Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Single Release Dates

Singles are usually released on a Monday, therefore allowing a full week of sales before sales are counted. Has this always been the way and, if not, when did the shift to Monday releases happen?

Mooseic (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.) at FLRC

I have nominated List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.) 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Cheetah (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

commonality

How about some commonality people? There must be at least four variations in thisusername 1 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of xxxx (U.S.) at FLRC

I have nominated List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.). List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (U.S.). List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004 (U.S.) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.) for featured list removal. 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Cheetah (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, these need to be fixed. Efe put a lot of time & effort into cleaning them up but then everything went bad when Billboard revamped its website. All the refs need to be changed. Argh. - eo (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If I could just sit down before a computer long enough for me to fix this stuff, I would have done it before any removal nom is being considered. Its just that I am super busy nowadays guys. Im having my OJT. --Efe (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well quite frankly I don't understand how anything in life could possibly be more important than sitting for hours and editing Wikipedia articles, but whatever!  :-P - eo (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Single-year charts or decade charts

Hi all. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about whether chart lists for each year should be kept separate, as in List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.), or whether they should be merged into large decade article, as in List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s. The indecision and inconsistencies have stalled progress at the above FLRCs and at current FLCs. Please provide your input at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)/archive2 as well as the FLRCs mentioned above so that consensus may be reached. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Charts for albums that don't chart

Please assist Right now, there is a discussion about Remain in Light regarding which charts to include in the appropriate section of the article. The two versions in question include one that includes charts in which the album did not appear and another that omits these charts. (Full disclosure: I am involved in the editing and my preferred version is the latter.) Please post on that talk page if you have any insight into whether it is desirable to include a listing of sales charts that do not include an album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The forgotten charts: Record Mirror

Many 60s charts were more popular than what people now consider to the "official" chart at the time. The chart by Record Mirror is one example. I have taken this list to FLC and it hasn't got many comments so I would greatly appreciate any review/comments that someone makes. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On another FLC note, any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)/archive1 would be greatly appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish charts

Hi all. I'd like to clarify whether we should be using the Scottish Singles and Albums Chart on Wikipedia music and discography articles. The United Kingdom already has an official singles and albums chart that covers England, Scotland and Wales, and is compiled each week by the Official Charts Company. A scottish chart is also compiled by the O.C.C. but it is not actually a separate chart from the main UK singles and albums charts, it is merely a regional component (i.e. - the sales from Scottish shops are included in the UK chart). I can see the benefit of including the Scottish chart should a record not appear on the main UK charts (such as on the rare occasions when a fledgling Scottish band may have limited their release locally to Scotland itself) but I feel the same rule should apply as with the Billboard component charts (where component charts can only be included in article chart tables if a record did not chart on the main chart). Soultruck (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think each charts existence on Wikipedia is based on consensus. Rules are not uniformly applied which does lead to some bias. In this case you are potentially comparing a little known(because it's quite new) Scottish chart to component Billboard charts such as the Rnb chart known to tens of millions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed multiple times at WT:Record charts. Not everyone is happy about it, but it is not a component chart, and no one has a good policy-based argument to exclude it.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Record Charts Ad

Template:WikiProject Record Charts Ad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Record Charts articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Record Charts articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC of most followed UK chart in the 1960s

That's right none of the Record Retailer chart that The Official Charts Company would have us believe represents the 1960s. I'm talking about List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s – the most widely sold and followed chart of the decade. That said, its FLC hasn't received much attention and I would much appreciate any comments/reviews people could give. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Singapore charts?

I've posted the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts), you can find it here. I'm not sure about the record charts of Singapore; I really appreciate your comments. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 12:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand)

This list's FLC could do with a couple more reviews, if anyone has a bit of time. Thanks in advance, Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new infobox: POSTHUMOUS ALBUM

There has been some talk that this project should clearly see and be involved in - it has led to a proposal of sorts for a new category called "POSTHUMOUS" for the Template:Infobox album ... Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Posthumous albums: Studio vs Compilation.Moxy (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union music recording certification - are there any???

Since nobody answer to my question, and if you know the answer, please reply here. I need it for this disco. It would be great if there would be a reliable soviet cert (even if I am skeptical about this). Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of number-one songs on American Top 40 of 2004 for deletion

The article List of number-one songs on American Top 40 of 2004 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one songs on American Top 40 of 2004 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lists for 2005 through 2010 have also been included in the same nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)/archive1

To whom it may concern. Nergaal (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Titles of alternative UK charts

The lists of number-ones of alternative UK charts currently have titles such as "List of number-one dance hits of 2005 (UK)", "List of number-one rock hits of 2006 (UK)", "List of number-one indie hits of 2007 (UK)", etc. To me, these seem like rather unwieldly titles, and I don't think that they best convey what's contained within the articles particularly elegantly. For example, I think it would be quite possible to think that "List of number-one dance hits of 2005 (UK)" lists the biggest-selling weekly dance hits in the UK. In actuality, it lists the weekly number-ones of the UK Dance Chart during 2005, which are compiled in a rather different way. I propose renaming all the lists to "List of chart name number-one singles of year", so, for example, "List of number-one dance hits of 2005 (UK)" would become "List of UK Dance Chart number-one singles of 2005". As well as being clearer, it would also bring the articles' titles in line with the titles of other lists of record charts on Wikipedia. What are people's thoughts? A Thousand Doors (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No thoughts? Very well, I shall just be bold and make the changes myself. A Thousand Doors (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with you. --Muhandes (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New chart for Korea: K-Pop Hot 100

Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 Launches; Sistar Is No. 1 on New Korea Chart - eo (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Chart issue dates or week ending dates for UK charts?

I don't know what the situation is like for other countries, but at the moment there seems to be a big disagreement about whether or not UK number ones should be listed by their chart issue dates (i.e. the date that they actually reached number one), or their week-ending dates (i.e. the date six days afterwards). There's currently a big page notice at the top of the edit page for the List of number-one singles from the 2010s (UK) that seems to suggest that we have reached a consensus to use the week-ending dates. But, unless I've missed something (and I'm willing to accept that I may have), I cannot find any discussion suggesting that we've reached such a decision. Have I just missed something? Thanks in advance, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hot 100 number-one lists

There are now lists of number ones on the Hot 100 that are duplicates of each other with List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) just surving an AfD. To me, this creates a content fork because both this list and the current year list (List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)), will have to be updated with the same identical information. I've started a thread at Talk:List of number-one hits (United States) to discuss and, hopefully, come to a consensus on the matter. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Country Disambiguator

Does your project require a Country Disambiguator on record charts? I've noticed most charts under Category:Record charts by year are disambiguated. See: Category:1996 record charts. Argolin (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason I removed "Canada" from such number-one song lists, such as List of RPM number-one country singles chart of 1996 (Canada) to List of RPM number-one country singles of 1996, is because the charts from RPM magazine are Canadian charts, so disambiguation shouldn't be necessary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I know that RPM was a Canadian magazine. I belong to the Canadian music project. If that's the final word of this project great. The RPM charts are a bit of a dog's breakfast. Many are unreferenced and worst still there are about 8-16 for which there is no wikipedia entry. If you are refering to any chart positions in Canada (1964-2000) you must use the RPM charts. I plan on adding them and obviously start the process of citing them. Argolin (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I am using a template to create them to give them all a similar look and feel. If you don't mind Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, can you put back the succession boxes that you removed? The singles template is unneccessary with the placement of a see also List of number-one singles (Canada). Thanks.

I wasn't saying that you didn't know that, just that's why it's not needed. The navigation box is better than succession boxes because you can go from any year to any other year and not be limited to the next or previous year or continually linking back to the full list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The template deals with non RPM charts and is by far incomplete. I've been modifying the template only to try to keep track of what there is in wikipedia and what I've done/not done. So again, the succession boxes are more appropriate. Argolin (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, just to be clear the List of RPM number-one country singles of 1976 isn't the only Country singles RPM published. Their is List of RPM CANCON number-one country singles of 1976 that I'll add. Argolin (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Then something like the {{Canadian Albums}} navbox could be better, specifically for Country singles. Just modifying {{Country Tracks}} should work with rows for each chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I know how to modify templates. Can you please put the succession boxes back? The lists should be placed in Category:RPM charts not category yyyy in Canadian music. I was placing them in yyyy in Canadian music until yesterday. I'm trying to orgainse the RPM Record Charts. RPM also had List of RPM CANCON number-one singles of 1976, List of RPM CANCON Adult Contemporary number-one singles of 1976, List of RPM French number-one singles of 1976.... Argolin (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that you didn't know how, just that they are better than the succession boxes for this purpose. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion of their usefulness, that one is better than the other. I don't mean that in a bad way. You may wish to navigate the RPM charts with this rather ugly template. Not everyone does or will. It depends on what you're doing and what you're looking for. You are imposing your view on how wiki users should naviagate. Argolin (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All other chart lists use a template to navigate, not one uses succession boxes like you want to use them. You can always pretty up and change the existing template. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why have you taken such an exception to me and what I'm doing? Why don't you rename some of the other charts. See Category:1995 record charts. There are no clear naming rules. What is "Triple J Hottest" and for what country? Or "Ultratop 40" list is not in the name and again for what country? You haven't given me a chance to do any of the clean up required. I've only cited "Top Singles" chart of 1964. There are many RPM charts not in wikipedia. Now, I remember the magazine and flipping through the "Chart section". It went on for pages and pages on 11" x 17 paper. They had a chart for everything. With that, I object to the name of the charts associated with Canadian Albums Chart. Here's one:

Billboard has to be inculded in the name. Argolin (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

{{WPCharts}} is not accepting "class=template". Not sure what other classes it is in need of.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.) at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)/archive1. Comments encouraged. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones

An article that falls under the scope of this project, List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones, has been nominated for featured list. Interested members can review and comment here. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To Do list

I've requested the To Do list to be deleted at MfD. There's nothing going on with it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Random question

Can anyone give me an answer as to why the RIAA won't certify Pink and Kelly Clarkson's recent singles? NYSMy talk page 22:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

South Africa albums chart

In South Africa albums chart now not exist? I Found one date from 2007 and 2008, and some from 2009-2010 to Musiek Top20. What happened with this chart? Where I can found all dates or 2013? I searching LOL (^^,), Now You're Gone - The Album, Bass Generation and Calling Time charted/sales in South Africa. Please answer me on my discussion page. Eurohunter (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 number-ones "excluded"?

There's currently a rather peculiar trend on some of our yearly lists of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles, which states that a song is "excluded" or in some way doesn't "count" as being a number-one if it has already topped the chart in a previous year. For example, the lead of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 states that Smooth by Santana is "excluded" from being a number-one single of 2000 because it was already number-one in 1999. I really don't feel that we should support this for the following reasons:

  • It's original research. Unless I'm missing something, I can't see anything on Billboard.com to suggest that a song doesn't "count" as being a number one of a year if it has previously been number one in another year. Quite the reverse, in fact: Billboard clearly lists Smooth as being a No. 1 song of the 2000s, which presumably would make it a number one of 2000 too. Any assertion to the contrary is original research.
  • It's incongruous. Take List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004: according to the lead, Hey Ya! by Outkast is apparently "excluded" from being a 2004 number one as it had already been numer one in 2003. But, since the article is only about 2004, it's not necessary to discuss what the song was doing before then – it's outside the scope of the article, so it shouldn't make any difference if Hey Ya! had been number one in 2003, or 2002, or 1978. Besides, surely any song that reaches number one during 2004 is, by definition, a 2004 number one, regardless of any previous chart career?
  • It's confusing. The titles of these articles are all of the form "List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of [year]". If these songs don't "count" as being number-one singles of those years, then why are they in the lists at all? As an example, the lead of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 seems to imply that Lose Yourself by Eminem doesn't "count" as being a Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003, yet it's the very first one in the list. The list completely contradicts the lead, and it's confusing to our readers.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. I welcome any further discussion. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's just the phrasing that needs to be reworked. Along the lines of: "17 songs reached number one in 2000; in addition, 'Smooth' concluded its 12-week run at the top which began in October 1999." Even that can be refined some, but at least there's no odd explanation of exclusion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd certainly be a lot happier with that phrasing, but I think it would be better to clearly and explicitly state how many number ones there were in a year. Unfortunately, most Wikipedia readers are only ever going to skim-read our articles, and it seems likely to me that one could easily click onto this article, see "17 songs first reached number one in 2000" in the lead, and assume that there were only 17 number ones that year, when in actual fact there were 18. I'd prefer phrasing like, say, "18 songs reached number one in 2000, the first of which, 'Smooth', concluded its 12-week run at the top which began in October 1999." A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You'd have to change it to something even simpler like "There were 18 number-one songs in 2000, the first of which...", because "Smooth" did not reach number one in 2000. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So, something like "There were 18 number-one songs in 2000, the first of which, 'Smooth', concluded its 12-week run at the top which began in October 1999." then? I'd be happy with that, although it'd certainly need some polishing. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of rewording things. The summaries were written in good faith, but it is confusing as it is now. - eo (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, hold everything: this source states that there were 14 number ones in 2001, and doesn't count "Independent Women Part I", for some reason. Now I'm really confused... I'll try to find some more sources to determine which method of counting is "correct". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Just as a side note - Billboard End of Year Charts Directory has been created and just has a template on it but nothing else. I raised this with the author, who says he created it to help navigation. Anyone object? --S.G.(GH) ping! 09:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What determines what is a "single" anymore?

I noticed a while back that some artists have both a "Singles" section and an "Other charted songs" section in their discographies. Now, if we were back in the day when a "single" meant a vinyl record 7 inches in diameter, and if other non-single songs were allowed to chart by airplay alone (as the Billboard Hot 100 has allowed since 1998), I could understand that. But if a "single" is released only as a digital download, and an "other charted song" is charting only by virtue of digital download sales, how can one tell the difference between a single and a non-single? I first noticed this with regard to the Glee Cast (see Glee discography#Other charted songs) -- the Glee Cast gets virtually no radio airplay and so virtually all their chart hits have been due to digital sales, so what's the difference between their singles and their non-single chart hits? How can you define a song as not having been released as a single if you can buy a separate digital download of it? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting releases and accompanying chart histories from discographies

There is a discussion on this subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#Deleting releases from discography articles. Piriczki (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Republic of China chart

Hello! This is main chart in Republic of China include national and international artists? What is this? Eurohunter (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What Record Charts Actually Measure

I used to work in the radio business (in the U.S.) and also in the countdown business. A couple of years ago I added the following edit to Wikipedia's Record_chart page, one which I see has now been removed:

In 1988 a California radio engineer (B Golden) examined a database of CHR

(Contemporary Hit Radio, i.e., Top 40) charts from Radio & Records, then a popular

trade publication, and observed that over a 4-year sample period from 30 Sep 1983 to

25 Sep 1987 the most frequent peak position for songs that charted at all was No. 1,

followed by a noisy descent zigzagging all the way down to No. 40, the most

uncommon. Over 12% of songs, nearly 1 in 8, made it to No. 1 and nearly half the

charted songs peaked in the top 10. It was suggested that this is a common feature of

all such charts, and emerges from the fact that at each week’s shuffling, the closer a

slot is to the top the smaller the number of songs descending from above available to

compete for it.

I can't 'source' this since I'm the one who created the database I queried, but it's perfectly correct and can be checked by anyone with access to the Radio & Records Top 40 charts for the period in question. Of the 883 songs that reached their chart peak between September 30, 1983 and September 25, 1987, 111 of them, 12.57% of the total, made it to #1, and nearly 50% (432 songs) made it into the top 10. I do think this strikingly counterintuitive result deserves coverage.

As far as the last sentence of my previous edit's speculation about this being the result of chart kinematics, that is probably only one out of several reasons. For example, songs descended the charts faster than they rose, and once a song started its descent it never rose again.

Thanks for consideration of this material.

Misterbbear (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC) I have found errors in some of these numbers, due to songs that were collaborations having been counted more than once (e.g., Elton John, Gladys Knight, Stevie Wonder, and Dionne Warwick's hit recording "That's What Friends Are For"). Although these few occurances don't impair the overall result, I am withdrawing my entry, 'What Record Charts Actually Measure,' until I have had a chance to re-calculate the data. 66.19.169.123 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart

I believe that Taylor Swift has either tied or broken the record for most "bubblers". The only source I have been able to access is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.84.151 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Christmas #1 hits on UK charts

There a discussion taking place as to what week ending chart constitutes the #1 Christmas hit for the year in the UK. Please feel free to chime in — MusikAnimal talk 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian Chart Book 1993–2005

If an editor who has the book Australian Chart Book 1993–2005 could add the year, peak and reference to Metallica's Kill 'Em All#Charts, it would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanish chart

Why differences beetwen [1] and [2]? Eurohunter (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple chart runs

There is a discussion at Talk:Kill 'Em All (Metallica album) regarding how to present chart information in cases where an album has re-charted at various times over the years, usually when re-issued. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Names

Go here. Eurohunter (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Musica e Dischi listed at Requested moves

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Charts 07:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Musica e Dischi to be moved to Musica e dischi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.


GfK Entertainment Charts

Hello. You written this article wrong. GfK Entertainment ("GfK Entertainment Charts" is false name) is providing not only music charts. There are books, films and computer games too. Please answer me on my discussion page. Eurohunter (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks lke GfK Entertainment (+http://www.gfk-entertainment.com/produkte/musik/charts.html) are creators and Media Control are publishers. I'm right? Eurohunter (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Australian chart list articles

I initially made this request at Talk:List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia), but was told it would be more appropriate here.

This is a request for all lists of Australian number-one singles and albums lists to get moved to the same style of title as U.S. and UK ones (i.e. "List of Australian Singles Chart number ones of (year)" and "List of Australian Albums Chart number ones of (year)"). I moved List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia) myself and then moved it back, because I didn't initially realise that I'd be messing up the template. I realise that some rewriting of the template would have to be done but it's purely for clarity and consistency with the titling of UK and U.S. equivalent article titles. I know the chart hasn't always been called (nor is it technically currently called) the "Australian Albums Chart", but then again the UK Albums Chart is actually called the "Official Albums Chart" nowadays and yet we haven't changed that chart's respective article's titles, and that's partly because it might not instantly strike a reader as being a UK list. That's also the reason why I didn't propose moving to "List of ARIA Albums Chart number ones of 2015" - a reader may not realise that ARIA refers to the Australian charts. Unreal7 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the move is sound. Do you need help or simply moral support? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Help, cos I'm clueless when it comes to rewriting templates like this. Unreal7 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
If an official name isn't being used, why not simply "List of Australian albums chart number ones of [year]"? That way it doesn't matter what the name of the chart is now, then, or later. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
That's what I did do, but it resulted in some weird red-link template changes. Unreal7 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I see. So the issue here is the mainly the templates, not the naming convention. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That's right. Unreal7 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Jimp could help out with that. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 11:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, it should be a easy fix. Consistency with other similar articles is usually a good thing & seems so here. Jimp 00:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The template is transcluded on between 200 & 250 pages. There is no consistency of naming scheme. Some have "in Australia", others have "(Australia)", some have "for year", others have "of year", some have the year/decade before the country, others have it the other way around. It would probably be best to have a consistent style across the board. Jimp 01:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Standardise the naming scheme

If we're going to move some of these articles, we should move them all to a standardised naming system. For example, something like this.

  • List of number-one singles in Australia during the 1980s → List of Australian number-one singles of the 1980s
  • List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s → List of Australian number-one albums of the 1970s
  • List of number-one singles of 2006 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one singles of 2006
  • List of number-one albums of 2001 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one albums of 2001
  • List of Top 40 albums for 1980–89 in Australia → List of Australian top 40 albums of the 1980s
  • List of Top 40 singles for 1980–89 in Australia → List of Australian top 40 singles of the 1980s
  • List of Top 25 singles for 1970 in Australia → List of Australian top 25 singles of 1970
  • List of Top 25 albums for 1970 in Australia → List of Australian top 25 albums of 1970
  • List of number-one digital tracks of 2008 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one digital tracks of 2008
  • List of number-one club tracks of 2011 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one club tracks of 2011
  • List of number-one dance singles of 2001 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one dance singles of 2001
  • List of number-one urban singles of 2014 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one urban singles of 2014
  • List of number-one streaming tracks of 2014 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one streaming tracks of 2014
  • List of number-one country albums of 2016 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one country albums of 2016
  • List of number-one urban albums of 2016 (Australia) → List of Australian number-one urban albums of 2016

This is based on the suggested move above. However, might this not be a little unclear? Might this not potentially be read as albums/singles/tracks by Australian artists (I use the term "artist" loosely, there's a lot of rubbish out there especially in the top 40)? I s'pose it's not incorrect since they are Australian number-ones but it is a bit ambiguous. So, perhaps we should really figure out whether this is the way to go or whether there would be a better system before we go moving scores of articles. Jimp 05:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still favouring either my original suggestion or (and this is probably better) "List of Australian albums chart number ones of [year]", as suggested by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Unreal7 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding terminology of singles

I have started a discussion regarding how Wikipedia should define singles. Please go here to discuss.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish charts

Did you noticed differences beetwen Top 100 Songs from elportaldemusica.es and Single Top 50 from spanishcharts.com? Which one is more official? Albums lists are this same so. Eurohunter (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I believe the answer is that until the end of 2014 Spain had a Top 50 Songs chart and a Top 100 Streaming chart - from the first week of 2015 these were combined into the Top 100 Songs chart. See this Billboard article: http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6436368/spain-promusicae-debut-chart. If you look at the Spanish charts.com site you will see that you can only search charts until the end of 2014, and I think you will find that the charts until the end of 2014 will be the same on Spanish charts and on elportaldemusica, which is the official chart website for PROMUSICAE, Spain's record industry body... the differences will start from January 2015 onwards, and I think elportaldemusica is the official chart to use from that date. Richard3120 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
So how (why?) non-combined Top 50 list still works? Btw. why no articles for Spanish charts like British charts? Eurohunter (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
But I don't think it is working properly, and you can't search for charts since January 2015, when the Top 50 ceased to exist.
There is an article Productores de Música de España which covers the Spanish charts - if there is no separate article like for the UK, it's because nobody has ever written one, or because there is not enough information available to create a separate article. Richard3120 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Nobody written it, so why no red links? Red link suggest to write article. This is clear on Polish Wikipedia. I noticed some artcles is wrong names. For exemple "Swiss Hitparade" name not exist. This should be moved to "Hitparade.ch", because this is publisher. The provider of Swiss charts data is IFPI Schweiz (I'm not sure). Other one is Tracklisten it's cutted name of Tracklisten Top 40 alternative name singles chart for Track Top-40 (English Wikipedia article seriosly is unclear. One time article is about singles chart and next in this same article it's about other charts - albums, compliations etc.). Polish versions of article were copy of English so I fixed it there and moved Swiss Hitparade to Hitparade.ch and Tracklisten separated to Track Top-40 singles chart and Album Top-40 albums chart like Danish Wikipedia. Eurohunter (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
We should only have red links if it is likely that the article will be created in the future - at the moment it is not likely at all.
I don't think it is correct to change the chart names without getting consensus: for example, Swiss Hitparade (Schweizer Hitparade) is the correct official name for the Swiss charts - Hitparade.ch is just the name of the web address. Richard3120 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"Schweizer Hitparade" is just decription, name for single chart is "Singles Top 75" and other rest charts had own names. Always there is time to create article. Eurohunter (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant that if there aren't enough OK independent sources available to create the article, it's not likely to be created. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Why? Just use Hitparade.ch and add stitistics with most number one etc. Eurohunter (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
That wouldn't really tell you anything about the chart itself (its history, how it is compiled), it would just be a lot of lists, and they would all come from the same single source. And you would have to watch the charts every week to make sure the statistics were kept up to date. Personally I am not a fan of list articles like this on Wikipedia: they are so difficult to keep up to date and are usually incomplete... the only list that you can usually update easily is List of Spanish number one singles or something similar, because you only have to add a new one every week on to the end of the list and the previous entries do not change... if it is List of artists with most number one singles in Spain the order can change constantly. Richard3120 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot of articles which required to be updated. It's natural. Eurohunter (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There are seriously two different actual Spanish charts. Look on Faded by Alan Walker, peak 29 on top 50 and peak 60 on top 100. Eurohunter (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

National Albums/Music Charts

The short version: Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc.

Following a discussion with Dan56 about the title of UK Albums Chart, during which he pointed out the usage in Xx_(album)#Charts, it seems appropriate to look at how we name articles on national music or album charts. As shown in Xx_(album)#Charts, it is clearer and more helpful to have Australian Albums Chart, Belgian Albums Chart, Chinese Albums Chart, Danish Albums Chart, Norwegian Albums Chart, Spanish Albums Chart, and Swedish Albums Chart, than ARIA Charts, Ultratop, Sino Chart, Tracklisten, VG-lista, Productores de Música de España, and Sverigetopplistan. The relevant policies and guidelines are WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:ON, and WP:ENGLISH, which indicate that we should use the most recognisable or common name rather than the official or corporate name, and that on the English Wikipedia we should use English titles where possible. We also have WP:PRECISION, which indicates that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Articles such as Billboard 200, Top 40 Tracks, and Tropical Albums do not adequately define the article scope for those who are not familiar with Billboard's range of charts: that is the titles do not tell us which territory and/or format is being dealt with by the article. so the article titles would need to be either piped as with [[Tracklisten|Danish Albums Chart]], or the reader would need to click through to find out what is meant.

My suggestion is that where appropriate (that is where the chart is not already widely recognised, such as the Billboard Hot 100), the articles on national record and album charts should be named after the territory and format; so ARIA Charts would become Australian music charts, etc, while Billboard Hot 100 would remain as is. The change in article title would also be more in keeping with the current scope of the articles, which tend to be about the history, development and structure of the charts in that territory, rather than about whichever corporate body currently runs them. UK Albums Chart, for example, is currently titled Official Albums Chart, even though Official Charts Company (who changed the name) have only been collecting UK record sales since 1997, and the article deals with music charts in the UK since 1956 which were done by Melody Maker, NME, and Record Retailer, among others. It is, of course, appropriate, where the charts compiler is notable enough, to have a standalone article for them, as with Official Charts Company. In the case of the UK Albums Chart and others, they are generally called in reliable sources by their territory and format; for example: [3], [4], [5], [6].

Details would need to be sorted out (which charts in addition to Billboard Hot 100 are notable enough to remain with their own name, for example); however, it would be worth seeing if there is consensus to take this discussion forward. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Support looking into renaming national music charts articles to territory and format
Oppose
  • Oppose - I'm a strong proponent of WP:COMMONNAME, so don't get me wrong, but...my problem with this proposal is that the proposed names aren't really names at all, they're just descriptions of the subject. I can't get behind that. I'm fine with using piped links, or even redirects like these proposals, especially to maybe make the prose less awkward, but I don't believe the article titles themselves should change. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm in favour of COMMONNAME as well. Articles should be at the location of the common name. We can pipe descriptive names if required. Also, a comment was made in one of the alternate locations for this discussion that some nations have multiple charting companies and firms. In those instances, there is no single official chart and we have problems. For instance, in the US Billboard is only one chart. There were others before it whose charting rivalled the current charting champion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Besides the COMMONNAME problem already noted, it is rare that there is only one chart, often there is two or more for the same territory. Sometimes one is replaced. So to call it XXX (territory) charts would be based on assumptions and original research, leading to misinformation. I note there is an article List of record charts. Perhaps it could be worked on and integrated into the present nomenclature to make it easier for all to find the correct charts? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Some countries have (or had) at least two different, 'rival' charts being published at the same time. One example is Australia, which had the Australian Music Report and the ARIA Chart being published concurrently from late June 1988 until the late 1990's. To refer to either as the e.g. 'Australian Singles Chart' is too ambiguous.Nqr9 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  • I suspect that in the countries concerned, their national chart is widely recognized by name, probably more so that the Billboard Hot 100 is in those countries, so we have to be wary of bias caused by the demographic of en.wiki editors. There has also been more than one 'national' chart in a lot of countries. I don't support the renaming of the UK Albums Chart to the Official Albums Chart as the article covers the history of it, and it was known as the former for most of its history. --Michig (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that in the countries concerned their national chart would be more likely recognised by the local name. I want to make clear that the proposal is not to rename the articles on any local Wikipedia, only on the English one, where WP:ENGLISH applies. Record chart, for example, on the Swedish Wikipedia is Topplista. The article name Sverigetopplistan, which essentially mean "Swedish music charts", would immediately make sense to Swedish people, but not to non-Swedes. Each local language Wikipedia makes their own guidelines for how articles are named without reference to the English language one, and that's how it should be. There would be no bias (intended or actual) in putting articles into the local language. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The chart names used are an absolute mess. Why should a reader have to know the name of the official sponsor in order to work out what country a chart is from? The only globally recognisable chart is the Billboard Hot 100 which has over half a century of history. All others should have the country somewhere in the title even if it's just in brackets at the end. Calling the UK charts Official Singles/Albums Chart is like calling City of London The City. Btljs (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I suspect few people outside of Sweden know that the chart name is Sverigetopplistan, and probably even fewer can spell it properly. In any case I'm sure "Swedish music charts" is going to be a far more likely search term for the average person than "Sverigetopplistan". What happens when the chart provider or chart name changes, such as in Germany recently? It must be easier to consistently keep with "German music charts" rather than having to change the name over. Richard3120 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that the changing corporate name is a good point. Music venues and sports events tend to have new sponsors every few years, though we prefer to keep the core name - as in Brixton Academy, London Marathon, Premier League, etc. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If few people know what Sverigetopplistan (and don't know enough Swedish to know it means "the Swedish Top List", then if there were only some way to highlight it and connect it to the article about the subject. I suppose the same could be said for any foreign chart name.
As for what to do when a subject's name changes, again if there were only some way to automatically force a reader's browser to go to the new location when an article moves. It might also be work investigating some automated tool that would run in an unattended way to fix that sort of linking problem.
Sarcasm aside: those are poor arguments, both of which have been addressed by Wikilinks, redirects and bots. Common English prose could be used to do one of the following
"My Song" inexplicably reached No. 1 on the Swedish ''[[Sverigetopplistan]]'' singles chart on...
"My Song" inexplicably reached No. 1 on the [[Sverigetopplistan|Swedish singles chart]] on...
"My Song" inexplicably reached No. 1 on the ''[[Sverigetopplistan]]'' singles chart, the Swedish Recording Industry Association's official chart, on...
I offer three possible solutions, but there are many more, none of which require an uncommon English name to be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: your points are very valid. The trouble I see is where a country has more than one national chart – as somebody mentioned on one of the other pages wher this discussion was posted, Japan has Oricon and the Billboard Japan Hot 100, both of which are reliable and valid charts. So it might be incorrect to refer to either as THE official Japanese chart, and Japanese music charts seems like a good place to collect them together and mention the fact that there is more than one chart that could be used, and to direct people to the articles for Oricon, etc.
I think that perhaps Btljs and I are coming from a UK background, where the chart compiler has changed hands four times since unified charts began in 1969, so just using the current provider Official Charts Company would not be correct to use as the redirect article for UK Singles Chart or UK Albums Chart before 1997. Whereas in the US the charts have always been the Billboard xxxx, so this issue doesn't arise (on a side issue, it's always niggled me that using the "singlechart" and "albumchart" templates returns the current chart provider regardless of the year, but I accept it would be a nightmare to try and code the templates to show the correct chart provider depending on the year chosen). Richard3120 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Billboard hasn't always been the music chart. It has only reached prominence in the 1960s and 70s with the tie-in of a syndicated radio programme, American Top 40. Since you're coming to a project where you don't really know what you're talking about, you should familiarize yourself with the subject by looking at the list of record charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my bad, in the 1970s the Cash Box charts were probably just as well known as the Billboard ones. But I still don't feel that answers the question of what happens when the name changes. As SilkTork pointed out, if we keep to the official and common names, UK Singles Chart should really be renamed Official Singles Chart, but it wasn't always called that. The Billboard 200 used to be "Top LPs & Tapes" back in the 1970s, I believe - what happens if it changes its name in the future, do we rename the article? Richard3120 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

On a separate topic, the first question is to support a "territory and format" article. The example here, Sverigetopplistan is actually a set national charts:

  • Top 100 Singles
  • Top 60 Albums
  • Top 20 DVDs
  • Top 20 Ringtones

So I see three people supporting for four new articles, where the one that's currently there barely meets WP:GNG. Am I reading that response correctly? If so, I doubly oppose that suggestion as it's not workable and will result in a AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't support four new articles for each separate charts, as you rightly point out they would not meet WP:N and be AfD'd, but I don't think that was the proposal. Richard3120 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't? I'm reading "Support looking into renaming national music charts articles to territory and format". Isn't format, in this case, singles, albums, DVDs and ringtones? That's what you, SilkTork and Btljs supported above. How would you define "territory and format"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I understood from SilkTork's example that he was referring only to clarifying the various Billboard charts, e.g. Latin, Hot Dance Tracks, etc. – if I am mistaken and he meant for all countries then no, I wouldn't support that. Perhaps he could clarify it for us? Richard3120 (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
For the most part the Billboard charts already have separate articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I know, that's what I'm saying, my understanding was that SilkTork wanted to clarify the names of the existing articles for various Billboard charts, but wasn't suggesting creating separate articles for every chart in countries outside the US. Richard3120 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging project members to discuss the proposal: @Jaespinoza: @Underneath-it-All: @Ericorbit: @Realist2: @Explicit: @Efe: @Legolas2186: @ThinkBlue: Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Responding to
"My Song" inexplicably reached No. 1 on the Swedish ''[[Sverigetopplistan]]'' singles chart on...
"My Song" inexplicably reached No. 1 on the [[Sverigetopplistan|Swedish singles chart]] on...
"My Song" inexplicably reached No. 1 on the ''[[Sverigetopplistan]]'' singles chart, the Swedish Recording Industry Association's official chart, on...
by Walter Görlitz above:
Your first example is a pleonasm since Swedish is already in the title (in Swedish); your second falls foul of WP:LINKCLARITY because, as you have stated above, Sverigetopplistan contains not just the singles chart - you could link to a section within the page, but then this is true of a page called Swedish music charts as well which rather destroys your argument about having too many pages; you can't think that the third example is clear and concise. I see from the page that this name has only been in use since 2007 so if it changes again, do we all have to learn the name of the new chart - in every country? Also, it is misleading for a 1975 song to link to a page called by a post-2007 title, as it implies a continuity which is non-existent.
Is a non-expert reader supposed to know that 'Single Top 100' is Dutch but 'Singles Digitál Top 100' is Slovakian? Readers are not expected to know that 'M40' is a road in England and 'M-40' is one in the US - they get given the country in parentheses. That would be one option here: 'Single Top 100 (Netherlands chart)' which would differentiate it from the other Dutch charts and other national singles charts. 'Dutch Top 40' is fine as it is. Where there is only one, you only need the country and format, as I previously supported. In the case of the Swedish one, the page List of number-one singles and albums in Sweden states: "This is a list of number one singles in Sweden at ”Topplistan” (The top list) 1975–1997, ”Hitlistan” (The hit list) 1998–2007, ”Sverigetopplistan” (The Swedish top list) 2007 and forward." That is accurate, precise, concise and a clearly titled page. Btljs (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

1960s charts

I'm looking for chart information from Australia, Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico and Spain from the 1960s for the Beatles discography article. Does anyone know A) were there recognized national charts in these countries? B) where were they published? and C) what were the titles of these charts? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Country Publisher Chart title
United Kingdom Record Retailer Top 50
New Musical Express NME Top Thirty
Melody Maker Pop 50
United States Billboard Hot 100
Cash Box Top 100 Singles
Record World 100 Top Pops
Australia Go-Set National Top 40
Canada RPM RPM 100
France ? ?
West Germany Der Musikmarkt Deutsche Hit-Parade
Italy ? ?
Japan ? ?
Mexico ? ?
Spain ? ?

Piriczki (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I know the main German chart during the 60s was Der Musikmarkt. It was published monthly, not weekly, but its archives are available here: [7] Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how "official" the Musikmarkt charts were, so be careful about using them. Apart from the Go-Set charts, David Kent has retrospectively compiled Australian charts from 1940 to 1969 – these are available in his Australian Chart Book 1940–1969 which you will have to buy over the internet if you can't find a copy in a library.
The truth is that apart from the US and the UK very few countries had any sort of official charts before the late 1970s/early 1980s. Even in the UK the charts you list above were competing with each other throughout the 1960s to be recognised as the "true" chart, and it wasn't until February 1969 that the British Market Research Bureau was commissioned to begin compiling the first "official" national chart – subsequently the Record Retailer chart was considered to be the official chart before this date. This has annoyed a lot of Beatles' fans because the Record Retailer chart was the only one in which "Please Please Me" didn't reach number 1 and they believe the song should have been the band's first chart-topper instead of "From Me to You". Richard3120 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles

Does anyone know of a reliable source for the Billboard year-end top 100 singles for the 1960s and 1970s? There are the actual issues in Billboard's magazine archive or Google books but those don't contain every issue. There are also several web pages with this information but none that meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. I'm specifically looking for the first publication of the revised year-end chart for 1966. Piriczki (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I suspect you will have to find actual printed copies of Billboard itself from those dates – in the UK the British Library has a collection of the magazine but it isn't complete, so I can't guarantee that it will have the issue that you are looking for. Also, you are aware that the "year-end" charts are not based purely on sales? Richard3120 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The old billboard.biz web site used to have the year-end charts but not anymore. I can find most of the actual issues—the only problem is that Billboard changed some of these charts later. The current 1966 chart is drastically different from what was originally published and some the 1970s charts have had minor changes too. Piriczki (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise that – makes the search even harder then. The BL does have Joel Whitburn's Billboard chart books but I don't know if they include year-end lists: I'm not in the UK at the moment but next time I'm in London I'll try and remember to have a look for you. Richard3120 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
His books don't have the Billboard year-end lists. Piriczki (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Belgium

Platinum in Belgium is 20,000 and gold 10,000. Certification Table template need to be updated. Eurohunter (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to place this message at Template talk:Certification Table Entry. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: according to this document, certification levels are different for domestic and for international markets. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's from 2013. They added it in 2016, so I think it is the same for all now. Eurohunter (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Then we need to find proof that the certifications have changed. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You can look for webarchive. There never been informations about sales. They added it in 2016 so It's new thing on site and then update. Eurohunter (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
But I can't find any information that it was changed in 2016. Where did you find it? Richard3120 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Just I noticed it in 2016. You can see some archieved versions at the and 2015 and some from 2016. Eurohunter (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you provide a link please? Richard3120 (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I see now it happened something aerlier now. Beetwen 17 June and 16 August 2015. Eurohunter (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand chart of the year

Where I can see New Zealand singles and albums chart of the year 2008, 2009 and 2010? Eurohunter (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard3120 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

European charts

@Richard3120: Do you know Eueopean charts of the year exists and where I can see?

Do you know where I can see Basshunter positions on European wheekly charts?

Albums
Singles
Rest I found in Web Archive's archived Billboard pages. Eurohunter (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not so sure about European charts, most of them seem to be unacceptable for use on Wikipedia – maybe somebody else might know. Richard3120 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean European charts by Billboard for sure. Eurohunter (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Danish chart of the year

Hello. Where I can see Danish singles chart of the year 2006? It ever existed? I checked some archived pages and I toniced albums chart of the year only. Eurohunter (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

They certainly existed – there have been official Danish charts since 1965. However, the danishcharts.com website is only allowed to show charts from 2007 onwards. So I'm sorry, there is nowhere online that has official Danish single charts from 1965 to 2006. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot about this link. Eurohunter (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Max Martin scores another one with feeling

"In addition to performing "Feeling," Timberlake wrote and produced it with pop titans Max Martin and Shellback. While Timberlake has written all five of his Hot 100 No. 1s, and produced four, Martin achieves his 22nd No. 1 as a writer. He remains in third place among songwriters for the most No. 1s in the Hot 100's history, trailing only Paul McCartney (32) and John Lennon (26). "Feeling" is Martin's 20th No. 1 as a producer. Only legendary late Beatles producer George Martin has notched more: 23. (Martin's second No. 1 as a writer? "It's Gonna Be Me.")" http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7370592/justin-timberlake-debuts-no-1-hot-100-cant-stop-the-feeling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacoph (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Beach Boys in 1976 Rock and Roll Music should be rated 62 in top100, Not ranked 81 in top 100 of 1976

Dear, Wikipedia When I looked up the top 100 songs of 1976 on the internet. There is a error that is mix up mistake and that is wrong. The Beach Boys are rated #62 in the Top 100 songs of 1976 by the Billboard Magazine. On the Internet, You had list them #81 on the www.bobborst.com. I checked the Billboard websites and they are correct. You must match with the Billboard top 100 songs of 1976. But not the www.bobborst.com. Please, Check the Billboard history books. All 19 songs of 1976 must drop a notch from 63 to 81, Not 62 to 80 on www.bobborst.com. Wikipedia must change it, Please. Check it, Just for you to understand the problem that make people confusion. Thank you for bringing my attention to you. Sincerely, Peter Garthe Traverse City,Michigan

Any question: Please, E-mail to me for the answer: petergarthe1979@live.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.208.201 (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand - the article Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1976 shows "Rock and Roll Music" at #62, exactly as you said, and the reference is linked directly to Billboard magazine, so why do you say Wikipedia has it wrong? Richard3120 (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think #81 is actually correct. Some of Billboard's year-end charts were changed or corrected at some point after publication. In most cases it was just a song or two, or in the case of the Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1966 it was a major revision. These were once available at billboard.biz but no longer and otherwise there are no reliable sources available online. I will get a hold of a reliable print source and make the corrections. Piriczki (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought about pinging you on this Piriczki, as it seems to be an area you know more about - being British I've concentrated on getting the UK year-end and decade-end charts correct, and I know little about any corrections made to the equivalent US charts, or where to find the information. Still puzzled by the editor's assertion that the current Wikipedia article doesn't agree with Billboard magazine, though. Richard3120 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the print source I had in mind, Billboard's Hottest Hot 100 Hits by Fred Bronson, does not have the Billboard year-end charts. It lists the top 100 songs each year but it is based on his own methodology and does not match the Billboard year-end charts. Billboard.com and billboard.biz don't have year-end charts prior to 2006, even with a subscription. As of now, the only reliable sources available are the actual year-end issues of the magazine. The problem with using the magazine as a source is that some of those charts were subsequently revised. Those revised versions are no longer available. It's almost as if they never existed.
There are a few web sites that have the Billboard year-end charts but none meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. Two of them, bobborst.com and musicoutfitters.com, are mirrors of Wikipedia that erroneously list a top 100 for the years 1956–58 as Wikipedia did for a time before those articles were corrected (it was only a top 50 those years). Musicoutfitters also has referral links to the songs on iTunes, another no-no. Another, longboredsurfer.com, may be accurate but like the others it is a self-published source that doesn't meet WP:RS. Piriczki (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hot 100 Billboard Songs for 1980

Hello,

I am writing in regards, to the Billboard chart, for Hot 100 songs of 1980. I know this might sound lame, but I wrote down the who top 40 year end countdown, from American top 40, with Casey Kasem, for 1979 & 1980. I especially remember the top 3 songs for 1980. And your chart is wrong! Number one was correct, with "Call Me." Number 2 was correct with "Another Brick in the Wall." But number 3 is wrong!! It was and should be "Do that to me one more time", by Captain & Tennille! I don't know how it could be moved to #5, when the chart was made, for the year end countdown. That would be the final. How could things change? Even over time, it can't. Unless somehow you were able to go back to 1980 physically & change it!! LOL "Do that to me one more time." Spent 4 weeks at #2, then it made it to #1, for a week. It did spend, quite awhile in the top ten. That's why it was given the #3 spot for a year. I was just frustrated, when I just saw the Billboard chart, for 1980. A corrections should be made. Thank you......Randy I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.61.23 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Randy – I'm afraid there is no correction to be made... because the Wikipedia article lists the year-end chart exactly as it was printed in Billboard magazine in the issue of December 20, 1980, on page 10 of the "Talent in Action: Year End Charts" supplement between pages 54 and 55 of the standard magazine. I have no idea why American Top 40 should have had a different chart from the one in Billboard, as AT40 used the Billboard charts... but without any proof of the AT40 chart apart from your own recollections, we have no option but to go with the official printed chart that can be verified by any editor with access to the magazine. Here is the issue of that magazine on Google Books if you want to check for yourself. Richard3120 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: I've just checked online and you are correct, "Do That to Me One More Time" WAS the #3 single for 1980 according to American Top 40... I'm British, so if any American editors reading this can enlighten me as to why the AT40 and Billboard charts are different, it would be a big help. Richard3120 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the American charts, but when I listened to the American Top 40 radio show in the late 80s/early 90s, with Casey Kasem (and Shadoe Stevens), they were definitely using a different chart to the Billboard Hot 100 by 1993 (e.g. Madonna's 'Rain' reached #1 on it), if not earlier (I'm not sure about the late 1980s, though). As an analogy, the equivalent Australian radio show, Take 40 Australia, used a different chart to the ARIA chart pre-1989, so I would take the published Billboard chart as more authoritative to what was aired on American Top 40.Nqr9 (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The American Top 40 year-end countdown list for 1980 is very different from Billboard's year-end chart, top to bottom. There appears to be a significant difference in methodology or in defining the chart year. Singles that straddled the chart year rank much higher on AT40's list than in Billboard. The cut-off date for Billboard must have been early that year, probably in October. Piriczki (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe you are correct, Piriczki. AT40 year-end countdowns were still based on the weekly issues of Billboard, assigning a point-value system for a song's position for each week on the chart. That isn't much different than how Billboard did it back then, but AT40 used a more defined calendar year. This is completely based on memory, however. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Buddy Holly and the Crickets template

I totally disagree with the edits on Buddy Holly template which have been made pretty recently by an user. We have discussed here and we definitely don't agree with it. Could someone give his opinion ? Elfast (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What does it have to with record charts? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

European charts archives

Are somewhere archives of European Albums and European Hot 100 chart? Eurohunter (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There is one archive available of the Europarade, with comments on failures at the compiling process. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

[Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Discographies]

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not fond of this proposal. Many countries know more than one national charts, and some countries know just regional/subnational/monolingual charts. The categories should point you to the charts in a particular country. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

France and her charts

France did have two national charts from the 50s till 2004, according to the home cultural policy which aim was to protect French cultural against "Anglosaxon cultural imperialism". There was no mixec charts. Therefore both charts should be treated equally, and articles should make a clear distinction between both, however include both if necessary. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment...

...on a requested change at Template talk:Single chart#Template-protected edit request on 31 March 2017. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Dutch Charts

One of the archived versions says (GfK MegaCharts shortened to MegaCharts, megacharts.nl) that been moved to Dutch Charts, dutchcharts.nl in 2007. If u visit both dutchcharts.nl and megacharts.nl u can see both them include charts. What it means? MegaCharts article says that its called Dutch Charts now (in this case article should be moved to Dutch Charts). So in fact Dutch Charts is MegaCharts now or ever been or MegaCharts been excluded from Dutch Charts so they are separetly now? Dutch Charts include "Album Top 100" chart and MegaCharts include "Hitlijst album top 100" chart, which seems to be different or outdated (I compared whole May with Dutch Charts). Eurohunter (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In 2004, sales charts compiler Mega Charts signed a long-term contract with German research company GfK such that the latter took over compilation and the chart was renamed as GfK Mega Charts from that point on. At that time the chart was being published as https://megacharts.nl I am not sure if DutchCharts is an actual name of the chart or just the online name address where the chart is being published now. By the way this should not be confused with another official chart but completely different now known as Media Markt Dutch Top 40 on https://www.top40.nl/ werldwayd (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect proposal on Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100

The article should be redirected to another same article , List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, more detailed and less confusing article. Post your comment on Talk:Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100#Redirect. Excelse (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to merge the content of the first into the second. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Polish Music Charts

Something like "Polish Music Charts" doesn't exists. Article should be moved under descriptive name because it just descibes one albums sales chart and few airplay charts. Eurohunter (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But what should the descriptive name be? The article talks about the OLiS and ZPAV charts, albums and airplay songs, etc. – there's no obvious name to describe all these charts apart from "Polish Music Charts". Richard3120 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Should be "Polish music charts" then. Eurohunter (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Same with UK Music Charts (don't guess its collection too) should be moved to "British music charts" and "Turkish Music Charts" ("Turkish music charts"). Eurohunter (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Official Classical Singles Chart

Hi all. Official Classical Singles Chart has been sitting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates without any new reviews for the last couple of months. If anyone has some time, I would welcome any comments or feedback on the nomination. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it original research to source chart positions from the compilers of the chart?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Official Classical Singles Chart/archive1 over whether it is original research to cite chart positions to the company that compiles the chart (as this may count as a primary source). I invite all interested editors to share their opinions either here or on that page. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How is there currently a discussion in an archive? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dutch certifications

Dutch certifications are now avaiable under nvpi.nl/nvpi-audio/marktinformatie/goud-platina. You can enter Stromae or Sean Paul and results will display. I couldn't find way to link specific artist or release. Anyway link in certification table schould be exchanged. Eurohunter (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally! That's fantastic, that us for letting us know Eurohunter, there were a lot of articles using Dutch certifications that were just leading to a dead link. I think the web address has changed though, so we might need to redirect all those articles to the new link. Richard3120 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100

This article should be moved to "Hot 100". If I'm correct this name is in use since one year already. Btw. italics for "Billboard Hot 100" are completly incomprehensible because as a whole Billboard Hot 100 is not magazine name but just chart name called "Billboard Hot 100" (in the past). Eurohunter (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Btw. I have not noticed it today but many Billboard's charts are under outdated or even under false names they never existed (probably). Eurohunter (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you about renaming the Hot 100, but you would have to put in a requested move at WP:RM to get consensus to change it.
And what do you mean "outdated or false names"? Can you give us an example? Richard3120 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Richard3120: "Hot 100" is the main name on the Billboard page but "Billboard Hot 100" is also on the tab description. Eurohunter (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I like to use this page to represent the "official" names of the charts, which are still the names used in printed editions. The names used on Billboard.com have been simplified or "dumbed down" (for lack of a better term) for a wider general audience. For example, "Mainstream Top 40" is still what's recognized by industry but "Pop Songs" is used for public consumption because the editors of Billboard don't think the average person would know what Mainstream Top 40 means. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

European Top 100 Albums

Where name "European Top 100 Albums" comes from? I remember it was named "European Albums" on the Billbard site. Eurohunter (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Doing a search online, I found a number of articles from Billboard that reference the chart and anything pre-2010 they call it "European Top 100 Albums" and only until sometime during 2010 do they specifically refer to it as "European Albums". If you look at the published charts themselves, its shown as "Eurochart Albums" pre-2009 and changed to "European Albums" sometime during 2009. Seems like any are acceptable but I'd go with the prevailing European Top 100 Albums as the title of the article, since that appears to be its most well-known name. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I think name should be updated then becauase as I understood "European Albums" is the last used name of the chart (2009-2010). Eurohunter (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Last name used does not mean what the chart has been referred to most commonly in reliable sources. See WP:COMMONNAME. However, you can always request the page be moved on its talk page by following instructions at WP:RM. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Album Top 100

Template:Album chart should links to Album Top 100 instead of MegaCharts like in singles case. Eurohunter (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter:  Done. I also piped the dutch compilation albums to Compilation Top 30. --Muhandes (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Canada's Chart Archives (RPM Magazine)

It would be fantastic to find some like minded individuals dedicated to the preservation of Canada's rich musical history. As a concert lighting engineer as well as a regular DJ since the 80's, I find myself working frequently with a good number of classic rock artists. Loverboy, Streetheart, Harlequin, The Headpins, Prism, Chilliwack, Doug & The Slugs, Haywire, Trooper, Queen City Kids, Helix, April Wine, Platinum Blonde, Honeymoon Suite, 54-40, Big Sugar, are all band/artists I've worked with in the past year alone. My focus pre & post concert has always been on Canadian content.

I've spend a good portion of the last 25 years archiving charts. This began with Whitburn books in 1995 & compiling them into a single complete Excel spreadsheet from 1956-present. This led to me taking on the position as a music director for a prominent background music company in Canada, where this information was embedded into the meta tags of .flac files as well as well as .mp4 files.

When this project began, online access to Canadian charts from RPM & The Record were non existent. As a result US based Billboard serves as the reference point for basically the entire music library. More recently, a number of online sources have appeared for RPM Magazine, none of which are complete. I've yet to see anything from the Record other than print copies I own. With that said these current sources have provided an excellent starting point.

One tool has been Canada's Library of Archives on-line resource, all poorly scanned .pdf's. Over the past year I've used spare time to embed chart information into my music library. This began with Year End chart positions into an open field within my Tag Editor and have recently began entering in each tracks peak position. Finding lots of errors with the print publication & what's listed on Wikipedia.

In addition there are a great number of charts from LAC either missing or cross referenced very poorly. I've made some contacts who are working in the background to make this information more readily available and improve on the current product. Earlier today the long missing 1972 Year End RPM chart was forwarded my way from the Library of Archives & I've already used it to make a few alterations on Wikipedia. In doing I've found things can get rather tedious when editing, and this is from someone whose been physically entering chart information for 25 years, so thought I'd turn here for some help.

Anyways, here I am. If anyone can offer any insight that would be great. Perhaps someone has experience with the creation of another countries chart history, so even if you have no interest in Canadian content, your input may prove invaluable.

Perhaps there a whole group of people already engaged in this task. If so I'm here to help. Feel free to reach out to me.

With that said, I currently have zero idea how to check correspondence or if anyone will even see what I've wrote.

Just noticed I can "watch this page", so I'm waiting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djjamesfalk (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. What exactly are you asking for help with – is it creating articles relating to the Canadian charts (they are probably all already here, but could do with improved referencing), or is it adding links for Canadian chart positions for various singles and albums to the RPM archives at LAC? I notice that you have been adding dates of chart peaks with wording like "Peaked at no. XX on May 26, 1970", but without actually linking it to a particular reference, like an issue of RPM.
If the issue of RPM is available online at LAC, then in the chart table you can add the lines
{{single chart|Canadatopsingles|PP|chartid=XXXX}} (for singles)
{{album chart|Canada|PP|chartid=XXXX}} (for albums)
where "PP" is the peak position, and the four-digit chartid is the number immediately following "nlcxxxxx" and then the period/full stop, in the URL for that particular chart. This will show up in the chart table with the following rows for singles and albums, respectively:
Chart Peak
position
Canada Top Singles (RPM)[1] 28
Chart Peak
position
Canada Top Albums/CDs (RPM)[2] 37
and users can click on the URL generated in the reference (see below) which will take them to the relevant page at LAC to be able to check the chart position.

References

  1. ^ "Top RPM Singles: Issue 2647." RPM. Library and Archives Canada.
  2. ^ "Top RPM Albums: Issue 2647". RPM. Library and Archives Canada.
If the issue of RPM is not available at LAC but you have the physical copy in your possession (like the 1972 year-end chart), that's not a problem, but it still needs to be properly referenced, so you'll need to add the code
<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Top Singles of 1972|magazine=RPM|volume=XX|number=XX|page=XX|date=December 31, 1972}}</ref>
which will show up in the references list as
"Top Singles of 1972". RPM. Vol. XX, no. XX. December 31, 1972. p. XX.
(you'll have to alter the title and date parameters to what they really are, these were just examples). Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

French chart

[8] → [9]. [10] → [11]. What happened to the French chart? Eurohunter (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Irish dance chart

Anyone know and has references about that Irish dance chart (called Top 10 Dance Singles, later as Top 5 Dance Singles from chart-track.co.uk) existing in years 2000-2009 was based on airplay? Here is the archive. Eurohunter (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone charts

@Nice4What compiled some useful advice regarding the new Rolling Stone Top 100 and Top 200 that can be found at WP:RSCHART. I'd recommend anybody contributing to the WikiProject give it a look. Thanks TheKaphox T 14:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Billboard Year-End Top Singles 1946-1949

Is there a reason these pages don't exist? There are pages for 1950 on, but these four years are unaccounted for. Jtbrubak (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably because either nobody has ever bothered to create the pages, or they don't have access to the sources to add as references, or both. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Jtbrubak, a pretty complete archive of Billboard can be found at AmericanRadioHistory.com if you want to see if the year-end charts are there. You could definitely make them yourself if you wanted to. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Canadian RPM charts

Does anyone have access to a book or database archive of the Canadian RPM charts? I’ve been working on some discographies recently and some of the artists have extensive numbers of entries, making it hard to find the peak dates and all charting songs using the manual archive search. Specifically I am looking for the Top Singles and Adult Contemporary charts. Toa Nidhiki05 13:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Scans of almost all the charts are available at the Canadian Archives at http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/search.aspx, but you will have to have some idea of the year and the month that the record charted, because they are scans and you can't search by artist or title, only by issue date. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
That’s what I’ve been using, I’m more specifically asking if anyone knows of or has access to a book with these results. It’s certainly fine to use that method (it just takes a bit of work), but if it were in a book everything could be cited to one source as opposed to many individual sources. Toa Nidhiki05 14:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see, my apologies. No, as far as I know, no book has ever been produced of the RPM charts, and that database is the only one in existence. Of course, not being from either Canada or the US means I'm no authority on the matter, and I could be wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC for a possible alternative format for singles discography tables. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

UK sheet music charts

I've added this to WP:Requested articles/music/Media, but I thought I'd post it here too, in the hope someone might be interested:

UK sheet music charts (Charts based on sales of sheet music for popular songs were published in the UK from the 1930s to the 1960s - prior to 1952, they were the only regular music charts in the UK, published in Melody Maker and the New Musical Express, also broadcast on Radio Luxembourg) [1] [2] [3] [12] Billboard magazine issues which include these charts are also available to view for free.

I have the book First Hits, and I'm happy to supply information from it. I'd be willing to look at a published article on this subject and work on it. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Henson, Brian; Morgan, Colin (1989). First hits, 1946-1959. London: Boxtree. ISBN 9781852832681.
  2. ^ The Virgin book of Top 40 charts. London: Virgin. 2009. ISBN 9780753522004.
  3. ^ Street, Sean (2009). The A to Z of British Radio. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810870130.

Album-equivalent units usage

As far I remember, there is a de facto step to avoid album-equivalent units sales below summaries of certifications and also in albums/singles discography. I've seen in the past a problem with a few albums like one from Rihanna, but user @Tomica: reverted it: Rihanna albums discography (for Anti), and the main article for the album. User did not even used an edit summary, or used the talk page. I don't want to enter into an edit war. Just wondering, what's the proceed? If something has changed, or I'm missing something. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The Partridge Family, I Think I Love You

The Partridge Family's "I Think I Love You" was no. 1 for three weeks in 1970, yet the song does not appear in Billboard's year-end chart of the top 100 hits of 1970. Two of those weeks were the last two weeks of November, and the third week was the first week of December. As I understand it, only the first two weeks would be included in 1970, and the week in December would go into 1971's chart. Still, with two weeks at no. 1 in 1970, surely the song should be in the year's top 100. Any ideas why it isn't? 184.57.237.178 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It's because December charts were not part of the tabulations. "Tears of a Clown" also does not appear in either the 1970 or 1971 year-end charts. Rankings were based on a reverse point system so neither would have accumulated that many points after only 7/8 weeks on the chart. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! 184.57.237.178 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Record_Charts/Archive_2&oldid=1218262338"