![]() | 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi. Does anyone have a reliable source for the UK Year-end 1998 singles chart? Marshmallow Honey ( talk) 14:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, guys. I'm a music fan and follow this wiki topic. I have few questions about. I would like to know why number of views on the Internet is not added into General guidelines as reliable source? As you know, all international producers assume number of views and likes as very important achievement. Also, I saw TopHit ( /info/en/?search=Tophit) has individual page and they are confirmed as reliable. Are they? I'm asking because they are not fit (very well) with Wiki guidelines. I didn't understand why Top40Charts has own wiki page and are consider like unreliable ( /info/en/?search=Top40-Charts). Actually, they have not any methodology (didn't find any on their site).
Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music charts fan ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys, does anyone know (and preferably have a reliable source for) what the relation was in the 70s between the issue date on the cover of an issue of Billboard and when it actually came out? Elvis jumped to number one in the country singles chart in the issue dated 20 August 1977, which of course is four days after he died, but I don't know if the issue came out on that day (in which case the increase in sales may possibly have been directly attributable to his having passed away) or if it would have been published earlier (in which case it seems to have been a coincidence)........ -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
At that time Billboard was published on Friday, usually arrived in the mail Monday, with a cover date of that Saturday (the week ending date). The August 20, 1977 issue would have been published August 12, and the survey period for that week's Hot 100 would have been August 3 to August 9. Don't know if the Country chart had the same survey period but either way "Way Down"/"Pledging My Love" was already No. 1 at the time of his death and didn't really "jump" to No. 1 since it was No. 2 the previous week. Piriczki ( talk) 13:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
There was a discussion during a recent featured list nomination about citing chart positions (such as the number ones of a record chart) to the organisation that compiles the chart (e.g. Billboard in the US, the Official Charts Company in the UK, etc). The discussion was specifically about whether said organisation is a primary source and that therefore to reference them is original research.
Of the 65 record charts that we've featured over the last 10 years, 59 of them (>90%) cite information about chart placings to the chart compilers. Many of the 228 artist discographies that we've featured do the same. So there's been a significant precedent in usage over the last decade to source this information in this way. My feeling is that chart positions are non-controversial facts, and that the implicit consensus has been that citing them to the chart compilers is not in violation of WP:OR. I welcome any and all opinions or thoughts from the community on this issue. Pinging Francis Schonken for his opposing viewpoint. Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 10:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Can data from chartmasters.org be used? Richard Hendricks ( talk) 01:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed two digital charts for Greece. Billboard and the IFPI. The positions are different and the IFPI chart says it includes data from streaming platforms but the chart is called "Digital Singles"? I assume the Billboard chart is only based on digital downloads. Is one of these charts preferred over the other? I see on the "Good Charts" section the IFPI is recommended. Cool Marc 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The BPI link at WP:GOODCHARTS produces a "Page not found". [2] Attempts to search the site produce a chronological listing of all artists [3] and attempts to access the web.archive go nowhere. [4] A BPI announcement indicates some changes, [5] but includes "The database and archive for the BRIT Certified Awards will remain on the BPI website for the time being, but this too will be migrated to The BRITs as part of the second phase of the relaunch later this year." Meanwhile, what is the best way to source past certifications for FLCs? — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a PDF file featuring Brazilian chart positions for songs between 1999 and 2015, which was added to tons of song articles by Canadaolympic989 last year. I did some digging and found out that the source of the PDF file is this site. Turns out the chart used in the PDF file has no affiliation with Pro-Música Brasil, Billboard Brasil or any other official chart provider, and it's actually the same Hot 100 Brasil chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, whose article was deleted a decade ago due to dubious methodology. snapsnap ( talk) 22:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The New Zealand Listener or its "Flavour of New Zealand" charts are used in a number of articles, usually in singles chart tables. [6] The web page [7] states:
These charts courtesy of NZ Listener. Not sales based music charts; rather, they were based on voting by NZ Listener readers. Later called POP-O-METER.
Between 1961 and 1975, there were (to my knowledge) no sales-based music charts in New Zealand. In an attempt to depict what pop music was in vogue in NZ in the period 1966 to 1975, I have used the weekly music charts published in the NZ Listener.
These weekly charts were compiled from voting coupons sent in by readers of the NZ Listener. Only Listener readers would vote. The charts underwent a few name changes during this decade, but were always published weekly in the Listener.
A chart based on a such a limited poll doesn't meet the "Suitable charts" criterion #2, that requires that a suitable chart "covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources." Propose to add Listen and "Flavour of New Zealand" to WP:BADCHARTS. — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The Lever hit parades featured on New Zealand government radio stations that were in the NZBS's commercial arm. They were compiled by Lintas NZ Ltd and the sponsors were Lever Brothers. These charts were not sales based and more information is needed on how Lintas went about gathering data though my information is that is was via polling.
I already addressed this six months ago, but I got no responses. Something needs to be done about the French charts: this is the official singles chart (sales plus streaming), but en.wiki keeps using the download-only chart, which is highly inaccurate because the French market is determined almost entirely by streaming now. The lescharts.com website only reports the download chart. For the sake of the accuracy of the data, I suggest to label the download-only chart as something like 'France Download', and use the SPS chart as the official French one, the only accurate representation of what's really popular in France. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 07:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
So this discussion stemmed from my talk page between myself and @
Cartoon network freak:. CNF added a number of certifications on the Lady Gaga album articles (eg:
[11]) which is from a
Facebook page of Universal Music Romania, showing the record label awarding certification plaque to Lady Gaga. I reverted them, with the explanation that record labels have no authority to award certification to any artist, and Facebook being a social media website, is NOT at all a reliable source. CNF has contradicted me resulting in a discussion between him and me. CNF believes that
Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (Romanian Phonographic Industry; UPFR) has authorized the record label to award artists based on sales of the albums. He provided the following sources:
[12] and
[13]. However, I cannot find anywhere it says that the UPFR has authorized the record label to issue certifications on their behalf. CNF himself says that "Actually, I don't think UPFR ever awarded something to someone; it was always the label who handed out certifications on their behalf.
" Now this is grossly problematic since record labels can easily inflate certifications and award plaques on their own whim. CNF does not think so and has continued to add these certifications in the Romanian lists. I would welcome other editors of the music articles for their input. @
Harout72:, @
Ss112:, @
Richard3120: and @
SNUGGUMS:. —
IB [
Poke ] 13:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Are these Romanian certifications reliable at all? There's no archive for them, and they get reported independently in various websites' articles. There don't seem to be any clear thresholds, as some albums are Gold with 2,000 and 10,000 copies, or Platinum with 20,000 and 25,000 copies sold in the same year. Most seem to be just made up. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think UPFR ever got involved in certifications, it was always the labels that handed the plaques. But I also don't think they're 100% made up. They clearely have some data about sales. Not every foreign artist that comes for a concert in Romania receives something. I don't know if this helps, but here's a close-up look at Gaga's plaque for Born This Way. -- Gabrielflorin01 ( talk) 11:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Record labels don't certify records, the official chart company of said country or their local version of the IFPI offer the certification. Labels often produce plaques on behalf of their artists. If in doubt contact the local record industry body - but otherwise without independent verification we shouldn't take what labels say as gospel truth. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is there any problem with using the archived Billboard magazines and other magazines that are available at www.americanradiohistory.com ? I noticed that the website owner has said not to link to Wikipedia because the URL's change, but this can always be altered on Wikipedia too. Music & Media magazines have also been archived there and appear on the whole to be a reliable source for charts with the exception of one or two countries: For the UK top ten Music & Media was using the UK charts that were compiled by the Media Research Information Bureau (MRIB) and they ran to a different week to the OCC charts and also included airplay data. The MRIB chart is mentioned in this article: The Network Chart Show. So clearly the UK charts are not right but for all the other countries listed in Music & Media the peak positions seem to match those found in the usual chart archives for those countries. The Music & Media magazine also stated which companies provided the chart info for each country and in many cases it is the same company that provides the charts for those countries today. For example AFP in Portugal. The other odd one is with Belgium. It is well documented here on Wikipedia that two charts have been recorded for the Flanders and Wallonia regions of the country. But for a time Music & Media was publishing a Belgium chart for the whole country combined. So as an example if you see the chart peaks for Nirvana's MTV Unplugged in New York it had both peaks in Flanders and Wallonia as well as for the whole of Belgium sourced from Music & Media. If you check this page of Music & Media dated Feb 18, 1995, [15], at the bottom right it says that IFPI Belgium has stopped publishing the official chart but that they would return in in March. From that point onward Music & Media was publishing the Belgium charts separately for Flanders and Wallonia. In any case I don't see a problem with using the chart which covered the whole of Belgium on Wikipedia as long as it is properly sourced, as it was produced by the IFPI. Thoughts appreciated. Update: the americanradiohistory.com website has already been used a a reference over 750 times on Wikipedia anyway. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 19:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In 2010, it was decided to add the Canadian Radio & Records Country Singles charts to WP:BADCHARTS since the positions were never archived anywhere. However, since then, back issues of Radio & Records have been put on American Radio History, allowing verification for most if not all of the positions on that chart. See SHeDAISY discography for one example. Most of these positions have been put back into the articles by Caldorwards4 ( talk · contribs), who has gone out of his way to cite the back issues when adding the positions. With this in mind, can the R&R Canadian Country charts be removed from WP:BADCHARTS now that a source exists for their positions? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Are DRT Global charts suitable for notability or sources? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This Polish radio chart should be added to the " bad chart" section. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 15:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
To page watchers: I'm setting up a script to archive links on Wikipedia:Record charts/List every week. Please add more links to that page if they need to be archived. Thanks, Jc86035 ( talk) 17:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Billboard China Top 100 was launched at the beginning of this year, and I believe it should be added to the list of recommended charts, which currently does not have one for China. - Zanhe ( talk) 00:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
May I ask why the Latvian airplay chart is considered legit when it only covers one station (Latvijas Radio 5 - Pieci Hiti) that broadcasts international pop music? How is it remotely accurate? I'm pretty sure there's a rule that does not legitimate charts based on only one station on en.wiki. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 18:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No consensus was achieved in a previous RFC which can be found at
Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 13#RfC about notability and reliability of the ARC 100 as a record chart for Croatia. The chart can be found
here. From the previous discussion it was pointed out that chart has a dubious methodology. No affiliation with the IFPI, Nielsen was found on the website which says the chart only includes foreign songs based on music trends and data from 1Played.
I am concerned because this does not ring true to me as a legitimate chart of Croatia.
User:GregorB, a Croatian editor, also expressed concerns regarding the methodology. I was hoping to finally get some consensus regarding this chart. Pinging @
Merynancy: @
Walter Görlitz: @
Kww: @
Hobbes Goodyear: @
Harout72: @
SnapSnap: @
IndianBio: for opinions on this. Thanks.
Abi-Maria (
talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If an artist's song charted on another chart but did not make the Billboard charts, is it acceptable to put a footnote indicating as such?
For example, in September 2003, Kenny Chesney charted a rendition of " Luckenbach, Texas (Back to the Basics of Love)" on Radio & Records, as seen on page 43 of the 10/17/03 issue here. Since the song charted on a non-Billboard chart, and the Radio & Records position is verifiable, would it be acceptable to put the song in the discography and add a footnote like "Luckenbach, Texas did not chart on Billboard, but reached number 49 on Radio & Records"? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Should chartdata.org be listed as a website to avoid? Richard Hendricks ( talk) 04:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's going on with the Billboard database reporting data from before streaming-related charts existed? I think most people watching this page are already aware of the background, but for those who aren't: over the last few years Billboard began to incorporate streaming data into some of its charts, as well as introducing new streaming-only charts like Streaming Songs. In addition to new streaming charts, there's a new "everything except for streaming" chart too: after the Billboard 200 began incorporating streaming data in December 2014, they introduced a new chart called "Top Album Sales" that continues the old methodology without streams. In other words, Top Album Sales just shows "here's what the Billboard 200 would look like today if we had never factored in streaming."
The problem? Billboard's online charts database seems to pretend the streaming charts and the Top Album Sales chart always existed. I noticed this recently while working on the FAC for All Money Is Legal. The album was released in 2000, three years before the iTunes Store opened and many years before there were major commercial streaming services. Nevertheless, Billboard reports that the album charted on Top Album Sales, peaking on July 22, 2000, 14 years before the chart itself existed. The info on that page is an exact mirror of the album's actual chart performance on the Billboard 200: same peak date, same peak position, same total weeks on the chart. Which is what you'd expect, since there was no streaming in 2000 and thus no reason for there to be a difference. It's redundant at best, but ahistorical at worst—it's inaccurate to say that an album peaked on a chart that didn't exist!
The streaming charts for singles are even more baffling. Billboard reports that Amil's song "4 da Fam" charted on R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs, peaking at #97 on July 22, 2000. Bizarrely, this is slightly different than its actual performance on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs: same number of weeks on the chart and same peak date, but it says the song peaked at #99. I don't understand the discrepancy, but nonetheless the streaming chart didn't exist in 2000. I genuinely have no idea what's up with the streaming singles charts having data that predates their existence.
Has anyone else come across this? Does anyone know more about what's going on? Maybe I'm missing something. But if I'm not, I think this page should inform editors not to list data from charts that didn't exist yet, even if Billboard shows data from those charts. For example, no Top Album Sales data should be used for any chart performance prior to its introduction on December 13, 2014. (Side note: this issue doesn't include pre-2014 songs charting on streaming charts after 2014—for example, " Bohemian Rhapsody" reentering the charts in 2018 on the strength of streams. That's totally valid, as long as the chart performance occurred when the chart actually existed.) — BLZ · talk 20:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no clue why it would do this, but ‘’Billboard’’ does have a history of making retroactive changes. After they added in singles sales and streaming to their genre charts, they created new Airplay charts that officially run parallel to the main chart: so, for example, the Country Songs and Country Airplay charts run the exact same until October 12, 2012, the date the Country Songs chart effectively became Country Airplay and the “new” Country Songs chart began. But for the life of me I can’t figure out the streaming thing, since that didn’t exist in any form. Toa Nidhiki05 12:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see this thread about the new charts planned by the above publications, and please give your views about whether either or both charts should be included in future articles. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Should BuzzAngle Music chart information ever be used in an album or song article? Richard Hendricks ( talk) 15:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
What's the best way to cite older (i.e. pre-2007 Billboard) Canadian charts? The archives of RPM don't make it easy to comply with the standard WP layout MOS. The Beatles discography just cites the RPM search results from the Library and Archives of Canada, with 199 (!) nondescript links; The Who discography doesn't cite anything; Elvis Presley singles discography uses a unique source; and The Rolling Stones discography just omits Canada altogether! I can't see any way around citing each single individually, unless we leave the readers a lot of homework. SteveStrummer ( talk) 23:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Canadatopsingles
parameter can be used with the {{
single chart}} template to cite the RPM charts (there are also parameters for the Canadian Country charts, Adult Contemporary charts, etc.). However, you need to find the "chartid" number first (the template tells you where to find this), and I've stated before that I don't like the output as it currently stands: it shows this chartid in the references section as "Issue no. xxxx", which is not the same thing at all. At present I add the citation manually, but that's not what you're looking for, obviously. Maybe this is a good opportunity to ask to get the Canadian parameters cleaned up.
Richard3120 (
talk) 23:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
If an artist has charted on the main UK Singles Chart or UK Albums Chart, should the relevant genre chart which it also appears in be excluded from the peak chart positions in the artist's discography page? Quite a lot of discographies currently include them.
I propose to reduce clutter that genre charts (such as Christian & Gospel, Classical, Dance, Indie, Indie Breakers, R&B, Rock & Metal, Specialist Classical) and regional charts (such as Scottish) are not included in the table for an artist's discography. A note using {{ efn-ua}} can be used next to the main chart position and the genre charts can be included on the release's own page. Ellm6 ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Nice4What compiled some useful advice regarding the new Rolling Stone Top 100 and Top 200 that can be found at WP:RSCHART. I'd recommend anybody interested in contributing to record charts give it a look. Thanks TheKaphox T 13:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Since June 2019, Oricon started publishing the Weekly Combined Album and Single Charts, which combine CD sales, digital sales and streaming, and are the main charts for albums and singles, replacing the weekly charts based solely on CD sales. They are the first charts to appear on the Oricon website. Should we include this change into the templates and tables? I have noticed some differences for peak positions in the combined album chart and the CD album chart, so I thought about addressing this issue. Lucas RdS ( talk) 04:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Most articles about songs that peaked at the number-two position of a record chart will often mention the song that kept it from reaching the top spot of that same chart. " Causing a Commotion", by Madonna, spent three weeks at the runner-up position of the Hot 100 in late 1987. On the article, only one of the two songs that kept "Causing a Commotion" from #1, Michael Jackson's "Bad" (which only held the top-spot for two weeks), is mentioned, but apparently, IndianBio does not want the other song (the Tiffany Darwish version of "I Think We're Alone Now") to be mentioned in the article. I felt like I was on the verge of an edit war with IndianBio because of his reversions, especially considering that "Causing a Commotion" is a Good Article. He reverted the "I Think We're Alone Now" mentioned twice: In November 2017 and March 2018. After the first reversion, I tried to point this out on the talk page for "Causing a Commotion", but there was no reply from IndianBio. The second reversion came after I added a source for the "I Think We're Alone Now" info (the Hot 100 chart from the week of November 7, 1987 on Billboard's official website which proves it). After this, I tried to point this out to IndianBio on his talk page, but he stated the addition of the "I Think We're Alone Now" mention was "not relevant" and was "undue weight", and discouraged under the chart trajectory policy. I then suggested to IndianBio that the article may need to be re-written entirely to include mentions of both "Bad" and "I Think We're Alone Now". It should be noted that all of Madonna's other #2 hits mention the songs that kept them from the top position (for example, on the article for "Express Yourself", both the Simply Red version of "If You Don't Know Me By Now" and Martika's "Toy Soldiers" are mentioned). Right now, I need a Third Opinion from a different user regarding this. Jim856796 ( talk) 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Go to any artist page and check it. It’s crazy! Here’s Switchfoot as a sample. Heritage rock, Active rock recurrent charts, Canadian charts, Music video sales, Bubbling Under - all new! Toa Nidhiki05 13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
According to this Chartorg tweet, Random Access Memories has surpassed one billion streams on Spotify. Per this recent discussion, Chartdata.org isn't considered reliable, but its sources can be used instead. Does anyone know how I can access and cite the sources it uses for Spotify streams? Popcornduff ( talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this web site an acceptable source? rock.co.za/files/sarock_charts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnothimagain ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to report the launch of the official Lithuanian singles and albums top 100 (based on sales and streams), published weekly by their recording industry association AGATA. The archive can be found here. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, it's looking like the Billboard archives are no longer accessible online. Some categories, like Adult Contemporary and RnB are still up, but the Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are gone. So is the Artist Chart History. There isn't even a way to purchase archive access, as far as I can tell. Does anyone know what's going on? SteveStrummer ( talk) 19:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently, when creating album articles, I've been using Billboard.com/biz and inputting the artist and album name to get the charts that they're in, but then have to go to that Billboard chart to look for it. Quite time consuming.-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@ SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Mjs1991, Trialpears, Toa Nidhiki05, and Jc86035: I hope it's only temporary, but two months later, it appears Billboard has started vanishing charts again; I've noticed https://www.billboard.com/music/lewis-capaldi/chart-history/pop-songs (that link displayed a peak earlier today, now none of Lewis Capaldi's do). That's the only artist I've seen whose information has disappeared entirely so far, but it could be a sign of things to come, and Billboard's artist chart history pages are doing some other weird things too, like mismatching its chart names with its data as well. For example, https://www.billboard.com/music/madonna/chart-history/hot-100 displays the Hot 100 peaks, but shows "Billboard Argentina Hot 100" at the top, and the chart links and "More Chart History" button at the bottom lead to /charts/ARG, whereas it should be /charts/hot-100. I hope this is another technical glitch, but considering last month Billboard most of their charts behind a paywall, this may not be looking so good. Ss 112 02:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Toa Nidhiki05, and Ss112: It looks like the chart history pages have been restored once more; See this example. Looks like they were reworking the URLs, which have all been changed and shortened. For instance, if the slug was "..../[artist]/chart-history/triple-a", it's now "...[artist]/chart-history/AAA". However, all the old URLs redirect to the new ones, so there's no immediate need to replace them all with the new URLs just yet. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 02:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
A heads up for those who monitor this page or add references from Billboard - Their site now has a pay wall on news articles and all genre or archival charts. The Hot 100 and Billboard 200 for the current week, plus recent news articles, are not under paywall, but all genre charts and all archival charts are. For chart positions, the artist chart histories we've been using as references on discography pages are unaffected by the paywall, and all are still visible (Here's a random page just for example's sake). Hopefully that does not change. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 18:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to make proper edits on latin artists articles. I know that Monitor Latino is a good source for charts in latin america but I noticed that it doesn't have a chart for Cuba. Does anyone know if there's a legit chart for Cuba that can be used? FanDePopLatino ( talk) 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
List of number-one country singles of 2019 (Canada) has not been updated since August. The entire Canada Country chart seems to have been taken off Billboard's site, meaning that List of number-one country singles of 2013 (Canada) onward are all entirely sourced to 404 links. What should be done to remedy this? The current chart doesn't seem to be anywhere on Billboard, either, making the addition of new positions impossible. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
For some of the charts, like this one, have a paywall that won't let you scroll past the first entry, I don't see this posted anywhere else, so just thought I'd bring this up. Maybe we should replace the existing reference links with archive links. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 10:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Came across this article with a notability tag and figured I'd defer to the experts before prod or AfD. Is this chart, which appears to be maintained by a public radio station ( Val 202), notable? Raymie ( t • c) 05:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I recently saw that someone has been using 2 unlisted sources for Mexican charts. They are:
Are these reliable/legit charts or should they not be used? FanDePopLatino ( talk) 19:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone I found this website: http://musicweekly.asia/charts. It provides weekly music charts for several southeastern Asian countries based solely on digital downloads in that country and updates every Monday. Do you think we can add these charts as acceptable charts on wikipedia? FanDePopLatino ( talk) 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The music industries of Latvia and Lithuania have been publishing official charts, respectively a top 30 and a top 100 for both albums and singles based on sales and streaming, since 2018. I think it's time we add them to the official charts and start using them instead of the inaccurate airplay-only Latvijas Top 40. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know if SNEP has abolished the "Top Singles Téléchargés" and "Top Albums Téléchargés" charts? They are both quite popular charts that many discography/musician articles rely on and I'm not sure as to why people haven't been talking about their disappearance. heyitsben!! talk 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego chart is a single vendor chart. It is just a one single radio station in Poland. And the chart is based on voting. I noticed that users started adding this chart to the chart tables in various articles. Shouldn't it be recognized as a BADCHART or chart to avoid? Anyway, a guidline for this chart would be nice to avoid edit wars between editors. Max24 ( talk) 10:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I recommend to use, when possible, the official charts posted by these Latin American countries' recording industries:
All these URLs need to be archived at each update, the past few weeks have been saved to be used as permanent sources on it.wiki. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Are we allowing charts published by AGATA as seen here? According to the article for AGATA, it does appear to be an official trade body representing Lithuania and is an IFPI member. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - ( Talk) - 17:08, 7 January 2020 (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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi. Does anyone have a reliable source for the UK Year-end 1998 singles chart? Marshmallow Honey ( talk) 14:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, guys. I'm a music fan and follow this wiki topic. I have few questions about. I would like to know why number of views on the Internet is not added into General guidelines as reliable source? As you know, all international producers assume number of views and likes as very important achievement. Also, I saw TopHit ( /info/en/?search=Tophit) has individual page and they are confirmed as reliable. Are they? I'm asking because they are not fit (very well) with Wiki guidelines. I didn't understand why Top40Charts has own wiki page and are consider like unreliable ( /info/en/?search=Top40-Charts). Actually, they have not any methodology (didn't find any on their site).
Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music charts fan ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys, does anyone know (and preferably have a reliable source for) what the relation was in the 70s between the issue date on the cover of an issue of Billboard and when it actually came out? Elvis jumped to number one in the country singles chart in the issue dated 20 August 1977, which of course is four days after he died, but I don't know if the issue came out on that day (in which case the increase in sales may possibly have been directly attributable to his having passed away) or if it would have been published earlier (in which case it seems to have been a coincidence)........ -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
At that time Billboard was published on Friday, usually arrived in the mail Monday, with a cover date of that Saturday (the week ending date). The August 20, 1977 issue would have been published August 12, and the survey period for that week's Hot 100 would have been August 3 to August 9. Don't know if the Country chart had the same survey period but either way "Way Down"/"Pledging My Love" was already No. 1 at the time of his death and didn't really "jump" to No. 1 since it was No. 2 the previous week. Piriczki ( talk) 13:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
There was a discussion during a recent featured list nomination about citing chart positions (such as the number ones of a record chart) to the organisation that compiles the chart (e.g. Billboard in the US, the Official Charts Company in the UK, etc). The discussion was specifically about whether said organisation is a primary source and that therefore to reference them is original research.
Of the 65 record charts that we've featured over the last 10 years, 59 of them (>90%) cite information about chart placings to the chart compilers. Many of the 228 artist discographies that we've featured do the same. So there's been a significant precedent in usage over the last decade to source this information in this way. My feeling is that chart positions are non-controversial facts, and that the implicit consensus has been that citing them to the chart compilers is not in violation of WP:OR. I welcome any and all opinions or thoughts from the community on this issue. Pinging Francis Schonken for his opposing viewpoint. Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 10:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Can data from chartmasters.org be used? Richard Hendricks ( talk) 01:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed two digital charts for Greece. Billboard and the IFPI. The positions are different and the IFPI chart says it includes data from streaming platforms but the chart is called "Digital Singles"? I assume the Billboard chart is only based on digital downloads. Is one of these charts preferred over the other? I see on the "Good Charts" section the IFPI is recommended. Cool Marc 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The BPI link at WP:GOODCHARTS produces a "Page not found". [2] Attempts to search the site produce a chronological listing of all artists [3] and attempts to access the web.archive go nowhere. [4] A BPI announcement indicates some changes, [5] but includes "The database and archive for the BRIT Certified Awards will remain on the BPI website for the time being, but this too will be migrated to The BRITs as part of the second phase of the relaunch later this year." Meanwhile, what is the best way to source past certifications for FLCs? — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a PDF file featuring Brazilian chart positions for songs between 1999 and 2015, which was added to tons of song articles by Canadaolympic989 last year. I did some digging and found out that the source of the PDF file is this site. Turns out the chart used in the PDF file has no affiliation with Pro-Música Brasil, Billboard Brasil or any other official chart provider, and it's actually the same Hot 100 Brasil chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, whose article was deleted a decade ago due to dubious methodology. snapsnap ( talk) 22:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The New Zealand Listener or its "Flavour of New Zealand" charts are used in a number of articles, usually in singles chart tables. [6] The web page [7] states:
These charts courtesy of NZ Listener. Not sales based music charts; rather, they were based on voting by NZ Listener readers. Later called POP-O-METER.
Between 1961 and 1975, there were (to my knowledge) no sales-based music charts in New Zealand. In an attempt to depict what pop music was in vogue in NZ in the period 1966 to 1975, I have used the weekly music charts published in the NZ Listener.
These weekly charts were compiled from voting coupons sent in by readers of the NZ Listener. Only Listener readers would vote. The charts underwent a few name changes during this decade, but were always published weekly in the Listener.
A chart based on a such a limited poll doesn't meet the "Suitable charts" criterion #2, that requires that a suitable chart "covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources." Propose to add Listen and "Flavour of New Zealand" to WP:BADCHARTS. — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The Lever hit parades featured on New Zealand government radio stations that were in the NZBS's commercial arm. They were compiled by Lintas NZ Ltd and the sponsors were Lever Brothers. These charts were not sales based and more information is needed on how Lintas went about gathering data though my information is that is was via polling.
I already addressed this six months ago, but I got no responses. Something needs to be done about the French charts: this is the official singles chart (sales plus streaming), but en.wiki keeps using the download-only chart, which is highly inaccurate because the French market is determined almost entirely by streaming now. The lescharts.com website only reports the download chart. For the sake of the accuracy of the data, I suggest to label the download-only chart as something like 'France Download', and use the SPS chart as the official French one, the only accurate representation of what's really popular in France. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 07:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
So this discussion stemmed from my talk page between myself and @
Cartoon network freak:. CNF added a number of certifications on the Lady Gaga album articles (eg:
[11]) which is from a
Facebook page of Universal Music Romania, showing the record label awarding certification plaque to Lady Gaga. I reverted them, with the explanation that record labels have no authority to award certification to any artist, and Facebook being a social media website, is NOT at all a reliable source. CNF has contradicted me resulting in a discussion between him and me. CNF believes that
Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (Romanian Phonographic Industry; UPFR) has authorized the record label to award artists based on sales of the albums. He provided the following sources:
[12] and
[13]. However, I cannot find anywhere it says that the UPFR has authorized the record label to issue certifications on their behalf. CNF himself says that "Actually, I don't think UPFR ever awarded something to someone; it was always the label who handed out certifications on their behalf.
" Now this is grossly problematic since record labels can easily inflate certifications and award plaques on their own whim. CNF does not think so and has continued to add these certifications in the Romanian lists. I would welcome other editors of the music articles for their input. @
Harout72:, @
Ss112:, @
Richard3120: and @
SNUGGUMS:. —
IB [
Poke ] 13:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Are these Romanian certifications reliable at all? There's no archive for them, and they get reported independently in various websites' articles. There don't seem to be any clear thresholds, as some albums are Gold with 2,000 and 10,000 copies, or Platinum with 20,000 and 25,000 copies sold in the same year. Most seem to be just made up. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think UPFR ever got involved in certifications, it was always the labels that handed the plaques. But I also don't think they're 100% made up. They clearely have some data about sales. Not every foreign artist that comes for a concert in Romania receives something. I don't know if this helps, but here's a close-up look at Gaga's plaque for Born This Way. -- Gabrielflorin01 ( talk) 11:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Record labels don't certify records, the official chart company of said country or their local version of the IFPI offer the certification. Labels often produce plaques on behalf of their artists. If in doubt contact the local record industry body - but otherwise without independent verification we shouldn't take what labels say as gospel truth. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, is there any problem with using the archived Billboard magazines and other magazines that are available at www.americanradiohistory.com ? I noticed that the website owner has said not to link to Wikipedia because the URL's change, but this can always be altered on Wikipedia too. Music & Media magazines have also been archived there and appear on the whole to be a reliable source for charts with the exception of one or two countries: For the UK top ten Music & Media was using the UK charts that were compiled by the Media Research Information Bureau (MRIB) and they ran to a different week to the OCC charts and also included airplay data. The MRIB chart is mentioned in this article: The Network Chart Show. So clearly the UK charts are not right but for all the other countries listed in Music & Media the peak positions seem to match those found in the usual chart archives for those countries. The Music & Media magazine also stated which companies provided the chart info for each country and in many cases it is the same company that provides the charts for those countries today. For example AFP in Portugal. The other odd one is with Belgium. It is well documented here on Wikipedia that two charts have been recorded for the Flanders and Wallonia regions of the country. But for a time Music & Media was publishing a Belgium chart for the whole country combined. So as an example if you see the chart peaks for Nirvana's MTV Unplugged in New York it had both peaks in Flanders and Wallonia as well as for the whole of Belgium sourced from Music & Media. If you check this page of Music & Media dated Feb 18, 1995, [15], at the bottom right it says that IFPI Belgium has stopped publishing the official chart but that they would return in in March. From that point onward Music & Media was publishing the Belgium charts separately for Flanders and Wallonia. In any case I don't see a problem with using the chart which covered the whole of Belgium on Wikipedia as long as it is properly sourced, as it was produced by the IFPI. Thoughts appreciated. Update: the americanradiohistory.com website has already been used a a reference over 750 times on Wikipedia anyway. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 19:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In 2010, it was decided to add the Canadian Radio & Records Country Singles charts to WP:BADCHARTS since the positions were never archived anywhere. However, since then, back issues of Radio & Records have been put on American Radio History, allowing verification for most if not all of the positions on that chart. See SHeDAISY discography for one example. Most of these positions have been put back into the articles by Caldorwards4 ( talk · contribs), who has gone out of his way to cite the back issues when adding the positions. With this in mind, can the R&R Canadian Country charts be removed from WP:BADCHARTS now that a source exists for their positions? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Are DRT Global charts suitable for notability or sources? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This Polish radio chart should be added to the " bad chart" section. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 15:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
To page watchers: I'm setting up a script to archive links on Wikipedia:Record charts/List every week. Please add more links to that page if they need to be archived. Thanks, Jc86035 ( talk) 17:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Billboard China Top 100 was launched at the beginning of this year, and I believe it should be added to the list of recommended charts, which currently does not have one for China. - Zanhe ( talk) 00:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
May I ask why the Latvian airplay chart is considered legit when it only covers one station (Latvijas Radio 5 - Pieci Hiti) that broadcasts international pop music? How is it remotely accurate? I'm pretty sure there's a rule that does not legitimate charts based on only one station on en.wiki. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 18:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No consensus was achieved in a previous RFC which can be found at
Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 13#RfC about notability and reliability of the ARC 100 as a record chart for Croatia. The chart can be found
here. From the previous discussion it was pointed out that chart has a dubious methodology. No affiliation with the IFPI, Nielsen was found on the website which says the chart only includes foreign songs based on music trends and data from 1Played.
I am concerned because this does not ring true to me as a legitimate chart of Croatia.
User:GregorB, a Croatian editor, also expressed concerns regarding the methodology. I was hoping to finally get some consensus regarding this chart. Pinging @
Merynancy: @
Walter Görlitz: @
Kww: @
Hobbes Goodyear: @
Harout72: @
SnapSnap: @
IndianBio: for opinions on this. Thanks.
Abi-Maria (
talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If an artist's song charted on another chart but did not make the Billboard charts, is it acceptable to put a footnote indicating as such?
For example, in September 2003, Kenny Chesney charted a rendition of " Luckenbach, Texas (Back to the Basics of Love)" on Radio & Records, as seen on page 43 of the 10/17/03 issue here. Since the song charted on a non-Billboard chart, and the Radio & Records position is verifiable, would it be acceptable to put the song in the discography and add a footnote like "Luckenbach, Texas did not chart on Billboard, but reached number 49 on Radio & Records"? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Should chartdata.org be listed as a website to avoid? Richard Hendricks ( talk) 04:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's going on with the Billboard database reporting data from before streaming-related charts existed? I think most people watching this page are already aware of the background, but for those who aren't: over the last few years Billboard began to incorporate streaming data into some of its charts, as well as introducing new streaming-only charts like Streaming Songs. In addition to new streaming charts, there's a new "everything except for streaming" chart too: after the Billboard 200 began incorporating streaming data in December 2014, they introduced a new chart called "Top Album Sales" that continues the old methodology without streams. In other words, Top Album Sales just shows "here's what the Billboard 200 would look like today if we had never factored in streaming."
The problem? Billboard's online charts database seems to pretend the streaming charts and the Top Album Sales chart always existed. I noticed this recently while working on the FAC for All Money Is Legal. The album was released in 2000, three years before the iTunes Store opened and many years before there were major commercial streaming services. Nevertheless, Billboard reports that the album charted on Top Album Sales, peaking on July 22, 2000, 14 years before the chart itself existed. The info on that page is an exact mirror of the album's actual chart performance on the Billboard 200: same peak date, same peak position, same total weeks on the chart. Which is what you'd expect, since there was no streaming in 2000 and thus no reason for there to be a difference. It's redundant at best, but ahistorical at worst—it's inaccurate to say that an album peaked on a chart that didn't exist!
The streaming charts for singles are even more baffling. Billboard reports that Amil's song "4 da Fam" charted on R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs, peaking at #97 on July 22, 2000. Bizarrely, this is slightly different than its actual performance on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs: same number of weeks on the chart and same peak date, but it says the song peaked at #99. I don't understand the discrepancy, but nonetheless the streaming chart didn't exist in 2000. I genuinely have no idea what's up with the streaming singles charts having data that predates their existence.
Has anyone else come across this? Does anyone know more about what's going on? Maybe I'm missing something. But if I'm not, I think this page should inform editors not to list data from charts that didn't exist yet, even if Billboard shows data from those charts. For example, no Top Album Sales data should be used for any chart performance prior to its introduction on December 13, 2014. (Side note: this issue doesn't include pre-2014 songs charting on streaming charts after 2014—for example, " Bohemian Rhapsody" reentering the charts in 2018 on the strength of streams. That's totally valid, as long as the chart performance occurred when the chart actually existed.) — BLZ · talk 20:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no clue why it would do this, but ‘’Billboard’’ does have a history of making retroactive changes. After they added in singles sales and streaming to their genre charts, they created new Airplay charts that officially run parallel to the main chart: so, for example, the Country Songs and Country Airplay charts run the exact same until October 12, 2012, the date the Country Songs chart effectively became Country Airplay and the “new” Country Songs chart began. But for the life of me I can’t figure out the streaming thing, since that didn’t exist in any form. Toa Nidhiki05 12:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see this thread about the new charts planned by the above publications, and please give your views about whether either or both charts should be included in future articles. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Should BuzzAngle Music chart information ever be used in an album or song article? Richard Hendricks ( talk) 15:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
What's the best way to cite older (i.e. pre-2007 Billboard) Canadian charts? The archives of RPM don't make it easy to comply with the standard WP layout MOS. The Beatles discography just cites the RPM search results from the Library and Archives of Canada, with 199 (!) nondescript links; The Who discography doesn't cite anything; Elvis Presley singles discography uses a unique source; and The Rolling Stones discography just omits Canada altogether! I can't see any way around citing each single individually, unless we leave the readers a lot of homework. SteveStrummer ( talk) 23:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Canadatopsingles
parameter can be used with the {{
single chart}} template to cite the RPM charts (there are also parameters for the Canadian Country charts, Adult Contemporary charts, etc.). However, you need to find the "chartid" number first (the template tells you where to find this), and I've stated before that I don't like the output as it currently stands: it shows this chartid in the references section as "Issue no. xxxx", which is not the same thing at all. At present I add the citation manually, but that's not what you're looking for, obviously. Maybe this is a good opportunity to ask to get the Canadian parameters cleaned up.
Richard3120 (
talk) 23:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
If an artist has charted on the main UK Singles Chart or UK Albums Chart, should the relevant genre chart which it also appears in be excluded from the peak chart positions in the artist's discography page? Quite a lot of discographies currently include them.
I propose to reduce clutter that genre charts (such as Christian & Gospel, Classical, Dance, Indie, Indie Breakers, R&B, Rock & Metal, Specialist Classical) and regional charts (such as Scottish) are not included in the table for an artist's discography. A note using {{ efn-ua}} can be used next to the main chart position and the genre charts can be included on the release's own page. Ellm6 ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Nice4What compiled some useful advice regarding the new Rolling Stone Top 100 and Top 200 that can be found at WP:RSCHART. I'd recommend anybody interested in contributing to record charts give it a look. Thanks TheKaphox T 13:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Since June 2019, Oricon started publishing the Weekly Combined Album and Single Charts, which combine CD sales, digital sales and streaming, and are the main charts for albums and singles, replacing the weekly charts based solely on CD sales. They are the first charts to appear on the Oricon website. Should we include this change into the templates and tables? I have noticed some differences for peak positions in the combined album chart and the CD album chart, so I thought about addressing this issue. Lucas RdS ( talk) 04:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Most articles about songs that peaked at the number-two position of a record chart will often mention the song that kept it from reaching the top spot of that same chart. " Causing a Commotion", by Madonna, spent three weeks at the runner-up position of the Hot 100 in late 1987. On the article, only one of the two songs that kept "Causing a Commotion" from #1, Michael Jackson's "Bad" (which only held the top-spot for two weeks), is mentioned, but apparently, IndianBio does not want the other song (the Tiffany Darwish version of "I Think We're Alone Now") to be mentioned in the article. I felt like I was on the verge of an edit war with IndianBio because of his reversions, especially considering that "Causing a Commotion" is a Good Article. He reverted the "I Think We're Alone Now" mentioned twice: In November 2017 and March 2018. After the first reversion, I tried to point this out on the talk page for "Causing a Commotion", but there was no reply from IndianBio. The second reversion came after I added a source for the "I Think We're Alone Now" info (the Hot 100 chart from the week of November 7, 1987 on Billboard's official website which proves it). After this, I tried to point this out to IndianBio on his talk page, but he stated the addition of the "I Think We're Alone Now" mention was "not relevant" and was "undue weight", and discouraged under the chart trajectory policy. I then suggested to IndianBio that the article may need to be re-written entirely to include mentions of both "Bad" and "I Think We're Alone Now". It should be noted that all of Madonna's other #2 hits mention the songs that kept them from the top position (for example, on the article for "Express Yourself", both the Simply Red version of "If You Don't Know Me By Now" and Martika's "Toy Soldiers" are mentioned). Right now, I need a Third Opinion from a different user regarding this. Jim856796 ( talk) 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Go to any artist page and check it. It’s crazy! Here’s Switchfoot as a sample. Heritage rock, Active rock recurrent charts, Canadian charts, Music video sales, Bubbling Under - all new! Toa Nidhiki05 13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
According to this Chartorg tweet, Random Access Memories has surpassed one billion streams on Spotify. Per this recent discussion, Chartdata.org isn't considered reliable, but its sources can be used instead. Does anyone know how I can access and cite the sources it uses for Spotify streams? Popcornduff ( talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this web site an acceptable source? rock.co.za/files/sarock_charts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnothimagain ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to report the launch of the official Lithuanian singles and albums top 100 (based on sales and streams), published weekly by their recording industry association AGATA. The archive can be found here. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, it's looking like the Billboard archives are no longer accessible online. Some categories, like Adult Contemporary and RnB are still up, but the Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are gone. So is the Artist Chart History. There isn't even a way to purchase archive access, as far as I can tell. Does anyone know what's going on? SteveStrummer ( talk) 19:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently, when creating album articles, I've been using Billboard.com/biz and inputting the artist and album name to get the charts that they're in, but then have to go to that Billboard chart to look for it. Quite time consuming.-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@ SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Mjs1991, Trialpears, Toa Nidhiki05, and Jc86035: I hope it's only temporary, but two months later, it appears Billboard has started vanishing charts again; I've noticed https://www.billboard.com/music/lewis-capaldi/chart-history/pop-songs (that link displayed a peak earlier today, now none of Lewis Capaldi's do). That's the only artist I've seen whose information has disappeared entirely so far, but it could be a sign of things to come, and Billboard's artist chart history pages are doing some other weird things too, like mismatching its chart names with its data as well. For example, https://www.billboard.com/music/madonna/chart-history/hot-100 displays the Hot 100 peaks, but shows "Billboard Argentina Hot 100" at the top, and the chart links and "More Chart History" button at the bottom lead to /charts/ARG, whereas it should be /charts/hot-100. I hope this is another technical glitch, but considering last month Billboard most of their charts behind a paywall, this may not be looking so good. Ss 112 02:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Toa Nidhiki05, and Ss112: It looks like the chart history pages have been restored once more; See this example. Looks like they were reworking the URLs, which have all been changed and shortened. For instance, if the slug was "..../[artist]/chart-history/triple-a", it's now "...[artist]/chart-history/AAA". However, all the old URLs redirect to the new ones, so there's no immediate need to replace them all with the new URLs just yet. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 02:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
A heads up for those who monitor this page or add references from Billboard - Their site now has a pay wall on news articles and all genre or archival charts. The Hot 100 and Billboard 200 for the current week, plus recent news articles, are not under paywall, but all genre charts and all archival charts are. For chart positions, the artist chart histories we've been using as references on discography pages are unaffected by the paywall, and all are still visible (Here's a random page just for example's sake). Hopefully that does not change. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 18:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to make proper edits on latin artists articles. I know that Monitor Latino is a good source for charts in latin america but I noticed that it doesn't have a chart for Cuba. Does anyone know if there's a legit chart for Cuba that can be used? FanDePopLatino ( talk) 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
List of number-one country singles of 2019 (Canada) has not been updated since August. The entire Canada Country chart seems to have been taken off Billboard's site, meaning that List of number-one country singles of 2013 (Canada) onward are all entirely sourced to 404 links. What should be done to remedy this? The current chart doesn't seem to be anywhere on Billboard, either, making the addition of new positions impossible. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
For some of the charts, like this one, have a paywall that won't let you scroll past the first entry, I don't see this posted anywhere else, so just thought I'd bring this up. Maybe we should replace the existing reference links with archive links. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 10:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Came across this article with a notability tag and figured I'd defer to the experts before prod or AfD. Is this chart, which appears to be maintained by a public radio station ( Val 202), notable? Raymie ( t • c) 05:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I recently saw that someone has been using 2 unlisted sources for Mexican charts. They are:
Are these reliable/legit charts or should they not be used? FanDePopLatino ( talk) 19:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey everyone I found this website: http://musicweekly.asia/charts. It provides weekly music charts for several southeastern Asian countries based solely on digital downloads in that country and updates every Monday. Do you think we can add these charts as acceptable charts on wikipedia? FanDePopLatino ( talk) 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The music industries of Latvia and Lithuania have been publishing official charts, respectively a top 30 and a top 100 for both albums and singles based on sales and streaming, since 2018. I think it's time we add them to the official charts and start using them instead of the inaccurate airplay-only Latvijas Top 40. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know if SNEP has abolished the "Top Singles Téléchargés" and "Top Albums Téléchargés" charts? They are both quite popular charts that many discography/musician articles rely on and I'm not sure as to why people haven't been talking about their disappearance. heyitsben!! talk 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego chart is a single vendor chart. It is just a one single radio station in Poland. And the chart is based on voting. I noticed that users started adding this chart to the chart tables in various articles. Shouldn't it be recognized as a BADCHART or chart to avoid? Anyway, a guidline for this chart would be nice to avoid edit wars between editors. Max24 ( talk) 10:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I recommend to use, when possible, the official charts posted by these Latin American countries' recording industries:
All these URLs need to be archived at each update, the past few weeks have been saved to be used as permanent sources on it.wiki. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Are we allowing charts published by AGATA as seen here? According to the article for AGATA, it does appear to be an official trade body representing Lithuania and is an IFPI member. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - ( Talk) - 17:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)