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. |
Could I have someone with a Whitburn book or some other archive please check the discography for Los Lobos? I know only that the country peaks are in the right order, and I don't know where to find Mainstream Rock Tracks archives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this a valid source for Bulgaria?, apparently is linked to the IFPI, they have an archive at the bottom made by Nielsen [1]. Frcm1988 ( talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment If it's added to GoodCharts does that mean Bulgarian chart listings prior to this date from Acharts.us can be added? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added this to WP:GOODCHARTS. For now, add a pointer to WT:Record charts#Bulgarian charts in your edit summary when you add this chart. It wouldn't hurt to add a hidden comment that reads <!-- New Bulgarian chart listed at WP:GOODCHARTS -->, next to the chart position, too. That way, you'll have less problems with editors that weren't following the discussion reverting your change.— Kww( talk) 04:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Is this only an Airplay chart as that's all i can see listed on GOODCHARTS? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kww, sorry to bother you again, I was searching for certifications in China, and I wasn't aware Hong Kong have a separate certification assocciation, the page have certifications from 1977 to 2008 (some years are missing) and are divided in gold and platinum, in addition to national and international artists. [3] The page link to IFPI but apparently it could easy be a hoax so I m not reliying on that, so is this a valid source to add for Hong Kong sales? Frcm1988 ( talk) 22:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Billboard credits " I Hope You Dance" to "Lee Ann Womack with Sons of the Desert," but Joel Whitburn only says "Sons of the Desert (backing vocal)." There seems to be a slight precedent of "When in doubt, go with Whitburn." Since SotD was removed from List of 2000s one-hit wonders in the United States for not receiving credit in Whitburn's book, should Lee Ann's and SotD's discographies match that page? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:GOODCHARTS for Netherlands SINGLES:
Sales: GfK Dutch Single Top 100
Airplay: Dutch Top 40
Comments: Weekly archive incorporated directly into charts. The Mega Single Top 100 is a component of the Dutch Top 40, and should only be used if the single did not chart on the Dutch Top 40.
Questions:
Still not specifically answered:
Is "The Mega Single Top 100" the same thing as "GfK Dutch Single Top 100"?
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know what's up with Acharts and why it's broke?
Also German charts aside from Acharts is there a way to see the full Top 100 without being a registered user?
Acharts has been down for a while but I would like to know Mariah Carey: Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel chart postion on the albums chart and Whitney Houston's double A-side single "Million Dollar Bill". The latter is listed as 41 on it's page but without verification. I would like to verify it. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www2.esmas.com/ritmoson/noticias/102058/tiene-kany-garcia-boleto-entrada-al-primer-lugar references a chart in Billboard that ranks Puerto Rican album sales. Can someone that subscribes to billboard.biz or the physical magazine verify the existence of such a chart?— Kww( talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I read a little while ago on a page that if the source wasn't stable or a searchable database it's not allowed. I can't remember which article I read that on but the UK R&B Chart has no stable source. I think it should be listen on "Deprecated charts" for that reason. What is everyone's opinion on this? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I understand now. which magazine do you mean? Jayy008 ( talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the UK R&B CHART a "component" of the UK Singles Chart? So then similar to "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart."?— Iknow23 ( talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Dead links... I clicked on the GOODCHARTS links but they're dead. Someone help Jayy008 ( talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood for a 3RR writeup today, so I will simply remind people of this discussion and point them at Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song). Anonymous editors keep inserting a one-off Crowley Broadcast Analysis report as if it is a published chart again.— Kww( talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, we now have http://billboard.br.com/# ? Opinions on the legitimacy are welcome.— Kww( talk) 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...it's a tough call. We don't have proof either way (at least, for now). But they have twitter! :P SKS ( talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
'Suspicous' this website looks very suspicious, I can finally get on it but the only links that work are the ones that take you to U.S.A. Hot 100 or Billboard 200. When I click on the links to charts the website itself runs nothing at all happens Jayy008 ( talk) 18:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree if the Brazillian user could look for it physically that be a great help! Jayy008 ( talk) 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No it is "What are you waiting for, check out this and other rankings in the print edition and will soon be available here on the site." wait wait. The charts wiil be in action. Vitor Mazuco Msg 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Is a week charts, no month chart. Because have charts number with least weeks. Vitor Mazuco Msg 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I do the article Billboard Brasil. Vitor Mazuco Msg 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the link supposed to just take you to their homepage? If so, can somebody help me navigate to their albums chart? Jayy008 ( talk) 16:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
this link Takes me to the Japanese chart lists on GOODCHARTS singles but looks like the albums chart? I can't make heads or tails of it.
Also this link takes me to Oricon albums from the link on GOODCHARTS but looks like a singles chart.
On a final note why are Billboard's Japan Hot 100 and Japan Albums Chart so different from anything on Oricon? Jayy008 ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, chaos is descending, but anyone could have predicted that. We all agreed to wait, but that hasn't influenced anyone else. I think we need to have a consistent response.
We do have this link. It's undated, but since it's the first chart, I think the date is obvious. There's no interval provided. It also doesn't have a permanent link: when they update the chart, it's going to upload over all these positions. That leaves us with a few choices:
— Kww( talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Many people have begun adding it I've noticed. I like option 2 if you can save the reference to use later, that would be good, do set up something on Wikipedia like you did with their albums chart perhaps? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Should International charts like Japan International Albums Chart be included when it charts on the main chart? It just adds unecassary length to the chart section I don't think it should be allowed.
Is it? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
what does everyone make of this link?
I'm confused as to why this site is being referenced. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I've added this to the page... "In Brazil the album is in the top sales list of different music stores including Saraiva and FNAC and according to Hot100Brasil.com, the album is #1 most sold in the country for the second consecutive week." Tell me if I should edit the Hot100Brasil part out but it does say "according too". But if not I'll delete that and keep the part about the music stores. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought that is the case but I just discovered at
WP:MUSTARD#Record charts
"10. Charts should be arranged with the chart from the artist's country of origin first, followed by other countries in alphabetical order."
I don't see this mentioned on the project page here? We should make it clear at both places as to what is the way to do it. —
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. It has been changed per consensus to:
10. Charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order.
AND added to the project page here —
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just me, but the Spanish Chart Promusicae isn't currently working. I have a dead link on No Line on the Horizon which has been in effect since at least 20 August 2009. Does anyone know if there's a reason for the lengthy downtime? It's really not good news for me since NLOTH is up for FAC right now. :S MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ singlechart}} is nearly ready for rollout. Documentation is at {{ singlechart}}, and I've converted two articles: Sneakernight and My Life Would Suck Without You. Please take a look, and tell me what you think.
The most visible change is the elimination of the fake chart titles: there generally isn't really a chart named "<countryname> Singles Chart", so it always expands to "<countryname> (<chartname>)". This is obviously open to discussion.— Kww( talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
←hmmm, could the ref citations be differentiated in their display? Maybe add the Chart name? For example ALL the Billboard's show as "Billboard Vanessa Hudgens Album & Song Chart History" but they DO GO to different url's. As it currently stands, one would be tempted to combine the ref citations into a,b,c etc. as they APPEAR the same. — Iknow23 ( talk) 02:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, coming along nicely. Gonna be a bit to grasp, but I'm sure we'll manage. No certifications? Kiac ( talk) 03:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This brings up an issue I was getting ready to discuss anyway. BOTH of the examples show the ref in the Chart name cell, rather than the Peak position cell.
I support this showing the ref in the Chart name cell. Showing it in the Peak position cell looks cluttered with the 2 numbers (the Actual position + the ref numbering). If we can get consensus then the project page will need to reflect this change. "All of these example tables include indicators to show correct location of references." I think generally everyone is doing it this way (ref in Chart name cell) anyway. — Iknow23 ( talk) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Sort|01|1}}<ref>blah, blah, blah</ref>
gets around the sorting issue in the peak chart column. --
JD554 (
talk)
08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Done Project page edited to reflect consensus. — Iknow23 ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on Kiac's request for a certification template to match the single template, and having no fun at all with France. http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165 returns blank screens after filling in the search info, and I can't get http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php to return any certifications since 2004. Anyone else have better luck?— Kww( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reliable site that records data in the UK from chart positions 101-200? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. ChartStats as far as I can see, nothing has been false. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
hey guys, would it be possible to set up a section which has a list of chart sourcing sites which are agreed to be 100% reliable and acceptable for use. because as an editor of discographies it is really frustrating at FLC discussions when reviewers cant seem to agree whether a site is reliable or not. it would be nice to just say "well take a look here, it states the site is perfectly reliable". i thought that was the whole point of WP:GOODCHARTS, but reviewers just say "just because its listed there doesnt prove its reliability", its really annoying! what are your thoughts? :) Mister sparky ( talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where can I find UK year end chart? I've found this, but it has only year end top 10 from 1994 til 2006. Does anyone know where can I find year end chart for years 2007 and 2008? -- SveroH ( talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear to me if Mediabase can be used as a source for a chart ranking. It sounds like it can if a song hasn't gone high enough to enter a Billboard chart, but I would like clarification on that. And if it can be used, should it be titled Mediabase AC or something like that? Also, do I assume correctly that if the song does end up doing well enough to enter a Billboard chart, then the listing would be changed to show the Billboard ranking? 144.51.89.67 ( talk) 13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It says "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables". In the article, component chart, it says that component charts for the Billboard Hot 100 are Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales. Within each of these articles, it also says these are the three component charts that determine the chart positions of singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. But then, in articles such as Pop Songs, Alternative Songs, it says these are charts based on radio airplay and are component charts of the Billboard Hot 100. There seems to be some inconsistency here in the definitions. If the Alternative Songs chart is a component chart, then based on WP:CHARTS, the chart should not be listed within song articles that it charted on unless it didn't reach the Hot 100. If Alternative Songs is allowed, then so should charting on Pop Songs, since they both measure airplay within a specific genre. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 17:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Recently I’ve found excessive Billboard chart listings littering numerous album pages here on wikipedia. For example; (and this is just one of many) Metallica’s Death Magnetic debuted at number 1 on the Billboard 200 in September 2008. Listing that it charted at number 1 on the Billboard 200 should be suffice, but it seems to be wiki culture to also include information that it charted at number 1 on the Billboard Top Rock Albums, Billboard Top Hard Rock Albums, and Billboard Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums. That gives four charts for one country when listing the Billboard 200 (the comprehensive chart in the U.S. region) should be the priority. (Why Billboard has so many charts is beyond me, but that’s another topic).
Some additional charting information is easily understood, such as Billboard's Top Heatseekers chart for new/upcoming acts that have yet (if ever) to reach the Top 100 of the Billboard 200. But listing multiple charts for one region makes it confusing to understand exactly where the album charted in the U.S. and I feel litters a given album’s page with superfluous information. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
← I began a discussion page a while back about these - component charts have forever been an in-progress discussion it seems. Perhaps now more people are interested in building upon which ones carry more "weight", so to speak?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion
also, to just answer an earlier question about why Billboard has so many charts... people forget that all of it began as a tool for the recording industry. It's all about marketing, genres, target-audiences, etc. Trust me it seems ridiculous at times for there to be "so many" charts but Billboard would not have created any of them unless there was a demand for it. And I'm sure there are a bunch of suits sitting in offices every week combing through them all to see how well their "product" is doing, in which markets, etc. -
eo (
talk)
23:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
←Jayy008 said, "Components of components shouldn't be allowed!" + more of what he said. This is the exact reason why I suggest "Tree Charts" to display all these relationships.
To: IllaZilla... If component charts are even mentioned in text, where the item charted on a main chart, I would say that IT MUST be mentioned that the component chart info is ALSO included in the MAIN chart info that is shown in the same section and/or other sections of the page. Without such mention, THAT PORTION of the information is given DOUBLE weight, which is MISLEADING. As regards to placing the component chart info in a Chart Box on the page...If we allow it to be done at all...At least put it in a SEPARATE Chart Box titled "Component charts" with a footnote at the "Component charts" chart header explaining the nature that the component chart info is also included in the MAIN charts info that are shown on the page. Thus the reader will know NOT to give the items in the "Component chart" Chart Box equal weight to those in the 'regular' Chart Box that potentially shows many countries. —
Iknow23 (
talk)
23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Revisit: With the addition of the Rock Songs chart, aren't the Alternative and Hot Mainstream Rock charts now only component charts to the Rock Songs chart, which is itself an airplay-only chart and a component to the Hot 100. Mainstream Rock isn't even notable enough to include in its print or online editions. Since Billboard seems to be treating all their genre charts equally, and even listing Pop Songs first among them [4], isn't it bias on anyone's part to exclude one over the other. Especially since sources on these articles on WP are either nonexistent or out of date. Another site, Radio-info.com [5], also treats these various genre charts equally. So why not allow the main genre charts but not components of these components (e.g. Pop Songs/Top 40 ok but not Adult Pop/Top 40; Latin ok but not Latin pop; etc.) -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Cross-over, multi genre and component charts such as Adult Top 40, Radio Top 40, Latin Pop songs, Latin Dance songs etc. should not be allowed as they are aggregated together to form the main charts listed above. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 12:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
I have a question regarding Ultratop. For the second time now, instead of a peak position, I see "tip [some number here]" when a song makes it to a Belgian chart (as seen here and here). In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea what this means. Could some shed some light to clarify its meaning? — ξ xplicit 17:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
To Kww, what do you mean by not archived? The chart itself or the songs that chart on the chart? for example here which has all the chartings for this song on Hung Medien. It says Tip next to it when it didn't chart on the normal singles chart but as far as I can tell, it's only a recent thing Jayy008 ( talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't read the Dutch/French part properly. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
← Oh crap, those Ultratip peaks are temporary. On another note, there seems to be a chart for downloads (assuming Babel Fish translated that correctly). So now, my question is, is musiqueinfo.com a legitimate site for this download-only chart? — ξ xplicit 05:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we reach consensus on the inclusion of what now seems to be the component charts of the new Rock Songs chart, i.e. the Mainstream and Alternative rock charts. It is a bit excessive to include three rock charts for a single song. I'm all for including the top level genre chart, but sub-genres? Especially with one (Mainstream Rock) that doesn't even seem very notable within Billboard itself anymore. I would say, as from the inception of the Rock Songs chart in mid-'09, that only the main Rock chart should be allowed, unless it doesn't reach the Rock chart (although I don't know how notable a song would be if doesn't chart there but does on one of the sub-genre charts). I find it a bit inconsistent as well for some to remove Pop Songs from a song article's chart table but have no problem leaving two to three rock charts listed. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The component charts should be specifically defined as the Hot 100 Airplay, Digital Songs, Singles Sales charts and different criteria should define the inclusion of the genre charts. Rock Songs measures airplay on some 170 rock-oriented radio stations, Pop Songs measures airplay from around 130 Top 40 stations, AC monitors under 100 AC stations. To discuss your thoughts on specific charts, I suggest going to eo's page he put up at Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion. The issue I wanted to discuss here was the need to have two to three rock charts shown on the table when only one (Rock Songs) is needed now. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
ARIA now publishes ARIA Top 100 Albums (main chart) and ARIA Top 100 Physical Albums and has a similar thing with the singles. acharts appears to publish the ARIA Top 100 Physical Albums. eg Gurrumul reached #3 on the Top 100 Albums and #4 on the Top 100 Physical Albums ( an ARIA report showing both peaks) and acharts ( link) has it peaking at #4. (Hung Medien lists it at #3 [6]). Duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Can Billboard Brasil Hot 100 be added to charts? is there any archive for this chart? -- SveroH ( talk) 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
As the sales certification page has very limited people using the discussion I thought I'd bring it here.
I was wandering when taking into consideration Shakira's album sales do you consider her a domestic artist for places like Colombia, Brazil and Spain etc, if so then the certification barriers would be different? Jayy008 ( talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
What I want to know is that since Shakira is practicaly Spanish when adding the sales to her page for say Platinum in mexico would say use the domestic sales number or the international sales number? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Jayy008 ( talk) 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
this link is being used as citation for Croatian Airplay Chart in Million Dollar Bill by Whitney Houston. To me it looks like an individual radio station and not a full listing of all in the country. Is it acceptable for use? Jayy008 ( talk) 13:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I made an edit recently, removing such here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nanchatte_Renai&diff=prev&oldid=322573297 but this project page says "Chart trajectories should instead be briefly described in the text of the article or in a table for charts." Some editor(s) have been reverting or changing my edits to include trajectories in these tables. Should trajectories be left out or are they allowed in such tables? ☆ Charles Nguyễn 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE:
PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE (option 4):
A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article's text, table or charts as this constitutes an
indiscriminate collection of information. Key facts about chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a
sleeper hit and peaked at number 1; or, where relevant, number of weeks spent at peak position or number of weeks in total on the Chart).
PL290 (
talk)
20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, i think the rules are quite clear. The chart table should ONLY have the peak position of the album/single which should be kept up to date as the song/album is released. Many albums these days have a "Commericial reception" section which i think is fine but details about trejectory should be limited to the debut position, the peak position and the date that the release dropped out of the charts if known. some albums have become ridiculously detailed with week-by-week chart positions. This really isn't required. what do you think? ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
← There is general agreement here. Only question was to use Option 3 or Option 4? Each in their final form is the result of the collaboration process and taking into account the views of other contributors. After allowing extra time for all that had input to participate, I've reviewed the specific votes on the two versions. I can count three votes for Option 3 and two votes for Option 4. The project page has thus been edited to incorporate Option 3.
Thank You to all participants.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This may seem like a stupid question to some but I am confused about this. Midweeks look like Obsessed (normal version) is going to chart in the UK on Sunday. The remix version has charted a few months ago so if the normal version charts should 2 separate UK Singles Chart be included in the charts table, or the highest one. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Chart (2009)
|
Peak position |
---|
or as a outside header, such as:
Remix version, featuring Gucci Mane
Chart (2009) | Peak position |
---|
— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The 18 chart max ban, does it really have to be in effect? The 18 charts that people list are the places where it charts highest, it gives a very unfair representation of how well the album or single actually does. When the charts get to long they can simply be split into two sections which is done for alot of artists.
What is everyone's opinions on this? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with KIAC. What often ends up happening is that it can be difficult to source some charts and so you have to look to WP:GOODCHARTS to work out which charts could be included. What i propose is that WP:record charts be updated. It should state the reasons given above for having a maximum of 18 charts and should be listed in the introduction. It should say something like
“ | an article should contain no more than 18 charts which must all be IFPI registered unless the artist is not from an IFPI country | ” |
.
18 is plenty enough charts. I also suggest that we thin out WP:GOODCHARTS e.g. Bulgaria is not allowed. WP:record charts needs to list the 18 largest music markets in the world so that people know that when a release charts in more than 18 countries there is clear guidance for which can be included. Finally the page needs to be updated to include {{ Singlechart}}( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
I agree with "LilUnique" it should be written on Record Charts which countries are "bigger markets" then people know which ones to put rather than putting just the highest chart peaks then it would be a fair representation. Could somebody make these changes? Then the issue would never need to be brought up again. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think what you just wrote there should be written on Wikipedia: Record Charts and it is very informative and clears alot of things up. But I still think a list of the 18 biggest markets should be included. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that the number of legitimate and sourced charts displayed should be limited. This is the simplest and fairest way to do it, in my opinion. And in practical application, perhaps it is so that not many will chart in MUCH more than 18 charts anyway? There is a difference between charts and reviews in that a single area chart is a one row listing with a numerical designation, whereas a review could take up considerable text area on the page.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If the concern is page sprawl perhaps the "Release history" sections should be limited somehow? These sections should generally be bigger [longer] than "Chart" sections as the matter of merely being released doesn't guarantee a Chart position.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LilUnique on the many questions the user brought up on what to include in the charts. I think it should be written on Record Charts that for major international stars it should be very balanced as long as it still included the major markets UK, Germany, US, Oceania and France etc. As LilUnique said for Shakira latin American charts should be used it should be written "If an artist is from a specific region, mainly charts from their home region should be used as well as including the big markets" It should also be written in it's own right that the charts should in no way be biased, if a song reached #1 in 18 counties, those charts should not always neccesarily be used. Well that's just what I think should be mentioned anyway. Oh and about Belgium and the US and UK, it should be written that if a country has two charts that are allowed to be included, they only count as one where the 18 chart rule comes into effect e.g. Flanders and Wallonia because I didn't know this until LilUnique told me. Jayy008 ( talk) 04:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no way to gauge what the 18 biggest markets are, be reasonable guys. I think 18 countries, not charts, as the guideline would work for me. A while back I was re-writing this page, I then decided it was a bit pointless as i wasn't going to be able to make such a massive change, even if we did need it. Anyway, I wrote this, it needs to be adjusted following this discussion, but it has the gist of things: "A maximum of 18 charts should be featured in a table for an album or single article. In the case of more popular releases, there will obviously be more than this available to add. They should then be selected in accordance with the chart's relevance to the artist (eg. home country[2]) and the general notability and/or the size of the music market.". kiac. ( talk- contrib) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's quite easy to pick out the biggest markets to an extent by the sales certification in that country ie. if they have the same ammount for international artists as domestic and also if they have a valid singles chart in there own right. UK Ireland US Canada Australia New Zealand Japan Germany France Those should be listed as the biggest markets, it should be said these biggest markets should be used no matter what, then for example if you're Shakira more latino charts should be used (Spain, Mexico, Brazil) or if a song become a big hit in Europe then more EU charts should be used instead of Latino charts as long as the biggest markets that are listed above are used and as long as the total number of charts doesn't go above 18. You should in no way used the 18 charts where the song charted highest as this would create a biased summary. I know that needs alot of copyediting but I think something like that should be written. Jayy008 ( talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Using charts that have 'relevance' to the artist or genre will probably skew the Chart table to reflect the charts ONLY with the highest positions. The non-'relevant' charts that meet the criteria of also being legitimate and sourced will probably reflect lower positions, but will not be seen if the number of charts would exceed 18 according to the current discussion. Failure to display these 'hidden' charts is bias. We should be able to see not only the 'smaller' market charts that have 'relevance' but also the 'smaller' non-'relevant' charts for comparison.
If a "Song" or Album is released and it charts on a legitimate and sourced chart, it should be RELEVANT to a table displaying charts.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems I've caused a big debate and we have no direct consensus of what to do. Maybe just abolish the rule of 18 charts and use all charts as long as they're WK:GOODCHARTS. This seems like the most logical and easiest thing to do judging by people opinions. What does everyone think? Jayy008 ( talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok here's what i think we should do:
Please vote agree or disagree for each of the proposals
Ok now we finally have a consesnus. I agree 1,2,3,4! Also adding a 5, remove the WK:GOODCHARTS like Venuzuela that have no archive, there's no point in them being there because they can't be used. Who is going to make these changes? Jayy008 ( talk) 20:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well they haven't taken the time to archive them, so why are they there if they can't be used? Seems like a waste of space. Can you not archive them like you do with Brazil? Also 1) and 3) seems to be consensus so can you make those changes please. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Kevin. I know it's possible to archive a site but unless it's done is neccessary to keep it on WK:GOODCHARTS? Anyway thanks for your help can you also remove the 18 chart rule from the page as I think enough people want it gone. Jayy008 ( talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we please stop the whole: 1. Make a suggestion 2. I agree 3. I agree 4. Let's implement it. You need to discuss these things, at the moment there's been about 10 proposals in this discussion, which is not all that long of a conversation. And we've just moved on an on, giving some of us no opportunity to reply. I am loving the enthusiasm, just hold your horses and let us evaluate these things properly please. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kiac, let's talk about the current issues. I've removed the 18 chart rule from the page because everyone agrees (from what I can tell) I just propose adding a part saying any number of charts can be used as long as they're reliably sourced and are IFPI affiliated unless the artists home country is not IFPI. That's all. Jayy008 ( talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely, if you could implement them that would be good! Jayy008 ( talk) 16:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
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. |
Could I have someone with a Whitburn book or some other archive please check the discography for Los Lobos? I know only that the country peaks are in the right order, and I don't know where to find Mainstream Rock Tracks archives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this a valid source for Bulgaria?, apparently is linked to the IFPI, they have an archive at the bottom made by Nielsen [1]. Frcm1988 ( talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment If it's added to GoodCharts does that mean Bulgarian chart listings prior to this date from Acharts.us can be added? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added this to WP:GOODCHARTS. For now, add a pointer to WT:Record charts#Bulgarian charts in your edit summary when you add this chart. It wouldn't hurt to add a hidden comment that reads <!-- New Bulgarian chart listed at WP:GOODCHARTS -->, next to the chart position, too. That way, you'll have less problems with editors that weren't following the discussion reverting your change.— Kww( talk) 04:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Is this only an Airplay chart as that's all i can see listed on GOODCHARTS? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kww, sorry to bother you again, I was searching for certifications in China, and I wasn't aware Hong Kong have a separate certification assocciation, the page have certifications from 1977 to 2008 (some years are missing) and are divided in gold and platinum, in addition to national and international artists. [3] The page link to IFPI but apparently it could easy be a hoax so I m not reliying on that, so is this a valid source to add for Hong Kong sales? Frcm1988 ( talk) 22:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Billboard credits " I Hope You Dance" to "Lee Ann Womack with Sons of the Desert," but Joel Whitburn only says "Sons of the Desert (backing vocal)." There seems to be a slight precedent of "When in doubt, go with Whitburn." Since SotD was removed from List of 2000s one-hit wonders in the United States for not receiving credit in Whitburn's book, should Lee Ann's and SotD's discographies match that page? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:GOODCHARTS for Netherlands SINGLES:
Sales: GfK Dutch Single Top 100
Airplay: Dutch Top 40
Comments: Weekly archive incorporated directly into charts. The Mega Single Top 100 is a component of the Dutch Top 40, and should only be used if the single did not chart on the Dutch Top 40.
Questions:
Still not specifically answered:
Is "The Mega Single Top 100" the same thing as "GfK Dutch Single Top 100"?
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know what's up with Acharts and why it's broke?
Also German charts aside from Acharts is there a way to see the full Top 100 without being a registered user?
Acharts has been down for a while but I would like to know Mariah Carey: Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel chart postion on the albums chart and Whitney Houston's double A-side single "Million Dollar Bill". The latter is listed as 41 on it's page but without verification. I would like to verify it. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www2.esmas.com/ritmoson/noticias/102058/tiene-kany-garcia-boleto-entrada-al-primer-lugar references a chart in Billboard that ranks Puerto Rican album sales. Can someone that subscribes to billboard.biz or the physical magazine verify the existence of such a chart?— Kww( talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I read a little while ago on a page that if the source wasn't stable or a searchable database it's not allowed. I can't remember which article I read that on but the UK R&B Chart has no stable source. I think it should be listen on "Deprecated charts" for that reason. What is everyone's opinion on this? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I understand now. which magazine do you mean? Jayy008 ( talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the UK R&B CHART a "component" of the UK Singles Chart? So then similar to "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart."?— Iknow23 ( talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Dead links... I clicked on the GOODCHARTS links but they're dead. Someone help Jayy008 ( talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood for a 3RR writeup today, so I will simply remind people of this discussion and point them at Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song). Anonymous editors keep inserting a one-off Crowley Broadcast Analysis report as if it is a published chart again.— Kww( talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, we now have http://billboard.br.com/# ? Opinions on the legitimacy are welcome.— Kww( talk) 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...it's a tough call. We don't have proof either way (at least, for now). But they have twitter! :P SKS ( talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
'Suspicous' this website looks very suspicious, I can finally get on it but the only links that work are the ones that take you to U.S.A. Hot 100 or Billboard 200. When I click on the links to charts the website itself runs nothing at all happens Jayy008 ( talk) 18:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree if the Brazillian user could look for it physically that be a great help! Jayy008 ( talk) 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No it is "What are you waiting for, check out this and other rankings in the print edition and will soon be available here on the site." wait wait. The charts wiil be in action. Vitor Mazuco Msg 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Is a week charts, no month chart. Because have charts number with least weeks. Vitor Mazuco Msg 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I do the article Billboard Brasil. Vitor Mazuco Msg 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the link supposed to just take you to their homepage? If so, can somebody help me navigate to their albums chart? Jayy008 ( talk) 16:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
this link Takes me to the Japanese chart lists on GOODCHARTS singles but looks like the albums chart? I can't make heads or tails of it.
Also this link takes me to Oricon albums from the link on GOODCHARTS but looks like a singles chart.
On a final note why are Billboard's Japan Hot 100 and Japan Albums Chart so different from anything on Oricon? Jayy008 ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, chaos is descending, but anyone could have predicted that. We all agreed to wait, but that hasn't influenced anyone else. I think we need to have a consistent response.
We do have this link. It's undated, but since it's the first chart, I think the date is obvious. There's no interval provided. It also doesn't have a permanent link: when they update the chart, it's going to upload over all these positions. That leaves us with a few choices:
— Kww( talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Many people have begun adding it I've noticed. I like option 2 if you can save the reference to use later, that would be good, do set up something on Wikipedia like you did with their albums chart perhaps? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Should International charts like Japan International Albums Chart be included when it charts on the main chart? It just adds unecassary length to the chart section I don't think it should be allowed.
Is it? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
what does everyone make of this link?
I'm confused as to why this site is being referenced. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I've added this to the page... "In Brazil the album is in the top sales list of different music stores including Saraiva and FNAC and according to Hot100Brasil.com, the album is #1 most sold in the country for the second consecutive week." Tell me if I should edit the Hot100Brasil part out but it does say "according too". But if not I'll delete that and keep the part about the music stores. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought that is the case but I just discovered at
WP:MUSTARD#Record charts
"10. Charts should be arranged with the chart from the artist's country of origin first, followed by other countries in alphabetical order."
I don't see this mentioned on the project page here? We should make it clear at both places as to what is the way to do it. —
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. It has been changed per consensus to:
10. Charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order.
AND added to the project page here —
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just me, but the Spanish Chart Promusicae isn't currently working. I have a dead link on No Line on the Horizon which has been in effect since at least 20 August 2009. Does anyone know if there's a reason for the lengthy downtime? It's really not good news for me since NLOTH is up for FAC right now. :S MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ singlechart}} is nearly ready for rollout. Documentation is at {{ singlechart}}, and I've converted two articles: Sneakernight and My Life Would Suck Without You. Please take a look, and tell me what you think.
The most visible change is the elimination of the fake chart titles: there generally isn't really a chart named "<countryname> Singles Chart", so it always expands to "<countryname> (<chartname>)". This is obviously open to discussion.— Kww( talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
←hmmm, could the ref citations be differentiated in their display? Maybe add the Chart name? For example ALL the Billboard's show as "Billboard Vanessa Hudgens Album & Song Chart History" but they DO GO to different url's. As it currently stands, one would be tempted to combine the ref citations into a,b,c etc. as they APPEAR the same. — Iknow23 ( talk) 02:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, coming along nicely. Gonna be a bit to grasp, but I'm sure we'll manage. No certifications? Kiac ( talk) 03:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This brings up an issue I was getting ready to discuss anyway. BOTH of the examples show the ref in the Chart name cell, rather than the Peak position cell.
I support this showing the ref in the Chart name cell. Showing it in the Peak position cell looks cluttered with the 2 numbers (the Actual position + the ref numbering). If we can get consensus then the project page will need to reflect this change. "All of these example tables include indicators to show correct location of references." I think generally everyone is doing it this way (ref in Chart name cell) anyway. — Iknow23 ( talk) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Sort|01|1}}<ref>blah, blah, blah</ref>
gets around the sorting issue in the peak chart column. --
JD554 (
talk)
08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Done Project page edited to reflect consensus. — Iknow23 ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on Kiac's request for a certification template to match the single template, and having no fun at all with France. http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165 returns blank screens after filling in the search info, and I can't get http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php to return any certifications since 2004. Anyone else have better luck?— Kww( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reliable site that records data in the UK from chart positions 101-200? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. ChartStats as far as I can see, nothing has been false. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
hey guys, would it be possible to set up a section which has a list of chart sourcing sites which are agreed to be 100% reliable and acceptable for use. because as an editor of discographies it is really frustrating at FLC discussions when reviewers cant seem to agree whether a site is reliable or not. it would be nice to just say "well take a look here, it states the site is perfectly reliable". i thought that was the whole point of WP:GOODCHARTS, but reviewers just say "just because its listed there doesnt prove its reliability", its really annoying! what are your thoughts? :) Mister sparky ( talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where can I find UK year end chart? I've found this, but it has only year end top 10 from 1994 til 2006. Does anyone know where can I find year end chart for years 2007 and 2008? -- SveroH ( talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear to me if Mediabase can be used as a source for a chart ranking. It sounds like it can if a song hasn't gone high enough to enter a Billboard chart, but I would like clarification on that. And if it can be used, should it be titled Mediabase AC or something like that? Also, do I assume correctly that if the song does end up doing well enough to enter a Billboard chart, then the listing would be changed to show the Billboard ranking? 144.51.89.67 ( talk) 13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It says "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables". In the article, component chart, it says that component charts for the Billboard Hot 100 are Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales. Within each of these articles, it also says these are the three component charts that determine the chart positions of singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. But then, in articles such as Pop Songs, Alternative Songs, it says these are charts based on radio airplay and are component charts of the Billboard Hot 100. There seems to be some inconsistency here in the definitions. If the Alternative Songs chart is a component chart, then based on WP:CHARTS, the chart should not be listed within song articles that it charted on unless it didn't reach the Hot 100. If Alternative Songs is allowed, then so should charting on Pop Songs, since they both measure airplay within a specific genre. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 17:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Recently I’ve found excessive Billboard chart listings littering numerous album pages here on wikipedia. For example; (and this is just one of many) Metallica’s Death Magnetic debuted at number 1 on the Billboard 200 in September 2008. Listing that it charted at number 1 on the Billboard 200 should be suffice, but it seems to be wiki culture to also include information that it charted at number 1 on the Billboard Top Rock Albums, Billboard Top Hard Rock Albums, and Billboard Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums. That gives four charts for one country when listing the Billboard 200 (the comprehensive chart in the U.S. region) should be the priority. (Why Billboard has so many charts is beyond me, but that’s another topic).
Some additional charting information is easily understood, such as Billboard's Top Heatseekers chart for new/upcoming acts that have yet (if ever) to reach the Top 100 of the Billboard 200. But listing multiple charts for one region makes it confusing to understand exactly where the album charted in the U.S. and I feel litters a given album’s page with superfluous information. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
← I began a discussion page a while back about these - component charts have forever been an in-progress discussion it seems. Perhaps now more people are interested in building upon which ones carry more "weight", so to speak?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion
also, to just answer an earlier question about why Billboard has so many charts... people forget that all of it began as a tool for the recording industry. It's all about marketing, genres, target-audiences, etc. Trust me it seems ridiculous at times for there to be "so many" charts but Billboard would not have created any of them unless there was a demand for it. And I'm sure there are a bunch of suits sitting in offices every week combing through them all to see how well their "product" is doing, in which markets, etc. -
eo (
talk)
23:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
←Jayy008 said, "Components of components shouldn't be allowed!" + more of what he said. This is the exact reason why I suggest "Tree Charts" to display all these relationships.
To: IllaZilla... If component charts are even mentioned in text, where the item charted on a main chart, I would say that IT MUST be mentioned that the component chart info is ALSO included in the MAIN chart info that is shown in the same section and/or other sections of the page. Without such mention, THAT PORTION of the information is given DOUBLE weight, which is MISLEADING. As regards to placing the component chart info in a Chart Box on the page...If we allow it to be done at all...At least put it in a SEPARATE Chart Box titled "Component charts" with a footnote at the "Component charts" chart header explaining the nature that the component chart info is also included in the MAIN charts info that are shown on the page. Thus the reader will know NOT to give the items in the "Component chart" Chart Box equal weight to those in the 'regular' Chart Box that potentially shows many countries. —
Iknow23 (
talk)
23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Revisit: With the addition of the Rock Songs chart, aren't the Alternative and Hot Mainstream Rock charts now only component charts to the Rock Songs chart, which is itself an airplay-only chart and a component to the Hot 100. Mainstream Rock isn't even notable enough to include in its print or online editions. Since Billboard seems to be treating all their genre charts equally, and even listing Pop Songs first among them [4], isn't it bias on anyone's part to exclude one over the other. Especially since sources on these articles on WP are either nonexistent or out of date. Another site, Radio-info.com [5], also treats these various genre charts equally. So why not allow the main genre charts but not components of these components (e.g. Pop Songs/Top 40 ok but not Adult Pop/Top 40; Latin ok but not Latin pop; etc.) -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Cross-over, multi genre and component charts such as Adult Top 40, Radio Top 40, Latin Pop songs, Latin Dance songs etc. should not be allowed as they are aggregated together to form the main charts listed above. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 12:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
I have a question regarding Ultratop. For the second time now, instead of a peak position, I see "tip [some number here]" when a song makes it to a Belgian chart (as seen here and here). In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea what this means. Could some shed some light to clarify its meaning? — ξ xplicit 17:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
To Kww, what do you mean by not archived? The chart itself or the songs that chart on the chart? for example here which has all the chartings for this song on Hung Medien. It says Tip next to it when it didn't chart on the normal singles chart but as far as I can tell, it's only a recent thing Jayy008 ( talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't read the Dutch/French part properly. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
← Oh crap, those Ultratip peaks are temporary. On another note, there seems to be a chart for downloads (assuming Babel Fish translated that correctly). So now, my question is, is musiqueinfo.com a legitimate site for this download-only chart? — ξ xplicit 05:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we reach consensus on the inclusion of what now seems to be the component charts of the new Rock Songs chart, i.e. the Mainstream and Alternative rock charts. It is a bit excessive to include three rock charts for a single song. I'm all for including the top level genre chart, but sub-genres? Especially with one (Mainstream Rock) that doesn't even seem very notable within Billboard itself anymore. I would say, as from the inception of the Rock Songs chart in mid-'09, that only the main Rock chart should be allowed, unless it doesn't reach the Rock chart (although I don't know how notable a song would be if doesn't chart there but does on one of the sub-genre charts). I find it a bit inconsistent as well for some to remove Pop Songs from a song article's chart table but have no problem leaving two to three rock charts listed. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The component charts should be specifically defined as the Hot 100 Airplay, Digital Songs, Singles Sales charts and different criteria should define the inclusion of the genre charts. Rock Songs measures airplay on some 170 rock-oriented radio stations, Pop Songs measures airplay from around 130 Top 40 stations, AC monitors under 100 AC stations. To discuss your thoughts on specific charts, I suggest going to eo's page he put up at Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion. The issue I wanted to discuss here was the need to have two to three rock charts shown on the table when only one (Rock Songs) is needed now. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
ARIA now publishes ARIA Top 100 Albums (main chart) and ARIA Top 100 Physical Albums and has a similar thing with the singles. acharts appears to publish the ARIA Top 100 Physical Albums. eg Gurrumul reached #3 on the Top 100 Albums and #4 on the Top 100 Physical Albums ( an ARIA report showing both peaks) and acharts ( link) has it peaking at #4. (Hung Medien lists it at #3 [6]). Duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Can Billboard Brasil Hot 100 be added to charts? is there any archive for this chart? -- SveroH ( talk) 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
As the sales certification page has very limited people using the discussion I thought I'd bring it here.
I was wandering when taking into consideration Shakira's album sales do you consider her a domestic artist for places like Colombia, Brazil and Spain etc, if so then the certification barriers would be different? Jayy008 ( talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
What I want to know is that since Shakira is practicaly Spanish when adding the sales to her page for say Platinum in mexico would say use the domestic sales number or the international sales number? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Jayy008 ( talk) 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
this link is being used as citation for Croatian Airplay Chart in Million Dollar Bill by Whitney Houston. To me it looks like an individual radio station and not a full listing of all in the country. Is it acceptable for use? Jayy008 ( talk) 13:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I made an edit recently, removing such here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nanchatte_Renai&diff=prev&oldid=322573297 but this project page says "Chart trajectories should instead be briefly described in the text of the article or in a table for charts." Some editor(s) have been reverting or changing my edits to include trajectories in these tables. Should trajectories be left out or are they allowed in such tables? ☆ Charles Nguyễn 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE:
PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE (option 4):
A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article's text, table or charts as this constitutes an
indiscriminate collection of information. Key facts about chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a
sleeper hit and peaked at number 1; or, where relevant, number of weeks spent at peak position or number of weeks in total on the Chart).
PL290 (
talk)
20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, i think the rules are quite clear. The chart table should ONLY have the peak position of the album/single which should be kept up to date as the song/album is released. Many albums these days have a "Commericial reception" section which i think is fine but details about trejectory should be limited to the debut position, the peak position and the date that the release dropped out of the charts if known. some albums have become ridiculously detailed with week-by-week chart positions. This really isn't required. what do you think? ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
← There is general agreement here. Only question was to use Option 3 or Option 4? Each in their final form is the result of the collaboration process and taking into account the views of other contributors. After allowing extra time for all that had input to participate, I've reviewed the specific votes on the two versions. I can count three votes for Option 3 and two votes for Option 4. The project page has thus been edited to incorporate Option 3.
Thank You to all participants.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This may seem like a stupid question to some but I am confused about this. Midweeks look like Obsessed (normal version) is going to chart in the UK on Sunday. The remix version has charted a few months ago so if the normal version charts should 2 separate UK Singles Chart be included in the charts table, or the highest one. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Chart (2009)
|
Peak position |
---|
or as a outside header, such as:
Remix version, featuring Gucci Mane
Chart (2009) | Peak position |
---|
— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The 18 chart max ban, does it really have to be in effect? The 18 charts that people list are the places where it charts highest, it gives a very unfair representation of how well the album or single actually does. When the charts get to long they can simply be split into two sections which is done for alot of artists.
What is everyone's opinions on this? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with KIAC. What often ends up happening is that it can be difficult to source some charts and so you have to look to WP:GOODCHARTS to work out which charts could be included. What i propose is that WP:record charts be updated. It should state the reasons given above for having a maximum of 18 charts and should be listed in the introduction. It should say something like
“ | an article should contain no more than 18 charts which must all be IFPI registered unless the artist is not from an IFPI country | ” |
.
18 is plenty enough charts. I also suggest that we thin out WP:GOODCHARTS e.g. Bulgaria is not allowed. WP:record charts needs to list the 18 largest music markets in the world so that people know that when a release charts in more than 18 countries there is clear guidance for which can be included. Finally the page needs to be updated to include {{ Singlechart}}( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
I agree with "LilUnique" it should be written on Record Charts which countries are "bigger markets" then people know which ones to put rather than putting just the highest chart peaks then it would be a fair representation. Could somebody make these changes? Then the issue would never need to be brought up again. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think what you just wrote there should be written on Wikipedia: Record Charts and it is very informative and clears alot of things up. But I still think a list of the 18 biggest markets should be included. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that the number of legitimate and sourced charts displayed should be limited. This is the simplest and fairest way to do it, in my opinion. And in practical application, perhaps it is so that not many will chart in MUCH more than 18 charts anyway? There is a difference between charts and reviews in that a single area chart is a one row listing with a numerical designation, whereas a review could take up considerable text area on the page.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If the concern is page sprawl perhaps the "Release history" sections should be limited somehow? These sections should generally be bigger [longer] than "Chart" sections as the matter of merely being released doesn't guarantee a Chart position.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LilUnique on the many questions the user brought up on what to include in the charts. I think it should be written on Record Charts that for major international stars it should be very balanced as long as it still included the major markets UK, Germany, US, Oceania and France etc. As LilUnique said for Shakira latin American charts should be used it should be written "If an artist is from a specific region, mainly charts from their home region should be used as well as including the big markets" It should also be written in it's own right that the charts should in no way be biased, if a song reached #1 in 18 counties, those charts should not always neccesarily be used. Well that's just what I think should be mentioned anyway. Oh and about Belgium and the US and UK, it should be written that if a country has two charts that are allowed to be included, they only count as one where the 18 chart rule comes into effect e.g. Flanders and Wallonia because I didn't know this until LilUnique told me. Jayy008 ( talk) 04:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no way to gauge what the 18 biggest markets are, be reasonable guys. I think 18 countries, not charts, as the guideline would work for me. A while back I was re-writing this page, I then decided it was a bit pointless as i wasn't going to be able to make such a massive change, even if we did need it. Anyway, I wrote this, it needs to be adjusted following this discussion, but it has the gist of things: "A maximum of 18 charts should be featured in a table for an album or single article. In the case of more popular releases, there will obviously be more than this available to add. They should then be selected in accordance with the chart's relevance to the artist (eg. home country[2]) and the general notability and/or the size of the music market.". kiac. ( talk- contrib) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's quite easy to pick out the biggest markets to an extent by the sales certification in that country ie. if they have the same ammount for international artists as domestic and also if they have a valid singles chart in there own right. UK Ireland US Canada Australia New Zealand Japan Germany France Those should be listed as the biggest markets, it should be said these biggest markets should be used no matter what, then for example if you're Shakira more latino charts should be used (Spain, Mexico, Brazil) or if a song become a big hit in Europe then more EU charts should be used instead of Latino charts as long as the biggest markets that are listed above are used and as long as the total number of charts doesn't go above 18. You should in no way used the 18 charts where the song charted highest as this would create a biased summary. I know that needs alot of copyediting but I think something like that should be written. Jayy008 ( talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Using charts that have 'relevance' to the artist or genre will probably skew the Chart table to reflect the charts ONLY with the highest positions. The non-'relevant' charts that meet the criteria of also being legitimate and sourced will probably reflect lower positions, but will not be seen if the number of charts would exceed 18 according to the current discussion. Failure to display these 'hidden' charts is bias. We should be able to see not only the 'smaller' market charts that have 'relevance' but also the 'smaller' non-'relevant' charts for comparison.
If a "Song" or Album is released and it charts on a legitimate and sourced chart, it should be RELEVANT to a table displaying charts.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems I've caused a big debate and we have no direct consensus of what to do. Maybe just abolish the rule of 18 charts and use all charts as long as they're WK:GOODCHARTS. This seems like the most logical and easiest thing to do judging by people opinions. What does everyone think? Jayy008 ( talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok here's what i think we should do:
Please vote agree or disagree for each of the proposals
Ok now we finally have a consesnus. I agree 1,2,3,4! Also adding a 5, remove the WK:GOODCHARTS like Venuzuela that have no archive, there's no point in them being there because they can't be used. Who is going to make these changes? Jayy008 ( talk) 20:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well they haven't taken the time to archive them, so why are they there if they can't be used? Seems like a waste of space. Can you not archive them like you do with Brazil? Also 1) and 3) seems to be consensus so can you make those changes please. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Kevin. I know it's possible to archive a site but unless it's done is neccessary to keep it on WK:GOODCHARTS? Anyway thanks for your help can you also remove the 18 chart rule from the page as I think enough people want it gone. Jayy008 ( talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we please stop the whole: 1. Make a suggestion 2. I agree 3. I agree 4. Let's implement it. You need to discuss these things, at the moment there's been about 10 proposals in this discussion, which is not all that long of a conversation. And we've just moved on an on, giving some of us no opportunity to reply. I am loving the enthusiasm, just hold your horses and let us evaluate these things properly please. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kiac, let's talk about the current issues. I've removed the 18 chart rule from the page because everyone agrees (from what I can tell) I just propose adding a part saying any number of charts can be used as long as they're reliably sourced and are IFPI affiliated unless the artists home country is not IFPI. That's all. Jayy008 ( talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely, if you could implement them that would be good! Jayy008 ( talk) 16:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)