were not previously there. If you don't like it, don't make a fuss; feel free to revert. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC has been relatively unattended, and I would like to hear more voices.— Kww( talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why words like "platinum" and "gold" are usually capitalised when referring to certification levels? Since English is not my mother tongue, I thought someone with authority could provide me with a proper answer. Snap Snap 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Per the unanimous result at WT:Record charts/RFC, I've restructured this guideline to separate content guidance from style guidance, and restored WP:Record charts as a guideline. I've tried to fix any shortcuts, but if I've missed any, please fix them.— Kww( talk) 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not strictly related, but certifications seems to often get lumped with charts so I thought I'll ask here two.
RIAA has completely changed the way the certification database is queried, rendering most of the links to the database mostly useless. I have tried to figure out how the new database is queried but I'm not a professional in the area and can't seem to figure it out. Is there anyone who would like to assist? Can anyone suggest another place where help can be found? -- Muhandes ( talk) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=search terms
. Separate terms by plus signs. So far I have only been able to search by artist and title — "MT" doesn't help in bringing up master tone certs — but you can click on the buttons to refine the search.
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{cite certification|region=United States|artist=Andrea Bocelli|title=Amor|type=album|Spanish=yes}}
givesIs there any guideline on how to list single chart peaks in an album article? Is it recommended at all, when the singles all have their own articles, for example, Awake (Skillet album)?-- Muhandes ( talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"Albums and singles which peak on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the more recent year(s) in a separate table below the earlier table(s)" Really? Why? What's wrong with placing all the charts in one table and heading it Chart (2006–07)? — Andrew s talk 04:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this article could be better defined and/or more strongly worded in certain areas to prevent any misinterpretation occurring. I've come across numerous instances in the past few weeks where several users with admin privileges have engaged in edit warring behaviour over the use of Original (manual) chart format vs. Chart macros format. The line, "The singlechart template is available for formatting chart tables for single articles." appears to have been misread/misinterpreted by some to mean that the Chart Macros formatting style should only be used in articles for Singles, and is therefore precluded from use in single articles (as originally worded), as in any individual article, be it for an article referring to an album or a single. The rest of the paragraph, "The use of the macro is strongly encouraged, as it automatically creates a correct reference for the chart entry, allows changes to sourcing sites to be accommodated by editing a central location instead of edits across thousands of articles, and will permit future implementation of a bot to assist in vandalism reversion" clearly states it's the more appropriate formatting for all individual articles, excluding discography pages. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought this was talked out nearly 2 years ago at RFC Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts/Archive 11#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes here. While no formal consensus was reached, editors want succession boxes for We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together. At least, as a result of that discussion, not one article for a song that reached number one on any of the three charts that this one has used succession boxes since Grenade (song) in early 2011 and as their general use has become somewhat obsolete through implicit consensus, so I don't know they want to start it up again on this one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 00:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I have seen on several albums articles that the section for the number one charts table is either named "chart procession and succession" or "chart precession and succession"; is that normal? -- Sofffie7 ( talk) 19:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no need to add this to album (or song) articles. In this case, it's listing where an album peaked during the year after its actual peak. So if an album debuted at number one in December 2012 then falls to 3 in January 2013 and never goes higher than that again, we should list both positions. And if it's still on the chart in 2014, say at 99 and never higher, we should list that too? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
There a discussion taking place as to what week ending chart constitutes the #1 Christmas hit for the year in the UK. Please feel free to chime in — MusikAnimal talk 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus among the RfC participants for "example 2", which closely paraphrasing Iknow23 means "put a country's main chart first, then genre charts in alphabetical order".
There is no consensus on Btljs's proposal that "The genre charts should only be included if the record failed to appear in the main chart." Since the proposal was introduced late into the discussion and few editors commented about it, no conclusion can be drawn about whether it has support. I recommend that editors open a new RfC to resolve this question if desired.
|
|
|
|
Btljs ( talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The current chart order is clearly incorrect. As pointed by Btljs above. We need to chose between a correct alphabetical or a importance regarding charts. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 18:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I know this is already covered under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Inappropriate_use_2, but I sometimes see flag icons being placed on music charts and discographies and I think there should be a guideline that says something like "Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Inappropriate_use_2, flag icons should not be placed on music charts". Any objections? Erick ( talk) 22:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music chart articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm somewhat bemused by a discussion that has opened up at David Bowie discography, about how best to show the chart peaks of records that charted on multiple different occasions. For example, Bowie's " Space Oddity" reached the UK charts in 1969, peaking at number 5, and then, when reissued years later on a different record label, reached number 1 in 1975. It has now entered the charts again. The view that seems to be taken by editors (current and past) at that article is that only the 1975 peak should be mentioned in the list, and the 1969 chart peak should not be mentioned at all (or, at best, only in a footnote). This seems to me to be wrong. All the official chart lists and books that I have seen list both the 1969 and 1975 chart entries, and it seems to me to be a disservice to readers to omit any mention of the earlier chart peak, which is necessary to give a full overall perspective on his career. At the same time, I'm aware that there is an argument that listing every chart peak could become complicated. Has this been discussed before and a consensus reached? What are editors' views now? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Hey guys, for the last few days I've been unable to access the European Hot 100 over at Billboard.com. Is anyone else having same issue? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently so. It was reported UK radio. There was actually a number of artists (mainly UK ones) that I've been trying to verify but its quite difficult because even things like this look like they havent been updated in a while. And to make things worse the story pages seem to be going dead too and not even google caches can save them ... *sighs*. Webcitation.org doesn't work well with the Billboard's site. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
People may wish to note this article here which notes that The Official Charts Company made some errors in the christmas countdown chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we need some official clarification on this. The BBC Radio 1 chart stuff is labelled... Chart of the Year - Biggest Tracks of the Year. The Official Charts stuff is labelled "2010's Official Biggest Selling Singles". Could there be a technical difference? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify exactly what the Tastemakers Album chart is? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Switzerland is like Belgium. There's a Romande chart? see here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In case someone is interested in older Greek charts (I notice only 2010 on http://greekcharts.com/) some are archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ifpi.gr/chart01.htm, I'm going to use them mainly to reference certifications. -- Muhandes ( talk) 11:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, I made a proposal about changing the standards for the Hot Latin Songs part. I'll just repeat to see what some of you think: "I think there should a change to the "if the song has not charted Latin Songs" to "if it has only charted on the Latin Songs". It doesn't make to sense to have only a Latin chart and ignore the other charts (Latin pop, Tropical, Regional Mexican). Billboard hands out the best performing singles each year for these charts. In addition, the Billboard Latin Music Awards has a "Hot Latin Track" for each of these categories. But if these charts are not mentioned and wins one of these awards, how would it make sense to viewers? The reason I say only on Latin charts, is because I understand that there are songs that #1 on Latin songs and topped other charts in parts of the world. Take "Loca" by Shakira. It has charted #1 on Latin songs, but it has also charted #1 on various countries, in which I can see why the Latin Pop, Tropical, and Regional Mexican would not be significant." Magiciandude ( talk) 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
But otherwise the Tropical and Regional Mexican charts are alright then? Magiciandude ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed something odd about the inclusion of Billboard charts. It says that if a song has or has not charted on the Billboard 100 songs, then the "Tropical Songs" chart may be used. Yet at the same time, it says that the "Latin Tropical Airplay" may be used if it hasn't charted on the "Hot Latin songs". "Tropical Songs" is the name Billboard calls "Latin Tropical Airplay" on their website just like "Latin Pop Songs" and "Regional Mexican Songs". Magiciandude ( talk) 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
They made a change to Mediawiki that affected reference generation. That made an error case in {{ singlechart}} behave strangely, and produce a truly strange looking ref. I'm going to fix the error handling sometime today, but if you see one and it bothers you, just add the artist and song parameters to the call.— Kww( talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
When is it appropriate to use the Rhythmic Airplay Chart? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 04:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Billboard Greece just launched in Greece, and they are now publishing the top 100 (of 200) official airplay chart on their site. (See [1]) Bottom of charts say "Official IFPI Greece Airplay Chart powered by MediaInspector". I think this should be added as the airplay chart on WP:GOODCHARTS. Greekboy ( talk) 05:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Despite wikipedia stating that adding the number of week in a chart table isn't allowed, this rule makes no sense. This article I created Thanks for the Memory (Wham Bam Thank You Mam) has recently had the weeks table removed. What doesn't make sense to me as this actual single has eight different chartings and yet wikipedia states that all chart information such as the weeks can be mentioned in the article. No reader is going to want to sit there reading through all the charts and weeks in a jumbled paragraph when a table would be much more efficient and friendly. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replies. Originally I thought up the idea of adding total weeks to the chart table myself as the table is sortable anyway, it seemed a good idea to add a list of weeks so the reader can also sort the table by most weeks. Also, if any reader simply wanted to quickly find a sum of all the chart positions for an album or song, the table is there straight away - easy to read. I must admit I have done this table for many albums, particually for 80s artists which I haven't had any problems about the total weeks column beforehand. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia states on this article "Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart may be mentioned within the article text." Ajsmith141 ( talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course must isn't there as the statement states that it is optional. If different countries are allowed in the peak position table then why can't they be mentioned in the article? There would be little use of only including certain total weeks in the article and leaving others out. Adding a sortable wikitable with just the peak positions leaves the entire right side space blank whereas adding total weeks adds towards that side which doesn't make it cluttered anyway, for example here Very (album)#Chart performance. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In your opinion, may be so. As previously stated a reader, like myself, may want to know chart runs. There is a particular Slade album which peaked at #1 in Sweden, remaining on the charts for 12 weeks where the same album peaked at #2 in Norway and yet remained on the chart for 22 weeks. This can be easily used for research which Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment states things such as "content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." Total weeks does no harm. I don't see anywhere on wikipedia's guidelines stating that weeks are of no purpose. The chart performance is only one section of an article, nobody said it makes a whole article of statistics. Total weeks only adds more information into the article, surely it doesn't matter if it's in form of an extra column next to the peak positions or in a paragraph. All chartings are significant so it wouldn't be right to ignore some. I don't see any missing cells on any links provided here. There may indeed be some missing cells in other articles but the entire point of an article is to expand. Again, stating that chart weeks are trivia is an opinion. Wikipedia's purpose of album/song articles is to provide a range of information, serving the needs of different readers whilst remaining consistantly on topic. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The actual articles in question though are not in boldface, complicated or unsourced. As stated perhaps readers would be interested, if not interesting for a particular reader then the data is just there in a tidy fashion for anyone who is. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The chartings that are related to the articles in question are significant, they are not on the list of Deprecated charts ([ [5]]). If the case is to keep an article free of statistics then I will immediately remove all chart performance sections that I have created. Users are stating that many tables were boldface, complicated or unsourced etc and yet these tables are perfectly readable and tidy. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Can anybody refer me as to how I can nominate the articles for deletion. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 20:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, instead of being rather demotivated over this, I will instead remove the weeks chart for the hundreds of tables created and replace it with a far superior paragraph of total weeks. Wikpedia guidelines allow this. I have already for this article [6]. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not at all adding inappropriate information. The wikipedia guideline states that this information is allowed in the article, just not in the table. I am well aware of the WP:POINT but where on wikipedia does it say that I cannot add number of weeks in chart in the article. It doesn't and therefore I am obliged to add the information. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm doing this to prove a point but I'm simply taking action by changing the info to fit with the guidelines. I am also not happy with the entire tone of this discussion which has indeed turned into a debate. As many wikipedians have before, they feel superior to me and therefore act superior by using certain tones etc. If you can show me where wikipedia writes that no number of weeks in total are allowed to be explained on an article then I will of course accept that however I see nothing. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to butt in unnecessarily, but....
Again, no one is trying to think that they're better than you or trying to force you to leave, but there are just certain rules/guidelines/policies in place that have to be met. That is all. SKS ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That is fine - I am not at all trying to start a heated debate and if things were said in a more positive manner before then I would have undoubtedly accepted it there and then. I do take in Kww's views and understand that is what guidelines state. I simply believe that whilst some users may not agree, as a reader I find total weeks to be useful. Furthermore I don't see how it hurts to have the column there as to some readers it is bound to be useful. All the responses stated was the complicated look and trivia. As SKS2K6 stated, peak on a chart can be considered trivia as well but an article is said to be notable as long as the single charts - which could be at #100 so having a number of weeks cell is really similar. The information isn't going to be completely useless for everyone but for some it will be and it does add to the article which of course building an article up is important. Whilst not everyone agrees here, nobody has minded the week column on many other articles from different bands/artists which surely shows that nobody minds the information there. What I am trying to say is that an article could benefit from having the weeks in charts for reader/research purposes. The above comments never sounded caring in the slightest in terms of myself. I have spent much time searching for the chart information which to me is simply being uncaringly removed whereas if a certain user was to say for example "I understand what your saying ajsmith but..." then I would have felt much more happier with the situation, instead comments such as "Feel free to remove them. I certainly won't stop you." etc only ask for trouble in that sense, regardless of who's right or wrong. Conclusion is that I would have liked a more friendly approach as we are all on wikipedia - editing on our own freewill and all need to be considerate of others. In regard to the sources - I will certainly provide specific links from now on and furthermore try to find more sources. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Again this isn't friendly to me which for an administrator is suprising. My work on the weeks column ranges back from weeks to months ago - a long time before this discussion had begun, I haven't restored any edits - I never ignored the consensus? Although I am not a newcomer - this is still relevent [7]. Ajsmith141 ( talk) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I was going to put this in the last section, but this seems to be a different topic. Per the conversation in the last section, would the following, which two users keep removing this citing WP:BADCHARTS, be warranted in this context:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)"
? -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Oakshade here. Single vendor charts are obviously not appropriate for discography tables, but in the article prose I really don't see any good reason to exclude such relevant information when it is reliably sourced. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
class="wikitable sortable"
. (bold mine)Personally, now that the song has charted on the Hot 100, I think that iTunes Store positions are irrelevant. The Hot 100 is a better measurement of commercial success. If editors wish to discuss the Digital Songs charting in the prose, I see no problem with that, but now that Billboard has published US charts iTunes chartings are trivial. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 04:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this chart an applicable U.S. charts? Dan56 ( talk) 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think its time we revisit the decision to include iTunes sales charts as a "deprecated chart." As iTunes accounts for at least 70% of worldwide music sales, [8] it can only be semantically considered "one vendor" and in reality the vendor and the most precise gauge of music trends as the iTunes charts are directly correlated with a majority of music sales. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a question in Rebecca Black section (below) about whether there is consensus to remove Itunes from "Depreciated Chart" list - since that's exactly what this section is asking I thought I'd get the ball rolling...
AGREE - ITunes should be removed from "Depreciated Chart" list. 70% is a greater share than vote in most democratic elections; any ranking system has issues but being able to report based on the overwhelming majority of sales seems like a pretty credible methodoly. Cambridgegames ( talk) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.— Kww( talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess that Russian Airplay Chart should be excluded from BADCHARTS due to links on Russian Music Charts and also 2m-online provides the singles chart based on sales since 2010. Pablitto ( talk) 20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"Croatian Singles Chart at hrt.hr. Single network, voter-generated chart." It looked on the official page and it says something like "The Radio Airplay Chart is based on the sum of the radio charts of the main stations in Croatia". HRT1 is also the main radio station in Croatia, I think the chart is reliable, but I don't know the criteria for being a "good chart". I want to know, can this chart be listed as the official Croatian chart? Here is the link (on Croatian): http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=323&tx_ttnews[cat]=356&cHash=c59c3d3d08 -- Greeneyed soul ( talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Kev what do you think? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Give me a day to look into it. There were issues here involving charts for Croatian artists that were good (but useless, because only Croatian artists were listed) and international charts that were voting based. That may have changed.— Kww( talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The separation of years that is currently in the rules seems pointless. It disturbs the flow of the article, especially the charts section. While I do think it is somewhat helpful for holiday songs such as " All I Want for Christmas Is You" (because of their multiple yearly appearances), it is not helpful to songs like " Mean" or " Overprotected". The prior established peaks prior due to digital sales because of the album release and the latter just took some time to find peaks, going over the calendar year. I think that this should be encouraged for holiday releases or albums or songs that get re-release, but not for all scenarios. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Should Svensktoppen be on WP:BADCHARTS? I looked through the archive but couldn't find it mentioned specifically. -- Muhandes ( talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made some changes to WP:USCHARTS to avoid confusion and redundancies and to include some charts that were not previously there. If you don't like it, don't make a fuss; feel free to revert. Adabow ( talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC has been relatively unattended, and I would like to hear more voices.— Kww( talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why words like "platinum" and "gold" are usually capitalised when referring to certification levels? Since English is not my mother tongue, I thought someone with authority could provide me with a proper answer. Snap Snap 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Per the unanimous result at WT:Record charts/RFC, I've restructured this guideline to separate content guidance from style guidance, and restored WP:Record charts as a guideline. I've tried to fix any shortcuts, but if I've missed any, please fix them.— Kww( talk) 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not strictly related, but certifications seems to often get lumped with charts so I thought I'll ask here two.
RIAA has completely changed the way the certification database is queried, rendering most of the links to the database mostly useless. I have tried to figure out how the new database is queried but I'm not a professional in the area and can't seem to figure it out. Is there anyone who would like to assist? Can anyone suggest another place where help can be found? -- Muhandes ( talk) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=search terms
. Separate terms by plus signs. So far I have only been able to search by artist and title — "MT" doesn't help in bringing up master tone certs — but you can click on the buttons to refine the search.
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{cite certification|region=United States|artist=Andrea Bocelli|title=Amor|type=album|Spanish=yes}}
givesIs there any guideline on how to list single chart peaks in an album article? Is it recommended at all, when the singles all have their own articles, for example, Awake (Skillet album)?-- Muhandes ( talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"Albums and singles which peak on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the more recent year(s) in a separate table below the earlier table(s)" Really? Why? What's wrong with placing all the charts in one table and heading it Chart (2006–07)? — Andrew s talk 04:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this article could be better defined and/or more strongly worded in certain areas to prevent any misinterpretation occurring. I've come across numerous instances in the past few weeks where several users with admin privileges have engaged in edit warring behaviour over the use of Original (manual) chart format vs. Chart macros format. The line, "The singlechart template is available for formatting chart tables for single articles." appears to have been misread/misinterpreted by some to mean that the Chart Macros formatting style should only be used in articles for Singles, and is therefore precluded from use in single articles (as originally worded), as in any individual article, be it for an article referring to an album or a single. The rest of the paragraph, "The use of the macro is strongly encouraged, as it automatically creates a correct reference for the chart entry, allows changes to sourcing sites to be accommodated by editing a central location instead of edits across thousands of articles, and will permit future implementation of a bot to assist in vandalism reversion" clearly states it's the more appropriate formatting for all individual articles, excluding discography pages. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought this was talked out nearly 2 years ago at RFC Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts/Archive 11#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes here. While no formal consensus was reached, editors want succession boxes for We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together. At least, as a result of that discussion, not one article for a song that reached number one on any of the three charts that this one has used succession boxes since Grenade (song) in early 2011 and as their general use has become somewhat obsolete through implicit consensus, so I don't know they want to start it up again on this one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 00:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I have seen on several albums articles that the section for the number one charts table is either named "chart procession and succession" or "chart precession and succession"; is that normal? -- Sofffie7 ( talk) 19:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no need to add this to album (or song) articles. In this case, it's listing where an album peaked during the year after its actual peak. So if an album debuted at number one in December 2012 then falls to 3 in January 2013 and never goes higher than that again, we should list both positions. And if it's still on the chart in 2014, say at 99 and never higher, we should list that too? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
There a discussion taking place as to what week ending chart constitutes the #1 Christmas hit for the year in the UK. Please feel free to chime in — MusikAnimal talk 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus among the RfC participants for "example 2", which closely paraphrasing Iknow23 means "put a country's main chart first, then genre charts in alphabetical order".
There is no consensus on Btljs's proposal that "The genre charts should only be included if the record failed to appear in the main chart." Since the proposal was introduced late into the discussion and few editors commented about it, no conclusion can be drawn about whether it has support. I recommend that editors open a new RfC to resolve this question if desired.
|
|
|
|
Btljs ( talk) 14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The current chart order is clearly incorrect. As pointed by Btljs above. We need to chose between a correct alphabetical or a importance regarding charts. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 18:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I know this is already covered under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Inappropriate_use_2, but I sometimes see flag icons being placed on music charts and discographies and I think there should be a guideline that says something like "Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Inappropriate_use_2, flag icons should not be placed on music charts". Any objections? Erick ( talk) 22:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music chart articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm somewhat bemused by a discussion that has opened up at David Bowie discography, about how best to show the chart peaks of records that charted on multiple different occasions. For example, Bowie's " Space Oddity" reached the UK charts in 1969, peaking at number 5, and then, when reissued years later on a different record label, reached number 1 in 1975. It has now entered the charts again. The view that seems to be taken by editors (current and past) at that article is that only the 1975 peak should be mentioned in the list, and the 1969 chart peak should not be mentioned at all (or, at best, only in a footnote). This seems to me to be wrong. All the official chart lists and books that I have seen list both the 1969 and 1975 chart entries, and it seems to me to be a disservice to readers to omit any mention of the earlier chart peak, which is necessary to give a full overall perspective on his career. At the same time, I'm aware that there is an argument that listing every chart peak could become complicated. Has this been discussed before and a consensus reached? What are editors' views now? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)