Talk:Scottish Singles and Albums Charts
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives
editThese charts seem to have been going for a while but the OCC website only has archives (and thus # 1s) from October 2009 - are there any sources for older # 1s by any chance? Thanks The flying pasty (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Chart Errors
editThe Club is Alive by JLS got number-one in Scotland didn't it? Why isn't it mentioned in this article? A similar thing happened in the UK's article. JLS weren't mentioned, and the article said Katy Perry got an extra week at number-one. What's going on? It's probably some 12 year-old boy who's jealous of JLS or something who's being petty, but someone should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.238.141 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Katy Perry was Number 1 for two weeks, if you check the archive. Followed by JLS and then B.O.B. July and August were pretty much totally wrong, I have fixed it now. Conalae (talk)
In the Manual of Style WP:OVERLINK, it states, "Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader.". Which I think it would in such an extensive article, reducing the need to scroll up and find the first link, particularly on mobile devices.
I also think the current chart should either be put at the top or as a separate article. Again to reduce the need to scroll all the way to the bottom to find the current number 1 single. i.e. Current years chart at the top and historical chart in subsequent paragraphs. I know there is the contents paragraph which easily takes the reader to the interested year. But on mobile devices, on initial viewing anyway. The word CONTENT, though selectable does not appear so, and viewers may be mislead into thinking, it refers to the article that is to follow. It may aid in the editing process as well. JefferySinclair (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't mind duplicate links within a list article, but within the same section it gets to be overkill. Even mobile readers, within that section, only have to scroll up once, maybe twice to find the original song or artist link. Repeating a link on every instance in a non-sortable table is excessive. Also, with articles like this, the preference is for chronological order. I get the concerns about scrolling/mobile readers, but arranging in backwards chronological order is not accepted on Wikipedia very often for any area or subject. I also don't think individual articles for each year would hold up (with notability) very well. Ss112 10:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree Ss112. I don't think it is overkill. To allow the reader when they find a linkable text. Such as an artist or album to then click on that link for more information. Rather than as at present, where the reader finds an artist e.g. Ed Sheeran but can't click it. Why is that? Oh its because Ed Sheeran is clickable elsewhere in the article. JefferySinclair (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I said once in each section is fine not once in the overall article, as in "guess which section it's in". Readers will find a term linked once in each section. (Also, no need to ping me, the page is on my watchlist) Ss112 09:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree Ss112. I don't think it is overkill. To allow the reader when they find a linkable text. Such as an artist or album to then click on that link for more information. Rather than as at present, where the reader finds an artist e.g. Ed Sheeran but can't click it. Why is that? Oh its because Ed Sheeran is clickable elsewhere in the article. JefferySinclair (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Does It Make Sense?
editScotland's sales are also reflected in UK sales. So, is Scotland UK or not? More Little Scotlanders, me fears. Best of both worlds, eh?
(81.129.126.94 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC))
- The chart was created to give a reflection on just the Scottish market rather than the UK as a whole.The sales from Scotland do count towards the UK chart as well.--DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Why was there never a Welsh chart although a smaller market than the Scottish one I believe that it would have been significantly different from both the English and Scottish charts with a certain number of Welsh language acts especially in the lower positions of say a Top 30 - when visiting North wales you will see the existence of a whole Welsh language market in the the records in the shop windows and even people with Welsh acts unheard out of Wales on their t-shirts.Also as the man above says surely as Sottish figures also go towards the English chart there should aslo have been a purely English chart.`And the argument about the number of chart return shops in London merely reflected the fact that the population of London is nearly twice that of Scotland so would have far more chart return shops to reflect that. In the last few year when all sales (*or about 99% or something o all recordings sold) are reflected in the charts surely all talk of unfairness became completely irrelevant.
Talking of unfairness back in the days before an official British charts came in at the start of 1969 and I believe for a long time after the West Country of England was the most severely under-represented region in Britain with the Adge Cutler and the Wurzels single 'Drink Up Thee Zider" managing a solitary week in ther British Top 50 while over a few years managing some reputedly ridiculous sales of about 250,000 virtually all in (Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall) although these were catalogue sales over quite a few years; If the south west had been fairly and proportionately represented it surely would have in its early days made a few weeks in the lower reaches of the Top 40 - it's almost their national anthem down there. I'm from north west England myself but have holidayed down there since a kid and as I got older enough to go in the pubs you would never hear it off the pub jukeboxes and that still continues to a certain extent even to the present day 54 years after its original 1967 release.. The last truly folk (as in a working-class phenomenon rather than middle class revival movement hit in Britain I wonder?
Finally it's interesting that despite Scotland having had Christmas Day off as a public holiday since 1958 and Boxing Day since the late 1960s and a trip up there at Christmas as my work has sometimes taken me will see plenty of Christmas decorations etc in peoples' houses it is noticeable that unlike the English charts where Christmas number ones have been commonplace since the 1950s (despite a big gap from the late 50s till the early 70s) and obligatory in the last few decades Scotland doesn't seem to have had one. I hope you find my comments on these subjects interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.199.53 (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Apparently there was once a welsh chart only it got discontinued just like the Scottish singles chart recently :( and taken off the site completely. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 1:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Since Issue 20 November 2020
editLooks like only physical sales are counted this week no downloads, I Wonder if this is just an oversight and will be adjusted or not. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Still no change and still no downloads which is a big portion of sales especially last week, I don't understand why they have been left out. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The chart has now been discontinued as of the week ending 27th November 2020. Maybe we will get our own chart again one day! VUOP (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)