Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Sourcing guide

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Songs

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

QUESTION

Shouldn't mariah-charts.com & top40-charts.com be removed from here? One of them already appears on the list of bad links and we should probably consider adding mariah-charts.com to the bad links list as well. Thus neither would be needed here? — Realist² 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about mariah-charts.com. However, there are about 225 links to it, so eliminating it will mean replacing somewhere around 1500 references. I actually started on top40-charts.com once, and gave up. The main reason I gave up was that after verifying hundreds of numbers, I found that they were all correct. The problem with top40-charts.com isn't in their archiving of reliable charts, it's in the charts they make up, like "World Airplay" and "World Jazz Singles". For it, I strongly advise documenting the charts it archives correctly and the charts it does not, because any effort to go through and replace the links for charts that it gets right is wasted.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, fair enough. Mariah-charts is just so iffy though. — Realist² 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra top

I don't think ultratop archives UK info? When I was using it on Thriller 25 and some Michael Jackson singles, I'm sure there was no info. — Realist² 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

You should be very proud of this, it's wonderful, can't wait to see it go live. — Realist² 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PORTUGAL

Is this a reliable source for Portugal certifications? Link. — Realist² 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;D — Realist² 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to archives

I think the 5 archive sites should have web links to their front page, when people start using this table, linking straight to the site will make it more easier for people. — Realist² 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Is this an official chart for Israel?, Someone inserted it into an article, it's not mentioned on this table though. Thanks — Realist² 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top40-Charts.com

Looking over the chart, it seems that Top40-Charts.com should never be used. Considering this site is also under websites to avoid, should this site really be in the table at all? — Σ xplicit 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is a mix of really crappy charts and reliable archives of good charts. The yellow circle is a recommendation to replace references with real ones when the articlke is being edited, but today there are 747 references to top40-charts.com, the majority of them being perfectly accurate references. I'm not in the mood to bulldozer them out. The last time I tried, it took about 15 minutes per article, and what I found was that it was pretty much busy-work: the numbers were validating as correct.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit contradictory to try avoid the website but list it as well? In all my time working with referencing music charts, I can't say I've personally come across Top40-Charts.com in any article. If it were removed from the table, I'm sure other editors would go out of their way to replace it with a more proper reference if available, even if it did take some time. — Σ xplicit 03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think anyone pays attention to the symbols, and the statement "While this chart appears to have been archived correctly, there are problems surrounding this archive site that make it questionable. Further use of this archive is discouraged, and people are encouraged to change links to this site to point to other sources."? I don't think I see people adding it, and the overall usage seems to be shrinking, which was the point of the yellow circle status. I could probably try to get it added to XlinkBot, but it's of limited usefulness when dealing with references.—Kww(talk) 03:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Let's say, then, theoretically, that all these references to Top40-Charts.com were replaced with a more appropriate source. Would the chart still remain on the table? — Σ xplicit 03:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably argue for removal at that point. I'm not dictator of GOODCHARTS and BADCHARTS, anyway. If it got down to a couple hundred refs, I'd probably agree then. I'm not happy with any of these choices. I tried to list each of the bad charts from top40-charts.com explicitly in BADCHARTS, but Realist was pretty violently opposed to making the BADCHARTS table that large.—Kww(talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this site not just be mentioned in the text of the page, rather than being in the table? Currently it's not listed as "good" for any country at all. Yeryry (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultratop > Hung Medien

I have fixed the inaccuracies in the sourcing guide regarding Ultratop and Hung Medien. Ultratop are only the chart source for Belgium, the rest are part of Hung Medien. I have therefore replaced the incorrect accreditations, having received contact from a Hung Medien representative. It is possible to verify that this is correct, as by going to all of the sites (for example hitparade.ch), Hung Medien is written at the bottom of every page. Esteffect (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Links

Just came across a dead link, so I thought I'd run Check Links and we have a few issues that need to be sorted out. Mainly to do with Billboard obviously, it seems. Any help with this would be appreciated. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charly1300

You should add Charly1300 forum to the list. It got a lot of official charts.--HC 5555 (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PORTUGAL AIRPLAY CHART

http://www.artistas-espectaculos.com/topaplay/pt/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.45.142 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish charts are currently at ifpi.fi

Hi!

The current official Finnish charts are composed by Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland and their website is (IMO) way easier to use. Besides, the official chart seems to be no longer shown on YLE's sites. That's why I changed the Finnish section. -- Frous (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications on Dutch Charts

I open this discussion for to do a clarification about the Dutch Charts. For many years on Wikipedia was written that the Dutch Top 40 was part of the GfK Charts and was written that the Singles Top 100 was a component chart of the Dutch Top 40. It is totally false. Dutch Top 40 is the competitor of the GfK charts and were in association for a limited period. You can read their history here

http://www.top40.nl/geschiedenis

Furthermore, the association of the Dutch Top 40 had a its albums chart active until 1999 (when it merged several charts, including the albums chart, with Mega Charts). It reactived the albums chart in 2011 ( http://www.top40.nl/album-top40 ). To avoid other errors, i edited the main page ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Record_charts/Sourcing_guide ) and the Mega Charts page. At this point, i think that the user can choice what chart prefer to use. SJ (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So many deadlinks

Hi, I was using this page as a guide while I was editing a song article and I came across a dead link. I quickly did a dead ref run through of the article using Checklinks and I was shocked to see there were so many dead links on the page. A guide can't obviously be useful if it is flawed itself, someone good at finding chart archives should find replacements. You can see the dead links here. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music Canada certifications - search broken?

Anyone able to search Canadian music certifications by keyword? All my queries turn up empty, and I can only check the history page-by-page. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK Chart Stats website

Does anyone know if the UK Chart Stats^{[dead link‍]} website is still listing positions below 75 ? Or have they been stopped by OCC ?QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official UK Charts Company website has changed

The official UK Charts Company website has been upgraded and now includes top 100 singles in the archives.[1] The Wikipedia formatting will need to be updated in order for the templates to work.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion about this on the Wikipedia talk:Record charts -- Bleddynefans (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UKChartsPlus.co.uk

There's an ongoing discussion about this on the Wikipedia talk:Record charts -- Bleddynefans (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Chart Log UK (zobbel.de)

There's an ongoing discussion about this on the Wikipedia talk:Record charts -- Bleddynefans (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India

LuanCampSouza93 has removed my addition of the Indian charts with the edit summary: "It's necessary a discussion to add new charts from other countries". I assume the discussion should take place here and I would encourage them to join. This is the chart, and from what I understand, it seems to be affiliated with the IFPI.--N Ø 20:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm adding it back if you do not have a problem, LuanCampSouza93. Kindly do not remove it again until you are ready to contribute to this discussion.--N Ø 11:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]