Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Record charts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

"International" album charts??

So I've been seeing these International album charts popping up here and there (mostly on Mariah Carey album pages), and I was wondering if we could get a consensus on whether they're acceptable or not. These are NOT for charts from countries outside of the artist's home country, but charts that only include non-domestic albums on their chart. For example, the Taiwan International Album chart consists of non-Chinese albums, and the Greek International Album chart includes non-Greek albums only. Personally, I feel that they're essentially component charts, and if an album charts lowly (or fails to chart altogether) on the main chart, its position on the "international" chart would be fairly trivial. Like, if it went #1 on the international chart, then its placing on the main chart should be fairly high, and therefore the international chart wouldn't be needed. If it placed low on the international chart, then it means it didn't place well on the main chart or isn't even on there, making its position trivial. So...thoughts? (And either way, can we declare on the main page that such chart are, or are not, acceptable?) SKS2K6 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

...Stalled ideas?

So it looks like various updates to policies (including the Billboard charts policy and the achievable proposal) haven't gone anywhere recently. So my question is, where do we go from here? Charts are still a problem, so I think the earlier we start adding to the guidelines, the better. Oh, and btw, User:Kww has done an amazing job so far with the draft of WP:GOODCHARTS, and I believe he (or she?...sorry if I got it wrong!) deserves to be commended. It's a lot of work, especially since most of the charts are in foreign languages.

These are my thoughts on the various policies/updates:

Billboard charts: perhaps we can separate them into "main charts" (that do belong on a song/album page and should not be removed for whatever reason), the "genre" charts (stating that inserting the country chart for a country song is acceptable, for example), and the "excluded, with exceptions" chart. User:TenPoundHammer showed a good example for the latter category.
- And I feel that a good test for this would be "All I Want for Christmas Is You", which is relatively chart-heavy right now. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
International charts: User:Kww did such a good job with his draft that I don't have anything to say against it, really. The only thing I can think of is what chart we're gonna use for Japan, and if using both charts is acceptable.
- Also, for South/Latin American countries, someone should find out the validity of all the charts listed here.
The achievable proposal: We're clearly gonna need a lot of commentary for it from all interested editors before we make it "policy", so I don't have much to say much right now. The one question I have is, for a massive hit like "Bleeding Love", if all chart positions are sourceable and are for "major" charts, should all of them belong there?

Comments? Thoughts? Questions? Am I completely off my rocker (not that I have a rocker, but...yeah...)? SKS2K6 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are definitely not off your rocker. The points that you made are extremely valid and should be looked upon. For Billboard charts (most problematic), i support your proposal to separate them in to main and sub-charts. For the other countries i want to go with User:Kww's goodcharts. Its fantastic. P.S. its a he, his name is Kevin

. "Legolas" (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to do some reformatting of my goodcharts list this week. It's stalled at the Latin American lists ... I've just been unable to validate anywhere but Argentina and Mexico.

As for The achievable proposal, it isn't stalled, it's just moving slowly. I've been working on User:Kww/chartproposal, and will be asking for public comment soon here before we see if it can actually replace WP:Record charts with it.

Public comment requested

We've talked about reworking WP:Record charts into something achievable and enforceable. My pass is ready at User:Kww/chartproposal. The Billboard section may be a bit controversial, so read it carefully, and help making the Billboard table more attractive is greatly appreciated. Remember, it's a wiki, so feel free to dismember at will.—Kww(talk) 16:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's an obvious non-starter. Any comments about the lack of comments?—Kww(talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had NO IDEA you finished it...but no wonder; you commented on a weekend. I'm barely on during weekends (hahaha). But I'll give it a look-over as soon as I get the chance. SKS2K6 (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added some comments/started a conversation on the chartproposal Talk Page. Shall we keep discussion there then archive it later or move things here? - eo (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

UK chart source

Saw a new (to me) source used as a reference and was wondering if it had been vetted: zobbel.de. It's not mentioned in WP:CHARTS or either of Kevin's lists so... ? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, it appears to be a reliable archive. I don't see any reason to use it in preference to the things it archives, though. I wouldn't rush around to replace references to it, but if I were editing an article anyway, I'd be inclined to switch the references to the official archives for any of its charts.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the sources Zobbel uses are stated here. It is a useful site for chart positions over 100 as these aren't given by any other online source, but I would use the other sources (Everyhit.com and ChartStats.com) where possible. --JD554 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian country charts

I have begun a discussion here regarding the use of this singles chart, whose publisher I can find no information on at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on Badcharts

Personally I've seen a reduction in the number of badcharts being added to articles. Is this the same for anyone else? — R ² 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think it's a big cultural change or anything. A lot of these chart tables get copied from one article to another, and then filled out. Once the worst charts didn't show up in as many places, they stopped getting copied to as many places, so they stopped growing so quickly. The Brazilian and Bulgarian charts are the two I wrestle with the most these days, because acharts mirrors them so everyone sees them.—Kww(talk) 12:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nopes. Just today morning i saw the HUGE volume of BADCHARTS added to the Rihanna discography article. I specifically see brazilian, portugal and the Polish charts being added. "Legolas" (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard chart links

For the different Billboard chart links that we use in the chart table for a song article, the link becomes invalid once the song falls out of the chart. So i propose that for Billboard charts can we add the artist chart history link? Because that has the peak positions permanently for the different charts. "Legolas" (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I've already started reverting people who add the weekly Billboard chart's, due to the fact it will be impossible to verify in a matter of weeks. Stable links should be used, Billboard have made them easy enough to access. — R ² 12:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Either the artist chart history link or the specific song's chart info should be linked (if you type in a song title in the search box, then click Charts, you get every single chart position the song has ... hit?...landed on?...yeah...). I tend to use the individual links because sometimes the Artist Chart History takes a while to be updated. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You could alternately use Allmusic's Charts & Awards section of each artist's page, which uses the same information. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good source for italian charts?

Is this site: [4] a good source? JayJ47 (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are a part of the Ultratop archive. — R ² 13:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop

Isn't this chart also a component chart, and something related to the mainstream top 40 chart? I don't think it should be added in any song article, should it? Hometown Kid (talk) 10:43 02 March, 2009

Alright since no one has responded I guess it's okay. Hometown Kid (talk) 14:45 09 March, 2009

I hadn't noticed this question. I'll try to have a good answer by tomorrow.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Singles Chart

Hi all, i saw a discrepancy in the Dutch music charts displayed at acharts.us and the ultratop website for Dutch charts archiving. For the current issue acharts displays the number one as Gaga's Just Dance whereas Ultratop Dutch displays it as Jan Smit's "Je naam in de sterren". Which one is correct? --Legolas ^(talktome) 09:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the chart displayed in the Ultratop page is a component of the Dutch Top 40. The Mega Singles Top 100 only ranks sales of singles and albums in the Netherlands, while the Top 40 combines these data with airplay. So I think the Top 40 is the one we should use. We should only use the Mega Singles if the single or album didn't chart on the Top 40. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohh k. Thanks man--Legolas ^(talktome) 05:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish chart catastrophe

The Spanish chart situation has gotten hideously complex, because Promusicae has converted from publishing a physical-sales only chart to publishing a combined chart, but the two most popular mirrors (spanishcharts.com and acharts.us) have stayed with the physical-only chart. I've documented it in User:Kww/goodcharts. I think this may need a note in WP:BADCHARTS as well.

On a quasi-related note, I'd like to get the goodcharts list out of my userspace. Anyone object to me moving to to WP:Record chart sourcing guide?—Kww(talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking forward to it going official. :) — R ² 14:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why put it on a separate page? Place it right here at the bottom of the main WP:CHARTS page.... no? - eo (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's wise, more visibility. — R ² 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Word. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved and transcluded because it allowed me to keep the history and talk page without having to request an admin to do a history merge.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work, Kww. I'm wondering tho - and this may be a dumb question, but should the U.S. be added to the goodcharts table? Links to Billboard, RIAA and SoundScan? I know a bunch of people are using Radio & Records as a source to update airplay-only charts, like the Country chart. Should this be allowed? - eo (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember, Billboard and R&R are part of the same company. I believe Billboard uses R&R data for airplay information, although I could be wrong. But I still prefer using the comprehensive Billboard charts. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer it also, although R&R publishes their charts at least a day or two before BB officially releases them, which is why I asked. There really needs to be more research done about how much info from R&R is used by BB. - eo (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Billboard and R&R information should be added. It's a wiki, so go ahead, or at least tell me the links for R&R.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if R&R's charts are archived tho. The goal is to reference BB peaks on their archive pages, right?... not on whatever the current chart is. - eo (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

German chart reliability

Can some of you experts please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaucoups of Blues (song) and comment here on the reliability of the charts in question? Thanks! TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone seriously wrong with the German chart sites. I can't get charts-surfer.de or germancharts.com to return any archived positions for anything, which makes it hard to validate anything. I'm confident that this particular single was released in Europe, including Germany. I don't see any signs of charting, and I tend to think the problems with retrieving German results are creating a false impression that it may have charted. I'm not at all certain, though ... is anyone else able to verify any German chart positions for anything?—Kww(talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, if you search musicline.de, the song doesn't come up, but someone posted this link, showing it at #43. Is musicline.de a reliable source? TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Musicline.de is certainly a reliable source. A quick check at WP:GOODCHARTS shows it as the recommended chart source for Germany, and that link is sufficient to establish charting. I'm going to do some digging and try to figure out why the search engines are being so balky. I would appreciate all the help from regulars in figuring this little mystery out.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

charts-surfer.de was working perfectly last month but now they seem to have blocked up all chart positions as of last week. My guess is they might be switching to a system where you need to subscribe to access their information, like infodisc used to do years ago. JamesBurns (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Musicline did work fine jsut three days back. I saw the archiving for each week, though it was only for the first 5 spots. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Musicline does not appear to have album archives prior to the 1990s, which makes it difficult for use in older artist articles. They have songs archived but not albums. "Keine Chartdaten gefunden!". Without a reliable archive it's not that great a source. At least charts-surfer.de when it was still working would give you album chart positions back to the 1960s.JamesBurns (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You can get the full Top 100 songs in Germany by going to:http://www.viva.tv/Charts/Detail/id/6/part/0/name/VIVA+TOP+100 This is the same chart as theMusicline.de except you get to see the full chart and not just the top 5.(MoovieStarz (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Could not find an archive of older charts on that site, which means it's not very useful. JamesBurns (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian charts

As most of you are aware, the lack of a Brazilian chart has been a trouble spot for a long while. Some days it feels like the only thing I do is revert additions of the Brazil Hot 100. Recently, JuStar added some links to some PDFs from Crowley Analysis, and that led me to some progress. My personal belief is that it isn't enough, and we need to revert JuStar's edits, but I'm not going to do that alone. I'll describe what I've found, and let's figure out what to do.

There are two legitimate charts supported by Crowley Analysis: http://www.espetaculo.com.br/paradas/saopaulo.htm and http://www.espetaculo.com.br/paradas/riodejaneiro.htm. Crowley Analysis is the Brazilian equivalent of Nielsen: they monitor radio airplay and create charts based on them. I have no reason to believe that Crowley is anything but a legitimate information source. The problem I have is that the information provided doesn't seem sufficient for one reason. The charts are not nationwide: one covers Rio de Janeiro, and the other one covers Sao Paulo. Those are Brazil's most populous areas, but they only have 40% of Brazil's population. This puts us in the situation of still having no national chart for Brazil, but, instead, two subcharts that still aren't a full national chart when added together.

I'd argue that these charts should still not be used, but I want to hear others' input.—Kww(talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An additional concern is that I can't find an archive of them anywhere, which makes verification of figures nearly impossible.—Kww(talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Thanks for the heads up, kww.) Note: I think I'm in a conflict of interest position, considering I have done many edits (and reverts) against User:JuStar's edits. I'll still say this: the PDFs are proof of something legitimate, but as I pointed out to User:Kww earlier, the two PDFs that JuStar added list different polling stations. Did you figure out which one was for which city? SKS2K6 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The one he added for "Touch My Body" is clearly Sao Paulo. I'm not certain of the other one, and it may not correspond to either of the publicly displayed charts.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do the two charts correspond to the situation with the Belgium charts having Flanders and Wallonia as separate charts? --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Those charts cover all of Belgium when added together. These don't cover all of Brazil.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't have an archiving mechanism then it's near useless to us. — R ² 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, for "Touch My Body" I have to find a new PDF. I agree. But this is clearly a national chart for Brazil. It is difficult to find but I will do my best. I hope that does not hinder this time. The main problem is that Crowley does not publish charts. Only reports for companies. JuStar(talk) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I use the following sight for Brazilian Charts. This was given to me by a friend that spends about half the year living in Brazil. (http://www.hot100brasil.com/chtsinglesb.html) Take it or leave it. I use it all the time. (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

See the BADCHARTS list. Not to be used. - eo (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Final conclusion: the regular Crowley charts aren't useful for the reasons outlined. The particular charts that JuStar used as refs can't be used for the simple reason that, as JuStar says, they aren't charts: they are Only reports for companies..—Kww(talk) 12:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Until a consensus is reached I don't recommend using JuStar's source. - eo (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to do that without JuStar: he says he won't talk about it.—Kww(talk) 13:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if he persists on being so adamant, give him warnings, if still persisting, blocks are there. There is another user as i see above (Mooviestarz) who also intend on using the same charts listed under WP:BADC. Personally i don't see any reason to include these charts. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood to be blocked for 3RR this morning, so I'm going to hold back for a bit.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. --Legolas ^(talktome) 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived US radio charts

What are editors opinions on using archived US radio station charts for inclusion on wikipedia charts? MegX (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Single station airplay chart? I've always deleted them as being related to a single retailer. If anyone thinks I've stretched the point, I'll be more than happy to change the guideline to say "single retailer, station, or network".—Kww(talk) 03:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no valid reason to include them. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, enough charts flying around already. We are looking for downsizing them no upping. --Legolas ^(talktome) 03:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Swedish charts

I thought there was just Sverigetopplistan for singles in Sweden, but it seems that Billboard also has a chart. Does anyone know what each chart takes into consideration? airplay? sales? downloads? They both have different peaks for the same song. Here's the Billboard link. I don't know what I would call it in the table either since I have Sverige as "Swedish Singles Chart". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend using the Billboard charts for foreign countries unless there's a problem with the local chart (like the lack of archiving for Poland, or the lack of a domestic single chart for Portugal). Even if we knew the exact methodology behind each Billboard chart, it would normally be redundant to the homegrown one.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do question the validity of some of these "Billboard" foreign charts. Billboard has acknowledged singles charts for the U.S., Canada, Japan, and that's it (the term "Hot 100" is even copyrighted by the magazine). I know there is one for Turkey found at a website that is something like billboard.tr which even uses Billboard's logo but I have no idea how legit it really is. Billboard does display international charts but that does not mean that they compile them. - eo (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Billboard Turkey, there is a print edition in addition to http://www.billboard.com.tr. Also, this PDF supports that Billboard expanded into Turkey and Russia, but at least as of April 2007, those were their only foreign presences. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice, thanks for that! - eo (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would class the foreign Billboard charts as "invalid". I have no reason to believe that Billboard would publish a hobby chart, and they seem to correspond to countries where Nielsen has a presence. For countries where we can't use a homegrown chart, I have no objection to using a Billboard chart.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Billboard's Sights for Turkey are indeed valid. They also have a Top 10 for Greece (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Greece), A Top 10 for Portugal (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=Portugal) and a European Hot 100 Singles chart (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Singles&f=European+Hot+100+Singles). Personally I always use these and The ones for Japan or Turkey before I consider any other chart. (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Hot 100/Bubbling Under

Is there a consensus as for the proper listing of a song that has entered the Bubbling Under Hot 100 but not the actual Hot 100 chart? Several editors, including myself, use #'s 101 thru 125 for Bubbling Under positions; for instance, Ashton Shepherd's "Takin' Off This Pain" peaked at #16 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, so I put 116 in the Hot 100 column. Is this an acceptable method of indicating a Bubbling Under peak? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 1:10 pm, 8 June 2008, Sunday (9 months, 15 days ago) (UTC−4)

This is what I do, but again, I'm unsure about what the actually consensus is. Billboard and Joel Whitburn both consider the Bubbling Under Chart to be a continuation of the Billboard Hot 100, so a #1 on the Billboard Bubbling Under would translate to #101. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 12:48 pm, 26 November 2008, Wednesday (3 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−5)

Bubbling under means the song did not chart.. if it comes out to a song being 116, it's obviously NOT in the hot 100 now is it? a seperate section for listing songs that bubble under seems to be better than listing songs that didn't actually chart in a chart listing Alankc (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For individual single tables, the song should be listed with its position on the Bubbling Under chart with an entry named "Bubbling Under xxx". For charts that are listing multiple songs, some of made the main chart and some of which only bubbled, I've got no problems treating the bubbling under chart as an extension. To do otherwise would force an unnecessary addition of more columns.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly how i'm doing it, but some insist a song that bubbled under ast 18 should be on the regular chart listing as 118 which total defies what he charts are.. it's a hot 100 chart, not a hot 118 chart. Next thing you know, people will be adding songs that peaked at #500 and the page starts looking like a fansite. Alankc (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The best argument to use against such people is that in fact, the 101st best selling song at any given time is probably not number one on the Bubbling Under chart, because you cannot drop off the Hot 100 onto the Bubbling Under Hot 100, you can only climb on. If, for example, the 101st through 120th best selling songs in the country had all charted on the Hot 100 previously, then song 121 would show up as number one on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, because it is the highest ranked song that has never been on the Hot 100.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The arguement against that, which you can see by scrolling up a couple of apragraphs, is #1 on the bubbling under lsit is the same as #101 on the charts.. Some people are stubborn about that. In my opinion, a top 100 only goes to 100, unless my math is wrong..haha Alankc (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But then how can you list down that a song has charted at #1, when the reality is that it charted at #101? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this done two differant ways effectively.. one way is to create a new table with songs bubbling under and lsit them as peaking at 101, 102, 103, etc.. oor, create a new table for songs bubbling under, witha description of the table like bubbling under #1 would be highest ranking song before making the top 1000'.. and lsiting the songs as #1, #2, #2, etc. The big problem with lsiting anything that bubbles under is, people will get carried away with it.. there are artists who have had songs get airplay that never chart, and people will be adding songs that made it as high as 200 or 300, which isn't notable at all. There should be some guideline for bubbling under to at least be restricted to #10 or #20 (aka #110 or #120) Alankc (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart only lists songs from 101 up to 125 (can anyone confirm this?), meaning you wouldn't have a problem with higher chartings. There isn't reliable sources publishing peaks that high anyway.k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the opposite, if a song is like #25 below the actual chart, it's not worth mentioning. I could stand 1-20 on bubbling under, those have a chance at actually charting, further than that would be rediculous. And i'm saying this as someone who has an RIAA multiplatinum award from a major album (not my album as I don't have one, I do promotional and otehr work in the industry). from an actual industry standpoint, anything below the top 20 of a chart really means nothing (aside from how fast or slow the song or album climbs and drops).. The goal is always to get to the top 20 (which gets more airplay on coudowns an chart shows), if not #1 itself.. a song or album that tops at #21-#100 even the artist would be like "eh.. it did good, next project!" so that's the frame of mind I look at it all from. How many people look back at music history and focus on something that only topped at #30? Alankc (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ITunes

Question: what bear is best?Should iTunes stats be mentioned anywhere in the article? For example, if an article states that after its digital release, it was #1 on iTunes for a day or whatever, is it notable enough to include in the chart section (in prose, that is)? I see it fairly frequently, and I know that it shouldn't be listed in the charts, but...yeah. My feeling on it is, if it charts well in iTunes, it'll chart well on the national chart, which means that the iTunes standing is irrelevant. SKS2K6 (talk) 3:02 pm, 10 November 2008, Monday (4 months, 13 days ago) (UTC−5)

I don't believe it to be worth mentioning at all, and generally strike such comments when I notice them.—Kww(talk) 3:07 pm, 10 November 2008, Monday (4 months, 13 days ago) (UTC−5

While digital downloads are now mainstream, I-Tunes, Amazon, and other rankings of the sort will eventually become mainstream as well. I wouldn't object to seperate tables for such rankings/charting in the meantime, but it would be very diffacult to maintain as rankings on I-Tunes and Amazon alone change frequently (somewhat daily). I don't believe they should be mixed with other charts such as Billboard, which is a totally differant type of chart, at least not yet.. in time.. Billboard itself may include these digital charts to go with the times. Alankc (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what Hot Digital Songs is all about, and it includes both Amazon and iTunes.—Kww(talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently too many aren't aware of that and keep adding Itunes to charts lists Alankc (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We have to take up the onus of reverting such change and tell them about WP:BADCHARTS. --Legolas ^(talktome) 04:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Czechoslavakian Charts

The link in the sourcing guide for the Czech single charts goes to the album charts. The correct address is: http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=R (MoovieStarz (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Fixed. DiverseMentality 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

acharts Billboard Hot 100

acharts has removed Billboard Hot 100 from their charts and replaced with some shitty US Airplay chart which is not even the Hot 100 Airplay. --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see everyone stop using that website here on Wikipedia. While some of its information is correct, most of it is suspicious. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly how i feel, but I guess the convenience of it just overrides anything else. Plus, if I remember correctly, they archive charts that no one else does (but who knows if they do it correctly?...). SKS2K6 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes the Canadian Hot 100 much easier to work with, everything else should be using a different source, especially the likes of the Billboard Hot 100. My main problem with it is things like this, [Jimmy Eat World has had 9 singles and 4 albums that have appeared in major charts (from my other research here: Jimmy Eat World discography). Yet acharts only lists 4 singles and 2 albums, if you were using it as a primary source, you'd miss over half of the charts. And i know some users do insist on it's individual use. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Billboard forced them to remove the Hot 100 listing because they were posting the full Hot 100 a day after Billboard uploaded it. Since they force you to pay extra money for the full Hot 100 I can see why they made them stop. I do have a link for the full Canadian Hot 100from Billboard Biz. Not sure how it is working without any sign on, but it does. If you'd like me to share let me know. (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Billboard allows full access to Canadian Hot 100 anyway. Now I see why they removed Hot 100 from acharts. Well they have updated teh site to include our BADCHART policies to reflect in their charts also. Thats good. --Legolas ^(talktome) 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

UK R&B Chart?

Is this chart suitable to include even if it is sourced? Or is it a component chart and thus unecessary? JayJ47 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No its not a component chart, but also not notable enough to be inclulded. UK is more of Pop and Dance genre than R&B, hence it is a non-notable chart there. For US we can. --Legolas ^(talktome) 05:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

www.radioandrecords.com

For the past few weeks I've noticed certain articles' chart positions for Hot Modern Rock Tracks being changed to values that don't match the cited references (typically Billboard is used as the reference). I queried an anon and they pointed me to www.radioandrecords.com.

How legit is this? In my (limited) experience Billboard does seem to catch up with this site after a few days. Should articles currently using Billboard as a reference be changed to use this site instead (so we don't have the situation I'm currently seeing where cites don't match claims)?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't like this, but apparently Billboard uses R&R as the source for some of their airplay-only charts, such as Modern Rock and Country Tracks. R&R's info and website is usually updated a day or two before Billboard releases their official charts. I've never investigated thoroughly enough to know whether there are ever slight changes or differences that may occur between the time R&R publishes and Billboard publishes. Regardless, if a chart position is accredited to Billboard, the source should point there, not to R&R. - eo (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case the chart is merely called "US Mod", linked to Modern Rock Tracks (which is a redirect to Hot Modern Rock Tracks). So in this case, should the chart be regarded as a Billboard chart? The chart article states that the chart appears in Billboard magazine but it sounds as if it's compiled externally, and articles which use this chart tend not to attribute the chart to Billboard.

Apologies for responding to a detailed reply with yet more questions!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Charly1300.com

This has been added to several articles recently as a source for "European chart positions"; as far as I can see, it's just one guy's website compilation, with no clear methodology or criteria and seems to be based solely on airplay. I don't consider it a reliable source and propose its inclusion as a deprecated chart. Fine if anyone wants to defend it, of course. --Rodhull andemu 14:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no objections to adding it. It hasn't been a big problem, but when I find these charts I tend to repoint them to legitimate charts.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Chilean Singles Chart

I was going to tag this with a speedy delete as being a repost of Chile Hot 100, but I was not exactly sure about it so I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention here. This is the link, [5] that was provided on My Life Would Suck Without You to the peak of #51, but the song itself is nowhere on the list. Also along with the main article, there are three pages of number one-hits with this 404 link [6] that supposedly shows the archive. Aspects (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it suspicious, especially since there doesn't appear to be an official singles chart in Chile. Also, the website that is supposed to be "official" doesn't contain any information of the company that compiles and publishes the chart. I would tag the article for speedy deletion. There is a link to the archive here, but you can't click on anything for the Chile Top 100. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a battle that I haven't fought yet, but I think needs to be considered. I can't find good information about americatop100.com. It may be yet another set of bogus charts. The reason I haven't fought it yet is practicality ... without americatop100.com and top40-charts.com, we have essentially no chart sources for South America. That may be the fact, but I dread the day that every South American country winds up on WP:BADCHARTS, and we try to remove them all from Wikipedia. Getting Hot 100 Brazil out of the picture has been bad enough, doing it for all the South American countries is quite likely to provoke strong resistance.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

^^^^ Everything said there = everything I want to say. I brought up americatop100 before, and I think most of us here know it doesn't really meet WP:V and WP:RS, but considering how many pages they're on right now...*sigh*. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

R&R Canada Rock National Airplay

Link. Not too sure about this one, does it just cover this company's (R&R) stations or what? It says it comes from Nielson, so that should be reliable. Is it notable enough to include if there is no appearance on the Canadian Hot 100...? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

R&R is owned by VNU, the same company that owns Nielsen and Billboard. It doesn't own stations. Its chart is certainly reliable, and using it for singles that don't make the Canadian Hot 100 is legitimate.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleared that one up quick! Thanks. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine

Are we really entertaining these? I've seen them popping up in articles (with links/sources), but these are very minor music industry markets, for airplay only. Has any research been done on these charts and their validity? In terms of the world music markets I see these as very trivial. - eo (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What a hell is this?? Totally inappropriate. Do you know IFPI? IFPI monitors the Slovakia and Czech Republic's charts. My view is: if people do not realize all this, they had to leave Wikipedia. What is important is that the chart is official. The market's size is irrelevant. This is called discrimination between countries and it is against any law of the world, including the Wikipedia's. There is no country more important than others. I will not discuss this matter further. Already tired. JuStar (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it discrimination? It's either a big world music market or it isn't. I'm asking about the validity of these and whether or not consensus agrees to add them. If you're not going to discuss any further here, then don't be upset if they are removed from articles before a consensus is reached. - eo (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not discrimination. Wikipedia is not the place to put every single piece of possibly related information onto a page. There has to be a "cutoff" point where we do and do not accept certain pieces of information. This is covered by Wikipedia's policy of notability, for the most part. What eo is bringing up is a good point — how notable is a chart statistic from a country that a) has a very small population and b) has a very small music market? It would be somewhat notable if a Ukrainian song went to #1 in its home country. However, if a song by a North American artist, say, Mariah Carey, charted in multiple countries and did well, would it really be necessary to add chart positions from minor markets? As discussed previously on this talk page, a song's popularity can easily be indicated by listing the charts from the biggest markets in the world. That way, the person reading the article can see how popular a song was. By listing charts from every single nation possible, it just makes the page look heavy and somewhat trivial. JuStar, I understand that you want thorough articles that contain much information, but please understand that a) this is a public encyclopedia that anyone can edit, b) you're not the only editor on Wikipedia, and c) you do not own, or have dominance on, any article in Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia talk pages is that...well, we talk. I would suggest you read Wikipedia's policies before commenting any further. (And eo, don't be surprised if JuStar just simply readds them afterwards. See his edits on recent Mariah Carey songs, namely "Touch My Body or "Bye Bye".) SKS2K6 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohh he already started adding them again??? I just saw IFPI's page They donot list these countries in their major markets. --Legolas ^(talktome) 15:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how I love it when people start tossing around legal ideas without really understanding what they are talking about. Wikipedia has no legal obligation to present every single chart from every single country, and not doing so is certainly not discrimination. So long as we follow the law of the U.S., where the site is hosted, there are no problems. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

* Correct but there are concerns about systemic bias. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the systemic bias argument would apply if we refused to permit charts from small countries in articles about singers from small countries. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Latvian chart isn't relevant to an article about a Latvian singer, and I would agree that refusing to mention that chart position for Latvian people would be systemic bias. That argument doesn't apply to Mariah Carey, though: the charts from the 30 major markets constitute 95% of the market, and the remaining 240 countries constitute the remaining 5%. Excluding the small country charts doesn't impact the coverage of Mariah Carey to any significant extent, and reduces the chart table by 80%.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

BPI website

It seems that the BPI have changed their website, thus all links lead straight to the homepage (or a page which cannot be found), and not a certification search function. I currently cannot find the new search function, could they have removed that function on their site? If so, this doesn't look good for certifications in the UK on WP record charts... k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the message on the certification page: "Please note - the searchable BPI certified awards database will be available online shortly." Either way it looks like all the wikipedia links to bpi will have to be updated. MegX (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this is where a robot would come/template would have come in helpful... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see how BPI organise their pages. It maybe too complicated for a bot to handle. MegX (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This Certified Awards page has links to the awards from 2004-2008, however, they are not accessible without a password. This isn't looking good. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This non-members page says they'll be "available online shortly". I don't think it's looking that bad ... yet. --JD554 (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it has been 6 weeks now and still no searchable database. How are they still allowing Discogs to be upgraded to FL with unverifiable certifications? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've not had a look at any FLC's for a while and didn't realise they were doing. If they are, that's quite worrying. It's also really annoying as I've been holding off nominating a discog for this very reason. --JD554 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just been for a look, I don't think any discographies using the BPI as a source for UK certifications has been promoted since 1 April. --JD554 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's quite permissible to use a paid database as a source. "Verifiable" doesn't mean "verifiable by anyone, anywhere, for free".—Kww(talk) 14:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I specifically said "using the BPI as a source" in my above comment :-p. --JD554 (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Add UK R&B Chart to Deprecated charts?

Should this chart be added to the list? Its a non-notable chart but a lot of editors keep adding it in articles. Thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as a "bad" chart. It's compiled by a legitimate source, and uses a legitimate methodology. I agree that it's over a very minor market, and shouldn't be included often.—Kww(talk) 11:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's a non-notable chart then why are so many editors keen on adding it to articles. They're also keen on adding other UK charts when its all uncessary. I don't know what to do. I remove them and then other editors add them back. It's really frustrating. JayJ47 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's awkward, but I feel pretty strongly that being listed on WP:BADCHARTS has to be based on being an unreliable source of information, not because we stylistically feel the chart shouldn't be used. So long as it's based on a good strong policy, we can basically treat willful violations as disruptive editing or vandalism. If we let it become a style guide, it loses all teeth.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have started a new section. I agree with you that it shouldn't be listed as a bad chart, I get that. I just wanted to know if the chart should be included at all. Because to me its like a non-notable chart or a component chart. The way I see it is that if you can have a "UK R&B Chart" then what's stopping editors adding other charts like "Canadian R&B Chart". I know there isn't a canadian one that was just an example. JayJ47 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.chartsinfrance.net/charts/singles.php,p1

Can someone with better French figure out what this chart is? It clearly contradicts www.lescharts.com, which claims to be SNEP. Unfortunately, so does this chart.—Kww(talk) 13:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a read with Babel Fish. I can't find anything to call it a bogus website, but the contradiction with lescharts.com can become a problem, especially since both claim to be SNEP. Though I can't determine which site is the appropriate one, I'd rather use lescharts.com, as it's connected to Ultratop, a well known reliable source. — Σ xplicit 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

At the moment both Charts in France and Lescharts agree with SNEP (at least as far as the top 10). Maybe Lescharts was just late updating? --JD554 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

lescharts is indeed late in updating. I saw the similar situation last week when I cross checked an IP updation for an article in lescharts or acharts. Both of them are pretty late in updating the current issues from SNEP. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To be added to the list

I propose that hit40uk[7] is added to the bad charts list. I've noticed it being used a lot more in chart tables though it's not an official United Kingdom chart. Slowpoke (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support adding this one. Per http://www.somethinelse.com/news/stories/19733.html , SMS messaging is used as a component in the chart ranking, which converts it into a countdown show, not a chart.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious enough violation of WP:Record charts that I went ahead and added it to WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chilean top 100

Chilean Singles chart...is this a reliable chart for Chile? --Smanu (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That has no yet been determined. A discussion can be found here. Generally, I avoid it. — Σ xplicit 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin Areschart

Opinions on Latin Areschart are sought.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Billboard inclusion

I've created a table on a subpage of mine of the criteria for charts included. This list is derived from this subpage that never went anywhere. I'd like to have this added here on WP:CHARTS for an easy way to determine what charts should and shouldn't be included in tables. Comments, questions and edits are welcome. Thoughts? — Σ xplicit 04:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Extremely good job. One minor thing. Can we include R&B charts for R&B songs and Dance charts for Dance-songs only? That way we will be lessening the already huge number of billboard charts added to articles. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask and this looks as good as any place to do it; what's the situation with the Top 40 Tracks chart? It's article indicates it was once the Pop 100 Airplay chart - however, was there a Pop 100 equivalent back then that this was a component of, or what? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Legolas, I'm assuming you mean those charts listed as "industry standard"? Forming a consensus to remove these charts might be a bit difficult, considering there isn't much argument to remove them other than having too many Billboard charts in a table. Kiac, I don't know much about the Top 40 Tracks, but reading the article, it didn't seem like a component chart, but simply an airplay chart (not all airplay-only charts are component charts). — Σ xplicit 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I meant, the "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" and Hot Dance Club Play charts. I don't want them to be removed. Just that they can be included in songs with respective genres. For eg. A dance song like Poker Face" the dance chart gains priority over the Hot R&B chart, though the song charts on both (lower position on R&B), while for a song like "Heartless" the R&B chart becomes more important than the dance chart. That's all I wanted to say that if we could include these two charts genre wise, then we can lessen the number of Billboard chart inclusion by one more. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see much of a point for excluding one chart from an article. There isn't much of a reduction. Besides my own opinion, excluding one chart over the other due to importance or because the higher position should be listed would violate WP:NPOV. — Σ xplicit 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I only meant for importance, that won't fail WP:NPOV. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not totally sure about it. I'd like to see others' input on this. — Σ xplicit 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure about singling out "Hot Dance Airplay" and "Hot Dance Singles". Seems to me we should just follow the normal component rules: let them be listed for those that did not make "Hot Dance Club". I'd have to dig around, but I remember one group that scored something like six #1 positions on "Hot Dance Singles" and never once made "Hot Dance Club". Proves the point about "Hot Dance Singles" not having a lot of weight, but I don't see any reason to exclude it.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Hot Dance Airplay is related to Hot Dance Club Play. The former I think is a component of Hot 100 while the latter is solely based on club strength of songs. Hence Hot Dance Airplay can be included only if a song hasnot charted on Billboard Hot 100. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Hot Dance Airplay has anything to do with Hot Dance Club Play. Club Play is based solely on what DJs play in clubs, whereas Airplay is based solely on radio airplay. So now, since Airplay isn't a component chart, I'll have adjust the table, though I don't know if it should be included or not. — Σ xplicit 04:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting to find consensus to add this. — Σ xplicit 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hot Dance Airplay is one of the component charts for Hot 100. Those 7 dance radio stations are among the 999 that report for Hot 100 Airplay. Hence component but then again can be considered a separate entity. However my point was that in the charts of the articles, can we add the Hot Dance Club Play link for dance songs and Hot R&B/Hip-hop Songs for R&Bs? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that the Hot Dance Airplay is much like the Latin Rhythm Tracks (specialized subset of certain radio stations and is based on airplay only), meaning they should not be included? As for Hot Dance Club Play and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, I don't see why not, as both charts are industry standard. — Σ xplicit 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories of number-one singles vs. number-one albums

Out of curiousity, how come there are so many categories for number-one singles from every country and so many of the miscellaneous Billboard charts, but not one category for number-one albums for any country? Was there some kind of consensus reached that songs that reached number one are more important than albums that reached number one? Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I don't see why there shouldn't be one. - eo (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did find this: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 15#Number-one album categories.

Hmm. Obviously there was one. This was in 2006, I dunno, should we reopen a discussion? I dont necessarily see an issue with it. - eo (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It would definitely need to be re-opened for discussion as this came up for me when I tried to create the category for Billboard 200 number-one albums. It was speedily deleted per G4 recreation. Like you say, it has been a few years now since that discussion. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian FIMI Charts and Achart.us

Hi. This week the currenty number 1 single in Italy is "Meraviglioso" by Negramaro (see here: http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_digital.php), but acharts.us says that the number one is "This Is the Life" by Amy Macdonald (see here: http://acharts.us/italy_singles_top_50). The same thing also happens for the album chart: in the official FIMI album chart the number one is "Alla Mia Età" by Tiziano Ferro (http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_artisti.php), but acharts.us says that it's "Working on a Dream" by Bruce Springsteen (http://acharts.us/italy_albums_top_50). The others position of both charts (FIMI singles and albums) are really different from those of acharts.us. So I think that acharts.us isn't a reliable source for the Italian Chart and shouldn't be included on the articles. (Sorry for my english, I'm not English) --Smanu (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Acharts takes several days to update itself. You should monitor it. — R ² 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not time lag, it's something worse, unless Acharts is ahead of the official sites. Acharts is reporting a number one position for the Amy MacDonald piece, and that has peaked at number 2 according to the official charts. I'll agree that monitoring for a few days to see if it resolves itself is warranted, but I have a big red circle waiting to put on the Italian archive at acharts.us.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as there archiving links are correct, that's the main think. People shouldn't use weekly charts as sources anyway, since the link changes every week. We definitely should monitor the weekly chart and the archive though. — R ² 13:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not lag Acharts has been reporting number one for several weeks. It's a different chart. Now, the question is this: what chart is it? If it's a valid one, we can keep it, otherwise, it's time for a really messy addition to WP:BADCHARTS that's going to be an enforcement nightmare.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Found the problem: acharts.us is mirroring the APC charts chart for Italy, not the official one. Since APC Charts is on WP:BADCHARTS, their Italian mirror is there by implication.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So, we shouldn't use the Italian chart on acharts.us anymore, right? --Smanu (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't use it, but be careful removing it. People are used to using it, so if you start removing thousands of them today, people will react badly. For now, add a link to WT:Record charts#Italian FIMI Charts and Achart.us in your edit summary when you make a change. In a few weeks, you can just point at WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it :) --Smanu (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

hi!! i'm italian, and both the charts are official!! because acharts use the official chart of Musica&Dischi.--79.53.251.114 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence of that? It appears to match the APC Charts site, and I can't access charts at Musica&Dischi without paying for a subscription.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see the top5 single and album...it's always the same!!--79.53.251.114 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can I see the top 5? Please give me a URL. When I look, I only find pages that require a login id.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.musicaedischi.it/ down page..--79.53.251.114 (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.187.116 (talk)

Anyplace where I can see previous weeks? Or is it only this one week that can be seen?—Kww(talk) 13:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Only this week! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.197.128 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing here beacuse I want you to know that Italian Singles Charts posted on acharts.us are correct...In fact they're based on M&D (Musica & Dischi) official charts...FIMI singles charts are digital-only, while M&D charts are based on the airplay too...but they're both official. And I can give evidences that Italian Singles Charts on acharts.us matches the M&D Official Charts.

1- M&D official website shows the Top5 singles in Italy every week (you have to be a member to see the full chart) and if you look at the Top5 singles in Italy at acharts.us, they're ALWAYS the same. 2- acharts.us creator said that the italian charts are based on M&D charts. 3- Many italian editors that buy M&D official magazine said that the charts perfectly match each other.

Hope I can re-start to post Italian chart positions based on acharts.com (as well as M&D Official Charts) as soon as possible. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventu.pimp (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I did receive an e-mail from acharts indicating that they are the M&D charts. I haven't got a strong feeling on this one. It's easier if we treat the charts as acceptable, the feedback we've gotten from every Italian that has commented is that they are acceptable, but we haven't got any real official confirmation. I could go either way.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some additional commentary on this issue? I don't want to act alone in removing it from WP:BADCHARTS, and I don't want it to stay there unless there's a clear consensus that it should.—Kww(talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So acharts =/= FIMI, but acharts = M&D = also official? If that's the case, I would say that acharts is acceptable, but we're gonna need some kind of sources backing up the earlier claims. Point #1 has a slight problem because an assumption has to be made that since #1-#5 are the same, everything else is the same. #2 is just whatever. #3 needs some kind of course backing it up. Also, I remember reading somewhere that acharts made mistakes when cataloguing other charts (namely Billboard) and that its charts aren't always accurate, and that would be a bigger problem here when "official" archives aren't accessible. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'm not eager to move one way or the other. I have a personal e-mail from the acharts.us site asserting that it's M&D, so I think it probably is. I'd be the first to shout at anyone using an unverifiable personal e-mail as a reliable source, though, so I'm not going to act on that alone. I've checked periodically, and the claim that the top 5 always match seems to be accurate.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

uhm...but the achart.us Italian chart is like the APC Chart...--Smanu (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not anymore. The Italy listing here and the one at acharts are now quite different. I tried to see if one was ahead of the other, but the stats don't match. So it looks like acharts switched sources, but then that's another problem because when did it do so? SKS2K6 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It was apc charts that switched, not acharts.us acharts.us still looks to match the M&D chart, at least for the five positions we can see online. This seems to be stronger evidence that acharts.us is actually the M&D chart, and not mirroring some unreliable APC chart.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just found this on aChart.us: http://acharts.us/help#wikipedia it says: "On a side note, The Italian Charts are not official" --♫S manu! 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That settles it for me: if the owner of the site won't publicly reveal the source of the chart, and asserts that it's unofficial, I don't see how it can be treated as a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that help section came up after Wikipedia listed acharts/Italy as BADCHART. They have actually followed WP:BADCHARTS and listed bulgaria, portugal and italy as non-reliable charts accordingly. Personally I feel that since FIMI only includes digital streaming for its charts, we should look for a source which includes airplay + digital to create the charts. That gives a more comprehensible account of a songs position. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a better chart would be good, but a chart labeled as unofficial with no statement of source isn't a source we can call reliable.—Kww(talk) 11:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the owner of the site listed it as bad chart only after we started calling acharts/Italy as badchart. We need to see whether he/she is simply following us in this respect. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably a rights issue that prevents him from naming the chart it mirrors. In that case, we'd run into copyright violation issues linking to the chart.—Kww(talk) 12:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. Then we have no choice other than to go ahead with FIMI and Ultratop. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we using Acharts at all? Clearly it is a web site run by a few teenagers or something, it has no authority what so ever. Just a bunch of nobodies that obsess over charts. We tell them their charts are unreliable and they agree without dispute. We should not be using it as a source, period. — R ² 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pragmatism.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek Charts

I recently added the "Greek Top 40" and "Greek Airplay" charts from radio1.gr, but this change was reverted. I can see that I was confused, but these charts still merit discussion.

The Greek Airplay chart is an airplay chart covering 45 stations, published by Media Inspector. It's probably a decent chart, and the Media Inspector site requires login. That makes radio1.gr the most reasonable source for this chart.

I can't see that any other charts from this site should be used.

Looking at the site, it appears that the following charts are all private charts, and should be listed on WP:BADCHARTS:

Hot 75
Airplay
Dance
Hype
Pop
Rock
R&B & Latin
Radio1 DJs

They also have a set of charts they call "More charts", which all appear to be mirrors:

World
Europe
World Dance
R&B & Hip Hop
R&B & Hip Hop Jump
R&B Internet Team
R&B Air (Wo/Eu/USA/Gr)
Rap
Rock
Latin
Greek
USA Official
USA Dance
UK Official
De Dance

These charts can all be sourced directly to the main chart, or shouldn't be used at all (i.e. the UWC mirror), so I don't see any reason to use another unofficial mirror of them.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of the Airplay and Top 40 Chart as they seem the most reputable. The others like you said are mirrors, some of reputable charts, some not. I think it's important to have the Top 40 because the Billboard Greek singles chart only charts CD singles, which are very rare in Greece; IFPI stopped recording them last year. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything that documents what the "Greek Top 40" chart consists of. Is there something there in Greek that documents it?—Kww(talk) 11:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly no I don't think so. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we can use it, then.—Kww(talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm all go for the Airplay chart. Seems the most reasonable of the bunch. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added Greek Airplay Chart for "Fairytale" but it is removed beacuse of BADCHARTS, so i understood that nobody but Grk1011 is saying ok for that charts, so i will not again gonna discuss, i am gonna remove wherever i see, sorry! --Triancula (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I said The Greek Airplay chart is an airplay chart covering 45 stations, published by Media Inspector. It's probably a decent chart, and the Media Inspector site requires login. That makes radio1.gr the most reasonable source for this chart, and I stand behind that.—Kww(talk) 05:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Triancula, if you remove it whenever you see it, you will be going against consensus and could face repercussions. I propose we add the airplay chart to the good charts section to reduce the confusion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Charly 1300

Some contributors are adding charts from this site, expecially the Italian airplay chart published there. My question is: are those charts reliable? I think no, Italy doesn't have any official chart for airplay (FIMI chart is based on download, M&D is based on airplay+download, so I think that this site is unrieable, but I want to know your opinions. --♫S manu! 16:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these are reliable charts, but I haven't done a lot of research on them, either.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, thank ^^ --♫S manu! 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin American/South American charts

After removing the Mexican chart positions from a few articles, I found that there're a ton of non-notable South American and Latin American charts being linked or cited in song articles. Can someone please help me remove all the Mexico, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, etc. charts from articles? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

When I come across them (which is fairly often, I suppose), I will. And yeah, Mexico Top 100 got spammed across the board. I should check the Mariah Carey articles on my watchlist..... But one clarification: are we removing any Latin/South American chart, or only those based on americatop100.com stats? SKS (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Those based on Americatop100 at least, or any that are unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Be prepared for blowback. I'll just watch for now.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Croatian Singles Chart

Is this Croatian Singles chart: http://otvoreni.hr/default.aspx?id=43&rnd5=25.5.2009%2022:55:46&arhivaliste=&idlista= ? Can be added to singles charts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SveroH (talk • contribs) 11:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Marc Mysterio

Will people take a look at the charts I removed with this edit, and tell me if they think any of them should have been kept?—Kww(talk) 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only legit chart I saw was New Zealand, and I don't think that was sourced properly... But judging by the page's hidden notes, it looks like the charts were unsourced for a while. SKS (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FDR is the official radio airplay chart for the country of Ukraine. They service and monitor all legal radios in the country.

FMC is considered by industry professionals to be a legit chart in netherlands.

Mix FM in Cyprus is the only Top 40 radio station in this small country that plays pop music and has two large stations in the 2 major cities.

Zip DJ is considered internationally to be THE Canadian National Club Chart and National Dance Chart.

Neither Cyprus nor Ukraine thus far has a chart listed in Good Chart or Bad Charts...

Lets add or debate them.

See:

It is the billboard equivelent for the country of Ukraine.

This should be the money link right here: http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=11180

Of course, your comments may be based that you don't think Ukrainians are relevant... If that is indeed the case, you are far mistaken since its one of the most culterally rich places on this earth (and population of over 65,000,000).

This song spent 12 weeks on its top 20 dance radio chart... Its documented...

again, vote KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you review this page to learn of notable charts that are recognized in the industry (and this will serve as dispositive for the cyprus issue whereas let loose was ranked #53 as top 100 songs of 2008 for the country on Mix Fm - the only top 40 pop network in the country)

http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/

It further supports legitimacy established by the previous post of FDR and FMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.2.139 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The above IP blatantly copied what it has written at the deletion page of this article. I don't see any notability in any of the charts used. Even the Ukraine chart published in Top 40 seems kinda shady. There is no explanation regarding what FDR is and from where do they get the data for hte rock, dance and UKR top 20 chart that is published in their site. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

HI, forward to your post on FDR, FDR is the sole source in Ukraine that radio stations are authorized to obtain new music for airply. Each week, they distribute a compilation containing the new available music for airplay to the 170 stations in Ukraine.

Further, each week (i beleive on weds) they issue a new weekly chart based on the amount of plays/spins the tracks got on these 170 stations..

Its in ukranian and a flash site so translators don't really work...

But, thats what FDR is ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.84.24 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ZipDJ

I'd like people to take a look at ZipDJ.com, as its notability is key to a couple of AFD discussions. On the plus side, it claims to be the "official compiler of Canadian dance charts". On the negative side, it seems to operate by member survey: "Members are required to submit their Top 10 weekly or every other week and then automatically posted and compiled every Sunday."—Kww(talk) 10:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say another thing going for it is that it's members are "working DJs and industry professionals only". Would they not be exactly the right people to be submitting information for at least the club charts? --JD554 (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can find anything that shows that ZipDJ's membership contains a legitimate cross-section of Canadian DJs and clubs, yes. I'm having problems validating ZipDJ's claims. If the New York Times or Billboard said everything about ZipDJ that ZipDJ says about ZipDJ, I'd be inclined to call them reliable. Might even add them to WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. No, I've not been able to find anything about them in reliable sources. A google search just seems to bring up the usual batch of blogs and forum posts. --JD554 (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Zip dj does in fact compile chats from over 500 Djs. Mostly from Canada, the rest US Billboard reporters or legit club djs/ radio mix show djs.

In fact, its probably more accurate than billboards since half of the billboard reporters in USA do not even dj in a club anymore, lol.

I hvae access to zipdjs member roster, but not sure how i could link to it? BUt, yes... Any references online to Canadian National Club chart, urban chart, or dance chart is direct reference to Zip DJ.

kevin at info at zipdj d0t com is the man to speak with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.84.24 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to write here dude... First its Cyprus... Then, Ukraine... Now, Canada, eh???

Its the national chart for canada... Period... Find me another one that is reliable and sourced instead of knocking everything that seems to be placed here in defense of the article...

google "canadian national club chart" with quotes for yourself...

This isn't rocket science, lol.. Its music... And, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all information... if someone looks up ukraine top 40 chart on wikipedia, nothing will come up (since you refuse to recognize FDR)... Now, the same for Canada for a club chart???

I'm being honest.. It seems like a war against THIS artist on THIS article...

But, is that in the best interest of this encyclopedia?

It just seems that your read of some of these rules of wiki is a bit arbitrary and too literal. No offense...

I would recommend that we create articles for both FDR and the Canadian National Dance/Club/Urban Charts (Zip DJ) and let folks expand them over time.

I guess that my end point on the charts is, say someone wants to know what is the top 40 chart for Ukraine or Club Chart in Canada? You and I know they exist... Shouldn't wiki be the place to see that?

You noted yourself its hard to locate on a google search...

It is absolutely in the best interests of the encyclopedia to insist that these charts be sourced, legitimate, and archived. They either are recognized by the music industry and third-party publications as official, or they aren't. It would not benefit Wikipedia to throw anything and everything into these articles. - eo (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It would also help if you created a User Name account instead of bouncing around different IP addresses in order for people to communicate directly to you, if necessary. - eo (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To that point, Record Labels, Artists, 3rd party publications (which are web blogs and forums for dance music and/or club charts) consider both FMC , FDR, and Zip reliable..

FMC is future radio chart which means, based on the recently added songs to radio rotation across netherlands, these are the best of the new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.85.29 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blogs and forums are very unlikely to be reliable sources (see WP:SPS). Have you got any evidence that record labels consider them reliable? --JD554 (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

SPANISH CHARTS

Since a couple of weeks ago, Spanish Charts provides the Official Top 50 Canciones as published by PROMUSICAE, not only the Top 20 physical singles as they used to do. So now www.spanishcharts.com is a valid link we can use in discography tables. They have an archive for each artist. Someone should update the information, and allow Spanishcharts as a good and valid link Nympho wiki (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just compared the Promusicae chart with the spanishcharts.com singles chart, and they don't match up. SKS (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do, only that Spanishcharts take longer to update, so the one that appears on Spanischarts right now belongs to last week's Promusicae. You can check that in Promusicae archives. Nympho wiki (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Promusicae's chart matches spanishcharts (last week and the week before, at least). However, the weeks on chart doesn't match, suggesting that spanishcharts is now fusing "official" data with their own before, but I guess for peak positions it doesn't matter.... But when did the change happen??? SKS (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Until January '09, the official Spanish singles chart published by Promusicae was based on a Top 20 Physical Sales. Since Jan 09, the list includes physical sales, digital downloads and ringtones, but SpanishCharts wasn't publishing that list (the Official one) until a couple of weeks ago. So somebody should change it, so that we can use SpanishCharts as a good source. Nympho wiki (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Live Tomorrow #1 in Sweden?

This article claims that the song, "Live Tomorrow", was a number-one song in Sweden in 2005. Its source is this: http://www.sr.se/p3/topplistor/tracks/?getListW=39&getListY=2005&showyear=2005&listID=1. I have no idea whether it's a legit source or not, but it looks like a radio countdown or something to that affect. Plus, the info conflicts with List of Swedish number-one hits containing #1's from the Hitlistan charts of 2005. (The editor of the article in question added it in to the list). I assume it is not an "official" number-one song. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A little research - Swedishcharts.com puts the peak of this song at #20. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

According to its article, Sveriges Radio is in fact a radio station. I'd go with the Swedish Charts, which is hosted by Ultratop, over the station's website. — Σ xplicit 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Tracks är P3s egen hitlista" means that it is the chart of the radio station, P3, which is channel 3 of Sveriges Radio, the Swedish national radio. "låtarna på Trackslistan röstas fram av - dig!" means that it is based on audience votes, not on actual sales. So it is by no means the official Swedish charts based on actual sales. – IbLeo (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop 100

Has Billboard stopped publishing the Pop 100 chart? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so.... Mainstream Top 40 is now the official "pop" chart, according to that Chart Beat. However, it still appears in their chart listing. Maybe it'll all change tomorrow when the new charts are published.... SKS (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, discontinued. As SKS2K6 above, Mainstream Top 40 will take its place. The problem is, it's an airplay-only chart. Should this chart be used now or should it be excluded because it's not based on sales? — Σ xplicit 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch charts

Does anyone know the difference between the "Single Top 100", and what is supposedly the Dutch Top 40 at acharts.us? This is just one example, but these seem to record consistently different "peak" positions, and it leads to some inconsistency between articles in reporting "Dutch chart" positions. (Currently, [8] has 24 from the former link, and [9] has 16 from the latter link.) Gimmetrow 21:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The one in dutchcharts is airplay + digital, while the one in acharts is airplay + digital + physical. Hence its better to use the acharts one as its more comprehensive. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Expecting a backlash: FlopofthePops

This user has been adding this forum to a heap of articles, referencing sales mainly. It's a forum for one (with only 80-odd active members), there's no claim for notability or reliability on the site, no explanation of where they get their info (from what I can find). So, I have removed a lot of the links and the provided info from WP articles. I am expecting that user will be quite upset, since they have posted summaries such as, "I can guarantee you everything in our chart archive is 100% reliable." I recommend we add it to Bad Chart sources, and be done with it. Thoughts? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's covered by the fact that forums aren't sources, whether it's this one or atrl or any other forum. It's a self published source. SKS (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Im removing it from all the articles the IP added. Kww provided me the API. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that these forums are being used now that pulsemusic.proboards.com is blacklisted. I'll be requesting this to be added shortly. — Σ xplicit 06:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. All squealy clean!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted. — Σ xplicit 00:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Big Top 40 Show

hi guys, i've seen this uk itunes radio chart used in a couple of articles now and have been reverting it so far as i felt it doesn't comply with WP:CHARTS because its basically an itunes chart so it's non-notable. but i have been coming up against alot of resistance and harshness about the reverts. what do you guys think? i want some more opinions!!! thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely delete it. Fails notability for sure. - eo (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Added to WP:BADCHARTS. This one's a no-brainer: son of hit40uk (already listed), promotion for a single vendor (already listed).—Kww(talk) 19:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you guys! i knew i was right by reverting it. thanks for adding it to WP:BADCHARTS now i can direct users there :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 UK and Irish certifications

Is there any way I can find these? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish ones are only released at the end of the year as far as I know, and the UK ones are usually available on the BPI website, but they recently upgraded their site and thus the Certification database is still down. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So I guess we have to wait till next year for the Irish? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

http://charts.eurodancehits.com

I think I know the answer, but any thoughts on http://eurodancehits.com/index.html ?—Kww(talk) 22:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, every week there's a new one. From where are all these "charts" popping up? - eo (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that there's a "Make millions with a record chart website" kit out there, and it probably does generate enough advertising revenue to pay for itself. I did have to correct the link, though, because it ran into my signature and they have some amateurish coding.—Kww(talk) 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He he. Well said. Obviously a remove for this one. No source regarding the methodology. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A new Billboard chart inclusion

I have created a new Billboard chart inclusion for country, pop, and rock artists here. I have fix mistakes because there are so many. I also have different opinion on Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks and Top 40 Mainstream. I think it is better than the old one. This table does not include R&B/Hip-Hop or Christian charts because I don't know them well. Langdon (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Top 40 Mainstream chart, even though Billboard is referring to it in an article, it's still an airplay only chart. We have to decide whether the Pop 100's now defunct charts are still notable for inclusion, or if they should be removed across the board. You definitely can't replace the Pop 100 with old Top 40 Mainstream charts, because the Pop 100 was more comprehensive. Is there a suggestion that we have the Pop 100 in one column up until the beginning of 2009, then have another column for Top 40 Mainstream, which begins listing its charts from 2009? I don't really know what I'm getting at here, but it just seems we're going to have to remove all the pop charts and just be happy with only the Hot 100. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let the Pop 100 be there in the songs before it was defunct ie the June 26 issue. After that we can include the Mainstream Top 40, however its still an airplay based chart, which kinda bugs me, atleast a combination of airplay + digital would have been better. I will go with consensus in this case. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive hoax

I discovered a huge hoax regarding the band Diamond Rexx—all of their albums claimed chart positions and RIAA certifications that don't exist (according to billboard.com and riaa.org). I went through and removed all US chart and certification claims but many remain for other countries (see Diamond Rexx discography). I plan to go though other country chart archives but am not sure where best to check for sales certification claims. Any suggestions? (Also, any help cleaning up this hoax would be greatly appreciated.) TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The band's article looks as if it was just copy/pasted from a website or press release, too. I'd take a look at the editors who submitted all of the false information and watchlist the articles to keep an eye on them. In the meantime, just remove anything that is fake. - eo (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S> for now I cleaned up what I could on the discog page. - eo (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Korean charts

Can anyone access http://www.riak.or.kr ? I get an error message, but I'm not sure if the site is down or if they just have Latin America firewalled (a surprisingly common decision for websites to make).—Kww(talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't load for me either. DiverseMentality 19:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a typo in the link. Can you try again?—Kww(talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that changes everything! Well, not really. Now it says "Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)". DiverseMentality 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here. — Realist² 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Korean site is actually http://www.miak.or.kr . "International" albums are in the bottom right-hand corner, in the chart that says '08년 POP 음반판매량. They list the months in order, with the bottom links representing the first half-year (상반기) and the year total (총결산). More takes you to previous years. The same goes for Korean albums (except they're under '08년 가요 음반판매량). As far as I know, there are no real "official" singles charts, although Hanteo would be the closest to one. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Hanteo, I have no idea how Hanteo compiles its information, so I'm not sure how accurate it is, although I do know that it's not garbage. (In other words, I'm not sure if the album charts are equivalent to SoundScan charts, and if the singles charts are equivalent to Billboard charts.) SKS2K6 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate trying to read Korean. How a simple character like 月 got mangled into 월 is beyond me, but people assure me that once you learn it, the mapping from Japanese and Chinese characters to Korean is straightforward.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I got curious, and dug around in my New Nelson character dictionary. I'll bet it started as 望, which is still considered to mean "full moon" in some contexts in Japanese.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all Greek to me! Hahaha, oh man I crack myself up. - eo (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

July 9 update: So I checked the website and found that it died.... So I guess there's no source outside of hanteo now. Past 12 months (yearly), monthly, and weekly charts are available. SKS (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the problem is that chart positions will be problematic, because the monthly/yearly charts are compiled each week for the previous month/year. In other words, it compiles the past 30 days / 365 days, not calendar months/years. SKS (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Danish charts: Why Nielsen?

Does anyone know why the links to official Danish charts www.hitlisterne.dk (also available at www.hitlisten.nu) are shown as "Nielsen" in WP:GOODCHARTS when the site clearly displays IFPI to be the source (upper right corner)? – IbLeo (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I streamlined your updates and added some information about archives. – IbLeo (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Los 40 Principales

I'm inclined to specifically list Los 40 Principales on WP:BADCHARTS due to its single vendor nature. Any comments?—Kww(talk) 14:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Single vendor in the sense like iTunes? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More like Radio Disney, but yes. Single network charting its own playlist frequency.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then an addition to WP:BADCHARTS is absolutely necessary. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Add it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tricking Billboard's Website

Vandals found a new trick today. Want to see how popular "Unstoppable" has become? How widespread Billboard's global dominance is? Click these links:

Watch out for these: by setting the parameters in the link, you can corrupt the headers to display any imaginary chart you want, and make it appear as if it is being officially served up by Billboard's site.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. - eo (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina Top 100 on Charly1300.com

I think it's time to add http://www.charly1300.com/argentinasingles.htm to WP:BADCHARTS. The methodology section says:

Lista que crea el Top 100 Argentina es un recopilatorio el cual está basado en airplay radial, televisivo, ventas, popularidad, ringtones, además de otros factores que cada semana varían y se modifican en el Ranking. Los datos que proporcionamos no son 100% verificables, pero tratamos de mantener la máxima precisión, razonamiento y objetividad posible.

which I translate as

The Argentina Top 100 is compiled based on radio airplay, television, sales, popularity, ringtones, and other factors that vary every week and change the rankings. The data we provide are not 100% verifiable, but we try to maintain maximum accuracy, objectivity and reasoning possible.

I'm sorry, but I can't see allowing a chart that uses "popularity ... and other factors that vary every week".—Kww(talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't either - doesn't look good to me at all. - eo (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If by other varying factors they mean what's told on a Ouija board, then this rightly belongs under WP:BADCHARTS. — Σxplicit 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Separate year charting

I am facing an issue regardign the separate charting of a song. In the article "Holiday (Madonna song)", the song charted on the UK Singles Chart thrice: in 1984, 85 and 91 with different peaks. But since this is only a single chart, I didnot add three different rows in the chart table but added it in prose instead. I placed a superscript with the peak position that this was for 1985 re-release. Is it fine? I think unnecessary rows can be avoided if for the same country charting in different years, we include it in prose. What do you guys think? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I prefer the way you've done it. Never really been a fan of putting three different peaks in the one table for one song, the year doesn't really have anything to do with the chart. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Basic concept before I work on things

It may be time for a bold leap forward, but I'm not going to work on it unless people think its a good idea. It should be possible to have the chart sections of single and album articles automatically generated, where all the Wikipedia editor provides is some search keys, and a bot fills out the charts on a periodic run. That would limit the charts we provide to a much more limited set, and only those where we could identify a reliable archive. In exchange for that loss of flexibility, we would gain back much of the time we spend vandal fighting. I'm certain that we could get Billboard, the UK, and all the charts that Ultratop archives.

Worth pursuing?—Kww(talk) 12:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One nasty glitch: Billboard has protected the most recent month of data, and will not return it over the API.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Charts

can someone remake the bulgarian top 40 wikipedia ? because waking up in vegas is number 19 there and its on on the waking up in vegas wikipedia page so , can someone please make the bulgarian top 40 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahablabla (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As soon as someone makes a reliable Bulgarian chart, someone will make an article about it. The Bulgarian Singles Chart is on WP:BADCHARTS, and will probably stay there for a while.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New chart for Brazil

There finally seems to be a reliable chart for Brazil. The ABPD, the official IFPI representative for Brazil, has begun to release a weekly Top 10 CDs chart. From what I can see, it is only albums, and does not list CD singles (either that, or no singles have been in the top 10 for three weeks).

It is published on Friday each week, and provides the data for the week ending 12 days before (i.e. today, July 24, they published the week of July 6-July 12).

They've only published three weeks worth of data, and have not provided any decent archiving: they just treat the week's chart as a news item. It's only got 10 positions, as well.

So far,

CD	Peak
Eu e o Tempo	1^[1]
Hannah Montana O Filme	2^[1]
Paraíso Nacional	1^[2]
I Am... Sasha Fierce	4^[1]
Borboletas	4^[2]
Thriller 25	6^[2]
Lines, Vines and Trying Times	5^[1]
History, Volume 1	8^[3]
Caminho das Índias	9^[1]
Isa Tkm	10^[1]
Multishow Registro Pode Entrar	7^[2]
Multishow Ao Vivo	9^[2]
Aline Barros Deus do Impossível	10^[2]
Bad (Michael Jackson album)	3^[3]
Dangerous (album)	4^[3]
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f [1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f [2] ^ ^a ^b ^c [3]

I think we need to treat this as a valid chart. The pressure to allow Latin American charts is just too strong for us to ignore this one, even though it's inconvenient. My proposal is that I track the chart for a while under a title like WP:Record charts/sourcing guide/Brazil. It's currently in my userspace (User:Kww/newbrazilchart). I'll also add it to WP:GOODCHARTS. My tracking it will make it easy to double-check entries. I think that every Brazilian entry that we allow should get an explanatory comment like .

I'd like to hear comments on this one, folks.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

CD singles doesn't sales in Brasil, just paid downloads songs. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 14:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that thundering silence, I've gone live. I list the chart as the "Brazil Top 10 CD". Please note the comments I use when adding the chart (as in this), and add something like that if you wind up maintaining these. It's going to be a mess keeping the Hot 100 Brazil out and this in.—Kww(talk) 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

German certification

Musikindustrie certification database page has been removed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they only changed the path, I corrected the reference yesterday in the "Take on Me" article, works perfectly. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link in the sourcing guide only a few days ago: still alive and well! k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish charts

Spanishcharts.com also publishes the combined download/physical top 50 including archive. Please change the text. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitparadech (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Finland music chart

I would like to inquire regarding the music chart for Finland as I am rather confused. Is Mitä hittiä the chart listed at acharts.us and finnishcharts.com? • вяαdcяo chat 10:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just verified with them. Its the same. Also WP:GOODCHARTS lists it like that. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So on this article I am working on, I suppose now it will be appropriate to link Finnish Singles Chart to Mitä hittiä? • вяαdcяo chat 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Initially Mita didnot refer to the Finnish charts, but later they overlapped. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your help. I was rather confused because another user was telling me it was something different. • вяαdcяo chat 11:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Legolas, where does it say that Mitä hittiä is the Finnish singles chart? YLE's official Finnish chart website lists the singles chart as Suomen virallinen lista (literal translation: "the official chart of Finland"). A Google search for Mitä hittiä doesn't show YLE's chart site. According to the Mitä hittiä article, MH is a combination of airplay and singles sales. However, the Finnish singles chart is only based on singles sales (and since 2007, downloads) with the exception of the charts made in 1999-2000 where they also used the airplay on YLE stations to get the chart results. Mitä hittiä seems to be a defunct chart as there is no website for it. YuckieDuck (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hit 40 UK

I believe that editors misinterpreted this press release when determining whether Hit 40 UK should be added to the BADCHARTS list. The original discussion asserted that SMS messaging was used in compiling the chart. The release is confusing, and states "the countdown is [....] compiled through sales, airplay and downloads". The website, SMS club, and podcast supported the radio broadcast, and were not used to compile the chart. Furthermore, the Hit 40 UK chart (and its predecessor The Pepsi Chart) was printed each week in Music Week at least until 2004, strongly suggesting that it was held notable by the UK music industry. CJPargeter (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you show some evidence that it was listed in Music Week? I agree that that would be strong evidence of notability for the chart.—Kww(talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Scans of the relevant pages have been put online at this link. The Pepsi Chart / Hit 40 UK is listed from about June 1998 until May 2005. CJPargeter (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it from WP:BADCHARTS per the above and per its description at http://www.theofficialcharts.com/docs/OCC_Chart_Rules_Edition9.pdf . This does not apply to its successor, the Big Chart Show, because its top ten is strictly iTunes based.—Kww(talk) 13:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good Charts?

Are the four charts listed as the last four references in The Dark Side of the Moon considered reliable? It's at FAC. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Swedishcharts.com, norwegiancharts.com, and australian-charts.com are all listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. Everyhit.com isn't listed as a recommended archive, but I see nothing wrong with it: it appears to contain correct data.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the quick reply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the table should comply with the samples provide in the Wikipedia:Record charts page. I know they are pretty lenient with this issue over at FAC, but for continuity and project-wide consistency, it should be done. If you would like some help, talk page me. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[June292009-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f [1]

[June222009-2] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f [2]

[July062009-3] [3]

[1]

[2]

[3]