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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Music ZA publish a top 100 singles chart stating "Peaks are from August 2013 - Chart is based on independently sourced sales from iTunes, included is airplay and chart points from local radio stations. The SA Top 100 is independently calculated and is not associated with iTunes officially." It also publishes an Album Chart Top 20 and the EMA Airplay Top 10. Could we consider this as a legitimate chart for South Africa with the use of WebCite? It seems very reliable to me, they also have interviews with high profile local artists. - Lips are movin 11:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with someone entering the Finnish component chart position instead of single chart position on Ghost Town (Adam Lambert song). The person who did it claimed that the wording on WP:GOODCHARTS allowed him or her to use component chart. The song did not chart on the single chart, but appeared on the download chart. Given that you cannot enter chart positions for Billboard digital sales in the Hot 100 chart, I'm wondering how this can be done for the Finnish chart, or how to differentiate the component chart from the main chart for the Finnish chart. The chart as it appears doesn't make any distinction that it is the download chart. I don't know how widespread this is, but it needed to be fixed if people are adding component chart ranking into Finnish chart ranking - it needs to be explained in the template whether this is the download, airplay or single chart. Hzh ( talk) 17:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Scotland chart is necessary because United Kingdom is main list. Eurohunter ( talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Why you use different or false names of charts? Why you use " Ultratop Flanders" not " Ultratop 50" by Ultratop (organisation), if you use Single Top 100 Dutch chart by MegaCharts. Why you write there (Single Top 100) about other charts (albums and other) if this is singles chart? You should created article about albums and singles lists in Sweden, Norway and much other charts separated like UK Singles Chart and UK Albums Chart by The Official Charts Company. There are three things: organisation artcle, albums chart article, singles chart article and optional articles about other by genres or airplay charts. Eurohunter ( talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Having read several archived disucssions here about the reliablity of UK chart websites, I found the views expressed about zobbel.de baffling. Editors express their personal views, eg. they find it unreliable, or they spread hearsay. I never found any concrete evidence to support these opinions, to the contrary. Nowhere is an statenment that says "zobbel says A but B is correct"... Nowhere.
"The problem with Zobbel is that it returns soundtrack and other special albums as having charted on the main albums chart, when in fact they are not even eligible for it." ( is mentioned here). Looking at any zobbel page, there's a key at the top (plus there's a link at the bottom to the homepage with detailed explanations), making it clear which charts are referred to, and albums charting on the "compilations albums chart" have a special bold symbol in order to distinguish them from albums that charted on the "artist albums chart". I can't see any confusion about this at all; perhaps dome editors can't be bothered to read the key?
On chart dating (another point raised in 2010): the UK charts are traditionally dated to the Saturday after publication, in effect the date used by the printed Music Week magazine; ie. the chart published this Sunday April 5, 2015 is actually dated "April 11, 2015"-- that's the traditon in the UK for 50 years. Whether a week is stated as "week 5" or "week 6" can be debated, but zobbel uses a reliable system (cut-off date is January 9th).
PS: zobbel.de sources all its charts from Hit Music (1994-2001) and successor magazine UKChartsPlus, all official licensees of OCC charts.
So where is the evidence against Zobbel.de? -- Bleddynefans ( talk) 12:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
In 2011 the website was added to "Websites to avoid", apparently after this discussion. With great pain I read the 2011 discussion referenced above. The quality of the arguments is abominable. I actually dispute most of what was said at the time. As it stands right now, the entry says:
The link goes to the website http://ukchartsplus.co.uk, but from the remarks I gather what is meant is actually the weekly publication " UK Charts Plus", as the website itself does not present any chart informaton itself;the only exception are the year-end charts that a downloadable for free.
then I do not understand "Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources." Like all the charts the weekly magazine "UK Charts Plus" prints, these year-end sales charts are also fully licensend from OCC. What could be uncertain about any "methodology as to annual figures"?
In the 2011 discussion referenced above it's alledged that the BPI list of annual best sellers deviates from what UK Charts Plus publises. I checked the BPI file with the 2009 UK Charts Plus Annual, and to my surprise I found that this alledged difference is a misunderstanding (or a malicious falsehood, so stupid it is): The BPI lists artist albums together with compilation albums in one sequence, but UK Charts Plus lists seperately the Top 200 Artists albums and the Top 200 Compilations. The BPI list is so far unusual, as since 1989 there is no longer a combined weekly albums charts: there's a weekly Artist Albums chart, and seperately a weekly Compilations albums chart. So it strangely combines these two charts, which might have a purpose for a trade body, but less so faor chartwatchers.
Unless further evidence is given, I intend to delete ukchartplus.co.uk from "Websites to avoid" and add a reference pertaining to positions 101-200 in "Recommended charts". -- Bleddynefans ( talk) 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bleddynefans. It is not your place to revert something for which a consensus was gained. At the time of the 2011 discussion, there was overwhelming evidence that UKChartPlus's data and their methodology was suspect to say the least (I know because I was part of the discussion at looked at the evidence presented at the time). It even failed on WP:RSN and was added to "Websites to Avoid" for a valid reason. If things have now changed, then I'm sure everybody will be prepared to discuss the matter and look at the evidence as it now stands, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus should remain in force. You can't make a decision to change it by yourself. Soultruck ( talk) 20:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The discrepancy in the annual chart format was the reason for the initial listing, so I do tend to agree that now that that issue has been sorted, there isn't much of a reliability problem. There is a usability problem, though. Why would we use a paywalled site when there is a perfectly good public archive that goes well down into the meaningless chart positions? What value does knowing a song reached #197 on the UK Charts have? That can't be beyond double-digit sales these days.— Kww( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Music Weekly is a chart from South-east Asia. I believe this should be recognised as an official chart on Wikipedia. Here is the official website's "About us" page and an independent source. [ [1]], [ [2]] and [ [3]]. ( 121.214.33.76 ( talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC))
Anyone know the difference between Classical Albums and Top Classical Albums? Random86 ( talk) 01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it accepted to use the Billboard Digital Songs charts for countries like Finland, Norway, New Zealand etc which already have official charts? Like for example Finland in the Cool for the Summer article? Is this not a mere spin-off/component chart? Abi-Maria ( talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The lists of charts on song articles is skewed towards the US by the inclusion of lots of genre charts. See for example: Uptown Funk#Charts or Happy (Pharrell Williams song)#Charts and certifications. For a major international hit, is its performance in one country's genre charts actually notable? If they must be included I would suggest a separate list entirely (they have also caused a long discussion about list order). Clearly if a song is say, classical, then classical charts round the world are going to be appropriate, but no other country seems to have the plethora of genres which really mean little to the average reader (what is 'rhythmic airplay'?) which basically describe which radio stations in the US are playing which songs. Btljs ( talk) 06:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I see this popping up everywhere in song articles now. Is this an acceptable chart? WP:USCHARTS gives no indication. Abi-Maria ( talk) 15:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Abi-Maria:, @ Widr:, @ Kww:, @ Iknow23:, this evidently falls under single-network guidelines, and as such I've removed most, if not all listings I can find in chart sections of song articles. Can someone make a note of this in the article, possibly under bad charts? Azealia911 talk 01:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume it's mistakenly not been included, but in the section regarding which charts may be used on the condition that a song has not entered the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs or Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts, charts like R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs and Hot Rap Songs are included, but not the Rap Digital Songs? Could someone add it? Or give me a reason for it not to be added, as I think it odd that a digital subsidary of the Hot Rap Songs can be added when that chart its self cannot be included in certain conditions. Thanks, Azealia911 talk 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
According to one of the exceptions to SINGLENETWORK, it states: "Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located." Now there's an album I'm working by a Mexican artist which predates both Monitor Latino and the Mexican Airplay charts. So in this case, is it fine to include how well the singles did in his country if the only charts from the country are compiled from Mexico City since he's based there? Erick ( talk) 14:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Are Hits Daily Double and Headline Planet reliable for sourcing sales? I've seen them being littered in music articles and both seem rather dubious... Cool Marc 08:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been seeing a couple of articles using the SloTop50 as a chart that can be added and the website does allow you to look at past weeks, although it seems like there isn't a real archive for it as it doesn't have a specific link for each week. All the articles that have this chart seems to not really do anything to archive it and just let it link to the current week. Is it not a chart that should be used, and would it even a noteworthy chart to include?
68.190.229.160 ( talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Although published as a blog, this blog http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/ , and more specifically http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/search/label/ARIA%20charts (sorted by ARIA Charts tag), currently posts weekly scans of the Australian ARIA top 50 singles printed chart, from 25 years years ago (charts commencing from July 1987), and 30 years ago (charts commencing from January 1985). The charts prior to 26 June 1988 posted on this blog are the only major online, reputable source of these charts. From January 1990, entries debuting in the top 100 that do not peak within the top 50 are also listed with their peaks, although there are no scans of the full ARIA top 100 chart. The printed charts from 9th April 1989 (represented by this blog entry - http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/25-years-ago-this-week-april-9-1989.html ) also contain a cumulative record of ARIA gold and platinum certifications for singles (although certifications achieved after the singles have left the top 50 are not displayed). This information is also not available on the ARIA website prior to 1997. Is it worth adding this (albeit incomplete and not searchable by artist/title) 'archive' to the 'Typical sources for record charts and archives, by country' table's comments section beside Australia? Nqr9 ( talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of the UK Year-End charts, I want to know what Year-End chart source should be used for 2014 since they are both different. This: http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/end-of-year-singles-chart/ Or this: http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-100-biggest-songs-of-2014-revealed__7577/
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 06:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I've only been able to find the top 50 from the Wikipedia page 2004 in British music charts with the Music Week source, but there hasn't been any way to check any other position below 50 (unless one uses the www.ukchartsplus.co.uk chart which is still being debated about whether or not it should be used http://www.ukchartsplus.co.uk/ChartsPlusYE2004.pdf). Official Charts Company's website did go past 2005 in the albums chart but not the singles chart.
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 07:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is another useful site for UK chart (both singles and albums) top 75/100 archives, posting scans of the printed charts between 1952-2007, organised by year:
http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/
The most useful feature of the scans is that they also display silver, gold and platinum certifications from 1982; although the scans are not searchable by artist/title, and certifications are annotated cumulatively - so the user has to follow a single or album until the end of its chart run to determine its highest certification achieved.
Would it be suitable to add this as an additional UK chart archive reference? Nqr9 ( talk) 03:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What I would really like to know is if the UK Year-End chart is a reliable source since it was published by UKChartsPlus. The Official Charts Company has only made it up to 2005 on the website. Specifically, I'm talking about the years from 2001-2004.
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 06:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
(Moving from WT:ALTMUSIC): There are succession boxes for numerous (all?) Canadian RPM Rock/Alternative 30 number-one singles at the bottom of their respective articles. For instance Song 2 and The End Is the Beginning Is the End. I'm not sure these are really warranted given there are tons of applicable charts, awards, certifications, etc, out there, for which we aren't using succession boxes. Anyone familiar with this practice? Any objections to removing them? — MusikAnimal talk 14:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music chart articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. (I think the discussion might have been better held on this talkpage, but I overlooked this page when setting up the proposal!) SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't whether I just have bad eyes or not, but I can't seem to find Jon Bon Jovi's Blaze of Glory anywhere on the RPM Year-End 1990 chart http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.9139&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062, despite it reaching number 1 and staying on the chart for 17 weeks. By contrast, Ice Ice Baby peaked at number 11 and was on the chart (at least in 1990) for 9-10 weeks, and it was still able to be on the year-end chart at number 98. Even Jon Bon Jovi's other single Miracle was able to be the 69th biggest song of 1990 when only spend 9-10 weeks on the chart in 1990. So I'm wondering if anyone can confirm whether or not the song is on the year-end chart or not.
68.190.229.160 ( talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
So far I can only find one source for this although I'm not entirely sure if this is accurate to what Billboard published: http://www.jjheath.com/ModR2005.html
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 06:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, is there an official Bulgarian Chart? The "legitimate Bulgarian chart" linked to on this page ( [4]) seems to have ceased updating in April 2015. I ask because a user added a Bulgarian chart position to the Dua Lipa page a week ago. I let it pass at first, but then deleted it because hardly any other pages on Wikipedia seem to use it, but the same user put the chart back again today. My concern is that the pages referenced ( acharts.co and bgtop40.bg) seem to be the "Bulgarian National Top 40" which was deleted from Wikipedia in 2008 for dubious methodology. They look like the same chart as euro200.net (the Bulgarian language site "BGTop40" which looks so convincing, seems to be always a week behind, which is odd behaviour if it was official in any way). But I'm not certain. Help needed on this one please! Pasicles ( talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Why there is only 2008? I have also news sources for Stromae's Platinum sales " Papaoutai" and Racine carrée. What about rest? Eurohunter ( talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this web reliable? https://spotifycharts.com/regional/ , useful for "Commercial performance" sections (the Global chart for first week of streaming, etc), but I'm not sure if it is managed by Spotify. -- Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This was added in late August 2015 through a discussion that seemed to small to be of be used as binding consensus to exclude a Billboard chart. (See Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_13#US_Billboard_Top_Twitter_Tracks). I would like to solicit a larger forum, an RFC if necessary, especially as I feel that WP:SINGLENETWORK doesn't apply here. Twitter is a very large network. Also, it is a social media network, different from most "single vendor" charts. Twitter's only real competitor is Sina Weibo, which doesn't really impact American charts. Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 13:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this chart in some Wikipedia pages and I've been curious to know if its reliable or not? [5] -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Which of the year-end Hungary Singles Charts should be used, the one based on sales numbers or based on chart position? http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/eves-osszesitett-listak/single_db/2015 http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/eves-osszesitett-listak/single_chart/2015
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 04:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be really helpful is someone who knows how to determine this please provide some basic instructions on how to retrieve it? e.g. Someone figured it out and used it in the German Chart reference on Madonna's discography: "Madonna Discography: Germany". GfK Entertainment. Retrieved May 26, 2009.
Thanks! -- AusChartMan ( talk) 16:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Has this website been discussed yet ?: http://suomenlistalevyt.blogspot.co.uk/ . I know that its a blog, but the owner has demonstrated that the singles sales and album sales chart positions have been based on official sources, even though various airplay charts have been included as well. From between 1972 and 2003 the information is taken from the published book: Pennanen, Timo (2003). Sisältää hitin: levyt ja esittäjät Suomen musiikkilistoilla vuodesta 1972. Otava Publishing Company Ltd. ISBN 951-1-21053-X. After that the peak positions for the singles sales and album sales charts have been taken from official sources as well. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 17:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what the Finland - OVI Musiikki TOP 30 - chart is ? Its listed on the official Finnish chart website but is not the official list, download list or radio list. Here is an example: http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/ovi-musiikki/2011/11 .Thanks, QuintusPetillius ( talk) 16:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it a reliable source? For example:
(Bruno) Mars was the most played artist at pop radio in 2013 according to Mediabase. [1]
Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 06:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you think we could add this website to the list of websites to avoid for sourcing chart information? I have seen editors use this site in order to cite chart positions below 100 on the UK Singles Chart, and I believe this is wrong for two reasons: one, it appears that this information has been taken from UKChartsPlus, which is already on the list of websites to avoid, and two, as far as I can see, Zobbel only lists the date of entry and the position that the single entered the chart at nos. 101–200 – that isn't necessarily the same as the peak position eventually reached by the song, so it can't be used to cite the single's peak position in the charts section of a song's article on Wikipedia. Additionally, the site is a blog and anything but official. And is it critical to add that a song reached number 156 on the singles chart? That really is a whole bunch of nothing. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If I'm correct Irish certfications was provided by irma.ie site. New version no provide that. Where I can see it now? Eurohunter ( talk) 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This web site supposedly lists year-end charts for the United Kingdom, however, there is no indication where these charts were originally published, where the chart data comes from, or what methodology was used. It appears to be a self-published hobbyist web site. A comparison of the Official Charts Company end of year charts to this web site shows they are different.
Should this web site be added to the list of deprecated charts? Piriczki ( talk) 17:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for the peak position for Prince's " Kiss", and I found out that there is a bit of a conflict with the two French charts. The SNEP chart stated that the song's peak position was 29 (before Prince's death), but Infodisc lists on their archives that it reached 19. Is the Infodisc chart archives really reliable in this case? ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
A comparison of everyHit.com's year end charts to the Official Charts Company year end charts shows they are not the same, see 2000s Singles Chart Archive - everyHit.com and the official charts for 2005, 2006 and 2009. Should everyHit.com be added to deprecated charts? Piriczki ( talk) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This was a short-lived chart published in Canada from 1975 to 1979 (I think), and an anonymous editor has added it to " Don't Go Breaking My Heart". As far as I can tell from an online search, the chart was based purely on airplay: that in itself wouldn't necessarily exclude its use as a reliable chart – what I don't know (being British) is whether the radio stations used were a single network or not... if it's the former, then the chart should not be used. Is there anybody here who can provide some guidance? Richard3120 ( talk) 02:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not made clear, particularly with respect to Billboard, if a genre chart like Top New Age Albums is considered a "national chart" for purposes of NMUSIC. What's the general rule of thumb for niche charts? MSJapan ( talk) 18:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello id like to aks since the Korean Melon streaming service is very prelavant/dominant in Korea and streaming is a huge/main part of music listening.Why has it not being added to the charts?While it may be a single vendor if its the main vendor used doesnt that mean that it shows accurately the songs position in the contry? Junkoo ( talk) 10:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The weekly Gaon chart will show how successful they are as well. Getting an "all kill" is not a special circumstance. Random86 ( talk) 18:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has started adding charts from this site to a couple of articles. I am dubious as to the methodology used to calculate the charts: the website says on its page that they are "compiled from this week's top tracks from each territory in Southeast Asia", but I don't see anywhere exactly how this has been done. Anybody else want to have a look and tell me what they think, please? Richard3120 ( talk) 00:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
What you think? [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9D40:83C:5859:71FF:B680:CA8C ( talk) 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Bumping this question. The Sugarboy article has been created after an AfD (raised on the 14 June 2016!) deleted it, and now uses an appearance on africacharts.com as a claim to WP:MUSICBIO. africacharts.com claims be a composite of "TV and radio airplay, record sales (both digital and physical), streaming platforms, social media, song and video downloads from top African entertainment sites, as well as YouTube and Dailymotion views". It has no Wikipedia article and is not used as a source by any other articles. Is it a "recognized reliable source"? -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
australian-charts.com needs some sort of caveat. It doesn't contain the Kent Music Report, which was the accepted national chart from 1974-1988. It's actively misleading in such cases - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rain (Dragon song), where an experienced user who knows their music sourcing thought a No. 2 that spent half a year on the national chart was deletable because it wasn't listed there. The information from the Kent era just isn't online, it's only in Kent's book. What do we do about this? - David Gerard ( talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
South Korea's Gaon Music Chart ranks the top 400 albums songs on all of its weekly charts. I had no idea how to get to the rankings 101–400 up until late last month, when I became aware that adding pageNo=2& to a chart URL displayed additional pages (example: http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaon?pageNo=2&nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=ALL&targetTime=04&hitYear=2010&termGbn=week). That was short lived, as one can once again not access the rankings after 100. In this post, a Gaon staff remember stated (in Korean) that only the top 100 will be viewable. I had added rankings for songs outside of the top 100 to F.Cuz, which are now unverifiable. I was also working on other articles that would use rankings and sales only available outside of the top 100. Needless to say, the Wayback Machine did not archive any of these pages. Being a registered member (as I am) to the site makes no difference, and there is no paid subscription service available to view these rankings and sales beyond the top 100 (like there is for Billboard or Oricon). How should this be dealt with? — ξ xplicit 07:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems CAPIF has redesigned their site and moved rankings from rankings.aspx
to rankings
. The new site doesn't show rankings before September 2016, so we'll need archive links for the old charts. Not sure if
InternetArchiveBot supports {{
Album chart}}. –
nyuszika7h (
talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Are people aware that AllMusic no longer displays any Billboard charting information on its site. [15]. I know a lot of articles site this information and can deeply impact discographies and other articles such as List of best-charting music artists in the United States which relied greatly on this information as its source. Anyway, editors will not be able to use AllMusic to cite chart peaks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Is http://portuguesecharts.com acceptable as a singles chart? It says the source is AC Nielsen (presumably airplay as it doesn't at all match Billboard's Digital Chart) but I can't find any link.
Johnjones1979 ( talk) 01:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)johnjones1979
Is there a precedent for including non-Billboard charts? I've seen Mediabase peaks in a few articles, but only when sourced (e.g. Chris Janson). Some older articles cite Cash Box peaks when sourced. Most of the old Radio & Records charts have been archived, as has Gavin Report, so would it be acceptable to use these within reason? This might also help in discrepancies such as the tally of #1 hits George Strait has had (most sources say 60, which counts all chart publications, but Billboard only says 44). Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I would like to suggest the addition of the YouTube Music Charts to the list. I think it is relevant and reliable as a global chart. Currently there are four charts: "All Videos", "Viral Videos", "Tracks" and "Artists". Regards. — Alan Moraes ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Recently, Recording Industry Association of Malaysia, a member of the IFPI has announced that starting from this year, they are going to revive their charts, namely charts for international and domestic singles. According to their website, "their charts comply with the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) general guideline for chart generation as below."
I hope this mean that these two charts can be included in Wikipedia as reliable charts. Since these charts are non-searchable, I will try to archive these charts once a week. SyFuel Ignite Burned 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The ranking of songs at infodisc.fr is based on what they call a "synthesis" which is explained on their web site as follows:
Hitparadeitalia.it does something similar, as explained on their web site:
In other words, they gather information from various sources to recreate, through their own methodology, a single, albeit fictional, chart. These should be added to WP:BADCHARTS. Piriczki ( talk) 16:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: can I ask you of your opinion regarding SloTop50? I cannot understand from the website that it actually is a real chart and has any methodology. User's keep on adding this chart inspite of not being listed in WP:GOODCHARTS. — IB [ Poke ] 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
So apparently I thought Mediabase was not an acceptable source because it states that Billboard is the recommended source, but my edit got reverted here by @ Jax 0677:. I still believe that Mediabase should not be used, especially when it states that kworb should not be used, and the source cited in that edit changes daily, so over time, the song will not be on the chart eventually. Furthermore it is hard to find actual Mediabase peaks, and the YouTube chart videos cannot be used as reliable sources. Daerl ( talk) 12:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The popular and reliable Billboard has entered the Philippines market under Billboard Philippines, where it formally releases weekly charts that are popular in the Philippines. Currently, the nation of 100 million has no representation in the Wikipedia Music Charts. However, you may not have heard about Billboard Philippines, as it has only been established 7 months ago. But since its foundation, it's charts are said to be: "...ranked by radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music and streaming activity data provided by online music sources." "BillboardPH Hot 100". BillboardPH. Retrieved 28 May 2017.
Hence, I propose the addition of the credible new BillboardPH chart to be part of the charts section in all songs where applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithere442 ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion involving WP:USCHARTS, and the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart specifically, is taking place here. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers, gongshow talk 10:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I need some clarification whether the China V Chart is considered to be a good chart or bad chart. Currently I'm in a disagreement with another editor on its inclusion in a discography article as they say it is the official chart of China due to Billboard partnering with music video sharing site YinYueTai. However from reading where they get the data from, the chart's rankings is based on most-viewed videos on YYT and not on sales or airplay which I believe would fall as a single-network chart. Thanks! Rockysmile11 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Source - while I have no problem with Media Forest as a source - I am shocked to see that some users are claiming that an international artist TV airplay chart from Israel is notable for the charts tables in song articles. TV airplay charts have never been notable on Wikipedia and now there seems to be a mentality adopted by a user who feels they are in charge of charts on Wikipedia pages that any chart under the sun should be included. Abi-Maria ( talk) 11:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging other editors for input - @ Kww: @ Iknow23: @ Widr: @ Walter Görlitz: @ Cornerstonepicker: @ Richard3120: Abi-Maria ( talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable There is an airplay chart already being used in articles. If a song fails to chart on there tough luck. We don't need an extremely minor chart like this added to the already exhaustive list of component charts being used in song articles at the moment. Especially since it does not combine local and international artists together and is in turn not a true reflection of its popularity. I also don't believe this chart should appear in the chart table because TV airplay refers to music videos not songs them self. If anything it could be mentioned in the song article's music video section but I think even then it is not notable enough. Abi-Maria ( talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment I'll participate, but someone needs to fill in the missing data for me:
— Kww( talk) 21:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a cross-post from WT:KO.
Hi, for those users who work with South Korea's music articles, two late announcements. First, the easier of the two: Billboard Korea K-pop Hot 100. The charted resumed for the week dated May 29 – June 4, 2017 [16]. It's incredibly skeletal: it only provides its ranking for the week, so no peak position, weeks on the chart, etc.
Gaon has re-enabled its search function, which you can find here. This is great for discography articles, where you can utilize fewer sources for citing peak positions of songs and albums. A walk-through:
The search function presents seven headers: Digital Chart, Download Chart, Streaming Chart, BGM Chart, Mobile Chart (벨), Mobile Chart (링), and 노래방 Chart. To the left, three viewing options are available: 주간 (weekly), 월간 (monthly), and 연간 (year-end).
As an example, here's the search for ( CNBLUE). Chart type: Digital Chart; Classification: Overall; Year: 2013; Name: Singer's name; Search box: "씨엔블루". [17]. In reverse chronological order, it shows the Chart Period, Ranking, Title, Artist, Album, and Link to that week's chart.
Please remember to observe WP:CHARTMATH. The Download, Streaming, BGM Charts, as well as the Domestic and Foreign Charts should only be noted in cases when a song or album failed to chart on the Digital Chart or Overall chart.
Cheers! ℯ xplicit 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Is the ARC 100 a notable and reliable record chart for Croatia? Abi-Maria ( talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Not notable - Based on the fact that its methodology is unclear, only airplay of songs by foreign artists are used and there is no third party notability. Abi-Maria ( talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This chart posted by Hrvatski Radio is being placed in song articles for chart peaks in Croatia. I was hoping to get confirmation that this is a notable and reliable chart or should I get a second opinion from the Croatian Wikipedia. I have also asked for opinions at WP:RSN. Many thanks. Abi-Maria ( talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
So on the page it says:
Airplay Radio Chart measures the popularity and presence of performers and their songs in the programs of domestic radio stations. The Weekly Report Airplay Radio Charter was created based on the sum of the broadcasting of foreign songs in radio stations throughout the country according to the 1Played service data. Airplay Radio Chart measures the popularity and presence of performers and their songs in the programs of domestic radio stations. We analyze global music trends and recognize the demand for singles and artists in the local area. So we are also building access to the radio creation of popular music 1
I can't find anything on which radio stations are monitored and if it is affiliated with the IFPI or Nielsen. I don't read anything that the chart is published by Croatian Radiotelevision. It says the chart only includes foreign songs based on music trends and data from 1Played which makes me skeptical that this is a legitimate official chart in Croatia. I have asked the Croatian WikiProject for input. Also pinging GregorB who was involved in the last debate about Croatia's chart. Abi-Maria ( talk) 15:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We have a situation now where for the Netherlands - the Dutch Top 40, Mega Top 50 and Single 100 are all being included. While with Hungary there is a single, stream, radio and dance chart all being included. There needs to be consensus as to which of these charts is the more notable as the list has become far too exhaustive. How is the reader supposed to establish what the song's peak was in these countries. Abi-Maria ( talk) 05:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Just saw an album article that stated that Spotify was a song chart and used http://kworb.net/spotify/track/6WoyghnMAvDDRbZfFbpwEo.html as the source. It's not listed at BADCHARTS, but clearly fits the criteria. Shall we add it even though it's not an album chart? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is the Romanian airplay-based singles chart, Airplay 100, is not considered a reliable chart just because it is presented through a radio show? I've seen a lot of pages that wrongly link Media Forest as a source, even here is clearly saying to not be confused with Airplay 100. Please discuss here so we can clarify this situation. Gabrielflorin01 8 January 2018, 11:25 (EET) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've got an AFD going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shimica Castro Wong, where it is based entirely on individual radio and television station network rankings as well as Soundclick. Are these all considered good charts? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 06:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed that en.wiki uses the digital download-only French chart (top téléchargement on SNEP, or the one reported on lescharts.com) in foreign music articles. I'd like to bring the topic to everyone's attention, as the chart isn't a good indicator of a song's real popularity in the country. As of 2018, streaming has hugely replaced digital sales, to the point that IMO it's necessary to use the sales plus streaming chart published weekly on SNEP's website. This is merely for the accuracy of the articles and to report the actual popularity of a track in the French market, which can no longer be defined by digital sales alone. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 16:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Can someone expand the acceptable Billboard album charts section? There's only Billboard 200 there. Many other charts like Independent, Heatseekers, etc should be listed. — Za wl 05:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Billboard's website is listing sub-75 positions for some artists in 1990 on Hot Country Songs, even though the chart had already been cut to 75 positions by that point. For instance, this result lists the song "Southern Belles" as peaking at #85 in July 1990, even though the chart was only 75 positions at that point. Some further digging revealed that this is because Billboard briefly had a "Hot Country Radio Breakouts" chart which basically listed the "sub-75" songs the way Bubbling Under Hot 100 lists the songs just below #100. To verify, see page 38 on this scan of the 7/28/90 issue of Billboard. "Southern Belles" is listed at #10 on Hot Country Radio Breakouts. Add 75 to that, and you get #85. I have checked all the other 76-to-85 positions I've seen listed for songs in 1990, and they all correspond to their position on that week's "Hot Country Radio Breakouts" plus 75. @ Caldorwards4: and I have used proper citations from the corresponding issues to indicate these unusual peaks and explain why they are so. I feel that this does not run afoul of WP:OR, and I feel that it's a particularly unique case that was worth sharing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
List of number-one country singles of 2012 (U.S.) and the articles for subsequent years, as well as some equivalent articles from the 1940s and 50s, combine multiple charts into one article. Should each be broken up into multiple articles.......? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay are listed as acceptable charts, but there is no mention of the acceptability of the Rock Airplay and R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts. Shouldn't they both be listed as acceptable, too, for the same reasons Country Airplay is? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:37, 10 March 2018 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Music ZA publish a top 100 singles chart stating "Peaks are from August 2013 - Chart is based on independently sourced sales from iTunes, included is airplay and chart points from local radio stations. The SA Top 100 is independently calculated and is not associated with iTunes officially." It also publishes an Album Chart Top 20 and the EMA Airplay Top 10. Could we consider this as a legitimate chart for South Africa with the use of WebCite? It seems very reliable to me, they also have interviews with high profile local artists. - Lips are movin 11:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with someone entering the Finnish component chart position instead of single chart position on Ghost Town (Adam Lambert song). The person who did it claimed that the wording on WP:GOODCHARTS allowed him or her to use component chart. The song did not chart on the single chart, but appeared on the download chart. Given that you cannot enter chart positions for Billboard digital sales in the Hot 100 chart, I'm wondering how this can be done for the Finnish chart, or how to differentiate the component chart from the main chart for the Finnish chart. The chart as it appears doesn't make any distinction that it is the download chart. I don't know how widespread this is, but it needed to be fixed if people are adding component chart ranking into Finnish chart ranking - it needs to be explained in the template whether this is the download, airplay or single chart. Hzh ( talk) 17:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Scotland chart is necessary because United Kingdom is main list. Eurohunter ( talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Why you use different or false names of charts? Why you use " Ultratop Flanders" not " Ultratop 50" by Ultratop (organisation), if you use Single Top 100 Dutch chart by MegaCharts. Why you write there (Single Top 100) about other charts (albums and other) if this is singles chart? You should created article about albums and singles lists in Sweden, Norway and much other charts separated like UK Singles Chart and UK Albums Chart by The Official Charts Company. There are three things: organisation artcle, albums chart article, singles chart article and optional articles about other by genres or airplay charts. Eurohunter ( talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Having read several archived disucssions here about the reliablity of UK chart websites, I found the views expressed about zobbel.de baffling. Editors express their personal views, eg. they find it unreliable, or they spread hearsay. I never found any concrete evidence to support these opinions, to the contrary. Nowhere is an statenment that says "zobbel says A but B is correct"... Nowhere.
"The problem with Zobbel is that it returns soundtrack and other special albums as having charted on the main albums chart, when in fact they are not even eligible for it." ( is mentioned here). Looking at any zobbel page, there's a key at the top (plus there's a link at the bottom to the homepage with detailed explanations), making it clear which charts are referred to, and albums charting on the "compilations albums chart" have a special bold symbol in order to distinguish them from albums that charted on the "artist albums chart". I can't see any confusion about this at all; perhaps dome editors can't be bothered to read the key?
On chart dating (another point raised in 2010): the UK charts are traditionally dated to the Saturday after publication, in effect the date used by the printed Music Week magazine; ie. the chart published this Sunday April 5, 2015 is actually dated "April 11, 2015"-- that's the traditon in the UK for 50 years. Whether a week is stated as "week 5" or "week 6" can be debated, but zobbel uses a reliable system (cut-off date is January 9th).
PS: zobbel.de sources all its charts from Hit Music (1994-2001) and successor magazine UKChartsPlus, all official licensees of OCC charts.
So where is the evidence against Zobbel.de? -- Bleddynefans ( talk) 12:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
In 2011 the website was added to "Websites to avoid", apparently after this discussion. With great pain I read the 2011 discussion referenced above. The quality of the arguments is abominable. I actually dispute most of what was said at the time. As it stands right now, the entry says:
The link goes to the website http://ukchartsplus.co.uk, but from the remarks I gather what is meant is actually the weekly publication " UK Charts Plus", as the website itself does not present any chart informaton itself;the only exception are the year-end charts that a downloadable for free.
then I do not understand "Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources." Like all the charts the weekly magazine "UK Charts Plus" prints, these year-end sales charts are also fully licensend from OCC. What could be uncertain about any "methodology as to annual figures"?
In the 2011 discussion referenced above it's alledged that the BPI list of annual best sellers deviates from what UK Charts Plus publises. I checked the BPI file with the 2009 UK Charts Plus Annual, and to my surprise I found that this alledged difference is a misunderstanding (or a malicious falsehood, so stupid it is): The BPI lists artist albums together with compilation albums in one sequence, but UK Charts Plus lists seperately the Top 200 Artists albums and the Top 200 Compilations. The BPI list is so far unusual, as since 1989 there is no longer a combined weekly albums charts: there's a weekly Artist Albums chart, and seperately a weekly Compilations albums chart. So it strangely combines these two charts, which might have a purpose for a trade body, but less so faor chartwatchers.
Unless further evidence is given, I intend to delete ukchartplus.co.uk from "Websites to avoid" and add a reference pertaining to positions 101-200 in "Recommended charts". -- Bleddynefans ( talk) 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bleddynefans. It is not your place to revert something for which a consensus was gained. At the time of the 2011 discussion, there was overwhelming evidence that UKChartPlus's data and their methodology was suspect to say the least (I know because I was part of the discussion at looked at the evidence presented at the time). It even failed on WP:RSN and was added to "Websites to Avoid" for a valid reason. If things have now changed, then I'm sure everybody will be prepared to discuss the matter and look at the evidence as it now stands, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus should remain in force. You can't make a decision to change it by yourself. Soultruck ( talk) 20:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The discrepancy in the annual chart format was the reason for the initial listing, so I do tend to agree that now that that issue has been sorted, there isn't much of a reliability problem. There is a usability problem, though. Why would we use a paywalled site when there is a perfectly good public archive that goes well down into the meaningless chart positions? What value does knowing a song reached #197 on the UK Charts have? That can't be beyond double-digit sales these days.— Kww( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Music Weekly is a chart from South-east Asia. I believe this should be recognised as an official chart on Wikipedia. Here is the official website's "About us" page and an independent source. [ [1]], [ [2]] and [ [3]]. ( 121.214.33.76 ( talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC))
Anyone know the difference between Classical Albums and Top Classical Albums? Random86 ( talk) 01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it accepted to use the Billboard Digital Songs charts for countries like Finland, Norway, New Zealand etc which already have official charts? Like for example Finland in the Cool for the Summer article? Is this not a mere spin-off/component chart? Abi-Maria ( talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The lists of charts on song articles is skewed towards the US by the inclusion of lots of genre charts. See for example: Uptown Funk#Charts or Happy (Pharrell Williams song)#Charts and certifications. For a major international hit, is its performance in one country's genre charts actually notable? If they must be included I would suggest a separate list entirely (they have also caused a long discussion about list order). Clearly if a song is say, classical, then classical charts round the world are going to be appropriate, but no other country seems to have the plethora of genres which really mean little to the average reader (what is 'rhythmic airplay'?) which basically describe which radio stations in the US are playing which songs. Btljs ( talk) 06:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I see this popping up everywhere in song articles now. Is this an acceptable chart? WP:USCHARTS gives no indication. Abi-Maria ( talk) 15:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Abi-Maria:, @ Widr:, @ Kww:, @ Iknow23:, this evidently falls under single-network guidelines, and as such I've removed most, if not all listings I can find in chart sections of song articles. Can someone make a note of this in the article, possibly under bad charts? Azealia911 talk 01:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume it's mistakenly not been included, but in the section regarding which charts may be used on the condition that a song has not entered the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs or Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts, charts like R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs and Hot Rap Songs are included, but not the Rap Digital Songs? Could someone add it? Or give me a reason for it not to be added, as I think it odd that a digital subsidary of the Hot Rap Songs can be added when that chart its self cannot be included in certain conditions. Thanks, Azealia911 talk 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
According to one of the exceptions to SINGLENETWORK, it states: "Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located." Now there's an album I'm working by a Mexican artist which predates both Monitor Latino and the Mexican Airplay charts. So in this case, is it fine to include how well the singles did in his country if the only charts from the country are compiled from Mexico City since he's based there? Erick ( talk) 14:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Are Hits Daily Double and Headline Planet reliable for sourcing sales? I've seen them being littered in music articles and both seem rather dubious... Cool Marc 08:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been seeing a couple of articles using the SloTop50 as a chart that can be added and the website does allow you to look at past weeks, although it seems like there isn't a real archive for it as it doesn't have a specific link for each week. All the articles that have this chart seems to not really do anything to archive it and just let it link to the current week. Is it not a chart that should be used, and would it even a noteworthy chart to include?
68.190.229.160 ( talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Although published as a blog, this blog http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/ , and more specifically http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/search/label/ARIA%20charts (sorted by ARIA Charts tag), currently posts weekly scans of the Australian ARIA top 50 singles printed chart, from 25 years years ago (charts commencing from July 1987), and 30 years ago (charts commencing from January 1985). The charts prior to 26 June 1988 posted on this blog are the only major online, reputable source of these charts. From January 1990, entries debuting in the top 100 that do not peak within the top 50 are also listed with their peaks, although there are no scans of the full ARIA top 100 chart. The printed charts from 9th April 1989 (represented by this blog entry - http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/25-years-ago-this-week-april-9-1989.html ) also contain a cumulative record of ARIA gold and platinum certifications for singles (although certifications achieved after the singles have left the top 50 are not displayed). This information is also not available on the ARIA website prior to 1997. Is it worth adding this (albeit incomplete and not searchable by artist/title) 'archive' to the 'Typical sources for record charts and archives, by country' table's comments section beside Australia? Nqr9 ( talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of the UK Year-End charts, I want to know what Year-End chart source should be used for 2014 since they are both different. This: http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/end-of-year-singles-chart/ Or this: http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-100-biggest-songs-of-2014-revealed__7577/
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 06:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I've only been able to find the top 50 from the Wikipedia page 2004 in British music charts with the Music Week source, but there hasn't been any way to check any other position below 50 (unless one uses the www.ukchartsplus.co.uk chart which is still being debated about whether or not it should be used http://www.ukchartsplus.co.uk/ChartsPlusYE2004.pdf). Official Charts Company's website did go past 2005 in the albums chart but not the singles chart.
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 07:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is another useful site for UK chart (both singles and albums) top 75/100 archives, posting scans of the printed charts between 1952-2007, organised by year:
http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/
The most useful feature of the scans is that they also display silver, gold and platinum certifications from 1982; although the scans are not searchable by artist/title, and certifications are annotated cumulatively - so the user has to follow a single or album until the end of its chart run to determine its highest certification achieved.
Would it be suitable to add this as an additional UK chart archive reference? Nqr9 ( talk) 03:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What I would really like to know is if the UK Year-End chart is a reliable source since it was published by UKChartsPlus. The Official Charts Company has only made it up to 2005 on the website. Specifically, I'm talking about the years from 2001-2004.
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 06:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
(Moving from WT:ALTMUSIC): There are succession boxes for numerous (all?) Canadian RPM Rock/Alternative 30 number-one singles at the bottom of their respective articles. For instance Song 2 and The End Is the Beginning Is the End. I'm not sure these are really warranted given there are tons of applicable charts, awards, certifications, etc, out there, for which we aren't using succession boxes. Anyone familiar with this practice? Any objections to removing them? — MusikAnimal talk 14:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music chart articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. (I think the discussion might have been better held on this talkpage, but I overlooked this page when setting up the proposal!) SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't whether I just have bad eyes or not, but I can't seem to find Jon Bon Jovi's Blaze of Glory anywhere on the RPM Year-End 1990 chart http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.9139&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062, despite it reaching number 1 and staying on the chart for 17 weeks. By contrast, Ice Ice Baby peaked at number 11 and was on the chart (at least in 1990) for 9-10 weeks, and it was still able to be on the year-end chart at number 98. Even Jon Bon Jovi's other single Miracle was able to be the 69th biggest song of 1990 when only spend 9-10 weeks on the chart in 1990. So I'm wondering if anyone can confirm whether or not the song is on the year-end chart or not.
68.190.229.160 ( talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
So far I can only find one source for this although I'm not entirely sure if this is accurate to what Billboard published: http://www.jjheath.com/ModR2005.html
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 06:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, is there an official Bulgarian Chart? The "legitimate Bulgarian chart" linked to on this page ( [4]) seems to have ceased updating in April 2015. I ask because a user added a Bulgarian chart position to the Dua Lipa page a week ago. I let it pass at first, but then deleted it because hardly any other pages on Wikipedia seem to use it, but the same user put the chart back again today. My concern is that the pages referenced ( acharts.co and bgtop40.bg) seem to be the "Bulgarian National Top 40" which was deleted from Wikipedia in 2008 for dubious methodology. They look like the same chart as euro200.net (the Bulgarian language site "BGTop40" which looks so convincing, seems to be always a week behind, which is odd behaviour if it was official in any way). But I'm not certain. Help needed on this one please! Pasicles ( talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Why there is only 2008? I have also news sources for Stromae's Platinum sales " Papaoutai" and Racine carrée. What about rest? Eurohunter ( talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this web reliable? https://spotifycharts.com/regional/ , useful for "Commercial performance" sections (the Global chart for first week of streaming, etc), but I'm not sure if it is managed by Spotify. -- Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This was added in late August 2015 through a discussion that seemed to small to be of be used as binding consensus to exclude a Billboard chart. (See Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_13#US_Billboard_Top_Twitter_Tracks). I would like to solicit a larger forum, an RFC if necessary, especially as I feel that WP:SINGLENETWORK doesn't apply here. Twitter is a very large network. Also, it is a social media network, different from most "single vendor" charts. Twitter's only real competitor is Sina Weibo, which doesn't really impact American charts. Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 13:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this chart in some Wikipedia pages and I've been curious to know if its reliable or not? [5] -- Ahmedo Semsurî ( talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Which of the year-end Hungary Singles Charts should be used, the one based on sales numbers or based on chart position? http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/eves-osszesitett-listak/single_db/2015 http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/eves-osszesitett-listak/single_chart/2015
ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 04:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be really helpful is someone who knows how to determine this please provide some basic instructions on how to retrieve it? e.g. Someone figured it out and used it in the German Chart reference on Madonna's discography: "Madonna Discography: Germany". GfK Entertainment. Retrieved May 26, 2009.
Thanks! -- AusChartMan ( talk) 16:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Has this website been discussed yet ?: http://suomenlistalevyt.blogspot.co.uk/ . I know that its a blog, but the owner has demonstrated that the singles sales and album sales chart positions have been based on official sources, even though various airplay charts have been included as well. From between 1972 and 2003 the information is taken from the published book: Pennanen, Timo (2003). Sisältää hitin: levyt ja esittäjät Suomen musiikkilistoilla vuodesta 1972. Otava Publishing Company Ltd. ISBN 951-1-21053-X. After that the peak positions for the singles sales and album sales charts have been taken from official sources as well. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 17:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what the Finland - OVI Musiikki TOP 30 - chart is ? Its listed on the official Finnish chart website but is not the official list, download list or radio list. Here is an example: http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/ovi-musiikki/2011/11 .Thanks, QuintusPetillius ( talk) 16:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it a reliable source? For example:
(Bruno) Mars was the most played artist at pop radio in 2013 according to Mediabase. [1]
Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 06:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you think we could add this website to the list of websites to avoid for sourcing chart information? I have seen editors use this site in order to cite chart positions below 100 on the UK Singles Chart, and I believe this is wrong for two reasons: one, it appears that this information has been taken from UKChartsPlus, which is already on the list of websites to avoid, and two, as far as I can see, Zobbel only lists the date of entry and the position that the single entered the chart at nos. 101–200 – that isn't necessarily the same as the peak position eventually reached by the song, so it can't be used to cite the single's peak position in the charts section of a song's article on Wikipedia. Additionally, the site is a blog and anything but official. And is it critical to add that a song reached number 156 on the singles chart? That really is a whole bunch of nothing. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If I'm correct Irish certfications was provided by irma.ie site. New version no provide that. Where I can see it now? Eurohunter ( talk) 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This web site supposedly lists year-end charts for the United Kingdom, however, there is no indication where these charts were originally published, where the chart data comes from, or what methodology was used. It appears to be a self-published hobbyist web site. A comparison of the Official Charts Company end of year charts to this web site shows they are different.
Should this web site be added to the list of deprecated charts? Piriczki ( talk) 17:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I was looking for the peak position for Prince's " Kiss", and I found out that there is a bit of a conflict with the two French charts. The SNEP chart stated that the song's peak position was 29 (before Prince's death), but Infodisc lists on their archives that it reached 19. Is the Infodisc chart archives really reliable in this case? ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
A comparison of everyHit.com's year end charts to the Official Charts Company year end charts shows they are not the same, see 2000s Singles Chart Archive - everyHit.com and the official charts for 2005, 2006 and 2009. Should everyHit.com be added to deprecated charts? Piriczki ( talk) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This was a short-lived chart published in Canada from 1975 to 1979 (I think), and an anonymous editor has added it to " Don't Go Breaking My Heart". As far as I can tell from an online search, the chart was based purely on airplay: that in itself wouldn't necessarily exclude its use as a reliable chart – what I don't know (being British) is whether the radio stations used were a single network or not... if it's the former, then the chart should not be used. Is there anybody here who can provide some guidance? Richard3120 ( talk) 02:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not made clear, particularly with respect to Billboard, if a genre chart like Top New Age Albums is considered a "national chart" for purposes of NMUSIC. What's the general rule of thumb for niche charts? MSJapan ( talk) 18:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello id like to aks since the Korean Melon streaming service is very prelavant/dominant in Korea and streaming is a huge/main part of music listening.Why has it not being added to the charts?While it may be a single vendor if its the main vendor used doesnt that mean that it shows accurately the songs position in the contry? Junkoo ( talk) 10:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The weekly Gaon chart will show how successful they are as well. Getting an "all kill" is not a special circumstance. Random86 ( talk) 18:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has started adding charts from this site to a couple of articles. I am dubious as to the methodology used to calculate the charts: the website says on its page that they are "compiled from this week's top tracks from each territory in Southeast Asia", but I don't see anywhere exactly how this has been done. Anybody else want to have a look and tell me what they think, please? Richard3120 ( talk) 00:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
What you think? [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9D40:83C:5859:71FF:B680:CA8C ( talk) 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Bumping this question. The Sugarboy article has been created after an AfD (raised on the 14 June 2016!) deleted it, and now uses an appearance on africacharts.com as a claim to WP:MUSICBIO. africacharts.com claims be a composite of "TV and radio airplay, record sales (both digital and physical), streaming platforms, social media, song and video downloads from top African entertainment sites, as well as YouTube and Dailymotion views". It has no Wikipedia article and is not used as a source by any other articles. Is it a "recognized reliable source"? -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
australian-charts.com needs some sort of caveat. It doesn't contain the Kent Music Report, which was the accepted national chart from 1974-1988. It's actively misleading in such cases - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rain (Dragon song), where an experienced user who knows their music sourcing thought a No. 2 that spent half a year on the national chart was deletable because it wasn't listed there. The information from the Kent era just isn't online, it's only in Kent's book. What do we do about this? - David Gerard ( talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
South Korea's Gaon Music Chart ranks the top 400 albums songs on all of its weekly charts. I had no idea how to get to the rankings 101–400 up until late last month, when I became aware that adding pageNo=2& to a chart URL displayed additional pages (example: http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaon?pageNo=2&nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=ALL&targetTime=04&hitYear=2010&termGbn=week). That was short lived, as one can once again not access the rankings after 100. In this post, a Gaon staff remember stated (in Korean) that only the top 100 will be viewable. I had added rankings for songs outside of the top 100 to F.Cuz, which are now unverifiable. I was also working on other articles that would use rankings and sales only available outside of the top 100. Needless to say, the Wayback Machine did not archive any of these pages. Being a registered member (as I am) to the site makes no difference, and there is no paid subscription service available to view these rankings and sales beyond the top 100 (like there is for Billboard or Oricon). How should this be dealt with? — ξ xplicit 07:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems CAPIF has redesigned their site and moved rankings from rankings.aspx
to rankings
. The new site doesn't show rankings before September 2016, so we'll need archive links for the old charts. Not sure if
InternetArchiveBot supports {{
Album chart}}. –
nyuszika7h (
talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Are people aware that AllMusic no longer displays any Billboard charting information on its site. [15]. I know a lot of articles site this information and can deeply impact discographies and other articles such as List of best-charting music artists in the United States which relied greatly on this information as its source. Anyway, editors will not be able to use AllMusic to cite chart peaks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Is http://portuguesecharts.com acceptable as a singles chart? It says the source is AC Nielsen (presumably airplay as it doesn't at all match Billboard's Digital Chart) but I can't find any link.
Johnjones1979 ( talk) 01:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)johnjones1979
Is there a precedent for including non-Billboard charts? I've seen Mediabase peaks in a few articles, but only when sourced (e.g. Chris Janson). Some older articles cite Cash Box peaks when sourced. Most of the old Radio & Records charts have been archived, as has Gavin Report, so would it be acceptable to use these within reason? This might also help in discrepancies such as the tally of #1 hits George Strait has had (most sources say 60, which counts all chart publications, but Billboard only says 44). Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I would like to suggest the addition of the YouTube Music Charts to the list. I think it is relevant and reliable as a global chart. Currently there are four charts: "All Videos", "Viral Videos", "Tracks" and "Artists". Regards. — Alan Moraes ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Recently, Recording Industry Association of Malaysia, a member of the IFPI has announced that starting from this year, they are going to revive their charts, namely charts for international and domestic singles. According to their website, "their charts comply with the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) general guideline for chart generation as below."
I hope this mean that these two charts can be included in Wikipedia as reliable charts. Since these charts are non-searchable, I will try to archive these charts once a week. SyFuel Ignite Burned 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The ranking of songs at infodisc.fr is based on what they call a "synthesis" which is explained on their web site as follows:
Hitparadeitalia.it does something similar, as explained on their web site:
In other words, they gather information from various sources to recreate, through their own methodology, a single, albeit fictional, chart. These should be added to WP:BADCHARTS. Piriczki ( talk) 16:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: can I ask you of your opinion regarding SloTop50? I cannot understand from the website that it actually is a real chart and has any methodology. User's keep on adding this chart inspite of not being listed in WP:GOODCHARTS. — IB [ Poke ] 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
So apparently I thought Mediabase was not an acceptable source because it states that Billboard is the recommended source, but my edit got reverted here by @ Jax 0677:. I still believe that Mediabase should not be used, especially when it states that kworb should not be used, and the source cited in that edit changes daily, so over time, the song will not be on the chart eventually. Furthermore it is hard to find actual Mediabase peaks, and the YouTube chart videos cannot be used as reliable sources. Daerl ( talk) 12:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The popular and reliable Billboard has entered the Philippines market under Billboard Philippines, where it formally releases weekly charts that are popular in the Philippines. Currently, the nation of 100 million has no representation in the Wikipedia Music Charts. However, you may not have heard about Billboard Philippines, as it has only been established 7 months ago. But since its foundation, it's charts are said to be: "...ranked by radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music and streaming activity data provided by online music sources." "BillboardPH Hot 100". BillboardPH. Retrieved 28 May 2017.
Hence, I propose the addition of the credible new BillboardPH chart to be part of the charts section in all songs where applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithere442 ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion involving WP:USCHARTS, and the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart specifically, is taking place here. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers, gongshow talk 10:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I need some clarification whether the China V Chart is considered to be a good chart or bad chart. Currently I'm in a disagreement with another editor on its inclusion in a discography article as they say it is the official chart of China due to Billboard partnering with music video sharing site YinYueTai. However from reading where they get the data from, the chart's rankings is based on most-viewed videos on YYT and not on sales or airplay which I believe would fall as a single-network chart. Thanks! Rockysmile11 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Source - while I have no problem with Media Forest as a source - I am shocked to see that some users are claiming that an international artist TV airplay chart from Israel is notable for the charts tables in song articles. TV airplay charts have never been notable on Wikipedia and now there seems to be a mentality adopted by a user who feels they are in charge of charts on Wikipedia pages that any chart under the sun should be included. Abi-Maria ( talk) 11:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging other editors for input - @ Kww: @ Iknow23: @ Widr: @ Walter Görlitz: @ Cornerstonepicker: @ Richard3120: Abi-Maria ( talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Not notable There is an airplay chart already being used in articles. If a song fails to chart on there tough luck. We don't need an extremely minor chart like this added to the already exhaustive list of component charts being used in song articles at the moment. Especially since it does not combine local and international artists together and is in turn not a true reflection of its popularity. I also don't believe this chart should appear in the chart table because TV airplay refers to music videos not songs them self. If anything it could be mentioned in the song article's music video section but I think even then it is not notable enough. Abi-Maria ( talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment I'll participate, but someone needs to fill in the missing data for me:
— Kww( talk) 21:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a cross-post from WT:KO.
Hi, for those users who work with South Korea's music articles, two late announcements. First, the easier of the two: Billboard Korea K-pop Hot 100. The charted resumed for the week dated May 29 – June 4, 2017 [16]. It's incredibly skeletal: it only provides its ranking for the week, so no peak position, weeks on the chart, etc.
Gaon has re-enabled its search function, which you can find here. This is great for discography articles, where you can utilize fewer sources for citing peak positions of songs and albums. A walk-through:
The search function presents seven headers: Digital Chart, Download Chart, Streaming Chart, BGM Chart, Mobile Chart (벨), Mobile Chart (링), and 노래방 Chart. To the left, three viewing options are available: 주간 (weekly), 월간 (monthly), and 연간 (year-end).
As an example, here's the search for ( CNBLUE). Chart type: Digital Chart; Classification: Overall; Year: 2013; Name: Singer's name; Search box: "씨엔블루". [17]. In reverse chronological order, it shows the Chart Period, Ranking, Title, Artist, Album, and Link to that week's chart.
Please remember to observe WP:CHARTMATH. The Download, Streaming, BGM Charts, as well as the Domestic and Foreign Charts should only be noted in cases when a song or album failed to chart on the Digital Chart or Overall chart.
Cheers! ℯ xplicit 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Is the ARC 100 a notable and reliable record chart for Croatia? Abi-Maria ( talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Not notable - Based on the fact that its methodology is unclear, only airplay of songs by foreign artists are used and there is no third party notability. Abi-Maria ( talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This chart posted by Hrvatski Radio is being placed in song articles for chart peaks in Croatia. I was hoping to get confirmation that this is a notable and reliable chart or should I get a second opinion from the Croatian Wikipedia. I have also asked for opinions at WP:RSN. Many thanks. Abi-Maria ( talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
So on the page it says:
Airplay Radio Chart measures the popularity and presence of performers and their songs in the programs of domestic radio stations. The Weekly Report Airplay Radio Charter was created based on the sum of the broadcasting of foreign songs in radio stations throughout the country according to the 1Played service data. Airplay Radio Chart measures the popularity and presence of performers and their songs in the programs of domestic radio stations. We analyze global music trends and recognize the demand for singles and artists in the local area. So we are also building access to the radio creation of popular music 1
I can't find anything on which radio stations are monitored and if it is affiliated with the IFPI or Nielsen. I don't read anything that the chart is published by Croatian Radiotelevision. It says the chart only includes foreign songs based on music trends and data from 1Played which makes me skeptical that this is a legitimate official chart in Croatia. I have asked the Croatian WikiProject for input. Also pinging GregorB who was involved in the last debate about Croatia's chart. Abi-Maria ( talk) 15:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We have a situation now where for the Netherlands - the Dutch Top 40, Mega Top 50 and Single 100 are all being included. While with Hungary there is a single, stream, radio and dance chart all being included. There needs to be consensus as to which of these charts is the more notable as the list has become far too exhaustive. How is the reader supposed to establish what the song's peak was in these countries. Abi-Maria ( talk) 05:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Just saw an album article that stated that Spotify was a song chart and used http://kworb.net/spotify/track/6WoyghnMAvDDRbZfFbpwEo.html as the source. It's not listed at BADCHARTS, but clearly fits the criteria. Shall we add it even though it's not an album chart? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is the Romanian airplay-based singles chart, Airplay 100, is not considered a reliable chart just because it is presented through a radio show? I've seen a lot of pages that wrongly link Media Forest as a source, even here is clearly saying to not be confused with Airplay 100. Please discuss here so we can clarify this situation. Gabrielflorin01 8 January 2018, 11:25 (EET) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've got an AFD going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shimica Castro Wong, where it is based entirely on individual radio and television station network rankings as well as Soundclick. Are these all considered good charts? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 06:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed that en.wiki uses the digital download-only French chart (top téléchargement on SNEP, or the one reported on lescharts.com) in foreign music articles. I'd like to bring the topic to everyone's attention, as the chart isn't a good indicator of a song's real popularity in the country. As of 2018, streaming has hugely replaced digital sales, to the point that IMO it's necessary to use the sales plus streaming chart published weekly on SNEP's website. This is merely for the accuracy of the articles and to report the actual popularity of a track in the French market, which can no longer be defined by digital sales alone. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 16:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Can someone expand the acceptable Billboard album charts section? There's only Billboard 200 there. Many other charts like Independent, Heatseekers, etc should be listed. — Za wl 05:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Billboard's website is listing sub-75 positions for some artists in 1990 on Hot Country Songs, even though the chart had already been cut to 75 positions by that point. For instance, this result lists the song "Southern Belles" as peaking at #85 in July 1990, even though the chart was only 75 positions at that point. Some further digging revealed that this is because Billboard briefly had a "Hot Country Radio Breakouts" chart which basically listed the "sub-75" songs the way Bubbling Under Hot 100 lists the songs just below #100. To verify, see page 38 on this scan of the 7/28/90 issue of Billboard. "Southern Belles" is listed at #10 on Hot Country Radio Breakouts. Add 75 to that, and you get #85. I have checked all the other 76-to-85 positions I've seen listed for songs in 1990, and they all correspond to their position on that week's "Hot Country Radio Breakouts" plus 75. @ Caldorwards4: and I have used proper citations from the corresponding issues to indicate these unusual peaks and explain why they are so. I feel that this does not run afoul of WP:OR, and I feel that it's a particularly unique case that was worth sharing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
List of number-one country singles of 2012 (U.S.) and the articles for subsequent years, as well as some equivalent articles from the 1940s and 50s, combine multiple charts into one article. Should each be broken up into multiple articles.......? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay are listed as acceptable charts, but there is no mention of the acceptability of the Rock Airplay and R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts. Shouldn't they both be listed as acceptable, too, for the same reasons Country Airplay is? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)