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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
See Paparazzi (Girls' Generation song). What should be the cut-off? I mean, Billboard and Oricon are the "official" charts, but should the daily/weekly/monthly charts be included? I think the Chaka-Uta charts follow mobile sales.... And the RIAJ charts are official too. SKS ( talk) 05:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've found out that Billboard.biz is publishing Brazilian charts for albums (provided by the Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Discos with Nielsen SoundScan) and songs, which are published by Billboard Brasil through the main chart named Brasil Hot 100 Airplay, then only available from the magazine. Therefore, we have an official source for charts in Brazil. The albums chart is weekly, while the songs chart is monthly, just like the chart from Billboard Brasil. Archives for the website are needed since the page is updated regularly. So, I would like to know what other contributors think about listing this source for use in the English Wikipedia. Regards, Lucas RdS ( talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
2011: |
|
2012: |
|
I'm sorry if it looks like a mess (I don't know how to organize lists very well), but I hope it helps other users. These archives contains not only albums by Brazilian artists, but lots of albums by internacional acts, including those from English-speaking countries (like Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Adele, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez & the Scene, among others). Lucas RdS ( talk) 04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Do we want to go down this road? See List of Dutch Top 40 number-two singles of 2012. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
...of this? Till 13:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Like i written on Sourcing Guide Talk Page, I open this discussion for to do a clarification about the Dutch Charts. For many years on Wikipedia was written that the Dutch Top 40 was part of the GfK Charts and was written that the Singles Top 100 was a component chart of the Dutch Top 40. It is totally false. Dutch Top 40 is the competitor of the GfK charts and were in association for a limited period. You can read their history here
Furthermore, the association of the Dutch Top 40 had a its albums chart active until 1999 (when it merged several charts, including the albums chart, with Mega Charts). It reactived the albums chart in 2011 ( http://www.top40.nl/album-top40 ). To avoid other errors, i edited the main page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Record_charts/Sourcing_guide ) and the Mega Charts page. At this point, i think that the user can choice what chart prefer to use. SJ ( talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added in the Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 chart, along with further clarification regarding both charts. Either chart can be used, although I personally prefer Billboard. I also wanted to clarify that, for Gaon, if songs chart on the International chart, it should be noted as such, because songs on the International chart may not be on the main chart at all (for example, the main chart for the last week of August only has the top 5 songs from the International chart — in other words, the #6 on the International chart didn't place on the main chart at all). I hope this helps. SKS ( talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Somebody get this corrected - Why is this an applicable Billboard chart acceptable for Wikipedia to display on pages? Do not use the discontinued Billboard Pop 100 chart data for inclusion on these artists' pages unless it is applicable at the time the Pop 100 chart data was active. Didn't another chart assumingly take its place? Then make that applicable. We're going to have a couple hundreds of pages with erroneous chart by 2020 unless we liberate the pages from this time-borne mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.135.192 ( talk) 03:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any special distinction between these two charts? Till 11:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if there is another discussion about this, but i post it for precaution. Since Charts in France began to publish its combined chart for albums and singles (2011), i had some doubts about its officiality. In fact, SNEP website didn't announce new combined charts and never mentioned Charts in France (also known as Pure Charts) as its official diffuser. So, I tried to write to SNEP, but its email doesn't function. I tried to write to GfK ( http://www.musiqueautop.com/home.php ) and it told me that it didn't know nothing about Charts in France and maybe, it is authorized by SNEP, but for safety, it reccomended me to follow the SNEP website. So, i remained with the doubts until 2012 when SNEP announced its first combined chart for the singles ( http://www.chartsinfrance.net/actualite/news-78188.html ). At that point, it was clear that Charts in France was not an official diffuser because it began with the combined singles chart one year before than SNEP, claiming that it was THE official chart and it was authorized by SNEP. Furthermore it continued to publish a combined albums chart that was never announced and officialized by SNEP. At this point, can Charts in France be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? SJ ( talk) 22:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There are weekly airplay charts in Argentina and Greece. Are they good enough for use on Wikipedia? 2pac Is Alive ( talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
For a while, it's known that charts such as Monitor Latino and Romanian Top 100 can used as charts, but they're not listed on WP:GOODCHARTS due to the lack of archiving. Of course, not every editor knows that these charts exist, so I propose a new section called "Acceptable charts" under the Recommended charts with the shortcut WP:OKAYCHARTS. I developed a sandbox to show what it might look like. If I have any missing charts or errors, let me know. I also have some questions as well:
— Kww( talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have added acceptable charts as its own section and created a shortcut for quick reference. So is the Mexican Airplay is acceptable then under WP:GOODCHARTS? EDIT: Also, I want to add that the certifications posted on the Mexican Airplay are from the RIAA, not AMPROFON. If you compare every certification posted at the Mexican Airplay chart to the RIAA website, you see every one of them match and note the lack of certifications for Spanish-language songs. Erick ( talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
A while back, this page didn't even acknowledge how to list Bubbling Under peaks. I had been using 1xx for them (e.g. 103 for a song that peaked at 3 on the Bubbling Under), and the 1xx format had been used on other articles. Therefore, I added a section encouraging 1xx for songs that bubbled under, since the issue had never been addressed, but precedent showed 1xx to be acceptable. Kww then over-wrote it with the following.
On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak.
Nowhere else in Wikipedia has Kww's take been supported that I know of. I fail to see how using 1xx for a Bubbling Under peak is synthesis, as the 1xx format is used widely in the industry (for instance, in the books by Joel Whitburn). After User:Eric444 addressed concerns about the handling of Bubbling Under peaks on my talk page, I decided to start this. What should we do for Bubbling Under songs? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Gongshow Talk 22:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You articulate your position well. Perhaps it can best resolve using context that describes the essence of both sourced renditions. Consider if the following suggestion for the footnotes could be effective:
"—" denotes releases that did not chart
"-n" the negative number denotes releases that peaked "n" positions below the main chart on its related Bubbling Under chart (n=1–25)
An additional benefit derives by it being equally viable for all BU charts like R&B/Hip-Hop or those to come. I am in keen anticipation of your reply. 76Strat String da Broke da ( talk) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
... or something to that effect. The Bubbling Under article already spells out the chart's old and current methods rather well, but maybe something brief like this would be appropriate, as well. Cheers, Gongshow Talk 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion about the above changes at Talk:Billboard_charts#Hot_R.26B.2FHip-Hop_Songs_-_Rap_Songs_R.26B_Songs. Could people please weigh-in? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Lately I've seen sources like this being used as a reference for Italian digital singles chart positions below top 10 – for example here. FIMI of course only publishes the top 10 on their site.
I haven't removed them, since basically they appear to be valid. However, as a source, Facebook seems a bit dubious to me. Any opinions? Widr ( talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The Official Lebanese Top 20 is used on some song articles, but the article itself is not referenced and I didn't see any discussions of the chart here. The methodology appears to be airplay based on the website information. As for media coverage, I do see some coverage from news media from Google News such as this French site, and this Arabic site. Archives can be found here. So is it a legitimate chart? Erick ( talk) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If an article is going to use the singlechart templates, shouldn't chart positions be updated only when the assigned source is updated. For example, I noticed some updates to Billboard chart positions on some articles because another source was found. Yet that source wasn't cited, and the chart history page for the artist is not updated for this week yet so, as of now, the cited source is inaccurate. The fanboy message I got on the revert was "it will update in a couple days, so it's ok." My feeling then is if the singlechart template is to be used, then the chart position for a song shouldn't be updated until the actual source is. And if there's another reliable source, then that should be used. That would tend to violate
WP:verifiability without proper citations, even if it is for a day or two. The fanboys just want to be the first. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars
Talk to me
14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no way to provide an alternate reference. There's no rush to get the latest positions into an article: the position shouldn't be updated until the source is updated. That's always true: the sources for an article and the data in an article should always correspond.— Kww( talk) 19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I prefer just waiting a day or two for the actual chart to update, when Billboard preannounces some 'next chart' positions it is not inaccurate to report them, IMO. As long as the preannouncement material is DIRECTLY sourced to Billboard ONLY. (They are their charts, after all.) And a 'work-around' is available (for the brief necessary period) by placing a ref to the preannouncement in the note parameter of the template.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I actually used this method...here's an example [
[75]]. (See Billboard Hot 100)
—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The Hot Country Songs charts have been split into two charts: an airplay-only chart that's identical in methodology to the original, airplay-only Hot Country Songs chart, and an airplay/sales hybrid chart which is now the "main" country chart (more info here). How should this be handled in discographies? The current link to the Country Songs chart reflects the positions of the "new" chart, while the Country Airplay chart reflects the chart formerly known as Hot Country Songs. Do we use both positions? The "new" chart only? New chart unless it only charted on the airplay-only chart? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Combine them. TheDL ( talk) 04:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This really feels to me like people are arguing to be inconsistent with the rest of the music articles because they don't like the answer that consistency brings. If the airplay charts are significantly different from a combined sales/airplay chart, that's just the nature of reality. If the demographics of country music fans are such that the people that buy music buy songs from Taylor Swift, that's a fact. Trying to push an airplay-only chart because it tends to favor music popular with older listeners and artists that have fewer crossover sales isn't trying to paint an accurate picture of the market, it's trying to paint a distorted image of the market because you like that picture better.
That said, if the charts are really that different, there's no reason not to list both in a discography article so long as you are going to stay under the 10 chart limit. I don't think the 10 chart limit is a major problem for most country artists. The only thing that would unacceptable would be to mix positions in a column: if it's an airplay column, it's an airplay columng, not a mix of whatever positions makes the artist look best.— Kww( talk) 03:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"Also, the "old" chart doesn't seem to count as a "component" chart, since it includes only country airplay, whereas the "new" chart includes non-country airplay as well." This is really the only argument that should exist. I was under the mistaken belief that the overall charts counted just the corresponding airplay charts. But from [76], it states "The new methodology, which will utilize the Hot 100's formula of incorporating airplay from more than 1,200 stations of all genres monitored by BDS, will reward crossover titles receiving airplay on a multitude of formats." Since these charts take into account wider airplay charts, they are not component charts and should be allowed to be used. But even with it added to Carrie Underwood discography, an ip editor has already changed the overall chart #2 to #1 once, so this might not help out to avoid edit wars in certain articles. Aspects ( talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you all think guys about this chart published by MSN Russia? Does it meet requirement to be listed at WP:GOODCHART? Bluesatellite ( talk) 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to navigate the Gaon charts? e.g. http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So, I have a question regarding acharts.us- I'm trying to source Spectrum, here it says the song charted at No. 48 on the US Airplay Top 100, and WP:GOODCHARTS says it is okay to use acharts.us to source US positions, but that position is from Charly1300.com, which is under WP:BADCHARTS. It seems conflicting, should it not be used because it isn't a Billboard position? NYSM mau5 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks YouTube is playing a bigger and bigger role in the music industry with every single passing year? And that the YouTube charts should be included here? - A1candidate ( talk) 22:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe YouTube contributes to the streaming charts at its appropriate weight. The views aren't being missed.— Kww( talk) 18:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
How come all the Rihanna articles combine the Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling under charts, which listed as a violation of WP:SYNTH? I even changed it, and it was restored. Till 05:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Due to the major revamp of the Billboard charts, I've had to make substantial revisions to singlechart and BillboardID.
In short, singlechart no longer listens to the artistid parameter you pass it. It will use the name to look up the artistid number using {{ BillboardID}}. {{ BillboardID}} now supports over 30,000 artists. It's brand new and took my computer over a week to generate, so it undoubtedly has bugs and missing entries. If the template can't find the artist, then edit the corresponding entry in the templates.
The list got so huge that it's broken up by first character: "101 strings" in in {{
BillboardID/1}}, for example. If you really want to call it with "One Hundred and One Strings", that will work, but you would have to enter the Billboard ID into {{
BillboardID/O}} as "one hundred and one strings".Won't work any more: you have to use the Billboard version of the name. Exactly.
Thanks in advance for your help. It's a simple system, so we should all be able to maintain the tables without having to funnel everything through me. If you can't figure it out or it's blowing up in some new and unexpected way, let me know and I'll get it debugged.— Kww( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Is http://ukairplaychart.com/about/ a legitimate source for Airplay in the UK? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
There are problems here regarding the usage of Billboard charts, specifically certain cases of not being able to include chart B if it charted on chart A.
Dance/Mix Show Airplay, Adult Top 40 and Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) need to be moved above, to be added regardless of other chartings.
NYSM y talk page 03:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the dance charts, Dance/Mix Airplay is a complete separate entity from Hot Dance Club Songs, one is airplay the other is club play. There is no reasoning to deny usage of the airplay chart if the song charted on the club chart, they are not connected at all. NYSM y talk page 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been over a week with no responses even after this page has been viewed 100 times, I'm taking that as no objections so I'm making the change. If you disagree, discuss here. NYSM y talk page 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot. I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.— Kww( talk) 19:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should include Dance/Electronic Songs on the Applicable U.S. Charts since it ranks the top-selling electronic dance music singles in the United States through a combination of single sales, digital downloads, club play and radio airplay. People is removing this chart because they think it is a componet of Hot Dance Club Songs while the true is that this chart is included on Dance/Electronic. Since Dance/Electronic Songs is a new chart I think we should keep both charts.-- Albes29 ( talk) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The main website for Monitor Latino now displays the current number-one single in the Dominican Republic. The main chart still remains only for subscribers. Will it be appropriate to use it on the singles chart provided that its manually archived? Similarly, Media-Forest has now provided charts for Argentina. Erick ( talk) 06:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone find any sign that the charts at http://creativedisc.com/top-charts/creative-disc-top-50-chart/creative-disc-top-50-chart/ are acceptable? I'm about to add them to WP:BADCHARTS, but I would like to hear some support before I do.— Kww( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Last year the
Elizabeth Chan article was deleted for lack of notabilty. However some of the
discussion focused on the BLP's song's #4 position on iTunes for holiday Christmas songs. What was not readily obvious in the discssion is that this Christmas song charted in September, and that the BLP subject was participatint in a
reality show where she campagined a form of
google bombing by having participants purchase her song at the stroke of midnight when it was released with the apparent purpose of running the chart. We should be bear this in mind when considering if iTunes establishes notability in the future.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
00:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering if the rules on deprecated charts apply on all Wiki sites? I assume so but would just like clarification before I go ahead and remove content that this article deems as "Bad Charts". Thanks, Liam ( talk) 17:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013 has been relisted at AFD due to lack of participation.— Kww( talk) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen this website – http://chartsecuador.jimdo.com/ – used as a source for various singles charts in Ecuador. I don't think it's reliable, as I can't find any staff or sales/airplay tracking information (and Jimdo.com is an amateur web-design site anyway, when an official source would probably set up their own domain). What do you think? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
As per the pages we have on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, it is 25 song extension derived from the Hot Radio Songs and Hot Digital Songs charts. Both of which also feed into the Billboard Hot 100. As a result, if a song has not charted on the Hot 100, Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles can be added. However if a song has charted on the Bubbling Under, then Hot Radio or Hot Digital Songs should NOT be listed. I've clarified this on the policy page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks to someone who posted a Monitor Latino on En la Obscuridad, and the link directs to the week it ranked on the chart. After observing the url, I figured out how to work the chart url to give you the week you want. First, I should mentioned when Monitor Latino ranks the chart. They compile the charts from Monday to Sunday. This is important to understand how the url works. As for the url itself, here's the a rundown of how it works.
This is the basic url: http://www.monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/[Chart name][Date 1][Date 2].html. The available chart names are: General, Regional, Pop, and Ingles. General is the overall chart, Regional deals with Regional Mexican music in the country, Pop is for Latin pop, and Ingles is for the Anglo market in Mexico. Next is the date. I mentioned that the chart runs from Monday to Sunday. So, date one uses a Monday and date two uses the following Sunday. Here's an example: http://www.monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/General31120133172013.html. In the url, we have a General chart for the week of March 11, 2013 to March 17, 2013. In the url, March 11, 2013 is written as 3112013 and March 17, 2013 is written as 3172013 (do not use the zero integer for months before October). Give it a try and see how it works. Erick ( talk) 20:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The Croation airplay chart takes me to a non-obtained address which my computer tells me is very high risk to visit. Has the official website been moved? Jayy008 ( talk) 20:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it legitimate to include a song's peak on this chart in its article? If it has charted on the Hot 100 or not? — LittleMixLove • these wings are made to fly! 17:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I know this is controversial but we list the US singles chart as Billboard Hot 100 whereby the syntax is [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]] which is actually bad practice. We would list the Urban chart as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (Billboard). Billboard.com has for a while now referred to the US singles chart as The Hot 100. I think our single chart template, should list it as US Hot 100 ( Billboard) page on here should be called The Hot 100. this is more user friendly as they can then click on the Billboard link to find out about the chart provider. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hung Medien compiles "best of all time" charts, based on points for rankings on each weekly chart. Being unofficial (constructed by HM, not recording associations), are they suitable for use on Wikipedia? I came across their use on "Halo"... Adabow ( talk) 02:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this site a good source for Romanian peaks since it is similar to that of Israel? ( http://www.mediaforest.ro/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaolympic989 ( talk • contribs)
Once again, I found yet another possible reliable chart this time for Chile. I found several Chilean media sources referencing a chart called IDERE. I did some snooping and found their archived website. Only problem is that I have yet to find the charts, but I'm still searching for it. According to this source, it is a weekly chart. Erick ( talk) 19:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to take part in a discussion about which artists to include in lists of artists who reached number one, you can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#Establishing proper guidelines for articles that are lists of artists who reached number 1. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Is the PopTop Lista seen here a reliable source? The website is extremely bland and I can't see any indication or link to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone find any sign that hitparadeitalia.it is publishing an official chart? I can't, but my Italian is weak. I think this is a candidate for WP:BADCHARTS.— Kww( talk) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gary Hold ( talk) 17:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done If this is about ISAIMV, then it cannot be included without consensus on the talk page. And from what I've seen, the website is not a notable chart at all. Erick ( talk) 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Source says "Asia Pop 40 chart will become the main reference source for what's hot in Asian music for the world's music media" and calls it "Asia's first-ever official regional chart". I looked further into their website and here's what they say: "Asia Pop 40 counts down the most popular downloads on iTunes across Asia" We currently don't have charts from any Asian country except for Japan and South Korea maybe we should consider this Josh ( talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Is Amprofon just down temoprarily or do we need to find a new source for Mexican certifications? Adabow ( talk) 19:31, 4 August 2013 (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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
See Paparazzi (Girls' Generation song). What should be the cut-off? I mean, Billboard and Oricon are the "official" charts, but should the daily/weekly/monthly charts be included? I think the Chaka-Uta charts follow mobile sales.... And the RIAJ charts are official too. SKS ( talk) 05:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've found out that Billboard.biz is publishing Brazilian charts for albums (provided by the Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Discos with Nielsen SoundScan) and songs, which are published by Billboard Brasil through the main chart named Brasil Hot 100 Airplay, then only available from the magazine. Therefore, we have an official source for charts in Brazil. The albums chart is weekly, while the songs chart is monthly, just like the chart from Billboard Brasil. Archives for the website are needed since the page is updated regularly. So, I would like to know what other contributors think about listing this source for use in the English Wikipedia. Regards, Lucas RdS ( talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
2011: |
|
2012: |
|
I'm sorry if it looks like a mess (I don't know how to organize lists very well), but I hope it helps other users. These archives contains not only albums by Brazilian artists, but lots of albums by internacional acts, including those from English-speaking countries (like Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Adele, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez & the Scene, among others). Lucas RdS ( talk) 04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Do we want to go down this road? See List of Dutch Top 40 number-two singles of 2012. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
...of this? Till 13:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Like i written on Sourcing Guide Talk Page, I open this discussion for to do a clarification about the Dutch Charts. For many years on Wikipedia was written that the Dutch Top 40 was part of the GfK Charts and was written that the Singles Top 100 was a component chart of the Dutch Top 40. It is totally false. Dutch Top 40 is the competitor of the GfK charts and were in association for a limited period. You can read their history here
Furthermore, the association of the Dutch Top 40 had a its albums chart active until 1999 (when it merged several charts, including the albums chart, with Mega Charts). It reactived the albums chart in 2011 ( http://www.top40.nl/album-top40 ). To avoid other errors, i edited the main page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Record_charts/Sourcing_guide ) and the Mega Charts page. At this point, i think that the user can choice what chart prefer to use. SJ ( talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added in the Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 chart, along with further clarification regarding both charts. Either chart can be used, although I personally prefer Billboard. I also wanted to clarify that, for Gaon, if songs chart on the International chart, it should be noted as such, because songs on the International chart may not be on the main chart at all (for example, the main chart for the last week of August only has the top 5 songs from the International chart — in other words, the #6 on the International chart didn't place on the main chart at all). I hope this helps. SKS ( talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Somebody get this corrected - Why is this an applicable Billboard chart acceptable for Wikipedia to display on pages? Do not use the discontinued Billboard Pop 100 chart data for inclusion on these artists' pages unless it is applicable at the time the Pop 100 chart data was active. Didn't another chart assumingly take its place? Then make that applicable. We're going to have a couple hundreds of pages with erroneous chart by 2020 unless we liberate the pages from this time-borne mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.135.192 ( talk) 03:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any special distinction between these two charts? Till 11:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if there is another discussion about this, but i post it for precaution. Since Charts in France began to publish its combined chart for albums and singles (2011), i had some doubts about its officiality. In fact, SNEP website didn't announce new combined charts and never mentioned Charts in France (also known as Pure Charts) as its official diffuser. So, I tried to write to SNEP, but its email doesn't function. I tried to write to GfK ( http://www.musiqueautop.com/home.php ) and it told me that it didn't know nothing about Charts in France and maybe, it is authorized by SNEP, but for safety, it reccomended me to follow the SNEP website. So, i remained with the doubts until 2012 when SNEP announced its first combined chart for the singles ( http://www.chartsinfrance.net/actualite/news-78188.html ). At that point, it was clear that Charts in France was not an official diffuser because it began with the combined singles chart one year before than SNEP, claiming that it was THE official chart and it was authorized by SNEP. Furthermore it continued to publish a combined albums chart that was never announced and officialized by SNEP. At this point, can Charts in France be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? SJ ( talk) 22:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There are weekly airplay charts in Argentina and Greece. Are they good enough for use on Wikipedia? 2pac Is Alive ( talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
For a while, it's known that charts such as Monitor Latino and Romanian Top 100 can used as charts, but they're not listed on WP:GOODCHARTS due to the lack of archiving. Of course, not every editor knows that these charts exist, so I propose a new section called "Acceptable charts" under the Recommended charts with the shortcut WP:OKAYCHARTS. I developed a sandbox to show what it might look like. If I have any missing charts or errors, let me know. I also have some questions as well:
— Kww( talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have added acceptable charts as its own section and created a shortcut for quick reference. So is the Mexican Airplay is acceptable then under WP:GOODCHARTS? EDIT: Also, I want to add that the certifications posted on the Mexican Airplay are from the RIAA, not AMPROFON. If you compare every certification posted at the Mexican Airplay chart to the RIAA website, you see every one of them match and note the lack of certifications for Spanish-language songs. Erick ( talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
A while back, this page didn't even acknowledge how to list Bubbling Under peaks. I had been using 1xx for them (e.g. 103 for a song that peaked at 3 on the Bubbling Under), and the 1xx format had been used on other articles. Therefore, I added a section encouraging 1xx for songs that bubbled under, since the issue had never been addressed, but precedent showed 1xx to be acceptable. Kww then over-wrote it with the following.
On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak.
Nowhere else in Wikipedia has Kww's take been supported that I know of. I fail to see how using 1xx for a Bubbling Under peak is synthesis, as the 1xx format is used widely in the industry (for instance, in the books by Joel Whitburn). After User:Eric444 addressed concerns about the handling of Bubbling Under peaks on my talk page, I decided to start this. What should we do for Bubbling Under songs? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Gongshow Talk 22:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You articulate your position well. Perhaps it can best resolve using context that describes the essence of both sourced renditions. Consider if the following suggestion for the footnotes could be effective:
"—" denotes releases that did not chart
"-n" the negative number denotes releases that peaked "n" positions below the main chart on its related Bubbling Under chart (n=1–25)
An additional benefit derives by it being equally viable for all BU charts like R&B/Hip-Hop or those to come. I am in keen anticipation of your reply. 76Strat String da Broke da ( talk) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
... or something to that effect. The Bubbling Under article already spells out the chart's old and current methods rather well, but maybe something brief like this would be appropriate, as well. Cheers, Gongshow Talk 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion about the above changes at Talk:Billboard_charts#Hot_R.26B.2FHip-Hop_Songs_-_Rap_Songs_R.26B_Songs. Could people please weigh-in? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Lately I've seen sources like this being used as a reference for Italian digital singles chart positions below top 10 – for example here. FIMI of course only publishes the top 10 on their site.
I haven't removed them, since basically they appear to be valid. However, as a source, Facebook seems a bit dubious to me. Any opinions? Widr ( talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The Official Lebanese Top 20 is used on some song articles, but the article itself is not referenced and I didn't see any discussions of the chart here. The methodology appears to be airplay based on the website information. As for media coverage, I do see some coverage from news media from Google News such as this French site, and this Arabic site. Archives can be found here. So is it a legitimate chart? Erick ( talk) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If an article is going to use the singlechart templates, shouldn't chart positions be updated only when the assigned source is updated. For example, I noticed some updates to Billboard chart positions on some articles because another source was found. Yet that source wasn't cited, and the chart history page for the artist is not updated for this week yet so, as of now, the cited source is inaccurate. The fanboy message I got on the revert was "it will update in a couple days, so it's ok." My feeling then is if the singlechart template is to be used, then the chart position for a song shouldn't be updated until the actual source is. And if there's another reliable source, then that should be used. That would tend to violate
WP:verifiability without proper citations, even if it is for a day or two. The fanboys just want to be the first. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars
Talk to me
14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no way to provide an alternate reference. There's no rush to get the latest positions into an article: the position shouldn't be updated until the source is updated. That's always true: the sources for an article and the data in an article should always correspond.— Kww( talk) 19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I prefer just waiting a day or two for the actual chart to update, when Billboard preannounces some 'next chart' positions it is not inaccurate to report them, IMO. As long as the preannouncement material is DIRECTLY sourced to Billboard ONLY. (They are their charts, after all.) And a 'work-around' is available (for the brief necessary period) by placing a ref to the preannouncement in the note parameter of the template.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I actually used this method...here's an example [
[75]]. (See Billboard Hot 100)
—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The Hot Country Songs charts have been split into two charts: an airplay-only chart that's identical in methodology to the original, airplay-only Hot Country Songs chart, and an airplay/sales hybrid chart which is now the "main" country chart (more info here). How should this be handled in discographies? The current link to the Country Songs chart reflects the positions of the "new" chart, while the Country Airplay chart reflects the chart formerly known as Hot Country Songs. Do we use both positions? The "new" chart only? New chart unless it only charted on the airplay-only chart? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Combine them. TheDL ( talk) 04:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This really feels to me like people are arguing to be inconsistent with the rest of the music articles because they don't like the answer that consistency brings. If the airplay charts are significantly different from a combined sales/airplay chart, that's just the nature of reality. If the demographics of country music fans are such that the people that buy music buy songs from Taylor Swift, that's a fact. Trying to push an airplay-only chart because it tends to favor music popular with older listeners and artists that have fewer crossover sales isn't trying to paint an accurate picture of the market, it's trying to paint a distorted image of the market because you like that picture better.
That said, if the charts are really that different, there's no reason not to list both in a discography article so long as you are going to stay under the 10 chart limit. I don't think the 10 chart limit is a major problem for most country artists. The only thing that would unacceptable would be to mix positions in a column: if it's an airplay column, it's an airplay columng, not a mix of whatever positions makes the artist look best.— Kww( talk) 03:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"Also, the "old" chart doesn't seem to count as a "component" chart, since it includes only country airplay, whereas the "new" chart includes non-country airplay as well." This is really the only argument that should exist. I was under the mistaken belief that the overall charts counted just the corresponding airplay charts. But from [76], it states "The new methodology, which will utilize the Hot 100's formula of incorporating airplay from more than 1,200 stations of all genres monitored by BDS, will reward crossover titles receiving airplay on a multitude of formats." Since these charts take into account wider airplay charts, they are not component charts and should be allowed to be used. But even with it added to Carrie Underwood discography, an ip editor has already changed the overall chart #2 to #1 once, so this might not help out to avoid edit wars in certain articles. Aspects ( talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you all think guys about this chart published by MSN Russia? Does it meet requirement to be listed at WP:GOODCHART? Bluesatellite ( talk) 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to navigate the Gaon charts? e.g. http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So, I have a question regarding acharts.us- I'm trying to source Spectrum, here it says the song charted at No. 48 on the US Airplay Top 100, and WP:GOODCHARTS says it is okay to use acharts.us to source US positions, but that position is from Charly1300.com, which is under WP:BADCHARTS. It seems conflicting, should it not be used because it isn't a Billboard position? NYSM mau5 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks YouTube is playing a bigger and bigger role in the music industry with every single passing year? And that the YouTube charts should be included here? - A1candidate ( talk) 22:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe YouTube contributes to the streaming charts at its appropriate weight. The views aren't being missed.— Kww( talk) 18:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
How come all the Rihanna articles combine the Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling under charts, which listed as a violation of WP:SYNTH? I even changed it, and it was restored. Till 05:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Due to the major revamp of the Billboard charts, I've had to make substantial revisions to singlechart and BillboardID.
In short, singlechart no longer listens to the artistid parameter you pass it. It will use the name to look up the artistid number using {{ BillboardID}}. {{ BillboardID}} now supports over 30,000 artists. It's brand new and took my computer over a week to generate, so it undoubtedly has bugs and missing entries. If the template can't find the artist, then edit the corresponding entry in the templates.
The list got so huge that it's broken up by first character: "101 strings" in in {{
BillboardID/1}}, for example. If you really want to call it with "One Hundred and One Strings", that will work, but you would have to enter the Billboard ID into {{
BillboardID/O}} as "one hundred and one strings".Won't work any more: you have to use the Billboard version of the name. Exactly.
Thanks in advance for your help. It's a simple system, so we should all be able to maintain the tables without having to funnel everything through me. If you can't figure it out or it's blowing up in some new and unexpected way, let me know and I'll get it debugged.— Kww( talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Is http://ukairplaychart.com/about/ a legitimate source for Airplay in the UK? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
There are problems here regarding the usage of Billboard charts, specifically certain cases of not being able to include chart B if it charted on chart A.
Dance/Mix Show Airplay, Adult Top 40 and Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) need to be moved above, to be added regardless of other chartings.
NYSM y talk page 03:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the dance charts, Dance/Mix Airplay is a complete separate entity from Hot Dance Club Songs, one is airplay the other is club play. There is no reasoning to deny usage of the airplay chart if the song charted on the club chart, they are not connected at all. NYSM y talk page 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been over a week with no responses even after this page has been viewed 100 times, I'm taking that as no objections so I'm making the change. If you disagree, discuss here. NYSM y talk page 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot. I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.— Kww( talk) 19:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should include Dance/Electronic Songs on the Applicable U.S. Charts since it ranks the top-selling electronic dance music singles in the United States through a combination of single sales, digital downloads, club play and radio airplay. People is removing this chart because they think it is a componet of Hot Dance Club Songs while the true is that this chart is included on Dance/Electronic. Since Dance/Electronic Songs is a new chart I think we should keep both charts.-- Albes29 ( talk) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The main website for Monitor Latino now displays the current number-one single in the Dominican Republic. The main chart still remains only for subscribers. Will it be appropriate to use it on the singles chart provided that its manually archived? Similarly, Media-Forest has now provided charts for Argentina. Erick ( talk) 06:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone find any sign that the charts at http://creativedisc.com/top-charts/creative-disc-top-50-chart/creative-disc-top-50-chart/ are acceptable? I'm about to add them to WP:BADCHARTS, but I would like to hear some support before I do.— Kww( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Last year the
Elizabeth Chan article was deleted for lack of notabilty. However some of the
discussion focused on the BLP's song's #4 position on iTunes for holiday Christmas songs. What was not readily obvious in the discssion is that this Christmas song charted in September, and that the BLP subject was participatint in a
reality show where she campagined a form of
google bombing by having participants purchase her song at the stroke of midnight when it was released with the apparent purpose of running the chart. We should be bear this in mind when considering if iTunes establishes notability in the future.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
00:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering if the rules on deprecated charts apply on all Wiki sites? I assume so but would just like clarification before I go ahead and remove content that this article deems as "Bad Charts". Thanks, Liam ( talk) 17:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013 has been relisted at AFD due to lack of participation.— Kww( talk) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen this website – http://chartsecuador.jimdo.com/ – used as a source for various singles charts in Ecuador. I don't think it's reliable, as I can't find any staff or sales/airplay tracking information (and Jimdo.com is an amateur web-design site anyway, when an official source would probably set up their own domain). What do you think? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
As per the pages we have on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, it is 25 song extension derived from the Hot Radio Songs and Hot Digital Songs charts. Both of which also feed into the Billboard Hot 100. As a result, if a song has not charted on the Hot 100, Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles can be added. However if a song has charted on the Bubbling Under, then Hot Radio or Hot Digital Songs should NOT be listed. I've clarified this on the policy page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks to someone who posted a Monitor Latino on En la Obscuridad, and the link directs to the week it ranked on the chart. After observing the url, I figured out how to work the chart url to give you the week you want. First, I should mentioned when Monitor Latino ranks the chart. They compile the charts from Monday to Sunday. This is important to understand how the url works. As for the url itself, here's the a rundown of how it works.
This is the basic url: http://www.monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/[Chart name][Date 1][Date 2].html. The available chart names are: General, Regional, Pop, and Ingles. General is the overall chart, Regional deals with Regional Mexican music in the country, Pop is for Latin pop, and Ingles is for the Anglo market in Mexico. Next is the date. I mentioned that the chart runs from Monday to Sunday. So, date one uses a Monday and date two uses the following Sunday. Here's an example: http://www.monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/General31120133172013.html. In the url, we have a General chart for the week of March 11, 2013 to March 17, 2013. In the url, March 11, 2013 is written as 3112013 and March 17, 2013 is written as 3172013 (do not use the zero integer for months before October). Give it a try and see how it works. Erick ( talk) 20:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The Croation airplay chart takes me to a non-obtained address which my computer tells me is very high risk to visit. Has the official website been moved? Jayy008 ( talk) 20:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it legitimate to include a song's peak on this chart in its article? If it has charted on the Hot 100 or not? — LittleMixLove • these wings are made to fly! 17:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I know this is controversial but we list the US singles chart as Billboard Hot 100 whereby the syntax is [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]] which is actually bad practice. We would list the Urban chart as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (Billboard). Billboard.com has for a while now referred to the US singles chart as The Hot 100. I think our single chart template, should list it as US Hot 100 ( Billboard) page on here should be called The Hot 100. this is more user friendly as they can then click on the Billboard link to find out about the chart provider. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hung Medien compiles "best of all time" charts, based on points for rankings on each weekly chart. Being unofficial (constructed by HM, not recording associations), are they suitable for use on Wikipedia? I came across their use on "Halo"... Adabow ( talk) 02:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this site a good source for Romanian peaks since it is similar to that of Israel? ( http://www.mediaforest.ro/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaolympic989 ( talk • contribs)
Once again, I found yet another possible reliable chart this time for Chile. I found several Chilean media sources referencing a chart called IDERE. I did some snooping and found their archived website. Only problem is that I have yet to find the charts, but I'm still searching for it. According to this source, it is a weekly chart. Erick ( talk) 19:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to take part in a discussion about which artists to include in lists of artists who reached number one, you can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#Establishing proper guidelines for articles that are lists of artists who reached number 1. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Is the PopTop Lista seen here a reliable source? The website is extremely bland and I can't see any indication or link to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone find any sign that hitparadeitalia.it is publishing an official chart? I can't, but my Italian is weak. I think this is a candidate for WP:BADCHARTS.— Kww( talk) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gary Hold ( talk) 17:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done If this is about ISAIMV, then it cannot be included without consensus on the talk page. And from what I've seen, the website is not a notable chart at all. Erick ( talk) 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Source says "Asia Pop 40 chart will become the main reference source for what's hot in Asian music for the world's music media" and calls it "Asia's first-ever official regional chart". I looked further into their website and here's what they say: "Asia Pop 40 counts down the most popular downloads on iTunes across Asia" We currently don't have charts from any Asian country except for Japan and South Korea maybe we should consider this Josh ( talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Is Amprofon just down temoprarily or do we need to find a new source for Mexican certifications? Adabow ( talk) 19:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)