User talk:Kww/chartproposal

Billboard separation

I think there may be a problem with this issue. Okay, I'm gonna dig back here, and I don't know who may remember this, but about 2-3 years ago there were some serious pop-music-related issues going on when there was an explosion of song/single/album articles being created. One of the big points in this ruckus was some editors who insisted on separating out the U.S. charts from "International" charts. There would be two tables shown, one with a plethora of U.S. charts, then a separate header for "all the rest". And that was the problem - it came down to a NPOV issue as the table separation gave more focus, or a higher priority if you will, to the United States. I do think that much of this proposal is very very good but I really think separating U.S. or Billboard charts is going to be a mistake.- eo (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, and I think it was a fair issue when people were trying to limit the absolute number of charts, which this proposal only does indirectly: it basically proposes that nearly all works would get a list of 25-30 charts for non-US, and then the Billboard list. That's a big difference from saying "You can have 18 charts, and if it charted on 10 Billboard charts, you only get 8 other ones."—Kww(talk) 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still uncomfortable with listing the component charts, period. Obviously, as you said in the proposal, the Billboard charts are a special case. But having it like this, I believe, opens the door for people to flood the page with every single Billboard chart possible. Wouldn't Hot 100, Pop 100, and a genre chart be enough? Then making it separate wouldn't be an issue. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the position of arguing for something I personally dislike, so forgive me if I'm less persuasive than usual. Including the component charts is something that is frequently done, and we all spend a lot of time taking them out. However, if we wound up with an editor that insisted on putting them in, we'd have a hard time keeping them out ... they pass WP:N and WP:RS by a mile. If we reverted him frequently, we would risk being blocked for edit-warring, because, unlike enforcing WP:BADCHARTS, the enforcement of the component chart rules is based strictly on personal preference, not on actual policy. That's the same problem we have with the 18 chart limit. My goal was to figure out a way to accommodate common practices while keeping things readable and organized. The chart I proposed was my best attempt: it accommodates the widespread desire to include component charts, the organization makes the relationship between main charts and component charts clear, and the whole thing only takes four lines.

As for "one genre chart", which one? How do we decide? If someone puts out a Spanish Christian rap song that gets popular, that's going to chart in a number of genre charts, even if it never makes the Hot 100 or Pop 100.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, so don't worry. :) My reasoning behind such a limitation is this: a mainstream top-40 song that misses the Hot/Pop 100 completely is of lower notability, and certain editors try to counter that by putting in whatever charts they can to show its (limited) "popularity". For example, they may add "Hot Videoclips" (for music video play) and "Hot Ringtones/Ringmasters" (for ringtone sales). I realise that you're not advocating the inclusion of such charts; I'm just saying that by leaving the component/genre door open with no explicit exclusions, this may, and will most likely, occur on a fairly frequent basis. The issue with a limitedly popular song is that it can interpreted as, "As long as it verifiably charts, no matter how limited or specific the chart is, it's notable." With your example of a popular Spanish Christian rap song, I'm assuming that it would chart fairly well on all three sub-charts (Spanish, CCM, rap/R&B), thereby justifying its inclusion. But if the Spanish Christian rap song wasn't that popular and only charted marginally and briefly on all three charts, is it notable? With songs of a more limited genre, it gets a bit more convoluted. Although I realise that a charts guideline is a guideline and not the be-all and end-all of things, I do feel that it should have a fairly set standard so that this kind of problem would be less frequent.

In short: What's our cut-off for chart inclusion/notability for limited-genre songs, or songs that miss the "big" charts? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't viewing my Billboard table as an example, I was viewing it as the standard: that set of charts, and no others. As for a notability cut-off, I don't see that so much as a factor of which chart, but being guided by WP:NSONGS recommendation against permastubs.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That takes care of my potential issues. What about the potential imbalance of US/Billboard charts? SKS2K6 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the language to be a bit more explicit. I did notice that we need to come up with an equivalent album chart table, which I'm too tired to take care of before bed. As for the balance issue, my feeling is to see how it goes when we try for a more widespread set of comments. If it becomes a major issue, we fall back to today's stance.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]