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 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Me and Iknow23( talk) are in a dispute about the Rap Songs chart being on the Berzerk article. I already took a look at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS#Single charts and that's not a legitimate reason to not have it there because it's not listed as a depreciated chart and it's on almost every song article on wikipedia where it shows a chart position for that chart so it seems to be a very reliable chart, but other than that he claims that the chart is a component chart of the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and that it's only based on airplay, when it's actually based on both airplay and digital sales, just like the Billboard Hot 100 and R&B/Hip-Hop songs. So therefore it is not a component chart and should remain on the article. The Pop Songs chart is only based on airplay so that's basically a component chart and should be removed then right? Hometown Kid( talk) 10:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Do YouTube view counts really matter? I can't help but feel that YouTube falls under the same category iTunes as single network. I think don't think they deserve mentions except under special caes (like Gangnam Style), but am I forced to use them? Am I allowed to remove them if I'm improving an article? Erick ( talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or recommendation (chart-specific or not) of a minimum number of table entries? Is there a point in having a table with one chart? Eg [1]. Adabow ( talk) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a standard for this? I used to always favour ISO 3166-1 (so using IE for Ireland, DE for Germany, ES for Spain, etc), but they all got changed (so IRL for Ireland, GER for Germany, SPA for Spain). Recently I noticed that an SK for Slovakia was changed in an article to SL. That's the ISO code for Sierra Leone, but as we don't use those, it could also mean Slovenia, or several others that start with S and contain an L. So I just wondered if there was a standard, and if not, should we implement one (I say we probably should)? – anemone projectors– 09:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone, there are some issues I saw in the single chart template which I wanted to bring to notice. In the {{ singlechart}} template for Hungary, the urls generated are for the mahasz.hu website, however, that website has migrated off to a new url. Could you guys please take a look since the week and the year given does not generate the archive url anymore?
Secondly, can we have the year and week for the Irish singlechart as part of the title also? Like "Irish Singles: Chart Track: Week 43, 2013" or something from the week and year information in the template? The title at present, just "Chart Track" simply does not give any indication whether the link is for a singles chart or album chart etc.
Lastly, the certification entry template for Italian certifications do not generate the Week and Year in the reference, making the addition of the template pointless. It says "Select Online in the field Scegli la sezione. Select Week -- and Year ----. Enter Lady Gaga in the field Artista. Click Avvia la ricerca". Here the week and year should have been replaced by the values given in the {{ Certification Table Entry}} for Italy region, however it does not do so. Let me know your thoughts on this. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This site is being used as a source for certain articles, specifically as a source for UK chart positions lower than 100. However, the site itself implies that it is getting its information from UKchartsplus.co.uk which is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. Therefore, I think Zobbel.de should also be added to BADCHARTS as it is unreliable. Soultruck ( talk) 11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we have the decision on the Scottish Chart written up into the actual rules page please.
Some have called for it to be added to the BADCHARTS, however the consensus from the numerous previous discussions on the UK and Scottish Charts have been against an outright ban, deciding that it is only to be used when the chart placement is different to that of the overall UK chart.
Some of the reasons given in discussions are because its a dependent component chart (Scotland is 8% of the UK; England+Wales+Scotland+N.Ireland=UK; sales in Scotland contribute to the UK chart); the chart placement on the chart is usually the same as the overall UK chart; the charts are compiled by the Official Charts Company who refer to the Scottish chart as a "Regional Chart", and you are only said to have had a #1 if you are number one in the overall UK chart; there is only one national industry body - British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - and (as the name suggests) Gold, Platinum (etc.) certifications are only awarded for overall UK chart sales.
Discussions have popped up now and again over the years, but it's never been written into the actual policy page.
-- Rushton2010 ( talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, its been 4 days since any comments, and the discussion seems to have come to the conclusions as past discussions. The same reasoning that was previously mentioned in those discussions - and which i surmised when I opened this discussion - have come up again.
A quick summary of the views expressed:
The only one against has been: Kww who's arguments have surrounded Scotland's political identity as a country.
Past Discussions As I have mentioned the past discussions, I will link to them just for clarity and transparency.
Conclusions
This is now the third time consensus has been reached against inclusion, with strong consensus each time that it should be listed as a component chart.
It has also been mentioned that it should be added to
WP:BADCHARTS, however, there does not appear to be consensus for that move.
A previous discussion suggests flexibility to allow the Scottish Chart to be used for songs that have not charted in the UK chart, but this discussion has not really touched on this. It appears to me a fair and sensible approach, but, as there is no consensus for inclusion in this discussion, I will start a separate discussion regarding its inclusion or not.
As this is now the third time editors have come to the same consensus, I think we are safe to close the discussions and mention the chart under the component chart section of the main page. -- Rushton2010 ( talk) 19:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Just as an after note, I've added a list of examples of charts mathematically related on each other (dependent/component) to the main page. I had played with the idea of rewriting the paragraph to include the above discussion, but I think just a simple list is most sensible and clear; it also leaves room for any other charts to be listed. -- Rushton2010 ( talk) 20:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Following the third agreement of the Scottish Chart as a component chart, I would like some input as to whether the Scottish Chart could be used if the song has not charted in the overall UK chart.
The policy states "In unusual cases, the subordinate chart can be mentioned: take, for example, a single which had no airplay because of objectionable content, but still charted extremely high on the composite chart due to sales. This would be unusual enough to potentially warrant mention."
It appears to me that charting in the Scottish regional chart but not the UK national one would be such an "unusual case" where "the subordinate chart can be mentioned". However, the actual policy is a little wishy-washy and open to interpretation.
What are other people's thoughts?
-- Rushton2010 ( talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)
First and foremost, if you believe consensus has changed from the discussions, the onus is on you to start a discussion and prove it. The original discussion was unanimous, and broad consensus has been reached two more times now. In the most recent discussion you were the lone voice against, while all others involved were in absolute agreement. Unanimity minus one as they say.
The consensus has been there for the chart to be mentioned on the main page for almost 4 years. As the lone voice in an otherwise unanimous decision, constantly removing it would be very tedious and disruptive. Hence, if you believe the consensus was changed - start a discussion on it.
As for your other comments, I don't really intend to pick apart every little thing, as, as I say, - this has been in agreement since 2010; but: as for Hobbes Goodyear's arguments, they are entirely valid. The status of the component parts of the UK are not definitively defined, as it depends on a mix of circumstance of use, chosen definitions and personal choice- leading to them to be refereed to variously as countries/states/regions/nations/former-countries/former-states/former-nations etc. His chosen definition is that the UK is the "country" - ie. a "country" is a sovereign states and as the component parts are not independent of each-other, it is the UK over all which is the "country". Incidentally, that is the same way the UN and EU treats us; it is the UK as a whole which they regard as the country/sovereign state. -but there in lies the problem: this issue is not regarding any wishy washy definitions of claims of different status. This policy is about music charts.
The policy forbids charts dependent/component/mathematically related -regardless of issues of statehood/country-hood or anything else. The Official UK chart and the Scottish (and any future other regional charts) may not be related in the same way as the Billboard example listed, but that is given as an example, not as the rule. The consensus in the three agreements has been that the Scot chart is dependent/component/mathematically related. -again that originally agreement was 2010; this has just confirmed it for the 3rd time.
But for a bit of context, if we look at the rest of the policy we can see the aim behind it: "any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on both other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article." The aim appears explicitly to be to stop obvious clutter (and of course the potential NPOV issue was raised in the discussion). In exactly the same way as the Billboard example, any song charting on the UK chart can be presumed to chart on the Scottish one.
Finally, I had a quick read through your comments to see if I had missed anything out. I think I did broadly cover everything. In good faith I will add in your comment that no other "nation chart" has been excluded; but this is again a political issue resting whichever favoured way someone has of referring to the component parts of the UK. I didn't include your comment "there's no policy that would forbid their inclusion", because obviously the policy against component charts forbids component charts, and I thought including it would kind of undermined you. I will add it in good faith again.
So yes, with a unanimous agreement in 2010, reaffirmed with two discussions reaching the same consensus (this last being Unanimity minus one as they say), your more than welcome to start another discussion to see if that's changed. But please don't try and start edit warring on the main page. If you're worried about how it is framed as an example, improve it. Perhaps it would be better under BadCharts where it can be explained that discussions have deemed it a component chart, rather than just listing it as an example?
Either-way, as the lone voice against, while all others involved were in absolute agreement, ignoring those discussions and just constantly removing it would be very counterproductive, tedious and disruptive. --
Rushton2010 (
talk) 03:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding demonstrably false material to a guideline, Rushton2010. The section you keep adding this to is for charts that are related by mathematical weighting, and the Scottish chart is not mathematically weighted to construct the UK chart. The charts you have grouped it with are charts that use formulas where positions on the individual charts earn points, and then the composite chart is constructed by sorting the point scores. The UK chart is not constructed from the Scottish chart in that fashion. If you want to document consensus that the Scottish chart should normally not be used in the presence of a UK chart position, come up with a way of saying that that does not misdescribe the chart.— Kww( talk) 03:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Something more like this, for example.— Kww( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Can these be added to WP:BADCHART?
And these to WP:GOODCHART?
-- Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 03:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) I've only made a superficial review (e.g. of the listing and reasoning given above) but it loos sound and reasonable. North8000 ( talk) 13:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if the ARIA (Australian) Hitseeker chart is a chart that is permissible to use. I am working on an article for a recently released album ( Thrive by Casting Crowns), and the album listed in the weekly ARIA Report under 'ARIA Hitseekers', but did not appear on top 100 albums list. The Hitseeker chart ranks the top 20 albums from artists that haven't reached the top 50 of the ARIA Album chart yet. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's the website. It's from Uruguay. Erick ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this an official chart? I can't read anything on the About page, but it does have a link to the IFPI's list of certification thresholds. Adabow ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User Kww as attempted to add the following to the policy. As of course policy decisions require discussion, I have removed it from the main page and brought it here for discussion:-- Rushton2010 ( talk) 04:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Regional charts
In general, charts reflecting small regions are not used. For example, the Billboard Brasil charts representing the individual Brazilian states, while published by reputable and reliable source, have never been considered suitable for inclusion. Individual city charts are not considered suitable for inclusion. Scotland represents a borderline case, and there has never been a strong consensus either for or against conclusion. Its use is generally less controversial for works that have not charted on the main UK chart.
There seems to be some problem with the {{ singlechart}} at the "Selfie" song article. Are the artistid required again? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd read a guideline about this in the past but can't seem to find it now … Question: is it acceptable to list more than one national chart per country/territory in an article's Charts section? I'm looking at the McCartney album articles Band on the Run, Venus and Mars and Wings at the Speed of Sound, all of which give US chart peaks on Billboard 200, Cash Box and Record World. Seems slightly excessive (in my opinion); not only that, but the inclusion of all three charts (or even two) makes other album articles appear incomplete, when they list only Billboard. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 11:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think they were different. For instance, I've read that Billboard's listings used to take radio airplay into account, which, even in the mid 1970s, made Cash Box the "industry standard" as far as sales went. And yes, I'd also seen that Whitburn book on the Cash Box Top 100, from the link on the project page (very tempting ...). Anyway, Billboard is obviously the US chart of consequence for wikipedia articles.
I can see a reason for including mention in the text of an album or song's position on Cash Box, say, if it's higher than the peak that Billboard listed – the Ringo album would be an example of this, number 2 on Billboard in December 1973, but number 1 on both Cash Box and Record World. But in the case of those Wings albums I mentioned, where the alternative listings appear in the Charts box itself, I can't see they add anything. (In fact, it sort of puffs up the strike rate, imo.)
Thanks to you both for your input. Hopefully a few others might weigh in here – but would you agree, we ought to delete them from the Charts box? The alternative is we look to add them in other articles where possible. I've got a Bruce Spizer book that gives all US chart peaks for Beatle solo albums and singles on Apple Records, and I've got Melody Maker chart runs for the same; but, as you can tell, I'd rather not add them at all. JG66 ( talk) 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If an album appears on a US Heatseekers chart, but later appears on the Hot 100 or Billboard 200, is it appropriate to list the Heatseekers chart? Adabow ( talk) 11:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if people already know about it, but Billboard Brasil started publishing their monthly chart online. Yay! Here's the current Top 100. I assume this makes everything so much easier for us, because until now we had to source the Brazilian peak positions with the physical magazine. However, as of now, all of the songs are marked as "debuts" so we don't have their actual peak positions. decodet. ( talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In possibly related news, hot100brasil.com appears to be down. This nonsense may finally be approaching a sensible conclusion.— Kww( talk) 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Lil-unique1 They don't have previous months charts. It's like the chart debuted this month. All of the 100 songs appears as "debuts" even though most of them charted in the last months according to the physical magazines. decodet. ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Big news! The Billboard Brasil chart is now a weekly chart and it is being published on the site! It's on its second week of chart already. Happy to see that everything is finally working out for the brazilian chart! decodet. ( talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems that Billboard has removed the chart history from the Katy Perry artist page completely. Same for Lady Gaga. Is it a glitch? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
RSG post a weekly top 20 for albums in SA on their main page, compiled by the Recording Industry of South Africa. Could this be considered as an acceptable chart in the same vein as SA's EMA airplay chart by use of archiving like in here for example [2] — Cool Marc 18:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I noticed a user removing Hot Rap Songs in a song article because "it is a component chart of R&B/Hip-Hop Songs". Where is this stated in the Hot Rap Songs article? Is there perhaps a source for this? I see Hot Rap Songs being used in FA and GA-class song articles like " Not Afraid" and " Love the Way You Lie" though? Can someone please clarify? Thanks — Cool Marc 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlike a few years ago, it seems that the Russian Albums Chart published by Lenta.ru is now based solely on sales from iTunes, which would go against WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Thoughts? SN▲P • SN▲P 19:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The Billboard Kpop Hot 100 chart was discontinued on May 17, 2014 as stated on Billboard.com, but yet over at Billboard Korea's website, the chart is still running. Should I trust on using the chart data on the latter or not? Rockysmile11 ( talk) 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
ARIA is an official chart. Is http://australian-charts.com a recognized mirror? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This chart was listed as 'bad' for more than two years and since its deletion nothing has changed at all. However, user Bluesatellite thinks this chart is now notable, since there is an outdated article Russian Music Charts (which just covers this subject partly — which doesn't make the chart notable). Should this chart be deleted from the 'bad' list? Discuss.-- demis talk 13:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Should the Billboard Twitter Real-Time chart be allowed to be used in song articles? It changes so frequently, I think it is quite trivial to be used. STATic message me! 18:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the Gaon chart has changed its http's, thereby disrupting all the charts that have used the old format. It also displays just the top 100 singles so finding ones rated 101-200 may be difficult (subscription?). - AngusWOOF ( talk) 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I have recently found some pages that reference the FDR Charts. I am not sure if they will help to get it removed from WP:BADCHARTS, but I will provide them anyway:
I will continue trying to find references Moonchïld9 ( talk) 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since a lot of music is sold via the mentioned digital music distributors i like to suggest to reflect this in the Wikipedia record charts, under a new table for digital music distributors. These providers appear to be affiliated with IFPI and i see no reason why Wikipedia is excluding them. Further are many charts on these sites only available there, such as for indie music genres PsyTrance, Goa, Progressive, Trance etc. I guess when it comes to indie music there are some exceptions. An estimated 35% of the global music industry's revenue is coming from digital channels, (2013 numbers), the wikipedia should include those. Related reading http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2013/11/the-indie-musicians-guide-to-digital-distribution.html Further are sales from digital distributors frequently cited in the media. prokaryotes ( talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
prokaryotes ( talk) 23:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The dispute between the online retailer and the publishing conglomerate began this spring, and revolves around the pricing of ebooks and contract details for distributing Hachette’s books. Much of it remained private – as most contract negotiations between giant corporations do – until Amazon halted sales of some Hachette books, making some unavailable to purchase, delaying deliveries of others by weeks and months, and advertising alongside some titles with a banner of “similar items at a lower price”.
Revised proposal for Beatport only, i invite you all to discuss it here. Thanks for participating. (Note to admin, i retract this proposal and it could be closed, if required.) prokaryotes ( talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
For those how may have missed this above, see discussion here. Semitransgenic talk. 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been digging through some ancient copies of Billboard on Google Books from 1964 and 1965 to search for some worldwide chart positions for various songs of the day in the "Hits of the World" sections to add to their articles (" Oh, Pretty Woman", for example) and I've found some chart positions from both regions of Belgium, Mexico and South Africa. However, Billboard doesn't list the individual publishers of the charts from that era, and they seem to be the only available records of those charts at the time: as such, does anyone know which organisations were publishing the Belgian, Mexican and South African singles charts in 1964 and 1965?
I know this is a bit of a long shot but, presuming the charts are indeed direct replicas of the national charts in place at the time in those countries (which I presume they are, since they accurately match the UK charts available at the Official Charts Company's site), I don't know where else I could find this information before I add the positions into the article. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The Japanese chart provider Oricon posts daily positions for their singles and albums chart ( here and here), as well as their standard weekly positions. Many articles at Wikipedia list these (though unsourced), but it is possible to source data for these positions with the use of webcitation/web archive.
However, would the logic behind WP:CHARTMATH apply to these positions? As the new releases are generally released simultaneously on Tuesdays, the majority of releases that charted weekly can be said to have a similar daily position, and that the daily chart can be seen as a subordinate chart. WP:CHARTTRAJ precludes the use of the release's raw data, meaning only a single daily position is listed, outside of its weekly context. For example:
In some cases daily positions can change wildly (especially in the case of idol groups, or releases with a limited number of copies), which means there could potentially be releases where a page would benefit from such information, much like the 'unusual' cases mentioned in WP:CHARTMATH. A few years ago there was an instance where the weekly #1 album never made it to #1 on the daily chart, which also would be unusual enough to mention. For example:
Should daily positions that aren't 'unusual' be discouraged, much like Billboard Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 sales, and included in the charts mentioned at WP:CHARTMATH? -- Prosperosity ( talk) 03:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In the Miranda Lambert discography page, an editor removed all the chart positions for Hot Country Songs before 2012. The argument seems to be that the Hot Country Songs chart before 2012 is the same as Country Airplay (this chart was re-introduced when streaming and sales was added to the Hot Country Songs chart). To me that doesn't make sense since the chart positions listed should be the same as the ones given in Billboard, not someone's idea of what the chart positions should be. In some other discography pages such as Carrie Underwood discography, the solution is to merge the two columns before 2012 in the Singles table (that seems reasonable), I wonder what the opinion is on what's been done in the Miranda Lambert discography? Hzh ( talk) 10:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Apologies if the explanation given for the edit was not well articulated. The removal of Hot Country peaks was to be consistent with how the chart positions are handled on other country music artist discographies (see Blake Shelton discography, Jason Aldean discography, Lady Antebellum discography). Billboard has been inconsistent in where those chart peaks are located on their site (with the current status being displayed in both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay). I actually think the merged columns as done in Carrie's discography page is a great solution, and would be open to making that the "unofficial standard" across these and other relevant discography pages.
Which chart to use, say in the the 2000s section(s), is a tricky situation since technically the chart then called "Hot Country Songs" was tracking airplay performance (hence why it has been changed to say Country Airplay on the discographies), but the actual title and the chart name used on individual song articles is "Hot Country Songs". Songsteel ( talk) 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Classified it as "Bad Chart" for failing to file archive. For this there http://www.webcitation.org/ and http://archive.org/web/web.php.
Please, check my topic Talk:Shake_It_Off_(Taylor_Swift_song)#Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_chronology, thank you. -- 188.135.197.238 ( talk) 12:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the UK Chart Stats dead link website is still archiving positions below 75 ? Or have they been stopped by OCC ? I don't mean listing the weekly charts, which I know they don't do anymore, but archiving the peak positions ? QuintusPetillius ( talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The domain Lescharts.com seems to have expired and no chart archive present for France. Does any one know how to update the {{ singlechart}}, {{ albumchart}} template for archive links? — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What happened with Austrian IFPI? I remeber they added in archive some time ago Cheese Stromae's album with Gold status. Now in this place is Racine carrée, propably him add data was changed. What happened? What to do? Eurohunter ( talk) 15:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This should be updated: Based on the press release by Billboard, the components of the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart (the primary dance chart) are the following:
There has already been a discussion about this. And based on another discussion here, both Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Electronic Songs were kept as the latter was just a new chart back then. So Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Mix Show Airplay should not be confused with one another and should be kept unless the the song charts on Dance/Electronic Songs. Chihciboy ( talk) 08:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
But, if you look at the charts, we generally don't include airplay charts unless they have charted on the main chart. For instance, we don't include the main R&B/Hip-hop and the R&B Airplay chart, as the former is made of sales, airplay, streams etc., whereas airplay is just airplay. The Dance Airplay chart is no different, and shouldn't be an exception to the already established rule. Dance Club and Dance/Electronic are two different types of music. You also have to bear in mind that this can end up making tables unnecessarily long if we start introducing component charts and saying that all of the digital and airplay charts can be added too. There needs to be some boundary that we adhere to otherwise we could end up with 10-15 Billboard charts in our tables, but I did used to think "what is the problem with this" not too long ago myself. I've presented arguments for both sides here, but the main issue that you are getting at is that on " Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)" I removed the Dance/Mix Airplay citing WP:USCHARTS, you reinstated it citing a discussion you had (which was all it was, a discussion, nothing was changed and no consensus was put forward), I then removed it saying that you needed to adhere to the rules on WP:USCHARTS, to which you reverted again, citing the discussion, and I removed it once more, and then you did as I suggested and opened this discussion. What I think you was misunderstanding was that just because a couple of people kind of saw your point, you took that as gospel and a reason to revert me, whereas in actual fact, you was ignoring what I was saying and ignoring our current guideline, which is that Dance/Mix Airplay is listed as a component chart which cannot be added unless a song did not chart on either of the two main charts, as it clearly says on WP:USCHARTS. — ₳aron 12:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. So, since Record Report is not on the list, it means that we can use it? AleD ( talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking for a little guidance establishing notability for songs in South Korea. Pretty much every song released in Korea charts on at least one version of the primary national chart in that country, Gaon. (There was Billboard chart for about three years but it has folded.) Thus, according to Wikipedia's notability requirements, every song, no matter how minor, qualifies for an article. We have a huge glut of articles of what are realistically non-notable songs, and I could use some clarification with the following scenarios:
So in the end, we have a gazillion songs that all claim notability, because charting on a major national chart is the only notability requirement for songs, as far as I can tell. Yet these are songs that pretty much no one ever heard other than hardcore fans. This is genre filled with very passionate, very inclusionist editors, so they take those requirements entirely literally when justifying these articles. I'm going to post this over at the songs Wikiproject for their perspectives also. Thanks for any guidance. Shinyang-i ( talk) 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I would like some information about acceptable charts for mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. I saw some discussion of them in the archives, but nothing seems to have been added to either the good or bad charts on the main page. There was a suggestion that Sino be the only acceptable chart for mainland China - does that rule out Baidu? (Baidu is used on a lot of articles.) I'm most concerned about mainland China at this time. The China Wikiproject's entertainment working group seems to be dead and in the process of being merged, so I skipped asking over there. Thanks for any guidance! Shinyang-i ( talk) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've got a bunch of articles for albums, songs, etc that presently use only record charts as sources. Obviously this is not okay but I can't figure out the right tag to put on the article to say "you need to establish notability and not just verify facts." Apparently it's not okay to put the "may not meet notability requirements" tag on in this circumstance. Are record charts examples of primary sources? If that's the case I could use the "uses too many primary sources only" tag, I think. Thanks for any help! Shinyang-i ( talk) 09:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Could I request an update/clarification of the information on the page regarding South Korea's Gaon chart? http://gaonchart.co.kr/
I bring this up because some articles have huge tables for songs with every Gaon chart listed with little other article content, so we need top be very clear on the aggregate data and exactly what charts can and cannot be included. Kpop editors usually don't speak/read Korean, are generally inclusionists, and things quickly get out of control without firm "yes or no" limits. We just need something to be able to point to for guidance. Also, any more news on mainland China charts? Thanks! :) Shinyang-i ( talk) 10:30, 22 January 2015 (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)
The official UK Charts Company website has been upgraded and now includes top 100 singles in the archives. [9] The Wikipedia formatting will need to be updated in order for the templates to work. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 11:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I carefully do not refer to the singles charts as Top 100 since The Next 25 was a section in Music Week, although listing positions 76-100, applying specific additional rules. "Records which would have appeared between positions 76-100 have been excluded if their sales have fallen in two consecutive weeks, and if theirsales fell by 20 per cent compared with last week."
— Tobias Zywietz, [10]
See here. Anyone who is interested may join this discussion. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 00:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Why differences beetwen [11] and [12]? Eurohunter ( talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (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 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Me and Iknow23( talk) are in a dispute about the Rap Songs chart being on the Berzerk article. I already took a look at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS#Single charts and that's not a legitimate reason to not have it there because it's not listed as a depreciated chart and it's on almost every song article on wikipedia where it shows a chart position for that chart so it seems to be a very reliable chart, but other than that he claims that the chart is a component chart of the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and that it's only based on airplay, when it's actually based on both airplay and digital sales, just like the Billboard Hot 100 and R&B/Hip-Hop songs. So therefore it is not a component chart and should remain on the article. The Pop Songs chart is only based on airplay so that's basically a component chart and should be removed then right? Hometown Kid( talk) 10:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Do YouTube view counts really matter? I can't help but feel that YouTube falls under the same category iTunes as single network. I think don't think they deserve mentions except under special caes (like Gangnam Style), but am I forced to use them? Am I allowed to remove them if I'm improving an article? Erick ( talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or recommendation (chart-specific or not) of a minimum number of table entries? Is there a point in having a table with one chart? Eg [1]. Adabow ( talk) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a standard for this? I used to always favour ISO 3166-1 (so using IE for Ireland, DE for Germany, ES for Spain, etc), but they all got changed (so IRL for Ireland, GER for Germany, SPA for Spain). Recently I noticed that an SK for Slovakia was changed in an article to SL. That's the ISO code for Sierra Leone, but as we don't use those, it could also mean Slovenia, or several others that start with S and contain an L. So I just wondered if there was a standard, and if not, should we implement one (I say we probably should)? – anemone projectors– 09:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone, there are some issues I saw in the single chart template which I wanted to bring to notice. In the {{ singlechart}} template for Hungary, the urls generated are for the mahasz.hu website, however, that website has migrated off to a new url. Could you guys please take a look since the week and the year given does not generate the archive url anymore?
Secondly, can we have the year and week for the Irish singlechart as part of the title also? Like "Irish Singles: Chart Track: Week 43, 2013" or something from the week and year information in the template? The title at present, just "Chart Track" simply does not give any indication whether the link is for a singles chart or album chart etc.
Lastly, the certification entry template for Italian certifications do not generate the Week and Year in the reference, making the addition of the template pointless. It says "Select Online in the field Scegli la sezione. Select Week -- and Year ----. Enter Lady Gaga in the field Artista. Click Avvia la ricerca". Here the week and year should have been replaced by the values given in the {{ Certification Table Entry}} for Italy region, however it does not do so. Let me know your thoughts on this. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This site is being used as a source for certain articles, specifically as a source for UK chart positions lower than 100. However, the site itself implies that it is getting its information from UKchartsplus.co.uk which is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. Therefore, I think Zobbel.de should also be added to BADCHARTS as it is unreliable. Soultruck ( talk) 11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we have the decision on the Scottish Chart written up into the actual rules page please.
Some have called for it to be added to the BADCHARTS, however the consensus from the numerous previous discussions on the UK and Scottish Charts have been against an outright ban, deciding that it is only to be used when the chart placement is different to that of the overall UK chart.
Some of the reasons given in discussions are because its a dependent component chart (Scotland is 8% of the UK; England+Wales+Scotland+N.Ireland=UK; sales in Scotland contribute to the UK chart); the chart placement on the chart is usually the same as the overall UK chart; the charts are compiled by the Official Charts Company who refer to the Scottish chart as a "Regional Chart", and you are only said to have had a #1 if you are number one in the overall UK chart; there is only one national industry body - British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - and (as the name suggests) Gold, Platinum (etc.) certifications are only awarded for overall UK chart sales.
Discussions have popped up now and again over the years, but it's never been written into the actual policy page.
-- Rushton2010 ( talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, its been 4 days since any comments, and the discussion seems to have come to the conclusions as past discussions. The same reasoning that was previously mentioned in those discussions - and which i surmised when I opened this discussion - have come up again.
A quick summary of the views expressed:
The only one against has been: Kww who's arguments have surrounded Scotland's political identity as a country.
Past Discussions As I have mentioned the past discussions, I will link to them just for clarity and transparency.
Conclusions
This is now the third time consensus has been reached against inclusion, with strong consensus each time that it should be listed as a component chart.
It has also been mentioned that it should be added to
WP:BADCHARTS, however, there does not appear to be consensus for that move.
A previous discussion suggests flexibility to allow the Scottish Chart to be used for songs that have not charted in the UK chart, but this discussion has not really touched on this. It appears to me a fair and sensible approach, but, as there is no consensus for inclusion in this discussion, I will start a separate discussion regarding its inclusion or not.
As this is now the third time editors have come to the same consensus, I think we are safe to close the discussions and mention the chart under the component chart section of the main page. -- Rushton2010 ( talk) 19:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Just as an after note, I've added a list of examples of charts mathematically related on each other (dependent/component) to the main page. I had played with the idea of rewriting the paragraph to include the above discussion, but I think just a simple list is most sensible and clear; it also leaves room for any other charts to be listed. -- Rushton2010 ( talk) 20:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Following the third agreement of the Scottish Chart as a component chart, I would like some input as to whether the Scottish Chart could be used if the song has not charted in the overall UK chart.
The policy states "In unusual cases, the subordinate chart can be mentioned: take, for example, a single which had no airplay because of objectionable content, but still charted extremely high on the composite chart due to sales. This would be unusual enough to potentially warrant mention."
It appears to me that charting in the Scottish regional chart but not the UK national one would be such an "unusual case" where "the subordinate chart can be mentioned". However, the actual policy is a little wishy-washy and open to interpretation.
What are other people's thoughts?
-- Rushton2010 ( talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)
First and foremost, if you believe consensus has changed from the discussions, the onus is on you to start a discussion and prove it. The original discussion was unanimous, and broad consensus has been reached two more times now. In the most recent discussion you were the lone voice against, while all others involved were in absolute agreement. Unanimity minus one as they say.
The consensus has been there for the chart to be mentioned on the main page for almost 4 years. As the lone voice in an otherwise unanimous decision, constantly removing it would be very tedious and disruptive. Hence, if you believe the consensus was changed - start a discussion on it.
As for your other comments, I don't really intend to pick apart every little thing, as, as I say, - this has been in agreement since 2010; but: as for Hobbes Goodyear's arguments, they are entirely valid. The status of the component parts of the UK are not definitively defined, as it depends on a mix of circumstance of use, chosen definitions and personal choice- leading to them to be refereed to variously as countries/states/regions/nations/former-countries/former-states/former-nations etc. His chosen definition is that the UK is the "country" - ie. a "country" is a sovereign states and as the component parts are not independent of each-other, it is the UK over all which is the "country". Incidentally, that is the same way the UN and EU treats us; it is the UK as a whole which they regard as the country/sovereign state. -but there in lies the problem: this issue is not regarding any wishy washy definitions of claims of different status. This policy is about music charts.
The policy forbids charts dependent/component/mathematically related -regardless of issues of statehood/country-hood or anything else. The Official UK chart and the Scottish (and any future other regional charts) may not be related in the same way as the Billboard example listed, but that is given as an example, not as the rule. The consensus in the three agreements has been that the Scot chart is dependent/component/mathematically related. -again that originally agreement was 2010; this has just confirmed it for the 3rd time.
But for a bit of context, if we look at the rest of the policy we can see the aim behind it: "any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on both other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article." The aim appears explicitly to be to stop obvious clutter (and of course the potential NPOV issue was raised in the discussion). In exactly the same way as the Billboard example, any song charting on the UK chart can be presumed to chart on the Scottish one.
Finally, I had a quick read through your comments to see if I had missed anything out. I think I did broadly cover everything. In good faith I will add in your comment that no other "nation chart" has been excluded; but this is again a political issue resting whichever favoured way someone has of referring to the component parts of the UK. I didn't include your comment "there's no policy that would forbid their inclusion", because obviously the policy against component charts forbids component charts, and I thought including it would kind of undermined you. I will add it in good faith again.
So yes, with a unanimous agreement in 2010, reaffirmed with two discussions reaching the same consensus (this last being Unanimity minus one as they say), your more than welcome to start another discussion to see if that's changed. But please don't try and start edit warring on the main page. If you're worried about how it is framed as an example, improve it. Perhaps it would be better under BadCharts where it can be explained that discussions have deemed it a component chart, rather than just listing it as an example?
Either-way, as the lone voice against, while all others involved were in absolute agreement, ignoring those discussions and just constantly removing it would be very counterproductive, tedious and disruptive. --
Rushton2010 (
talk) 03:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding demonstrably false material to a guideline, Rushton2010. The section you keep adding this to is for charts that are related by mathematical weighting, and the Scottish chart is not mathematically weighted to construct the UK chart. The charts you have grouped it with are charts that use formulas where positions on the individual charts earn points, and then the composite chart is constructed by sorting the point scores. The UK chart is not constructed from the Scottish chart in that fashion. If you want to document consensus that the Scottish chart should normally not be used in the presence of a UK chart position, come up with a way of saying that that does not misdescribe the chart.— Kww( talk) 03:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Something more like this, for example.— Kww( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Can these be added to WP:BADCHART?
And these to WP:GOODCHART?
-- Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 03:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) I've only made a superficial review (e.g. of the listing and reasoning given above) but it loos sound and reasonable. North8000 ( talk) 13:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if the ARIA (Australian) Hitseeker chart is a chart that is permissible to use. I am working on an article for a recently released album ( Thrive by Casting Crowns), and the album listed in the weekly ARIA Report under 'ARIA Hitseekers', but did not appear on top 100 albums list. The Hitseeker chart ranks the top 20 albums from artists that haven't reached the top 50 of the ARIA Album chart yet. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's the website. It's from Uruguay. Erick ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this an official chart? I can't read anything on the About page, but it does have a link to the IFPI's list of certification thresholds. Adabow ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User Kww as attempted to add the following to the policy. As of course policy decisions require discussion, I have removed it from the main page and brought it here for discussion:-- Rushton2010 ( talk) 04:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Regional charts
In general, charts reflecting small regions are not used. For example, the Billboard Brasil charts representing the individual Brazilian states, while published by reputable and reliable source, have never been considered suitable for inclusion. Individual city charts are not considered suitable for inclusion. Scotland represents a borderline case, and there has never been a strong consensus either for or against conclusion. Its use is generally less controversial for works that have not charted on the main UK chart.
There seems to be some problem with the {{ singlechart}} at the "Selfie" song article. Are the artistid required again? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd read a guideline about this in the past but can't seem to find it now … Question: is it acceptable to list more than one national chart per country/territory in an article's Charts section? I'm looking at the McCartney album articles Band on the Run, Venus and Mars and Wings at the Speed of Sound, all of which give US chart peaks on Billboard 200, Cash Box and Record World. Seems slightly excessive (in my opinion); not only that, but the inclusion of all three charts (or even two) makes other album articles appear incomplete, when they list only Billboard. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 11:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think they were different. For instance, I've read that Billboard's listings used to take radio airplay into account, which, even in the mid 1970s, made Cash Box the "industry standard" as far as sales went. And yes, I'd also seen that Whitburn book on the Cash Box Top 100, from the link on the project page (very tempting ...). Anyway, Billboard is obviously the US chart of consequence for wikipedia articles.
I can see a reason for including mention in the text of an album or song's position on Cash Box, say, if it's higher than the peak that Billboard listed – the Ringo album would be an example of this, number 2 on Billboard in December 1973, but number 1 on both Cash Box and Record World. But in the case of those Wings albums I mentioned, where the alternative listings appear in the Charts box itself, I can't see they add anything. (In fact, it sort of puffs up the strike rate, imo.)
Thanks to you both for your input. Hopefully a few others might weigh in here – but would you agree, we ought to delete them from the Charts box? The alternative is we look to add them in other articles where possible. I've got a Bruce Spizer book that gives all US chart peaks for Beatle solo albums and singles on Apple Records, and I've got Melody Maker chart runs for the same; but, as you can tell, I'd rather not add them at all. JG66 ( talk) 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If an album appears on a US Heatseekers chart, but later appears on the Hot 100 or Billboard 200, is it appropriate to list the Heatseekers chart? Adabow ( talk) 11:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if people already know about it, but Billboard Brasil started publishing their monthly chart online. Yay! Here's the current Top 100. I assume this makes everything so much easier for us, because until now we had to source the Brazilian peak positions with the physical magazine. However, as of now, all of the songs are marked as "debuts" so we don't have their actual peak positions. decodet. ( talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In possibly related news, hot100brasil.com appears to be down. This nonsense may finally be approaching a sensible conclusion.— Kww( talk) 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Lil-unique1 They don't have previous months charts. It's like the chart debuted this month. All of the 100 songs appears as "debuts" even though most of them charted in the last months according to the physical magazines. decodet. ( talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Big news! The Billboard Brasil chart is now a weekly chart and it is being published on the site! It's on its second week of chart already. Happy to see that everything is finally working out for the brazilian chart! decodet. ( talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems that Billboard has removed the chart history from the Katy Perry artist page completely. Same for Lady Gaga. Is it a glitch? — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
RSG post a weekly top 20 for albums in SA on their main page, compiled by the Recording Industry of South Africa. Could this be considered as an acceptable chart in the same vein as SA's EMA airplay chart by use of archiving like in here for example [2] — Cool Marc 18:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I noticed a user removing Hot Rap Songs in a song article because "it is a component chart of R&B/Hip-Hop Songs". Where is this stated in the Hot Rap Songs article? Is there perhaps a source for this? I see Hot Rap Songs being used in FA and GA-class song articles like " Not Afraid" and " Love the Way You Lie" though? Can someone please clarify? Thanks — Cool Marc 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlike a few years ago, it seems that the Russian Albums Chart published by Lenta.ru is now based solely on sales from iTunes, which would go against WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Thoughts? SN▲P • SN▲P 19:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The Billboard Kpop Hot 100 chart was discontinued on May 17, 2014 as stated on Billboard.com, but yet over at Billboard Korea's website, the chart is still running. Should I trust on using the chart data on the latter or not? Rockysmile11 ( talk) 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
ARIA is an official chart. Is http://australian-charts.com a recognized mirror? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This chart was listed as 'bad' for more than two years and since its deletion nothing has changed at all. However, user Bluesatellite thinks this chart is now notable, since there is an outdated article Russian Music Charts (which just covers this subject partly — which doesn't make the chart notable). Should this chart be deleted from the 'bad' list? Discuss.-- demis talk 13:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Should the Billboard Twitter Real-Time chart be allowed to be used in song articles? It changes so frequently, I think it is quite trivial to be used. STATic message me! 18:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the Gaon chart has changed its http's, thereby disrupting all the charts that have used the old format. It also displays just the top 100 singles so finding ones rated 101-200 may be difficult (subscription?). - AngusWOOF ( talk) 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I have recently found some pages that reference the FDR Charts. I am not sure if they will help to get it removed from WP:BADCHARTS, but I will provide them anyway:
I will continue trying to find references Moonchïld9 ( talk) 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since a lot of music is sold via the mentioned digital music distributors i like to suggest to reflect this in the Wikipedia record charts, under a new table for digital music distributors. These providers appear to be affiliated with IFPI and i see no reason why Wikipedia is excluding them. Further are many charts on these sites only available there, such as for indie music genres PsyTrance, Goa, Progressive, Trance etc. I guess when it comes to indie music there are some exceptions. An estimated 35% of the global music industry's revenue is coming from digital channels, (2013 numbers), the wikipedia should include those. Related reading http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2013/11/the-indie-musicians-guide-to-digital-distribution.html Further are sales from digital distributors frequently cited in the media. prokaryotes ( talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
prokaryotes ( talk) 23:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The dispute between the online retailer and the publishing conglomerate began this spring, and revolves around the pricing of ebooks and contract details for distributing Hachette’s books. Much of it remained private – as most contract negotiations between giant corporations do – until Amazon halted sales of some Hachette books, making some unavailable to purchase, delaying deliveries of others by weeks and months, and advertising alongside some titles with a banner of “similar items at a lower price”.
Revised proposal for Beatport only, i invite you all to discuss it here. Thanks for participating. (Note to admin, i retract this proposal and it could be closed, if required.) prokaryotes ( talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
For those how may have missed this above, see discussion here. Semitransgenic talk. 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been digging through some ancient copies of Billboard on Google Books from 1964 and 1965 to search for some worldwide chart positions for various songs of the day in the "Hits of the World" sections to add to their articles (" Oh, Pretty Woman", for example) and I've found some chart positions from both regions of Belgium, Mexico and South Africa. However, Billboard doesn't list the individual publishers of the charts from that era, and they seem to be the only available records of those charts at the time: as such, does anyone know which organisations were publishing the Belgian, Mexican and South African singles charts in 1964 and 1965?
I know this is a bit of a long shot but, presuming the charts are indeed direct replicas of the national charts in place at the time in those countries (which I presume they are, since they accurately match the UK charts available at the Official Charts Company's site), I don't know where else I could find this information before I add the positions into the article. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The Japanese chart provider Oricon posts daily positions for their singles and albums chart ( here and here), as well as their standard weekly positions. Many articles at Wikipedia list these (though unsourced), but it is possible to source data for these positions with the use of webcitation/web archive.
However, would the logic behind WP:CHARTMATH apply to these positions? As the new releases are generally released simultaneously on Tuesdays, the majority of releases that charted weekly can be said to have a similar daily position, and that the daily chart can be seen as a subordinate chart. WP:CHARTTRAJ precludes the use of the release's raw data, meaning only a single daily position is listed, outside of its weekly context. For example:
In some cases daily positions can change wildly (especially in the case of idol groups, or releases with a limited number of copies), which means there could potentially be releases where a page would benefit from such information, much like the 'unusual' cases mentioned in WP:CHARTMATH. A few years ago there was an instance where the weekly #1 album never made it to #1 on the daily chart, which also would be unusual enough to mention. For example:
Should daily positions that aren't 'unusual' be discouraged, much like Billboard Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 sales, and included in the charts mentioned at WP:CHARTMATH? -- Prosperosity ( talk) 03:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In the Miranda Lambert discography page, an editor removed all the chart positions for Hot Country Songs before 2012. The argument seems to be that the Hot Country Songs chart before 2012 is the same as Country Airplay (this chart was re-introduced when streaming and sales was added to the Hot Country Songs chart). To me that doesn't make sense since the chart positions listed should be the same as the ones given in Billboard, not someone's idea of what the chart positions should be. In some other discography pages such as Carrie Underwood discography, the solution is to merge the two columns before 2012 in the Singles table (that seems reasonable), I wonder what the opinion is on what's been done in the Miranda Lambert discography? Hzh ( talk) 10:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Apologies if the explanation given for the edit was not well articulated. The removal of Hot Country peaks was to be consistent with how the chart positions are handled on other country music artist discographies (see Blake Shelton discography, Jason Aldean discography, Lady Antebellum discography). Billboard has been inconsistent in where those chart peaks are located on their site (with the current status being displayed in both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay). I actually think the merged columns as done in Carrie's discography page is a great solution, and would be open to making that the "unofficial standard" across these and other relevant discography pages.
Which chart to use, say in the the 2000s section(s), is a tricky situation since technically the chart then called "Hot Country Songs" was tracking airplay performance (hence why it has been changed to say Country Airplay on the discographies), but the actual title and the chart name used on individual song articles is "Hot Country Songs". Songsteel ( talk) 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Classified it as "Bad Chart" for failing to file archive. For this there http://www.webcitation.org/ and http://archive.org/web/web.php.
Please, check my topic Talk:Shake_It_Off_(Taylor_Swift_song)#Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_chronology, thank you. -- 188.135.197.238 ( talk) 12:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the UK Chart Stats dead link website is still archiving positions below 75 ? Or have they been stopped by OCC ? I don't mean listing the weekly charts, which I know they don't do anymore, but archiving the peak positions ? QuintusPetillius ( talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The domain Lescharts.com seems to have expired and no chart archive present for France. Does any one know how to update the {{ singlechart}}, {{ albumchart}} template for archive links? — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What happened with Austrian IFPI? I remeber they added in archive some time ago Cheese Stromae's album with Gold status. Now in this place is Racine carrée, propably him add data was changed. What happened? What to do? Eurohunter ( talk) 15:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This should be updated: Based on the press release by Billboard, the components of the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart (the primary dance chart) are the following:
There has already been a discussion about this. And based on another discussion here, both Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Electronic Songs were kept as the latter was just a new chart back then. So Hot Dance Club Songs and Dance/Mix Show Airplay should not be confused with one another and should be kept unless the the song charts on Dance/Electronic Songs. Chihciboy ( talk) 08:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
But, if you look at the charts, we generally don't include airplay charts unless they have charted on the main chart. For instance, we don't include the main R&B/Hip-hop and the R&B Airplay chart, as the former is made of sales, airplay, streams etc., whereas airplay is just airplay. The Dance Airplay chart is no different, and shouldn't be an exception to the already established rule. Dance Club and Dance/Electronic are two different types of music. You also have to bear in mind that this can end up making tables unnecessarily long if we start introducing component charts and saying that all of the digital and airplay charts can be added too. There needs to be some boundary that we adhere to otherwise we could end up with 10-15 Billboard charts in our tables, but I did used to think "what is the problem with this" not too long ago myself. I've presented arguments for both sides here, but the main issue that you are getting at is that on " Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)" I removed the Dance/Mix Airplay citing WP:USCHARTS, you reinstated it citing a discussion you had (which was all it was, a discussion, nothing was changed and no consensus was put forward), I then removed it saying that you needed to adhere to the rules on WP:USCHARTS, to which you reverted again, citing the discussion, and I removed it once more, and then you did as I suggested and opened this discussion. What I think you was misunderstanding was that just because a couple of people kind of saw your point, you took that as gospel and a reason to revert me, whereas in actual fact, you was ignoring what I was saying and ignoring our current guideline, which is that Dance/Mix Airplay is listed as a component chart which cannot be added unless a song did not chart on either of the two main charts, as it clearly says on WP:USCHARTS. — ₳aron 12:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. So, since Record Report is not on the list, it means that we can use it? AleD ( talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking for a little guidance establishing notability for songs in South Korea. Pretty much every song released in Korea charts on at least one version of the primary national chart in that country, Gaon. (There was Billboard chart for about three years but it has folded.) Thus, according to Wikipedia's notability requirements, every song, no matter how minor, qualifies for an article. We have a huge glut of articles of what are realistically non-notable songs, and I could use some clarification with the following scenarios:
So in the end, we have a gazillion songs that all claim notability, because charting on a major national chart is the only notability requirement for songs, as far as I can tell. Yet these are songs that pretty much no one ever heard other than hardcore fans. This is genre filled with very passionate, very inclusionist editors, so they take those requirements entirely literally when justifying these articles. I'm going to post this over at the songs Wikiproject for their perspectives also. Thanks for any guidance. Shinyang-i ( talk) 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I would like some information about acceptable charts for mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. I saw some discussion of them in the archives, but nothing seems to have been added to either the good or bad charts on the main page. There was a suggestion that Sino be the only acceptable chart for mainland China - does that rule out Baidu? (Baidu is used on a lot of articles.) I'm most concerned about mainland China at this time. The China Wikiproject's entertainment working group seems to be dead and in the process of being merged, so I skipped asking over there. Thanks for any guidance! Shinyang-i ( talk) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've got a bunch of articles for albums, songs, etc that presently use only record charts as sources. Obviously this is not okay but I can't figure out the right tag to put on the article to say "you need to establish notability and not just verify facts." Apparently it's not okay to put the "may not meet notability requirements" tag on in this circumstance. Are record charts examples of primary sources? If that's the case I could use the "uses too many primary sources only" tag, I think. Thanks for any help! Shinyang-i ( talk) 09:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Could I request an update/clarification of the information on the page regarding South Korea's Gaon chart? http://gaonchart.co.kr/
I bring this up because some articles have huge tables for songs with every Gaon chart listed with little other article content, so we need top be very clear on the aggregate data and exactly what charts can and cannot be included. Kpop editors usually don't speak/read Korean, are generally inclusionists, and things quickly get out of control without firm "yes or no" limits. We just need something to be able to point to for guidance. Also, any more news on mainland China charts? Thanks! :) Shinyang-i ( talk) 10:30, 22 January 2015 (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)
The official UK Charts Company website has been upgraded and now includes top 100 singles in the archives. [9] The Wikipedia formatting will need to be updated in order for the templates to work. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 11:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I carefully do not refer to the singles charts as Top 100 since The Next 25 was a section in Music Week, although listing positions 76-100, applying specific additional rules. "Records which would have appeared between positions 76-100 have been excluded if their sales have fallen in two consecutive weeks, and if theirsales fell by 20 per cent compared with last week."
— Tobias Zywietz, [10]
See here. Anyone who is interested may join this discussion. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 00:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Why differences beetwen [11] and [12]? Eurohunter ( talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)