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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
IRMA is the official Irish chart company however, it provides the OCC with this information, a number of months ago a user decided to use OCC instead of IRMA which is factually incorrect. If wikipedia is supposed to focus on standards and accuracy then the OCC should not be assigned for chart placements for Ireland. OCC also complies and records chart data for the US and French charts do we assign the OCC to US and French chart positions, of course not therefore the same should not be applied to Irish chart positions. I will make the appropriate changes going forward - IRMA has always been and will remain the chart holder for Ireland and OCC is not the official company responsible, saying it is, is not accurate.
Also notice how on the OCC website it clearly states copyrights of IRMA [1] regarding all chart entries for Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
IRMA is the official body that represents artists in Ireland data is transferred to OCC who then publish the information on behalf of IRMA, hence they are the copyright holder. IRMA has been and will always be the issuer of chart positions. If you cared to look at the OCC website you’d see the US charts are published on the site on behalf of Bullboard, but obviously not the source material. OCC also collects data for France, this is not published on their website but you can do that research yourself. You can continue to deny IRMA is not responsible for chart positions in Ireland but I work in the Irish music industry and live in Ireland and I’ve already provided you with this evidence but you choose to ignore it. But if you want to spread disinformation that is fine. TheAmazingPeanuts Nua eire ( talk) 22:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You can view this website to see information about French chart and OCC. https://completemusicupdate.com/article/uk-charts-firm-to-start-compiling-frances-music-charts/ and for the US chart see here https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/billboard-hot-100-chart/. Are you going to change the US and France to the OCC too? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) Nua eire ( talk) 22:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
IRMA was established by both mainstream and independent record labels based in Ireland to compile and coordinate the publication of weekly charts. Over the years a number of companies have held responsibility in conjunction with IRMA to compile the weekly Irish charts these include Chart Track, Gfk and more recently OCC. The OCC contract expires after a 5 year period which started in 2017. IRMA is the copyright holder and the company responsible for chart positions. OCC has responsibility to issue the charts on its website. The charts are also available on the IRMA website. OCC is also responsible for compiling charts in France following the departure of Gfk. However during Gfk and OCC correctly compiling the French chart correctly SNEP has always referenced because SNEP is the primary body responsible for French charts and the original copyright holder.
The same is said for Irish entries. IRMA has always been referenced even though Chart Track and Gfk have complied the Irish chart in the past on behalf of IRMA. It is factually incorrect to attribute chart placements solely to OCC when the primary company and copyright holder is IRMA. The OCC would not have permission to compile the chart if it was not for IRMA under the five year deal. To deny this is spreading misinformation and undoing the hard work done by those on wiki who want to continue to maintain a high standard of accurate information on these pages. Nua eire ( talk) 22:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The guidelines should be changed to reflect what was always the case IRMA is the correct reference as is SNEP in the case of France . I will leave it up to you to make the final decision. But OCC is not the correct reference and this should be changed. It should have never been changed to OCC by some user earlier this year without discussion on the issue. Nua eire ( talk) 06:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Just wandering through for nostalgia's sake, and this strikes me as being a particularly purposeless discussion: Wikipedia sourcing guidelines aren't based on national pride, but on reliability. Since the OCC is licensed to provide the information and does so reliably, it's a perfectly valid source by Wikipedia standards. If the OCC provides direct links to the data and IRMA does not, that makes it preferable to use the OCC.— Kww( talk) 12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I have serious issue with the level of bullying going on and specifically directed towards me. Nua eire ( talk) 21:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Also be mindful when considering Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPA Nua eire ( talk) 21:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I honestly do not care what you guys decide on regarding sources for the Irish chart. Use OCC all you like. I’ve said this already in previous posts I am beyond caring. I’m no longer engaging with anyone on this topic. I won’t be communicating on this matter going forward. Have a nice life! Nua eire ( talk) 21:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing this source added to various song articles for Finland's chart. Normally, I wouldn't bring this kind of thing up, but the user who has been adding this chart, @ HumanxAnthro:, has been arbitrarily removing the Finnish chart template with no prior consensus that I know of. They claim they are removing the chart because the source they are adding uses radio airplay coupled with sales figures to determine Finnish chart positions while Musiikkituottajat only uses sales. This is a legitimate argument, but we should achieve consensus before too many Finland templates are removed. HumanxAnthro, it would help greatly if you further explain your reasoning here instead of using your edit summaries. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 18:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Stumbled across this discussion and thought might worth to give it my two cents.
I don't think the sales/airplay chart is significant enough to be included in the charts table, also it'll be WP:Too much detail to include to include a second chart. Most nation charts around the world are based on sales rather than sales/airplay. Additionally, there's no correct/right way to compile the charts, just because the Billboard Hot 100, chose its chart to be compiled by sales/airplay doesn't mean it's the definitive way to compile charts, plus every country has their own music industry, rules and obviously different methodologies in compiling charts.
I think it'll be very helpful to start a RFC and decide which chart should go and which one should stay. Moh8213 ( talk) 18:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of charts being cited from El Siglo de Torreón newspaper. For example this link The chart is not actually by the newspaper, but by UPI. This should be corrected in the parentheses next to the country. Based on the wording "según emisoras consultados por UPI", they look to be based on radio airplay. But, these are measured in capital cities only, not a country-wide sample. Is there a consensus that a chart for a city represents the country as a whole? For example the chart for Panama [City] is being used as a chart for Panama (country) in many articles. Heartfox ( talk) 02:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
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.. If this principle is applied, UPI would be considered a reliable source but I'm not sure we could stretch it out to cover the whole country based on a single city. I would prefer us to exclude from chart tables in this case (but could mention in prose). TopHit produce charts for Kyiv and Moscow - we have never allowed those for Russian or Ukrainian artists. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 08:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I noticed this chart being included in multiple singles chart of songs from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. The user Arthur Garbuio started including this chart in a HumanxAnthro fashion without prior consensus regarding its reliability or accuracy. It seems that it's a year-end chart but for whatever reason, he also included it in the weekly charts table. I was about to remove it but I thought it might be worth it to bring this matter in the talk page. Is it okay to keep the chart or should it be removed from the charts section? Moh8213 ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Our rankings are based on the most played songs on radio, through the analytical data of audio measurement companies on online radios. They reflect the real scenario of the popularity of music in the four corners of the country, with 24 hours a day, 7 days a week measurement and more than 5,000 registered radio stations (only those that can be heard online). In our music charts, data from Youtube and Spotify can also be used. They only use stations that can be played online so I find it hard to understand how they're reliable for charts pre-90s or very reliable as its possible they're missing out huge chunks of stations. It also says information from YouTube and Spotify can be used but not that it defo is. No mention of commercial data either. It seems like a hobbyist website. I'd say one to avoid. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 21:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
So basically, the chart is based on the top 100 most played songs now? Not the most played songs when they were released in their respective years? Moh8213 ( talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed this being used to source sales and have some serious issues with it. Additionally it has also been used for lots of legacy articles as a "reliable source". However the contact page
here talks about synthesising various hit parades
. Regarding sales it specifically says This Ranking is absolutely not a reflection of sales but simply a summary of information from the time.
Later it also says This site tries to become the "Reference" of the Hit-Parades in France. In order to get closer to this objective, some Complete Rankings (Hit-Parades) are missing:
and then goes on to list missing chart rankings. On this basis it seems to be a summation of different sources, and thus not appropriate for use on Wikipedia? >>
Lil-unique1 (
talk) — 21:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Their certifications are valid though. Their sales figures are not. I against a complete removal, because the site is really helpful for older releases, because SNEP database is such a mess sometimes. Bluesatellite ( talk) 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The Romandie chart, administered by Hung Medien, is a regional record chart of the highest-selling singles and albums in the Francophone region of Romandy in Switzerland. It's included in WP:GOODCHARTS and has been in use for a long time on Wikipedia. A somewhat comparable chart would be the ADISQ chart in Quebec, also widely used in articles. An argument for its inclusion would be the long standing disparity between music consumption in Francophone and German language markets as well as the fact that it provides insight into how an album is performing in a region with its own distinct cultural identity. I would contend that the inclusion is also justified by the cultural differences in Switzerland. Additionally - the Schweizer Hitparade, despite covering the entire nation, is strictly in German and offers no multilingual options. The fact that it's the only monolingual Hung Medien website further justifies the inclusion given that the Swiss Federal Law on National Languages very explicitly states that German, French, and Italian maintain equal status as official languages. Please indicate Include, Don't include, or Comment with your responses. Everm4e ( talk) 21:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
In regards to the IFPI Greece charts located at https://www.ifpi.gr/digital_iel.html that various editors have added to articles over the last few years, I think it's more accurate to label this the "Greece International ( IFPI)" chart where it is used instead of just "Greece ( IFPI)". The website makes it clear the linked chart (added to Western song articles regularly) is the International chart, as compared to the Local chart located at https://www.ifpi.gr/digital_el.html (both Local and International are for digital sales and streams). Judging by the absence of Greek-language songs, the International chart is not an overall chart, as one would expect an overall sales and streams chart measuring the most popular songs in Greece to have at least some Greek-language songs. As a note, unfortunately this is another chart that editors regularly add but don't bother to archive, which would be preferred as the site doesn't seem to have specific URLs for chart weeks, or an archive one can go back through. I encourage any editors reading this to change this chart to "Greece International" (usually one just needs to add "International") wherever they see it used too. Ss 112 08:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The only discussion I can find on the subject of
chartsaroundtheworld
In the lead of " Pink Venom", an editor wrote "The song also topped the national charts in South Korea, Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan". However, all except 2 of the #1's in these countries were #1's on Billboard's Hits of the World charts for those territories. Per the Charts section, the song charted at #22 in South Korea on the actual national chart the Circle Chart. Surely it isn't correct to consider the HOTW charts as national charts of the countries for which they are available, esp when those countries already have existing national charts? Also, since India's official chart is the IMI singles chart, if a song charts there (or on any other official national chart for a territory), we don't need to still include the HOTW entry right? -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 06:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Where available, editors should endeavour to use the nationally recognised singles charts for the country in question. Nationally recognised charts will be affiliated to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) either directly or via the country's national trade body for the recording industry such as ARIA, RIAA, BPI etc. Other charts may exist, for example Billboard produce a series of charts known as "Hits of the World", these song charts track airplay from Luminate and streaming data. However these charts were launched in 2022, and their acceptance and use across the industry is yet to be determined. As such, there is little articulated need to include these charts alongside nationally recognised charts in the charts table or discography of an artist as this could result in lists becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are several exceptions:
If a song did not chart on the nationally recognised chart but did chart on the Billboard Hits of the World charts e.g. South Korea Songs, then these charts can be presented in the charts table
If there is no recongnised or stable national chart (see WP:RECORDCHARTS for guidance), then Billboard Hits of the World chart can be used for said country
If there is a specific achievement that received notoriety, then the hits of the world charts can be mentioned in prose within a chart performance section e.g. "sold 25,000 copies becoming the first Korean act to top the Malaysia Songs chart" then this can be included by exception.
Otherwise Hits of the World charts should not be included in prose of chart performance sections, where they appear alongside national charts such as Circle's South Korean Digital Singles chart, or RIM's Malaysian Singes Chart
Ngl I'm getting bothered by seeing two charts in both singles and albums articles. It's misleading to have two official charts when we only need one official national chart for a country. HumanxAnthro included the Musica e Dischi chart unilaterally without a prior discussion on the chart itself. With that being said, I suggest removal of this chart. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with the change. Moh8213 ( talk) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Alrighty then, what about the pdf Finnish chart? Is there any established consensus in regards to this chart? Moh8213 ( talk) 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
FIMI also has an easily accessible website that lists its certifications and chart peaks for albums and singles since '95. To add on the Italian chart matter, another chart that I know of is Discografia Internazionale. It seems like this chart was intended to rival the Musica e dischi in terms of international recording, and they successfully did so since their chart was representing Italy in Billboard's "Hits of the Worlds" chart section in the late '60s and early '70s, but it seems they didn't last long as their magazine ceased publication on December 1972. After that it pretty much seems that M&D was the only notable chart until FIMI appeared in 95. As for the Finnish chart, if that's the case then there's really no use to use this pdf, especially considering that IFPI Finland has an active website that lists all of its chart peaks and certifications, we can at least use this pdf if some singles/albums doesn't appear on their current database, especially for the early records. Moh8213 ( talk) 19:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
here you go, I don't know if you checked properly, but I clearly removed the M&D chart, given that both of these albums were released after the FIMI chart was launched. Moh8213 ( talk) 16:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed a discrepancy where Portugal charts at acharts.co were in both the recommended charts and the deprecated charts. Atypically, my brain actually worked and I recalled this conversation which concluded on this being the result of this undetected vandalism. I noticed Kww actually fixed the vandalism, but from some reason Portugal was not fixed. I am assuming this was unintentional, so I fixed Portugal too. If this was actually intentional, feel free to revert. By the way, my involvement was due to Arctic Monkeys discography using achart peaks (now removed). -- Muhandes ( talk) 11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Recent years multiple Chinese platforms under Tencent music started selling music and showcase them in charts, the sales are been acknowledge by IFPI on their 2020 Year report page 4 of the report, as well been counted towards their yearly charts of best performing songs & artist, the system and sales of those platforms been reported multiple times by IFPI, and recently Billboard as well acknowledged them and stated they will soon release a China Chart that will use those data. Couple of users are now deleting the these from all artists (note that the data are been used in List of best-selling albums in China) saying it's WP:SINGLEVENDOR sources so it shouldn't be included. I in contrary believe it should be added to all pages since it applies to the rules that listed here for Suitable charts, #1 IFPI recognised QQ Music, Kugou and NetEase as legitimate sources, #2 It is static, the data in the chart never changed, #3 an official chart is coming from Billboard. My suggestion is for the sales of songs and albums to be added in the Albums and Singles table for sales only, not to be added as weekly ranking position. Those sales are legitimate and applies to all rules, and should be at least noticed, deleting when will mean deletion of entire industry that IFPI acknowledge and uses. KLIFE88 ( talk) 23:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Isn't Eesti Tipp-40, but there was also the Eesti Top 10. Are they enough reliable to be included as charts in Wikipedia's articles? Seems ranking was based in various retailers. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 22:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
VirreFriberg recently added the Danmarks Radio chart to a few 1960s song articles using archived links from the now dead website http://danskehitlister.dk/. (Some of the additions: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). The Danish entry on WP:GOODCHARTS writes, "Prior to 2001 only known archive is from Billboard Magazine Hits of the World section." WP:BADCHARTS doesn't list this one though, so I thought I'd see what people think about this source. Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Top 20 (or 30, depending on year), was a Danish record chart published by Danmarks Radio (DR), similar to the Swedish equivalent Kvällstoppen, published by Sveriges Radio (SR). http://danskehitlister.dk/ is merely an archive of these lists VirreFriberg ( talk) 17:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Are Billboard's Active Rock and Heritage Rock airplay charts allowed if a song has cracked the Mainstream Rock chart? They are very much niche charts and aren't typically discussed even within Billboard itself. It has always been my understanding that the radio station panels that make up Active/Heritage charts are combined to rank the Mainstream Rock chart. I bring this up because over at the article for Moto Psycho, I've tried to remove them from the charts section but have been reverted twice now. Thanks for any additional input or help. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that when editors cite a song's peak position on the Czech and Slovakian digital singles chart, they write something like "Note: Change the chart to CZ – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100 and insert 202249 into search." However, I've noticed that songs have their own page where you can see their performance in a specific chart (Ex.: Raye's "Escapism." on the Slovakian Singles Digital Top 100 chart). Would it be acceptable to cite the song's respective chart pages instead? Jvaspad ( talk) 06:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Muhandes Why should the "Greatest Of All Time Hot 100 Songs" not be updated? All songs on the current list had "All-Time" in their chart section and were already updated to the 2018 issue prior to my edits. The rule about stating that chart should be static explicitly states that "All-Time" charts are an exception to the rule so Rule #3 doesn't apply in this circumstance. 99.6.253.145 ( talk) 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@ ResolutionsPerMinute, @ Muhandes Can we use Billboard Hot Trending Songs? Have there been any discussions about it before or should it be discussed? آرمین هویدایی ( talk) 11:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi! So, i believe i found some kind of Hong Kong-based music chart named APMA Charts. I think they're known for their Asian Pop Music Awards. They released two kinds of charts, Overseas one (Ex: https://twitter.com/APMAHK/status/1611958538754220038) and Chinese one, each week on various social media platforms. Is these charts reliable or not? Byy2 ( talk) 14:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I thought I remembered that Pure Charts (chartsinfrance) is considered unreliable, but I can't find a decisive disucssion on the subject, and it was last discussed 10 years ago. Pinging @ Lil-unique1 and Kww who were involved last time. -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This January Poland has launched a new set of official charts, most importantly a new Albums Chart (based on both streaming+sales) with the old Albums Chart (based only on sales) being renamed to Physical Albums + a new streaming-only chart was created as well. Perhaps it would be a good idea to stop referencing the old, sales only chart and start using the new chart that combines Streaming+Sales together https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-sprzedazy/albumy
Additionaly, apart from the previous Airplay Songs Chart there's a new, main singles chart - Streaming Songs Chart which now serves as the main Polish singles chart - https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-sprzedazy/single-w-streamie Aaron511 ( talk) 12:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that this site determines chart positions with a proprietary formula developed by the website owner, which I evaluated several years ago, and found to be worse than useless. You need not look beyond Wikipedia to see what I mean. We have 100 pages for Year in music in the 20th century. Somebody in the remote past decided to use tsort's rankings for each year's "Biggest hit singles" section. The data they use from RYM, DDD, POP and other garbage sites are clearly listed (see 1961 in music#Biggest hit singles, 2000 in music#Biggest hit singles). Here are descriptions of four of the sources used to calculate rankings:
POP Year
Songs of the year from //www.popculturemadness.com/Music/ a site that includes all sorts of fun lists (like "Politically Incorrect Songs") and is worth a visit.
Entries from Rolling Stone
The top 500 songs of all time listed in the magazine 'Rolling Stone' in 2004 (source //www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/5 00songs). The 'Rolling Stone' album chart closely matches with global tastes, in contrast the songs list has just about no correlation with the world's song charts.
Entries from RYM
The site //rateyourmusic.com/ gives users the chance to rate different songs and albums. The ratings are not objective (and of course they shouldn't be) but the large volume of contributors makes this worthwhile (at least for modern music). These charts were extracted during Feb 2007 with the later years each being extracted during the following year. Some entries have been removed where it is obvious that particular groups of fans have conbined to distort the results.
DDD Year
Songs of the year as listed on //digitaldreamdoor.com/ This site provides some fun lists like "100 Greatest Beach Music Songs" and is well worth checking out.
Here are complete lists of their information sources used for calculations and another list.
I posted messages on talk pages, here is one I found
Talk:1941 in music#Biggest hit songs. Nobody replied to any of them, so I began replacing them myself (33 to date 1920-1949, 1965, 68 and 1970). That's right, there are still 67 pages with tsort rankings. I will have most of the 1960s completed by the end of this month.
Tillywilly17 (
talk) 03:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of this one, what do you think? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 23:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I've seen that the new Polish music charts are sourced by writing a note that says "Search for '[artist]' and select 'Wykonawca'". However, this is not the ideal way to source the charts because the website, which only shows the most recent charts with the link being the same whether you change the date range or search an artist, does not return any results if the song is no longer on the charts. Therefore, the ideal way of sourcing the charts would be indicating the date range the song peaked. Jvaspad ( talk) 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Are the following acceptable as sources?
Recently, I've noticed the addition of a Latvian chart from lanet.lv, a site I recall removing in the past since I didn't trust its methodology. Most of the links on the page take you to an official chart site, but a Latvian airplay chart also exists on the site, the archives of which can be found at the bottom of the page here. The only information I can find about the chart's compiler generally says, "Compiled by [line break] copyright © XXXX "Rīgas Balss" Latvijas rokzinu agentūra" and occasionally "reproduced with permission" ( [12]). I dug through the archives and found a TLDR discussion from 2009 that seems to claim the Latvian Airplay Top 50 is a hobbyist chart, but it's the "reproduced with permission" line that bothers me. Does anyone have any other thoughts? ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 11:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
According to Notion Magazine, piri's "soft spot" went to #1 on TikTok. Didn't know there was any such chart. Possibly one for WP:BADCHARTS?-- Laun chba ller 20:51, 1 April 2023 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
IRMA is the official Irish chart company however, it provides the OCC with this information, a number of months ago a user decided to use OCC instead of IRMA which is factually incorrect. If wikipedia is supposed to focus on standards and accuracy then the OCC should not be assigned for chart placements for Ireland. OCC also complies and records chart data for the US and French charts do we assign the OCC to US and French chart positions, of course not therefore the same should not be applied to Irish chart positions. I will make the appropriate changes going forward - IRMA has always been and will remain the chart holder for Ireland and OCC is not the official company responsible, saying it is, is not accurate.
Also notice how on the OCC website it clearly states copyrights of IRMA [1] regarding all chart entries for Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
IRMA is the official body that represents artists in Ireland data is transferred to OCC who then publish the information on behalf of IRMA, hence they are the copyright holder. IRMA has been and will always be the issuer of chart positions. If you cared to look at the OCC website you’d see the US charts are published on the site on behalf of Bullboard, but obviously not the source material. OCC also collects data for France, this is not published on their website but you can do that research yourself. You can continue to deny IRMA is not responsible for chart positions in Ireland but I work in the Irish music industry and live in Ireland and I’ve already provided you with this evidence but you choose to ignore it. But if you want to spread disinformation that is fine. TheAmazingPeanuts Nua eire ( talk) 22:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You can view this website to see information about French chart and OCC. https://completemusicupdate.com/article/uk-charts-firm-to-start-compiling-frances-music-charts/ and for the US chart see here https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/billboard-hot-100-chart/. Are you going to change the US and France to the OCC too? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) Nua eire ( talk) 22:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
IRMA was established by both mainstream and independent record labels based in Ireland to compile and coordinate the publication of weekly charts. Over the years a number of companies have held responsibility in conjunction with IRMA to compile the weekly Irish charts these include Chart Track, Gfk and more recently OCC. The OCC contract expires after a 5 year period which started in 2017. IRMA is the copyright holder and the company responsible for chart positions. OCC has responsibility to issue the charts on its website. The charts are also available on the IRMA website. OCC is also responsible for compiling charts in France following the departure of Gfk. However during Gfk and OCC correctly compiling the French chart correctly SNEP has always referenced because SNEP is the primary body responsible for French charts and the original copyright holder.
The same is said for Irish entries. IRMA has always been referenced even though Chart Track and Gfk have complied the Irish chart in the past on behalf of IRMA. It is factually incorrect to attribute chart placements solely to OCC when the primary company and copyright holder is IRMA. The OCC would not have permission to compile the chart if it was not for IRMA under the five year deal. To deny this is spreading misinformation and undoing the hard work done by those on wiki who want to continue to maintain a high standard of accurate information on these pages. Nua eire ( talk) 22:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The guidelines should be changed to reflect what was always the case IRMA is the correct reference as is SNEP in the case of France . I will leave it up to you to make the final decision. But OCC is not the correct reference and this should be changed. It should have never been changed to OCC by some user earlier this year without discussion on the issue. Nua eire ( talk) 06:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Just wandering through for nostalgia's sake, and this strikes me as being a particularly purposeless discussion: Wikipedia sourcing guidelines aren't based on national pride, but on reliability. Since the OCC is licensed to provide the information and does so reliably, it's a perfectly valid source by Wikipedia standards. If the OCC provides direct links to the data and IRMA does not, that makes it preferable to use the OCC.— Kww( talk) 12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I have serious issue with the level of bullying going on and specifically directed towards me. Nua eire ( talk) 21:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Also be mindful when considering Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPA Nua eire ( talk) 21:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I honestly do not care what you guys decide on regarding sources for the Irish chart. Use OCC all you like. I’ve said this already in previous posts I am beyond caring. I’m no longer engaging with anyone on this topic. I won’t be communicating on this matter going forward. Have a nice life! Nua eire ( talk) 21:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing this source added to various song articles for Finland's chart. Normally, I wouldn't bring this kind of thing up, but the user who has been adding this chart, @ HumanxAnthro:, has been arbitrarily removing the Finnish chart template with no prior consensus that I know of. They claim they are removing the chart because the source they are adding uses radio airplay coupled with sales figures to determine Finnish chart positions while Musiikkituottajat only uses sales. This is a legitimate argument, but we should achieve consensus before too many Finland templates are removed. HumanxAnthro, it would help greatly if you further explain your reasoning here instead of using your edit summaries. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 18:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Stumbled across this discussion and thought might worth to give it my two cents.
I don't think the sales/airplay chart is significant enough to be included in the charts table, also it'll be WP:Too much detail to include to include a second chart. Most nation charts around the world are based on sales rather than sales/airplay. Additionally, there's no correct/right way to compile the charts, just because the Billboard Hot 100, chose its chart to be compiled by sales/airplay doesn't mean it's the definitive way to compile charts, plus every country has their own music industry, rules and obviously different methodologies in compiling charts.
I think it'll be very helpful to start a RFC and decide which chart should go and which one should stay. Moh8213 ( talk) 18:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of charts being cited from El Siglo de Torreón newspaper. For example this link The chart is not actually by the newspaper, but by UPI. This should be corrected in the parentheses next to the country. Based on the wording "según emisoras consultados por UPI", they look to be based on radio airplay. But, these are measured in capital cities only, not a country-wide sample. Is there a consensus that a chart for a city represents the country as a whole? For example the chart for Panama [City] is being used as a chart for Panama (country) in many articles. Heartfox ( talk) 02:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
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.. If this principle is applied, UPI would be considered a reliable source but I'm not sure we could stretch it out to cover the whole country based on a single city. I would prefer us to exclude from chart tables in this case (but could mention in prose). TopHit produce charts for Kyiv and Moscow - we have never allowed those for Russian or Ukrainian artists. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 08:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I noticed this chart being included in multiple singles chart of songs from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. The user Arthur Garbuio started including this chart in a HumanxAnthro fashion without prior consensus regarding its reliability or accuracy. It seems that it's a year-end chart but for whatever reason, he also included it in the weekly charts table. I was about to remove it but I thought it might be worth it to bring this matter in the talk page. Is it okay to keep the chart or should it be removed from the charts section? Moh8213 ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Our rankings are based on the most played songs on radio, through the analytical data of audio measurement companies on online radios. They reflect the real scenario of the popularity of music in the four corners of the country, with 24 hours a day, 7 days a week measurement and more than 5,000 registered radio stations (only those that can be heard online). In our music charts, data from Youtube and Spotify can also be used. They only use stations that can be played online so I find it hard to understand how they're reliable for charts pre-90s or very reliable as its possible they're missing out huge chunks of stations. It also says information from YouTube and Spotify can be used but not that it defo is. No mention of commercial data either. It seems like a hobbyist website. I'd say one to avoid. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 21:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
So basically, the chart is based on the top 100 most played songs now? Not the most played songs when they were released in their respective years? Moh8213 ( talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed this being used to source sales and have some serious issues with it. Additionally it has also been used for lots of legacy articles as a "reliable source". However the contact page
here talks about synthesising various hit parades
. Regarding sales it specifically says This Ranking is absolutely not a reflection of sales but simply a summary of information from the time.
Later it also says This site tries to become the "Reference" of the Hit-Parades in France. In order to get closer to this objective, some Complete Rankings (Hit-Parades) are missing:
and then goes on to list missing chart rankings. On this basis it seems to be a summation of different sources, and thus not appropriate for use on Wikipedia? >>
Lil-unique1 (
talk) — 21:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Their certifications are valid though. Their sales figures are not. I against a complete removal, because the site is really helpful for older releases, because SNEP database is such a mess sometimes. Bluesatellite ( talk) 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The Romandie chart, administered by Hung Medien, is a regional record chart of the highest-selling singles and albums in the Francophone region of Romandy in Switzerland. It's included in WP:GOODCHARTS and has been in use for a long time on Wikipedia. A somewhat comparable chart would be the ADISQ chart in Quebec, also widely used in articles. An argument for its inclusion would be the long standing disparity between music consumption in Francophone and German language markets as well as the fact that it provides insight into how an album is performing in a region with its own distinct cultural identity. I would contend that the inclusion is also justified by the cultural differences in Switzerland. Additionally - the Schweizer Hitparade, despite covering the entire nation, is strictly in German and offers no multilingual options. The fact that it's the only monolingual Hung Medien website further justifies the inclusion given that the Swiss Federal Law on National Languages very explicitly states that German, French, and Italian maintain equal status as official languages. Please indicate Include, Don't include, or Comment with your responses. Everm4e ( talk) 21:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
In regards to the IFPI Greece charts located at https://www.ifpi.gr/digital_iel.html that various editors have added to articles over the last few years, I think it's more accurate to label this the "Greece International ( IFPI)" chart where it is used instead of just "Greece ( IFPI)". The website makes it clear the linked chart (added to Western song articles regularly) is the International chart, as compared to the Local chart located at https://www.ifpi.gr/digital_el.html (both Local and International are for digital sales and streams). Judging by the absence of Greek-language songs, the International chart is not an overall chart, as one would expect an overall sales and streams chart measuring the most popular songs in Greece to have at least some Greek-language songs. As a note, unfortunately this is another chart that editors regularly add but don't bother to archive, which would be preferred as the site doesn't seem to have specific URLs for chart weeks, or an archive one can go back through. I encourage any editors reading this to change this chart to "Greece International" (usually one just needs to add "International") wherever they see it used too. Ss 112 08:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The only discussion I can find on the subject of
chartsaroundtheworld
In the lead of " Pink Venom", an editor wrote "The song also topped the national charts in South Korea, Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan". However, all except 2 of the #1's in these countries were #1's on Billboard's Hits of the World charts for those territories. Per the Charts section, the song charted at #22 in South Korea on the actual national chart the Circle Chart. Surely it isn't correct to consider the HOTW charts as national charts of the countries for which they are available, esp when those countries already have existing national charts? Also, since India's official chart is the IMI singles chart, if a song charts there (or on any other official national chart for a territory), we don't need to still include the HOTW entry right? -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 06:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Where available, editors should endeavour to use the nationally recognised singles charts for the country in question. Nationally recognised charts will be affiliated to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) either directly or via the country's national trade body for the recording industry such as ARIA, RIAA, BPI etc. Other charts may exist, for example Billboard produce a series of charts known as "Hits of the World", these song charts track airplay from Luminate and streaming data. However these charts were launched in 2022, and their acceptance and use across the industry is yet to be determined. As such, there is little articulated need to include these charts alongside nationally recognised charts in the charts table or discography of an artist as this could result in lists becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are several exceptions:
If a song did not chart on the nationally recognised chart but did chart on the Billboard Hits of the World charts e.g. South Korea Songs, then these charts can be presented in the charts table
If there is no recongnised or stable national chart (see WP:RECORDCHARTS for guidance), then Billboard Hits of the World chart can be used for said country
If there is a specific achievement that received notoriety, then the hits of the world charts can be mentioned in prose within a chart performance section e.g. "sold 25,000 copies becoming the first Korean act to top the Malaysia Songs chart" then this can be included by exception.
Otherwise Hits of the World charts should not be included in prose of chart performance sections, where they appear alongside national charts such as Circle's South Korean Digital Singles chart, or RIM's Malaysian Singes Chart
Ngl I'm getting bothered by seeing two charts in both singles and albums articles. It's misleading to have two official charts when we only need one official national chart for a country. HumanxAnthro included the Musica e Dischi chart unilaterally without a prior discussion on the chart itself. With that being said, I suggest removal of this chart. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with the change. Moh8213 ( talk) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Alrighty then, what about the pdf Finnish chart? Is there any established consensus in regards to this chart? Moh8213 ( talk) 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
FIMI also has an easily accessible website that lists its certifications and chart peaks for albums and singles since '95. To add on the Italian chart matter, another chart that I know of is Discografia Internazionale. It seems like this chart was intended to rival the Musica e dischi in terms of international recording, and they successfully did so since their chart was representing Italy in Billboard's "Hits of the Worlds" chart section in the late '60s and early '70s, but it seems they didn't last long as their magazine ceased publication on December 1972. After that it pretty much seems that M&D was the only notable chart until FIMI appeared in 95. As for the Finnish chart, if that's the case then there's really no use to use this pdf, especially considering that IFPI Finland has an active website that lists all of its chart peaks and certifications, we can at least use this pdf if some singles/albums doesn't appear on their current database, especially for the early records. Moh8213 ( talk) 19:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
here you go, I don't know if you checked properly, but I clearly removed the M&D chart, given that both of these albums were released after the FIMI chart was launched. Moh8213 ( talk) 16:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed a discrepancy where Portugal charts at acharts.co were in both the recommended charts and the deprecated charts. Atypically, my brain actually worked and I recalled this conversation which concluded on this being the result of this undetected vandalism. I noticed Kww actually fixed the vandalism, but from some reason Portugal was not fixed. I am assuming this was unintentional, so I fixed Portugal too. If this was actually intentional, feel free to revert. By the way, my involvement was due to Arctic Monkeys discography using achart peaks (now removed). -- Muhandes ( talk) 11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Recent years multiple Chinese platforms under Tencent music started selling music and showcase them in charts, the sales are been acknowledge by IFPI on their 2020 Year report page 4 of the report, as well been counted towards their yearly charts of best performing songs & artist, the system and sales of those platforms been reported multiple times by IFPI, and recently Billboard as well acknowledged them and stated they will soon release a China Chart that will use those data. Couple of users are now deleting the these from all artists (note that the data are been used in List of best-selling albums in China) saying it's WP:SINGLEVENDOR sources so it shouldn't be included. I in contrary believe it should be added to all pages since it applies to the rules that listed here for Suitable charts, #1 IFPI recognised QQ Music, Kugou and NetEase as legitimate sources, #2 It is static, the data in the chart never changed, #3 an official chart is coming from Billboard. My suggestion is for the sales of songs and albums to be added in the Albums and Singles table for sales only, not to be added as weekly ranking position. Those sales are legitimate and applies to all rules, and should be at least noticed, deleting when will mean deletion of entire industry that IFPI acknowledge and uses. KLIFE88 ( talk) 23:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Isn't Eesti Tipp-40, but there was also the Eesti Top 10. Are they enough reliable to be included as charts in Wikipedia's articles? Seems ranking was based in various retailers. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 22:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
VirreFriberg recently added the Danmarks Radio chart to a few 1960s song articles using archived links from the now dead website http://danskehitlister.dk/. (Some of the additions: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). The Danish entry on WP:GOODCHARTS writes, "Prior to 2001 only known archive is from Billboard Magazine Hits of the World section." WP:BADCHARTS doesn't list this one though, so I thought I'd see what people think about this source. Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Top 20 (or 30, depending on year), was a Danish record chart published by Danmarks Radio (DR), similar to the Swedish equivalent Kvällstoppen, published by Sveriges Radio (SR). http://danskehitlister.dk/ is merely an archive of these lists VirreFriberg ( talk) 17:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Are Billboard's Active Rock and Heritage Rock airplay charts allowed if a song has cracked the Mainstream Rock chart? They are very much niche charts and aren't typically discussed even within Billboard itself. It has always been my understanding that the radio station panels that make up Active/Heritage charts are combined to rank the Mainstream Rock chart. I bring this up because over at the article for Moto Psycho, I've tried to remove them from the charts section but have been reverted twice now. Thanks for any additional input or help. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that when editors cite a song's peak position on the Czech and Slovakian digital singles chart, they write something like "Note: Change the chart to CZ – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100 and insert 202249 into search." However, I've noticed that songs have their own page where you can see their performance in a specific chart (Ex.: Raye's "Escapism." on the Slovakian Singles Digital Top 100 chart). Would it be acceptable to cite the song's respective chart pages instead? Jvaspad ( talk) 06:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Muhandes Why should the "Greatest Of All Time Hot 100 Songs" not be updated? All songs on the current list had "All-Time" in their chart section and were already updated to the 2018 issue prior to my edits. The rule about stating that chart should be static explicitly states that "All-Time" charts are an exception to the rule so Rule #3 doesn't apply in this circumstance. 99.6.253.145 ( talk) 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@ ResolutionsPerMinute, @ Muhandes Can we use Billboard Hot Trending Songs? Have there been any discussions about it before or should it be discussed? آرمین هویدایی ( talk) 11:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi! So, i believe i found some kind of Hong Kong-based music chart named APMA Charts. I think they're known for their Asian Pop Music Awards. They released two kinds of charts, Overseas one (Ex: https://twitter.com/APMAHK/status/1611958538754220038) and Chinese one, each week on various social media platforms. Is these charts reliable or not? Byy2 ( talk) 14:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I thought I remembered that Pure Charts (chartsinfrance) is considered unreliable, but I can't find a decisive disucssion on the subject, and it was last discussed 10 years ago. Pinging @ Lil-unique1 and Kww who were involved last time. -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This January Poland has launched a new set of official charts, most importantly a new Albums Chart (based on both streaming+sales) with the old Albums Chart (based only on sales) being renamed to Physical Albums + a new streaming-only chart was created as well. Perhaps it would be a good idea to stop referencing the old, sales only chart and start using the new chart that combines Streaming+Sales together https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-sprzedazy/albumy
Additionaly, apart from the previous Airplay Songs Chart there's a new, main singles chart - Streaming Songs Chart which now serves as the main Polish singles chart - https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-sprzedazy/single-w-streamie Aaron511 ( talk) 12:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that this site determines chart positions with a proprietary formula developed by the website owner, which I evaluated several years ago, and found to be worse than useless. You need not look beyond Wikipedia to see what I mean. We have 100 pages for Year in music in the 20th century. Somebody in the remote past decided to use tsort's rankings for each year's "Biggest hit singles" section. The data they use from RYM, DDD, POP and other garbage sites are clearly listed (see 1961 in music#Biggest hit singles, 2000 in music#Biggest hit singles). Here are descriptions of four of the sources used to calculate rankings:
POP Year
Songs of the year from //www.popculturemadness.com/Music/ a site that includes all sorts of fun lists (like "Politically Incorrect Songs") and is worth a visit.
Entries from Rolling Stone
The top 500 songs of all time listed in the magazine 'Rolling Stone' in 2004 (source //www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/5 00songs). The 'Rolling Stone' album chart closely matches with global tastes, in contrast the songs list has just about no correlation with the world's song charts.
Entries from RYM
The site //rateyourmusic.com/ gives users the chance to rate different songs and albums. The ratings are not objective (and of course they shouldn't be) but the large volume of contributors makes this worthwhile (at least for modern music). These charts were extracted during Feb 2007 with the later years each being extracted during the following year. Some entries have been removed where it is obvious that particular groups of fans have conbined to distort the results.
DDD Year
Songs of the year as listed on //digitaldreamdoor.com/ This site provides some fun lists like "100 Greatest Beach Music Songs" and is well worth checking out.
Here are complete lists of their information sources used for calculations and another list.
I posted messages on talk pages, here is one I found
Talk:1941 in music#Biggest hit songs. Nobody replied to any of them, so I began replacing them myself (33 to date 1920-1949, 1965, 68 and 1970). That's right, there are still 67 pages with tsort rankings. I will have most of the 1960s completed by the end of this month.
Tillywilly17 (
talk) 03:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of this one, what do you think? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 23:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I've seen that the new Polish music charts are sourced by writing a note that says "Search for '[artist]' and select 'Wykonawca'". However, this is not the ideal way to source the charts because the website, which only shows the most recent charts with the link being the same whether you change the date range or search an artist, does not return any results if the song is no longer on the charts. Therefore, the ideal way of sourcing the charts would be indicating the date range the song peaked. Jvaspad ( talk) 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Are the following acceptable as sources?
Recently, I've noticed the addition of a Latvian chart from lanet.lv, a site I recall removing in the past since I didn't trust its methodology. Most of the links on the page take you to an official chart site, but a Latvian airplay chart also exists on the site, the archives of which can be found at the bottom of the page here. The only information I can find about the chart's compiler generally says, "Compiled by [line break] copyright © XXXX "Rīgas Balss" Latvijas rokzinu agentūra" and occasionally "reproduced with permission" ( [12]). I dug through the archives and found a TLDR discussion from 2009 that seems to claim the Latvian Airplay Top 50 is a hobbyist chart, but it's the "reproduced with permission" line that bothers me. Does anyone have any other thoughts? ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 11:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
According to Notion Magazine, piri's "soft spot" went to #1 on TikTok. Didn't know there was any such chart. Possibly one for WP:BADCHARTS?-- Laun chba ller 20:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)