Talk:2009 in country music

Australian chart positions

The Australian country chart only has 30 positions, unlike the US and CAN charts which are both 60. I think maybe we should limit the "major" Australian country hits to just Top 10 since it's a smaller chart. I'm also thinking of cutting back US and CAN to just Top 20 since 25 is a little odd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea. Langdon (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Okay, but let's not remove anything until we see what others think of the idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing to top 20 hits in Canada and US and top 10 hits in Australia should work. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there doesn't seem to be any objection, so I'm cutting back all the years in country music pages to just Top 20 US/CAN, and this page will also be T10 only for Australia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian positions again

Okay, I finally did some research and I'm a little leery of the NFS Publicity site. Apparently they were on a users.bigpond.com website (i.e., a free website hosted by an ISP) until recently. Furthermore, I can't find a shred of information on this company, which should be a big red flag. Furthermore, I can't find any evidence of IFPI recognizing this as an official chart, as opposed to, say, Billboard, Radio & Records or even Mediabase or Music Row. Even the Country Music Association of Australia doesn't acknowledge the charts, just the ARIA country albums charts. (As to why ARIA would have a country albums charts but not a singles one, I don't know.) Therefore, since this chart seems not to be a notable one, I'm thinking of removing the positions, but I'd like to view others' opinions first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with the big red flag (although it's more like BIG RED FLAG to me). If no official/trustworthy sources back this chart up, how can it be legitimate? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I haven't even seen this chart cited in news articles pertaining to the singers, for crying out loud. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even in dispute? If what you say is true, then this is worthless data. Purge purge purge. DS (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I7114080/Langdon was the one who started adding the AUS positions. This user seems to be a bit more skeptical of my actions, so I figured a discussion was in order. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only 22 incoming links to the site, and none of them look particularly exciting. Apparently non-notable. On a second level, even if we found the site to be notable within Australia, I have to question the merits of a genre-specific chart in such a small market. I would probably argue against inclusion unless someone could demonstrate that the Australian country music market was significant in comparison to the worldwide market for country music.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That might explain why I can't find anything in the way of sources when it comes to most of these country acts. Sorry, Jetty Road, guess you don't get an article after all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually kind of a shame: my sole Australian country music CD is "It's Hard When You're Ugly" by the Fargone Beauties. No article on them, either, even though one might be justifiable today ... there seems to be a number of sources on them now. They've got a good website up with a pretty interesting cover of Hey Joe on it.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete it! Since there is nothing to prove the importance of the chart, we should not include it. Langdon (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Hey wait a minute! Wasn't it a good idea in the first place to show the Australian chart information? I just think that it was unnecessary to delete it. Additionally, i think that we should add the top 25 songs, and not just the top 20 songs. Adding just the top 20 songs sounds pretty stupid to me. User:Ryanbstevens —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It was a good idea in theory to include Australian positions, but at the time I didn't realize that the chart we were using was not a reputable chart. Billboard and Radio & Records are easily verified, and their notability isn't in question. The Aussie country chart could be published in some guy's basement for all we know. (I should also note that despite Jetty Road having the #2 single on that chart, I can't find a single reliable source for the band.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is CMC which has a user voted Top 30 but it's generally considered the Top 30 for Country Music in Australia. [1] 114.72.200.84 (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has had a new national country top 40 singles chart for several years now with archives back to 2014. The chart is created from play reports from radio stations playing country across Australia and has a reasonable level of accuracy from my observation of it since it started (The current #1 is Lee Kernaghan who has sold over 2 million albums). https://countrytrackschart.com.au/archive.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add all the top 40 hits, and not just the top 20 hits!

Okay, why not add every top 40 hit onto this page, and all the other years? Why just add the top 20 singles? You guys go from just adding top 25 hits to just top 20 hits? I know that we should only include the big hits, and not the minor hits, but it would seem really helpful and smart to add not just the top 20 songs, but any top 40 hit as well. It may seem necessary to follow the general rule of just adding the top 20 hits, but it makes the years in country music pages less detailed. Therefore, i believe that it would be best and better to add every top 40 hit onto the pages. Adding just the top 20 hits on the pages is just a little stupid and limited to me. I think that every top 40 hit has the right to be remembered. So i say that we add all the top 40 hits onto this page, and all the pages of the previous years. Anyone want to comment on this idea? - User:Ryanbstevens - Added on March 1, 2009 at 8:24 PM (My time).

Top 40 is a little bit too many. Langdon (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Yes, maybe, but i'm not saying add all the top 40 songs and non-top 40 songs, just the top 40 songs, or at least the top 30 songs. There, top 30 songs. That's minus ten. And like i said, every top 40 song, or at least every top 30 song deserves to be on these pages, and to be remembered this way. Would that be a better idea? - User:Ryanbstevens - Added on March 2, 2009 at 4:01 PM (My time).

Okay, not all the top 40 songs, or all the top 30 songs, but just the top 25 songs maybe? We've got to make these pages more detailed at least. - User:Ryanbstevens - Added on March 2, 2009 at 9:53 PM (My time).

End of R&R

Okay, with R&R ending publication, we need a new game plan. I'm going to wait until next week's chart is published to see what happens. It's entirely possible that Billboard could take over the Canadian R&R charts, and they could also make the full 60 space country chart available on their website. At the very least, each individual song will still be listed in the archives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But is it possible that Billboard pick up CAN Country chart? Billboard never publish this chart before. Langdon (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Like I said, let's just want and see what happens. It is possible since they owned R&R. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did it go down in the first place? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining R&R was just too much for Billboard, methinks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the people that worked for R&R? Or is it just the website that went down, and not the entire thing? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the entire thing, here's an article about its closure [2] --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for posting that article. It's a strange, strange world we live in now. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that Billboard picks up the Canadian chart, i really do, but that doesn't seem like that that's gonna happen. Like i'm hoping that Sci-Fi picks up my favorite TV show, which Sci-Fi might most likely not. My hopes aren't down, but Billboard doesn't look like that it's gonna pick up the Canadian chart. Again, i hope to God that Billboard does. Having heard that Radio & Records shut down was truly shocking. Most likely, Canada might not have a country chart for many years to come. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, when RPM went out of business in November 2000, Billboard didn't pick it up then, and there was no Canadian country chart until June 2004, nearly 5 years. It might be the same this time, unless Billboard actually manages to pick it up this time. Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that Billboard is picking up the former R&R airplay charts, which would include Canadian Country. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Billboard does, then that would be terrific. That's great. Ryanbstevens (talk)

Did Billboard ever pick up the Canadian chart? It's seems to be running again since new peaks in Canada were listed, and Brad Paisley's song "Then" spends it's second week at number-one there, and June 5th has past, or is it just me? Ryanbstevens (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not for sure if they did pick it up, however, the chart came from R&R still, the Canadian country chart can be found here. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i think that we've been lied to. Radio & Records didn't seem to go out of business, as the charts on the website can still be accessed. What is going on here? Or did Billboard pick up the Canadian charts? Did Billboard claim the website? Are they sure that Radio & Records went out of business, or are they about to go out of business? Ryanbstevens (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe i'm wrong. Maybe they actually did go down after all. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back the Australian chart!

Okay, i'm also saying that we should put the Australian chart info back on here. It was a very good idea in the first place, and it was removed just because of a concern of a source that was considered unreliable, which wasn't a very good reason. No source is perfect, and we can't just prohibit things just for not having a perfect and reliable source. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources are a very good reason to remove something. Frankly, I think the fact that I couldn't find a single reliable source to verify the existence of some of the acts (Jetty Road for instance) was a big red flag. If a chart doesn't meet the general notability guideline, then it shouldn't be included at all. See WP:BADCHARTS for a list of other similar charts that were determined as non-notable because they have an unknown history and/or method of tabulation. We don't know a thing about the history of this chart. There are absolutely no sources that even verify that the publishing company that made it even exists. It could be published in some random guy's basement for all we know. I think the best we could do is include the Australian country albums charts, since those are published by ARIA, which is a notable chart publication. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's fair enough for me. There's really no more that i can say here. Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabase CAN Country chart

Now R&R is really closed, what do we do about Canadian country chart? Mediabase is another available source, and the positions (about Top 25) is really close to R&R charts. Remember, R&R charts before 2006 was not acceptable at all like Mediabase today, but we still use its Canadian country chart. If there is no reply before next Tuesday, I will add Mediabase positions.

Also, User:Eric444 did some chart update today, and I am sure that they are not from mediabase. Langdon (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Billboard picked up the Canadian charts. [3] Eric444 (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian charts

(cross-posted to Eric444's talk) Ugh. I just realized that, by asking Eric444 (talk · contribs) to provide the Canadian country chart positions, I've created a big mess. Unless someone happens to have every single back issue of R&R from June 2004 onward, there's no way we can possibly verify the chart positions through a secondary source — and as we all know, unsourced material in an article is a no-no. What do you think we should do, then? Personally, I think the 2004-present Canadian country chart positions should be removed unless you can find some sort of secondary source to verify them (like maybe some reputable archival website I don't know about). Canadian Hot 100/Canadian Singles can stay, as can the 1964-2000 RPM positions, since those can all be verified through archives, but it seems like the only option is to kill the R&R Canadian Country positions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we even remove the current Canadian country chart? Like ones where a song is currently active? I'll see what every one has to say before I make up my mind on what should happen. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find a week-to-week archive of it, or at least something secondary to verify each chart position, it should go. That's what I mean: the current R&R one that's been active since June 04. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, I get what your saying. I wanna wait and see wait the others think before I jump to conclusions. Need another's opinion. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk)

I think its a bad idea to get rid of them. Knowing and keeping track of a song's peak performance should be no less notable later down the road. If we know that so and so is #1 this week, nothing would change that and we'd still know it was #1 several years down the road w/ out having an "archive." So, keep the chart positions, please. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point: lack of sources. If we can't source it, we shouldn't have it, period. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country chart positions are never sourced in articles, I don't see the point in starting now. We know it at the time, therefore the info never changes. Five years from now, Lady Antebellum will still have been at #1 this week in Canada. CloversMallRat (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a big problem for sure. We have the chart but there is no archive. However I remember we started adding canadian positions since Januany 2008, and I think we should keep the positions from then onward. Canadian country chart positions should be preserved. It is valuable. Actually Billboard has an archive of Canadian charts, but it only shows bits of them every week through Canadian Update, which has no archive as well. = =. Again, the point is that chart positions exists but are not preserved from 2008 onward. Langdon (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've had Canadian positions since the chart was revived in 2004, only in 2000-2004 did we not have chart peaks. Either way, its important info that will be all sorts of screwed up if you delete it. The Canadian country chart is reputable, unlike the Australian country chart. If we make note on Wikipedia of the existence of each position, whether they remain on another website in an archive is unimportant; they're verified now, what happens down the road is irrelevant. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Canadian country peaks will be detrimental to the project. No, I don't have every issue of R&R, but they do exist. It's not like they're coming from an unreliable source (like the aforementioned Australian country peaks that were axed). We've seen them on the R&R website and some of them can be accessed through the Internet Archive. There has to be a better alternative than deleting this invaluable information from 500 artists' discographies and more than 250 singles. After two and a half years, why has this suddenly become an issue? Eric444 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that! Its definitely a valuable component to Wikipedia country music articles, and it should be left alone. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after reading what other have to say, I have to agree. They should be left alone. They're valuable to an artits discography. Even more so to a Canadian artist. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually meant to bring this up much sooner. Just because it's in a large number of articles doesn't mean it's necessarily kosher (remember the United World Chart fiasco?), but I hadn't thought of the Wayback machine. I think that it should be an acceptable workaround until one of us can find R&R magazine archives in a library. We must get to work sourcing the chart positions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion (List of number-one country hits, U.S.)

For the sake of consistency, should we split the #1 lists off to their own subpages, as is done with List of number-one hits (United States) and other similar charts. As with 2009 in music, we can summarize the #1 and top 20 hits in a list format. The #1's would then be sub-listed in List of number-one country hits (United States) and subpages such as List of number-one country hits of 2009 (United States) (and of course, separate lists for Canada). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea but it would take work as the country charts date back to 1944. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if at least one of you can get started, that'd help me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the work sounds easy — I did this — or shall I say attempted this — once before, and the articles were afd'ed. See relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits (United States) from September 2008, and I believe TenPoundHammer, you were the one who nominated those articles for deletion. Yes, most of the articles were redlinked, as only a few of the articles had been completed (remember, I work on this project as time permits). So if we're going to do it, we'll need to create the articles by cutting and pasting of the No. 1 sections (each of the years 1944-2009 have them, so the work can be done fairly quickly), then placing links in the place of where the No. 1 lists were ... and then keep the articles.

How about the following:

Then the XXXX in country music article could list all the Top 100 hits for each year, redirecting at the beginning to the separate list for the #1 hits. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tentatively added the first without any notes for an example. Thoughts? --Lost Fugitive (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks good to start. But remember, there were multiple charts during the 1948-1958 timeframe. All we have right now as a reliable source is the series of Joel Whitburn books, including "Top 40 Country Singles" and "Top Country Songs," so the best we can probably do is state how long each song spent at No. 1 on a given chart, and place said information along with the requisite notes we've had before (whether it was their first and/or only No. 1 hit, if the song dropped from No. 1 and later reclaimed the top spot, and if it wound up being the No. 1 song of the year). The song's No. 1 date would be the earliest it topped any of the charts, just as it is listed in Whitburn's books. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)]][reply]