![]() | This page 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. |
Are there any guidelines/preferences for the order in which the charts should be listed? Alphabetically? By posiition? -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 15:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be able to see chart trajectories for US, UK, Australia, and World on songs that charted there. It would be nice. I mean, if we are able to site sources for the trajectory. For example: (note the next examples are not real singers, chart position, or songs)
Chart (2006) | Peak position |
---|---|
U.S. Billboard Hot 100 | 2 |
UK Singles Top 75 | 7 |
Australia Singles Top 50 | 1 |
World Singles Top 40 | 1 |
Swiss Singles Top 100 | 34 |
France Singles Top 100 | 11 |
Austria Singles Top 75 | 12 |
New Zealand Singles Top 40 | 1 |
U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ||||
Chart position | 100 | 76 | 31 | 10 | 10 | 8
|
11 | 8
|
9
|
4
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
6
|
7
|
11 | 12 | 18 | 23 | 29 | 32 | 33 | 47 | 43 |
UK Singles Top 75 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||||||||||||
Chart position | 9
|
7
|
8
|
10 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 26 | 29 | 34 | 33 | 47 | 58 | 50 | 67 | 66 | 56 | 75 |
Australia Singles Top 50 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chart position | 1
|
etc |
World Singles Top 40 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chart position | 40 | etc |
I mean, it's just a thought. Also, " My Humps" already has this done. There's a good example. Tcatron565 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does the main page have no history as a proposal? Someone just made a guideline and labeled it as such? That doesn't seem proper to me. Wikipedia's gradually gaining the problem of having too many policies and guidelines to follow. However, if theres consensual support that this page is very useful - then so be it. Anyone want to verify that they support this page as a guideline? Fresheneesz 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've seen table bonita being used in some articles, is this allowed? Or is it supposed to be the normal table? ~ E meZxX 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why aren't the charts allowed to show how many weeks a song was at number one? It's easier to measure a songs success with the amount of weeks included, a song which spent 14 weeks at number one on any given chart is more successful than one that spent one week. I think that's notable. -- Thankyoubaby 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It should be detailed within the article only, however, perhaps the weeks could be listed next to the chart position if it's written as "(x)" instead of "(x week[s])". Velten 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The relevant discussion is here. The current guideline states that subscript numbers should have a space between the chart name and itself. I find this questionable; why create unnecessary space and widen the table when they could simply be beside each other? This makes them look untidy too. My proposition is the following (taken from Cool (song)):
Chart (2005) | Peak position |
---|---|
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play1 | 1 |
instead of
Chart (2005) | Peak position |
---|---|
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 | 1 |
Thoughts? Velten 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It says that Billboard component charts shouldn't be used. Does this apply just to Billboard component charts or to all component charts? — ShadowHalo 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the main article specifically mentions singles, but not albums. Is there a separate charting guideline for albums that I've yet to discover, or is this a catch-all? If so, should the first line not be modified to reflect a wider coverage than just singles? -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as a few select people have a vendetta against chart trajectories. I propose to just have the 'United World Chart' which will allow everyone else to still be able to see the songs performance week by week. -- Bojach 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
United World Chart [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |||||||||||
Position | 1
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
10
|
13
|
20
|
19
|
24
|
23
|
28
|
33
|
31
| |||||||||||
Sales | 615,000
|
327,000
|
257,000
|
184,000
|
143,000
|
112,000
|
103,000
|
90,000
|
76,000
|
71,000
|
70,000
|
66,000
|
66,000
|
73,000
| |||||||||||
Total | 615,000
|
942,000
|
1,199,000
|
1,383,000
|
1,526,000
|
1,638,000
|
1,741,000
|
1,831,000
|
1,907,000
|
1,978,000
|
2,048,000
|
2,114,000
|
2,180,000
|
2,253,000
|
Just an example showing the position, sales/airplay for that week and cumulative sales/airplay.
Since only ten national charts should appear in a chart, how does one determine which countries' single charts are more notable than others? — ShadowHalo 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It'd be nice to settle the issue with chart trajectories, since there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus regarding them. So, my proposal:
A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article, even if it is verifiable. Including the chart trajectory constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories should instead be described in the text of the article or in a table for charts. — ShadowHalo 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There should be more expansion; no Billboard component charts and no "component-ish charts". At Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song), one user has indicated that the ARIA Digital Chart is not a component chart of the main chart, and wants to permit its inclusion. Because Stefani is not Australian, I find this unnecessary. (Additional charts should really only be used for that artist's heartland.) Velten 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have moved this page for two reasons: (1) The previous title was clumsy. (2) The guideline was originally created to address how to format tables for charts (hence, "tables for charts"). However, I believe the guideline's scope should be expanded to cover all aspects of music charts that may be relevant to Wikipedians (the discussion seems to be moving in this direction naturally). It would be useful to list reliable resources Wikipedians can use to find chart data, and to indicate which charts are notable, for example. Punctured Bicycle 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As Punctured Bicycle mentioned above, this page is progressing from a how-to into a full guideline. Therefore, a need has arisen for expansion and clarification of acceptable practices and resources that can be used. So, here's a checklist I've come up with of tasks that might result in information useful to the end users. Let's get some discussion going...feel free to add, subtract, modify these.
These are certainly not intended as items that need to be done quickly; rather, I fully expect it could take some time for everything to come together. However, I would suggest it is stuff that needs to be done for this guideline to be taken as fully serious among the entire community. I admit, I'm quite new to dealing with charts...I actually only arrived after beginning maintenance of Evanescence articles, so I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and suggestions.
I always assumed that since no chart positions are boldfaced in the guideline that this is how the tables should be formatted.... I am wondering what people thought about specifically mentioning the discouragement of boldfacing chart positions, specifically number-ones? I see it a lot. It looks bad, and I feel this shows a POV - drawing attention to certain charts and/or countries where a song/album obtained a number one position. An extremely popular or best-selling release can be kept from number one for any number of reasons.... a number one album could very easily sell thousands or millions less than a number-six album that remained popular for months or years. Any thoughts on this? - eo 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Per discussions above and the length of time which has passed since the last comments, I've added the following points to the guideline:
If anyone has issues with these or if my wording can be improved, feel free to discuss here or change what I have added. - eo 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I wish to know what valid reasons there are for having music tables in articles, since articles are articles and not lists.
Criterion 1. a. of "What is a featured article?" asks for "compelling, brilliant prose", yet despite music charts being allowed in past FAs they're still a clear violation of that criterion. Charts can be turned into prose, but editors choose to present them in tables to make it easier for themselves, which essentially dumbs down articles. Essentially this guideline is encouraging violations of FA criteria - we need to remember we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a database of lists (unless an article is trying to be an FL). Lists should only be used in articles where there's no alternative, though in this case there's a definite alternative - Featured Articles and Featured Lists should be differentiated with as much as possible. LuciferMorgan 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that there is related discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. ShadowHalo 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." In my view, that applies here. There's a lot of information we can include in an album article: record chart placings, accolades and awards, release history, quotes, trivia, etc. But information is not very interesting tacked on at the end of an article like an appendix. It's more interesting when incorporated with the rest of the prose. That requires that we be judicious—cutting less important information—but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia after all. Comprehensive data listings can be moved to a discography article or delegated to external links if they need be included. Punctured Bicycle 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the article for country group Diamond Rio includes the songs' peaks for both Billboard and R&R's country charts. I think this is a very good idea, and I wish more artists' pages featured the peaks for both charts. I just changed the headings in that article to "US Country (Billboard)" and "US Country (R&R)". Does anyone else think that this is a good idea (the way I've set up the headers)?
By the way, if anyone can help me find some older R&R peaks for Toby Keith's songs, I'd appreciate it. I've got about 2/3 of them so far. TenPoundHammer 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, does anyone else think that including the R&R charts is a good idea? I'm so damn sick of people accidentally putting the R&R or Mediabase peaks under the "Hot Country Songs" column because they don't realize that, until last year, R&R and Billboard were separate entities. So far, I've only done it at pages where there's been confusion (e.g. Jamie O'Neal, Rachel Proctor); in fact, with the latter, it seems that the artist herself is the one who got confused and posted the R&R peaks under "Hot Country Songs"! TenPoundHammer 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing changes made, so I figure I should ask here. Nielsen Soundscan is still the official Canadian chart, even with the new Billboard Canadian Hot 100 chart, right? If so, should tables be using Nielsen and not Billboard positions? ShadowHalo 21:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If the song is a current single, is it okay to replace "Peak position" with "Current position" on the chart table? That's what I do. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 14:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy of a May 2007 IFPI report:
It's important to note that this list only represents record sales in 2006 — individual market sizes are sure to have varied from year to year — but it provides a good guide as to what charts, sales and certification info/statistics should and shouldn't be included in some articles. Extraordinary Machine 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi people. I am in the process of trying to save the Ray of Light GA (currently being reviewed), and one of the things it is criticized for is that the charts and certifications are not sourced. I googled all I could, but couldn't find any good source out of the UK and billboard charts. Is there a place where all the good links go? Thanks in advance, -- SidiLemine 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I cannot see why charting of data for peak positions per country is acceptable as being a non collection of indiscriminate information, where as the UWC detail above is considered the opposite? I can see the usefulness of both, but one is acceptable, and one is not, why? In using the UWC example above, you can see a detail on sales that cannot be reflected in prose. i.e The album has sold 2.253 million copies, but if you add this as prose, it is not referenceable as the figure is not on that site, it is an accumulation of smaller references. This would make it original research and likely to be removed. As sales and certifications are an important part of discographies, how is this supposed to be managed within the current guidelines? Also, if you find a site that says xxx album sold xxx sales, yyy album sold yyy sales, and you combine these in the article, is this accumulation not the same as above but on a lesser scale? Can someone please put to rest my confusion? Maggott2000 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There has been some discussion at Talk:4 in the Morning#Chart on the inclusion of the Romanian Singles Chart in the 4 in the Morning article. The position has been added and removed in an extended low-level edit war, so an outside opinion on how the guideline should be interpreted would be helpful. 17Drew 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've changed a table listing number 1s to span rows for the same song, which makes it easier to see how many weeks a song held the position consecutively. Compare unspanned and spanned. Any reasons to keep the old display? -- Jeandré, 2007-09-25 t14:21z
Anyone know where to find German charts? I can find the current positions, but not any archives. the wub "?!" 09:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to ask whether it is acceptable to use class="wikitable sortable"
instead of/as well as class="wikitable"
? I mean, it adds a sortability function which can be very usefull for navigation. Any opinions? --
¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤
20:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have observed that charts for song pages seems to be contradicting. Other pages have charts with alphabetized arrangement, meaning, all country positions are alphabetically ordered irregardless of positions which is quite good because it's a NPOV. However, other too is not the same. It is being ranked which makes the other positions inferior and is a POV. Lets get rid of these. BritandBeyonce ( talk• contribs) 07:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
class="wikitable sortable"
allows for both sides to view the table however they please. --
Huntster
T •
@ •
C
08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)This might not be the correct forum for this cuz I'm seeing it more in discography tables, but I wanted to get some consensus on whether or not the display of United World Chart "points" is notable or whether it falls in the WP:NOT#INFO category. I feel that these fall into the latter - supposedly these "points" are derived from sales, airplay and "votes" (whatever that is) and I'm now seeing pop-music-female-artist discographies with columns displaying various point amounts. Seems kind of iffy to me and I've been removing them.... although I'll stop it if these are found to be notable. Anyone know what I'm talking about? An example here. Should I take this to a different Talk Page? Any opinions? - eo 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What about adding the flag icons to the chart table. I noticed many tables on Wikipedia that list countries all use the flag icons. For example: List of countries by population. Well I made up an example one on one of the pages I created, and here is what it would look like:
Chart (2003) [2] | Peak position |
---|---|
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
15 |
![]() |
3 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
27 |
![]() |
44 |
![]() |
14 |
![]() |
8 |
![]() |
11 |
![]() |
15 |
![]() |
3 |
![]() |
1 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
17 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
8 |
![]() |
11 |
1
Eurochart Hot 100
2
United World Chart
What does everyone think? --
Thankyoubaby
01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering what people's opinions are on using the
Euro 200 chart instead of/in addition to the Billboard
Eurochart Hot 100 Singles (I notice that
Euro 200 redirects there). My personal opinion is that althouh the Euro 200 chart uses information from more European countries, it's not an official chart and shouldn't be used. However, many articles do use it.
anemoneI
projectors
20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have composed a list of Billboard charts I think are appropriate for Wikipedia articles. With some extra rules. Ones that are most imporatant are bolded.
Singles:
Albums:
Tcatron565 ( talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Has any standard been given yet for listing peaks for songs that entered the Bubbling Under chart, but not the actual Billboard Hot 100? Convention seems to indicate that 1xx numbers are used for Bubbling Under peaks when listed alongside Hot 100 peaks (e.g. #101 = #1 on Bubbling Under, #102 = #2 on Bubbling Under, etc.).
But what would be advisable if an artist has had several Bubbling Under entries, without ever actually entering the Hot 100 proper (e.g. the Warren Brothers)? Should it still be a Hot 100 column with numbers in the 101-125 range, or should it just be a "Bubbling Under" column instead? Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the following questions have already been brought up, but I'll make them anyway.
After a discussion between myself and Funk Junkie ( talk · contribs), we thought it would be a good idea to bring a matter regarding chart names here. Certain charts, such as the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and the Hot Dance Club Play, have had name changes over the years. In song and album articles, it would make sense to list the chart under its name at the time the song or album was on the chart. What Funk Junkie and I were wondering about concerns artist articles that mention individual singles that appeared on charts between separate name changes—should the same name be used to refer to the chart throughout the article, or should the different names be used according to what the chart's name was when each single charted? I believe that the latter is preferable, and Funk Junkie agrees, but we thought we'd take the matter here for other editors' input. Extraordinary Machine ( talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think that there should be a set of criteria for singles tables in discographies/artist pages? (e.g. the tables at LeAnn Rimes discography#Singles, Emerson Drive#Singles) I've noticed a bit of content dispute over these kinds of tables, and would like to propose a set of guidelines for such tables (e.g., proper order of the chart rows, relevant footnotes, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know how these fit into the grand scheme of things? I've seen them quoted on a couple of occasions yet the peaks don't match those quoted for the same songs on the "official" charts for those countries. Leipzigger98 ( talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused about sourcing for charts. Are the resources listed at the end of this article a list of WP:RS? I looked at a couple of featured articles that used allmusic as a source, but Gangsta Grillz: The Album is not listed. What is listed is a forum called ukmix.org, which I would have zapped if not finding it being heavily used as a source: [ [2]] Flowanda | Talk 16:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering, Thriller 25 has what looks to me like a silly amount of charts. Any views? Right now it lists 34 charts. United World, Europe, both Belgian charts, Hong Kong, USA Catalog, USA comprehensive and 26 national charts. Surely this is excessive? Thing is, I'd not really know.( The Elfoid ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
by Langdon ( talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)i7114080 In Carrie Underwood discography, Omghgomg and I argued about formats. I've held a mini-vote on this, but Omghgomg didn't approve, and he used excuses to persuade me not to change and keep his formats. Those things are really personal, but I think we need discussions to unite the formats.
Here are some examples: (The examples are all correct, and they contain all information needed.)
1.
|
2.
| ||||||||||||||
3.
|
4.
|
For this one, there isn't a result after mini-vote. I would say a lot of discographies use #1, but I don't think that's good. The label will repeat so many times. This is what I've said the other day about release date: "we can briefly know when a album is out by looking at the year column. month and date is not very important because most country artist do not release 2 albums in the same year. it is not really necessery. and, do we have to do the same thing to singles too?" In country discographies, #4 is usually used, and it is simple. If the artist had more than a record label, we usually use a column like #2 to show. Example: Reba McEntire discography
|
|
About this one, of course the right one is more comprehensible.
Year | Single | Peak chart positions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US Country | US Hot 100 | US Pop 100 | US AC | US Digital | ||
2005 | " Bless the Broken Road" | 50 | — | — | — | — |
"—" denotes releases that did not chart.
Year | Single | Peak chart positions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US Country | US Hot 100 | US Pop 100 | US AC | US Digital | ||
2005 | " Bless the Broken Road" | 50 |
"blank" denotes releases that did not chart.
There are a lot of arguement on this one. Please see Talk:Carrie Underwood discography#Voting
Year | Single | Album |
---|---|---|
2007 | "Just a Dream" | Carnival Ride |
" Do You Hear What I Hear" | Hear Something Country Christmas 2007 |
Year | Single | Album |
---|---|---|
2007 | "Just a Dream" | Carnival Ride |
" Do You Hear What I Hear" | Hear Something Country Christmas 2007 |
In most country discographies, we use the right one.
![]() | This page 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. |
Are there any guidelines/preferences for the order in which the charts should be listed? Alphabetically? By posiition? -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 15:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be able to see chart trajectories for US, UK, Australia, and World on songs that charted there. It would be nice. I mean, if we are able to site sources for the trajectory. For example: (note the next examples are not real singers, chart position, or songs)
Chart (2006) | Peak position |
---|---|
U.S. Billboard Hot 100 | 2 |
UK Singles Top 75 | 7 |
Australia Singles Top 50 | 1 |
World Singles Top 40 | 1 |
Swiss Singles Top 100 | 34 |
France Singles Top 100 | 11 |
Austria Singles Top 75 | 12 |
New Zealand Singles Top 40 | 1 |
U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ||||
Chart position | 100 | 76 | 31 | 10 | 10 | 8
|
11 | 8
|
9
|
4
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
6
|
7
|
11 | 12 | 18 | 23 | 29 | 32 | 33 | 47 | 43 |
UK Singles Top 75 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||||||||||||
Chart position | 9
|
7
|
8
|
10 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 26 | 29 | 34 | 33 | 47 | 58 | 50 | 67 | 66 | 56 | 75 |
Australia Singles Top 50 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chart position | 1
|
etc |
World Singles Top 40 chart trajectory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chart position | 40 | etc |
I mean, it's just a thought. Also, " My Humps" already has this done. There's a good example. Tcatron565 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does the main page have no history as a proposal? Someone just made a guideline and labeled it as such? That doesn't seem proper to me. Wikipedia's gradually gaining the problem of having too many policies and guidelines to follow. However, if theres consensual support that this page is very useful - then so be it. Anyone want to verify that they support this page as a guideline? Fresheneesz 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've seen table bonita being used in some articles, is this allowed? Or is it supposed to be the normal table? ~ E meZxX 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why aren't the charts allowed to show how many weeks a song was at number one? It's easier to measure a songs success with the amount of weeks included, a song which spent 14 weeks at number one on any given chart is more successful than one that spent one week. I think that's notable. -- Thankyoubaby 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It should be detailed within the article only, however, perhaps the weeks could be listed next to the chart position if it's written as "(x)" instead of "(x week[s])". Velten 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The relevant discussion is here. The current guideline states that subscript numbers should have a space between the chart name and itself. I find this questionable; why create unnecessary space and widen the table when they could simply be beside each other? This makes them look untidy too. My proposition is the following (taken from Cool (song)):
Chart (2005) | Peak position |
---|---|
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play1 | 1 |
instead of
Chart (2005) | Peak position |
---|---|
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1 | 1 |
Thoughts? Velten 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It says that Billboard component charts shouldn't be used. Does this apply just to Billboard component charts or to all component charts? — ShadowHalo 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the main article specifically mentions singles, but not albums. Is there a separate charting guideline for albums that I've yet to discover, or is this a catch-all? If so, should the first line not be modified to reflect a wider coverage than just singles? -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as a few select people have a vendetta against chart trajectories. I propose to just have the 'United World Chart' which will allow everyone else to still be able to see the songs performance week by week. -- Bojach 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
United World Chart [1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |||||||||||
Position | 1
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
10
|
13
|
20
|
19
|
24
|
23
|
28
|
33
|
31
| |||||||||||
Sales | 615,000
|
327,000
|
257,000
|
184,000
|
143,000
|
112,000
|
103,000
|
90,000
|
76,000
|
71,000
|
70,000
|
66,000
|
66,000
|
73,000
| |||||||||||
Total | 615,000
|
942,000
|
1,199,000
|
1,383,000
|
1,526,000
|
1,638,000
|
1,741,000
|
1,831,000
|
1,907,000
|
1,978,000
|
2,048,000
|
2,114,000
|
2,180,000
|
2,253,000
|
Just an example showing the position, sales/airplay for that week and cumulative sales/airplay.
Since only ten national charts should appear in a chart, how does one determine which countries' single charts are more notable than others? — ShadowHalo 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It'd be nice to settle the issue with chart trajectories, since there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus regarding them. So, my proposal:
A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article, even if it is verifiable. Including the chart trajectory constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories should instead be described in the text of the article or in a table for charts. — ShadowHalo 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There should be more expansion; no Billboard component charts and no "component-ish charts". At Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song), one user has indicated that the ARIA Digital Chart is not a component chart of the main chart, and wants to permit its inclusion. Because Stefani is not Australian, I find this unnecessary. (Additional charts should really only be used for that artist's heartland.) Velten 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have moved this page for two reasons: (1) The previous title was clumsy. (2) The guideline was originally created to address how to format tables for charts (hence, "tables for charts"). However, I believe the guideline's scope should be expanded to cover all aspects of music charts that may be relevant to Wikipedians (the discussion seems to be moving in this direction naturally). It would be useful to list reliable resources Wikipedians can use to find chart data, and to indicate which charts are notable, for example. Punctured Bicycle 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As Punctured Bicycle mentioned above, this page is progressing from a how-to into a full guideline. Therefore, a need has arisen for expansion and clarification of acceptable practices and resources that can be used. So, here's a checklist I've come up with of tasks that might result in information useful to the end users. Let's get some discussion going...feel free to add, subtract, modify these.
These are certainly not intended as items that need to be done quickly; rather, I fully expect it could take some time for everything to come together. However, I would suggest it is stuff that needs to be done for this guideline to be taken as fully serious among the entire community. I admit, I'm quite new to dealing with charts...I actually only arrived after beginning maintenance of Evanescence articles, so I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and suggestions.
I always assumed that since no chart positions are boldfaced in the guideline that this is how the tables should be formatted.... I am wondering what people thought about specifically mentioning the discouragement of boldfacing chart positions, specifically number-ones? I see it a lot. It looks bad, and I feel this shows a POV - drawing attention to certain charts and/or countries where a song/album obtained a number one position. An extremely popular or best-selling release can be kept from number one for any number of reasons.... a number one album could very easily sell thousands or millions less than a number-six album that remained popular for months or years. Any thoughts on this? - eo 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Per discussions above and the length of time which has passed since the last comments, I've added the following points to the guideline:
If anyone has issues with these or if my wording can be improved, feel free to discuss here or change what I have added. - eo 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I wish to know what valid reasons there are for having music tables in articles, since articles are articles and not lists.
Criterion 1. a. of "What is a featured article?" asks for "compelling, brilliant prose", yet despite music charts being allowed in past FAs they're still a clear violation of that criterion. Charts can be turned into prose, but editors choose to present them in tables to make it easier for themselves, which essentially dumbs down articles. Essentially this guideline is encouraging violations of FA criteria - we need to remember we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a database of lists (unless an article is trying to be an FL). Lists should only be used in articles where there's no alternative, though in this case there's a definite alternative - Featured Articles and Featured Lists should be differentiated with as much as possible. LuciferMorgan 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that there is related discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. ShadowHalo 01:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." In my view, that applies here. There's a lot of information we can include in an album article: record chart placings, accolades and awards, release history, quotes, trivia, etc. But information is not very interesting tacked on at the end of an article like an appendix. It's more interesting when incorporated with the rest of the prose. That requires that we be judicious—cutting less important information—but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia after all. Comprehensive data listings can be moved to a discography article or delegated to external links if they need be included. Punctured Bicycle 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the article for country group Diamond Rio includes the songs' peaks for both Billboard and R&R's country charts. I think this is a very good idea, and I wish more artists' pages featured the peaks for both charts. I just changed the headings in that article to "US Country (Billboard)" and "US Country (R&R)". Does anyone else think that this is a good idea (the way I've set up the headers)?
By the way, if anyone can help me find some older R&R peaks for Toby Keith's songs, I'd appreciate it. I've got about 2/3 of them so far. TenPoundHammer 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, does anyone else think that including the R&R charts is a good idea? I'm so damn sick of people accidentally putting the R&R or Mediabase peaks under the "Hot Country Songs" column because they don't realize that, until last year, R&R and Billboard were separate entities. So far, I've only done it at pages where there's been confusion (e.g. Jamie O'Neal, Rachel Proctor); in fact, with the latter, it seems that the artist herself is the one who got confused and posted the R&R peaks under "Hot Country Songs"! TenPoundHammer 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing changes made, so I figure I should ask here. Nielsen Soundscan is still the official Canadian chart, even with the new Billboard Canadian Hot 100 chart, right? If so, should tables be using Nielsen and not Billboard positions? ShadowHalo 21:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If the song is a current single, is it okay to replace "Peak position" with "Current position" on the chart table? That's what I do. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 14:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy of a May 2007 IFPI report:
It's important to note that this list only represents record sales in 2006 — individual market sizes are sure to have varied from year to year — but it provides a good guide as to what charts, sales and certification info/statistics should and shouldn't be included in some articles. Extraordinary Machine 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi people. I am in the process of trying to save the Ray of Light GA (currently being reviewed), and one of the things it is criticized for is that the charts and certifications are not sourced. I googled all I could, but couldn't find any good source out of the UK and billboard charts. Is there a place where all the good links go? Thanks in advance, -- SidiLemine 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I cannot see why charting of data for peak positions per country is acceptable as being a non collection of indiscriminate information, where as the UWC detail above is considered the opposite? I can see the usefulness of both, but one is acceptable, and one is not, why? In using the UWC example above, you can see a detail on sales that cannot be reflected in prose. i.e The album has sold 2.253 million copies, but if you add this as prose, it is not referenceable as the figure is not on that site, it is an accumulation of smaller references. This would make it original research and likely to be removed. As sales and certifications are an important part of discographies, how is this supposed to be managed within the current guidelines? Also, if you find a site that says xxx album sold xxx sales, yyy album sold yyy sales, and you combine these in the article, is this accumulation not the same as above but on a lesser scale? Can someone please put to rest my confusion? Maggott2000 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There has been some discussion at Talk:4 in the Morning#Chart on the inclusion of the Romanian Singles Chart in the 4 in the Morning article. The position has been added and removed in an extended low-level edit war, so an outside opinion on how the guideline should be interpreted would be helpful. 17Drew 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've changed a table listing number 1s to span rows for the same song, which makes it easier to see how many weeks a song held the position consecutively. Compare unspanned and spanned. Any reasons to keep the old display? -- Jeandré, 2007-09-25 t14:21z
Anyone know where to find German charts? I can find the current positions, but not any archives. the wub "?!" 09:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to ask whether it is acceptable to use class="wikitable sortable"
instead of/as well as class="wikitable"
? I mean, it adds a sortability function which can be very usefull for navigation. Any opinions? --
¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤
20:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have observed that charts for song pages seems to be contradicting. Other pages have charts with alphabetized arrangement, meaning, all country positions are alphabetically ordered irregardless of positions which is quite good because it's a NPOV. However, other too is not the same. It is being ranked which makes the other positions inferior and is a POV. Lets get rid of these. BritandBeyonce ( talk• contribs) 07:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
class="wikitable sortable"
allows for both sides to view the table however they please. --
Huntster
T •
@ •
C
08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)This might not be the correct forum for this cuz I'm seeing it more in discography tables, but I wanted to get some consensus on whether or not the display of United World Chart "points" is notable or whether it falls in the WP:NOT#INFO category. I feel that these fall into the latter - supposedly these "points" are derived from sales, airplay and "votes" (whatever that is) and I'm now seeing pop-music-female-artist discographies with columns displaying various point amounts. Seems kind of iffy to me and I've been removing them.... although I'll stop it if these are found to be notable. Anyone know what I'm talking about? An example here. Should I take this to a different Talk Page? Any opinions? - eo 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What about adding the flag icons to the chart table. I noticed many tables on Wikipedia that list countries all use the flag icons. For example: List of countries by population. Well I made up an example one on one of the pages I created, and here is what it would look like:
Chart (2003) [2] | Peak position |
---|---|
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
15 |
![]() |
3 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
27 |
![]() |
44 |
![]() |
14 |
![]() |
8 |
![]() |
11 |
![]() |
15 |
![]() |
3 |
![]() |
1 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
17 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
8 |
![]() |
11 |
1
Eurochart Hot 100
2
United World Chart
What does everyone think? --
Thankyoubaby
01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering what people's opinions are on using the
Euro 200 chart instead of/in addition to the Billboard
Eurochart Hot 100 Singles (I notice that
Euro 200 redirects there). My personal opinion is that althouh the Euro 200 chart uses information from more European countries, it's not an official chart and shouldn't be used. However, many articles do use it.
anemoneI
projectors
20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have composed a list of Billboard charts I think are appropriate for Wikipedia articles. With some extra rules. Ones that are most imporatant are bolded.
Singles:
Albums:
Tcatron565 ( talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Has any standard been given yet for listing peaks for songs that entered the Bubbling Under chart, but not the actual Billboard Hot 100? Convention seems to indicate that 1xx numbers are used for Bubbling Under peaks when listed alongside Hot 100 peaks (e.g. #101 = #1 on Bubbling Under, #102 = #2 on Bubbling Under, etc.).
But what would be advisable if an artist has had several Bubbling Under entries, without ever actually entering the Hot 100 proper (e.g. the Warren Brothers)? Should it still be a Hot 100 column with numbers in the 101-125 range, or should it just be a "Bubbling Under" column instead? Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the following questions have already been brought up, but I'll make them anyway.
After a discussion between myself and Funk Junkie ( talk · contribs), we thought it would be a good idea to bring a matter regarding chart names here. Certain charts, such as the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and the Hot Dance Club Play, have had name changes over the years. In song and album articles, it would make sense to list the chart under its name at the time the song or album was on the chart. What Funk Junkie and I were wondering about concerns artist articles that mention individual singles that appeared on charts between separate name changes—should the same name be used to refer to the chart throughout the article, or should the different names be used according to what the chart's name was when each single charted? I believe that the latter is preferable, and Funk Junkie agrees, but we thought we'd take the matter here for other editors' input. Extraordinary Machine ( talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think that there should be a set of criteria for singles tables in discographies/artist pages? (e.g. the tables at LeAnn Rimes discography#Singles, Emerson Drive#Singles) I've noticed a bit of content dispute over these kinds of tables, and would like to propose a set of guidelines for such tables (e.g., proper order of the chart rows, relevant footnotes, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know how these fit into the grand scheme of things? I've seen them quoted on a couple of occasions yet the peaks don't match those quoted for the same songs on the "official" charts for those countries. Leipzigger98 ( talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused about sourcing for charts. Are the resources listed at the end of this article a list of WP:RS? I looked at a couple of featured articles that used allmusic as a source, but Gangsta Grillz: The Album is not listed. What is listed is a forum called ukmix.org, which I would have zapped if not finding it being heavily used as a source: [ [2]] Flowanda | Talk 16:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering, Thriller 25 has what looks to me like a silly amount of charts. Any views? Right now it lists 34 charts. United World, Europe, both Belgian charts, Hong Kong, USA Catalog, USA comprehensive and 26 national charts. Surely this is excessive? Thing is, I'd not really know.( The Elfoid ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
by Langdon ( talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)i7114080 In Carrie Underwood discography, Omghgomg and I argued about formats. I've held a mini-vote on this, but Omghgomg didn't approve, and he used excuses to persuade me not to change and keep his formats. Those things are really personal, but I think we need discussions to unite the formats.
Here are some examples: (The examples are all correct, and they contain all information needed.)
1.
|
2.
| ||||||||||||||
3.
|
4.
|
For this one, there isn't a result after mini-vote. I would say a lot of discographies use #1, but I don't think that's good. The label will repeat so many times. This is what I've said the other day about release date: "we can briefly know when a album is out by looking at the year column. month and date is not very important because most country artist do not release 2 albums in the same year. it is not really necessery. and, do we have to do the same thing to singles too?" In country discographies, #4 is usually used, and it is simple. If the artist had more than a record label, we usually use a column like #2 to show. Example: Reba McEntire discography
|
|
About this one, of course the right one is more comprehensible.
Year | Single | Peak chart positions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US Country | US Hot 100 | US Pop 100 | US AC | US Digital | ||
2005 | " Bless the Broken Road" | 50 | — | — | — | — |
"—" denotes releases that did not chart.
Year | Single | Peak chart positions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US Country | US Hot 100 | US Pop 100 | US AC | US Digital | ||
2005 | " Bless the Broken Road" | 50 |
"blank" denotes releases that did not chart.
There are a lot of arguement on this one. Please see Talk:Carrie Underwood discography#Voting
Year | Single | Album |
---|---|---|
2007 | "Just a Dream" | Carnival Ride |
" Do You Hear What I Hear" | Hear Something Country Christmas 2007 |
Year | Single | Album |
---|---|---|
2007 | "Just a Dream" | Carnival Ride |
" Do You Hear What I Hear" | Hear Something Country Christmas 2007 |
In most country discographies, we use the right one.