Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/Archive 4

Nomination for deletion

I have nominated Aesop Rock discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress: automatic certification citation - feedback request

I started a discussion about a template for automatic certification citation here. This might be relevant to this project just as much, so feedback (on the other location) is much appreciated. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion

I have nominated Ashlee Simpson discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Novice7 | Talk 12:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Weezer

There is an RfC at Talk:Weezer in order to reach consensus regarding whether the Weezer album Death to False Metal is considered a studio album, if anyone would like to contribute. Angryapathy (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC

I have nominated the Lightening Bolt discography for deletion as I think it doesn't meet current standards of a Featured List, articles are typically reviewed for 2 weeks. Afro (Talk) 16:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion

I have nominated Bloc Party discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC

I have nominated Wilco discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Afro (Talk) 05:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbling

What does everyone thing about the Bubbling Under charts used in Hot 100 on discographies. The chart is an extension of the Billboard Hot 100, but I have seen conflicts in users saying that it should be used, and other saying it should not. Candyo32 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only an extension of the Hot 100 if the track hasn't reached the Hot 100, if it has already charted in the Hot 100 then it isn't eligible for the Bubbling Under chart. I would only include it if the artist hasn't significantly charted on the Hot 100 or one of the more important genre charts. --JD554 (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the artist's discography has a list of singles with a column for the Hot 100 chart positions, then I see no problem with using the column to indicate it's bubbling under position if that is where it peaked, such as 107 for a bubbling under peak of #7. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The would be incorrect, the Hot 100 only goes up to 100. --JD554 (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should NOT be used in discographies. The Bubbling under chart is similar to the Heatseakerz Chart and we don't add HeatSeakers on top of the Hot 100 do we? Its called Bubbling Under Hot 100, we dont have a Billboard Hot 125. Also these charts positions are in 99% of cases not verifiable. Billboard.biz shows if they have charted but not at which position. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All songs that peaked on the Bubbling Under chart are 100% verifiable through 2008 in Joel Whitburn's 12th edition of Top Pop Singles book. As a reliable source, the book lists these positions as 101 and so on. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a really reliable source, it wouldn't list them that way. It's a separate list. A different chart with a different name. And doesn't it have a separate methodology (apart from exclusion once it's been on the respective Hot 100 chart)? Or are the main chart and its Bubbling Under determined by identical means? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the methodology is the same with the exception you noted. Because the book is listing all hot 100 and bubbling under chart peaks, that is still the best way to distinguish the position on these charts; otherwise, you will always have to have a footnote explaining what reaching #1 on Bubbling Under means. All that being said, I have no problem with Bubbling Under chart positions not being included at all in chart tables or discographies. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Whitburn knows better than that if he does indeed allege that the Bubbling Under chart is a straightforward extension of the Hot 100. Simply put, the Hot 100 features songs that have not yet peaked and are rising. And the Hot 100 features songs that may have already peaked and are falling. The Bubbling Under chart features songs that are not thought to have peaked, yet which have not been so well-received that their sales and airplay points justified an appearance within the top 100. And only those.

When a song moves from being the 90th most successful song in the country to the 100th most successful song (loosely speaking), it is listed as #100 on the Hot 100. But when a song moves from being the 90th most successful song to the 101st most successful, it doesn't enter the Bubbling Under chart at #101. Instead the most popular new release that hasn't made the top 100 is listed first on that chart. This is because the Bubbling Under chart is neither technically nor in name simply an extension of the next 10 or 25 or however many places, it is a discrete chart with a different set of criteria, and placement on it should not be construed simply as that many spots below the 100th place on the Hot 100.

It's reasonable to note if a single appeared on the Bubbling Under chart and later debuted on the Hot 100, because it imparts the information that the song wasn't a hit immediately upon release, but once a song has placed on the Hot 100, the song's peak on Bubbling Under is irrelevant and should never appear in a table. As JD554 pithily notes, the Hot 100 only goes to 100. If they wanted to call more than 100 singles "hot", they could expand the chart and rename it, but they don't, because they're an industry tool to promote new releases and their criteria is geared toward kicking out lingering hits and keeping the chart, and the business, fresh. Every single on the Hot 100 is a "hot" hit, and every single that is not on the Hot 100 is not on the Hot 100.

The problem arises, however, when a casual, distracted, foreign, ADD, easily confused or lazy reader sees a peak of #7 and takes it to mean that the chart is suggesting that this was the seventh most popular in some format or genre in some place or other. There are readers who just like to look at the pictures, or the tables, and who either just skim or don't read at all the text. So I would argue that Bubbling Under the Hot 100 peaks, even when there is no Hot 100 appearance, should not be noted in tables, but rather (with appropriate context, and a link to a page explaining the chart further) in the text. If pressed, I would say that, rather than putting the number plus 100 in a table, there should be only an asterisk or symbol in the table with no number, with the post-table explanation of the number peak on the different chart, and the link to the page about the chart. Abrazame (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four full paragraphs, which will be too long for some people, but you covered it exceptionally well. You exactly describe the position I take on the matter, excluding the difficulties of verifiability. You should come around here more often, so you don't have to reply to four-month-old posts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Bubbling Under peaks are perfectly fine for representing the performance of a song that did not enter the Hot 100. It can be considered an extension of sorts, which explains why the Whitburn book lists such positions as 101, 102, etc. However, we should be careful with the way we present them. Notice in the Lady Gaga discography, which was recently promoted as a featured list: all Bubbling Under peaks have a notation beside them, explaining that (for this example, using the song "Dance in the Dark") it reached 22 on the Bubbling Under chart, comparable to 122 on the Hot 100. As long as all Bubbling Under peaks have notes directly beside them with an explanation that they are comparable to said positions on the Hot 100 (but not equivalent), I oppose the removal of them from discographies. –Chase (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that the Billboard magazine no longer publishes such positions in the physical magazine but only online. I'm not sure if this is the case or not. I question the logic of adding 25 positions on top of the Hot 100... it is confusing for readers. The Bubbling Under is a specifically different chart with scarce information available. I just don't see the need for its inclusion on discographies which are supposed to represent the MOST important and significant chart achievements. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. BU is not comparable to a position of over 100 on the Hot 100. IT is nonsense to state that a song has charted in excess of the chart positions available on the chart itself! It is not an extension of the Hot 100, but as others have mentioned above, a different chart than the Hot 100. The BU has its own numbering system (1 - 25) and adding 100 to it is misleading and improper.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hits of the World

I want to know if the Billboard Hits of the World are okay to use if a position doesn't appear on the Hung Media such as Spain for charts prior to 2003. Also, is Argentina okay to use? I ask because the way it archives is different from other sites and I'm doing this for Chayanne discography on my sandbox. Erick (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do a bit of research before addressing this question, but yes, it seems Hits of the World can be used. However, the only what I know to verify them is via magazine. Lucky for us every Billboard magazine in on Google books. I haven't tried their XML format thingy, so you may be able to archive it that way too.

Looking at WP:BADCHARTS, I see nothing wrong with using the Spanish, Argentina, or any other county from Hits of the World. I would assume Billboard did their research and would not include phony record charts in their magazine. I hope this answers your question.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 08:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, thanks again. Erick (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something just hit me. Do you think we should include some sort of note if a discog article uses more than one chart for the same country. For example, using Hits of the World for a song that charted in Spain in 2000 and using Hung Medien for a song that charted in Spain in 2008.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, in my sandbox, I reference each cell, but if there's any other suggestion, I'll take it. Erick (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well some of the chart providers are different companies (like Spanish stuff from Hits of the World is provided by "AFVYE/ALEF MB"). I was thinking something along this line (using the code from sample section and some slight modifications):

Mode 1

List of albums, with selected chart positions
Title	Album details	Peak chart positions
Title	Album details	US ^[1]	AUS ^[2]	AUT ^[3]	SPA ^[A]^[4]
Album title 1	Released: 1998 Label: Independent Format: Use ALL the formats	1	7	5	1
Album title 2: The Remix	Released: 2011 Label: Random record label Format: CD	77	14	32	15

Notes

A ^ Prior to 2003, the Spanish charts were compiled by AFVYE/ALEF MB and published in Billboard's "Hits of the World" section. From 2003 to present, the Spanish charts are from PROMUSICAE and archived by Hung Medien.

Mode 2

List of albums, with selected chart positions
Title	Album details	Peak chart positions
Title	Album details	US ^[5]	AUS ^[6]	AUT ^[7]	SPA ^[8]
Album Title 1	Released: 1998 Label: Independent Format: Use ALL the formats	1	7	5	1
Album Title 2: The Remix	Released: 2011 Label: Random record label Format: CD	77	14	32	15

References

1. For Spanish albums peaks:

For Album Title 1: "Hits of the World". Billboard. (Nielsen Business Media). Other citations stuffff....
For Album Title 2: "Discography Artist". Spanishcharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2011-01-17.

My personal choice is with the second one, but I'll do with whatever consensus is. Comments are appreciated.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe if the Argentine chart is used prior to 2010, mention it published in the Hits of the World. On a related note, it's probably important to mention how to access info from the CAPIF site for peak positions since it's different from other sources. Erick (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the same goes for any other country. But make sure to give a shoutout to whoever compiles it. (e.g. AFVYE for Spain, RIM for Malaysia, etc.)
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ 1
^ 3
^ 7
^ 7
^ 1
^ 3
^ 7
^ 7

[1] 1

[2] 3

[3] 7

[4] 7

[5] 1

[6] 3

[7] 7

[8] 7

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]