![]() | 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. |
If you need to add a note about a particular version being used in a chart, you can now add "note=<text>" with the singlechart template. It is automatically forced to small italic text under the main chart name.— Kww( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Nielsen SoundScan has announced major changes coming to the way it tabulates the weekly album sales chart. The SoundScan/Billboard 200 will now include catalog releases in the official chart alongside new albums. The chart had previously only listed releases from the previous 18 months, with older releases moved to a seperate chart. However, with this year's massive sales figures for Michael Jackson and Beatles albums, their numbers were missing from the official weekly charts.
Reuters reports that the changes go into effect for the sales week ending November 22, making the November 25 sales chart the first as a "comprehensive" chart. Jackson is the second-biggest selling artist of 2009, after Taylor Swift, and his best-of set Number Ones was the best-selling album in the country for six weeks earlier this year, though it wasn't reflected on the official chart.
In other Nielsen SoundScan news, the company has released new data on vinyl and digital music sales in 2009. For the SoundScan era, vinyl sales have set a new high point, with over two million vinyl records already sold this year. This breaks last year's record of 1.9 million.
As for digital music, four artists have broken Rihanna's digital tracks sales record (she sold 9.9 million digital songs in '08) already. So far, 11.3 million digital Michael Jackson songs have been sold, 11.1 million Lady Gaga songs have been sold this year, with 10.3 million Black Eyed Peas tunes and 9.98 million Taylor Swift songs.
Nielsen SoundScan reports that next week, the 2008 year-end digital album sales total of 65 million will be broken, as well as the one billion track sales mark. - eo ( talk) 18:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
There's also this which may be worth keeping an eye on. They're playing around with digital sales due to album leaks, seems like Nielson caving into the whinging of record labels to me.
"50 Cent's album was originally scheduled to drop on Nov. 23, but it leaked to the Internet nearly a month before that, prompting his label, Interscope Records, to push its release forward. The digital version of "Before I Self Destruct" was rush-released to Apple's iTunes Store in the U.S. last Monday (Nov. 9), ahead of the CD's bow on Monday, Nov. 16.
Because of this situation, Interscope has requested that Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan uphold an existing policy regarding album Internet leaks. In a rule instituted nearly a year ago based on industry input, a label may ask Nielsen SoundScan to hold the digital sales count of an album for up to one week -- and for Billboard to delay charting that album -- when a leak situation has resulted in a digital album beating its physical counterpart to market. As a result of this rule, "Before I Self Destruct's" first-week digital sales will be added to its overall retail sum for the week ending Nov. 22 and the album will debut on next week's chart.
Billboard, along with Nielsen SoundScan, will review the merit of maintaining this rule." kiac. ( talk- contrib) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Source:
Editor & Publisher closing after 108 years
By ANDREW VANACORE, AP Business Writer – Thu Dec 10, 1:22 pm ET
"The Nielsen Co. is selling some of its most prominent trade journals — including The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard..."
—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
in article Más (Nelly Furtado song) radiocharts.com is used as source for swiss and german airplay chart? is radiocharts.com reliable source? -- SveroH ( talk) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Why does there certification site only go up to 2006? Jayy008 ( talk) 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing argument at She Wolf (album) related to succession boxes. Thestreamer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding a succession box for the French Digital Albums chart. Lil-Unique and I have both removed it, but he keeps re-inserting it.
Lil-Unique's argument was apparently that if the chart wasn't important enough for the list of charts, it isn't important enough for a succession box, either. For the record, I disagree with this argument: a succession box is a navigation tool, and the 18 chart limit shouldn't interfere with navigation.
My argument is that a succession box where neither the predecessor nor the successor has an article isn't a useful navigation tool. The purpose of a succession box is to allow the reader to click the "next" links over and over and see the articles for each thing in the class. Things like "Presidents of the United States" are great examples. "Billboard Hot 100 Number Ones" is another, because every single that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 is likely to have an article. Most albums on the French Digital Albums chart haven't got articles and never will.
If I revert him again, I'll wind up violating 3RR, so I'm going to lay off it for a while. I'd like to see other people's opinions on this.— Kww( talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the same for digital and physical sales in French Albums Chart, but the real question is "the charts succession are reserved just for American or England artist ?" is a bit unfair compared to other major markets like Japan, Germany, France, which have rarely articles in English wikipedia for a number one album in their chart ( Thestreamer ( talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is not over and still not resolved, however anyone would remove the Succession boxes of She Wolf (album), the discussion started by a succession box (for the French Digital Albums chart) but someone delete the entire section without having reached agreement here. I hope you will come to an agreement and restore the entire section with or without the succession box of French Digital Albums chart. Thanks D6h !? 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the project page about using Best Of Year charts. I don't believe that they should be included in the table of charts, but may be mentioned within the article text.
I don't recall seeing these kind of charts used before. The occurrence that got me to wondering is
HERE, U.S. Billboard 200 Best of 2009.
So what do we all think about this?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, my "Billboard's site must be buggy" alarm is going off. Can anyone validate a single one of the charting claims made in Lip Gloss (song)? I can't, but suspect that it's a sourcing problem.— Kww( talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't pay much attention when Billboard says that. It also states that "We Belong Together" by Mariah Carey "this song hasn't charted" but it reached #1 for fourteen weeks and is the biggest song of the decade. My point being that even the biggest song of the decade isn't listed. Yet acharts.us is always reliable for official charts. Besides I remember Lip Gloss charting anyway but it charted at #10 on the Hot 100 I thought? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I think maybe GOODCHARTS should list Billboard Hot 100 for acharts, then this problem ideally wouldn't crop up again. Jayy008 ( talk) 02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Go to the artist page's chart history on Billboard, it is usually pretty reliable and up to date. The album pages seem to regularly come up with the bugs. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 07:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly like that IKnow23! I think for Billboard charts it is the best place. I see where you're coming from Kiac but you says "usually" with acharts.us it is always up to date. So I propose adding Billboard Hot 100 to GOODCHARTS. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean out of date, sometimes it just hasn't got it on there. Using what you said "when Billboard publishes it, we know it exists, before that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia" then "We Belong Together" should be removed because Billboard doesn't list it. That is not a good idea. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well as one of the biggest music markets in the world, it deserves some kind of mention so people know it's allowed. Jayy008 ( talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Argentinian Albums Chart publish by ArgentinaTop100.com.ar is a copy of the official weekly album chart of CAPIF ( http://www.capif.org.ar/). It should be considerer as a source, because the CAPIF website doesn't have an archieve, but ArgentinaTop100 does.-- HC 5555 ( talk) 12:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Billboard lists it as charting at #10 on "France Songs" but Hung Median and any other charts that I can find for France do not. Also it was changed to Digital Chart for the chart box but I can't find that on Hung Median either.
This is another example of Billboard being unreliable? Should I remove the chart? Jayy008 ( talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
'If U Seek Amy' charted at #11 on the French digital chart. http://lescharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=si&year=2009&date=20090418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorant ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Billboard just must be incorrect as always. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
In article Más (Nelly Furtado song) Charly1300.com is used as source for Italian Airplay Chart, Euro200.net is used as source for Polish Singles Chart. Are this sources relaible? -- SveroH ( talk) 14:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
aCharts is putting a superscript "W" (for Wikipedians) hover link after some of its chart listings and the clickthrough page then has a link to WP:Record charts. Just the text is shown below as I did not code all the links. Just sharing the news :)— Iknow23 ( talk) 10:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikpedians, thank you for you using αCharts.us as your chart source. The charts displayed on this website are chosen to give the best as possible quantitative impression of the happenings in the global music industry. Though a group of Wikipedians believe otherwise, therefore we would like to point out to you the guidelines on Record Charts and in particular the paragraph Deprecated Charts. This means that the following charts should not be included onto Wikipedia: Bulgaria Singles Top 40, Portugal Singles Top 50, US Airplay Top 100, World Singles Top 40 and World Albums Top 40. On a side note, The Italian Charts are not official. Thank you for respecting the Wikipedia Community.
Have ypu guys noticed this site called AirCheck™ Broadcast Monitoring. They claim that, Monitoring identifies and analyses commercial and song airplay on radio in the top 17 major Indian cities. AirCheck™ monitors 24 hours a day and delivers almost real time radio airplay data from the 88 most important radio stations in India. The Aircheck India National Network delivers advertising agencies,radio stations and record companies an instant online local and national perspective of their clients' airplay. Aircheck India produces independent verification of airplay and provides market Live Reports, Market Share, Brand and Category Analysis, Exception Reports and Song Rotations. They have a weekly chart here consisting of top 20 positions. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
According to Mariah-Charts.com, Britney Spears' single "Outrageous" charted at number 1 in South Africa, which is weird since the song was only released in the US and Japan. Mariah-Charts is the only site with this information, so I'm wondering if it's a reliable source. And if not, I think it should be added to "Websites to avoid". Pancake ( talk) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
this site should also be added to wesites ot avoid: for example [3] see how many charts are shown, at last half of them is/or should be on WP:BADCHARTS-- SveroH ( talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't delved into music charts until recently, so I'm new to this. In Shiny Toy Guns Singles section there are 3 links cited as the sources, all of which are now dead. "Le Disko" I found here, but there's no reference to the #114 on Billboard Hot 100 as the article currently lists; it doesn't make sense to me that it would be #114 anyway on a Top 100 list. I can update the source, but I'm wondering if I should just remove the #114 in the chart or leave it? Also, for songs like "You Are The One" the Billboard link is here but it doesn't refer to being on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart. I guess I'm wondering if I'm just not looking in the right places for sourcing these peaks, or if I should remove them. – gRegor ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Succession boxes [relating to music articles] are an
indiscriminate collection of information as "Excessive listing of statistics" that is not notable to the subject. In my opinion, it is notable that the "Song" or Album appears on a reliable and sourced chart, but to provide previous and subsequent holders of number 1 chart positions is unnecessary and excessive. I am even more shocked to learn from above that they are presented not as information, but only as a navigation tool? Why is it necessary to give a link to material that has nothing to do with the article other than in sharing the distinction of charting a number 1 position?
An example of a navigation tool that I do support is the "For other uses, see [Song or Album name here] (disambiguation)" to assist in going to the page the reader is actually seeking if different than the one they are on.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Succession boxes have the effect of being 'affiliate advertising'. They are a "navigation tool" to other number one "Songs" and Albums that really have no connection with the page they are on. Kinda like saying, "Hey, I see that you are visiting this article, perhaps you'd be interested in these others that also charted at number one around the same time." The other two [prior and after] can also show a link back to the 'current' article visited. Even better than 'outside' affiliation as you don't have to wait for the webmasters of the other pages to link to you. One person can put succession boxes on all three articles [current, prior and after].
Another problem is that succession boxes are being utilized as a 'loophole' to display Chart information that does not qualify for the table of Charts, such as component charts. I do support mentioning within the article text about charting at number one in a component chart [if it never charted at number one in the Main chart] and other RELIABLE and SOURCED charts, even when not eligible to be used in the Chart table, as I consider that a number 1 position there constitutes a 'Key fact' that is notable of its overall charting infomation. —
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I remove chart success boxes from articles for a number of reasons. One, it's chart trajectory, and that should only be dealt with in the prose if there are enough sources making noise about it. Two, the information contained in the boxes is often unsourced (particularly the dates) and relies on other Wiki articles to determine what came before and after the article topic on the charts. Three, it gives undue weight to the number one position. Yes, being number one on the charts typically means you're the best selling artist that week, but there no reason you couldn't make succession boxes for acts who made it to number two, or even number 67. It's the same reason we have a guideline saying not to put the number on in bold in discography pages, which people used to do all the time. Just like there's no need to navigate between song that reached number 89 on the charts, there's no reason to navigate between songs that reached number one, aside from the assumed "importance" of the placing. Fourth, you often end up with an ungodly amount of succession boxes that do more harm than good to the article layout. Fifth, records that reach the same chart ranking are only related by the number they peaked at; there's no direct connection that would logically require navigation like, say, a succession of records by the same artist. Reaching a certain chart ranking isn't a position, an award, a post, or an honor; it's a number on a chart. Really, they need to go. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
With or without succession boxes, what the previous and subsequent singles are would/do not have to be included in the prose, unless otherwise notable. I do believe there is historical context to the boxes in terms of relating the #1 chart achievement. If they are kept, there needs to be far better guidelines set up. There are numerous issues on how they are being maintained. Plus they should be collapsible (see Boom Boom Pow for an example). All that being said, overall opinion (as opposed to consensus) favors their removal. How does one determine when consensus is reached and how is that implemented afterwards? Thanks. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
They are so HUGE. Is this really necessary for an encyclopedia? When I first seen one, I was like "What IS this". I could barely comprehend the "data" it was trying to relay. This article for example, the whole bottom of the article is nothing but tables. Five to be exact, on top of one another. What about people on mobile devices? I guess the other tables are another story, as I think they should be in prose. I'm not sure if the "chart procession and succession" is a table or a template. If the later, it should be taken to TfD, IMO. If all else fails, at least have an option to collapse the table. — Mike Allen 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: I couldn't get the template header to say, "Chart procession and succession" but I found a better template match and applied it at the example we have been discussing, "
Boom Boom Pow". It is the template that displays the header "Order of precedence"
Template:S-prec. "This template creates a header to be used with succession boxes for orders of precedence..."
Precedence! ha what could be more appropriate.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And see
Order of precedence, "An order of precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of items."—
Iknow23 (
talk)
23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The Finnish chart has changed in 2010. YLE will no longer publish it. Instead, it is published by IFPI at http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/. They only have the album, mid-price and DVD charts at this point but they will also publish a singles chart. The complete charts can be seen by clicking "Näytä koko lista". YuckieDuck ( talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if I could get some third party opinions/discussion on some video chart positions in a prose section of an article that I and another editor are having? The particular article is Kellie Pickler and this is the last edit where User:CloversMallRat added back the information about the video charts, [4].
I am against using this information because they are unofficial charts per this guideline and unreferenced material. CloversMallRat thinks the information is okay since it is not listed in a table and this guideline is only for chart information in tables. I think the first sentence of the guideline, "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles.", applies since a singer's article is a music-related article. I also feel this information could easily be challenged since there is no reference to the chart positions.
I appreciate any and all responses to my inquiry. Thank you, Aspects ( talk) 07:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In France the album is listed as certified Gold (sales certified 100,000 units) Yet on the IFPI certification thresholds Platinum is listed as 100,000 for France, has the certification levels changed for France since 2005? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Jayy008 ( talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
this link is the Finnish certification for Mariah Carey's "Music Box" the numbers next to it, do they represent sales? I tried an online translation but the word wasn't in their dictionary that describes the column where these sales are. Jayy008 ( talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Artist, album, record company, year
Mariah Carey
Music Box
Sony
1993
"Total Sales 47,382" "1994 Music recording sales certification" but it doesn't say what certification level it achieved as far as I can tell. But you can look that up based upon the Sales figures, right?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It says the certification next to the year "Kultalevy" when translated says "Gold" maybe the certification levels have changed in Finland since 1994 because now 47,382 would be Platinum. Anyway thank you for your help, I will use Google Translation from now on. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a very good question. However, I will object strongly to it being implemented. Back then as the certification levels were much higher, it was harder for an artist to reach. Once the certification is given, the provider doesn't change it so I don't think we should change it on Wikipedia. I'm finding this very difficult to explain, I hope you know what I mean lol. Jayy008 ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. Sorry I never saw your question from above! Jayy008 ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! Jayy008 ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had done it already lol Jayy008 ( talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll do it now! Jayy008 ( talk) 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Can the new chart Macros be added to WK:Charts yet? I know there are some problems but underneath a note could be made "For now Beyonce (and whoever else has ' in their name) can't be used with the macros)" Something like that because people keep reverting the macros because they're not shown on GOODCHARTS. For the most part they work it's only Beyonce and Esmee Denters I can see a problem with. Jayy008 ( talk) 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it seems the consensus of a discussion was to not include airplay charts such as the Top 40 Mainstream included in the charts section for songs and discographies for artists, I think that this needs to be changed. Since the Pop 100 has phased out, the T40Mainstream, now Pop Songs is the only equivalent of a genre chart to use for the pop genre, as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot Country Songs have for their respective genres. Also to point out, all other airplay-only charts have a singles/airplay/etc chart to serve as the basis, as pop does not. Anyone else agree? Candyo32 ( talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Glitter (soundtrack) at
Billboard? It is listed as charting in Soundtrack, R&B/Hip-Hop and the Top 200. Actually couldn't all THREE be displayed in the Chart table in the Glitter article as R&B/Hip-Hop is a genre chart and I think that Soundtrack chart should also be eligible.
What does everyone think?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection for that one, Glitter has no direct consensus on what it is so included both charts would be better. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the above should be included as a previous chart for Belgium. Prior to 1992, Hung MEdien was not in existence and VRT was used to measure a song in Belgium. Hence it's better to have it in the sourcing guide for a reference for the pre-1992 songs. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
right once and for all can we establish what the consensus is on this? Im aware that in July 2009 it was said that we would wait until the site was improved. In October 2009 i saw comments on various pages saying that Billboard Brasil is still not fully functional. Recently i've been absolutely bombarded by users adding the chart Billboard Hot 100 from billboard brasil even though the source takes you to the hot 100 airplay. What is the state with Billboard Brasil? are we calling it a legitimate chart or a problem child? Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that whatever the official stance winds up being on this issue should be elucidated at the Billboard Brasil article and should be strong enough to change this article's position on Brazil's Hot 100 chart. If WP:Record Charts' stated position on Brazil's Hot 100 is not changed, then editors will continue to wage wars over inclusion of the data point at each article for a chart-topping single going forward, including, as another editor notes, the " I Want to Know What Love Is" article. If the chart is official, it should change Wikipedia's position on inclusion of that chart; if Wikipedia's position has changed, this article should note that. If this article does not note that, then no amount of talk page commentary will prevent the edit wars over the data points across the project by good faith editors who check this article to verify the authenticity. Comments I made at Talk:Billboard Brasil were not adequately responded to. All related articles need a section giving a heads-up on any change to the official nature of that chart and our recognition of it. Abrazame ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am going to restate my position in full, for clarity. First, the notability and reliability of the chart isn't in question. As a Billboard franchisee, Billboard Brasil gains instant notability. Their airplay charts are produced by Crowley Broadcast Analysis, and Crowley is a reliable, notable organization. Our only problem here is the stability of sourcing. That means what we need to evaluate is the details of the sourcing.
The site, www.billboard.br.com, only holds a transient copy of the chart. That means it is not suitable for reference. The magazine is a permanent copy. As much as I dislike it, there isn't a policy-based argument for rejecting citations to the magazine. Citations to journals are considered acceptable, even obscure scientific journals of extremely limited circulation that are extremely expensive to obtain. Billboard Brasil is reasonable in price, and available in newsstands across Brazil, Portugal, and probably a handful in New York and Tokyo as well.
Lil-Unique's fear of fraud is well founded. I've used that same argument at WP:RSN#Everyhit.com as an argument in favor of allowing archives like everyhit.com as an alternative to using references to ChartsPlus. But read over that argument ... I'm close to invoking WP:IAR, and no one is contesting the validity of quoting physical copies of ChartsPlus.
I think our path forward from here is to modify WP:GOODCHARTS to explicitly point out the problem, explicitly allow references to the physical magazine, and explicitly point out the naming problem with hot100brasil.com. We need to rely on Decodet and some of our Brazilian editors to keep an eye on the situation with physical citations. I expect that we are going to have some trouble with fraud, but we can't protect against that in advance.— Kww( talk) 05:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Decodet has been very helpful and is doing the #1's on the chart for me. I agree with you Kevin, then people can just ask the brazilian editor to add it for them if it's "noteable enough" Jayy008 ( talk) 11:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm an brazilian people, ask for me. I add the Billboard Brazil in charts. Ok?? Vitor Mazuco Msg 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
moved discussion to Talk: Angels Advocate Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hrtop20 should be listed on WP:GOODCHARTS because it is official croatian singles chart. Main problem is that it lists only croatian singles, but it can be used on English Wikipedia in articles like " Možda volim te" -- SveroH ( talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I Hate This Part by PCD certified Gold in Brazil How can a single be certified Gold in Brazil when they don't sell songs on iTunes? for Katy Perry singles it says "downloada" next to it Jayy008 ( talk) 09:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, is there an official digital chart anywhere? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
With this edit, I have removed all unarchived charts from WP:GOODCHARTS. It seems to reflect growing consensus on the topic. Note that I have specifically not added them to WP:BADCHARTS. The underlying charts are all valid, but the reliability and stability of the source needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.— Kww( talk) 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just recieved my four week Music Week trial so if anyone needs help with verification of sales, chart positions or anything like that. Post a comment here and I'll help. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It's basically a summary of sales of the past decade in the UK, a brief account none the less. Since I'm guessing you're particularly interest in Lady Gaga. It tells you Bad Romance sales the week it retured to #1 for the second time. (76,265). Info about a few of her other songs "With Paparazzi climbing 61-48 (9,354 sales), Just Dance moving 67-54 (8,593 sales) and Telephone rising 74-67 (7,171 sales), GaGa – who made her chart debut a year ago this week – increased her weeks on the Top 75 in 2009 to 154 – a record for any artist in any year." pasted direct. & this: "Bad Romance’s share of the singles market last week – just 1.81% - is the smallest ever for a number one." I hope that helps. If it wasn't Lady Gaga you needed tell me the artist and I'll paste the info about it. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarigy that MegaCharts is the main work behind Dutch Top 40 and Mega Single Top 100, and Mega Single is a component chart of Dutch Top 40. Right? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Top 40 and Mega Single are like Hot 100 and Hot Digital Songs. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank You. I think I understand now.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this website reliable? Someone added it to 22 (song), but Hung Medien doesn't state that it charted in the Netherlands, so I removed it. -- 12345abcxyz20082009 ( talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused. Now, top40.nl says "22" charted at 18, but dutchcharts.nl says 79. Which one should I use? I mean, I have a FL with Hung Medien as a source for the Netherlands. If top40.nl is the official one then does that mean I should replace the source? -- 12345abcxyz20082009 ( talk) 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Today I reverted someone who added Spotify's top 100 chart to an article. I don't know much about Spotify but I understand that its chart would be based on user requests. Can it be added to the Bad Charts list? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
After monitoring the featured list discussion for the Interpol discography (see also post above from SteelersFan_UK06) I'm massively confused about what is and what is not a reliable source for UK charts. Apparently everyHit.com, Zobbel, Alpha Charts, aCharts and ChartStats aren't good enough (despite ChartStats been quoted on the Record Charts page) and the only one that is is Charts Plus which seems to be a subscription service. OCC is again quoted on the Record Charts page but only seems to have info for no.1 records and current week charts. Can we get some consensus on this issue please? Cavie78 ( talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
←The best sources for chart positions are the books: The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles and The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums. The most recent editions of these books (which are officially licensed by the OCC) have all releases listed by artist which have charted up to position 75 of the relevant chart - up to 2008 for the singles and 2009 for the albums. To use these books, editors have to go to a library or buy them, but they are more reliable than ChartStats, Everyhit, etc. The UK music industry's trade magazine, Music Week, also publishes officially licensed charts and all copies are available from the British Library. These options take effort, but are the best sources for UK chart positions. Unfortunately editors (myself included in the past) tend to go for the easier option of the archive websites which may be accurate but generally fall short of the reliable source guidelines. If anyone wants any chart positions confirming, they can drop me a line on my talk page as I have both the Virgin books. -- JD554 ( talk) 07:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised this went so long without recognition. I have looked all around and not been able to find any verifiable information on the history of this chart, how it's tabulated, who publishes it, etc. Even Gnews turns up only 2 hits, which is a lot fewer than even the non-notable United World Chart got. This should definitely be deleted. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC Weekly Top 40. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
See this website for more details. It's set up by the KMCIA (the current RIAA equivalent); they are what MIAK became.
If you go to the site, you'll see a heavy focus on digital charts. I really don't see the difference between the "digital" and the "online" charts; I'm assuming that the digital includes the mobile rankings. Thankfully, the charts are fairly comprehensive, and include "international" artists in their data, which is compiled on a weekly basis.
For non-Korean artists, this is a legitimate chart to use for any chart data. For Korean artists, this should replace any charts based on single vendors, as the GAON chart combines the data from all music sites. Keep in mind, though, that the earliest data is from December 2009, so for anything before then...you're outta luck.
Any questions, post them here. I'll try to answer what I can. SKS ( talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.slokylie.com is used in some kylie minogue articles as source for charts. most of charts from slokylie.com are listed on WP:BADCHARTS. it should be added to Websites to avoid listl-- SveroH ( talk) 17:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, in terms of a featured list candidate ( Interpol discography in this case), what are considered the reliable sources when noting the charts of singles and albums? The above four have been thrown around, but the reliability of all three has been questioned in the mentioned article's candidacy. Please help! Thank you in advance. -- SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Acharts is reliable enough but ChartStats should be used where possible. However ChartStats I do not believe is licensed either it just has the flow diagram on there which no other UK sources have. ChartStats should be used according to
Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS as it always seems reliable and it's the only one that can be used with the {{
singlechart}} macro system.
However for those using the old chart format, everyhit isn't allowed, which I don't know why because it's from Radio 1 as a link. When I put everyhit before it got removed so I don't recommend putting it anywhere. Zobbel I remove when I see it, there is no clear consensus on it's reliability, it seems reliable and no problems have been found but the 100-200 positions aren't available to the public so it's unlikely whoever runs it would have the data.
Official Charts Company website has an archive off all top 40 charts which is probably the most reliable out of all of them however positions 40-100 are not archived. I hope that was helpful.
Jayy008 (
talk)
14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Jayy, music week has a 1-75 position chart. Positions over are sometimes found in the weekly articles if very interesting. I have access, also have copies of weekly reports. SunCreator ( talk) 06:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand now. Well it's down to personal preference if it's included then I guess. Jayy008 ( talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Zobbel is being edit warred at Kesha discography for UK positions in excess of 100. Is it reliable for such use?— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Of no use for radio. See Talk:Telephone_(song)#Flaw_with_airplay_citation. Add this to BADCHARTS? SunCreator ( talk) 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Is THIS a reliable site?— Iknow23 ( talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay a component or subcomponent of the U.S. Billboard Hot 100? I still wish that someone could make 'relationship tree tables' showing the relationships between all the US charts.
"
One Time" is where I noticed Pop 100 Airplay being shown when the Hot 100 is also. Seeing that made me wonder, so I thought to ask here.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::: That means that if it a song doesn't enter the hot 100 component charts can be used. Hot 100 Airplay (Now Radio songs 1-40 only available to the public) is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100 and since it charted on the Hot 100 (One Time) Hot 100 Airplay shouldn't be used.
Jayy008 (
talk)
01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::::: I know, I'm just saying that Pop 100 Airplay is a component of The Hot 100 so it isn't allowed as it is a component chart
Shown Here. "Component charts shouldn't be used unless the song fails the enter the main chart" that rule is based on the Hot 100 thus being the main chart to which Hot 100 Airplay contributes. Hot 100 Airplay has never been allowed when the Hot 100 has been. I hope I'm making this clear. Airplay only charts are component charts and should not be used unless it failed to enter the main chart (Billboard Hot 100)
Jayy008 (
talk)
01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yes I know but it goes down to the Hot 100. Pop 100 wasn't a component chart because it took into account sales, airplay & digital just like the Hot 100. Which is why it was allowed UNTIL it was dis-continued then it became unsourcable. Hot 100 Airplay is a component of both of the top charts the Hot 100 and the Pop 100. Wikipedia:Record Charts says component charts shouldn't be used when it charts on the main chart. Why is this an issue? It's been like it forever (Well since I've been here).
Jayy008 (
talk)
01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Candyo (forgive me if I am incorrect) is saying that Pop 100 is an allowed Genre chart and as it did not chart in the 'Main' Genre chart that its Component is allowed.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
When the song fails the Hot 100:
What I think
When the song fails the Hot 100:
A component of ANY chart that appears should not be used. I would apply that to ANY Genre chart— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand this, " Smooth Criminal" from "Hitparadetitalia.it" is set in the # 11 ranking, and " Smooth Criminal" from "ItalianCharts.com" has the # 6, I do not understand, is not meant to be the singles of italia?, ought be the same. -- Eduardofoxx13 ( talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at past issues of Billboard magazine (1996). And found that they used to publish charts around the world, the UK Singles Chart, Germany, France, etc. Well one of the charts is from Denmark, thet have both albums and a singles chart, apparently published by IFPI and Nielsen Marketing Research, I was wondering if this is a valid chart for singles and albums before 2001. I have reviewed some of the other charts, and they are correct, the ones from the UK, Germany, France, Austria, Ireland, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands. They also have some others charts that could be useful because there is no other database, the Euro Hot 100, Spain(AFIVE), Italy(Musica e Dischi/FIMI) and Portugal(AFP, albums only). Here is one of the magazines, most of them are available at Google Books, the entire magazine is available for me I don't know perhaps in other countries it won't show up. [5] Frcm1988 ( talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am wrong, the page file of the Irish charts are not displayed on my computer, Irish Charts. Is it just me or happens to you too?.-- Eduardofoxx13 ( talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
With this edit I've moved the original chart format under it's own header, and kept the page intro and just prose. I think this will help people identify that "Original Chart Format" and "Chart Macros" are allowed. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Record_charts#Original_Chart_Format - 'references should be individual and specific to each chart that is being used. Sources per column or table are insufficient.' Has anyone else notice Today's featured article fails this in the chart section. Being on the front page somewhat (unhelpfully) encourages other editors to repeat it's formatting. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This IP, 188.129.253.214 continues Chart vandalism at "
Fight for This Love" ignoring the instructional comment that provides how to follow through to obtain the information at 'per Field selections, "Lista" = Single (track) Top 10 lista, "Ev" = 2010, "Hét" = 7'.
I recommend that "Editors' Choice rádiós játszási lista" be listed at Badcharts and a note in Goodcharts left to mention to NOT use this chart. THAT must be the chart that 188.129.253.214 is using as it shows "18" that they are always editing it to. "Editor's Choice" does NOT seem like a proper chart to me. It sounds more like a critical rating than a real chart. What do you think?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Billboard has numerous albums charts outside of the main Billboard 200 albums chart. These charts include, but not limited to: Billboard Alternative Albums, Billboard Hard Rock Albums, Billboard Rock Albums, Heatseakers chart, Billboard Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums, Billboard Top Digital Albums, Billboard Top Internet Albums, Billboard Tastemakers, and so on.
While devoted fans and information completionists feel it's necessary to include every single chart that a given album appeared, I feel in most cases that these charts are superfluous and unimportant. For example; the Billboard Rock Albums chart is simply a subchart of the Billboard 200, only removing any albums that Billboard doesn't deem to be in the rock genre. Wiki-Articles to albums such as Death Magnetic, Crash Love and Sonic Boom are littered with charting information to these subcharts. In light that all of the aforementioned albums come from established acts and debuted in the top 20 of the Billboard 200, information on the charting history of the subcharts is unnecessary. Since Death Magnetic debuted at #1 on the Billboard 200, of course it was #1 on the Billboard Hard Rock Albums, as well as being #1 on Billboard Rock Albums, etc.
I am requesting that a "Subcharts" stipulation similar to the already existing " component charts" requirement that "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", be implemented for Billboard albums charts. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The ref link used for them all is one of those (roll eyes) dead Billboard ones.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there a rule limiting the total number of Billboard charts to be included, so as to not give undue weight to US charts vs. other countries that have fewer charts? Or was that something that was just kicked around in discussion? TheJazzDalek ( talk) 11:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
← I'm not familiar enough with the Album charts to do it. All I'm saying is: If some of them can be removed under the 'component chart' rules, go ahead do it and cite WP:CHARTS "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) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Per edit disputes and previous discussion at Talk:Crash Love#Removal of 'component' charts and Talk:Crash Love#Request, I remain unconvinced of Darwin's Bulldog's arguments with respect to the various Billboard charts. These chart positions are verifiable and relevant to the respective albums, and ultimately it's not up to us to decide which facts about an album may be relevant to our readers and which aren't. This is an encyclopedia: we present facts and let readers decide what is important to them. A reader may want to know that an album held a certain position on the Billboard 200, but they may also want to know what position it held with respect to other albums of the same genre, which is what these Billboard charts are designed to show. From all of the arguments I've seen, the major bias against including Billboard's individual genre charts is that it tends towards US-centrism. But that's not Wikipedia's fault. Rather, its seems to be a function of the fact that other countries don't bother to break their charts down by genres. If the UK albums chart had separate subcharts for different genres, I imagine we'd include those too. The only case in which it seems redundant to include the individual charts would be if an album reached #1 on the Billboard 200, which would mean that it also reached #1 on whatever genre charts it was also ranked on. But of course the vast majority of albums don't reach this postion. By definition, only 0.5% of the albums on the Billboard 200 can hold the #1 position at any one time. So we are left with albums that may have charted higher on one of the genre charts than they did on the 200. And who's to say that's not of interest to a reader? I, as both a reader and editor, certainly find it of interest that though Crash Love ranked #12 on the Billboard 200 (in comparison to all other albums of all genres), it ranked #4 in comparison to other hard rock albums. There's a reason Billboard bothers to create separate charts for different genres. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason Billboard has so many different charts and subcharts is all down to sales and marketing. I could swear it was once a rule here but maybe I only read it in a discussion, that you could use the main chart (Hot 100/Billboard 200) and only 1 genre chart for whatever genre the artist was (choice of which genre chart was most appropriate was open to interpretation). Including every single genre chart is superfluous. Thank god that other countries don't have their charts split out in multiple ways like Billboard does. Imagine the amount of space it would take up in every article. I am not against the inclusion of any genre charts where a release appeared on the main chart but I am against including every genre chart; one is plenty. TheJazzDalek ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it depends on how successful the album was. For example, for an album that only made one of these Billboard subcharts, it would be important to document that. In comparison, if a record topped the main albums charts from several countries, there's no real need to list less-significant charts. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
An example I'd like to present comes from the source itself. Each Wednesday, Billboard publishes an online weekly article giving a rundown of the best selling albums in the U.S., posting actual sales numbers of the top 10 best selling albums in the country and additional information including new debuts, large jumps/drops, etc. This week's article is "Ludacris Lands Fourth No. 1 Album with Battle of the Sexes". There are no separate weekly articles giving a rundown for the subchart/genre charts such as Alternative Albums chart or Tastemakers, et al. Billboard itself gives weight to an album's position in the Billboard 200 chart. Subcharts/genre charts are rarely, if ever, mentioned by Billboard in these articles and typically when an album is referenced in another article, it's position in the Billboard 200 is stated, with no mention of its position on any other chart given. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any practical way to restrict Billboard album subcharts. As Kiac points out, and everyone needs to remember, most of these are not component charts. In fact, I think "digital albums" is the only component album chart. The rest are genre charts, which are acceptable for both singles and albums. Editors can try to write as many guidelines as they want against them, and will only wind up edit-warring against the masses.— Kww( talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just so we're clear: the Billboard 200 is the overarching album chart in the US. Everything thing else is secondary to it. When people say "topped the American charts", that's what they're referring to. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:07, 18 March 2010 (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. |
If you need to add a note about a particular version being used in a chart, you can now add "note=<text>" with the singlechart template. It is automatically forced to small italic text under the main chart name.— Kww( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Nielsen SoundScan has announced major changes coming to the way it tabulates the weekly album sales chart. The SoundScan/Billboard 200 will now include catalog releases in the official chart alongside new albums. The chart had previously only listed releases from the previous 18 months, with older releases moved to a seperate chart. However, with this year's massive sales figures for Michael Jackson and Beatles albums, their numbers were missing from the official weekly charts.
Reuters reports that the changes go into effect for the sales week ending November 22, making the November 25 sales chart the first as a "comprehensive" chart. Jackson is the second-biggest selling artist of 2009, after Taylor Swift, and his best-of set Number Ones was the best-selling album in the country for six weeks earlier this year, though it wasn't reflected on the official chart.
In other Nielsen SoundScan news, the company has released new data on vinyl and digital music sales in 2009. For the SoundScan era, vinyl sales have set a new high point, with over two million vinyl records already sold this year. This breaks last year's record of 1.9 million.
As for digital music, four artists have broken Rihanna's digital tracks sales record (she sold 9.9 million digital songs in '08) already. So far, 11.3 million digital Michael Jackson songs have been sold, 11.1 million Lady Gaga songs have been sold this year, with 10.3 million Black Eyed Peas tunes and 9.98 million Taylor Swift songs.
Nielsen SoundScan reports that next week, the 2008 year-end digital album sales total of 65 million will be broken, as well as the one billion track sales mark. - eo ( talk) 18:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
There's also this which may be worth keeping an eye on. They're playing around with digital sales due to album leaks, seems like Nielson caving into the whinging of record labels to me.
"50 Cent's album was originally scheduled to drop on Nov. 23, but it leaked to the Internet nearly a month before that, prompting his label, Interscope Records, to push its release forward. The digital version of "Before I Self Destruct" was rush-released to Apple's iTunes Store in the U.S. last Monday (Nov. 9), ahead of the CD's bow on Monday, Nov. 16.
Because of this situation, Interscope has requested that Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan uphold an existing policy regarding album Internet leaks. In a rule instituted nearly a year ago based on industry input, a label may ask Nielsen SoundScan to hold the digital sales count of an album for up to one week -- and for Billboard to delay charting that album -- when a leak situation has resulted in a digital album beating its physical counterpart to market. As a result of this rule, "Before I Self Destruct's" first-week digital sales will be added to its overall retail sum for the week ending Nov. 22 and the album will debut on next week's chart.
Billboard, along with Nielsen SoundScan, will review the merit of maintaining this rule." kiac. ( talk- contrib) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Source:
Editor & Publisher closing after 108 years
By ANDREW VANACORE, AP Business Writer – Thu Dec 10, 1:22 pm ET
"The Nielsen Co. is selling some of its most prominent trade journals — including The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard..."
—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
in article Más (Nelly Furtado song) radiocharts.com is used as source for swiss and german airplay chart? is radiocharts.com reliable source? -- SveroH ( talk) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Why does there certification site only go up to 2006? Jayy008 ( talk) 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing argument at She Wolf (album) related to succession boxes. Thestreamer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding a succession box for the French Digital Albums chart. Lil-Unique and I have both removed it, but he keeps re-inserting it.
Lil-Unique's argument was apparently that if the chart wasn't important enough for the list of charts, it isn't important enough for a succession box, either. For the record, I disagree with this argument: a succession box is a navigation tool, and the 18 chart limit shouldn't interfere with navigation.
My argument is that a succession box where neither the predecessor nor the successor has an article isn't a useful navigation tool. The purpose of a succession box is to allow the reader to click the "next" links over and over and see the articles for each thing in the class. Things like "Presidents of the United States" are great examples. "Billboard Hot 100 Number Ones" is another, because every single that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 is likely to have an article. Most albums on the French Digital Albums chart haven't got articles and never will.
If I revert him again, I'll wind up violating 3RR, so I'm going to lay off it for a while. I'd like to see other people's opinions on this.— Kww( talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the same for digital and physical sales in French Albums Chart, but the real question is "the charts succession are reserved just for American or England artist ?" is a bit unfair compared to other major markets like Japan, Germany, France, which have rarely articles in English wikipedia for a number one album in their chart ( Thestreamer ( talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is not over and still not resolved, however anyone would remove the Succession boxes of She Wolf (album), the discussion started by a succession box (for the French Digital Albums chart) but someone delete the entire section without having reached agreement here. I hope you will come to an agreement and restore the entire section with or without the succession box of French Digital Albums chart. Thanks D6h !? 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the project page about using Best Of Year charts. I don't believe that they should be included in the table of charts, but may be mentioned within the article text.
I don't recall seeing these kind of charts used before. The occurrence that got me to wondering is
HERE, U.S. Billboard 200 Best of 2009.
So what do we all think about this?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, my "Billboard's site must be buggy" alarm is going off. Can anyone validate a single one of the charting claims made in Lip Gloss (song)? I can't, but suspect that it's a sourcing problem.— Kww( talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't pay much attention when Billboard says that. It also states that "We Belong Together" by Mariah Carey "this song hasn't charted" but it reached #1 for fourteen weeks and is the biggest song of the decade. My point being that even the biggest song of the decade isn't listed. Yet acharts.us is always reliable for official charts. Besides I remember Lip Gloss charting anyway but it charted at #10 on the Hot 100 I thought? Jayy008 ( talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I think maybe GOODCHARTS should list Billboard Hot 100 for acharts, then this problem ideally wouldn't crop up again. Jayy008 ( talk) 02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Go to the artist page's chart history on Billboard, it is usually pretty reliable and up to date. The album pages seem to regularly come up with the bugs. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 07:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly like that IKnow23! I think for Billboard charts it is the best place. I see where you're coming from Kiac but you says "usually" with acharts.us it is always up to date. So I propose adding Billboard Hot 100 to GOODCHARTS. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean out of date, sometimes it just hasn't got it on there. Using what you said "when Billboard publishes it, we know it exists, before that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia" then "We Belong Together" should be removed because Billboard doesn't list it. That is not a good idea. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well as one of the biggest music markets in the world, it deserves some kind of mention so people know it's allowed. Jayy008 ( talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Argentinian Albums Chart publish by ArgentinaTop100.com.ar is a copy of the official weekly album chart of CAPIF ( http://www.capif.org.ar/). It should be considerer as a source, because the CAPIF website doesn't have an archieve, but ArgentinaTop100 does.-- HC 5555 ( talk) 12:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Billboard lists it as charting at #10 on "France Songs" but Hung Median and any other charts that I can find for France do not. Also it was changed to Digital Chart for the chart box but I can't find that on Hung Median either.
This is another example of Billboard being unreliable? Should I remove the chart? Jayy008 ( talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
'If U Seek Amy' charted at #11 on the French digital chart. http://lescharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=si&year=2009&date=20090418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorant ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Billboard just must be incorrect as always. Jayy008 ( talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
In article Más (Nelly Furtado song) Charly1300.com is used as source for Italian Airplay Chart, Euro200.net is used as source for Polish Singles Chart. Are this sources relaible? -- SveroH ( talk) 14:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
aCharts is putting a superscript "W" (for Wikipedians) hover link after some of its chart listings and the clickthrough page then has a link to WP:Record charts. Just the text is shown below as I did not code all the links. Just sharing the news :)— Iknow23 ( talk) 10:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikpedians, thank you for you using αCharts.us as your chart source. The charts displayed on this website are chosen to give the best as possible quantitative impression of the happenings in the global music industry. Though a group of Wikipedians believe otherwise, therefore we would like to point out to you the guidelines on Record Charts and in particular the paragraph Deprecated Charts. This means that the following charts should not be included onto Wikipedia: Bulgaria Singles Top 40, Portugal Singles Top 50, US Airplay Top 100, World Singles Top 40 and World Albums Top 40. On a side note, The Italian Charts are not official. Thank you for respecting the Wikipedia Community.
Have ypu guys noticed this site called AirCheck™ Broadcast Monitoring. They claim that, Monitoring identifies and analyses commercial and song airplay on radio in the top 17 major Indian cities. AirCheck™ monitors 24 hours a day and delivers almost real time radio airplay data from the 88 most important radio stations in India. The Aircheck India National Network delivers advertising agencies,radio stations and record companies an instant online local and national perspective of their clients' airplay. Aircheck India produces independent verification of airplay and provides market Live Reports, Market Share, Brand and Category Analysis, Exception Reports and Song Rotations. They have a weekly chart here consisting of top 20 positions. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
According to Mariah-Charts.com, Britney Spears' single "Outrageous" charted at number 1 in South Africa, which is weird since the song was only released in the US and Japan. Mariah-Charts is the only site with this information, so I'm wondering if it's a reliable source. And if not, I think it should be added to "Websites to avoid". Pancake ( talk) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
this site should also be added to wesites ot avoid: for example [3] see how many charts are shown, at last half of them is/or should be on WP:BADCHARTS-- SveroH ( talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't delved into music charts until recently, so I'm new to this. In Shiny Toy Guns Singles section there are 3 links cited as the sources, all of which are now dead. "Le Disko" I found here, but there's no reference to the #114 on Billboard Hot 100 as the article currently lists; it doesn't make sense to me that it would be #114 anyway on a Top 100 list. I can update the source, but I'm wondering if I should just remove the #114 in the chart or leave it? Also, for songs like "You Are The One" the Billboard link is here but it doesn't refer to being on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart. I guess I'm wondering if I'm just not looking in the right places for sourcing these peaks, or if I should remove them. – gRegor ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Succession boxes [relating to music articles] are an
indiscriminate collection of information as "Excessive listing of statistics" that is not notable to the subject. In my opinion, it is notable that the "Song" or Album appears on a reliable and sourced chart, but to provide previous and subsequent holders of number 1 chart positions is unnecessary and excessive. I am even more shocked to learn from above that they are presented not as information, but only as a navigation tool? Why is it necessary to give a link to material that has nothing to do with the article other than in sharing the distinction of charting a number 1 position?
An example of a navigation tool that I do support is the "For other uses, see [Song or Album name here] (disambiguation)" to assist in going to the page the reader is actually seeking if different than the one they are on.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Succession boxes have the effect of being 'affiliate advertising'. They are a "navigation tool" to other number one "Songs" and Albums that really have no connection with the page they are on. Kinda like saying, "Hey, I see that you are visiting this article, perhaps you'd be interested in these others that also charted at number one around the same time." The other two [prior and after] can also show a link back to the 'current' article visited. Even better than 'outside' affiliation as you don't have to wait for the webmasters of the other pages to link to you. One person can put succession boxes on all three articles [current, prior and after].
Another problem is that succession boxes are being utilized as a 'loophole' to display Chart information that does not qualify for the table of Charts, such as component charts. I do support mentioning within the article text about charting at number one in a component chart [if it never charted at number one in the Main chart] and other RELIABLE and SOURCED charts, even when not eligible to be used in the Chart table, as I consider that a number 1 position there constitutes a 'Key fact' that is notable of its overall charting infomation. —
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I remove chart success boxes from articles for a number of reasons. One, it's chart trajectory, and that should only be dealt with in the prose if there are enough sources making noise about it. Two, the information contained in the boxes is often unsourced (particularly the dates) and relies on other Wiki articles to determine what came before and after the article topic on the charts. Three, it gives undue weight to the number one position. Yes, being number one on the charts typically means you're the best selling artist that week, but there no reason you couldn't make succession boxes for acts who made it to number two, or even number 67. It's the same reason we have a guideline saying not to put the number on in bold in discography pages, which people used to do all the time. Just like there's no need to navigate between song that reached number 89 on the charts, there's no reason to navigate between songs that reached number one, aside from the assumed "importance" of the placing. Fourth, you often end up with an ungodly amount of succession boxes that do more harm than good to the article layout. Fifth, records that reach the same chart ranking are only related by the number they peaked at; there's no direct connection that would logically require navigation like, say, a succession of records by the same artist. Reaching a certain chart ranking isn't a position, an award, a post, or an honor; it's a number on a chart. Really, they need to go. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
With or without succession boxes, what the previous and subsequent singles are would/do not have to be included in the prose, unless otherwise notable. I do believe there is historical context to the boxes in terms of relating the #1 chart achievement. If they are kept, there needs to be far better guidelines set up. There are numerous issues on how they are being maintained. Plus they should be collapsible (see Boom Boom Pow for an example). All that being said, overall opinion (as opposed to consensus) favors their removal. How does one determine when consensus is reached and how is that implemented afterwards? Thanks. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
They are so HUGE. Is this really necessary for an encyclopedia? When I first seen one, I was like "What IS this". I could barely comprehend the "data" it was trying to relay. This article for example, the whole bottom of the article is nothing but tables. Five to be exact, on top of one another. What about people on mobile devices? I guess the other tables are another story, as I think they should be in prose. I'm not sure if the "chart procession and succession" is a table or a template. If the later, it should be taken to TfD, IMO. If all else fails, at least have an option to collapse the table. — Mike Allen 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: I couldn't get the template header to say, "Chart procession and succession" but I found a better template match and applied it at the example we have been discussing, "
Boom Boom Pow". It is the template that displays the header "Order of precedence"
Template:S-prec. "This template creates a header to be used with succession boxes for orders of precedence..."
Precedence! ha what could be more appropriate.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And see
Order of precedence, "An order of precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of items."—
Iknow23 (
talk)
23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The Finnish chart has changed in 2010. YLE will no longer publish it. Instead, it is published by IFPI at http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/. They only have the album, mid-price and DVD charts at this point but they will also publish a singles chart. The complete charts can be seen by clicking "Näytä koko lista". YuckieDuck ( talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if I could get some third party opinions/discussion on some video chart positions in a prose section of an article that I and another editor are having? The particular article is Kellie Pickler and this is the last edit where User:CloversMallRat added back the information about the video charts, [4].
I am against using this information because they are unofficial charts per this guideline and unreferenced material. CloversMallRat thinks the information is okay since it is not listed in a table and this guideline is only for chart information in tables. I think the first sentence of the guideline, "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles.", applies since a singer's article is a music-related article. I also feel this information could easily be challenged since there is no reference to the chart positions.
I appreciate any and all responses to my inquiry. Thank you, Aspects ( talk) 07:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In France the album is listed as certified Gold (sales certified 100,000 units) Yet on the IFPI certification thresholds Platinum is listed as 100,000 for France, has the certification levels changed for France since 2005? Jayy008 ( talk) 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Jayy008 ( talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
this link is the Finnish certification for Mariah Carey's "Music Box" the numbers next to it, do they represent sales? I tried an online translation but the word wasn't in their dictionary that describes the column where these sales are. Jayy008 ( talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Artist, album, record company, year
Mariah Carey
Music Box
Sony
1993
"Total Sales 47,382" "1994 Music recording sales certification" but it doesn't say what certification level it achieved as far as I can tell. But you can look that up based upon the Sales figures, right?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It says the certification next to the year "Kultalevy" when translated says "Gold" maybe the certification levels have changed in Finland since 1994 because now 47,382 would be Platinum. Anyway thank you for your help, I will use Google Translation from now on. Jayy008 ( talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a very good question. However, I will object strongly to it being implemented. Back then as the certification levels were much higher, it was harder for an artist to reach. Once the certification is given, the provider doesn't change it so I don't think we should change it on Wikipedia. I'm finding this very difficult to explain, I hope you know what I mean lol. Jayy008 ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. Sorry I never saw your question from above! Jayy008 ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! Jayy008 ( talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had done it already lol Jayy008 ( talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll do it now! Jayy008 ( talk) 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Can the new chart Macros be added to WK:Charts yet? I know there are some problems but underneath a note could be made "For now Beyonce (and whoever else has ' in their name) can't be used with the macros)" Something like that because people keep reverting the macros because they're not shown on GOODCHARTS. For the most part they work it's only Beyonce and Esmee Denters I can see a problem with. Jayy008 ( talk) 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it seems the consensus of a discussion was to not include airplay charts such as the Top 40 Mainstream included in the charts section for songs and discographies for artists, I think that this needs to be changed. Since the Pop 100 has phased out, the T40Mainstream, now Pop Songs is the only equivalent of a genre chart to use for the pop genre, as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot Country Songs have for their respective genres. Also to point out, all other airplay-only charts have a singles/airplay/etc chart to serve as the basis, as pop does not. Anyone else agree? Candyo32 ( talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Glitter (soundtrack) at
Billboard? It is listed as charting in Soundtrack, R&B/Hip-Hop and the Top 200. Actually couldn't all THREE be displayed in the Chart table in the Glitter article as R&B/Hip-Hop is a genre chart and I think that Soundtrack chart should also be eligible.
What does everyone think?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection for that one, Glitter has no direct consensus on what it is so included both charts would be better. Jayy008 ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the above should be included as a previous chart for Belgium. Prior to 1992, Hung MEdien was not in existence and VRT was used to measure a song in Belgium. Hence it's better to have it in the sourcing guide for a reference for the pre-1992 songs. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
right once and for all can we establish what the consensus is on this? Im aware that in July 2009 it was said that we would wait until the site was improved. In October 2009 i saw comments on various pages saying that Billboard Brasil is still not fully functional. Recently i've been absolutely bombarded by users adding the chart Billboard Hot 100 from billboard brasil even though the source takes you to the hot 100 airplay. What is the state with Billboard Brasil? are we calling it a legitimate chart or a problem child? Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that whatever the official stance winds up being on this issue should be elucidated at the Billboard Brasil article and should be strong enough to change this article's position on Brazil's Hot 100 chart. If WP:Record Charts' stated position on Brazil's Hot 100 is not changed, then editors will continue to wage wars over inclusion of the data point at each article for a chart-topping single going forward, including, as another editor notes, the " I Want to Know What Love Is" article. If the chart is official, it should change Wikipedia's position on inclusion of that chart; if Wikipedia's position has changed, this article should note that. If this article does not note that, then no amount of talk page commentary will prevent the edit wars over the data points across the project by good faith editors who check this article to verify the authenticity. Comments I made at Talk:Billboard Brasil were not adequately responded to. All related articles need a section giving a heads-up on any change to the official nature of that chart and our recognition of it. Abrazame ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am going to restate my position in full, for clarity. First, the notability and reliability of the chart isn't in question. As a Billboard franchisee, Billboard Brasil gains instant notability. Their airplay charts are produced by Crowley Broadcast Analysis, and Crowley is a reliable, notable organization. Our only problem here is the stability of sourcing. That means what we need to evaluate is the details of the sourcing.
The site, www.billboard.br.com, only holds a transient copy of the chart. That means it is not suitable for reference. The magazine is a permanent copy. As much as I dislike it, there isn't a policy-based argument for rejecting citations to the magazine. Citations to journals are considered acceptable, even obscure scientific journals of extremely limited circulation that are extremely expensive to obtain. Billboard Brasil is reasonable in price, and available in newsstands across Brazil, Portugal, and probably a handful in New York and Tokyo as well.
Lil-Unique's fear of fraud is well founded. I've used that same argument at WP:RSN#Everyhit.com as an argument in favor of allowing archives like everyhit.com as an alternative to using references to ChartsPlus. But read over that argument ... I'm close to invoking WP:IAR, and no one is contesting the validity of quoting physical copies of ChartsPlus.
I think our path forward from here is to modify WP:GOODCHARTS to explicitly point out the problem, explicitly allow references to the physical magazine, and explicitly point out the naming problem with hot100brasil.com. We need to rely on Decodet and some of our Brazilian editors to keep an eye on the situation with physical citations. I expect that we are going to have some trouble with fraud, but we can't protect against that in advance.— Kww( talk) 05:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Decodet has been very helpful and is doing the #1's on the chart for me. I agree with you Kevin, then people can just ask the brazilian editor to add it for them if it's "noteable enough" Jayy008 ( talk) 11:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm an brazilian people, ask for me. I add the Billboard Brazil in charts. Ok?? Vitor Mazuco Msg 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
moved discussion to Talk: Angels Advocate Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hrtop20 should be listed on WP:GOODCHARTS because it is official croatian singles chart. Main problem is that it lists only croatian singles, but it can be used on English Wikipedia in articles like " Možda volim te" -- SveroH ( talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I Hate This Part by PCD certified Gold in Brazil How can a single be certified Gold in Brazil when they don't sell songs on iTunes? for Katy Perry singles it says "downloada" next to it Jayy008 ( talk) 09:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, is there an official digital chart anywhere? Jayy008 ( talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
With this edit, I have removed all unarchived charts from WP:GOODCHARTS. It seems to reflect growing consensus on the topic. Note that I have specifically not added them to WP:BADCHARTS. The underlying charts are all valid, but the reliability and stability of the source needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.— Kww( talk) 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just recieved my four week Music Week trial so if anyone needs help with verification of sales, chart positions or anything like that. Post a comment here and I'll help. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It's basically a summary of sales of the past decade in the UK, a brief account none the less. Since I'm guessing you're particularly interest in Lady Gaga. It tells you Bad Romance sales the week it retured to #1 for the second time. (76,265). Info about a few of her other songs "With Paparazzi climbing 61-48 (9,354 sales), Just Dance moving 67-54 (8,593 sales) and Telephone rising 74-67 (7,171 sales), GaGa – who made her chart debut a year ago this week – increased her weeks on the Top 75 in 2009 to 154 – a record for any artist in any year." pasted direct. & this: "Bad Romance’s share of the singles market last week – just 1.81% - is the smallest ever for a number one." I hope that helps. If it wasn't Lady Gaga you needed tell me the artist and I'll paste the info about it. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarigy that MegaCharts is the main work behind Dutch Top 40 and Mega Single Top 100, and Mega Single is a component chart of Dutch Top 40. Right? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Top 40 and Mega Single are like Hot 100 and Hot Digital Songs. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank You. I think I understand now.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this website reliable? Someone added it to 22 (song), but Hung Medien doesn't state that it charted in the Netherlands, so I removed it. -- 12345abcxyz20082009 ( talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused. Now, top40.nl says "22" charted at 18, but dutchcharts.nl says 79. Which one should I use? I mean, I have a FL with Hung Medien as a source for the Netherlands. If top40.nl is the official one then does that mean I should replace the source? -- 12345abcxyz20082009 ( talk) 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Today I reverted someone who added Spotify's top 100 chart to an article. I don't know much about Spotify but I understand that its chart would be based on user requests. Can it be added to the Bad Charts list? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
After monitoring the featured list discussion for the Interpol discography (see also post above from SteelersFan_UK06) I'm massively confused about what is and what is not a reliable source for UK charts. Apparently everyHit.com, Zobbel, Alpha Charts, aCharts and ChartStats aren't good enough (despite ChartStats been quoted on the Record Charts page) and the only one that is is Charts Plus which seems to be a subscription service. OCC is again quoted on the Record Charts page but only seems to have info for no.1 records and current week charts. Can we get some consensus on this issue please? Cavie78 ( talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
←The best sources for chart positions are the books: The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles and The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums. The most recent editions of these books (which are officially licensed by the OCC) have all releases listed by artist which have charted up to position 75 of the relevant chart - up to 2008 for the singles and 2009 for the albums. To use these books, editors have to go to a library or buy them, but they are more reliable than ChartStats, Everyhit, etc. The UK music industry's trade magazine, Music Week, also publishes officially licensed charts and all copies are available from the British Library. These options take effort, but are the best sources for UK chart positions. Unfortunately editors (myself included in the past) tend to go for the easier option of the archive websites which may be accurate but generally fall short of the reliable source guidelines. If anyone wants any chart positions confirming, they can drop me a line on my talk page as I have both the Virgin books. -- JD554 ( talk) 07:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised this went so long without recognition. I have looked all around and not been able to find any verifiable information on the history of this chart, how it's tabulated, who publishes it, etc. Even Gnews turns up only 2 hits, which is a lot fewer than even the non-notable United World Chart got. This should definitely be deleted. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC Weekly Top 40. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
See this website for more details. It's set up by the KMCIA (the current RIAA equivalent); they are what MIAK became.
If you go to the site, you'll see a heavy focus on digital charts. I really don't see the difference between the "digital" and the "online" charts; I'm assuming that the digital includes the mobile rankings. Thankfully, the charts are fairly comprehensive, and include "international" artists in their data, which is compiled on a weekly basis.
For non-Korean artists, this is a legitimate chart to use for any chart data. For Korean artists, this should replace any charts based on single vendors, as the GAON chart combines the data from all music sites. Keep in mind, though, that the earliest data is from December 2009, so for anything before then...you're outta luck.
Any questions, post them here. I'll try to answer what I can. SKS ( talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.slokylie.com is used in some kylie minogue articles as source for charts. most of charts from slokylie.com are listed on WP:BADCHARTS. it should be added to Websites to avoid listl-- SveroH ( talk) 17:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, in terms of a featured list candidate ( Interpol discography in this case), what are considered the reliable sources when noting the charts of singles and albums? The above four have been thrown around, but the reliability of all three has been questioned in the mentioned article's candidacy. Please help! Thank you in advance. -- SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Acharts is reliable enough but ChartStats should be used where possible. However ChartStats I do not believe is licensed either it just has the flow diagram on there which no other UK sources have. ChartStats should be used according to
Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS as it always seems reliable and it's the only one that can be used with the {{
singlechart}} macro system.
However for those using the old chart format, everyhit isn't allowed, which I don't know why because it's from Radio 1 as a link. When I put everyhit before it got removed so I don't recommend putting it anywhere. Zobbel I remove when I see it, there is no clear consensus on it's reliability, it seems reliable and no problems have been found but the 100-200 positions aren't available to the public so it's unlikely whoever runs it would have the data.
Official Charts Company website has an archive off all top 40 charts which is probably the most reliable out of all of them however positions 40-100 are not archived. I hope that was helpful.
Jayy008 (
talk)
14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Jayy, music week has a 1-75 position chart. Positions over are sometimes found in the weekly articles if very interesting. I have access, also have copies of weekly reports. SunCreator ( talk) 06:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand now. Well it's down to personal preference if it's included then I guess. Jayy008 ( talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Zobbel is being edit warred at Kesha discography for UK positions in excess of 100. Is it reliable for such use?— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Of no use for radio. See Talk:Telephone_(song)#Flaw_with_airplay_citation. Add this to BADCHARTS? SunCreator ( talk) 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Is THIS a reliable site?— Iknow23 ( talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay a component or subcomponent of the U.S. Billboard Hot 100? I still wish that someone could make 'relationship tree tables' showing the relationships between all the US charts.
"
One Time" is where I noticed Pop 100 Airplay being shown when the Hot 100 is also. Seeing that made me wonder, so I thought to ask here.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::: That means that if it a song doesn't enter the hot 100 component charts can be used. Hot 100 Airplay (Now Radio songs 1-40 only available to the public) is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100 and since it charted on the Hot 100 (One Time) Hot 100 Airplay shouldn't be used.
Jayy008 (
talk)
01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::::: I know, I'm just saying that Pop 100 Airplay is a component of The Hot 100 so it isn't allowed as it is a component chart
Shown Here. "Component charts shouldn't be used unless the song fails the enter the main chart" that rule is based on the Hot 100 thus being the main chart to which Hot 100 Airplay contributes. Hot 100 Airplay has never been allowed when the Hot 100 has been. I hope I'm making this clear. Airplay only charts are component charts and should not be used unless it failed to enter the main chart (Billboard Hot 100)
Jayy008 (
talk)
01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yes I know but it goes down to the Hot 100. Pop 100 wasn't a component chart because it took into account sales, airplay & digital just like the Hot 100. Which is why it was allowed UNTIL it was dis-continued then it became unsourcable. Hot 100 Airplay is a component of both of the top charts the Hot 100 and the Pop 100. Wikipedia:Record Charts says component charts shouldn't be used when it charts on the main chart. Why is this an issue? It's been like it forever (Well since I've been here).
Jayy008 (
talk)
01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Candyo (forgive me if I am incorrect) is saying that Pop 100 is an allowed Genre chart and as it did not chart in the 'Main' Genre chart that its Component is allowed.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
When the song fails the Hot 100:
What I think
When the song fails the Hot 100:
A component of ANY chart that appears should not be used. I would apply that to ANY Genre chart— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand this, " Smooth Criminal" from "Hitparadetitalia.it" is set in the # 11 ranking, and " Smooth Criminal" from "ItalianCharts.com" has the # 6, I do not understand, is not meant to be the singles of italia?, ought be the same. -- Eduardofoxx13 ( talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at past issues of Billboard magazine (1996). And found that they used to publish charts around the world, the UK Singles Chart, Germany, France, etc. Well one of the charts is from Denmark, thet have both albums and a singles chart, apparently published by IFPI and Nielsen Marketing Research, I was wondering if this is a valid chart for singles and albums before 2001. I have reviewed some of the other charts, and they are correct, the ones from the UK, Germany, France, Austria, Ireland, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands. They also have some others charts that could be useful because there is no other database, the Euro Hot 100, Spain(AFIVE), Italy(Musica e Dischi/FIMI) and Portugal(AFP, albums only). Here is one of the magazines, most of them are available at Google Books, the entire magazine is available for me I don't know perhaps in other countries it won't show up. [5] Frcm1988 ( talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am wrong, the page file of the Irish charts are not displayed on my computer, Irish Charts. Is it just me or happens to you too?.-- Eduardofoxx13 ( talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
With this edit I've moved the original chart format under it's own header, and kept the page intro and just prose. I think this will help people identify that "Original Chart Format" and "Chart Macros" are allowed. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Record_charts#Original_Chart_Format - 'references should be individual and specific to each chart that is being used. Sources per column or table are insufficient.' Has anyone else notice Today's featured article fails this in the chart section. Being on the front page somewhat (unhelpfully) encourages other editors to repeat it's formatting. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This IP, 188.129.253.214 continues Chart vandalism at "
Fight for This Love" ignoring the instructional comment that provides how to follow through to obtain the information at 'per Field selections, "Lista" = Single (track) Top 10 lista, "Ev" = 2010, "Hét" = 7'.
I recommend that "Editors' Choice rádiós játszási lista" be listed at Badcharts and a note in Goodcharts left to mention to NOT use this chart. THAT must be the chart that 188.129.253.214 is using as it shows "18" that they are always editing it to. "Editor's Choice" does NOT seem like a proper chart to me. It sounds more like a critical rating than a real chart. What do you think?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Billboard has numerous albums charts outside of the main Billboard 200 albums chart. These charts include, but not limited to: Billboard Alternative Albums, Billboard Hard Rock Albums, Billboard Rock Albums, Heatseakers chart, Billboard Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums, Billboard Top Digital Albums, Billboard Top Internet Albums, Billboard Tastemakers, and so on.
While devoted fans and information completionists feel it's necessary to include every single chart that a given album appeared, I feel in most cases that these charts are superfluous and unimportant. For example; the Billboard Rock Albums chart is simply a subchart of the Billboard 200, only removing any albums that Billboard doesn't deem to be in the rock genre. Wiki-Articles to albums such as Death Magnetic, Crash Love and Sonic Boom are littered with charting information to these subcharts. In light that all of the aforementioned albums come from established acts and debuted in the top 20 of the Billboard 200, information on the charting history of the subcharts is unnecessary. Since Death Magnetic debuted at #1 on the Billboard 200, of course it was #1 on the Billboard Hard Rock Albums, as well as being #1 on Billboard Rock Albums, etc.
I am requesting that a "Subcharts" stipulation similar to the already existing " component charts" requirement that "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", be implemented for Billboard albums charts. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The ref link used for them all is one of those (roll eyes) dead Billboard ones.— Iknow23 ( talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there a rule limiting the total number of Billboard charts to be included, so as to not give undue weight to US charts vs. other countries that have fewer charts? Or was that something that was just kicked around in discussion? TheJazzDalek ( talk) 11:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
← I'm not familiar enough with the Album charts to do it. All I'm saying is: If some of them can be removed under the 'component chart' rules, go ahead do it and cite WP:CHARTS "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) 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Per edit disputes and previous discussion at Talk:Crash Love#Removal of 'component' charts and Talk:Crash Love#Request, I remain unconvinced of Darwin's Bulldog's arguments with respect to the various Billboard charts. These chart positions are verifiable and relevant to the respective albums, and ultimately it's not up to us to decide which facts about an album may be relevant to our readers and which aren't. This is an encyclopedia: we present facts and let readers decide what is important to them. A reader may want to know that an album held a certain position on the Billboard 200, but they may also want to know what position it held with respect to other albums of the same genre, which is what these Billboard charts are designed to show. From all of the arguments I've seen, the major bias against including Billboard's individual genre charts is that it tends towards US-centrism. But that's not Wikipedia's fault. Rather, its seems to be a function of the fact that other countries don't bother to break their charts down by genres. If the UK albums chart had separate subcharts for different genres, I imagine we'd include those too. The only case in which it seems redundant to include the individual charts would be if an album reached #1 on the Billboard 200, which would mean that it also reached #1 on whatever genre charts it was also ranked on. But of course the vast majority of albums don't reach this postion. By definition, only 0.5% of the albums on the Billboard 200 can hold the #1 position at any one time. So we are left with albums that may have charted higher on one of the genre charts than they did on the 200. And who's to say that's not of interest to a reader? I, as both a reader and editor, certainly find it of interest that though Crash Love ranked #12 on the Billboard 200 (in comparison to all other albums of all genres), it ranked #4 in comparison to other hard rock albums. There's a reason Billboard bothers to create separate charts for different genres. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason Billboard has so many different charts and subcharts is all down to sales and marketing. I could swear it was once a rule here but maybe I only read it in a discussion, that you could use the main chart (Hot 100/Billboard 200) and only 1 genre chart for whatever genre the artist was (choice of which genre chart was most appropriate was open to interpretation). Including every single genre chart is superfluous. Thank god that other countries don't have their charts split out in multiple ways like Billboard does. Imagine the amount of space it would take up in every article. I am not against the inclusion of any genre charts where a release appeared on the main chart but I am against including every genre chart; one is plenty. TheJazzDalek ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it depends on how successful the album was. For example, for an album that only made one of these Billboard subcharts, it would be important to document that. In comparison, if a record topped the main albums charts from several countries, there's no real need to list less-significant charts. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
An example I'd like to present comes from the source itself. Each Wednesday, Billboard publishes an online weekly article giving a rundown of the best selling albums in the U.S., posting actual sales numbers of the top 10 best selling albums in the country and additional information including new debuts, large jumps/drops, etc. This week's article is "Ludacris Lands Fourth No. 1 Album with Battle of the Sexes". There are no separate weekly articles giving a rundown for the subchart/genre charts such as Alternative Albums chart or Tastemakers, et al. Billboard itself gives weight to an album's position in the Billboard 200 chart. Subcharts/genre charts are rarely, if ever, mentioned by Billboard in these articles and typically when an album is referenced in another article, it's position in the Billboard 200 is stated, with no mention of its position on any other chart given. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any practical way to restrict Billboard album subcharts. As Kiac points out, and everyone needs to remember, most of these are not component charts. In fact, I think "digital albums" is the only component album chart. The rest are genre charts, which are acceptable for both singles and albums. Editors can try to write as many guidelines as they want against them, and will only wind up edit-warring against the masses.— Kww( talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just so we're clear: the Billboard 200 is the overarching album chart in the US. Everything thing else is secondary to it. When people say "topped the American charts", that's what they're referring to. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)