Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Billboard links revisited

Hello all. I have found a problem for all the dead links which happened due to Billboard.com shifting their urls. The login website of Billboard has these links present, and all you have to know is the story number from the old url. Suppose this url: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003696997 is at present dead.

However, its story no. (1003696997) is still active and if we substitute in the following link, http://login.vnuemedia.com/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=xxxxxx, it works. So you have to replace http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/ in the old url with http://login.vnuemedia.com/bbbiz/search/.

This is true even for the shitty new urls in Billboard, for eg: this url http://www.billboard.com/news/madonna-nets-immaculate-riaa-diamond-1093945.story returns a 404 (dead) from Billboard.com, but works fine if we use http://login.vnuemedia.com/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1093945. So I hope that we can eliminate the dead urls of Billboard by this way. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All the links you provided work perfectly fine, none are dead links. Perhaps you added the wrong links? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All those links work for me. Maybe that is an issue with your browser or computer? I know Billboard articles can show up as "Page not found", but show up later after a few refreshes or changes in URL with the addition of "#/" directly after ".com". Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

They all work for me too - eo (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh?? http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003696997 is working for you guys? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes! For me, at least. The article is "Keys Holds Off Radiohead, 'Juno' At No. 1" and is about Alicia Keys' album rebound to the top of the Billboard 200, with Radiohead, Juno, Mary J. Blige, and Taylor Swift albums tailing it. Yvesnimmo (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, but it doesnot work for me and always returns a 404. Don't know why but I am using the billboard.biz links which I pointed out above. Actually any dead link can be replaced like this. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, THAT link worked for me too. It is the article "Keys Holds Off Radiohead, 'Juno' At No. 1"—Iknow23 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FIMI certifications

Finally, also Italy has got a federation that certifies the sales.

http://www.fimi.it/cert_notametodologica.php

http://www.fimi.it/primopiano.php

http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Gfk_week33.pdf

http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Nielsen_week34.pdf

SJ(talk) 23:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

whereas can you find links to those pdfs? and is there no search function? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, it's the first week that these certifications are published. According to FIMI there will be a new link weekly with a full updated list with old and new certifications. SJ(talk) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good fine. Well done. Are they only available for albums? Are the links going to be posted on the FIMI website (i couldnt figure this out exactly) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on FIMI website for albums and singles. SJ(talk) 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a few singles listed: i.e. "Hey, Soul Sister" and "She Wolf". Too bad I can't read the first site, considering I'm not fluent in Italian. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty basic stuff: they certify albums (Gold 30K, Platinum 60K, Diamond 300K, with multi-platinum stops at 120K, 180K, and 240K). Compilation albums are only eligible for platinum and above. Singles are certified based on digital downloads only (15K gold, 30K Platinum, Multiplatinum at 60K). Sales figures are based on input from GFK Retail and Technology Italia, and download figures are provided by Nielsen.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm Italian :) The albums/compilations certifications are based on GFK sales only for 2/3. 1/3 is equipped by labels, with the sales of stores that aren't covered by GFK (music clubs, autogrill, etc.). SJ(talk) 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Missed that part. I read Italian by virtue of being partially literate in Papiamentu and Spanish. Easy to miss some things when you're adapting as you read.—Kww(talk) 03:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that list also incorporating albums? If so, I cannot see them. As Kww says, I don;t see anywhere it says that compilations are so-and-so shipped or multi-plainums are so-and-so shipped. I am asking this because a user added the link to the "Bad Romance" article with multiple as 2× platinum, which I am not sure is true or not. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Gfk_week33.pdf (albums and compilation)

http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Nielsen_week34.pdf (digital download)

In Italy there aren't 2x Platinum, 3x Platinum, etc. There is Multiplatinum. After that, there is Diamond. SJ(talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.fimi.it/temp/cert_Gfk_week36.pdf I think that's the first country that publishes free the retail sales :D SJ(talk) 20:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, FIMI removed the retail sales :( SJ(talk) 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose linking Table header 'Chart' to Project page.

I don't know if anyone has ever proposed this, so I will. Wouldn't it be a great idea to link the word 'Chart' in the Table headers to this Project page? That way guidance can be more readily available to all. I know that I operated without such guidance prior to 'finding it'. And please don't argue that 'we' just don't link in Table headers, because look at all the links at Certification and (sales thresholds).

Country	Certification (sales thresholds)

—Iknow23 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't do those Certs links anymore, either, per Discogs style guidelines. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's how it would work. Mouseover and/or click at word 'Chart' below.

Chart (2010)	Peak position

—Iknow23 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was more going to argue that per WP:LINK, is it something that needs doing or is required? Although arguably it could be a good idea. Though I suspect the easiest way to implement such a thing if it goes ahead would be BOT. Sorry for jumping the Gun here... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure but is this kind of linking appropriate? I've never seen an article link to a project page other than as part of a maintenance template. AnemoneProjectors 02:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The page you are linking to is written for editors. I'm not sure how relevant it would be to a non-editing reader. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

pls see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#General points on linking style before making a decision to add this type of links.... as guidelines state "Do not create links to user or wikiproject pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself"'.. Moxy (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Korea GAON chart

As WP:GOODCHARTS states for the Korean GOAN chart, "Please also note that the website's design does not allow any direct links to specific charts; as such, you must specify the week in your reference." As this is the case, how would one go about indicating which week to view in the reference should I decide to use the {{cite web}} template? — ξ^xplicit 16:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Most refs I've seen list the chart name (for example, comprehensive vs. international), charting week and retrieval date. SKS (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that require Hangul text? As someone who's beginning to learn the Korean alphabet, I'm very useless at the moment. — ξ^xplicit 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to give a thorough breakdown on GOODCHARTS as to how to access the different charts, but I guess I was unsuccessful...... :( But yeah, the chart isn't very foreigner friendly...which is why the chart is mostly on K-pop song pages.SKS (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The breakdown was helpful to an extent, but then I got lost at one point and just ventured off on my own. I personally would find it easier if the instructions simply pointed to the Hangul text. — ξ^xplicit 18:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a section regarding Albums added to WP:USCHART?

Could we have a section regarding Albums added to WP:USCHART? It just seems a bit excessive to have 6 US charts listed at A Thousand Suns, and I am even from the US!—Iknow23 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay by me. The singles info currently there in WP:USCHART is just a assemblage of consensus about US singles charts, so any album section would need a similar consensus about albums. As far as the particular article A Thousand Suns goes, I have removed the Tastemakers chart as (to me, clearly) superfluous. Whatever further removals you prefer should be worked out through consensus, perhaps starting with WP:BRD, if you're not already having arguments about inclusion/exclusion (I didn't check). What guidelines would you propose for WP:USCHART#Albums? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The digital chart should also be removed, similar to the Top Digital Songs and the Billboard Hot 100. Yvesnimmo (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ACK. Done. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to JohnFromPinckney for your edits at A Thousand Suns. I was unsure but definitely leaning towards the sentiment in your statement about the Tastemakers chart and also Yvesnimmo's about the Digital chart. It is nice to see that I am not alone on this. I'm not sure about what guidelines I would propose as I'm not familiar with all the possible Album charts, but I do support NOT using Tastemakers and Digital charts when the album appears on the BB 200. Hopefully others will join us here and we can come up with a more complete listing leading to a consensus regarding the US Album charts.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove succession boxes

Coincidentally, I had just started a discussion over at WikiProject Albums talk page to get some feedback about the need for these succession boxes in album articles. I realize that this project may be the better forum for that and will centralize the discussion here.

What purpose beyond navigational do succession boxes for albums reaching number one in various countries serve such as in the article for Recovery? The table listing chart positions already provides the same information, so this is just repeating that it reached number one. The "Reception" section provides more in depth info regarding the album's chart success, so it seems redundant and unnecessary to have a series of succession boxes that seem only to provide links to entirely unrelated articles on other albums. For those truly interested in the succession of number ones for a particular country or chart, they can be found in Category:Lists of number one albums. If they're going to exist for the sole purpose of navigation between albums, shouldn't the boxes be placed at the bottom of an article per WP:FOOTERS where navboxes are supposed to be. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that they serve any other purpose than easy navigation. I agree with you that the current use of these "number 1" navigation boxes seems quite random (highly depending on the article and the country). But it would be a helluva job to remove them all, since they are all over the place. And yes, I agree that they should be placed at the bottom with the other navigation boxes, per your MOS reference. It will be interesting to hear other opinions. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Those boxes are cruft and I'd delete them altogether. No one reads articles that way. —Gendralman (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that this topic had gained some momentum in December of last year within this project as shown here and here, with general consensus appearing to be against the boxes, but it seemed to have stalled and nothing was done. Thanks everyone. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

However I once nominated List of Number One Hot Dance Airplay Songs (U.S. 2009) [its called something like that] for deletion and ALL of the comments opposed its deletion citing that it was an intergral part of the navigation of articles on wikipedia. The deletion of number one list articles and succession boxes are linked because if one is deleted the other becomes more redundent. I must note however that succession boxes do sometimes make it easier to track how long and when a song was number one - info which isnt always included in the prose. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need succession boxes to identify lengths of stay at number one. Lists also perform this function and, as you say, help in the navigation of articles. I view this as the better alternative over cluttering otherwise good articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing all these boxes would mean deleting the hard work of many Wikipedians who have spent a lot of time to add them, and when they did it, these boxes were allowed by WP rules. Using the template {{s-start-collapsible}} appears to be a good compromise to keep the succession boxes (to those who find them useful to naviguate from a number one single to another one) while hiding them to those who do not want to see them. PS: Sorry for my bad English! --Europe22 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting other peoples' hard work is part of what we do here. Except for the vandals, and giggly teens adding some funny crap or a naughty word, everybody has tried to improve the project, and a lot of the hard work is replacing other peoples' hard work. I know there would be much wailing if we just killed these things, but dates used to be wikilinked, at considerable effort, but were later undone project-wide. What I mean to say is, there's some precedent for removal, as long as it improves WP. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me, they'd be gone. However, efforts to remove them invariably meet with stiff resistance, which means there is no consensus to remove them. I can't think of a solid policy reason to remove them that would make me discount that resistance in any way.—Kww(talk) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But that resistance comes from trying to remove them from articles where they exist when so many articles have them. In other words, I think most people add them in because that's what is done in other articles. When there have been actual discussions, consensus doesn't seem to favor them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus among editors that talk rarely outweighs consensus among editors that do. There would be a lot less articles about trivial fictional characters if it did.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As Europe22 has pointed out, collapsible format reduces load time and page size significantly so if you wish to see nav. boxes removed purely because of article size I assume that you will encounter resistance. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Clutter is only one reason. They are navigational boxes not informational and redundant ones at that. The fact that they are number one is already shown in the chart tables and/or the prose; the befores and afters have no significance to these articles and can easily be found in the lists of #1's for the respective charts. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought's I'm getting fed up of them. Can i join the queue to shoot them? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique1, I think you might be wrong about how collapsed table data works (although I am not sure). It is my belief that the data still comes from the server, whether displayed (expanded) or not, and so load time and page weight in KB remain the same. Further, it seems (supported by my tests) that the whole page gets loaded no matter what, for all of us whether we have JavaScript on or not; the whole page is displayed, including things like succession boxes which are supposed to be collapsed; then, those of us with JS on (if we could see that part of the page the whole time) would see the succession boxes disappear, as the JavaScript which collapses them is run.

It's true that visible page length, for those running JavaScript, is reduced with succession boxes collapsed, so if that's what you meant, I agree. But the load times are long either way, as long as the succession boxes are in the page, so removing them would be the only way to improve that aspect. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the techinicalities. But if you look at I Am... Sasha Fierce album, it loads way faster now that most of the tracklisting is collapsed and now that the succession boxes are collapsed. From 'loading' I mean both the time it takes from you cliking on a link to the page and it loading, as well as the time it takes to scroll through the article. However I'm not fussed either way. I am beginning to find them infernal. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 10:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kww, campaigning on that platform, you'd have my vote so that it would be up to you. I hate these things. I guess they're useful for some folks, but I'm not one of them.

As for policy arguments, there's always WP:V, as the date ranges provided are never referenced in the succession boxes, and only sometimes even discussed in the text, more rarely referenced thoroughly. If we said that the dates (1) have to go completely, since they're unreferenced there, or (2) they can stay if they're referenced in the box ("July 10, 2010^[4]"), or (3) they can stay only if they're completely sourced through the text (like the ref exemption for the lede), then we could still get rid of quite a number of instances of these things, if not all of them.

Removing the dates completely would help with (1) the problem of verifiability, (2) the problem, mentioned in the preceding thread and constantly recurring, that editors will mangle the dates that are to be put there in the first place, (3) the idea that the succession boxes are navigational aids.

The precession of No 1's on the Paraguay Top 200 Singles Chart would still be an inappropriate addition, even if we don't have unverified dates, because we probably wouldn't have any refs in the text for the subject's performance in Paraguay (and assuming the predeccessor and successor songs had WP articles to link to).

For me, the lack of sourcing is the biggest thing (besides the visual clutter of something I find useless), but it seems like WP:INDISCRIMINATE might apply, too. There's also WP:UNDUE, as another user mentioned, since we're placing a lot of emphasis on the No. 1s and not on the No. 3s or No. 10s or even the biggest gainers or longest-charting works, etc. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The more we discuss individual issues the more it seems like the termination of succession boxes is impending. I think it really needs to be done. The idea that they're navigational aids in songs/albums is incorrect because the chain is often broke when a song or album doesn't have an article and with something like Hot Dance Club Songs it tends to happen a lot. Also along with WP:V it encourages the creation of 'List of number one xyz' articles which are also unsourced. Often its confusing whether the list is generated from the succession boxes or the other way round. Also the navigation idea is flawed as not every chart has an appending 'List of number ones' article to go with it. We'd be killing loads of birds with one stone by doing this. I don't buy the idea that we'd be undoing lots of hard work and taking away an important job for editors who spend a lot of time doing something. Just because time is invested in Succession boxes it doesn't mean that its a good use of time or effective implementation of information. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 10:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional arguments against the boxes. Succession boxes are supposed to be navigational and in too many cases they are not even that. Between this discussion and previous ones (see links in my first post to this topic above), there seems to be a general feeling to remove them. I don't know how a consensus is to be reached on something like this, especially if as Kww says consensus of those who do outweighs those who talk. I'd like to see at least the removal of the statement that encourages their use on WP:SONGS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the initial idea was a good one and in fact when they first started appearing I kept changing them to avoid circular links, e.g. if a song dropped from #1, then returned again, I attempted (unsuccessfully) to keep the before/after titles different.... kinda like if you were reading Fred Bronson's Number-Ones book: songs that returned to #1 would not appear again on the next page. Then of course the "first run" and "second run" crap started, then a succession box for every chart in every country. At first I figured it was interesting to place number-ones into context, especially when looking at a popular song from decades ago or a particular era, to see what else was popular at the same time. Now, however, they're a disaster and an eyesore. Delete them all. - eo (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can try to remove them, but bear in mind that you will have to obey WP:3RR, and people that put them back won't be treated as vandals. I suspect you will find it a fruitless effort, but nothing keeps you from trying.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisited item. AGREE to removal....stated well by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars "...They are navigational boxes not informational and redundant ones at that. The fact that they are number one is already shown in the chart tables and/or the prose; the befores and afters have no significance to these articles and can easily be found in the lists of #1's for the respective charts."emphasis added—Iknow23 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, i will be removing them from any articles I encounter and per this dicussion they are not part of my GANs. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I am indifferent, because they can be useful for navigation, but slow down load time and usually look quite messy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose These tables are very useful indeed. I also am amazed coleagues are deciding to delete such succession boxes before even reaching a concensus on it. Absolutely nothing should be done until a concensus has been reached and officially conveyed in a style manual for #1 singles. From what I understand from some comments, colleagues are deleting at will and in a haphazard way, that is where they meet a table by chance, and leaving them where they don't browse. This is not admissable. Editing should not be a "hit and miss" thing. Either all stay or all go. As simple as that. By taking the initiative WITHOUT concensus, you are effectively deleting valuable information about singles where which singles replaced which single is very significant indeed. This becomes a hit or miss process left at the will of this or that (over)zealous editor. We are discussing a very important matter, that will have a big effect on how Wikipedia will look in the future, yet editors have been applying their preferences without even waiting for a general decision about it. Such behaviour defeats the purpose of discussing anything in forums. I would request refraining from now on deleteing any table BEFORE reaching concensus and official application on Wikipedia, and I stress, throughout Wikipedia in a uniform manner and in one shot. A program can be designed for automatic cancellation of all such tables WHEN decision is taken. Meanwhile keep everything as is. And will it be too much to ask that you restore also what you have deleting without concensus? werldwayd (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

So what's the consensus here after five days? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well, my consensus is to remove them for failing WP:V (they're never sourced and the issue dates are frequently incorrect/mangled) flavored with a bit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Replace with See also links to WP lists of number ones on whatever chart and similar categories. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support John's ideas EMPHATICALLY!—Iknow23 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

'Succession' is really for Heads of States or Monarchies. Like NAME is the xx th President of the United States, King of England, etc. Who ever heard that "Song" is the xxx th Number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 for example?! It is TOO much extraneous info. (Just in case anyone is unsure of my position, HA) —Iknow23 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

omgsupport. See also links are so much neater than those useless succession boxes! AnemoneProjectors 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Im really indifferent about the succession boxes, don't really care if they go away, but I must say that at least they can be collapsed, I say this because some articles know replaced them with "See Also" sections with countless numbers of List of number-one singles here, list of number-one singles there which in my opinion looks worst, maybe not for songs that didn't top many charts, but for songs like "Wannabe" I would have to put lists for the UK, US, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Europe, Belgium Flanders and Wallonia, Sweden, Denmark, etc. And I don't even want to consider songs that were successful and then have a popular cover like "Lady Marmalade" or "Venus". Frcm1988 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue with lists is an interim thing as there is also an argument for the mass deletion on these 'lists' under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and copyright issues but that's for another day and another post. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear Im not against the lists at all, in fact I will oppose to erase them. Im against the replacing of the succession boxes for "See Also" sections with more than 20 lists, one for every single chart that it topped. For example "California Gurls". Frcm1988 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything about this that categories won't provide? I could make {{singlechart}} automatically add categories for every chart that a song hit number 1 in. Those who insist on doing it manually could do that too.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I had been replacing succession boxes with a "see also" section as a compromise to those who may have objected to the removal of the succession boxes. I have no problem with not including the lists of #1's at all. On the other hand, the "see also" section is placed above the references and, for songs like "Wannabe" and "California Gurls", they already contain so many references that I don't see how even a long list of links to #1 lists looks any worse than the countless number of references that follow. One of the many issues I had with succession boxes is that they had started being given their own section as if the chart succession was important to the article itself, when they should be at the bottom of the page just above any artist navbox per WP:FOOTERS. Finally, having a number one category for seemingly every can be considered overcategorization (do we need one for every country and every Billboard chart?) And yet, there are no categories at all for #1 albums (many deleted in CFDs), so the method described by Kww could not be done for albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure it might not look so bad for articles with tons of references, but articles of songs and albums are mostly unsourced. "California Gurls" have 13 links, but imagine "Candle in the Wind 1997" number one in 18 charts, Madonna's "Hung Up", reached number one on 20 charts, or "Poker Face", which reached number one on 22 charts. And other songs like "Lady Marmalade" will have one for Labelle's version, other for the All Saints, and other for the Moulin Rouge song, I don't think that putting all of those lists on see also sections is the best way, specially for the most successful songs and albums. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How about we use the {{col-2}} template in such cases? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are not lists for every chart in which a song or album hit #1 (not that they couldn't be created), so it wouldn't be as many as the number of charts it reached #1. But if you say you'd rather not see succession boxes or a "see also" list, I'm all for it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my question, as no one seems to have heard it: why aren't categories the best solution for this?—Kww(talk) 17:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it above and noted that it would be unable to work for albums as they don't exist and have been regularly deleted in CFD as nondefining and overcategorization. If the categories are going to exist for songs, then your solution seems acceptable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it is overcategorization to put it a category that it is ONE of the number 1's (categories DELETED), then most assuredly it is overcategorization to list even more detail reporting the 'prior' and 'next' number 1's in succession boxes!—Iknow23 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see the 'general' fascination with outlining a subject's number one achievements. These days songs/albums can be successful without reaching number one and often their long term sales, certifications and critical responses are more significant. IMO we don't need categories or succession boxes. There are already chart tables and it will almost definately be mentioned in prose twice (once in the intro and second time in chart performance section). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AGREED. I ignore succession boxes, THESE kinds of categories, and lists. But all that goes way beyond the scope of this discussion.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I don't think there are too many "See also" Links in California Gurls. It's just a shame the list titles aren't consistent, but that's another discussion. But these see also links should be included because that's generally how see also sections are used. AnemoneProjectors 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've nudged that list just a bit, so maybe it's not as bad as it had been (although I'm not going to fight to get them all renamed to some agreeable pattern (those 13 links use at least 6 different naming patterns). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The categories might be a good way to go, although the before-and-after info won't be available that way, so maybe it'd be an unsatisfying substitute for those who are interested in such info. Having links in the See also list generally plunks the user at a list showing the succession list at his first click. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose No concensus has been reached about this. As far as I am concerned, all this discussion is very sketchy and those who are acting on deleting succession boxes after 5 days of discussion by a handful of people are acting out of their own preferences and pre-judgements disregarding concensus on what I consider a majour issue that merits far more widespread discussions than what Ive seen so far on these two separate threads here. Discussions should be on a much wider scale, information about the existence of such a discussion should be made more public and more prominently to garner bigger participation as singles and albums articles represent a huge chunk of information on Wikipedia. Enough dmaage has already been done by the few here who started deleting stuff before concensus while discussion is still going on. This practice should be stopped as it defeats the whole reasoning and purpose behind discussing issues, let alone a majour issue like this that has repurcussions on tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages and is leading into deleting what many may consider relevant information. There is nothing against succession tables in manual instructions to us but rather many indications of how to prepare them. My suggestion is refraining from further deletions. My way of thinking is: Either all get deleted or all stay. It shouldn't be left to the chance visits of some (over)zealous editors and random deletions of pages you visit, whereas other pages you don't visit stay untouched. We need consistency on applying rules, not random 'by chance deletions. I am also requesting, if possible that you restore the information you have deleted from multiple pages. Without concensus being reached prior and without that concensus reached being reflected in a clear statement on the style manuals for #1 singles, nothing shouldbe done. Incidentally when such concensus is reached, we will not need individual deletions anyway. A general edit program can be designed to delete them all in one shot. werldwayd (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Succession box discussion has not been kept a secret. Prior discussions were made more public, see [[1]] and [[2]].—Iknow23 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbian poptoplista.com

I've seen Serbian charts pop up a couple of times lately, most recently at Waka Waka (This Time for Africa). The ref provided there points to this page, in Serbian. Google Translate interprets the tag line for that page (all I've found that hints at all about the site's methodology) as "Weekly top list of foreign singles made on the basis of your votes and number of radio stations broadcasting in Serbia". It seems from this that the listing might be influenced by site visitors' votes, but maybe it's merely a gimmick to get traffic (I gather some voters might win something). Or maybe it means there's some "voting" at the radio stations, maybe just requests to play such-and-such. What do you think? I also don't see any publisher information (there's an e-mail address at the bottom). Personally, I'd add this to our BADCHARTS list, but I'd like to know if I'm being too hasty. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd go there: clearly people vote for chart positions.—Kww(talk) 03:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man:

"Vote for Hot n Fun on Serbia Top 50 Airplay chart THANK YOU!

just hit glasaj and if u have time reload the page and vote some more"

Ha, I see. "Glasaj" means vote, and it's right above the button that gives the visitor a taste of the music. So even casual passers-by might accidentally click and change the rankings, to say nothing of the fans trying to nudge their fave band up a notch. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Should be a WP:BADCHART. Should it not be listed under "Serbia" instead of "Pop Top", as the rest are all listed by their countries first? Yvesnimmo (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. I hadn't that my addition was out of tune with the system. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I was just trying to look for it in the list after I saw you added it, but couldn't find it under "Serbia", and I thought that would also be the first place people would look logically. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on use of succession boxes?

How is consensus reached? I have begun removing succession boxes from articles for #1 songs. My feeling is consensus has been reached, at least for a particular article, if my change is not reverted, as has happened for Love the Way You Lie and California Gurls (which I changed a week and a half ago for each). I have encountered resistance at such articles such as Tik Tok (song), 3 (song), and All the Lovers, and so I have invited each user who has reverted the change to the discussion above. There has been little response, though, and those who have either don't like them or are indifferent but just want an "official" consensus. Well, how does that happen?

I have compiled below links to previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in these types of articles, with the earliest found dated June 1997 and in-depth discussion beginning in December 2009, revisted in March 2010, and the current discussions that I began last month. Note that some discussions pertain to the issues with succession boxes and not necessarily their removal.

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 2#Chronologies - succession
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)/Archive 7#Succession boxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)/Archive 7#Succession boxes, are they effectively 'affiliate advertising'?
4. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)/Archive 10#Billboard Charts: Each charts spans a WEEK's time, not just one day.
5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 35#Can we officially discourage chart succession boxes?
6. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)#Remove succession boxes

Thanks everyone! --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I started one of those discussions and contributed to several of the others. I don't like them as you probably know from reviewing the prior material you've located. I think the REAL problem is (and I hope my undertanding of a comment by Kww earlier is correct), is that they are SO WIDESPREAD, and numerous editors are committed in doing them...so even though they are silent here...they OBVIOUSLY want them and will RESIST to the end of days. I just checked Tik Tok (song) and I see that my edit to collapse it into an 'Order of precedence' has not been reverted, yet! I'm sure I did that months ago and someone took it off again. I think the collapsed version might be the best compromise position; the material gets to remain for those trully interested, and for those of us that are not--we don't have to see the large 'chunk of junk' on the page. I think maybe we could gather support for the collapseable version to be used when the number of entries exceeds X. <Amount to be determined.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed a comment on your talk page regarding "Start Without You". Although I am personally fine if I NEVER see another succession box, in that article it does not appear to be excessive (so far). Perhaps choose the big huge ones to go after? As in pick your battles? The small ones aren't that bad. They are easier for me to ignore :)—Iknow23 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can establish a habit of not using them in new articles and removing them in GAs for example the novelty will wear off. The other option (much more difficult to convince the need for) would be to ask a BOT to remove them whenever/wherever they appear in large instances but for that there would need to be a very detailed discussion clearly outlining the rational for their removal.-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Two points I am personally in favor of them to the extent that I think they could actually aid in navigation. They seem helpful. I know that I've never used them, but I can imagine someone doing so and it's not a trivial association in my mind. The greater issue, though is that of consensus and removing these from articles. At the very least, please do not remove them until there is a consensus at relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:ALBUM) and/or a part of the MoS. Simply reaching a consensus on talk and not amending the germane Wikipedia namespace pages will resort in more confusion, reverts, etc. Personally, I have no real horse in this race, but I am going to implore anyone involved to simply wait until the relevant guidelines and projects have been changed before going about changing the main namespace; it will result in chaos. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have experienced and have been told, consensus is not usually determined by discussion alone, but primarily through the actual editing of articles. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". I have removed the succession boxes from a number of articles, usually referring to this discussion in the edit summary. If the change was reverted, I would discuss it with the individual who reverted it, asking them to comment here. They have either ended up agreeing with the discussion, diagreeing but "consenting", or ignoring my invitation. So for the most part, without policy being written, as there was never policy to include them, consensus has been reached as few of these changes are now being reverted. But I will continue to discuss the issue any time someone else does. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been invited to join this discussion rather than simply carry out its challenge. Can someone give me an "executive summary", if you will, of the argument for deleting all the succession boxes? Another way of requesting this is to say how would a proposed hypothetical consensus against them be succinctly explained in the MoS? Feel free in lieu of that to link me directly to posts already written above or in the archives if there are two or three that capture the argument for removal. I know how frustrating it can be to have to reiterate ad infinitum, but it's even more frustrating to see wanton degradation and have to read scores of talk page posts to get up to speed on the main points of the argument. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Concensus has not been reached with such sketchy discussions by a few. If and when concensus is reached, after a much wider appeal being launched for comments, such concensus should be reflected in the style manual in Wikipedia in a clear manner. I repeat that there is no need for individual deletions. After concensus, a program can be designed that will automatically delete all such boxes without us individual editors interfering. When you are deleting, you are already seeing stiff opposition, because you are deleting stuff that is very relevant. I will not defend keeping the succession boxes vehemently, but I am asking for a Wikipedia policy stated clearly and with no ambiguity before making such deletions. werldwayd (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have hardly seen stiff opposition to keep them. Except in a few cases, after directing those who have reverted my changes to this discussion page, they have let me remove them, thus implying consensus on those articles. In the ones I have removed, it hasn't been haphazard or random at all. I'm working from a list. And speaking of lists, I have been adding links to the lists of #1 songs for the charts they topped when possible, which provides the same information (and more) that you get from the succession boxes in a less unwieldy manner. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese singles chart

Here there is the official Portuguese singles chart compiled by Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa.--Fangul (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a ringtone chart, not a singles chart.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an official digital songs chart.--Fangul (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still a ringtone chart, which we don't use. Yves (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The chart ranks the best selling digital tracks in Portugal. Why we don't use it?--Fangul (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, digital charts are infrequently used on Wikipedia (only France, and the US, if there is no charting on the Hot 100, and those are the only two, I believe). Secondly, it's not a digital chart; it's a ringtone chart. This can be seen clearly, as the title is "TOP 30 RING TONES SEMANA 39 de 2010". Ringtone charts are not used on Wikipedia. Yves (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a few other download charts around. The Italian chart we use is a download chart, because physical single sales are extremely rare in Italy. I think there are a few other countries like that. There aren't any ringtone charts that are used, though, and this is a ringtone chart.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Artistas & Espectáculos uses "TOP RING TONES" this doesn't mean that it's a ringtone chart: you can clearly read "Top Digital AFP", which indicates a download chart.--Fangul (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "TOP RING TONES" is pretty self-explanatory: it's a list of the top ringtones. And of course it's a download chart; what other format do ringtones come in, other than download? Yves (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You can also buy them in the NBT (New Mobile Telephone) format. Despite the relatively high cost, it's even more popular than 8-Track ever was! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Top Digital AFP indicates the official Portuguese digital chart. "Top Ring Tones" indicates the digital chart here.. It ranks the best selling digital tracks and you can find it on the magazines LER and Exame, where it is also listed as the official digital chart.--Fangul (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides saying "ringtone" right on the chart, it also says "Top Digital AFP com a colaboração da Arena Mobile, Movilisto, Musiwave, Optimus, TIM w.e., TMN e Vodafone". The only providers providing data to the chart are mobile telephone providers.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit table

There isn't the link of the BPI in the certifications of the singles in UK and there isn't the link of the RIAJ for the certifications in Japan (from 2003 to date for Gold & Platinum and Million from the launch of the award) http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/gold/index.html -- http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/million_list/index.html . Furthemore, the CRIA certified also in the RPM era, not only in the SoundScan era (it's divided in the table). SJ (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC+1)

I fogot to signal also the link of the Norway official chart that include an all-time archive. http://lista.vg.no/ Also the link for the Diamond Award in Poland. http://www.zpav.pl/plyty.asp?page=diamentowe&lang=pl SJ (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC+1) and presumably, for the sake of the automated archive bot, the last sig above would be 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Singapore charts?

I'm looking to include this Singapore chart, the 987FM Top 20, in an article. Trouble is I'm not sure it if can be counted. There are only a few charts in Singapore anyway; I have no idea which is the national music chart, or which can be used for the matter. The 987FM Top 20 is listed as a music chart on this website, but I'm not sure if it can be trusted. Any help with Singapore charts? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The 987FM Top 20 is a single station airplay chart, so it cannot be used. I don't think there is an acceptable chart for Singapore.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So none of the charts used in Singapore can be used here? Not at all? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not the one from 987FM, as it is for a single station. If you can find another one, though, that you think may be used, please mention it! :) Yves (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

None that I know of.—Kww(talk) 05:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So all I can do is just state the song's chart performance for that radio station? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelan and Ukrainian charts

These to charts have been used in the All The Lovers page. Venezuela, Ukraine Can someone look at them, and see if they are bad charts ? Ahmetyal 14:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela is OK if used with webarchive or some other service to make the link permanent. The FDR Ukraine chart has been discussed a few times (as in here), but the discussions have never reached a conclusion. I tend to delete it when I see it, but I've never listed it on WP:BADCHARTS. I'd like to hear other opinions and see if we can finally come to a consensus about it.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Mexican Airplay Chart in the list of singles chart?

I think Monitor Latino is a reliable source, in the articles of Loca and Cuando Me Enamoro the chart and the peak is there, but altough they are spanish singles, the chart allow all-language songs. --Lxhizy (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Monitor Latino is a reliable source, and if you use webarchive or a similar service it's fine to use. It doesn't appear in WP:GOODCHARTS because it doesn't have an archive. If people link directly to the site, the link goes bad in 7 days.—Kww(talk) 13:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thank you. --Lxhizy (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Different charts in different years

The current guidelines on the page are, "Albums and singles which appear on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the most recent year furthest down the table:", with an example given of a song charting on the Japanese Airplay Chart in 2007, while on other national charts in 2006. Shouldn't this be changed? According to the Manual of Style's guidelines on accessibility, specifically for data tables, there is a section on "Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table" (whose status is complete), with an example of separating charts like this. I don't think they should be separated, but the column title could have "Charts (2006–07)" instead of the different headings for different years. Thoughts? Also, having the second heading messes up the sorting (try it out!), although that could very easily be fixed with a sort template. Yves (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• STRONG AGREE. There is a lot of the 'year range' being used in articles already and I have noticed the interference with the sort functionality by spliting the years. But I would suggest that the header remain in the singular as "Chart (2006–07)".—Iknow23 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Separate tables for the same reason that caused the "further down" guideline to be added, and in keeping with the accessibility/sortability issues you mentioned. I've been meaning to get to this, so you've forced my hand. I hope you find my choice acceptable. Check my work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed it :) It is an improvement to what it was. However, I actually prefer (or is it that I've just grown accustomed to seeing them) the Year span range being used 'out there'. I think it is more 'notable' to the reader to look up their country or other region of interest which can be found in a single (one) table alpha order listing more readily than having to scan through two tables. It is the peak position which is of the utmost importance (the reason for the chart), the year obtained is secondary IMO.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Again (IMO) the year range is sufficient. FULL charting trajectory can span different years within the same chart (country or region), mostly if the song or album is released near the end of one year. Some may peak in the year of release, others in the following year. And in some areas it may not be released until that 'following' year, but that can be seen in the 'Release history' section. It is the 'Peak position' that is of interest, if someone really wants to know the EXACT year that it occurred the ref for the peak should be able to provide it. Also I'm sure that some will report the EXACT chart week of the peak in the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Polish Dance Top 50.

In "GOODCHARTS" we can see Polish Airplay Chart, but maybe somebody can add Polish Dance Top 50? I think it is a good chart - it's official, we can see archives of it (http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/dyskoteki/index.php?action=getArch) and this is like US Billboard Hot/Dance Club Airplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.54.173 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It will take some coding, but it is on my list of charts to add.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.26.176 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Danish album chart from 1997

I found this, http://top20.dk/archive/2008 and i think its the official album chart from Denmark. Ahmetyal 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like a legit professional archive... unsure, though. Yves (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.hitlisterne.dk/ has listings back to 2001. Yves (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The charts are the same from 2001 to 2008 in both sites. look:

• IFPI Week 3 2001
• top20.dk Week 2 2001

The top20.dk site have a archive to 1997. Ahmetyal 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream Rock Tracks/Songs

I think the chart is called "Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks", not "Mainstream Rock Songs"! Just a suggestion to fix! The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more question, if a song charts on the "Alternative Songs" chart first, and then on "Rock Songs" do both charts go on? The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

erm I don't know off by heart but check WP:USCHARTS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Romanian and Russian Charts?

Are there websites for archives of these two (Romanian Singles & Russian AirplaY). Can I include them in the singles page? I saw them somewhere and I needed to clarify them before I add. Is there a Template for these two? Novice7 ^(Talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no archive of the Romanian chart, but it can be used if you use WebCite or something similar to create a permanent copy. The Russian Airplay chart is on WP:BADCHARTS and cannot be used.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And there are no templates for either of these charts. The template documentation at Template:Singlechart should help you see what's currently available for yourself. Thanks for asking in advance, BTW. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shall I remove the Romanian charts from charts table as the archive is not available? I know these questions have nothing to do with the heading, but recently a user added US Top 40 Tracks into the table. As it is defunct should it stay? And, what about the previous Canadian Singles chart? I see there is no template. Shall I use the old format? Thanks in Advance! Novice7 ^(Talk) 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced data is unsourced data. If there's a chart listed in a table and the link doesn't support it, you should try to see if you can find a good link. If you can't, remove it. I wind up always removing the Romanian charts. Canadian positions can sometimes be sourced: usually I just replace it with a link to the Canadian Hot 100, which can be easily sourced. If the table has templates, just format your manual entry to match.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin! Novice7 ^(Talk) 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes proposal

After creating an article for "Everybody Wants You" and then seeing its succession box removed, I came across the succession boxes discussion above. Personally, I find the succession boxes helpful as both informational and navigational tools, and I think they provide useful context when browsing articles. But I see others disagree, and a lot of good points have been made about their accuracy, sourcing and sometimes excessive appearance on the page. So I'd like to propose a compromise:

1. Succession boxes should only be added to an article if the information in them is properly sourced, with an inline (in-box) reference.
2. Succession boxes that are already in an article should be left alone, unless they're not sourced, in which case they should be tagged with , and if no one provides the sourcing after a reasonable amount of time, deleted.
3. When more than 3 succession boxes are present, some sort of collapsing should be used (example) so that they don't overwhelm the page, while still allowing interested readers to view them.
4. If a song or album makes multiple runs at #1 on a chart, only one box for that chart should be used (example).

I know some editors want to get rid of them altogether, and some editors (myself included) think they're beneficial, so it seems to me that allowing them but requiring sourcing and collapsing might be a good way forward. Is this reasonable? Support? Oppose? 28bytes (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't really think they are appropriate, in a compromise mode; yes, what you propose is reasonable and I can support it. An example HERE where I used the collapsible table, again as a compromise. You will note that it is a major relatively recent song (see the peak charts there) and yet it remains. So at least on that page (and some others that I also collapsed), as long as it is accepted it is a compromise already in effect. I certainly have no objection to getting a general consensus for an 'official ruling' but it seems that that had never happened...so I went ahead with what I thought best.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good example... collapsing that one was a good move IMO. 28bytes (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure :) Here's an (example) from a major album article.—Iknow23 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. I think succession boxes are quite useful when navigating from article to article, and the information should be fairly easy to reference. For example using the British Hit Singles book for UK no. 1 singles. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The information that it reached number one is in the prose and/or chart table. There is no need to link to songs that have no other relation to the article. Succession boxes are designed for honors, awards, etc. Reaching #1 is not an award, it is a ranking. If you're going to do them for number one songs, there no reason you couldn't do it for songs that reach number 2 or 3 (and it doesn't take away from the meaning of "chart procession" or "order of precendence", which does not imply being #1 on at a chart at all). Lower (or higher) chart positions can just as easily be sourced. The links to existing lists of #1 songs is much more helpful and unobtrusive and provides even more information, then just the link to the next song. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also note, that it is WP:NPOV to highlight a song's number-one charting as opposed to other chart positions for the same reason you don't put chart positions in bold type. It's also trajectory to list runs at number one which constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Per WP:CHARTS, key facts, [such as] number of weeks spent at peak position...may be mentioned within the article text. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, I agree with what Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars just said, and I don't think a "compromise" is the way forward. It would never work. It's gotta be either all or nothing. AnemoneProjectors 20:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had success with my collapsing the tables, so that is not an 'all or nothing' approach. I have made it clear in numerous discussions that I don't like the succession tables, but this is certainly better than nothing and just continuing to let them 'clutter up' the articles. These tables are in widespead use, which is a 'de-facto consensus' of approval. Although I do not fact-check them or contribute to them (other than adding the collapsible function), or even have ever used one of them; I realize that there are many editors that spend their time doing so and they will 'fight' just outright deletion. I have achieved some success as I have noted above for a 'de-facto consensus' for using the collapsible tables. This is a community so I can't have things 'all my way', but I can attempt to make it more agreeable (to me) through compromise.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support - this is very reasonable. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please create a shortcut link?

Could we please have a shortcut link WP:TRAJECTORIES that actually links to WP:CHARTS#Chart trajectories?—Iknow23 (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see the use of such a shortcut, and I think I know how to do it (just need to refresh my memory). But I think WP:CHARTTRAJ would be a better name, as trajectory is used in other contexts than charts. WDYT? – IbLeo^(talk) 10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was editing away some excessive chart trajectory information and sadly noticed that I cudn't use a shortcut link to refer to in the edit summary. I agree your proposed name is better and Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. New shortcut WP:CHARTTRAJ is now implemented and works well. – IbLeo^(talk) 13:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

AMPROFON

Is the Amprofon website for certifications down or something? Or are they reinventing the website? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Works fine for me: http://www.amprofon.com.mx/certificaciones.php?item=menuCert&contenido=certificados

—Kww(talk) 18:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasnot working last nite somehow. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cash Box charts

Would the U.S. magazine Cash Box be able to be cited for record charts?Rock'N'More (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The original Cash Box charts from the physical magazine or in the website archive at http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives.htm ? Certainly. The modern charts from the website don't seem to have any reliable basis, so I would oppose using them.—Kww(talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rhythmic Airplay Chart

Should it be added to WP:USCHARTS? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding αCharts.us

"No problem with this source" is an inaccurate description. I found a problem with the site's page on Taylor Swift's "Breathe" ft. Colbie Caillat. αCharts lists it as having charted on the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks: on November 29, 2008 at 87 and February 13, 2010 at 72. The truth is "Breathe" only charted in 2008 for one week at 87, as can be evidenced here and the song that charted at the seventy-second position that February week was Swift's cover of Better than Ezra's "Breathless" for Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief, as can be seen here. Similarly, "Breathe" ft. Colbie Caillat did not chart on the Canadian Hot 100, but "Breathless" did for two weeks—the site must have gotten the titles mixed up and thought it to be the same song, which makes me wonder how many other titles are like that. Yves (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a better error rate than Billboard.com, so I can't hold that against it. The main problem is that it is an unlicensed site making unauthorized reproductions of charts, and has anonymous authorship. It doesn't meet WP:RS by any measure. It really shouldn't be used in new articles. I was hoping that by this time the use of {{singlechart}} would be so widespread that the issue would be moot, but unfortunately that isn't the case. It's becoming time to be more aggressive in eliminating its use.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm? Do you mean errors in not archiving and inconsistency between re-entries? Yves (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not archiving, and confusing songs with the same title. You won't find an archive site without some screwups.—Kww(talk) 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Greek airplay charts?

Is there currently a Greek airplay chart we can use on Wikipeida? I know Nielsen Music Control (see [3]) used to be the official airplay chart of Greece, but now it seems there is also Media Inspector (see [4]), which claim on their site that they are an IFPI partner. I am not sure if Nielsen is still supplying Greek airplay data. Regardless, both of these services do not seem to offer their charts to the general public, nor do they have an archive. A user also keeps posting this chart from Radio1 (see [5]), saying their data is from Media Inspector. The site itself does not mention anything like that, in fact they do not even list where the data is from. Further, it seems to obviously be only a domestic chart. Any input on this subject would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

New Billboard chart

Billboard just introduced a new chart titled the Social 50 it basicly makes a chart based on song plays on MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter and iLike. Should this be included in charts or not? Link STATic message me! 19:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It can't go into articles on albums or songs because it's a chart of artists. That's a very unusual chart, and it doesn't fit in well with anything we do related to song or album articles. I can't think of why it couldn't be included in an artist's bio, but people would have to have some restraint. I wouldn't want to see a section in Rihanna's article detailing her every tick up and down the chart.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides the ugliness I dread from seeing it on the Rihanna article (where the topic has already been raised), I would argue against adding the Social 50 to articles right now because it's too new. How much has The New York Times reported on the movements on this chart? Have the BBC, or NBC, or CNN reported the changes or trends on the chart? Has the MSM shown respect for the significance of this chart? No, I think, not yet. On top of which, I don't place much weight in counting piles of anonymous friends on some web site. We might as well compare the number of forum posts on rhiannanow.com compared to the number on Lady Gaga's site. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

#1 Latin singles categories

Hello, I just some consensus on whether it's okay or not to do this. Would it be okay to include categories on singles that reach #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay, Regional Mexican Airplay, Latin Tropical Airplay? Not all that songs that reach #1 on one of these charts also reach #1 on the Hot Latin Songs. Take Mientes for example. It spent 10 weeks #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay chart but only reached #4 on the Hot Latin Songs chart. Corazón Sin Cara was #1 on the Latin Tropical Airplay and reach #4 on the Hot Latin Songs chart. For covers, the Spanish version of All by Myself by Celine Dion reach #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay chart and La India's cover of Stupida (Alessandra Amoroso song) reach #1 on the Latin Tropical Airplay. So what do you think? Magiciandude (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have always thought that having categories for #1 single on each chart was a good idea, far better than succession charts or list articles.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, why is the "Tropical Songs" listed under if the song has charted on the Hot 100? It's the same chart as the Latin Tropical Airplay. And to do about "if the song has not charted on the Hot Latin Songs" rule? Just about every Latin song charts on the Hot Latin Songs. Magiciandude (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there should a change to the "if the song has not charted Latin Songs" to "if it has only charted on the Latin Songs". It doesn't make to sense to have only a Latin chart and ignore the other charts (Latin pop, Tropical, Regional Mexican). Billboard hands out the best performing singles each year for these charts. In addition, the Billboard Latin Music Awards has a "Hot Latin Track" for each of these categories. But if these charts are not mentioned and wins one of these awards, how would it make sense to viewers? The reason I say only on Latin charts, is because I understand that there are songs that #1 on Latin songs and topped other charts in parts of the world. Take "Loca" by Shakira. It has charted #1 on Latin songs, but it has also charted #1 on various countries, in which I can see why the Latin Pop, Tropical, and Regional Mexican would not be significant. Magiciandude (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish Digital Chart

Would DigiListan be an acceptable chart for Swedish digital sales? According to the article, it gets its information from Nielsen. [6]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If people agree it's acceptable, I'll add an option to {{singlechart}}, as it has an easily generated link structure. My only concern is whether it is a download chart or a ringtone chart. Can you find anything that specifies which one it is?—Kww(talk) 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the description on the page: "The list shows Sweden's most downloaded songs from the past week. DigiListan is based on sales to computers, mobile phones and media players and compiled by Nielsen SoundScan." Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Combined ringtone/download. I'll wait a few days and see if anyone objects too strongly.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that's ringtones and not digital mp3 sales via mobile phones? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not.—Kww(talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, i've had a poke about the website but cant see much clarification. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It mentions sales to phones, but doesn't actually say ringtones specifically. I'm inclined to believe that they are full song downloads. What would be the issue if if was ringtones though? Grk1011 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, we don't mention ringtone charts. No formal policy or guideline, but everyone just seems to have quietly come to the conclusion that they shouldn't be included. There was a discussion a while back about a Portuguese ringtone chart, and everyone did agree not to include it.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The World's Music Charts TsorT.info

Apologies if this was discussed before, but what's the standing of The World's Music Charts? --Muhandes (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of the site before, so I went and had a look.

Seems to be of little usefulness to us on WP, although a search for "tsort.info" shows it mentioned on quite a few article pages (not that that's necessarily a good thing).

At least one user, Abrazame, has some strong feelings against citing TsorT.info in WP.

To clarify that he objected to quoting sales information (which is a valid concern and quite different from quoting chart positions) Steve.hawtin (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The site appears to be run mostly by Some Guy, who has also edited WP. He had some COI trouble because of some of his additions here but came to clearly understand the problem.

The site gets its info from several sources, not all of them reliable. They include AOL user pages, Geocities user pages, and for Billboard results, a site called Bullfrog's Pond, run by Some Other Guy. The collection of data is haphazard at best, from a variety of sources both notable and non-notable, and doesn't purport to include the latest data. Wikipedia is used as one of the sources. Read through http://tsort.info/music/charts.htm#us_billboard for some insight as to the data collected and whence it's gathered.

All this is not to say that the site has no use. As an individual, you may find it interesting. It may be of some use in locating info from older recordings. (And again, I see that it's pointed to by some WP articles.) However, I did not find a useful search mechanism. I don't consider it a useful replacement for, say, Billboard itself, and the unique rankings it provides are not notable enough or reliable enough for us to cite here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It also includes known bad charts, such as hot100brasil.com, single network charts like www.polskieradio.pl, and worse yet, Claims of the total worldwide sales for single reported on Wikipedia. Completely unusable.—Kww(talk)

World sales are totally useless I agree, but my question was focused at using it as a source for record charts and chart performance sections. I saw quite a number of articles (some examples) using it as s single source for the entire table of record charts. Is there consensus for adding it to WP:BADCHARTS? --Muhandes (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly agree adding this url to WP:BADCHARTS. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems like it belongs on WP:Record charts#Websites to avoid.—Kww(talk) 07:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll add it then, and I guess if someone objects they can voice their opinion here. --Muhandes (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As one of the guys that administers the site I think it is unfair to add it to this list. Abrazame's issue was about citing our sales figures (not chart positions), and we agreed with him (see the discussion). On our site we specifically state that our estimates of sales are "Not to be trusted" at the top of the one page that mentions them. Kww failed to point out that our source description he quoted goes on to say "As an example quoting ...these... figures in a Wikipedia article would be wrong". And we are aware that some of our sources are not "notable" (but only for locations or periods that have no better sources of data). Anyone that looks will see that all these cautions are explained in detail on our site. Within the constraints of available chart data our listing is (we believe) a valuable, valid and accurate source of chart information. Like all sources of music charts it should be used with some caution but placing it on this list implies that it is BAD (which it isn't) Steve.hawtin (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't see this site as bad at all, all the charts look accurate, the ones i've come across are 100% accurate. The site also states that the Brazil charts looks unofficial but is the only one that can be found so it is a warning for readers. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of the charts listed are single network charts and are unacceptable for use. Additionally, so far as I can tell, the site isn't licensed to reproduce any of the information at all: it's taking information from licensed sites. Any of the information that is good can be derived from a licensed source, and the rest of it shouldn't be used. There's no benefit to using this as a source whatsoever.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your licensing comment is irrelevant, where is Wikipedia's license to quote from Billboard? Some Wikipedia pages quote 100% of particular Billboard's charts, we ensure that our summary is both innovative (by consolidating more than 100 sources) and a summary (by only incorporating up to 40% of any single major chart such as Billboard's). But the question is not "is this site licensed?", because under "Fair Use" neither Wikipedia nor our site needs a license.

The question is is the site bad? If you see no personal benefit then you shouldn't use it, but clearly other people have found it to be valuable in the past. I agree that where possible any editor should link to the original source, but its not always available, it is certainly not true that all the information that is good can be derived from a licensed source. Even when all the links can be resolved to alternate sources I would claim that also including a link to our site would make the completed article more valuable to the users (but of course I understand if you don't share that opinion). Of course any new link to inappropriate data, such as sales figures or non-notable charts, should always be removed from Wikipedia, but in the almost two years since Abrazame expressed his concerns those issues have been addressed anyway. Our site contains valuable and accurate data, as Ajsmith141 said our site is *not* BAD, so it shouldn't be on a list of BAD sites. Steve.hawtin (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you would remove the single network and amateur sites from your list, I'd reconsider my opinion. The majority of sites listed on your website aren't suitable for use here:

• Tokyo -- Tokyo Hot 100 listed on WP:BADCHARTS
• Poland -- Single network chart
• Belgium -- Single network chart
• France -- Sourced from charly1300.net, on "Websites to avoid"
• Germany -- anonymous top 35 chart, no indication of source
• Flanders -- no indication of source
• US WABC -- single network chart
• US ARC -- ARC Top 40 on WP:BADCHARTS
• Brazil -- hot100brasil on WP:BADCHARTS
• Osaku -- Single network chart
• Ceylon -- Single network chart
• RYM -- blog
• DDD year -- blog
• POP year -- blog
• Scrobulate -- blog
• DMDB -- blog
• Vinyl Surrender -- blog
• NuTsie -- blog
• MTV Video -- single network chart
• RIAA -- a poll of politicians?!
• 2FM -- single network voting chart
• TOTP -- single network voting chart
• Australia Oznet -- vague compilation of unspecified stations with unspecified criteria
• Virgin -- single network
• WXPN -- single network
• Global -- Wiki mirror
• TheQ -- single network
• Party -- anonymous website, vague criteria
• D Marsh -- critic pick
• DZ Entertainment -- critic pick
• Music Imprint -- critic pick
• NY Daily -- critic pick

With so much unsuitable material and nothing of value that can't be found elsewhere, there's every reason to recommend that Wikipedia editors not use the site as a source of information.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources you failed to find are both clearly listed on our "source charts" page. We think that the fact that we've consolidated Billboard and the UK charts alone delivers great value, other Wikipedia editors seem to agree. The goal of our site is to provide a reasonable listing of popular music, not to act as a Wikipedia source, so we will continue to incorporate charts that you dislike (and to ignore other apparently bad data sources like acharts.us, chart-surfer.de, and top40-charts.com that for some reason you do seem to like). Steve.hawtin (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

None of those sources are allowed in good or featured articles. Top40-charts.com is listed at Websites to Avoid, and is only included in GOODCHARTS because it is so deeply entrenched: editors are advised to remove references to it when found and not to add any new references. I derived my sourcing information straight from your "source charts" page, but I didn't see the lower details. It doesn't change the thrust: the website shouldn't be used to source data on Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ajsmith141 and Steve.hawtin, no one said TsorT is bad. On the contrary, I sometime use it myself before citing the official licensed source. There is place in the Internet for both. What editors here say is that it cannot be used as a reliable source, as not 100% of the information is reliable. I think the worst part is that some of the numbers used are from Wikipedia itself so by using TsorT we are using ourselves as a source (search http://tsort.info/music/charts.htm for "Wikipedia" to see some examples). As Kww nicely stated, we have official, licensed sources for the reliable charts, and we can't accept the rest of the charts, so we would rather avoid TsorT and used the licensed sources. --Muhandes (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

But it is listed in a section headed "Websites to avoid". I would be happy if there were a new section that said "these sites are OK and contain data that is mostly accurate (as far as we have tested) but because they are not official you should use them to help track down the original source and link to that when you can". Of course then there are other charts listed in the later table that should also have the same designation, but that's a different story. What I don't like is the fact that we are listed as a "website to avoid", along with some sites that actually should be avoided Steve.hawtin (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise how about if we add a new section after "Websites to avoid" called "Chart Websites". With an initial para "These sites contain data that is accurate (as far as has been tested). However they are compiled from both notable and non-notable sources so while they can be helpful to track down original chart sources they should be used with some caution. Where possible articles should link to the original sources and not these web sites" Steve.hawtin (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to mention sites that shouldn't be used for sourcing except to say that they shouldn't be used for sourcing. This isn't a Wikipedia article, it's a guideline for article content, and articles shouldn't include tsort.info as a source.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think you are being reasonable. The list under "Deprecated charts" is nothing but a list of sites that shouldn't be used for sourcing each one with a short sentence explaining why. tsort.info could be added to that list with a simple sentence explaining why not. You seem to be saying that Tsort is BAD and so should be a "website to avoid" (which, from whats been said I suspect is not the consensus here) Steve.hawtin (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I read consensus as very clearly "avoid this website as a source". In fact, your voice, which is in very clear conflict of interest, is the only one supporting it as a source. --Muhandes (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. I'm not supporting it as a source, I'm asking just that it not be labeled as BAD. If the section its included in was called "Good Websites you shouldn't link to" I would have no issue with it (well I would because of some of the other sites in the list really are bad). If the site was listed in the "Deprecated charts" section with a sentence explaining why then I wouldn't have an issue. If there were a new section that explained why these otherwise good sites shouldn't be linked to I would be OK with that. The one thing I think is unfair is inserting it into a list of "Websites to avoid" which any casual reader will misinterpret to mean "Bad Websites" Steve.hawtin (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment you've just made. If I saw "website to avoid", it says to me that I should if posssible use an alternative source. But there might be a situation(s) where it could be used with caution. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve.hawtin, the purpose of this list is not to make judgment of websites but to say which ones to use as sources and which not to use. As even you agree it should not be used as a source, any further discussion is futile. --Muhandes (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that by placing the entry where it is you are making a judgment, and there are many alternate ways to have the right impact without being so aggressive Steve.hawtin (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you seem to have no problem with being listed under Deprecated charts, but just don't want your site under Websites to avoid. To us (TINU), the two sections make absolutely equivalent judgments about what's listed there, so the complaint about us making a negative judgment of TsorT via "Websites to avoid" doesn't persuade as fully as you hope.

The difference between the two sections is that one is for sites, and the other is for charts. You've got a site (that we don't want to see used for WP article references), so it gets put in the section of sites, currently titled "Websites to avoid". If you had a chart (that we don't want to see used for WP article references), it wouldn't go under "Websites to avoid", but under "Deprecated charts".

I'm not sure you're clear that the page we're talking about is not meant for readers of the encyclopedia to read (which is good, because it'd be a tedious article indeed). It's meant for editors to refer to when deciding whether to use or not use a site or chart for referencing (or mentioning) in articles. The whole page is to help us avoid repeatedly arguing about the same charts/sites every time somebody sees their favorite artist hit number 14 somewhere.

Maybe you'd be happier if the heading were Websites to avoid for referencing or something? The problem there, though, is that it's rather redundant, as that's what the page is about. I'm not sure that others here would agree to that (if you did). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The section called Websites to avoid does not distinguish between sites to avoid using, because their content is bad (like americatop100.com) and sites like ours which (according to previous comments from others) have some valid and useful content but should just not be linked to. All I'm asking here is that a casual reader of this page should be able to understand what to avoid doing (i.e. linking) and possibly why. For example a short sentence explaining the issue with each site would help.

The page also seems to endorse sites like www.infoDisc.fr which like ours has no official standing and unlike ours doesn't explain his sources. It seems to endorse the sites like acharts.us etc that Kww felt should be avoided "where possible", but yet are not in the list of Websites to avoid.

As someone with a Conflict of Interest I won't modify the page. But I think that leaving it in its current form is misleading, a short explanation on each Websites to avoid would fix that, or splitting the list according to why sites should not be linked to, or changing the section title to Websites to not link to, or adding a paragraph at the top of the section that explains that these websites should be avoided for links (but may or may not contain good data). Steve.hawtin (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy links to UK end of year charts for 2010

For your convenience I thought I'd let you know that the UK end of year charts have appeared. So far only the top-40 is known... thanks to the BBC. I archived the links so they will be permanently available.

See:

• Albums.
• Singles

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Yves (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

French digital chart

Does anyone know what's happened to the French Digital chart? (e.g. LesCharts.com It appears to be dead for the latter end of 2010. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's weird. It seems the digital albums and singles are no longer being added, while the regular Top 100 Singles and Top 200 Albums charts are still being maintained and updated. I looked in the site's forums to see if anybody was talking about why stuff had disappeared, but didn't find any such thing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried search google (in french) to see if the chart has been discontinued but couldn't find anything from SNEP about it. Likewise there are no messages on the website etc. about the sudden disappearance of several weeks of information. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Send Stefan an e-mail. He usually answers in a few days.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I never got an answer the last time I wrote him, but I'll try again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mail sent. I'll post here if I get a response. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The charts are updated now. Sorry for the delay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.46.244.84 (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true; they are. And we apparently don't need to send an e-mail, he'll just fix it and post a reply on whatever page we happen to be complaining on. Now that's service! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how actively Stefan monitors this page, but I'm pretty certain he does. Whoever runs acharts.us does as well.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gosh, I say, GOSH! I sure wish Billboard would improve their site! Yessirree, that would be swell." — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm could billboard not just pay Stefen to make a better site for them? His definately trumps the stupid unreliable, always going dead, never updated rubbish that Billboards prides as their website. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Thank god Rolling Stone has atleast reverted back to the old format for their website. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Billboard's revamp really wiped out their site. One of the big problems is that their underlying database has errors, and then they've added layers of Javascript and Flash so that they have unreliable applications running on an unreliable foundation.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist mediatraffic.de?

I am seeing the reference pop-up lots of times (especially at the end of this year) sourcing everything from end of year charts, to worldwide claims. Do we think it would be a good idea to get the site blacklisted? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... as a non-admin, I was refused when I was asked for this. I'll have to consider it. The problem is that it has never actually been spammed. I keep an eye on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=exturlusage&eunamespace=0&eulimit=max&euquery=*.www.mediatraffic.de&format=yamlfm and remove anything that shows up.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, after pulsemusic was blacklisted, we should have blacklisted this one too. But as usual, every year end it generally causes havoc with the WW sales claim in the articles. If you decide to blacklist it Kevin, please do so. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Romanian Top 100 - Reliable sources?

Is an archived reliable source in existence? Currently I've come across sources like this being used but I'm not sure if it is an RS or not. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess not. An IP keeps on adding the chart to Irresistible. I keep reverting as there no official archives for the chart. See this. Is the chart usable? Novice7 | Talk 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not archived, but if you have a newspaper link like http://old.cotidianul.ro/cele_mai_ascultate_hituri-74776.html it's OK to use. Webcite doesn't work with the site structure, unfortunately.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Use of succession boxes

Succession boxes have been added over the past few years to albums and songs that have reached #1 on music charts from various countries as well as the many Billboard charts to display the succession of these #1s. 3, possibly 4, charts have a complete or near-complete succession listing on song articles over their chart history. However, their use for most other charts is inconsistent at best. Some songs have them for a specific chart while others from the same chart don't, or a song that reached #1 on 5 charts has succession boxes for 2 of them. The style of their use also varies from article to article. Over the past year, there has been sentiment to remove them, or at least to come up with some standardization for them, as evidenced by a history of discussions on this talk page, WT:ALBUMS and WT:SONGS. A summary of the known history can be found at WT:CHARTS/Archive 11 - Section 9 with the latest proposal in section 20 of the same archived page. Consensus on their full and consistent use (or use at all) is at a stalemate. For the most part, most wikipedians probably don't care whether they are there or not. There are editors though who like them and want to see them and other editors who would rather see them gone. Do they aid in navigation, that is, do they do what succession boxes are intended to do or do they violate policy such as WP:IINFO? In the end though, can it be determined whether they should be used for all music charts, select charts, or not used at all, and can policy be enacted and added to WP:CHARTS and/or WP:MOSMUSIC, and noted on project pages WP:ALBUMS, WP:SONGS and even WP:SBS? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal, I am of the same opinion as the nominating editor. Succession boxes can get extremely messy when popular songs are massively consumed with a length list of boxes. Though others have argued that the boxes can be collapsed etc. I dont believe they have a rightful place in articles. I support the notion that a list of 'See Also' links better represents the information. Either way the fact that there is not a common usage method and that they add unnecessary size to an article when the list presents the information in a better and more efficient way. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep I have never used them to navigate from article to article, but I'm sure someone out there has, or else they would never have been added in the first place. Thanks for inviting me to give my two cents, but I have a pretty marginal opinion on this matter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm certain that viewers find them helpful for navigation, and if there is a large amount of them on articles then they can just be collapsed. Nowyouseemetalk2me 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Justin and Nowyouseeme. Caden ^cool 00:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - It is good for navigation. I don't understand how its not helpful to have the songs in succession rather than having a "See also" section clicking on the page that would show it to you. Same difference. As for it being lengthy, I say just put it in a collapsed box. But what we do need is a consensus on the charts to put them on. Like US component charts shouldn't be allowed in there, and you see alot of them in the successions. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I find the "See also" sections to be unattractive, visually I think the boxes are more appealing; the boxes are just a faster and more convenient way of giving you what the links in the "See also" section give. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I find the succession boxes very useful for navigating a list of No. 1s, usually the UK series which seems pretty complete. With regard to the UK series, it would take a lot of work to remove them all (and destroy a lot of existing work in the process) and I don't see listing them in 'See Also' as a good alternative. What happens to the date information in such a scenario? The pages with long lists (where a song has been number one in many countries) seem mainly to have been moved to a collapsed box anyway. A template could help with standardising the styling more, if necessary. Gnu andrew (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I personally find them to be useful. I think they're beneficial to have more than they are a detriment to articles in any way. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, and encourage consistent use. I think there are some ways these can be improved (for example, using optional collapsing when there are more than 3 of them to avoid overwhelming a section), but removing them is not the answer to concerns about their implementation. They provide valuable context. 28bytes (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove (as the last couple of times this has come around) as unattractive tables of dubious usefulness. They:
  1. take up a bunch of space, although they can be collapsed for those users with JS turned on, if we remember to add the collapsibility;
  2. place undue emphasis on the number-oneness of songs, since we never show sucession of this week's #3 song on such-and-such chart after last week's #3;
  3. are almost pure layout tables which exhibit terrible accessibility and violate multiple points of WP:ACCESS, part of the MoS;
  4. are never locally referenced (and depend, like the lede, on having claims referenced in the body of the article);
  5. very often have the chart dates wrong (and since these are not only never referenced inline but are usually not even mentioned in the article, are totally unverifiable);
  6. are an abuse of navigation templates meant for something else entirely: office-holders and members of royalty.

It happens that I personally never use these things (except occasionally to try to check the veracity of the table's claims), so this will seem like a case of I DON'T LIKE IT. However, the ugliness of bulk I perceive can be largely hidden with JS collapsing, but the ugliness of unverifiability can't be fixed with the succession boxes as currently implemented. I guess I'm swimming against the current here but the use of these tables needs to be either fixed or stopped, IMHO. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Remove They generally fail to be navigation boxes, as most international charts have frequent entries that never have and never will have a Wikipedia article. That means those charts have to be excluded from the succession list (which are navigation boxes, not informational items), which then creates a bias in favor of the English language charts.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. There are a few main issues. Firstly, if we are making succession boxes for albums and songs that reach number one on charts, there's no reason that there shouldn't be succession boxes for reaching number two, or ten, or 435. Reaching number one is no more notable than reaching any of those other placements. Naturally, if we were including succession boxes for all chart peaks, things would get ridiculous pretty fast (they already create an insane amount of clutter for huge worldwide hits). Another issue is that much of the information is uncited. Rarely if ever is it indicated in an article which recording preceeded the subject at number one, which succeeded it, and how long the subject maintained that peak. This information must be sourced, particularly in Featured Articles. I for one remove boxes immediately if the data contained within is unsourced. Thirdly, reaching number one on a chart isn't a post or title; there's no true succession involved like, say, with presidents, kings, or other office holders, the type of thing the succession boxes were actually designed for. Fourthly, it's not all that useful as a navigational aid, given you are only linking articles on the basis that they attained the same number on a chart; the association is trivial. Finally, linking to an article titled "Songs which reached number one on insert-national-charts here" in a "See also" is a far more straightforward and less cumbersome solution if someone is really interested in reading up on chart peaks.. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If people were adding #2, #10 and #435 succession boxes to articles, I'd be right there with you removing them, but fortunately no one in the history of the universe has proposed doing such a thing. I could not disagree more strongly with the statement "Reaching number one is no more notable than reaching any of those other placements." Whatever the faults of the #1 succession boxes, the idea that they would inevitability lead to succession boxes for every possible chart position is probably the least compelling reason I've read for removing them. The argument that they're often (almost always?) unsourced is compelling, I think, but why not just require they be sourced? 28bytes (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The argument isn't that "they would inevitability lead to succession boxes for every possible chart position", it's that logically if we are including succession boxes for songs that reached number one, we should be doing so for all chart positions. It should be all or nothing. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that position is perverse and a complete straw man. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing". Convention is to use these for number ones, and not number 47, so don't pretend otherwise. Fences&Windows 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I've never found these useful myself, and I would have thought that any chart should have separate articles listing number ones (which of course are more 'notable' than other chart positions). If they are kept they should be collapsed by default. I'd like to see more evidence of their usefulness before supporting keeping them.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it will be tough to provide evidence of their usefulness, but speaking as a reader, I find they provide useful context, especially in regards to older songs. When I'm reading about a song that was (for example) a number one rock hit in 1982, I like seeing the song that preceded and succeeded the song as number one on that chart, and I almost always click on one or the other to refresh my memory of the song (if I'm familiar with it) or learn about it (if I'm not.) I've re-familiarized myself with songs I'd forgotten about this way. As a bonus, if the previous or next song is a redlink or redirect to an album, I dig around, find some sources, and create an article for it. This provides a great way of filling in the gaps of notable songs that don't yet have articles. I'd be much less likely to click on a "see also" list than an actual song title. If nothing else, these succession boxes are a tool to encourage people to build the encyclopedia. 28bytes (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You could make the same argument if succession boxes existed for any other chart position. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I'd be in favour of keeping the succession boxes as long as they're cited. I don't buy some of the other criticism: I'm afraid I have to disagree with Wes, reaching number 1 is seen as a massive achievement even today, at least in the UK and, given that this is the English language Wikipedia, I don't see any reason why there should be a problem with chiefly covering English language charts. Cavie78 (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Number two is nothing to sneeze at either; Pearl Jam's Ten peaked at number two for much of 1992. Hell, reaching the top 40 of a record chart is often seen as noteworthy in of itself. The situation would be different if there was an actual title to accompany being number one (since the succession boxes are intended for titles and offices), but there isn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Number 2 might be seen as a good chart placing but the emphasis is, and always has been, on number one. We have List of number-one singles (UK) but not List of number-two singles (UK) Cavie78 (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Remove - I think both JfP and Wesley summed things up very well. What started out as a nice addition to a few song articles (and the concept of these are more of a "looks good on paper" scenario) has turned into somewhat of a mess. They're really just not needed and it drives me crazy to see incorrect dates, or worse, the dreaded "first-run", "second-run" disaster when a song will drop-then-return to number one. A nice idea gone bad, I think. Time to nuke 'em. - eo (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - I completely agree with everything Lil-unique1 said. When a song like "Bleeding Love" has been number one on 18 charts, it's just a hideous mess. The see also links are much better and that's what see also sections are actually for. If I wanted to know what number one song came next, I'd probably want to know the whole year of number ones, so I'd look at the list of number ones. AnemoneProjectors 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. Inconsistently used, biased, no added value. Get rid of them. – IbLeo^(talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I also find these very helpful and are easy to navigate from one page to another. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 17:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - These are very useful to navigate through other articles. I don't see why this needs to be a big problem. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove How do these not violate WP:NPOV? They give undue weight to the fact they reached #1 on some charts. These articles will most likely have a chart section and/or table which summarizes all of its peak chart positions, but the succession boxes disproportionately hightlight on what charts it hit #1. More NPOV exists when editors want to see the succession of #1s for the chart they are interested in and ignoring other charts on which a song/album was #1. Speaking to the matter brought up by WesleyDodds, regardless of whether someone would ever do it, those who favor these succession boxes could not argue against them if they were to be done for songs/albums peaking at #2 or #3 because, again, that would violate NPOV. I would find them just as useful to navigate through; I would even find it useful if there were a section for "songs that charted at the same time", but it would be irrelevant to the article, as is linking to two other songs that just happened to reach #1 on the same chart. Is being #1 more notable than being #23? No, unless you think "Stuck with You" is more notable than "Born to Run". Then there is no need to further highlight its ranking then to just state it within the article.

Which takes me to another point. Being #1 is based entirely on a ranking. Objective as it may be, that's all it is. Succession boxes were designed for titles and honors and have been extended to awards. Titles, honors, and awards are typically given once a year and often quite longer, making the management of such successions much more reasonable and manageable than multiple music charts that come out once a week. No one would argue for the top-rated television shows or the top-grossing movies of each week to have succession boxes, yet these are just as sourceable, and I'm sure I would find the information just as useful.

I make no mention of "see also" sections providing lists to the charts a song/album reached #1 as this is not either/or argument (although such a list can be collapsed, too). The succession boxes should be gone regardless of any alternative. And what good are they if articles such as Thriller (album) and Nevermind don't have them. Is policy going to be set that they have to be on such articles, because, if not, the value of the boxes is lost right there. It really has to be all or nothing. For those who think it would be too much of a job to remove them all, I am your volunteer. :) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

comment in my opinion they violate WP:NPOV in the same way that making number one chart listings bold violates WP:NPOV. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A good way to judge whether they violate NPOV is to look at what the reliable sources say. Do the reliable sources consider the #1 spot "special" in some way? Yes, they do. Sources like this devote entire sections to the #1 succession chronology. Do they devote similar sections to #2 hits? No, they do not. We should reflect what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources say that yes, there is something more notable about the #1 spot than all the others. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not succession, that's a chronology. Available in the same way on Wikipedia as lists such as List of number-one mainstream rock hits (United States). Same info and just as succinct, rather than providing the undue weight on individual articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In a day and age when songs from an album can chart without recieving official release our 'navigational aids' simply provide another way for users to mention how fantastic it is that a song reached number one on xyz charts. If someone wishes to make edits to a series of articles because they're number one singles then go to pages like List of number-one mainstream rock hits (United States) and navigate from there. But the assertion that somehow they aid navigation without breaking WP:NPOV or cause other issues is incorrect. A lot of people have spoken about how ... "it doesn't matter as you can collapse them" well it does matter because it still adds unnecessary size to a page and can increase loading time. Succession boxes were originally designed for lineage. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Remember how people used to bold the number one on discography charts, until we stopped the practice because it placed undue weight on the position? I feel the same principle applies here. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove per JohnFromPinckney. --Kleinzach 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't yet read an argument here that doesn't either have a simple technical solution or isn't flawed. The idea that a No. 1 isn't more notable than a No. 2 is bizarre. For the UK, number ones are commonly cited (especially Christmas ones) while the No. 2 slot is usually only mentioned in reference to very popular songs that only ever made No. 2 and not No. 1 (e.g. "Last Christmas" by Wham!). I believe such lists are notable. There is probably a case for more obscure charts not being notable and I wouldn't object to a white-list of charts that are listed by succession being established, perhaps using those that have clear references like the UK No. 1 list from the Official Chart Company. You also shouldn't forget that this survey is only taking the narrow view of a few editors, and not of the vastly larger number of casual Wikipedia browsers who may find this useful. I say this because I only stumbled across this discussion by chance as I was updating some of the recent UK No. 1 entries and normally I would have been completely oblivious of it, until such a time as someone decided to delete all the boxes and lose that information Gnu andrew (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep Of course #1 songs are more notable than lower-peaking singles. We have endless lists and categories of #1 songs and I don't see anybody arguing that they shouldn't exist or place undue weight. What makes them less objectionable? If #2 songs are just as notable, where are their lists and categories after all this time? There aren't any succession boxes for #2 songs, nor should there be. Number 1 is the pinnacle of the chart. I don't even know how succession boxes for #2 songs would work; would it merely be for songs that peaked at #2 or would it include songs that stopped at #2 on their eventual ascension to #1? There's a reason adding succession boxes to #2 songs has never been suggested. All 1,578 songs that reached #1 on Hot Country Songs have articles - and succession boxes, for that matter - but very few songs that peaked outside of the top ten have articles. In fact, many have been deleted or redirected because of their low peak position. I'm one of the users who does use them to navigate through articles and I've always found them to be beneficial. See also sections, in contrast, are a lot less user friendly and require a lot more clicking around for something that has been so easily achieved by navigation boxes for so many years. Many of the gaps Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs) is complaining about were created by their own haphazard removal of succession boxes over the past few months from otherwise complete series. Succession boxes work in conjunction with the aforementioned lists and categories and should be left alone. Eric444 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, none of my examples are ones I touched. Gaps have existed long before that. Also, people have "complained" about categories for #1 albums, as they have been defeated in CFD (see WP:CFD/2006 July 15) in favor of the lists that exist. It would be easy to create lists of #2s, based on the sources used for your #1 lists for country songs. And I also don't buy your argument that, using the Hot 100 as an example, every #1 song is more notable than any song by Bruce Springsteen, Journey, and Creedence Clearwater Revival. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying every #1 song is more notable than every song that didn't hit #1, any more than they are saying that Millard Fillmore, who has several succession boxes, is more notable than Jesus, who does not have any. The succession boxes aren't "prizes" for being super-notable, they're simply navigational and informational tools. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what Gnu andrew ("The idea that a No. 1 isn't more notable than a No. 2 is bizarre") and Eric444 ("Of course #1 songs are more notable than lower-peaking singles") said. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reaching number one is a more notable achievement than reaching number two, by definition. That doesn't mean that's the only thing that determines a song's notability, as the Springsteen and CCR examples you provide illustrate. 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does reaching number one necessitate navigational templates more than any other number, though? It doesn't. There's also the issue that the templates aren't being used correctly. As others have pointed out, these templates are intended for offices and titles. You can't abdicate a chart placing. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And the current number one on a chart is not the incumbent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, you can't "abdicate" winning the Super Bowl either, but somehow the NFL articles have managed to include succession boxes without a problem. I have no idea where the idea came from that only royalty could use these, but it's sure an odd one, and one quite out of touch with how succession boxes are actually used across the project. 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The main difference is that on the Superbowl articles, they actually serve as a navigation box: every Superbowl article but the first has a predecessor that actually has an article, and every Superbowl but the last has a successor that actually has an article. On singles, it's a random mish-mash of multiple successors and predecessors that sometimes have articles and sometimes don't. Because of that, they completely fail as navigation boxes.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting you should say that, since the reason I'm involved in this discussion is that for the past few months I have been working to (1) create articles for #1 US rock songs that didn't have them, and (2) provide succession boxes for both the new and existing rock song articles, so that these boxes would work better as navigation boxes... only to have Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars remove them as quickly as I could create them. I'm sure you'll understand that it's a little irritating to see someone advocate removing the boxes on the ground that their coverage is spotty, when their coverage is spotty in part because that same someone has been going around removing them. Eric444 has already pointed this out above, and I have to strongly agree with him. 28bytes (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and US charts, you stand a chance of getting completion. Not for any other chart, which is why single articles shouldn't have chart succession boxes. They don't serve as navigation tools for the vast majority of charts.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true that some charts will only have a handful of song articles, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of (for example) the succession boxes for #1 Mainstream Rock hits, which don't currently but will soon have en-wiki articles for each chart-topper. If the Mainstream Rock boxes have to go because there's only one #1 Mainstream Rock song that also topped the Uzbeki rural dance chart, rendering the Uzbeki rural dance chart succession boxes useless for navigation... well, you'll forgive me if I don't find that a very compelling reason to scrap the boxes that are useful for navigation. 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse Uzbekistan with France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, etc. Most charts, the vast majority of charts, won't have articles about the majority of the number 1 hits in the country.—Kww(talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite probably you're right. For those charts, those succession boxes would have only an informational, not navigational, component, along with the beneficial side effect of encouraging a new article to be written via a redlinked predecessor or successor. (And why not? If it's a number one hit in France, Germany, etc., it's quite reasonable a bilingual editor might be prompted to find some sources and write an article for it.) I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but until the encyclopedia is "complete", I think there's a strong benefit to be had in providing these red links. It's one of the things that prompted me to start filling in gaps in the mainstream rock hits. These succession boxes are a tool to encourage readers to become editors and build the encyclopedia, aside from their informational and navigational benefits. 28bytes (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Navigation boxes with redlinks or without links violate WP:NAVBOX, and should not be in articles at all. That's the part of this discussion I find frustrating: people keep arguing to keep a navigation box because they like the information, and neglect to consider that information isn't the point: the purpose of a navigation box is to to navigate.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to get too pedantic, but WP:Succession boxes are not WP:NAVBOXes. They're "template-created wiki-tables that serve as navigational aids", as the page says. And WP:NAVBOX itself calls succession boxes an alternative to navboxes, not a type of them. I think that's an important point to highlight: they have navigational and informational uses. Being of limited value as a navigational aid doesn't affect their usefulness as an informational element. If we were talking actual navboxes, I would agree with you regarding the red links. 28bytes (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep I was invited by Starcheers to answer several objections from a previous discussion, all of which I found easy to do but which I regret to say I never had the time to finish and post. As this is the Christmas weekend, I hope and expect that nobody will rush to close this thread before any issues people have with this can be resolved. It is my intention to respond to each and every one of the points Starcheers raised with me, and it is my belief that my responses will dismiss those objections; I will probably have time for this on Sunday or Monday. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove They are irritating, hard to maintain, makes an article look fancrufty because its unsourced, and is a cause for "which artist is best" attacks. Remove them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - They aid navigation and provide useful context. Applying consistently would be desirable, but not essential - just because some articles don't have them doesn't mean they shouldn't. Rlendog (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove—per JohnFromPinckney and WesleyDodds. In their current form they contain unverified information, are unsightly, and completely redundant to articles such as this.—indopug (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I see the table of succession boxes as good indicator of the moment, now what are the global hits in music?.for example like Love the Way You Lie, peak number one in several countries and through to the succession boxes I can identify which are the singles that were also at that time global hits. I see boxes of succession as very useful not only for navigation but also for information. Thanks for inviting me to this important consensus. D6h! ^{What's on your mind?} 11:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That rationale emphasizes recentism and comes close to running afoul of Wikipedia not being a news site. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It also ignores the ploblem of not having refs for verification; anybody can slip anything in there and it might not get noticed until a True Fan happens by. This "useful information" that some users like is almost all unchecked (and not easily checkable). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
      • References are not already on the charts peak positions table?. D6h! ^{What's on your mind?} 13:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• They are for the song/album that is the subject of the article, but not for the preceding and succeeding song/album.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• It's also not unusual to have no information about when the subject recording hit #1 on the chart, and it's typically the case that no referenced info as to the last chart date at #1 is provided. In summary, we don't know most of the info usually presented in the succession boxes. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• In addition to the reference to the chart peak itself, references would have to be included for each preceding/succeeding song/album (and not that it was #1 but that it was the #1 before/after the subject article), in which case we're adding sources to show that a completely unrelated article was #1 and when it was #1. As is, sources will also be required for each and every week that the song/album was at #1 for each and every chart it reached #1. This borders on being a chart trajectory, which as stated should be included within the text of the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I have used these all the time and find them increadibly useful and even fun (I know I'm weird) to navigate. I would be very disapointed if they were removed. I even once spent hours adding the boxes to the songs that reached number 1 on the Alternative songs chart. Sbrianhicks (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove per JohnFromPinckney. I do not believe that it is appropriate per WP:WEIGHT to provide such disproportionate focus on being #1 in a chart, rather than, say, in the top 10. Even if there was consensus on such a narrow focus, these boxes are an illustration of how an apparently good ideas doesn't scale. Succession boxes work well for a limited number of series such as I Will Always Love You are so massively cluttersome that they overwhelm the article, and introduce a lot of unsourced assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I observe that most of the keep !votes here are proclamations of "I find it useful", and none seem to have addressed the fact that these uncited boxes violate WP:V, one of our central policies.—indopug (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have to disagree with that observation. I'm in favor of keeping these and I've certainly not objected to stricter sourcing requirements. (Indeed, I proposed exactly that.) For a recent example of this in action, see the history of Hungry Like the Wolf. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars added a tag, I sourced it, problem solved. 28bytes (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • His comment was principally addressing editors who did not elaborate on their comments. In regards to your statement, the verifiability issue is only one aspect of the problems with the boxes, as I and others have raised. Furthermore, the boxes in "Hungry Like the Wolf" still don't verify the accuracy of the preceeding and succeeding chart-toppers. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The source I added does indeed verify the accuracy of the preceding and succeeding chart-toppers; the book referenced is available online via the Google books link if you would like to confirm this yourself. 28bytes (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Those books confirm the order which is a valuable resource to the lists of number ones that already exist on wikipedia. However, Whitburn's books do not relate the songs in any way to each other, as ending up being implied by including the links within the article. Can I use Fred Bronson's book of #1 hot 100 hits to source what the top 5 was when a song reached #1 within the article for that song? That's what it does and I'd find that info useful. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Not to too get fixated on this specific article, but all I see is a citation in the subject song's cell in the succession box. That Tom Petty song, for one, would require a citation next to it. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
          • The inline citation was intended to cover the entire row, but I've certainly got no problem with putting inline citations in each of the three elements of the succession box to help resolve any WP:V concerns. 28bytes (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm troubled that people inclined against this particular iteration of succession box are being sticklers about inline citations for each data point when this is not even remotely being suggested for any other kind of music-related infobox or navbox. There is, after all, no citations whatsoever for either data points or succession in single-artist single succession boxes, or in end-of-article infoboxes, or for that matter in artist discographies. Why is it so vitally important to WP:V that we give inline cites for this type of boxed data presentation but not those several others? Don't misunderstand, I wholeheartedly support that we need to use cites to ensure that raw data and exceptional or challenged material is both verifiable and accurate. However, I've been amused to observe articles that have someone add cited data points only to have others come along and argue the (fair) point that this person may not have been honest in their additions, so, hm, maybe we should just yank the data. It's certainly been my experience that some of the data at Wikipedia music articles in particular are not accurate, or even close to accurate, however it seems counterintuitive to presume that cited (but not immediately verifiable) data is so suspect that an entire category of data presentation would be removed as a result. I have seen a great deal of erroneous (or at least controversial) age/birthdate data in biographies, but while this justifiably drives editors to arrive at consensus on which source(s) to accept and present, I've never seen it used to argue against primary infoboxes, much less the age/DOB infobox data point. Abrazame (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. I've never seen a sucession box sourced and often I find inconsistencies in listing them between the chart peaks section and the succession boxes (sometimes it only shows up in the chart peaks section, sometimes just the succession). Additionally, what is the encyclopedic value of showing which song was number one before and after it? If someone wanted to know, they could look at a page like List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (U.S.). This is just one of those things that has gone on for so long that people expect it. It doesn't really add anything to the article. Grk1011 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have voted a strong keep. As I promised above, I have polished below my earlier (but as yet unposted-anywhere) response to the invitation I received a short while back from Starcheers at my talk page in reference to a comment I made at a previous go-round of his discussion of this issue. Skimming this discussion, I see much of what I counter in these points are issues raised in this discussion as well. Each argument summarized by Starcheers at my talk page is numbered, with my responses indented.

1 "A labyrinth of every imaginable component chart and airplay chart"

Airplay charts are not necessarily component charts (for example, Adult Contemporary, Rock Tracks, Modern Rock Tracks, are all compiled independently of the Hot 100 Airplay rankings, despite being airplay-only charts). It's not a labyrinth, as it's a straight line, a simple, direct, linear succession (except in the rare instances where a song returns to #1). At worst, it's a close-up snippet of a multi-lane highway.

2 "A succession box where neither the predecessor nor the successor has an article isn't a useful navigation tool"

Not to overstate this, but any song that makes number one on a major national chart is notable enough to warrant its own article, the question is simply when we will have someone interested and informed or curious enough to source and write one. Until such time, its notability in a succession box or elsewhere is derived from its own success, not whether that success has been covered in its own article yet at Wikipedia. And in those instances where the #1 song doesn't yet have (or is deemed never to deserve its own article), we could redirect to the (relevant section of an) article about the album the #1 hit was culled from or the artist who had the successful recording.

3 "Succession boxes are not to present information. They are not to document the number of weeks on a chart. ... They are a navigational tool."

I simply don't understand where the comment "Succession boxes are not to present information" is rooted. Every box or table presents information. Every link is giving us the information of where we would arrive should we click on it. (Of course we could simply put an arrow each way, and not give the reader of a particular article what article they will find on the other end, but that would be obfuscation for its own sake.) I think this point is here to state they are a navigational tool in order to knock down that statement with the previous two bullet points, but as I feel I've shown, those two points do not knock it down.

4 "Succession boxes [relating to music articles] are an indiscriminate collection of information as "Excessive listing of statistics" that is not notable to the subject"

The information is not indiscriminate, it is contextual. From a pedantic, exclusionist perspective, one could argue that one single by an artist isn't relevant to the prior or next single by that artist either. Such exclusionist could argue that in what they imagine to be the rare and unwarranted pique of interest in such context by a reader, that reader should know to click around a bit and arrive at the artist's discography (which I have never observed to be linked from the text of a song article). Yet we do provide not only top-of-article main infobox sections that give a succession (unreferenced, with links), but additionally most notable artists have bottom-of-article infoboxes that list the artist's entire output in chronological order, again with links, and again in every single instance I've ever seen them, completely unreferenced. There, the implication seems to be, 'if we're linking to a Wiki article about what we're mentioning in the infobox, then surely the sourcing for that infobox point is referenced at the linked Wiki article.' If so in all manner of other boxes, why is that not so with succession boxes?

As to the "excessive listing of statistics", a succession box of #1 placements is neither a list nor is it excessive, as it is in direct proportion to those primary, national #1 positions which it can be determined a particular single has actually achieved. The breadth of critical-mass popular reception that is required for a recording of a song to reach #1 on any primary national chart is most certainly notable to the subject of that recording which, after all, is the focus of most song articles.

5 "They are a "navigation tool" to other number one "Songs" and Albums that really have no connection with the page they are on."

Tell that to Billboard and the millions of other charts around the world covering the top sellers in various media now and throughout the decades. I mean, the page they are on is a page about the song that went to #1 immediately prior or following that song, which throws up a quick-glimpse context of the music market at the time the song was a hit. This is perhaps lost on people who are focused on this week's hit, and the song they know was at the top last week, and the newer songs they know are racing up the charts behind it, but the value of the context is perhaps more obvious when looking back on previous eras.

6 "The information contained in the boxes is often unsourced (particularly the dates) and relies on other Wiki articles to determine what came before and after the article topic on the charts."

This is the weakest argument here yet. We don't ref lead sections, we do ref some infobox data, we don't ref other infobox data. Obviously the song that was #1 on a particular magazine's chart can be sourced to that week's issue of the magazine. It's unnecessary for us to find a tertiary source for such a thing. We do happen to have lists and categories of #1 songs on these charts, and I don't think a single one of these are individually referenced, they're generally referenced to a source for the various weekly charts and then you track down the week you want. This argument seems to be victim to an era where people get their chart data from online sources, rather than from the primary source of that week's chart, as how else would one know that the song ever hit #1 but for someone to have seen that particular week's version of the chart? In some instances, perhaps the best we've got is a magazine blurb (or an exhaustive bio) reporting abstractly and entirely out of context that the song hit #1, but indeed these things happen in the context of a particular week's chart, which are snapshots of the year's (or, more broadly, era's) succession of weekly charts, and the preferred source would be the primary source that is not only presumably without error but does provide that context. Further, as so many of these charts are limited to what is reported on in Billboard, and as Billboard is available weekly at their own site (for current positions) and historically on Google books, the argument that we are doing some disservice by disseminating proprietary information seems counter-intuitive, as of course what we are really doing is reinforcing their dominance and trustworthiness (and, for what it's worth, contributing to their hits with our cite links to their sites or the Google books representations).

The question should be whether and how we ref the data, and not whether we have to ref it in every instance in which it appears at Wikipedia. Mistaken or misleading claims or vandalism is its own issue, and is so in any regard. (Bob Dylan discography, for example, gives refs only for certification levels and not for discrete chart positions. There are general links to portals where you can do your own search for each country's chart archive data.) The comment that the date in particular is unsourced is particularly quixotic, as how would you know what a song's predecessor and successor were on a chart if you didn't know the date of any of those chartings? That point makes no sense.

It's particularly amusing to me that what Starcheers has been substituting in place of the succession boxes at song articles is lists of #1 songs, which are also generally given a single link to a general (weekly chart) source, and not individual links to particular dates, yet Starcheers and the others voting against succession boxes for this issue have no problem with that. At least, I'm presuming there is no problem with that, and this isn't a disingenuous wild-goose chase, an incrementalism where next we're going to find ourselves arguing for and against the #1 lists on the basis of the way they're sourced.

7 "People are posting incorrect dates concerning the time frame that a song is at #1 on Billboard's charts"

Okay, no, this is the weakest argument here. People are posting all manner of incorrect information, some due to reliable sources that have it wrong, some due to unreliable sources or rumor, mythology or ideology, some due to misapprehension and some due to vandalism; that's never been a reason not to present a data point or table or box and it never will be.

8 "We don't have to include the nav-boxes so people can find this information, since we have all these lists"

Well, again, this argument is specious logic. There are all manner of articles, categories and lists that present some of the same information as can be found in other articles. In some instances, we link to those other articles for further reading, and in other instances there is simply an overlap. (I recommend Venn diagram.)

The worst parts of this argument is that if "we have all these lists" then either the lists are properly and adequately sourced and so in turn support the data points in the succession boxes, refuting not one but two primary arguments against those boxes (that they're unsourced and that they represent too exclusive a focus on #1), or they are not properly and adequately sourced and so in turn are inappropriate for you to substitute for the boxes, and will be the next point of contention.

I hope I've adequately put some of these arguments against succession boxes to bed. If I have not been convincing on some point, I welcome anybody who'd like to restate the issue and invite me to clarify my point. For the sake of clarity and the readability of the thread for others, please name-check me in red below and mention the number(s) of the argument/counter-argument, rather than jumping in with indented responses above. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I find your assertion that the number one on any national chart is a good candidate for an article here to be unconvincing. Let's look at Hungary today: number 1 on the sales chart is ÁKOS by Szindbád dala. In Slovakia a few weeks ago, it was VIANOČNÁ NÁLADA by KRISTÍNA. In what universe is it either likely or desirable that we would have articles about these songs?—Kww(talk) 15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The glib answer would be: in the Hungarian and Slovakian universes. In the American universe, the whole point of the context provided is even more relevant to a familiar English-language hit that managed to hit number one on a chart sandwiched between two number-ones from the local dialects. (And if that were not so, and the previous #1s on those charts are not familiar English-language hits, then those would not appear on an English-language song's Wiki succession box and your point is irrelevant. As you did not link the data in your comment, I can't tell one way or the other.)

What I actually said was not as you misquoted me, "the number one on any national chart is a good candidate for an article here," but rather, I said, "Not to overstate this, but any song that makes number one on a major national chart is notable enough to warrant its own article". If it is your assertion that ours is not a universe in which a nation's chart-topping single like this VIANOČNÁ NÁLADA is relevant to anyone who does not speak Slovakian, then perhaps the Slovakian sales chart does not fit the description of "a major national chart". At least, that would be the ethnocentric English-language take that would direct us to shirk from events in Slovakia that, were they to happen here, would earn reams of coverage. Either a Hungarian or Slovakian #1 is demographically comparable to #1s in other regions and so is no less worthy of note, or it is so less comparable that it unnotable. One way we might gauge the notability and relevancy of a foreign chart to the English-language Wikipedia is precisely to check if that country's Wikipedia devotes an article to its #1 songs. If it does, we could simply link to the article about the Hungarian- and Slovakian-language songs on the Hungarian- and Slovakian-language Wikipedias, for navigability. Or, we could acknowledge that with the VIANOČNÁ NÁLADAs of the world, we will err on the side of unnavigability rather than on the side of excessive coverage. I also wrote, in the same section, "in those instances where the #1 song doesn't yet have (or is deemed never to deserve) its own article, we could redirect to the (relevant section of an) article about the album the #1 hit was culled from or the artist who had the successful recording," which you must see has some bearing on your question, no?

Either the notability of Hungarian or Slovakian chartings in English-language Wiki articles meets our notability threshold or it does not, but considering your comment inherently implies that it does, you should not be twisting it back upon itself as if it could be the deciding factor against an otherwise unrelated policy issue here. Abrazame (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not twisting anything: succession boxes are navigation boxes (despite some verbiage on the description page that tries to obfuscate things). Most charts have gaps in them that never will and never should have articles, meaning that navigation boxes for those charts won't work. Since the navigation boxes for most charts won't work, we shouldn't include them for the minority where it will. There's no twisting there: these giant tables of succession boxes are frequently useless as a navigation tool, and few charts are capable of actually supporting a complete navigation chain. The only time a succession box should even be considered is when every #1 song on the chart already has an article: a complete and intact chain with no gaps. From WP:NAVBOX:"Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first. Since that situation is vanishingly rare for articles about singles, they shouldn't be included in articles about singles.—Kww(talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're twisting it further. Your statement "The only time a succession box should even be considered is when every #1 song on the chart already has an article: a complete and intact chain with no gaps" (second emphasis my own) is, you have to admit, completely at odds with the way things work at Wikipedia. We don't refrain from starting anything until all cogs are in place, it's an eternal work in progress. You ignore my comments about artist-specific succession boxes, which do not now and certainly didn't at their inception have articles for every one of the artist's singles. Yet you're not arguing against the concept of single-artist succession boxes (which in every case include songs that did not reach the apex of chart success), you're arguing against succession boxes for only the very most exceptionally successful singles (which by definition did reach the apex of a notable national chart, thereby seeming it should be inherently more likely to deserve articles for each single. Single-artist succession boxes are navigation boxes as well, no? I find most of those do not have red links for singles without articles, they have no link at all, which solves the Navbox quote.

What do you mean when you allege that "most charts have gaps in them" and "few charts are capable of actually supporting a complete navigation chain"? And what situation is "vanishingly rare for articles about singles"? Abrazame (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of "twisting" things. My point is simple: succession boxes are navboxes. They are included when there is both a predecessor and an successor, and they are to allow people to traverse an entire chain of related articles. With the exception of the English language charts, those complete chains are not present today, and it isn't foreseeable that those chains will ever be built. Local songs take the number one position in a lot of countries (not surprisingly), and those local-language singles generally won't have articles here. Those break the chain, which means that chart can't have a succession box in any article. That's the point you don't seem to grasp: one break, and the chain is broken, rendering the succession boxes for that chart useless. Build the articles, and then build a navigation chain, in that order. That's what WP:NAVBOX says to do, and I will stand by it. In contrast, succession boxes for single artists are fairly rare (as the information is built into the infobox for the single), and, when they are present, present a complete navigation chain.—Kww(talk) 19:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying that succession boxes and navboxes are the same things? Neither WP:Succession box nor WP:NAVBOX offer any support for that position, and as I pointed out above, WP:NAVBOX explicitly refers to succession boxes as an alternative to navboxes. Succession boxes provide information to the reader; if anything, they're more like an infobox than a navbox. If there are navigational benefits too (as there often are with many info boxes), then great! If not, the information is still valuable. 28bytes (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes are presented as an alternative to creating a new kind of navigation template (probably because they are inherently flexible in terms of topic), but they are just a form of navigation box. See Category:Navbox (navigational) templates. In terms of guidelines, WP:NAVBOX applies. WP:Succession box is a Wikiproject, not a guideline.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be antagonistic, but to be responsive, this is part of the twist I was talking about. Your characterization of the succession boxes as devoid of contextual information for its own sake (as in an infobox or table), and solely as a navigational tool, is to my understanding a misapprehension of what they were intended as, or what they provide, or in any event what they're being defended here as. I can appreciate if that's the only angle from which you object to the succession boxes, or if that's the only angle you wish to argue, but that's not the totality of what they are, and even from that narrow angle, you don't seem to be consistent or realistic. Artist-specific navboxes exist both incomplete and unassailed by you. Indeed, these chart succession navboxes have existed for many years and is not a new proposal, and these past several months if completeness were the crux of the issue, we could have been working on sourcing and creating articles for these endless gaps you perceive, rather than yanking the existing succession boxes out of the articles despite numerous discussions that fail to arrive at consensus to do so. As I stated, if Starcheers has been substituting lists of #1 singles for navboxes, then in every case there is a complete chain of a year's #1s at the very least. Furthermore, people do not traverse "entire chains" of navboxes when those navboxes are for hundreds of entries any more than they open every article that comes up in a Google search. They navigate the chain for however long it holds their interest, until something else catches their eye to surf to, or until they find something that satisfies a specific informational need.

If there are charts with particularly problematic gaps (and you haven't convinced me that this is as widespread as you allege, nor have you obliged my request to specify any), then perhaps the music project could place them on a list of charts we need to track down for citing purposes. However, this argument would only support the removal of those navboxes that feature red links (or no link) in the immediately adjacent field, not the removal of all navboxes. After all, notable national charts begin all the time. You certainly couldn't use this argument against navboxes for a new chart that began in the past year, so the possibility that similarly sized chunks of citable articles for some other chart wouldn't be enough for valuable navigation is no more compelling an argument. And as you're not pointing to a chart that has such a gap or giving any further info about one, it's hard to know whether this is a problem that has a solution yet you're merely trying to pose as an insurmountable issue. Because, again, if the problem is that certain sources are not complete, that should not negate the use of other sources that are complete. That's the sort of thing that goes into the composition of articles, tables and lists all the time all across the project, and is at the core of Wikipedia: we do not start out with finished, complete work, but rather we cobble what interested editors can and are willing to add and source (and not always both at once), and this is refined with gaps filled in over the years and presumably decades. All links are inherently navigation tools and by design were incomplete when they were first linked. Again, if these arguments are relevant to any navbox, and you say "I will stand by it", why does it not particularly catch your interest that I allege that single-artist navboxes are incomplete, but you feel this instance requires this swift and deprecating application. I don't buy your assertion that the presence of single-artist navboxes are rarer than were #1 single navboxes, as all #1 singles were eligible for chart succession boxes yet most artists did not hit #1 with their entire catalog. And you are simply incorrect in your statement that in all cases they present a complete navigation chain or in your implication that they always had. Furthermore, single-artist navboxes are generally not only incomplete but tilted toward a particular region, as virtually every major artist has in some cases released a single only in particular territories and/or in different orders, and so inherently inaccurate, while a chronological list of #1s on a particular chart is as straightforward as it gets. Abrazame (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to show numerous holes, just one per chart. I've already shown one for Hungary. I could do the research and find one for France, one for Germany, one for each foreign language chart. Are you denying that foreign countries have local singles that reach #1, or are you of the opinion that we normally have articles for foreign language songs? I remove navboxes whenever I see one with a redlink, but I don't agressively search them out. These chart succession boxes are the worst and most blatant case of the problem, and I still don't seek them out: I simply argue that they should be removed. I view succession boxes as purely navigational, and don't consider the contextual information to be of significance. Bear in mind that I also believe that we shouldn't make a practice of documenting chart positions at all. I lost that, and focus my energy on at least making the chart tables consistent and sourced. The succession boxes are a hopeless cause, and should be removed from all articles on sight. There's no repairing them, and no need to repair them. All #1 singles were eligible for chart succession boxes yet most artists did not hit #1 with their entire catalog is irrelevant: so long as all #1 singles by an artist had articles, then a navbox could be built to navigate that list of articles without offending WP:NAVBOX. I wouldn't care for it, but there wouldn't be a guideline or policy based argument against it.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read my posts to you thus far? Are you just trying to exhaust supporters of succession boxes with nonsense? The answers to your questions to me are found in those posts as I trust any attentive reader actually following this thread has already seen. I don't consider a non-English-language single a problem or a gap, but nor do I consider it inherently less notable than some obscure English-language single that has a Wikipedia article without ever having reached #1. To restate that for you, if the chart in question is notable enough to be relevant to list separately in a navbox, then the number-one that is relevant to the article is not more relevant in the context of the chart than the one that is obviously the focus of its own article. And again to restate a point to you, I don't find one or even several weeks or months without an English-language #1 a problem from the standpoint of succession boxes, as obviously the chart succession boxes appear in — or more accurately, are being removed from — articles for songs that are notable and do have articles, as well as sourced titles for preceding and succeeding #1 single, whatever their language. The possibility that the article's song hit #1 in a territory that bookended it with domestic acts in an unfamiliar language is equally relevant context to derive from a succession box. It is not simply a vehicle to name-check songs we are intimately familiar with, it is the actual setting in which the song achieved its peak.

The sentence you quote from me was misunderstood. I meant it as illustration of the assertion that single-artist succession boxes in song articles are more prevalent with the logic that only #1 songs appear in a #1 succession box while single-artist succession boxes do not limit themselves to #1s, but generally list every commercially available single in the artist's canon.

I appreciate your admission of your antipathy for charting data in any way, because it helps me understand why your argument here is so narrowly limited yet makes so little sense, and is probably where I gleaned the twist. It's not that I can't conceive where a sincere heart and mind is coming from in being reactionary against chart data, as so often it is presented as the end-all, be-all of music. Yet, for most songs that do actually reach #1, think about it, it was the end-all, be-all. And for those that don't, it wasn't. So the appearance of the succession boxes, as ugly as you and some others here have said you find them, then, is appropriate, as it represents the commercial aspect of commercial music. Personally, I have a history of reading the massive 100-place-per-page charts in Billboard and Cashbox, so I don't find tables of three or ten or however many successions or chartings to be either cluttered or ugly. On the other hand, I have an affinity for the music purist perspective. I just don't necessarily find the two at odds. Some music can be notable without having been among the handful of most popular within a certain genre at a certain point in time, and others cannot. In either case it is relevant to the story of the song which camp it falls into and to what degree. I would prefer to see more song articles focus on the song than on the marketing and commercial reception, but then we are dependent upon published sources, and most published sources about contemporary music that are not fancruft are music business sources approaching it from that angle. Indeed, with so many reviews being so subjective, it's difficult to arrive at a reasonable account of the music that is neither rhapsodic nor antagonistic nor jaded. If you think of the greater scope of popular music (by which I mean back to grunge and '80s and disco and prog rock and pop standards and doo-wop, way back into the classical and baroque eras and before), the most useful account of the music comes after its initial commercial success or intended audience fades from the account and after any backlash or sense of outdatedness passes and it can be taken on its own merits as music and seen for what it was at the time with some perspective.

Ideally, there would be some way to put even unsuccessful songs into the context of both other material that failed to catch major public interest in that era and the material that did. But until we can arrive at some way to give that context for music which, by definition is not framed by its success, we can at least give that context in notable ways for music which has happened to achieve the very greatest success of any at a given moment. After all, it is more inherently notable and citable when music does reach that apex of success than when it does not. From one perspective, music is among the deepest and most personal creative expression that the average person engages in either from the standpoint of creating it or consuming it. But from another perspective, it is a multi-billion dollar global business of product, and one that unusually is necessarily placed into the context of other product.  Happiness, health, prosperity, peace and love to you and all readers, tonight and throughout the New Year. Abrazame (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read your arguments carefully, and I understand that you don't consider gaps to be a problem. I also understand that you are wrong about that. Succession boxes are purely navigational, any other benefits are a side effect, and gaps negate the primary purpose.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If they were purely navigational, they would not list when the song or album topped the chart and for how long, since those are not navigable elements. And I have to agree with Abrazame, any gaps in the "chain" don't render the whole chain useless, and the idea that they do seems to me to run counter to the whole idea of how Wikipedia is built. 28bytes (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They most certainly would list that: "#1 from Jan 28 - Feb 4" labels the position in the succession. I guess it could be labeled just "35", but that would be nearly unsourceable. There's no information in a succession box that isn't related to the position of elements in the navigational chain.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to particularly reply to your rebuttal to "They are a "navigation tool" to other number one "Songs" and Albums that really have no connection with the page they are on." There's no more direct connection to songs/albums that reached number one than have reached number 47. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently notable in peaking at #47, and successions of such a peak would be chronologically distant and random, and so devoid of context, and trivial, all in sharp contrast to the immediate succession of #1 peaks. It is perfectly reasonable to note a #47 peak in an article or discography, because, like peaking at #1, peaking at #47 is at first glance what it is, which is a gauge of the coincidental success of a recording at the greatest confluence of that incidence (though subject to various chart rules that vary from era to era), which is generally some weeks after its initial release. But peaking at #47 has no other connection to peaking at #1, which suggests to me your argument hasn't really given this more than that first glance.

To state the obvious, firstly, and perhaps most relevantly to both the usefulness and the notability of the data, a song peaks at #1 because there is no other song that week that has a greater incidence of success during the week represented by the chart. The same cannot be said about the song that peaks at #47; in fact, at least 46 other songs did, and there could be as many as 46 reasons for each of them so doing.

Most relevantly to dispelling your "all or nothing" comment earlier in the thread, the fact of a song peaking at #1 is exceptional from the standpoint of notability and many magnitudes greater in reliable source coverage of the #1 peak than the #47 peak. But absolutely infinite is the difference in notability and reliable source coverage for both the verifiability and for the relevancy of the succession aspect, because after all what we are discussing here is not a similarity between a song that peaks at #1 and one that peaks at #47 but the difference in the relevancy and notability of successions of three songs at both of those respective peaks. By infinitely different I mean that it is hugely covered in reliable sources both primary and secondary what song peaked at #1 immediately before and immediately after the article subject song, both in that context and as can be easily and simply determined by a quick skim of the weeks' charts. Surely you will admit that you realize it would be easy (if ploddingly redundant) for me to link to forty-seven single-source instances of such routine coverage of the succession of #1 peaks in reliable sources, primary and secondary, table and text. I defy you to show me even one instance, however, where you can do this with songs that peak at #48 (I choose 48 instead of 47 because perhaps you picked 47 because you already have one of the rare times in history where the succession of three so random and lowly peaks is actually documented). The reason for this is that any week's #1 is immediately preceded and succeeded by another song that is peaking at #1 — in other words, there is never not a song hitting or remaining at its peak position of #1. It happens 52 weeks of the year, making it both eminently notable and logically navigable. Yet any given #47 peak is not likely to be preceded or succeeded by another #47 peak for a matter of weeks or months, or even years. Similarly, you would not find in a single source the indication that the next #47 peak you may happen to be aware of was the immediately preceding or succeeding peak in relation to the article subject, whereas the subject's first appearance at #1 on a chart almost always features "last week" figures that would illustrate the succession, while the week following the subject's fall from #1 would do the same. So if I show you three examples of the #1 succession, their publication as such by the notable source would not only support my contention of notability but be incontrovertible proof of the succession data point, whereas if you showed me three examples of the #47 succession, it would not: I would have to take your word for it or do a great deal of work and analysis to confirm or disprove your assertion which, other than original research, would be excessive focus on trivial data.

Even if there were a computer program that could and does locate such random patterns as successive songs to peak at numbers like 47 and 48, the fact that they would be, as I said, weeks, months or even years apart in occurrence would make that succession devoid of contextual value — while of course I hope you would respond to every point of my answer here to you, I specifically ask you, would you not agree with this point? Not merely that a #47 peak is random and non-notable outside of the context of that song relative to a #1 peak, but that the fact that it is neither immediately nor regularly succeeded by another #47 peak gives such a succession infinitely less context and relevancy?

And of course, all of this is before you even get to the fact that in a great many countries published charts don't even go as far down as #47, and if they do now it is likely they did not ten or thirty or fifty years ago, making a peak of #47 (much less such a peak's succession) not only even more obviously less significant or notable, but that much more certainly uncitable. And, for those sticklers solely arguing that point, unnavigable. To put it another way, any music ranking has a #1, while a great many do not, which is again an indication of the notability of a 47 peak. Even in the major U.S. market, a number of notable primary charts either never extended as far down as 47 places or did not do so for the full sweep of their existence. Abrazame (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Abrazame, that's an awful lot of text to say, "I missed the point."

Nobody's suggesting we actually do show successions from this week's #47 to next week's #47, because it's not particularly interesting. Who gives a damn? But it's partly that reason that succession links from one #47 to the next are inappropriate. If the linkage from one week's rankers to the adjacent weeks' colleagues is important, then we should do it for all the peak levels. And if that sounds silly (and it should) then it's because the connection from week to week is really meaningless, and in that case, connecting the #1s is an inappropriate bias (UNDUE, NPOV, etc.). The number-one song in a given week is special for that week only, relative to other songs that week, as I take you to be saying way up there somewhere. There's no reason to connect the #1s, and it's unfair to do it for them if we don't do it for, say for example, the #47 songs in their respective weeks.

And please, if you're going to write such long texts, try to break it up better using paragraphs or chapters or something. You could at least use full spaces between graphs. You're even more verbose than I am, and let me assure you, that's really bad. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Some succession boxes show notable and useful information, while others are trivial. They are messy looking. So I wonder if a better replacement could be found. Perhaps a navigation box to do a similar things? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Succession boxes are useful navigation, and are easily verifiable. Being able to move between articles about popular songs, albums and artists using these boxes reveals a rich cultural history to readers, just the same as succession boxes for politicians and award winners. Fences&Windows 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Succession boxes aren't useful navigational tools for chart placings, because the relationship between subjects is tenuous. I would also argue against "easily verifiable", since most of the information would come from comparing charts from different weeks, instead of relying on explicitly-stated information on chart turnover. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year all! I want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. As it stands, on strictly a vote count, it's 15 FOR and 13 AGAINST. Hardly a consensus, but I'd like to follow up on and reiterate JohnFromPinckney's comments by looking at the top 3 positions on the Billboard Hot 100 for the first two weeks of this year.

Position	January 1, 2011	January 8, 2011
1	"Firework"	"Grenade"
2	"Grenade"	"Firework"
3	"What's My Name"	"We R Who We Are"

Based on the succession argument, if "Grenade" succeeded "Firework" as the #1 song, then it follows that "Firework" has succeeded "Grenade" as the #2 song, "We R Who We R" has succeeded "What's My Name" as the #3 song and on down the entire chart. But the fact is that each song has not succeeded any other at all because each chart is an independent measurement of, in this case, the combined airplay and sales of each song. The Hot 100 on January 1 has nothing to do with the Hot 100 on January 8; "Firework" was ranked #1 compared to the totals of other songs over a specific 7-day period only and "Grenade" was ranked #1 compared only to other songs over the next 7 days. It's not a competition or a vote, it's an independent tally, so no song has actually been replaced from its position on the chart. One week it's one song at #1, the next week it's another (or the same song) based on the totals calculated for that time period, so there's no connection from one chart list to the next. Thus, there is no succession of #1's (or #2's or #3's); the term is a misnomer, as is "order of precedence", "chart procession and succession" and however else they're being used in these kinds of articles. Sure the boxes may be informative, but useful? Not any more than any other chart position, which just takes it back to being WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. But I don't know where this is to go from here. For songs alone, I've counted at least 55 charts with succession box use within articles including multiple charts from the same country, genre charts, discontinued charts, and probably others. It seems like it can/will only get worse and it's time for this practice to stop. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)