Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

South Africa

Music ZA publish a top 100 singles chart stating "Peaks are from August 2013 - Chart is based on independently sourced sales from iTunes, included is airplay and chart points from local radio stations. The SA Top 100 is independently calculated and is not associated with iTunes officially." It also publishes an Album Chart Top 20 and the EMA Airplay Top 10. Could we consider this as a legitimate chart for South Africa with the use of WebCite? It seems very reliable to me, they also have interviews with high profile local artists. - Lips ^{are movin} 11:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bump @Kww: @IndianBio: @Bluesatellite: @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: - Lips ^{are movin} 23:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Finnish chart

I'm having trouble with someone entering the Finnish component chart position instead of single chart position on Ghost Town (Adam Lambert song). The person who did it claimed that the wording on WP:GOODCHARTS allowed him or her to use component chart. The song did not chart on the single chart, but appeared on the download chart. Given that you cannot enter chart positions for Billboard digital sales in the Hot 100 chart, I'm wondering how this can be done for the Finnish chart, or how to differentiate the component chart from the main chart for the Finnish chart. The chart as it appears doesn't make any distinction that it is the download chart. I don't know how widespread this is, but it needed to be fixed if people are adding component chart ranking into Finnish chart ranking - it needs to be explained in the template whether this is the download, airplay or single chart. Hzh (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, never mind, the clarification is in Finnish. I think those who wrote the template needed to use English because it is causing a lot of problem with people who assume that it is the single chart, and change the chart ranking in the discography page, which cause lots of unnecessary reverts. Hzh (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion here. Widr (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Scotland chart

Scotland chart is necessary because United Kingdom is main list. Eurohunter (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll bite, where is said chart? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Official Charts Company publishes it. Despite frequent protestations, it isn't a component chart and Scotland is a country.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Official Scottish Singles Chart and Official Scottish Albums Chart. I agree they are not component charts; a component chart is made up of some of the formats (digital, streaming, vinyl etc.) of a larger chart not some of the regions. Otherwise the existence of a European chart would render individual charts for every country in Europe redundant. Btljs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Scotland is only part of United Kingdom like California in the United States. Tmies when it was counry gone. If I said "component" I meaned Scotland is only part of United Kingdom, it looks like add Basque Country or Bavaria chart. Eurohunter (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is very ill-advised to compare different regions around the world in this way as it can appear disprespectful. In any case, read the guidelines: nowhere does it mention a chart relating only to a country (which Scotland is anyway); merely that it should be from a reliable source and multiple outlets. The paragraph on component dependent charts doesn't mention geographic distinctions either. I have no particular opinion on whether California or Bavaria should be included assuming they meet all the above criteria only that the inclusion of a chart should make the page more informative. I notice, for instance, that Happy (Pharrell Williams song) only reached number 2 in Scotland despite famously topping the UK chart three times - that is notable. What I don't particularly like are endless genre charts when a record has peaked high in a general chart for the same region - I would rather see different regions to be honest as a region is real people whereas a genre is something dreamed up by the charts companies and radio stations. Btljs (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Names

Why you use different or false names of charts? Why you use "Ultratop Flanders" not "Ultratop 50" by Ultratop (organisation), if you use Single Top 100 Dutch chart by MegaCharts. Why you write there (Single Top 100) about other charts (albums and other) if this is singles chart? You should created article about albums and singles lists in Sweden, Norway and much other charts separated like UK Singles Chart and UK Albums Chart by The Official Charts Company. There are three things: organisation artcle, albums chart article, singles chart article and optional articles about other by genres or airplay charts. Eurohunter (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Chart Log UK (zobbel.de)

Having read several archived disucssions here about the reliablity of UK chart websites, I found the views expressed about zobbel.de baffling. Editors express their personal views, eg. they find it unreliable, or they spread hearsay. I never found any concrete evidence to support these opinions, to the contrary. Nowhere is an statenment that says "zobbel says A but B is correct"... Nowhere.

"The problem with Zobbel is that it returns soundtrack and other special albums as having charted on the main albums chart, when in fact they are not even eligible for it." (is mentioned here). Looking at any zobbel page, there's a key at the top (plus there's a link at the bottom to the homepage with detailed explanations), making it clear which charts are referred to, and albums charting on the "compilations albums chart" have a special bold symbol in order to distinguish them from albums that charted on the "artist albums chart". I can't see any confusion about this at all; perhaps dome editors can't be bothered to read the key?

On chart dating (another point raised in 2010): the UK charts are traditionally dated to the Saturday after publication, in effect the date used by the printed Music Week magazine; ie. the chart published this Sunday April 5, 2015 is actually dated "April 11, 2015"-- that's the traditon in the UK for 50 years. Whether a week is stated as "week 5" or "week 6" can be debated, but zobbel uses a reliable system (cut-off date is January 9th).

PS: zobbel.de sources all its charts from Hit Music (1994-2001) and successor magazine UKChartsPlus, all official licensees of OCC charts.

So where is the evidence against Zobbel.de? -- Bleddynefans (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you show any evidence that it's licensed to publish and archive the data? The keying you refer to wasn't present when those comments were initially entered here, by the way.—Kww(talk) 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would someone (eg. a website like zobbel.de, or a book publisher like Guinness/Virgin/Whitburn, etc) need a license from OCC to publish and archive the data? Isn't wikipedia doing the same, ie. archiving summary chart postions data (eg. peak position and number of weeks)? Does wikipedia need a license from OCC? I checked several editions of the Guinness British Hit Singles & Albums books, and they do thank CIN and NME for their charts but nowhere is any licensing agreement mentioned, or that the data is not their own copyright. Certainly, the original Top 20/50/75/200 charts themselves are copyrighted, but not any derivative data. And that's what we're talking about. -- Bleddynefans (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Bleddynefans, you do need a license to reproduce the charts verbatim. That's why we don't do it. We don't do that, and zobbel would need a license to do so.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood! Of course one needs a license to reproduce the charts (as you say) verbatim; but all we're are talking about is summary chart postions data (eg. peak position and number of weeks, that's what the Gunness Books and Zobbel do), and excatly that's what I referr to above.

Again, just to make it clear: UKChartsPlus is an offically licensee of OCC (see here; all data on zobbel.de is derivative summary data only and does not need a license. -- Bleddynefans (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

UKChartsPlus.co.uk

In 2011 the website was added to "Websites to avoid", apparently after this discussion. With great pain I read the 2011 discussion referenced above. The quality of the arguments is abominable. I actually dispute most of what was said at the time. As it stands right now, the entry says:

UKchartsplus.co.uk – In general, reproduces information available directly from sources listed in Recommended charts. Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources.

The link goes to the website http://ukchartsplus.co.uk, but from the remarks I gather what is meant is actually the weekly publication "UK Charts Plus", as the website itself does not present any chart informaton itself;the only exception are the year-end charts that a downloadable for free.

Year-End Charts on ukchartsplus.co.uk

then I do not understand "Uncertain methodology as to annual figures, which do not match recommended sources." Like all the charts the weekly magazine "UK Charts Plus" prints, these year-end sales charts are also fully licensend from OCC. What could be uncertain about any "methodology as to annual figures"?

In the 2011 discussion referenced above it's alledged that the BPI list of annual best sellers deviates from what UK Charts Plus publises. I checked the BPI file with the 2009 UK Charts Plus Annual, and to my surprise I found that this alledged difference is a misunderstanding (or a malicious falsehood, so stupid it is): The BPI lists artist albums together with compilation albums in one sequence, but UK Charts Plus lists seperately the Top 200 Artists albums and the Top 200 Compilations. The BPI list is so far unusual, as since 1989 there is no longer a combined weekly albums charts: there's a weekly Artist Albums chart, and seperately a weekly Compilations albums chart. So it strangely combines these two charts, which might have a purpose for a trade body, but less so faor chartwatchers.

Weekly Charts in UKChartsPlus Magazine

• The BPI does neither own or publish the OCC charts
• The BPI is one co-owner of the OCC as a company, together with ERA
• OCC controls the charts and lets another company Millward Brown gather the data
• OCC licenses the charts to dozens of users, apart from record companies and trade bodies, it's mainly publishers and websites
• On the list of official OCC Partners UK Charts Plus is indeed listed (bottom row, second from the left)
• The website and the weekly magazine fully credit each and every OCC chart to OCC, charts from other sources (like Airplay) are credited to their originators
• UK Charts Plus has lawfully licensed all the weekly charts and the year-end charts from OCC and vouches for their accuracy
• UK Charts Plus is the only publication to carry Artist Albums positions 101-200, Singles positions 101-200, Download Tracks positions 101-200 and Budget Albums 1-50, to name but a few.

Unless further evidence is given, I intend to delete ukchartplus.co.uk from "Websites to avoid" and add a reference pertaining to positions 101-200 in "Recommended charts". -- Bleddynefans (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I support bleddynefan's arguments. I'm a UK Charts Plus subscriber for years and even to doubt their accuracy seems fanciful. ukchartsplus.co.uk should be a recommended source despite the paywall issue for the weekly magazine. The annual charts are online for free. All charts are licences from OCC and facts are crosschecked. I can only highly recoommed UK Charts Plus as reliable UK chart source. -- 81.155.66.196 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Bleddynefans. It is not your place to revert something for which a consensus was gained. At the time of the 2011 discussion, there was overwhelming evidence that UKChartPlus's data and their methodology was suspect to say the least (I know because I was part of the discussion at looked at the evidence presented at the time). It even failed on WP:RSN and was added to "Websites to Avoid" for a valid reason. If things have now changed, then I'm sure everybody will be prepared to discuss the matter and look at the evidence as it now stands, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus should remain in force. You can't make a decision to change it by yourself. Soultruck (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Then bring on your arguments. I have set out my view (also about the quality of the then discussion) very clear, left references to this disussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Sourcing guide and only then made edits.

You deleted the ref to UKChartsPlus at UK Singles Chart. The previous sentence states: The full chart (published in UKChartsPlus magazine) is a Top 200, while the OCC website contains the Top 100 only. After your edit, this reads: The full chart is a Top 200, though the OCC website contains the Top 100 only. So the only difference is whether UKCharts Plus does indeed publish the Full Top 200, or not. My arguments are made above. Please state your evidence that UKChartsPlus does not publish the UK Tiop 200 Singles charts as licensed by OCC. -- Bleddynefans (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The discrepancy in the annual chart format was the reason for the initial listing, so I do tend to agree that now that that issue has been sorted, there isn't much of a reliability problem. There is a usability problem, though. Why would we use a paywalled site when there is a perfectly good public archive that goes well down into the meaningless chart positions? What value does knowing a song reached #197 on the UK Charts have? That can't be beyond double-digit sales these days.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether a chart position is meaningless, one can argue, country by country. I totally agree that position 101 on the Billboard album chart is meaningless in the sense of encyclodedic relivancy in wikipedia. -- Bleddynefans (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And position 101 on the UK Singles Chart is not? Using UKChartsplus creates paywall issues without any perceivable benefit.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Music Weekly charts as an official chart

Music Weekly is a chart from South-east Asia. I believe this should be recognised as an official chart on Wikipedia. Here is the official website's "About us" page and an independent source. [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]]. (121.214.33.76 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC))

Billboard classical albums charts

Anyone know the difference between Classical Albums and Top Classical Albums? Random86 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The link you provided from the BIZ site is the same as Billboard's Traditional Classical Albums chart. That chart was probably once called "Top Classical Albums". The Classical Albums chart appears to be an overall sales chart of what they call Classical Crossover Albums, Traditional Classical Albums, and Classical Budget/Midline Albums. Only the main Classical Albums chart is available on Billboard.com. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars! That answers my question. It looks like the chart changed names in October 2011. Random86 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Changed? Why I can see different names between Billboard site and AllMusic? Eurohunter (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Billboard Digital Songs Charts for other countries

Is it accepted to use the Billboard Digital Songs charts for countries like Finland, Norway, New Zealand etc which already have official charts? Like for example Finland in the Cool for the Summer article? Is this not a mere spin-off/component chart? Abi-Maria (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

These digital charts are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan International, and are not the "official" ones (except for the countries that don't have official charts). I suppose we could use this one to represent Finland if the song hadn't appeared on the official charts, but since it has, adding this one seems redundant. I'm going to remove it. Widr (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the same thing. Abi-Maria (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of US genre charts included

The lists of charts on song articles is skewed towards the US by the inclusion of lots of genre charts. See for example: Uptown Funk#Charts or Happy (Pharrell Williams song)#Charts and certifications. For a major international hit, is its performance in one country's genre charts actually notable? If they must be included I would suggest a separate list entirely (they have also caused a long discussion about list order). Clearly if a song is say, classical, then classical charts round the world are going to be appropriate, but no other country seems to have the plethora of genres which really mean little to the average reader (what is 'rhythmic airplay'?) which basically describe which radio stations in the US are playing which songs. Btljs (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For me it is sure on Polish wersion Wikipedia we use only sales list and only once national list for Sweden, United Kingdom, United States and other. I think last good example is pl:Heroes (singel Månsa Zelmerlöwa). Eurohunter (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• It truly is overkill, but where do you limit it? I certainly don't see a need for a chart table listing the Hot 100 along with AC, Adult Pop, Triple A, Rhythmic or other such narrow and specialized airplay-only charts for international hits that have also charted in a dozen or more other countries. For example, "We Are Young", with success on pop, rock, and dance charts currently lists eight Billboard charts in addition to the Hot 100. Maybe just show Pop (Mainstream Top 40), Rock, and Dance to show its crossover appeal. The others, while they may show the popularity of the song among different radio audiences in the US, don't give a broader understanding of the song's success to the general reader. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with people not abiding by the guidelines at Wikipedia:Record_chart#Billboard_charts. For example it says that in the conditions: "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the following →" and then lists the charts you can add. Or for specific geners it says in the conditions for example: "If a song has charted on neither Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs nor Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay you may add any of the following →" and then lists the charts that may be added. If people stuck to these guidelines it wouldn't be so much of a problem. And I should point out that no "Rhythmic" chart is listed in the guidlines that should be included at all.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because Billboard publishes a lot of charts, doesn't mean they can't be included. It's like saying Australian Urban or UK R&B can't be included. Note that U.S. component charts are not allowed to be included in tables, like R&B Airplay or R&B Digital for example.  — Calvin999 11:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just it, component charts can be included if the criteria is met. For example in the guidelines see where it says: "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the following →". It then goes on to list the various component charts that may be added in this situation, which I think is fine so long as people stick this and only add the component charts if the song has not charted on the Hot 100.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My original point is not about component charts which, as QuintusPetillius says, are dealt with in the guidelines. I think what I am looking for is some sort of guide about when a genre chart position is notable. So, if something charts low in the main charts then it is perfectly reasonable to include a high position in a genre chart. However, if it charts high in major charts then I see no value in a string of genre charts because, although mathematically they are not components of the major charts, a song can't realistically be successful in a major chart without being successful within its genres (and its genres are covered elsewhere). There is also nothing to stop summaries being added to the descriptive 'chart performance in the US' section - I just don't think lots of peak positions in the table are particularly informative. Btljs (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but where would you draw the line ? There would have to be a bench mark by which if a song charts below a certain position on the main chart then it would be eligible for genre charts to be included. However there are limitations as to what genre charts can be used anyway if you read the guidelines. For example it says that: "If a song has charted on neither Rock Songs nor Rock Airplay you may add any of the following →". It then goes on to list less important rock genre charts that can be included. Thus if people stuck to this criteria it wouldn't be so much of a problem. Likewise for R&B,Rap, Hip-hop the guidelines state that: "If a song has charted on neither Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs nor Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay you may add any of the following →", and then lists less important charts for that genre that can be included. If these guidelines were adhered to then you would not get the endless lists of genre charts for one song, but it is clear that editors are ignoring this and just adding as many as possible.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the category for Rhythmic Airplay number-one singles was deleted on August 20, 2015. To me this deletion is ruining a key portion of a song's history in Billboard. If that's the case then the guidelines should be changed to include all component charts, including Rhythmic. Another suggestion is to place the airplay charts into a separate category. This would end the situation once and for all.Robert Moore (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

US Billboard Top Twitter Tracks

I see this popping up everywhere in song articles now. Is this an acceptable chart? WP:USCHARTS gives no indication. Abi-Maria (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I have also seen these used a lot lately and have been tempted to remove them. Has there been any discussion of this chart anywhere? Widr (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly a WP:SINGLENETWORK problem. There's a social chart that blends multiple channels, and that should be used instead.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: Which chart is that? Is it possible then to add which chart is accepted and which is not to the WP:USCHARTS main page so that we have a guideline to follow please? Abi-Maria (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I was mistaken, Abi-Maria. The Social 50 only goes to the artist level, not the song level. There wouldn't seem to be an acceptable chart that would incorporate Twitter mentions.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it falls under WP:SINGLENETWORK. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also agree that it falls under WP:SINGLENETWORK.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abi-Maria:, @Widr:, @Kww:, @Iknow23:, this evidently falls under single-network guidelines, and as such I've removed most, if not all listings I can find in chart sections of song articles. Can someone make a note of this in the article, possibly under bad charts? Azealia911 _talk 01:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911:. Done, per request. United States Billboard Top Twitter Tracks added to WP:BADCHARTS.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rap Digital Songs

I assume it's mistakenly not been included, but in the section regarding which charts may be used on the condition that a song has not entered the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs or Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts, charts like R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs and Hot Rap Songs are included, but not the Rap Digital Songs? Could someone add it? Or give me a reason for it not to be added, as I think it odd that a digital subsidary of the Hot Rap Songs can be added when that chart its self cannot be included in certain conditions. Thanks, Azealia911 _talk 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. It is a confusing section as there are 'combination' charts (R&B/Hip Hop) and then 'split off' charts (Hot R&B Songs, Hot Rap Songs) all listed. I believe that Rap Digital Songs is a component chart of Hot Rap Songs visiting the article > "Streaming data and digital downloads were added to the methodology of determining chart rankings in 2012." So my position is "If a song has NOT charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay, R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs or Hot Rap Songs...you may add Rap Digital Songs." Similarly (if there is such a chart), "If a song has NOT charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay, R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs or Hot R&B Songs...you may add R&B Digital Songs." I hope that makes sense?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I revised the above by adding NOT charted on R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs in each case. Rap Digital Songs and R&B Digital Songs would be components of R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rap Digital and R&B Digital are very clear components of R&B/Hip-Hop Digital. Likewise with the streaming and airplay charts. This should be added to WP:USCHARTS. CoolMarc 06:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that it is complex due to the 'combination' charts (R&B/Hip Hop) and then 'split off' charts (Hot R&B Songs, Hot Rap Songs). My understanding is that WP:USCHARTS is a helpful guide but cannot be expected to cover ALL situations. WP:CHARTMATH can still be cited to cover those. Unless you'd like to convert the table chart to a tree chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Understanding the exception to SINGLENETWORK

According to one of the exceptions to SINGLENETWORK, it states: "Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located." Now there's an album I'm working by a Mexican artist which predates both Monitor Latino and the Mexican Airplay charts. So in this case, is it fine to include how well the singles did in his country if the only charts from the country are compiled from Mexico City since he's based there? Erick (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hits Daily Double & Headline Planet as sales sources

Are Hits Daily Double and Headline Planet reliable for sourcing sales? I've seen them being littered in music articles and both seem rather dubious... CoolMarc 08:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the SloTop50 an acceptable chart or not?

I've been seeing a couple of articles using the SloTop50 as a chart that can be added and the website does allow you to look at past weeks, although it seems like there isn't a real archive for it as it doesn't have a specific link for each week. All the articles that have this chart seems to not really do anything to archive it and just let it link to the current week. Is it not a chart that should be used, and would it even a noteworthy chart to include?

68.190.229.160 (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a skim through the website and it seems like a reliable chart to me. Though I'm not sure if other editors will agree? I also feel that the chart should be attributed to SAZAS and not "SloTop50" if we get consensus here that it's reliable. CoolMarc 06:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a reliable source, and while it is annoying there is no real archive as such I think its presence is noticeable enough to justify it. Quanto2010 removed the Slovenian charts which I added in from El mismo sol (by Alvaro Soler) and I will re-add it if the consensus here turns out to be positive. Lucky102 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian (ARIA) chart archives - to include in table or not?

Although published as a blog, this blog http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/ , and more specifically http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/search/label/ARIA%20charts (sorted by ARIA Charts tag), currently posts weekly scans of the Australian ARIA top 50 singles printed chart, from 25 years years ago (charts commencing from July 1987), and 30 years ago (charts commencing from January 1985). The charts prior to 26 June 1988 posted on this blog are the only major online, reputable source of these charts. From January 1990, entries debuting in the top 100 that do not peak within the top 50 are also listed with their peaks, although there are no scans of the full ARIA top 100 chart. The printed charts from 9th April 1989 (represented by this blog entry - http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/25-years-ago-this-week-april-9-1989.html ) also contain a cumulative record of ARIA gold and platinum certifications for singles (although certifications achieved after the singles have left the top 50 are not displayed). This information is also not available on the ARIA website prior to 1997. Is it worth adding this (albeit incomplete and not searchable by artist/title) 'archive' to the 'Typical sources for record charts and archives, by country' table's comments section beside Australia?Nqr9 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Which UK Year-End Chart Should Be Used?

Speaking of the UK Year-End charts, I want to know what Year-End chart source should be used for 2014 since they are both different. This: http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/end-of-year-singles-chart/ Or this: http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-100-biggest-songs-of-2014-revealed__7577/

ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Go with http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/end-of-year-singles-chart/. The other one which was published as part of an article on 31 December 2014, only used streaming figures from July (when they were introduced to the weekly chart) hence songs which had been around since earlier in the year are lower (see Timber and Let it Go for example) because their initial streaming peaks weren't included. OCC then seemed to correct this before publishing the chart in its own right in January 2015 so that streaming was included for the whole year. Unfortunately, they didn't delete the previous chart, leaving this uncertainty. Btljs (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

2001-2004 OCC Year-End Singles Charts?

I've only been able to find the top 50 from the Wikipedia page 2004 in British music charts with the Music Week source, but there hasn't been any way to check any other position below 50 (unless one uses the www.ukchartsplus.co.uk chart which is still being debated about whether or not it should be used http://www.ukchartsplus.co.uk/ChartsPlusYE2004.pdf). Official Charts Company's website did go past 2005 in the albums chart but not the singles chart.

ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We decided to use the top 50 as a cut-off point for the year-end lists because many of the early year-end charts from the 1970s only go up to number 50 and this way we would keep it consistent across the yearly articles, and also because publishing a top 100 or 200 for both singles and albums makes the list ludicrously long. I think for most people a top 50 is enough, they're not really interested in what the 183rd best-selling single of 2002 was. But if you are looking for a particular song, I can probably access its year-end position if you like? Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

UK chart archives

Here is another useful site for UK chart (both singles and albums) top 75/100 archives, posting scans of the printed charts between 1952-2007, organised by year:

http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/

The most useful feature of the scans is that they also display silver, gold and platinum certifications from 1982; although the scans are not searchable by artist/title, and certifications are annotated cumulatively - so the user has to follow a single or album until the end of its chart run to determine its highest certification achieved.

Would it be suitable to add this as an additional UK chart archive reference?Nqr9 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What I would really like to know is if the UK Year-End chart is a reliable source since it was published by UKChartsPlus. The Official Charts Company has only made it up to 2005 on the website. Specifically, I'm talking about the years from 2001-2004.

ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the real question is not whether it's reliable (they are scans after all) but whether the site has the legal right to reproduce these. I would be cautious about linking to them as they may disappear at some point, as has happened with many sites which reproduced charts without OCC permission. Btljs (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Using archived references is a way around that, but not something most people adding references think of/use, I guess.Nqr9 (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not if the site is breaking copyright in the first place.

Although, clearly the original printed charts are OK to cite. I often do this with MusicWeek articles which I want to cite; as I don't have subscription, I can't read them directly, but only via other non-citable sources. The point is to point the reader at the correct source (even though they'd have to pay to view it) rather than the dubious one.

Relevant policy is WP:COPYLINK which says "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." I think that is likely in this case. Btljs (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Btljs here – that site is clearly not legal and could be taken down at any point, so I would be wary of using it as a reference. It's useful if you want to see a visual copy of the year-end charts, but weekly charts are available on the OCC's website anyway, and Nqr9, rather than spend time searching through a whole record's chart run to find its certification, why not look on the BPI's Certified Awards search? So really with those two official sources available, I don't see any need for using these scans as references.

@ThedancingMOONpolice: The year-end charts from Record Mirror scans are indeed the official ones, because both Record Mirror and Music Week were published by Spotlight Publications, who were also part of the team that funded the collection of chart data until 1994, so those two magazines had exclusive rights to print the official charts. I prefer quoting the charts from Music Week as a reference simply because it's recognised as the official magazine of the music trade so it might be seen as carrying more 'weight' than Record Mirror, which was a relatively lightweight music magazine, closer in style to Smash Hits than NME. I've gone back to the British Library and found the official year-end charts in Music Week right back until the early 1970s except for a couple of missing ones (1970 was the first year-end chart based on sales, the ones from the 1950s and 1960s were done on a points-scoring system). I still have to update the articles "xxxx in British Music" for the years 1990 to 2001, but I do have the charts and Music Week references for those. Richard3120 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"the ones from the 1950s and 1960s were done on a points-scoring system" That could never happen nowadays...); Btljs (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... I'm glad you took on the responsibility for producing the 2014 year-end table, I've got completely lost as to how they count up a record's "sales" these days... I'm not sure there's any system at all now... Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's easy now: nobody buys anything. Streaming is three quarters of "chart-sales" and actual sales are at 2008 levels. Justin Bieber is at number one despite six (!) records selling more than him. I think it's a one way ticket - I can't see it ever going back the other way now. Btljs (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's effectively become like the US charts now, hasn't it – where airplay has always made up a significant component of a song's chart position, with the result that a record can get a platinum certification without reaching the US top 40 (e.g. Fifth Harmony), while some Billboard number one records don't even go gold. I think there are songs which have spent over 100 weeks in the UK singles chart without ever making the top 40. And now with "grat tracks" and the like charting it's become impossible to define what a single actually is. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The BPI Search Awards Database does not seem to be working currently; at least at my end, I cannot enter any search terms (and I've tried on two browsers). The chart scans archive, while maybe not official or complying with copyright, shows the week that the release was awarded a certification if you search through a release's chart run. The Billboard singles charts have always been a joke with the heavy airplay component, and the multitude of different genre charts.Nqr9 (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Strange, I just used it about 15 minutes ago and had no problems. I'm not sure why you need to know which week a certification was awarded, unless it's for the "certyear" entry on the Certifications template... but the BPI site tells you the date the certification was awarded as well. Richard3120 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit: maybe that was my fault – does this link work any better? Richard3120 (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It does, in that I can enter a search term. But I had to check 'exact match' to bring up the relevant results for several artists I tried searching for, and one had the wrong artist credit.Nqr9 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a pain like that – unless your searched artist name is unusual and unlikely to feature in any other artists' names (e.g. Bieber), you do have to check the 'exact match' box to narrow down your results. To be honest I find the RIAA database even more user-unfriendly on that score. Which artist credit was incorrect, out of interest? I know sometimes when you have a single featuring more than one artist it only names the first one. Also many of the certifications dating back to the 70s and 80s have incorrect dates – because they don't have the exact date of release/certification, only the month/year, the database often defaults to the first of the month. Richard3120 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The artist in question was Yazz. The site credits all 3 of her certified releases to Yazz & The Plastic Population, when only one single was given that artist credit. Maybe I did something wrong on the first attempt, as no results displayed. But re-entering 'yazz' now without checking the exact match box brings them up. Thanks for the link, it's quite useful.Nqr9 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, only the megahit "The Only Way Is Up" was credited to Yazz and the Plastic Population, the others should be Yazz only - the site does have quite a few errors like that. Richard3120 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian RPM Rock/Alternative 30 number-one single

(Moving from WT:ALTMUSIC): There are succession boxes for numerous (all?) Canadian RPM Rock/Alternative 30 number-one singles at the bottom of their respective articles. For instance Song 2 and The End Is the Beginning Is the End. I'm not sure these are really warranted given there are tons of applicable charts, awards, certifications, etc, out there, for which we aren't using succession boxes. Anyone familiar with this practice? Any objections to removing them? — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music chart 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. (I think the discussion might have been better held on this talkpage, but I overlooked this page when setting up the proposal!) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Opppose - WP:COMMONNAME. We can pipe, if the reader may need explanation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - some territories have multiple charting agencies - Japanese music charts could refer to one of three agencies (Oricon, Billboard's Japan Hot 100 or Soundscan Japan), and South Korean music charts could refer to even more. By relocating a single one of these charts to '(country) music charts' it marginalises the other providers in a very non-helpful and non-explanatory way.

For territories with a single body, '(region) music charts' could act as a redirect to the chart's official title, and for countries with multiple examples the page could either be an article about the different charts in the region, or a disambiguation page for them. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Sverigetopplistan" isn't name of chart because there is number of charts for albums, singles etc. and their have names. English Wikipedia use wrong names all the time... Eurohunter (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Some Help Finding a Song on the RPM Year-End Chart

I don't whether I just have bad eyes or not, but I can't seem to find Jon Bon Jovi's Blaze of Glory anywhere on the RPM Year-End 1990 chart http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?brws_s=1&file_num=nlc008388.9139&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=mhe12pta2k83e08udtq66ot062, despite it reaching number 1 and staying on the chart for 17 weeks. By contrast, Ice Ice Baby peaked at number 11 and was on the chart (at least in 1990) for 9-10 weeks, and it was still able to be on the year-end chart at number 98. Even Jon Bon Jovi's other single Miracle was able to be the 69th biggest song of 1990 when only spend 9-10 weeks on the chart in 1990. So I'm wondering if anyone can confirm whether or not the song is on the year-end chart or not.

68.190.229.160 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, firstly I don't know what the "Top 100 Hit Tracks" is based on, but it may not be purely sales, so it's quite possible that a song with a lot of airplay could rank higher than a number one song. But having said that, it looks quite likely that that the song was accidentally overlooked when compiling the chart, and perhaps this was pointed out in a later issue of RPM. But I'm afraid there is no way anybody on Wikipedia will be able to confirm or deny if this was definitely the case, because we don't have anything more than that chart you have found: you will have to try and track down an issue of RPM a week or two afterwards in 1990 or 1991 and see if they published an apology, or ask a Canadian chart expert. Richard3120 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Modern Rock Tracks Year-End 2005

So far I can only find one source for this although I'm not entirely sure if this is accurate to what Billboard published: http://www.jjheath.com/ModR2005.html

ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian Chart - is there one?

Hi, is there an official Bulgarian Chart? The "legitimate Bulgarian chart" linked to on this page ([4]) seems to have ceased updating in April 2015. I ask because a user added a Bulgarian chart position to the Dua Lipa page a week ago. I let it pass at first, but then deleted it because hardly any other pages on Wikipedia seem to use it, but the same user put the chart back again today. My concern is that the pages referenced (acharts.co and bgtop40.bg) seem to be the "Bulgarian National Top 40" which was deleted from Wikipedia in 2008 for dubious methodology. They look like the same chart as euro200.net (the Bulgarian language site "BGTop40" which looks so convincing, seems to be always a week behind, which is odd behaviour if it was official in any way). But I'm not certain. Help needed on this one please! Pasicles (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, the "legitimate Bulgarian chart" in your first link is on the Bulgarian Association of Music Producers (BAMP) page, provided by New Media Lab. They appear to be a marketing company, and seeing as both they and BAMP deal with "song tracking", it's unclear as to whether this means a sales chart or simply something similar to the Performing Rights Society who just monitor song plays in order to collect and pay royalties to the artists. Anyway, as you say, this chart now appears to be defunct.

The acharts site links to the Euro 2000 chart, provided by APC Stats. They explain how records qualify for their charts here under the 'About APC Chart' link top right, but it doesn't tell us if this chart is in any way official or how it is compiled. So I would say that this appears to be a dubious source. Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've been through the entire top 40 chart of bgtop40.bg and it is identical to the previous week's Euro 200 chart. As for the site itself, it is owned by "Radio FM Plus" - a Bulgarian radio broadcasting company. There may be some connection - maybe they provide airplay data to Euro 200 for their "Bulgarian National Top 40". This seems to be a long way from an official chart though.

I would suggest the "Bulgarian" row of the Recommended charts table should be deleted if there is no acceptable chart, and I think the "Bulgarian National Top 40" entry in the Deprecated charts should mention that bgtop40.bg is also a mirror of this chart.

As for my Dua Lipa page, I may have to leave it as it is for now, it probably does no harm, and I have no desire to fight a lone edit war. Pasicles (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

NVPI certyfication

Why there is only 2008? I have also news sources for Stromae's Platinum sales "Papaoutai" and Racine carrée. What about rest? Eurohunter (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to ask NVPI that question... Richard3120 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure but what we know at this moment? Eurohunter (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Spotifycharts.com

Is this web reliable? https://spotifycharts.com/regional/ , useful for "Commercial performance" sections (the Global chart for first week of streaming, etc), but I'm not sure if it is managed by Spotify. --Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong question. Spotify isn't a chart any more than iTunes is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware, but "X song received # of streams on Spotify WW during its first week"? Spotify records is a thing now, like in "See You Again". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as it is not claimed to be a chart, I'm OK with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's a significant number of streams where it is covered in other reliable sources, it can be included. The spotifycharts site does not seem reliable or, at the very least, falls under WP:SINGLEVENDOR. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Billboard Twitter Realtime (Trending 140 (etc.)

This was added in late August 2015 through a discussion that seemed to small to be of be used as binding consensus to exclude a Billboard chart. (See Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_13#US_Billboard_Top_Twitter_Tracks). I would like to solicit a larger forum, an RFC if necessary, especially as I feel that WP:SINGLENETWORK doesn't apply here. Twitter is a very large network. Also, it is a social media network, different from most "single vendor" charts. Twitter's only real competitor is Sina Weibo, which doesn't really impact American charts. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Slovenia

I've seen this chart in some Wikipedia pages and I've been curious to know if its reliable or not? [5] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Two Year-End Hungary Single Charts?

Which of the year-end Hungary Singles Charts should be used, the one based on sales numbers or based on chart position? http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/eves-osszesitett-listak/single_db/2015 http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/eves-osszesitett-listak/single_chart/2015

ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How do we determine an artist's person ID on the German site www.offiziellecharts.de?

It would be really helpful is someone who knows how to determine this please provide some basic instructions on how to retrieve it? e.g. Someone figured it out and used it in the German Chart reference on Madonna's discography: "Madonna Discography: Germany". GfK Entertainment. Retrieved May 26, 2009.

Thanks! --AusChartMan (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Finland chart archive website

Has this website been discussed yet ?: http://suomenlistalevyt.blogspot.co.uk/ . I know that its a blog, but the owner has demonstrated that the singles sales and album sales chart positions have been based on official sources, even though various airplay charts have been included as well. From between 1972 and 2003 the information is taken from the published book: Pennanen, Timo (2003). Sisältää hitin: levyt ja esittäjät Suomen musiikkilistoilla vuodesta 1972. Otava Publishing Company Ltd. ISBN 951-1-21053-X. After that the peak positions for the singles sales and album sales charts have been taken from official sources as well.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

finnishcharts.com? Since 1995. Eurohunter (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, that only has archives back to 1995.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, the blogger is also the author of the book you mentioned, Timo Pennanen. Widr (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Widr, I did not notice that. Don't mean to go on but it would seem that there was indeed an official Finnish singles chart based on sales before 1995, as well as an official Finnish albums chart before 1995. It is a shame that there is not an online source other than the blog.

Finland - OVI Musiikki TOP 30

Can anyone explain what the Finland - OVI Musiikki TOP 30 - chart is ? Its listed on the official Finnish chart website but is not the official list, download list or radio list. Here is an example: http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/ovi-musiikki/2011/11 .Thanks, QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my head (without checking) I think it was some kind of a commercial co-operation between IFPI Finland and Nokia's digital music service, a kind of a "single-vendor chart", I assume. Widr (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. That chart is now discontinued anyway: (www.music.nokia.com/) and MixRadio.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Mediabase

Is it a reliable source? For example:

(Bruno) Mars was the most played artist at pop radio in 2013 according to Mediabase.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Zobbel.de

Do you think we could add this website to the list of websites to avoid for sourcing chart information? I have seen editors use this site in order to cite chart positions below 100 on the UK Singles Chart, and I believe this is wrong for two reasons: one, it appears that this information has been taken from UKChartsPlus, which is already on the list of websites to avoid, and two, as far as I can see, Zobbel only lists the date of entry and the position that the single entered the chart at nos. 101–200 – that isn't necessarily the same as the peak position eventually reached by the song, so it can't be used to cite the single's peak position in the charts section of a song's article on Wikipedia. Additionally, the site is a blog and anything but official. And is it critical to add that a song reached number 156 on the singles chart? That really is a whole bunch of nothing. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It has already been discussed and decided that it is ok to use Zobbel for the years 1994 - 2013 where it does actually list the peak positions. It's only 2014 where it only lists the entry positions, apparently due to a threat of legal action from the OCC.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - perhaps that cut-off date needs to be noted in the list of acceptable websites? Richard3120 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Irish certyfications

If I'm correct Irish certfications was provided by irma.ie site. New version no provide that. Where I can see it now? Eurohunter (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Irishcharts.ie have certifications from 2005 to 2013, which presumably you know about. Otherwise, I have no idea. Richard3120 (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is site I remembered but I forgot. Still we need source since 2014 or it is forgotten in Ireland o_O. Eurohunter (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

uk-charts.top-source.info

This web site supposedly lists year-end charts for the United Kingdom, however, there is no indication where these charts were originally published, where the chart data comes from, or what methodology was used. It appears to be a self-published hobbyist web site. A comparison of the Official Charts Company end of year charts to this web site shows they are different.

2015: [6] [7]

2010: [8] [9]

2005: [10] [11]

Should this web site be added to the list of deprecated charts? Piriczki (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The website's home page describes it as tracking a single's "popularity" rather than sales, streaming, or anything else that the charts are normally based on, which makes me think that it's based on some kind of points system for weekly chart placings. Either way, I agree that this is not related to the official charts and should not be used on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

InfoDisc/SNEP French Charts

I was looking for the peak position for Prince's "Kiss", and I found out that there is a bit of a conflict with the two French charts. The SNEP chart stated that the song's peak position was 29 (before Prince's death), but Infodisc lists on their archives that it reached 19. Is the Infodisc chart archives really reliable in this case? ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've always wondered about the InfoDisc site – I don't know if it's ever been decided that it was a reliable source for French chart statistics and I've tended to avoid referring to it. The SNEP chart began in 1984, I think, so it would have been around when "Kiss" was originally released and therefore I guess it's considered the primary source for chart positions? Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Infodisc gathers information from various sources to recreate, through their own methodology, a single, albeit fictional, chart. Piriczki (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Piriczki, I've just looked back through the archives of this page and the consensus seems to be that InfoDisc is NOT reliable for peak positions of singles but is OK as a source for album positions, and for certifications. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

everyHit.com

A comparison of everyHit.com's year end charts to the Official Charts Company year end charts shows they are not the same, see 2000s Singles Chart Archive - everyHit.com and the official charts for 2005, 2006 and 2009. Should everyHit.com be added to deprecated charts? Piriczki (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling that EveryHit's charts are the ones broadcast on Radio 1 at the end of the year, while the OCC ones were published in the first week of January and include sales from the final few days of the previous year that weren't included in the Radio 1 chart, and therefore any songs selling well over the Christmas/New Year period have a chance to leapfrog the songs above them due to those extra few days' sales. I would have to say I can't recommend EveryHit as a reliable source, particularly as they don't say anywhere on their site where their "top 10" statistics come from or how they are calculated. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Add – EveryHit.com appears to be little more than a user fan site: "everyHit.com is simply an online database of my family's record collection."[12] WP:ELNO #11 states avoid "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." There is no indication that whoever this is is "a recognized authority". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not reliable I believe the year charts on EveryHit.com are actually aggregated via their own system, as are all of their monthly charts. It was the first useful resource for finding accurate chart positions, and is still good for a quick glance up until it stopped being updated, but those have never been reliable. The official year end charts, to my knowledge, weren't really a thing when Everyhit introduced their system. There's absolutely no encyclopedic value to the Everyhit chart. KaisaL (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Steede Report (Canada)

This was a short-lived chart published in Canada from 1975 to 1979 (I think), and an anonymous editor has added it to "Don't Go Breaking My Heart". As far as I can tell from an online search, the chart was based purely on airplay: that in itself wouldn't necessarily exclude its use as a reliable chart – what I don't know (being British) is whether the radio stations used were a single network or not... if it's the former, then the chart should not be used. Is there anybody here who can provide some guidance? Richard3120 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre charts

It's not made clear, particularly with respect to Billboard, if a genre chart like Top New Age Albums is considered a "national chart" for purposes of NMUSIC. What's the general rule of thumb for niche charts? MSJapan (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at http://www.billboard.com/charts for a list of all the charts they have. They currently have them broken down into sections. I think we can exclude the charts in "Greatest of All Time" (Greatest of All Time Billboard 200 Albums, Greatest of All Time Billboard 200 Artists, Greatest of All Time Hot 100 Singles, Greatest of All Time Hot 100 Artists, Greatest of All Time Adult Pop Songs, Greatest of All Time Adult Pop Songs Artists) as a national charts, but they are interesting.

They also have Overall Popularity, Breaking and Entering, Pop, Country, Rock, R&B/Hip-Hop, Dance/Electronic, Latin, Christian/Gospel, Holiday, Additional Genres, International and Web for fifteen sections. There more than 100 charts listed in those sections, and no, I don't think they're all "national charts". Personally, I have considered almost everything other than the primary charts—Hot 100 and Billboard 200—as niche charts, although arguments can be made for a few. I am not convinced that Top New Age Albums is a national chart any more than I do Billboard Twitter Real-Time to be a national chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think so, either, but it never hurts to ask. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I asked myself this question the other day too. The airplay charts, rock, country, pop and R&B/Hip-Hop for me should all qualify, but some of the niche ones should not. You could make a case for the latin chart and some others too, though. The biggest issue is that charting on national charts is as good as automatic notability - and we need to define which genres of Billboard count for this purpose; Certainly, other charts that don't - like New Age - can still help in making a case. It's very contentious with charts like Hot Dance Club and Smooth Jazz because they'd make hundreds and hundreds of artists eligible. Maybe we need some sort of request for comment on the issue? KaisaL (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As someone contributes to Latin music articles, you can definitely make the case for the Latin charts. Billboard doesn't allow non Spanish-language songs to rank on the Hot Latin Songs chart and a song that is targeted to the Regional Mexican audience isn't likely going to chart on the Tropical songs chart and viceversa because they are subgenres of Latin music. That's why Billboard has its own Latin music awards ceremony. Erick (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Second comment: The United Kingdom has other charts too, like the Indie Chart for independent releases, but we don't use them for establishing notability at all. If we consider legitimising genre charts in the U.S. we might have to do it everywhere. KaisaL (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan, Walter Görlitz, Magiciandude, and KaisaL: we might have get a grip and make a decision to establish what constitutes notable charts to include, because for recent singles the charts column is starting to become longer and longer as editors add in all sorts of charts – look at "Cheap Thrills", for example, which includes the Australian Dance Chart and the Swiss Romandie regional chart alongside the national charts, plus two Venezuelan charts for English-language records and the overall chart, and the Scotland chart alongside the overall UK chart. I'm certain that several of these charts are duplicated as well, like the two Hungary charts which purport to be different. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll argue nomenclature here.

The question asked was "what constitutes a national chart".

The question you asked was "what constitutes a notable chart".

National charts are easier to define than the class of notable charts, although there will be some overlap. Most, if not all, national charts would be considered notable, and being a national chart is all that is required for NMUSIC. Notability would require proof that other reliable sources report on it and consider it notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's true – in fact to be honest I lumped different types of chart together: the Australian Dance chart is a genre chart, the Swiss Romandie chart is a regional chart. My point was I don't think anyone is arguing against the inclusion of official national charts: it's the issue of these genre or regional charts (and indeed airplay charts) that needs to be addressed as to whether they are notable enough for inclusion or not, because otherwise I think editors will add every chart under the sun until notability is established. Richard3120 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Melon

Hello id like to aks since the Korean Melon streaming service is very prelavant/dominant in Korea and streaming is a huge/main part of music listening.Why has it not being added to the charts?While it may be a single vendor if its the main vendor used doesnt that mean that it shows accurately the songs position in the contry?Junkoo (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do you even know how the Gaon Chart are getting their data? It is not necessary to add Melon because Gaon Chart is compiled from online data provided by major Korean streaming sites such as Melon, Bugs, Naver etc.--Thebestwinter (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to use a chart pertaining to a specific retailer when we have Gaon. Random86 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaon is frequently too slow to compile their data.And it just states already known information form other charts that update much faster.Currently Gaon just posted their new chart thats from 31.07-.06.08 almost a full week behind.Junkoo (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is that Gaon is the official national chart, and it already includes Melon and other streaming sites, so Melon's sales are already included. Whether Gaon is "slow" or not is irrelevant. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

So how are people suposed to report on information if the chart is too slow?The page is a joke the Bulgarian section links to a page that has not been even updated in more than a year.Korea hot 100 is stuck in 2014 why is that on the list even?Junkoo (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaon is not slow; it takes Billboard the same amount of time (5 days) to release their charts. And this page clearly says the Kpop Hot 100 is discontinued, but it can still be used for older songs so there is no reason to remove it. Random86 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure 5 days isnt slow anyway Gaon doesnt follow realtime charting as far as it site shows so it should have no bearing on when it comes to citation about all kills for realtime.Junkoo (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Real-time charting doesn't need to be mentioned in articles. A weekly chart is more relevant, and more accurately gauges a song's popularity. Random86 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Real-time charting shows a successful debut which for a rookie group is very important.Not to mention that the Records charts has a section which allows the use of charts that dont appear on it "They may occasionally be mentioned in article prose if special circumstances warrant it."an all kill is definately one especially for a rookie group.Junkoo (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The weekly Gaon chart will show how successful they are as well. Getting an "all kill" is not a special circumstance. Random86 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

So if im reading this correctly an all kill isnt something special and its the rule for rookies so its not important?Junkoo (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Music Weekly Asia charts

An editor has started adding charts from this site to a couple of articles. I am dubious as to the methodology used to calculate the charts: the website says on its page that they are "compiled from this week's top tracks from each territory in Southeast Asia", but I don't see anywhere exactly how this has been done. Anybody else want to have a look and tell me what they think, please? Richard3120 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I came across this last year, and was concerned about the lack of chart archives. As far as I can tell, only the current week can be viewed. Here is a press release about the charts: [13]. It says "The chart listing is a weekly view of the most downloaded tracks from key stores in each territory of Southeast Asia."Random86 (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I also doubt that this chart are recognized by the likes of PARI (a recording industry organization in the Philippines) and similar organizations in Southeast Asia. Based on the press release above, I don't see any recording industry organization that will recognize Music Weekly Asia as official chart for select ASEAN countries. SkyHigher (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Africa Charts Nigeria

What you think? [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9D40:83C:5859:71FF:B680:CA8C (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Bumping this question. The Sugarboy article has been created after an AfD (raised on the 14 June 2016!) deleted it, and now uses an appearance on africacharts.com as a claim to WP:MUSICBIO. africacharts.com claims be a composite of "TV and radio airplay, record sales (both digital and physical), streaming platforms, social media, song and video downloads from top African entertainment sites, as well as YouTube and Dailymotion views". It has no Wikipedia article and is not used as a source by any other articles. Is it a "recognized reliable source"? --McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(Belated followup: this AfD seems to have concluded that africacharts.com isn't a reliable source.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

the problem with australian-charts.com

australian-charts.com needs some sort of caveat. It doesn't contain the Kent Music Report, which was the accepted national chart from 1974-1988. It's actively misleading in such cases - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rain (Dragon song), where an experienced user who knows their music sourcing thought a No. 2 that spent half a year on the national chart was deletable because it wasn't listed there. The information from the Kent era just isn't online, it's only in Kent's book. What do we do about this? - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an easy solution to this, because even if you change the link directly to the official ARIA website charts instead, it still wouldn't pick up the above song (as an example) because ARIA wasn't around at the time. As far as I know there is nowhere online that can be used as an official source for pre-1988 records on the Australian charts – all chart positions have to be added as a manual link to David Kent's Australian Chart Book 1970–1992 book. And I realise that this isn't something most people have access to – it's in the British Library and I look up chart placings and year-end charts whenever I can. So I don't know how to avoid the likes of the discussion above at AfD, we just have to make nominators aware that there were charts before 1988, even if they can't find them. Richard3120 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

ARIA was around before then, it just started doing its own charts instead of buying Kent's - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, from about 1983, I think - I just meant they were still Kent's charts at that point, ARIA just licensed them for use. Richard3120 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think all we can say is that both ARIA and australian-charts.com are valid charts under WP:GOODCHARTS, but perhaps a note will have to be added that they only have charts from 1988 onwards, and charts before this date will have to refer to the Kent Music Report. Richard3120 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Some sort of flag if it's used for dates before 1988? Dunno how complicated the template it's in is ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this correctly - I'm not sure that you can use it before 1988 anyway. If you can enter dates before this, it would be straightforward enough to change it so that the template flags up a error if you try and enter any date earlier than this, it wouldn't be difficult. But it still doesn't solve the problem of someone saying a pre-1988 record isn't notable because they can't find a chart entry for it. Richard3120 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

An obstacle with Gaon Music Chart

South Korea's Gaon Music Chart ranks the top 400 albums songs on all of its weekly charts. I had no idea how to get to the rankings 101–400 up until late last month, when I became aware that adding pageNo=2& to a chart URL displayed additional pages (example: http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaon?pageNo=2&nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=ALL&targetTime=04&hitYear=2010&termGbn=week). That was short lived, as one can once again not access the rankings after 100. In this post, a Gaon staff remember stated (in Korean) that only the top 100 will be viewable. I had added rankings for songs outside of the top 100 to F.Cuz, which are now unverifiable. I was also working on other articles that would use rankings and sales only available outside of the top 100. Needless to say, the Wayback Machine did not archive any of these pages. Being a registered member (as I am) to the site makes no difference, and there is no paid subscription service available to view these rankings and sales beyond the top 100 (like there is for Billboard or Oricon). How should this be dealt with? — ξ^xplicit 07:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

CAPIF redesign

It seems CAPIF has redesigned their site and moved rankings from rankings.aspx to rankings. The new site doesn't show rankings before September 2016, so we'll need archive links for the old charts. Not sure if InternetArchiveBot supports {{Album chart}}. – nyuszika7h (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

AllMusic source for Billboard charts

Are people aware that AllMusic no longer displays any Billboard charting information on its site.[15]. I know a lot of articles site this information and can deeply impact discographies and other articles such as List of best-charting music artists in the United States which relied greatly on this information as its source. Anyway, editors will not be able to use AllMusic to cite chart peaks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, yes, another editor noticed this a few weeks ago as well – see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#How does one verify a claimed chart position? As you say, it's annoying because it means altering a lot of articles. I'm currently plodding through a similar exercise, changing all articles that cite UK chart positions using the now-defunct Chartstats website and redirecting them to the official OCC website instead, but there are more than 2000 instances to work through. :-( By the way, did you mean to say "Billboard" rather than "AllMusic" in your last sentence above? Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I intended to say "not be able to use AllMusic" to my sentence (now fixed). It does help that Billboard's site has become somewhat more comprehensive by using either the main site or it's "biz" counterpart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}

Portuguese Charts

Is http://portuguesecharts.com acceptable as a singles chart? It says the source is AC Nielsen (presumably airplay as it doesn't at all match Billboard's Digital Chart) but I can't find any link.

Johnjones1979 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)johnjones1979

@Johnjones1979: yes, it is – see the section "Recommended charts" on this article, and you'll see that for Portugal it suggests "Hung Medien", which is the link you cite above. I believe you are right, it is an airplay only chart as singles have never sold well in Portugal, either in physical or digital form. Richard3120 (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-Billboard charts

Is there a precedent for including non-Billboard charts? I've seen Mediabase peaks in a few articles, but only when sourced (e.g. Chris Janson). Some older articles cite Cash Box peaks when sourced. Most of the old Radio & Records charts have been archived, as has Gavin Report, so would it be acceptable to use these within reason? This might also help in discrepancies such as the tally of #1 hits George Strait has had (most sources say 60, which counts all chart publications, but Billboard only says 44). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the real question should be is there a precedent for not including non-Billboard charts. There seems to an odd notion that somehow Billboard is the "official" chart, whatever that means. Cash Box, Record World and Radio & Records can provide useful information in cases where a record was #1 on other charts but not Billboard (as was the case with many R&B hits) or where the peak positions varied due to methodology (Cash Box for instance was a sales only chart until 1976 and Radio & Records had the only airplay-only pop chart until 1984) or where a record appeared on other charts but not Billboard. Piriczki (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the long standing precedent for Billboard here is that their peaks are the easiest to verify. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Likewise there seems to be an unreasonable sentiment against any offline sources which is against Wikipedia's policy on verification. Piriczki (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If the source is print-only, and appropriate for the period, it's acceptable to use with an appropriate reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

YouTube Music Charts

Hi there! I would like to suggest the addition of the YouTube Music Charts to the list. I think it is relevant and reliable as a global chart. Currently there are four charts: "All Videos", "Viral Videos", "Tracks" and "Artists". Regards. — Alan Moraes (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Like other WP:BADCHARTS, this is a single-source and has no real meaning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Thanks! — Alan Moraes (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

RIM International & Domestic Singles Charts

Recently, Recording Industry Association of Malaysia, a member of the IFPI has announced that starting from this year, they are going to revive their charts, namely charts for international and domestic singles. According to their website, "their charts comply with the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) general guideline for chart generation as below."

• For the streaming charts, both paid tier (premium) and free tier (ad-supported) streams are included.
• Purely non-interactive streaming and algorithm based programming is excluded from the charts.
• Airplay or internet simulcasting is excluded from the charts.
• Playlists created by third parties is included in the charts.
• Streams that play for less than 30 seconds is excluded from the charts.
• Certain on-demand streaming services offer radio features (e.g. Spotify’s radio feature) that are semi-interactive/algorithm based. These steams do not count towards the charts.
• For streaming-only charts, all streams have the same weight.

I hope this mean that these two charts can be included in Wikipedia as reliable charts. Since these charts are non-searchable, I will try to archive these charts once a week. SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Infodisc.fr and hitparadeitalia.it

The ranking of songs at infodisc.fr is based on what they call a "synthesis" which is explained on their web site as follows:

"Because there is not a Hit-Parade authoritative, but several charts with their own criteria and the areas. A weekly summary of these different Hit Parades calculated by the average weekly places in the various rankings (with a coefficient for each Hit-Parade as its "reliability"). This ranking does not absolutely reflect sales but merely a summary of information of the time."

Hitparadeitalia.it does something similar, as explained on their web site:

"In Italy, the first of the weekly bestseller list dates back to 1959 and was published by the now disappeared magazine The Musichiere. Since then, over the years, there have been several classifications, more or less authoritative and reliable. Our rankings are obtained by re-arranging all available data from the publications of the time and are in constant refinement as we recover its data, independent of errors and inconsistencies."

In other words, they gather information from various sources to recreate, through their own methodology, a single, albeit fictional, chart. These should be added to WP:BADCHARTS. Piriczki (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. In German Wikipedia, we have banned hitparadeitalia, but here I can still find it very often (and in most cases the table even shows (FIMI), while in reality it is HPI data).--XanonymusX (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

SloTop50

@Walter Görlitz: can I ask you of your opinion regarding SloTop50? I cannot understand from the website that it actually is a real chart and has any methodology. User's keep on adding this chart inspite of not being listed in WP:GOODCHARTS. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Another one for Turkey from Numberone.com.tr. Apparently it seems the source is Number1 FM, a single network, which would qualify it for WP:BADCHARTS. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Mediabase

So apparently I thought Mediabase was not an acceptable source because it states that Billboard is the recommended source, but my edit got reverted here by @Jax 0677:. I still believe that Mediabase should not be used, especially when it states that kworb should not be used, and the source cited in that edit changes daily, so over time, the song will not be on the chart eventually. Furthermore it is hard to find actual Mediabase peaks, and the YouTube chart videos cannot be used as reliable sources. Daerl (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The addition of Billboard Philippines Hot 100

The popular and reliable Billboard has entered the Philippines market under Billboard Philippines, where it formally releases weekly charts that are popular in the Philippines. Currently, the nation of 100 million has no representation in the Wikipedia Music Charts. However, you may not have heard about Billboard Philippines, as it has only been established 7 months ago. But since its foundation, it's charts are said to be: "...ranked by radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music and streaming activity data provided by online music sources.""BillboardPH Hot 100". BillboardPH. Retrieved 28 May 2017.

Hence, I propose the addition of the credible new BillboardPH chart to be part of the charts section in all songs where applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithere442 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems reasonable as it is "owned and operated by Algo-Rhythm Communications Inc., under license by Billboard U.S.A." Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Bubbling Under Hot 100 discussion

A discussion involving WP:USCHARTS, and the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart specifically, is taking place here. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers,  gongshow  talk  10:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

China (YinYueTai) V Chart

I need some clarification whether the China V Chart is considered to be a good chart or bad chart. Currently I'm in a disagreement with another editor on its inclusion in a discography article as they say it is the official chart of China due to Billboard partnering with music video sharing site YinYueTai. However from reading where they get the data from, the chart's rankings is based on most-viewed videos on YYT and not on sales or airplay which I believe would fall as a single-network chart. Thanks! Rockysmile11^(talk) 06:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Israeli TV airplay chart

Discussion

Source - while I have no problem with Media Forest as a source - I am shocked to see that some users are claiming that an international artist TV airplay chart from Israel is notable for the charts tables in song articles. TV airplay charts have never been notable on Wikipedia and now there seems to be a mentality adopted by a user who feels they are in charge of charts on Wikipedia pages that any chart under the sun should be included. Abi-Maria (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Abi-Maria: As you may see, I have extensively commented above; this page is still on my watchlist. If you are going to make accusations about me on talk pages, Abi-Maria, I'd appreciate you naming me by name or just leaving me out of it altogether. This is not really accepted talk page etiquette. Avoid airing your grievances with others when asking for opinions. I do not feel I'm "in charge" of which charts to add to Wikipedia and I certainly don't think just any chart is allowed (perhaps you haven't seen how many charts I've removed from certain song articles sometimes)—I have never even added the Israeli chart other than restoring it after you removed it. Please go about your business and stop referring to me when asking for opinions because it's not relevant. If you want me to leave you alone, I'd appreciate the same courtesy (including references to me without naming me). Just say "I've noticed this chart and don't think it's reliable or notable for [reasons]". Now let's please drop this silly fighting and move on as best we can. Thank you. Ss112 11:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging other editors for input - @Kww: @Iknow23: @Widr: @Walter Görlitz: @Cornerstonepicker: @Richard3120: Abi-Maria (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

Not notable There is an airplay chart already being used in articles. If a song fails to chart on there tough luck. We don't need an extremely minor chart like this added to the already exhaustive list of component charts being used in song articles at the moment. Especially since it does not combine local and international artists together and is in turn not a true reflection of its popularity. I also don't believe this chart should appear in the chart table because TV airplay refers to music videos not songs them self. If anything it could be mentioned in the song article's music video section but I think even then it is not notable enough.Abi-Maria (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'll participate, but someone needs to fill in the missing data for me:

1. A link to a description of the chart contents
2. Evidence that it doesn't violate WP:SINGLENETWORK
3. Some third-party discussion of the chart to demonstrate notability.

—Kww(talk) 21:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

South Korea's music charts

This is a cross-post from WT:KO.

---

Hi, for those users who work with South Korea's music articles, two late announcements. First, the easier of the two: Billboard Korea K-pop Hot 100. The charted resumed for the week dated May 29 – June 4, 2017 [16]. It's incredibly skeletal: it only provides its ranking for the week, so no peak position, weeks on the chart, etc.

Gaon has re-enabled its search function, which you can find here. This is great for discography articles, where you can utilize fewer sources for citing peak positions of songs and albums. A walk-through:

First drop-down selection box

• 차트종류 (Chart type)
  • Digital Chart
  • Download Chart
  • Streaming Chart
  • BGM Chart
  • Mobile Chart (벨) for ringtones
  • Mobile Chart (링) for ringback tones
  • Album Chart
  • 노래방 Chart (Noraebang Chart)
  • Gaon Social Chart

Second drop-down selection box

• 구분 (Classification)
  • 종합 (Overall)
  • 국내 (Domestic)
  • 국외 (Foreign)

Third drop-down selection box

• 년도 (Year)
  • 2017년
  • 2016년
  • 2015년
  • 2014년
  • 2013년

Fourth drop-down selection box

• 곡명 (Name)
  • 앨범명 (Album name)
  • 가수명 (Singer's name)

Fifth - search box

The search function presents seven headers: Digital Chart, Download Chart, Streaming Chart, BGM Chart, Mobile Chart (벨), Mobile Chart (링), and 노래방 Chart. To the left, three viewing options are available: 주간 (weekly), 월간 (monthly), and 연간 (year-end).

As an example, here's the search for (CNBLUE). Chart type: Digital Chart; Classification: Overall; Year: 2013; Name: Singer's name; Search box: "씨엔블루". [17]. In reverse chronological order, it shows the Chart Period, Ranking, Title, Artist, Album, and Link to that week's chart.

Please remember to observe WP:CHARTMATH. The Download, Streaming, BGM Charts, as well as the Domestic and Foreign Charts should only be noted in cases when a song or album failed to chart on the Digital Chart or Overall chart.

Cheers! ℯxplicit 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC about notability and reliability of the ARC 100 as a record chart for Croatia

Is the ARC 100 a notable and reliable record chart for Croatia? Abi-Maria (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Not notable - Based on the fact that its methodology is unclear, only airplay of songs by foreign artists are used and there is no third party notability. Abi-Maria (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This chart posted by Hrvatski Radio is being placed in song articles for chart peaks in Croatia. I was hoping to get confirmation that this is a notable and reliable chart or should I get a second opinion from the Croatian Wikipedia. I have also asked for opinions at WP:RSN. Many thanks. Abi-Maria (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Abi-Maria: is it the same chart listed under WP:BADCHARTS and deleted by discussion here? Richard3120 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: they both refer to the HRT website, yes. Would that make it unreliable then? Another editor is claiming that this is a legit chart and has been reverting my removal of it hence why I have come here to gain consensus. Abi-Maria (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Jumping in here as I was asked earlier to contribute by Abi on their talk page, that AfD appears to concern a Croatian chart called the "HRTop20" hosted on another site that only contained Croatian-language singles (this, which is now dead). This is the ARC 100 hosted on http://radio.hrt.hr. Croatian Airplay Chart was recreated some time after that and now redirects to its publisher. There is a chart listed under WP:BADCHARTS called the "ARC Weekly Top 40", but that appeared to be a chart for the US. Not the same chart by any measure. The "HR" simply comes from Hrvatski, which means Croatian, so I would say there are several other charts out there (unofficial ones, mind you) that use "HR" as it's part of the country's name in that language. The HRT here refers to Croatian Radiotelevision. Ss112 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ss112: just to clarify that it wasn't the ARC Weekly Top 40 chart I was referring to, but the Croatian Airplay Chart which is also listed under the same deprecated charts list, and is/was also produced by Croatian Radiotelevision – that's why I'm not sure if the HRT Airplay Radio Chart is the same thing or not. Richard3120 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: The chart listed under WP:BADCHARTS links to this this AfD...where does it say on that page that that chart was published by Croatian Radiotelevision? As I pointed out earlier, that page (Croatian Airplay Chart) was deleted in 2009 as obviously it was made referring to the unreliable chart hosted at another website I linked to above, which was linked to in a discussion linked to on the AfD. It appears to have been recreated in 2012 then referring to the Croatian Radiotelevision chart. Ss112 20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I was only going by the fact that the "Croatian Airplay Chart" page redirects to the Croatian Radiotelevision article – if it's not produced by HRT then the redirect is a bad one. I notice that a previous discussion has also questioned the validity of the Airplay Radio Chart. Richard3120 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I just pointed out that those discussions from 2009 were referring to whatever the Croatian Airplay Chart article said at the time (the "HRTop20", as noted above). It was then deleted as a result of the AfD. The page was recreated in 2012 to refer to a different chart, this time the one published by Croatian Radiotelevision, which is where it redirects now. So this is not a bad redirect. Nobody has questioned the validity of the chart hosted at radio.hrt.hr until now. Ss112 20:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah OK, I follow you now, sorry. Still, that last discussion I linked refers to an "Airplay Radio Chart" – do you think it's the same as the airplay radio chart that Abi-Maria is talking about? Richard3120 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how things were back in 2009 or what charts existed. (I've never added this Croatian chart to articles myself.) One editor just appears to have brought it up in that discussion in 2009, not really making any judgements on it. "Airplay Radio Chart" sounds very generic. Ss112 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So on the page it says:

Airplay Radio Chart measures the popularity and presence of performers and their songs in the programs of domestic radio stations. The Weekly Report Airplay Radio Charter was created based on the sum of the broadcasting of foreign songs in radio stations throughout the country according to the 1Played service data. Airplay Radio Chart measures the popularity and presence of performers and their songs in the programs of domestic radio stations. We analyze global music trends and recognize the demand for singles and artists in the local area. So we are also building access to the radio creation of popular music 1

I can't find anything on which radio stations are monitored and if it is affiliated with the IFPI or Nielsen. I don't read anything that the chart is published by Croatian Radiotelevision. It says the chart only includes foreign songs based on music trends and data from 1Played which makes me skeptical that this is a legitimate official chart in Croatia. I have asked the Croatian WikiProject for input. Also pinging GregorB who was involved in the last debate about Croatia's chart. Abi-Maria (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Back in 2009, the article on the chart in question had no proper sources and could not even be distinguished from a hoax, so it was deleted. As of May 2017, however, the ARC is "the only official airplay chart for foreign songs on Croatian radio", having received support from the Croatian Discography Union (HDU).[18] (in Croatian) The same source describes the chart as being active for 15 years. That, plus the fact that it is compiled and presented by the Croatian Radiotelevision, might count towards its notability (I don't know what are the criteria). GregorB (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi GregorB. Thank you for the explanation. Is there a chart that includes both local and foreign songs? I am not entirely sure this chart is then notable as it only represents foreign songs. Abi-Maria (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is a separate list for local songs: Cro Top 20, also by the Croatian Radiotelevision.[19] Cro Top 20 yearly lists are published too.

Let me mention some negatives about the ARC:

1. As already noted, its methodology is not fully explained; it is unclear not only which radio stations are included, but also how many there are.
2. I'm not sure if there is a full online archive, so that any given past edition of the chart could be accessed and used as a reference.

In particular, a chart without a proper archive might not be of any use on Wikipedia. GregorB (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this already noted on WP:CHART, that some charts are not listed there due to not having archives? It's just that I see that this is usually solved by the users who add such charts themselves, who often add archived links to the latest edition. Your concerns about its methodology are valid, though. Ss112 12:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see - I was not familiar with WP:CHART, #2 seemed like a common-sense limitation to me. GregorB (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on the fact that its methodology is unknown, only airplay of songs by foreign artists are used and there is no third party notability - this chart appears to be not notable. Abi-Maria (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You are involved in this discussion and already had your mind made up, so you can't draw a conclusion on the consensus yourself because of course you would conclude with your initial decision (WP:CLOSE: "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions"). You have to wait for somebody else not involved in this to make a judgement, and having a discussion with one other editor is not a consensus anyway. Ss112 05:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands and Hungary exhaustive list of charts

We have a situation now where for the Netherlands - the Dutch Top 40, Mega Top 50 and Single 100 are all being included. While with Hungary there is a single, stream, radio and dance chart all being included. There needs to be consensus as to which of these charts is the more notable as the list has become far too exhaustive. How is the reader supposed to establish what the song's peak was in these countries. Abi-Maria (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Some countries have multiple different publishers of charts, and all are seen as just as valid. Along with Billboard, the US used to have Cashbox and a few others (like Radio & Records) competing to be the official source of charts. We can't decide for readers "this is the only official Dutch chart"—we can only state what there are and list them for songs if they have charted (personally, I'm less concerned about the Mega Top 50 and don't know much about it). As for Hungary, those are all published by the same source. They split their charts and there's no real way of determining what is more valid out of streams and airplay. Perhaps if it could be decided that if it's charted on the overall "singles" chart, we can remove the streaming and radio peaks, but I don't know the methodology there (if "singles" is the overall placement chart) and @Kirtap92: adds those. Ss112 05:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

For many years, Dutch Top 40 was commonly used as the main chart for song and discography articles until recently. There have been several previous discussions in the talk page archive regarding this and I think it's best we have clarity regarding these charts to include in the chart guideline. Abi-Maria (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Until recently"? I've been keeping up with adding charts to Wikipedia since 2014 and it was never only the Dutch Top 40 on discography articles and nor would I say it was "more common". It was always a mix, and there was never consensus on which was more "official". There are still discographies that use the Dutch Top 40, but some editors prefer adding dutchcharts.nl links (the Single Top 100) because it's more easily accessed (rather than having to link to each song on the Dutch Top 40, as there is not an overall page that displays peaks). It's also not as if the Single Top 100 is only recent; it's been around in one form or another since the 1970s and on the Internet since the early 2000s, so I'm sure since then editors have been adding it here as well. Considering editors were asking in 2010, both have obviously been in common use since at least then. Ss112 06:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but there's no way of determinig which Hungarian chart is the most important one, as here in Hungary we don't have a chart like Billboard Hot 100 that includes sales, streaming and radio as well. I think its not possible to just use one, as people always would fight which is the most important one. Some people say radios impact's dies worldwide, some people say single sales are dead and some people say streaming is getting stronger, but its still not more important than the other two. About the dance chart I try and mostly include them in artices when the artist is associated with dance music, makes dance music and it's an important aspect for their song's chart performance on a dance chart. The maximum amount of Hungarian chart this way is 4, but usually its 3 maximum as I don't include the dance chart that often (which is based on DJ playlists so its not a component chart, it has a value on its own). I think 2-3 charts from Hungary is not that much and they aren't exhaustive for the articles. Kirtap92 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't say much about the Mega Top 50, but I don't see how you can choose between the Dutch Top 40 and the Single/Album Top 100 charts to say which is the "main" one – they've both been established about 50 years and both have been widely used and cited over that time. The Single/Album Top 100 charts are compiled by GfK Chart-Track, who are also responsible for compiling the official German and Irish charts, so there's no way they can be discounted for their methodology. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The Netherlands Single Top 100 has been used on Wikipedia for over a decade and seems to be the one that is used most. Netherlands Top 40 chart seems to be used less in my experience. I don't think there needs to be only one used. For example when it comes to the US charts people add additionally to the Billboard Hot 100 multiple other charts that are not genre charts. However, it is very rare that I have seen the Netherlands Mega Top 50 being used. Some artists and songs have only charted on one chart and not the other so if we chose only to use one then we could be losing vital information.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spotify

Just saw an album article that stated that Spotify was a song chart and used http://kworb.net/spotify/track/6WoyghnMAvDDRbZfFbpwEo.html as the source. It's not listed at BADCHARTS, but clearly fits the criteria. Shall we add it even though it's not an album chart? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it fall under WP:SINGLEVENDOR? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that was exactly Walter's reasoning for adding it to WP:BADCHARTS, and I support his proposal. Richard3120 (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Romania's Airplay 100

Why is the Romanian airplay-based singles chart, Airplay 100, is not considered a reliable chart just because it is presented through a radio show? I've seen a lot of pages that wrongly link Media Forest as a source, even here is clearly saying to not be confused with Airplay 100. Please discuss here so we can clarify this situation. Gabrielflorin01 8 January 2018, 11:25 (EET) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Hong Kong record charts based on individual radio and television network rankings

I've got an AFD going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shimica Castro Wong, where it is based entirely on individual radio and television station network rankings as well as Soundclick. Are these all considered good charts? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

French charts

I've noticed that en.wiki uses the digital download-only French chart (top téléchargement on SNEP, or the one reported on lescharts.com) in foreign music articles. I'd like to bring the topic to everyone's attention, as the chart isn't a good indicator of a song's real popularity in the country. As of 2018, streaming has hugely replaced digital sales, to the point that IMO it's necessary to use the sales plus streaming chart published weekly on SNEP's website. This is merely for the accuracy of the articles and to report the actual popularity of a track in the French market, which can no longer be defined by digital sales alone. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 16:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

B

Can someone expand the acceptable Billboard album charts section? There's only Billboard 200 there. Many other charts like Independent, Heatseekers, etc should be listed. — Zawl 05:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

+ the only two component charts are R&B and Rap. Where are the others? — Zawl 05:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The only album chart listed is the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, and all it is saying is that if an album has charted on that chart do not also list peaks for the R&B or Rap Albums charts. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hot Country Songs

Billboard's website is listing sub-75 positions for some artists in 1990 on Hot Country Songs, even though the chart had already been cut to 75 positions by that point. For instance, this result lists the song "Southern Belles" as peaking at #85 in July 1990, even though the chart was only 75 positions at that point. Some further digging revealed that this is because Billboard briefly had a "Hot Country Radio Breakouts" chart which basically listed the "sub-75" songs the way Bubbling Under Hot 100 lists the songs just below #100. To verify, see page 38 on this scan of the 7/28/90 issue of Billboard. "Southern Belles" is listed at #10 on Hot Country Radio Breakouts. Add 75 to that, and you get #85. I have checked all the other 76-to-85 positions I've seen listed for songs in 1990, and they all correspond to their position on that week's "Hot Country Radio Breakouts" plus 75. @Caldorwards4: and I have used proper citations from the corresponding issues to indicate these unusual peaks and explain why they are so. I feel that this does not run afoul of WP:OR, and I feel that it's a particularly unique case that was worth sharing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: actually, the Official Charts Company have pulled a similar trick with the main UK Singles Chart. In May 1978 the then-chart compilers BMRB expanded the chart from a top 50 to a top 75, and numbers 76–100 were a sort of "Bubbling Under" chart – songs were included if their sales hadn't dropped by a certain amount from the previous week. So a single that had climbed from 97 to 87 would be included, and one that had only dropped from 84 to 85, but not one that had dropped from 84 to 97, or any single that had dropped out of the top 75 into (nominally) the next 25 places. So they weren't truly the next 25 best-selling singles that week. As a result BMRB only ever considered the top 75 to be the official chart, as did their successors Gallup and CIN (the OCC's original incarnation) when they took over the chart in the 1990s. Then the OCC expanded their chart to a top 100, and suddenly decided for no apparent reason that yes, numbers 76 to 100 from earlier charts were "real" chart placings after all and should be included, and extended this logic right back to 1978, even though the BMRB and Gallup charts and their methodology weren't theirs to revise in this manner. Hence, for example, the OCC's website showing that the first two chart entries for the Blue Nile were "Tinseltown in the Rain" and "Stay" in 1984, even though neither appear in the Guinness British Hit Singles book, the pre-internet bible of UK chart listings, because neither song reached the top 75. Richard3120 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple charts in one article

List of number-one country singles of 2012 (U.S.) and the articles for subsequent years, as well as some equivalent articles from the 1940s and 50s, combine multiple charts into one article. Should each be broken up into multiple articles.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• It think the combined chart lists work better. I'd rather see this info in one place than across articles. Plus the scope remains correct – the list of number-one country songs in the US. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Arguably, though, the titles for the post-2012 articles should be changed to use "songs" rather than "singles", as neither chart is restricted to singles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Starcheers. Having Country Songs and Country Airplay on separate articles when they're related and the article title is comprehensive is unnecessary. Ss112 19:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think "songs" would be a fine rename. Occasionally, songs get to #1 that aren't truly singles, such as Chris Stapleton's version of "Tennessee Whiskey". Should that get a mass rename request? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Billboard genre airplay charts

Both Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay are listed as acceptable charts, but there is no mention of the acceptability of the Rock Airplay and R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay charts. Shouldn't they both be listed as acceptable, too, for the same reasons Country Airplay is? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)