Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Los Lobos

Could I have someone with a Whitburn book or some other archive please check the discography for Los Lobos? I know only that the country peaks are in the right order, and I don't know where to find Mainstream Rock Tracks archives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian charts

Is this a valid source for Bulgaria?, apparently is linked to the IFPI, they have an archive at the bottom made by Nielsen [1]. Frcm1988 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's either good or an extremely skilled forgery. Any idea why the archive only goes back 10 weeks? That certainly makes it difficult to use.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea, perhaps the chart is new. I searched the IFPI page and apparently they are the valid association for Bulgaria.[2] Frcm1988 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for a week, and make sure it updates (and see if it adds a week or keeps a 10 week window). If everything still looks kosher, I'll add it to GOODCHARTS with an appropriate note.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok ,seems fair. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment If it's added to GoodCharts does that mean Bulgarian chart listings prior to this date from Acharts.us can be added? Jayy008 (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because that's a different chart.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Oh so this is a new chart activated for Bulgaria? Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Still looking into it, but it seems to be. Like I said above, I'll monitor the site for a week, and put it on GOODCHARTS if everything seems OK.—Kww(talk) 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The chart updated their info, they list 12 weeks now. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added this to WP:GOODCHARTS. For now, add a pointer to WT:Record charts#Bulgarian charts in your edit summary when you add this chart. It wouldn't hurt to add a hidden comment that reads <!-- New Bulgarian chart listed at WP:GOODCHARTS -->, next to the chart position, too. That way, you'll have less problems with editors that weren't following the discussion reverting your change.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is this only an Airplay chart as that's all i can see listed on GOODCHARTS? Jayy008 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There doesn't seem to be a sales chart available.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Certifications

Hi Kww, sorry to bother you again, I was searching for certifications in China, and I wasn't aware Hong Kong have a separate certification assocciation, the page have certifications from 1977 to 2008 (some years are missing) and are divided in gold and platinum, in addition to national and international artists.[3] The page link to IFPI but apparently it could easy be a hoax so I m not reliying on that, so is this a valid source to add for Hong Kong sales? Frcm1988 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's scary that people think this is my personal talk page. I must hang out here too much. Yes, that's a valid site, and yes, Hong Kong has separate certifications. http://www.ifpihk.org/www_1/go1e.php is probably the page you are talking about, and I think it's fine to use. I've never found a good chart, though.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick answer. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting info

Billboard credits "I Hope You Dance" to "Lee Ann Womack with Sons of the Desert," but Joel Whitburn only says "Sons of the Desert (backing vocal)." There seems to be a slight precedent of "When in doubt, go with Whitburn." Since SotD was removed from List of 2000s one-hit wonders in the United States for not receiving credit in Whitburn's book, should Lee Ann's and SotD's discographies match that page? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just talking about this with someone on a Talk Page somewhere, but Whitburn is painfully inconsistent in his books when it comes to grouping artists/bands together and especially with "featured" artist credits. The latest Top Pop Singles just came out and there are a slew of instances in which he gives credit to a featured artist when I know it did not chart that way during the song's run (for example "SexyBack" is shown in Timbaland's book entry), yet several artists are slighted completely even though they were namechecked when the song was on the Hot 100. Whitburn also does stuff like merging Miami Sound Machine with Gloria Estefan, McCartney with Wings, George Michael with Wham!, etc. For the Womack/SotD song, are you looking at Whitburn's country book? I see the band shown only as "backing vocals" in Top Pop Singles and SotD was not namechecked when the song was charting, although this may have been different on the country chart. It's infuriatingly inconsistent sometimes. - eo (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Whitburn country book lists SotD only as backing vocals, but Billboard listed it on the country charts as "Lee Ann Womack with Sons of the Desert." See here, scroll down to page 40. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears it was Billboard that was inconsistent rather than Whitburn. On the Hot 100 chart it's credited only to Lee Ann Womack. Maybe Whitburn was just trying to be consistent from book to book, he usually lists artists and titles exactly as shown in Billboard magazine. When in doubt, I would go with the artist as listed on the record itself. Piriczki (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The pop mix edited out SotD's vocals if I'm not mistaken. So does this mean that both discographies should credit SotD only on the country version? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many times when a "pop" remix will be slightly different than the country mix or the R&B mix, thus crediting different people on different charts. The way I see it, Billboard namechecks based on what record labels and artist management tell them. Whitburn basically licenses Billboard's data then arranges/categorizes things as he likes. If we want to be technical then I would credit SofD only on the country version. - eo (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested regarding WP:GOODCHARTS for Netherlands SINGLES

WP:GOODCHARTS for Netherlands SINGLES:

Sales: GfK Dutch Single Top 100

Airplay: Dutch Top 40

Comments: Weekly archive incorporated directly into charts. The Mega Single Top 100 is a component of the Dutch Top 40, and should only be used if the single did not chart on the Dutch Top 40.

Questions:

1. Is "The Mega Single Top 100" the same thing as "GfK Dutch Single Top 100"?
2. If so, how can the "GfK Dutch Single Top 100" a Sales chart be a "component" of the "Dutch Top 40" an Airplay chart?
   Iknow23 (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Dutch Top 40 is a combination of single sales and airplay, not just airplay. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, WP:GOODCHARTS needs an additional column, "Combination" to indicate all the charts that use such.
Iknow23 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected table. The combined status is indicated by having it appear as one entry that spans the "sales" and "airplay" columns.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't even think of doing it that way :)
Iknow23 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Still not specifically answered:
Is "The Mega Single Top 100" the same thing as "GfK Dutch Single Top 100"?
Iknow23 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are the same. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

May WP:GOODCHARTS reflect that, please. (I cannot edit it.)—Iknow23 (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You. I see it has been done. I've also discovered the NAMING shortcuts and have edited the above to reflect same. From now on, I will use WP:GOODCHARTS instead of "Sourcing guide" and WP:BADCHARTS instead of "Deprecated charts".—Iknow23 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

German Singles/Albums & ACharts.us

Does anybody know what's up with Acharts and why it's broke?

Also German charts aside from Acharts is there a way to see the full Top 100 without being a registered user?

Acharts has been down for a while but I would like to know Mariah Carey: Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel chart postion on the albums chart and Whitney Houston's double A-side single "Million Dollar Bill". The latter is listed as 41 on it's page but without verification. I would like to verify it. Jayy008 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Million Dollar Bill has not charted in Germany, per http://www.musicline.de/de/product/886976004729.
• Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel has not charted in Germany, per http://www.musicline.de/de/product/602527204628///1838859

In general, you shouldn't be using acharts.us for charting information: it is unofficial and unlicensed.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also seen it said before that acharts.us is unofficial and unlicensed and should not be used.
I am confused as to why it is then listed at WP:GOODCHARTS in the Archives with many Green stars that indicate "...using this archive as a convenience link is acceptable?" It DOES show the Green star for Germany. I understand that the "Green star boxed plus" is to be always preferred but where Acharts is acceptable that would mean it's use is OK, right? If not, I may misunderstand what is meant by "convenience link." I don't see the term defined.
In the Germany Comments section it shows: "...(except germancharts.com!)"? Perhaps it should be "...(except germancharts.com)" , that is without the exclamation point?
Iknow23 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything is always complicated, and sometimes doesn't fit perfectly into a little table. If I remember the time I said that to you correctly, the situation was that you were removing Billboard links and replacing them with Acharts links. I may have been a little strong, but there really isn't a situation where a link to the original source should be replaced with acharts.us.

germancharts.com is a weird situation, and one that I don't fully understand. Hung Medien (the owner of germancharts.com, swisscharts.com, lescharts.com, finnishcharts.com, and others) does not provide German chart positions to people that are not registered subscribers. If you are a registered subscriber, the official German chart positions show in the chart summary tables on every site but germancharts.com. Germancharts.com will only provide you with positions from the German airplay chart, no matter what you do. That is the reason for the "!". It is pretty surprising that you get better German chart information from lescharts.com than you do from germancharts.com. This must have something to do with the way Hung Medien's license works.

In any case, for German charts, the best place to get information is musicline.de. It's consistent, you don't need to register, and it's licensed.

The reason things seem inconsistent with acharts.us is that it's on WP:GOODCHARTS more for political reasons than any other. Thousands of Wikipedia articles use it. It's the easiest archive to use for Ireland, Japan, and Canada. For the charts that it archives, it seems to store them correctly. In fact, it's the only complete archive I know of for the Japan Hot 100. All those reasons push it towards WP:GOODCHARTS. On the other hand, it archives garbage charts like the Polish National Top 50, Portuguese National Top 50, Bulgarian National Top 40, and Brazil Hot 100, none of which can be used. It won't reveal the source of its Italian chart. It doesn't seem to be licensed to carry anything at all. Those would push it towards WP:BADCHARTS. When I originally compiled WP:GOODCHARTS, there were people that said I shouldn't include acharts.us at all, but the consensus was to include them. If it wasn't in so many articles, the consensus would have gone the other way.

That means the best thing to do is to not use them unless it's necessary. Certainly, if you are looking up a position or sourcing new articles, use the official source or the Hung Medien archives. It looks like acharts.us may be going away (I haven't been able to access it for a week), so we may be forced to stop using it.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've learned. I would not even think of replacing Billboard with Acharts anymore. Yes, an original source is ALWAYS best. I see you say that the Acharts archive of the Polish National Top 50 is "garbage." Thus should the Acharts column for Poland have the Stop_cross symbol indicator?
Yes, I've noticed Acharts being down and saying something like its servers are being updated
Iknow23 (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the Polish symbols. Thanks.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) As you may have noticed, I'm trying to better understand these Chart issues.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Atleast I come back and all my questions are answered lol. Right to: Kww. The links you posted for Whitney and Mariah. How often does that site update or rather when is the next album/singles chart released? Jayy008 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Every week. I don't know which day of the week.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!! Jayy008 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Puerto Rico?

http://www2.esmas.com/ritmoson/noticias/102058/tiene-kany-garcia-boleto-entrada-al-primer-lugar references a chart in Billboard that ranks Puerto Rican album sales. Can someone that subscribes to billboard.biz or the physical magazine verify the existence of such a chart?—Kww(talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen a Puerto Rico-only chart in either place. - eo (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

UK R&B CHART

I read a little while ago on a page that if the source wasn't stable or a searchable database it's not allowed. I can't remember which article I read that on but the UK R&B Chart has no stable source. I think it should be listen on "Deprecated charts" for that reason. What is everyone's opinion on this? Jayy008 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you read that. The UK R&B chart is physically published, and references to it should include a reference to a physical publication.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I can't remember either, so it's fine to include it, it doesn't matter if it's not a stable source? because a source only exists that changes weekly, nothing exists for UK R&B that says a particular song charted on it. Jayy008 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You should only include it if you know where it was printed. It's not OK to link to a site that changes every week.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment That's exactly what the UK R&B Chart does so it should not be allowed on page? Jayy008 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm not being understood here. I'll try again.

• The UK R&B chart is listed on a web site that changes every week.
• The UK R&B chart is also published in British music magazines.
• If all you have is a link to the website, that's no good, because it changes every week.
• If you have a copy of the magazine, then you can add it, as long as you put the magazine name, issue date, and page number into the citation.

—Kww(talk) 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the weekly chart position can be taken from the website, but not many people have access to such an expensive magazine, making it difficult to source, even though the chart position is known because it was published on a website. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not arguing there, but if you add the chart with the website citation, it's going to eventually be removed with an edit summary like "Information provided not supported by supplied citation." It's inevitable. Once that happens, no one that is at all conscientious about sourcing information would restore it. Use a magazine cite, and there's a decent chance the information will survive.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame though because it's almost like if you want to add the chart to the article, you're kind of forced to subscribe to the magazine. Incidentally, the BBC lists UK Top 40 RnB Singles and MTV has The Official UK Urban Chart. Are they different? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly different. I suspect the MTV chart is charting their own video rotation.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I know they show different charts but I didn't look at them in detail and thought if they are the same one might be a week out. Anyway I was just curious as I came across the MTV one when I looked to see if the R&B chart was on any other sites. But I don't think it is. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I understand now. which magazine do you mean? Jayy008 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ChartsPlus and Music Week.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just seeing if I understand.
AnemoneProjectors said "...Incidentally, the BBC lists UK Top 40 RnB Singles..."
Should it be used?
or NOT used because like Kww said "if you add the chart with the website citation, it's going to eventually be removed with an edit summary like "Information provided not supported by supplied citation."
Iknow23 (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It should only be used if you are able to provide a citation to an specific issue of ChartsPlus or Music Week. If the only source you have is the BBC website, you shouldn't use it, because it quickly becomes unverifiable.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I thought. I did however learn/realize [with your help] the importance of ChartsPlus and Music Week as those were mentioned earlier.
Iknow23 (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the UK R&B CHART a "component" of the UK Singles Chart? So then similar to "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart, but appears on an airplay or sales chart."?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't a component chart.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The UK R&B Chart is to the UK Singles Chart as the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs is to the Billboard Hot 100, just a lot harder to verify. — ξ^xplicit 22:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You. Fastest reply ever! :)—Iknow23 (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Korean Charts

Dead links... I clicked on the GOODCHARTS links but they're dead. Someone help Jayy008 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Websites have problems from time to time. I'd suggest leaving it a while and trying later, there's little else that can be done. --JD554 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Hanteo hasn't died completely. I'll keep checking it over the next day or so. SKS (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! Jayy008 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one-time Brazil chart

I'm not in the mood for a 3RR writeup today, so I will simply remind people of this discussion and point them at Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song). Anonymous editors keep inserting a one-off Crowley Broadcast Analysis report as if it is a published chart again.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you listed Halo at WP:RFPP? Considering it's IPs who aren't listening... SKS (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an RFPP would work unless it's obvious that I'm not the only one objecting. I'm not in a risk-taking mood today: not a good day from someone to view my edits as edit-warring.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Brazil: legitimate or hoax?

OK, we now have http://billboard.br.com/# ? Opinions on the legitimacy are welcome.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My first observation is that none of the Brazilian charts actually link to anything. The "Hot 200" and "Hot 100" links link to the US charts.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

FAKE. - eo (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish I shared your certainty. It is owned by

Registrant:

AP, C

BPP Promocoes e Publicacoes Ltda

Cj 141/142

Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 01451-010

BR

"BPP Promocoes e Publicacoes Ltda" is registered to do business in Brazil, per http://www.jucepa.pa.gov.br/pp_ato.asp?ato_id=2887 . However, it only was chartered in August 2009. This may be a website getting off to a bad start, or it may be a hoax. Right now, it certainly doesn't seem to have legitimate Brazilian charts.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is very difficult to lift the template of a website and rehash it on a fake site. As far as I know there still is no official "Hot 100" in Brazil, and unless Billboard endorses it, I call hoax. - eo (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you use the enquiry facility at billboard.biz to ask about it? I've invited comment from the Brazil wikiproject. I do agree that at this point, it cannot be used as a source for anything.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

tough: I can't get into the site maybe it's because I'm using a mac tonight. But I suggest Kww monitor it like with the Bulgarian charts. Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...it's a tough call. We don't have proof either way (at least, for now). But they have twitter! :P SKS (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

According to their website, they have a kind of a magazine. Maybe it could prove they are legit...I can search for it in real life and see if the publication at least seems to be serious. My first opinion is that the site is reliable. Well, at least it is reflecting the reality of Brazilian radio and musical media. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

'Suspicous' this website looks very suspicious, I can finally get on it but the only links that work are the ones that take you to U.S.A. Hot 100 or Billboard 200. When I click on the links to charts the website itself runs nothing at all happens Jayy008 (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The only working links are the ones to the non-Brazilian Hot 100 and 200. The link is currently useless, but I'm still not considering it a hoax. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could look for it on a newsstand, that would help a lot. I'm still not sure about this site.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree if the Brazillian user could look for it physically that be a great help! Jayy008 (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to put my hands in one of the magazines. Anyway, this reliable source confirms Billboard has released a Brazilian edition. The second paragraph says ""Billboard Brasil" [...] will include national versions of the traditional lists of the best-selling albums in the World, like the famous "Hot 100" and "The Billboard 200"". Actually, a Google search returned a fine number of reliable sources mentioning the Brazilian edition of the magazine. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Globo certainly works for me as a reliable source. It looks like our task for now is working with editors that misunderstand the site and treat the US charts as Brazilian charts.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whereas the links to "Brasil Hot 100", Brasil Hot Pop" and "Brasil Hot Popular" are inactive, clicking them opens a window that says the rankings are avaiable in the magazine and will soon be avaible in the website. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 01:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have one of the magazines, and now I'm sure this is legit. The site hasn't made it avaiable yet, but the magazine features the official Brazilian Billboard Charts. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. There's going to be some trouble getting people used to the new chart, but it will be good to have a legitimate Brazilian singles chart. There's been way too much fighting over it for too long.—Kww(talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet.... So we just need to differentiate between the good "Brazil Hot 100" and the bad one, right? SKS (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the Brazilian legal system will take care of that problem rather quickly. It's going to be a mess for a while, though. What we have to get in the habit of doing is checking and sourcing positions instead of simply reverting the addition. If it's anything like the real Brazilian album chart, it won't be much of a problem. The album chart is nearly 100% domestic albums, and I would expect the single chart to be similar. Beyonce is hellaciously popular there, though: she's been the only American act in the top 20 for months, barring the Michael Jackson anomaly.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the site does not have a working link on the main page, I found the Billboard link to the Brazil Hot 100 chart. 'Halo' by Beyonce is the current number one single of the month. Yes, it's a monthly chart. Decodet (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. I myself am tired of not having recognized Brazilian charts to enrich articles. But now, thinks will get better. By the way, I intend to create an article on Billboard Brasil, with sections on each chart. Maybe in the future we could even have separated articles for each of the Brazilian charts...Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No it is "What are you waiting for, check out this and other rankings in the print edition and will soon be available here on the site." wait wait. The charts wiil be in action. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a week charts, no month chart. Because have charts number with least weeks. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do the article Billboard Brasil. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

Is the link supposed to just take you to their homepage? If so, can somebody help me navigate to their albums chart? Jayy008 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Charts

this link Takes me to the Japanese chart lists on GOODCHARTS singles but looks like the albums chart? I can't make heads or tails of it.

Also this link takes me to Oricon albums from the link on GOODCHARTS but looks like a singles chart.

On a final note why are Billboard's Japan Hot 100 and Japan Albums Chart so different from anything on Oricon? Jayy008 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oricon's Japanese singles chart is at http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/js/ This is restricted to Japanese artists. http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/ is Japanese albums. http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/wa/ is international albums. You should be able to read these with the table at katakana and a bit of practice. The first one is "This is Us", by the Backstreet Boys, even though phonetically it's "Diisizasu" by the "Bakkostriittoboizu". Second one is Serubureshon - Madonna - arutaimubesuto, or "Celebration Madonna all time best". http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/is/ is singles from independent Japanese labels. I'll review and repair the links. As to why Billboard so different, it all comes down to the rules for getting on the charts. Remember that the purpose of a chart is to sell records, not to provide an accurate measurement.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Brazil revisited

Well, chaos is descending, but anyone could have predicted that. We all agreed to wait, but that hasn't influenced anyone else. I think we need to have a consistent response.

We do have this link. It's undated, but since it's the first chart, I think the date is obvious. There's no interval provided. It also doesn't have a permanent link: when they update the chart, it's going to upload over all these positions. That leaves us with a few choices:

• Revert when we see it, on the basis that there's no stable link.
• Keep it, on the grounds that the physical magazine is a reference. We can save this current chart somewhere to use for reference later to verify against.
• Keep it, and later go back and fix all the links.

—Kww(talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Many people have begun adding it I've noticed. I like option 2 if you can save the reference to use later, that would be good, do set up something on Wikipedia like you did with their albums chart perhaps? Jayy008 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with option 1. Until things are confirmed and we have something concrete, these should not be added, sorry. - eo (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you lack confirmation on? Editors have pointed out quite reliable sources (Globo is a major news source in Brazil ... denying its reliability is akin to objecting to the AP). One even purchased a physical copy of the magazine. I think the legitimacy of the site is no longer in question, just its usability while it is experiencing some startup problems.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already added some links to Porque Eu Sei que É Amor. In case the current ranking is simply exchanged for the next one, so that we don't have access to it anymore, I still have the physical magazine. I'm going to create an account there, to see if they can provide me with permanent rankgings or something. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 doesn't make sense, because it's legit, and having no stable link is just an excuse...although that doesn't make it any easier. #3 would be okay in theory, but who's gonna chase down all the links? (I'm sure we'll all help, but I'm also sure that we'll miss a few in the process.) And #2 (if we're gonna set up an archive) would be a lot of work. And yes, I obviously am not able to choose sides well. :P SKS (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely choose option 1. As there is no valid link for weekly charts, its impossible to verify them. Already people are adding the Airplay and Pop charts of Brazil. I am removing them stating as WP:BADCHARTS untill a consensus is reached in this matter. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

International Chart

Should International charts like Japan International Albums Chart be included when it charts on the main chart? It just adds unecassary length to the chart section I don't think it should be allowed.

Is it? Jayy008 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If they charted on the main chart, then these "International" charts should not be added as they are essentially component charts. However, if it did not chart on the main chart, then I suppose someone could argue to have it added, although it would be quite a minor chart in comparison. Personally, I don't like having them in. SKS (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're technically not component charts, more off-shoots. I agree though, no need for them. Kiac (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot 100 Brasil

what does everyone make of this link?

I'm confused as to why this site is being referenced. Jayy008 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's one unreliable source referencing another unreliable source. Not too big of a mystery. That's the reason why it's always preferred to stay away from artist sites and fan sites when looking for information.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've added this to the page... "In Brazil the album is in the top sales list of different music stores including Saraiva and FNAC and according to Hot100Brasil.com, the album is #1 most sold in the country for the second consecutive week." Tell me if I should edit the Hot100Brasil part out but it does say "according too". But if not I'll delete that and keep the part about the music stores. Jayy008 (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Any info that relies on an unreliable source (in this case, hot100brasil.com) should not be mentioned. SKS (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Already removed. Single vendor information shouldn't be provided, information from Hot100Brasil shouldn't be provided, and MariahCarey.com shouldn't be used as a source about reception.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are Charts to be shown strictly in Alpha order per country?

I thought that is the case but I just discovered at WP:MUSTARD#Record charts
"10. Charts should be arranged with the chart from the artist's country of origin first, followed by other countries in alphabetical order."
I don't see this mentioned on the project page here? We should make it clear at both places as to what is the way to do it. —Iknow23 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, because although I think I knew this was policy, I've never actually seen it done that way.... Perhaps we should change it? 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I support strict Alpha order. It is generally understood whereas the other is not. —Iknow23 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support alphabetical order as well. Far easier to order and navigate through the charts. — ξ^xplicit 04:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer just alphabetical for simplicity, but since it's in a sortable table I see nothing wrong with country of origin listed first. However, I strongly oppose any attempts to order by 'size of music industry', etc. Silent Alarm, which is actually one of the most recent featured album articles, uses the countries that Bloc Party has record labels in first; which I like the idea of, they are essentially more notable and so on. However, this requires a fair bit of research and verification and I wouldn't support this for wide usage. Another option nevertheless. Kiac (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - even if sortable, I would prefer it to initially appear in straight alpha sequence instead of forcing the reader to work out what's going on with a hybrid sequence. PL290 (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Strictly!!! It would just add confusion putting the native country first. Just leave it in alphabetical order like it has been used for as long as I can remember. Jayy008 (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. It has been changed per consensus to:
10. Charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order.
AND added to the project page here —Iknow23 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Promusicae not working

I don't know if it's just me, but the Spanish Chart Promusicae isn't currently working. I have a dead link on No Line on the Horizon which has been in effect since at least 20 August 2009. Does anyone know if there's a reason for the lengthy downtime? It's really not good news for me since NLOTH is up for FAC right now. :S MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

http://promusicae.es/listassemanales/albumes/historial/TOP%20100%20ALBUMES%2009_32.pdf works fine for me.—Kww(talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Or just use Hung Median. Kiac (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, strange, the link wasn't working for me (and it was showing up as a dead link on the link checker) but when I tried to archive it, the archived version did work. Very bizarre. Kiac, The reason why the Promusicae was so important to the article was because it had the certification on it too, which is something I could not see on the Hung Median. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart macros redux

{{singlechart}} is nearly ready for rollout. Documentation is at {{singlechart}}, and I've converted two articles: Sneakernight and My Life Would Suck Without You. Please take a look, and tell me what you think.

The most visible change is the elimination of the fake chart titles: there generally isn't really a chart named "<countryname> Singles Chart", so it always expands to "<countryname> (<chartname>)". This is obviously open to discussion.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow...impressive. The only minor quibble I have is the fact that for Billboard charts, is there any way the sources can be consolidated? Cuz on My Life Would Suck Without You, we have three separate links to the same artist page. (Oh, and converting every page will be so much fun.) SKS (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just think, though: converting every page will get rid of top40-charts.com at the same time. Seriously, I don't think there's any pressing need to convert every old page. I designed it so you can intermingle things (i.e, fix up refs to the old Billboard charts using the template, and leave the other data alone). As for the multiple Billboard refs, I wrestled with that a bit, and finally chose to prefill the chartid in the link so that only the specified chart displays when you click the link. Obviously, that's open to discussion as well.—Kww(talk) 18:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it will make things easier. There's only an issue I've noted. The new Billboard website has lost some chart data. I can use Ashley Tisdale as an example - Billboard does not list most of Tisdale's entries in their charts in her chart history. So how can we use Billboard as the reference if the site itself does not verifiy those peak positions? Decodet (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't make Billboard fix its site. If people insist, I could probably work out a way to source the Bubbling Under and Pop 100 positions to Allmusic.org, but I thought people had decided to stop listing them. If people think it's required, I'll look into it.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess AllMusic does not list Bubbling Under but I was not talking about minor charts like those. I was actually talking about Hot 100 and European Hot 100 charts. Decodet (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean cases where it's actually broken: the data is supposed to be there, but it's missing. I know of a few of those. In those cases, it has to be done manually, and referenced to whatever you have as a real source.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

←hmmm, could the ref citations be differentiated in their display? Maybe add the Chart name? For example ALL the Billboard's show as "Billboard Vanessa Hudgens Album & Song Chart History" but they DO GO to different url's. As it currently stands, one would be tempted to combine the ref citations into a,b,c etc. as they APPEAR the same. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm emulating the behaviour of {{cite web}}. The base problem is that Billboard returns the same information for the title, no matter what chart you have selected. The documentation for {{cite web}} says to provide that information as the title. I could cheat, but I suspect that there would be problems down the road with people claiming I was providing incorrect citations.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: I've modified the output so that the chart name is presented as a portion of the "work" field from {{web cite}}. Hopefully this addresses the main objections.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that disambiguates the ref citation display. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, coming along nicely. Gonna be a bit to grasp, but I'm sure we'll manage. No certifications? Kiac (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can get a certification macro ready in a few hours once everyone says that this looks OK. Same with albums and discography headers.—Kww(talk) 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference position

This brings up an issue I was getting ready to discuss anyway. BOTH of the examples show the ref in the Chart name cell, rather than the Peak position cell.

I support this showing the ref in the Chart name cell. Showing it in the Peak position cell looks cluttered with the 2 numbers (the Actual position + the ref numbering). If we can get consensus then the project page will need to reflect this change. "All of these example tables include indicators to show correct location of references." I think generally everyone is doing it this way (ref in Chart name cell) anyway. —Iknow23 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my position on that for reasons of practicality: sortable tables don't work with the reference in the position field.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say if we adopt the ref in Chart name cell, then INSTEAD of this:

Chart (2007)	Peak position
Australian ARIA Singles Chart	1
German Singles Chart 1	1
UK Singles Chart 2	1
U.S. Billboard Hot 100	1
U.S. Billboard Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks	1

¹ German radio version

² Extended dance remix

We could use this:

Chart (2007)	Peak position
Australian ARIA Singles Chart	1
German Singles Chart German radio version	1
UK Singles Chart Extended dance remix	1
U.S. Billboard Hot 100	1
U.S. Billboard Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks	1

Comments? —Iknow23 (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to figure out how to do it in the chart macros, but that doesn't seem to be a bad idea. I've split the two conversations apart, because they really are on separate topics.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine :) —Iknow23 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer putting the refs next to the chart names, for clarity and the sorting issues. Kiac (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Using {{Sort|01|1}}<ref>blah, blah, blah</ref> gets around the sorting issue in the peak chart column. --JD554 (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Project page edited to reflect consensus. —Iknow23 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

French certifications

I've been working on Kiac's request for a certification template to match the single template, and having no fun at all with France. http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165 returns blank screens after filling in the search info, and I can't get http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php to return any certifications since 2004. Anyone else have better luck?—Kww(talk) 15:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the good link : http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165&year=1997&type=10

For another year and another type of certification, we need to change the figures in the url  :

For the year : www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165&year=1997&type=10

For the type of certifications : www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165&year=1997&type=10 (20 = for diamond videos ; 19 = for 3 x platinum videos ; 18 = for 2 x platinum videos ; 17 = for platinum videos ; 16 = for gold videos ; 15 = for diamond albums ; 14 = for 3 x platinum albums ; 13 = for 2 x platinum albums ; 12 = for platinum albums ; 11 = 2 x gold albums ; 10 = for diamond singles ; 9 = for platinum singles ; 8 = for gold albums ; 7 = for gold singles ; 6 = for silver singles). I don't know why the SNEP site is so complicated... Europe22 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That worked. Thanks. I'm beginning to see why this information is usually so badly sourced: getting some of these sites to work is a real effort.—Kww(talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom 100-200

Is there a reliable site that records data in the UK from chart positions 101-200? Jayy008 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

there is only one, [www.zobbel.de] which has archive from 1994-present. some users like it, some do not. there is no clear consensus about its reliability. the same with chartstats.com for positions 41-100. Mister sparky (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. ChartStats as far as I can see, nothing has been false. Jayy008 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

100% reliable chart sources

hey guys, would it be possible to set up a section which has a list of chart sourcing sites which are agreed to be 100% reliable and acceptable for use. because as an editor of discographies it is really frustrating at FLC discussions when reviewers cant seem to agree whether a site is reliable or not. it would be nice to just say "well take a look here, it states the site is perfectly reliable". i thought that was the whole point of WP:GOODCHARTS, but reviewers just say "just because its listed there doesnt prove its reliability", its really annoying! what are your thoughts? :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

...well, if WP:GOODCHARTS doesn't work, I don't know what does. Any official chart sites are noted as such, and... well, what I'll call the "super green star" on the archives basically says, "These sites are good; use them." What further verification do these editors require? SKS (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please point to specific examples, and always feel free to leave me a message if you have trouble.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

well FL reviewers always have a problem with chartstats.com i know its been discussed before but nothing has been decided and it crops up in almost every review i see and its really frustrating. at the moment its with the Ne-Yo discography FLC review. Mister sparky (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Having the same trouble with Ashley Tisdale discography. Decodet (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

UK year end charts

Does anyone know where can I find UK year end chart? I've found this, but it has only year end top 10 from 1994 til 2006. Does anyone know where can I find year end chart for years 2007 and 2008? --SveroH (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

here --JD554 (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

tnx, but here is also only top 10 but it has older archive? any better arhive? maybe top 50 or top 100? --SveroH (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, don't want much do you? :-) You can get the top 400 album and singles charts for the year for 2001 through to 2008 in the PDFs here. --JD554 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

it's little difficult to navigate, but i'll get it sooner or later :) thank you :) --SveroH (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediabase

It's not clear to me if Mediabase can be used as a source for a chart ranking. It sounds like it can if a song hasn't gone high enough to enter a Billboard chart, but I would like clarification on that. And if it can be used, should it be titled Mediabase AC or something like that? Also, do I assume correctly that if the song does end up doing well enough to enter a Billboard chart, then the listing would be changed to show the Billboard ranking? 144.51.89.67 (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to use the Mediabase figures. If a song hasn't done well enough to enter one of the standard charts, it should be treated as uncharted within the US.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Component charts

It says "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables". In the article, component chart, it says that component charts for the Billboard Hot 100 are Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales. Within each of these articles, it also says these are the three component charts that determine the chart positions of singles on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. But then, in articles such as Pop Songs, Alternative Songs, it says these are charts based on radio airplay and are component charts of the Billboard Hot 100. There seems to be some inconsistency here in the definitions. If the Alternative Songs chart is a component chart, then based on WP:CHARTS, the chart should not be listed within song articles that it charted on unless it didn't reach the Hot 100. If Alternative Songs is allowed, then so should charting on Pop Songs, since they both measure airplay within a specific genre. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong), the Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales are the direct component charts of the Hot 100 and should not be listed unless it misses the main chart completely. The rest are debatable, because they technically are component charts (genre charts measure genre stations, and genre stations make up part of the radio stations measured in the Hot 100). I think this has been argued before, but there are always people who argue for genre charts, and I can see their point, to a degree. And it makes sense in some cases, for songs that break records on these genre charts, for example. SKS (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus may be, the other genre-related charts should be treated the same. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How can we make this relate to albums as well? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excessive/Superfluous U.S. Billboard charts [related discussions combined into one section]

Recently I’ve found excessive Billboard chart listings littering numerous album pages here on wikipedia. For example; (and this is just one of many) Metallica’s Death Magnetic debuted at number 1 on the Billboard 200 in September 2008. Listing that it charted at number 1 on the Billboard 200 should be suffice, but it seems to be wiki culture to also include information that it charted at number 1 on the Billboard Top Rock Albums, Billboard Top Hard Rock Albums, and Billboard Top Modern Rock/Alternative Albums. That gives four charts for one country when listing the Billboard 200 (the comprehensive chart in the U.S. region) should be the priority. (Why Billboard has so many charts is beyond me, but that’s another topic).

Some additional charting information is easily understood, such as Billboard's Top Heatseekers chart for new/upcoming acts that have yet (if ever) to reach the Top 100 of the Billboard 200. But listing multiple charts for one region makes it confusing to understand exactly where the album charted in the U.S. and I feel litters a given album’s page with superfluous information. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an earlier response to this issue that is helpful: "It's simply a redundancy issue. Every song or album that hits the Hot 100 (or Hot 200 for albums) will hit a physical chart, a digital chart, an airplay chart, or some combination of them. Most strong singles will hit all four. Then they hit an urban chart, or a country chart, or some other genre-specific charts. This causes a situation where the success in the US winds up overstated compared to most other countries. To keep that under control, component charts aren't included if the main chart is entered. If a song has good airplay, but too weak of sales to make the main chart (or vice versa), the components will be listed. If it it does well enough to make the main chart, that's the only one that gets listed. That way, everyone gets one chart, and that chart gives a good indication of how successful the song was.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"
—Iknow23 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And here's another: "...'component' charts? They are charts used to accumulate more significant primary charts. For example, the Hot 100 Singles Sales, Billboard Hot 100 Airplay and Hot Digital Songs charts are all used to construct Billboard's leading chart, the Billboard Hot 100. We simply can't include 12 US charts, it's systemic bias, and charts tables would definitely become overly weighted towards the US. Plus, once they've been used in a broader chart, their relevance recedes. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"
—Iknow23 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we need categories for all these component charts as well? There currently exists Category:Billboard Rhythmic Airplay number-one singles, Category:Billboard Hot Alternative Tracks number-one singles, and Category:Billboard Pop Songs number-one singles, for charts that are all defined as component charts of the Hot 100. I assumeCategory:Billboard Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks number-one singles and Category:Billboard Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks number-one singles would fall under the same criteria as well. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent compromise position to hopefully make everyone happy. Don't list the component charts in the table, but show them in a Category ONLY if they chart number one in them. What does everyone think? —Iknow23 (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

← I began a discussion page a while back about these - component charts have forever been an in-progress discussion it seems. Perhaps now more people are interested in building upon which ones carry more "weight", so to speak? Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion
also, to just answer an earlier question about why Billboard has so many charts... people forget that all of it began as a tool for the recording industry. It's all about marketing, genres, target-audiences, etc. Trust me it seems ridiculous at times for there to be "so many" charts but Billboard would not have created any of them unless there was a demand for it. And I'm sure there are a bunch of suits sitting in offices every week combing through them all to see how well their "product" is doing, in which markets, etc. - eo (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am probably not using the correct terminology, but could someone devise TREE CHARTS to give us a visual representation of the ENTIRE component structure? I think this will be very helpful in more clearly understanding this area. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think no component charts should be used unless they fail to chart on the main chart. Just because say Pop songs isn't a component to the Billboard Hot 100. It's a component to the Hot 100 airplay which is a component to Hot 100. Components of components shouldn't be allowed! Hot 100, club Songs, R&B/Hip-Hop songs, Rap Tracks, Modern Rock and Adult Contemporary should be allowed unless the last ones a component? I'm not sure Jayy008 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But the modern rock chart (Alternative Songs) IS also a component chart to the Hot 100 (at least that's what is says in the article). --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude verifiable and pertinent information on component chart positions from our readers. If an album charted on several of Billboard's component charts in addition to the Billboard 200, then listing those chart positions in a comprehensive encyclopedia ariticle about the album is quite relevant and appropriate. We should not assume that our readers either don't care about component charts, or are only interested in the Billboard 200. Much of the crux of the argument seems to be based on the fact that component chart data from other countries either doesn't exist or isn't available, but so what? Is that a reason to exclude factual information on US component charts from our readers? No. If these other countries had component chart data available, would we list those? I think we would and should. A reader (myself, for example), may be interested in the fact that although Project 1950 reached only #133 on the Billboard 200, it ranked much higher (#5) in comparison to other independently-released albums (Independent Albums chart), or that while Crash Love reached #12 on the Billboard 200, it did even better (#4 & #5) in comparison to other albums of the same genre (Alternative, Hard Rock, & Rock Albums charts). Notability of the component charts in comparison to the parent chart is not a valid reason for the exclusion of pertinent, verifiable information about chart positions (see WP:NNC). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion here is saying to not include th information at all, but whether to include it in a Chart Box on the page. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

←Jayy008 said, "Components of components shouldn't be allowed!" + more of what he said. This is the exact reason why I suggest "Tree Charts" to display all these relationships.
To: IllaZilla... If component charts are even mentioned in text, where the item charted on a main chart, I would say that IT MUST be mentioned that the component chart info is ALSO included in the MAIN chart info that is shown in the same section and/or other sections of the page. Without such mention, THAT PORTION of the information is given DOUBLE weight, which is MISLEADING. As regards to placing the component chart info in a Chart Box on the page...If we allow it to be done at all...At least put it in a SEPARATE Chart Box titled "Component charts" with a footnote at the "Component charts" chart header explaining the nature that the component chart info is also included in the MAIN charts info that are shown on the page. Thus the reader will know NOT to give the items in the "Component chart" Chart Box equal weight to those in the 'regular' Chart Box that potentially shows many countries. —Iknow23 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think that simply listing chart names and positions #s, properly referenced, is giving any kind of undue weight whatsoever, even if they are "component charts" of a larger one. All it's stating is that "this release reached this position on this chart". Totally neutral, factual, black-and-white information. Why "MUST" we elaborate on the nature of the charts? How in the world is stating simple facts "giving DOUBLE weight" or "MISLEADING"? This is akin to saying that because Titanic won Best Picture, we shouldn't mention any of the otehr 10 Academy Awards it won (as these could all be described as "component awards" of Best Picture, if one put the proper spin on it). We don't need to explain the nature of the charts in every article...that's why we link the chart names. It's up to the reader to follow the links if they want to know more about the charts themselves. What I'm seeing in your wording here is that we basically need a disclaimer on every component chart position listed in an article, declaring "NOTE: This is a component chart of the Billboard 200". We certainly don't need anything like that, because we can simply link Billboard 200 and the reader can learn for themselves about the relationships between the various Billboard charts. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I previously held your position, so I know what you're saying. See Wikipedia talk:Record charts#PROPOSAL: Use all Billboard charts that relate to the subject.. But I did not really understand about "component charts." Now that I do, I've joined the consensus. When "factual" information is given that is also part of other LARGER "factual" information, the SMALLER info is effectively listed twice (once by itself and second as a "component" of the larger one.) They are shown as two items, but they are not completely separate as one of them is also "absorbed" into the other. This relationship should be made clear. I say that the general reader should not be held responsible to investigate the charting relationships to PROPERLY understand the material presented. —Iknow23 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As regards the movie example, it is off topic. This is about "Record charts" here. But I'll say a bit about it anyway. I don't know if the LESSER awards are truly a "component" of the Best Picture award. I always thought that it was voted separately. The LESSER awards don't wholly go to the picture however, but to the Director, Screenwriters, etc. On the record charts its all the same material, audio that is listed. There aren't charts for Best Intro, Best Chorus, Best Bridge, etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an analogy, but for what it's worth there are separate Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature, Best Foreign Language Film, and Best Animated Feature. Based on your statements above about the various Billboard charts, it appears to me that you would consider all of these effectively "component awards" of Best Picture, and thus would oppose listing a Best Animated Feature win in a list of a film's awards if that film also won Best Picture. But I digress...

The Billboard charts article doesn't really explain how the different charts interact with one another, and that may be one of the reasons I don't see any problem with listing all the chart positions that an album has achieved. I still don't see how one chart being a "component" of another is a reason to exclude mention of it from an article. As in the examples I gave above, it seems relevant and pertinent to show how an album performed not only against all other albums, but against other albums of its same genre or field. Obviously Billboard finds value in these comparisons, which is why they choose to publish all of these separate charts. Who are we to say that a reader wouldn't be interested in seeing all of these chart positions, or that seeing them would cause them to somehow misconstrue the meaning of the positions? We expect readers to click on blue links if they want more in-depth information on a topic; that's why we provide internal links in the first place. If a reader isn't familiar with the nature of the chart listed, they can follow the link and learn more about it. There's no need for us to exclude certain chart info from articles, or to change our presentation or add disclaimers, simply because we assume our readers aren't willing to follow the links provided. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Again following your analogy: Best Documentary Feature, Best Foreign Language Film, and Best Animated Feature would be "component awards" ONLY IF acheiving such status is DIRECTLY factored into the Best Picture award.

The chart "presentation" should be changed to reflect that they are LESSER charts.

I think that we agree to disagree. We need other people to chime in here. —Iknow23 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisit: With the addition of the Rock Songs chart, aren't the Alternative and Hot Mainstream Rock charts now only component charts to the Rock Songs chart, which is itself an airplay-only chart and a component to the Hot 100. Mainstream Rock isn't even notable enough to include in its print or online editions. Since Billboard seems to be treating all their genre charts equally, and even listing Pop Songs first among them[4], isn't it bias on anyone's part to exclude one over the other. Especially since sources on these articles on WP are either nonexistent or out of date. Another site, Radio-info.com [5], also treats these various genre charts equally. So why not allow the main genre charts but not components of these components (e.g. Pop Songs/Top 40 ok but not Adult Pop/Top 40; Latin ok but not Latin pop; etc.) --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The following charts are deemed appropriate for use on wikipedia according to guidelines at WP:record charts

• Billboard Pop Songs,
• Billboard Rock Songs,
• Billboard Alternative Songs,
• Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs,
• Billboard Jazz Songs,
• Billboard Gospel Songs,
• Billboard Hot 100,
• UK R&B Chart

• Billboard Japan Hot 100,
• Billboard Brazil Hot 100,
• Billboard 200 (albums chart),
• Billboard R&B Albums
• Billboard Dance Albums
• Billboard Hot Club Dance Play (a.k.a Billboard Hot Dance Songs),
• Billboard Latin Songs.
• UK Dance Chart

Cross-over, multi genre and component charts such as Adult Top 40, Radio Top 40, Latin Pop songs, Latin Dance songs etc. should not be allowed as they are aggregated together to form the main charts listed above. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Question regarding Ultratop

I have a question regarding Ultratop. For the second time now, instead of a peak position, I see "tip [some number here]" when a song makes it to a Belgian chart (as seen here and here). In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea what this means. Could some shed some light to clarify its meaning? — ξ^xplicit 17:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ultratip is the moral equivalent of the "Bubbling Under" chart for Ultratop. I don't condone its inclusion, but I don't reflexively revert, either. My primary objection is that it isn't archived, making validation difficult.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, alright. Do the Belgian charts have a top 100 or is it more limited? And considering Ultratip is on the Ultratop website, those wouldn't disappear over time, correct? — ξ^xplicit 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right: they don't display in the summary table or come up in searches, but if you know the appropriate date, you can find it. I'm only aware of a top 40, but I'm not intimately familiar with Belgian charting.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To Kww, what do you mean by not archived? The chart itself or the songs that chart on the chart? for example here which has all the chartings for this song on Hung Medien. It says Tip next to it when it didn't chart on the normal singles chart but as far as I can tell, it's only a recent thing Jayy008 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to comment on this earlier, but I decided to take a nap first. Yes, they seem to have modified it, so now the Ultratip positions show up in the archive. I hadn't seen that before today. I still am not enthusiastic. Belgium is an extremely small country, and already gets double representation because of the French and Dutch charts. Now we are going to list songs that didn't make the main chart in half a country? I won't gnash my teeth and wail, but you won't find me adding them, either.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why it needs two charts anyway but I guess that's just them it would be easier just to have "Belgium Singles Chart". I do see what you mean, but there's no harm in having it as the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 is allowed. Jayy008 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read the Dutch/French part properly. Jayy008 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the Belgian charts only have a top 50, so I guess "tip" starts off from 51 and so on. I really have no opinion on the matter, but if it's now archived, I don't see why it shouldn't included like the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles was when it was archived and easily accessible. — ξ^xplicit 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There are 50 positions for Flanders (Dutch-Ultratop 50) and 40 for Wallonia (French-Ultratop 40). Apparently the "tip" is copied from the Dutch Top 40, they do have an archive showing the "tip" positions. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

CommentI have added it to articles such as "Million Dollar Bill" by Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey's latest singles. But to make it clearer should it be called a different name? It's currently "Belgium Ultratip Chart (Flanders or Wallonia)" but that's unclear to readers who do not know what the Ultratip chart is, I suggest something like "Bubbling Under Belgium Singles (Flanders)" or something or is that too long? Jayy008 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't make up a name. If you feel like it, you might want to do some research and write Ultratip.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

← Oh crap, those Ultratip peaks are temporary. On another note, there seems to be a chart for downloads (assuming Babel Fish translated that correctly). So now, my question is, is musiqueinfo.com a legitimate site for this download-only chart? — ξ^xplicit 05:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that we stick to charts from Ultratop. Ultratip peaks are the equivalent of the bubbling under charts that billboards run. They should only be included when there is no Ultratop position available. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

What problem are you seeing? So far as I can tell, the only time an Ultratip position disappears is when it is replaced by an Ultratop position.—Kww(talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Rock Songs

Can we reach consensus on the inclusion of what now seems to be the component charts of the new Rock Songs chart, i.e. the Mainstream and Alternative rock charts. It is a bit excessive to include three rock charts for a single song. I'm all for including the top level genre chart, but sub-genres? Especially with one (Mainstream Rock) that doesn't even seem very notable within Billboard itself anymore. I would say, as from the inception of the Rock Songs chart in mid-'09, that only the main Rock chart should be allowed, unless it doesn't reach the Rock chart (although I don't know how notable a song would be if doesn't chart there but does on one of the sub-genre charts). I find it a bit inconsistent as well for some to remove Pop Songs from a song article's chart table but have no problem leaving two to three rock charts listed. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

NO, do not include the Mainstream and Alternative rock charts IF INDEED they are component charts as "Billboard component charts should not be used in the tables, unless the song fails to enter the main chart..."

I would like to repeat something that I said earlier, "could someone devise TREE CHARTS to give us a visual representation of the ENTIRE component structure? I think this will be very helpful in more clearly understanding this area." I've never made a TREE CHART and I don't fully understand all the permutations of component charts either.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But isn't the Rock Songs chart a component chart of the Hot 100? --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just visited the Rock Songs page. My thoughts:

1. IF it is a component chart of the Hot 100 or Hot 100 Airplay, this should be stated on the Rock Songs page. [Furthermore, ALL component charts should state on their page, that they are a component of NAME chart. Also, ALL Main Charts should show which component charts it uses.] < In other words, it should ALL be cross-referenced.
2. Rock Songs page, needs to be retitled! It should be something like "Billboard Rock Songs" as it is NOT just a listing of ALL Rock Songs, which, in my opinion, would be generally inferred by the current title.

I just visited the Billboard Hot 100 page. It states, "There are several component charts that contribute to the overall calculation of the Hot 100. The most significant ones are shown below." These being Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Singles Sales, and Hot Digital Songs. Did you get that? "The most significant ones"...so what are the others, we should have the ENTIRE list shown.

I just visited the Component chart page. It states, "The Hot 100 is calculated from three component charts". These are the THREE shown above. But THIS is inconsistent with the Billboard Hot 100 page, as it said that other less significant UN-named charts are also used.

After ALL that, I'd say that Rock Songs is a sub-component [component of a component] of the Hot 100 IF it is a component of Hot 100 Airplay chart. BUT the Hot 100 Airplay article does NOT name any component charts that it uses itself? Augh! So how do we know.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, there is no need to bold things, use italics if you must, but bolding is needless. Rock Songs isn't a component, a component would generally be the chart that collects the information - for example, the Hot 100 Airplay would collect the information for airplay, then it would be used on the Hot 100... Rock Songs does not do this, I believe. I'm not exactly sure where it sits, I remember something saying it was airplay only, it might be a sub-chart to the Hot 100 Airplay actually, taking only information from Rock stations? Then again, I might be getting mixed up with Pop Songs and Mainstream Top 40. kiac. (talk-contrib) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, airplay only. From Rock Songs article: "Rock Songs is a chart published weekly by Billboard magazine which ranks the airplay of songs on alternative, mainstream rock and triple A radio stations."—Iknow23 (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The component charts should be specifically defined as the Hot 100 Airplay, Digital Songs, Singles Sales charts and different criteria should define the inclusion of the genre charts. Rock Songs measures airplay on some 170 rock-oriented radio stations, Pop Songs measures airplay from around 130 Top 40 stations, AC monitors under 100 AC stations. To discuss your thoughts on specific charts, I suggest going to eo's page he put up at Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion. The issue I wanted to discuss here was the need to have two to three rock charts shown on the table when only one (Rock Songs) is needed now. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AGREED with your position: "It is a bit excessive to include three rock charts for a single song. I'm all for including the top level genre chart..." I'll go one step further and SUPPORT the top level genre chart EVEN if it is a component. Please see Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion#Comments for further thoughts. —Iknow23 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ARIA Charts and acharts

ARIA now publishes ARIA Top 100 Albums (main chart) and ARIA Top 100 Physical Albums and has a similar thing with the singles. acharts appears to publish the ARIA Top 100 Physical Albums. eg Gurrumul reached #3 on the Top 100 Albums and #4 on the Top 100 Physical Albums (an ARIA report showing both peaks) and acharts (link) has it peaking at #4. (Hung Medien lists it at #3 [6]). Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is ARIA Top 100 Physical Albums a component of ARIA Top 100 Albums?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Brasil Hot 100

Can Billboard Brasil Hot 100 be added to charts? is there any archive for this chart? --SveroH (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

per WP:GOODCHARTS
"A new set of Brazilian charts are being introduced at www.billboard.br.com. At this time, no stable archiving for these charts exist, and their frequency is not clear. These will undoubtedly become valid, but it is best to wait before adding links to these charts."
—Iknow23 (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Shakira

As the sales certification page has very limited people using the discussion I thought I'd bring it here.

I was wandering when taking into consideration Shakira's album sales do you consider her a domestic artist for places like Colombia, Brazil and Spain etc, if so then the certification barriers would be different? Jayy008 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Each country has its own levels for certification. In the US, platinum = 1 million, while Canada = 100,000 and South Korea is 10,000 (!!!). (The exclamation points are there because Canada has a smaller population than South Korea yet apparently buys 10x the number of physical albums.) So you'd have to first of all find out what the levels are in each of these countries, then find reliable sources showing the certifications. SKS (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You may find list of music recording sales certifications helpful. — ξ^xplicit 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No no, what I mean is, I know all of the certification barriers from that link you just showed but some have Domestic certifications for artists native to that country and then international for offlanders so to speak.

What I want to know is that since Shakira is practicaly Spanish when adding the sales to her page for say Platinum in mexico would say use the domestic sales number or the international sales number? Jayy008 (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mexico and Spain have the same certification level for all artists, national or international. Shakira will obviously be consider as national in Colombia and international in Brazil. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Croatia

this link is being used as citation for Croatian Airplay Chart in Million Dollar Bill by Whitney Houston. To me it looks like an individual radio station and not a full listing of all in the country. Is it acceptable for use? Jayy008 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

well... we in Croatia don't have official singles chart because in Croatia you can't buy single (neither by downloading it not physical CD). so we have only airplay. Otvoreni radio is one of most listened radio stations in Croatia (i'm not 100% sure if it is third or second most listened radio station in Croatia) Otvoreni radio bases their airplay round 90% on foreign and round 10% (or less) on Croatian songs. lot of big stars like Madonna advertisinge themselfs (or their concerts, albums etc.) on Otvoreni. i know about wikipedia rules about single network charts but Otvoreni is the best that we in Croatia have --SveroH (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well judging by that, I think it should be used or if it's not allowed in the chart section then it should be written about in the chart performance section. What's everyone elses opinion? Jayy008 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to be excessively blunt or harsh (I mean no offense, but written text can always be interpreted that way), but if there's no official chart, then it shouldn't be added on Wikipedia. Of course, if this was for a Croatian artist, then perhaps there's a bit of leeway there, but this is for Whitney Houston, for a song that will chart in a lot of places. Is it really necessary to have the Croatian placing for the song? Also, generally speaking, this is the equivalent of a single-vendor chart. Perhaps it would be better to state its success in prose form (for example, charting high on various radio stations in Croatia, using a reliable source stating so) then to list it in chart form like this. SKS (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with it being mentioned in the article prose. If this is the the closest thing Croatia has to an official national chart then I would consider its use appropriate in articles on Croatian subjects or subjects connected to Croatia, but since it is still basically a single network chart I think chart tables for international hits by artists like Whitney Houston can do without it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, not in the table but in the article itself, I shall move it around a bit. Jayy008 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart trajectories in tables?

I made an edit recently, removing such here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanchatte_Renai&diff=prev&oldid=322573297 but this project page says "Chart trajectories should instead be briefly described in the text of the article or in a table for charts." Some editor(s) have been reverting or changing my edits to include trajectories in these tables. Should trajectories be left out or are they allowed in such tables? ☆CharlesNguyễn 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Trajectories should not be in chart tables, no. I'm not sure why that text is in there, should be changed. Could be added in the text of the article (the prose), if there is sufficient reasoning (eg. debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1). kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:MUSIC/CHARTS#Chart trajectories as currently written seems to be confusing AND contradictory.

::PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE:

A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article's table or charts, even if it is verifiable. Including the chart trajectory in a table or chart constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories may be briefly described in the text of the article.
—Iknow23 (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree - this is the first time I've considered this issue, but this makes sense to me. I propose this variation to discourage even that happening too much:

PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE (option 2):

A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article's table or charts as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1).
PL290 (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE (option 3) [ADDED sentence]:

A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article's table or charts as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1). Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart may be mentioned within the article text.

This will tighten up the page by including it in the WP:MUSIC/CHARTS#Chart trajectories and REMOVING the language from the intro that is "Weeks spent at peak position should be mentioned within the article text and not inserted into the table." You will note that I PROPOSE that it is OK to mention the number of weeks that it appears "in total on the Chart".—Iknow23 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know how tedious it is to read a chart trajectory textually within the body of the article, especially for these worldwide hits and its included for every country it charted? I'd be ok with mentions of debut position, number of weeks on a chart, peak position (of course), and weeks at peak only if #1 or a long stay at #2 without being a #1. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By my reading, the point being made throughout this discussion is that chart trajectories constitute an indiscriminate collection of information and hence should not be detailed either in tables or article text, but only their key points summarized (when there is reason to do so) in the article text. To make this clear, while incorporating the point made by the added sentence of option 3, I now propose a further option:

PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE (option 4):

A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article's text, table or charts as this constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Key facts about chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1; or, where relevant, number of weeks spent at peak position or number of weeks in total on the Chart).
PL290 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I PREFER (option 3) as I agree with Wolfer68, "I'd be ok with mentions of debut position, number of weeks on a chart, peak position..." I have therefore edited (option 3) to include "debut position".

(option 4) appears to me to be a little too strict, in that, "number of weeks spent at peak position or number of weeks in total on the Chart" is NOT generally recognized but restricted.

I believe that we all share the position that Detailed week-by-week listing of the Chart positions/sales, etc. is 'just too much' or an indiscriminate collection of information, but that 'key facts', which in my opinion include "the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart" should be allowed. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with option 3 : I think these info should be mentioned in the text. Europe22 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Option 4 for me - "Key facts" basically covers that last sentence in Prop 3; and we're not here to tell people exact specifics, we can't cover every case in one line, a bit of ambiguity is sometimes okay in my opinion. I also prefer saying that article text should not be used to publish an entire trajectory, we don't want someone going "in its debut week the song peaked at number 10, then it went up to number seven in week two, and number three in week three and finally number one in week four. Only to go back down to number two in week five." - and someone probably would. kiac. (talk-contrib) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone has. I've seen pages like that :( —Iknow23 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree I 100% agree that chart trajectories should only be in the text, adding it to a table seems confusing, unorganized and visually unappealing. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited (option 3) [ADDED sentence] to start "Key facts, some examples being" in response to the objection that it is too specific. Thus other situations would be allowed if they could be considered as a "Key fact".—Iknow23 (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, i think the rules are quite clear. The chart table should ONLY have the peak position of the album/single which should be kept up to date as the song/album is released. Many albums these days have a "Commericial reception" section which i think is fine but details about trejectory should be limited to the debut position, the peak position and the date that the release dropped out of the charts if known. some albums have become ridiculously detailed with week-by-week chart positions. This really isn't required. what do you think? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Preliminary Project page edit DONE (Perhaps more to come, but I'm confident consensus at least supports this limited preliminary edit):
OLD "Chart trajectories should instead be briefly described in the text of the article or in a table for charts."
New "Chart trajectories may instead be briefly described in the text of the article."

OLD "Weeks spent at peak position should be mentioned within the article text and not inserted into the table."
New "Weeks spent at peak position may be mentioned within the article text, but not inserted into the table."—Iknow23 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart trajectories in the text make a lot more sense. QuasyBoy 21:10 , 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with no trajectory tables. I didn't realize there was ambiguity about this; I recall an extensive conversation about it long ago. I also agree with Lil-unique's comments about avoiding week-by-week analysis, which is just tedious. The new verbiage [option 3] used here is good, I agree with keeping the tables as clean as possible; we don't need to know if a song spent three weeks at #20. - eo (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

← There is general agreement here. Only question was to use Option 3 or Option 4? Each in their final form is the result of the collaboration process and taking into account the views of other contributors. After allowing extra time for all that had input to participate, I've reviewed the specific votes on the two versions. I can count three votes for Option 3 and two votes for Option 4. The project page has thus been edited to incorporate Option 3.
Thank You to all participants.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not decided by the amount of 'votes'. It is the strength of the argument and the legitamacy of the discussion. This is why someone involved in the dicussion would generally not 'close' the discussion, especially based on a single 'vote'. kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I should not have used the word 'vote' but the 'more preferred version'? More participation was seeming less and less likely and a change here is wanted, so how would it be accomplished? I say Yes it is a 'legitimate discussion' as revisions were made taking into account the views of other contributors.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It should stay as is until consensus is formed for change. This discussion is still seemingly incomplete. Yes we agree we want change, but to what is not agreed upon. Remember, there is no deadline on Wikipedia. kiac. (talk-contrib) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer option 3 (as per current edit), and I think we can probably all agree at least that it's an improvement on the old version, which seemed to imply that chart trajectory information was generally expected. As has been noted, indiscriminate chart trajectory details are tedious and unnecessary: however there are some cases where chart trajectories have notable features (Mr Blobby would be one obvious example) which obviously ought to be mentioned. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey Obsessed

This may seem like a stupid question to some but I am confused about this. Midweeks look like Obsessed (normal version) is going to chart in the UK on Sunday. The remix version has charted a few months ago so if the normal version charts should 2 separate UK Singles Chart be included in the charts table, or the highest one. Jayy008 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any consensus for this sort of situation, but my personal preference would be to create a separate table if it's a separate release. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah separate tables looks the way to go. They're completely different versions, so it seems the best way to go. kiac. (talk-contrib) 00:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AGREED. Separate tables with each properly identified as to which version it is detailing. Only question I have is: Do you put the version info directly into the table, such as:

Chart (2009) Remix version, featuring Gucci Mane	Peak position

or as a outside header, such as:

Remix version, featuring Gucci Mane

Chart (2009)	Peak position

—Iknow23 (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks! Jayy008 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) By the way, which version is it that you prefer? Just wondering—Iknow23 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

At first I hated the remix, but now I'm bored of the original from listening to it to much I'm really into the remix now, yourself? Jayy008 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I meant which version of the Chart display do you prefer? But I'll answer your question also. I haven't heard the song THAT much, so I still prefer the original. But the one with Gucci Mane is ok, too :) —Iknow23 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL... What an idiot! Ok erm, I'm not sure maybe I'd choose the top one where it's inside the chart box itself but as neither were official released maybe I could just include the main version and mention the remix charting in writing in the chart performance section as the remix hasn't charted in any other country. Jayy008 (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

haha. I thought that maybe you were just 'obsessed' with the song? :D That sounds good. A second chart for only one entry probably isn't too important as it is not detailing multiple information. As you said, it could just be mentioned in the text.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, maybe a little bit. Yeah that's a good consensus I'll make the changes when the information is available on Monday Jayy008 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it really needed? (18 Charts)

The 18 chart max ban, does it really have to be in effect? The 18 charts that people list are the places where it charts highest, it gives a very unfair representation of how well the album or single actually does. When the charts get to long they can simply be split into two sections which is done for alot of artists.

What is everyone's opinions on this? Jayy008 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The limit was so that a page wouldn't be sprawling with statistics from across the globe. By the time you go above 18, you start dealing with minor markets. If you look at the talk page archives here, you'll note that this was brought up before. I think the concensus was, you can go above 18, but it has to be sourced, and it has to be for a legitimate chart. SKS (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit to being somewhat puzzled by the restriction also. The current language seems (to me) to violate WP:NPOV by being biased against some parts of the world, as it does NOT allow for all the WP:GOODCHARTS that it appears on to be used, even if referenced!
I SUPPORT what SKS says. It appears then the prior consensus has not been reflected on the project page.
Jayy008 mentioned that the display could "simply be split into two sections..." If I understand what he means, it would be to split the chart into two sections displaying ACROSS the page, instead of one long long one going down the page. Here's an example of what I think Jayy008 is saying [apologies if I misunderstand]:
Breakout (album)#Charts shown as (Part 1) and (Part 2) showing 20 charts in total + an add-on section for the Platinum Edition.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where people get the idea that we should be including the places where it charts highest. For the reason you have stated, charts should be treated somewhat like reviews on album pages - include a widespread, sourced and notable variation of charts. This should be aimed at avoiding systemic bias. Generally you will always include the more notable larger markets: US, UK, Germany. These will generally be more notable than a smaller market, even if the smaller market has more releases charted on say a discography; it is somewhat relevant to show that releases haven't been successful in a notable region. I see absolutely no reason to split it in two... scrolling down should not be an issue, it serves its purpose and the information is just as readily available to read. To me 18 has always been a happy medium, definitely more convenient than the 10 that MOS:DISCOG has. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KIAC. What often ends up happening is that it can be difficult to source some charts and so you have to look to WP:GOODCHARTS to work out which charts could be included. What i propose is that WP:record charts be updated. It should state the reasons given above for having a maximum of 18 charts and should be listed in the introduction. It should say something like

“ an article should contain no more than 18 charts which must all be IFPI registered unless the artist is not from an IFPI country ”

.

18 is plenty enough charts. I also suggest that we thin out WP:GOODCHARTS e.g. Bulgaria is not allowed. WP:record charts needs to list the 18 largest music markets in the world so that people know that when a release charts in more than 18 countries there is clear guidance for which can be included. Finally the page needs to be updated to include {{Singlechart}}(Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

I think the more important is not the number of charts, but if they are all 1/ legitimate and 2/ sourced. Europe22 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

IKnow123 you are exactly right by what I meant but no need for the "part 1&2" part just split them like the Breakout page you just showed.

I agree with "LilUnique" it should be written on Record Charts which countries are "bigger markets" then people know which ones to put rather than putting just the highest chart peaks then it would be a fair representation. Could somebody make these changes? Then the issue would never need to be brought up again. Jayy008 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are issues with a hard line, though. The first issue comes up due to songs that become popular in minor markets. For example, if there was a song that was popular throughout all of Europe, then we would need to include Swiss charts and German Charts and Latvian charts and whatnot, as long as they were all verifiable and legitimate. So there has to be room for the exceptions too. Second, what if a worldwide release kinda bombs in most major markets but for some reason becomes popular in a "minor" market?

I support any revision that would make it clearer for all editors to add/delete charts, but it would be hard to have an all-encompassing suggestion. That's the issue.

The reason WP:GOODCHARTS came about was because we needed a compromise. Any of the charts listed there are good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia articles, and then it would be up to the editors on the individual pages to determine which charts were and were not necessary. SKS (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what you just wrote there should be written on Wikipedia: Record Charts and it is very informative and clears alot of things up. But I still think a list of the 18 biggest markets should be included. Jayy008 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to choose part of what SKS said: "Any of the charts listed [on WP:GOODCHARTS ]are good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia articles..." I would stop it right there and agree with Europe22 and SKS that Legitimate and Sourced charts should be used, as I also agreed earlier. The problem is in trying to dictate among THEM which to use. Isn't it bias to NOT include any legitimate and sourced chart? There could be edit warring going on with swapping out one "legitimate and sourced" chart for another, as long as only 18 in total appear on the page!—Iknow23 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IKnow23 has picked up on my exact concern. Whilst i do feel that a maximum of 18 charts is fair their is scope to conflict. Including the 18 biggest markets like myself, Iknow23 and Jayy008 have requested would at least provide guidance for should their be a dispute. However there can be text to explain that for example with Shakira (a latin-american artist) her charts should contain both European and South American charts. Whereas someone like Beyonce should have a wide range of charts from all over the world. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, Lil-unique1. I think you misunderstood me. I SUPPORT using ALL the WP:GOODCHARTS that are sourced. Isn't it bias to NOT include any legitimate and sourced chart? I don't want to be a part of disenfranchising "minor" markets. If they have reliable and sourced charts, why can't they be used? Otherwise they will only have a say on artists from their own country and region, whereas "major" markets can speak on any artist worldwide [as long as they chart there].—Iknow23 (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No sorry maybe i did explain myself very well. What i meant was the each case should be looked at individually and of course we shouldn't forget the smaller music regions. But in a case where an album/song has charted extensively there should be a list of the 18 biggest markets which can used as a guide for dispute resolution/to help decide which charts should be included. Either way the policy for record charts does need to be updated. We need to be sensitive to the number of charts included (there has to be a limit somewhere) but also we need to have an indepth discussion about how to deal with charts. Should they be like reviews where you give a balanced oversight? or should be the first 18 charts? or the 18 biggest markets? or the charts closely related to the artist (e.g. Shakira and latin america)? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

I do not believe that the number of legitimate and sourced charts displayed should be limited. This is the simplest and fairest way to do it, in my opinion. And in practical application, perhaps it is so that not many will chart in MUCH more than 18 charts anyway? There is a difference between charts and reviews in that a single area chart is a one row listing with a numerical designation, whereas a review could take up considerable text area on the page.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If the concern is page sprawl perhaps the "Release history" sections should be limited somehow? These sections should generally be bigger [longer] than "Chart" sections as the matter of merely being released doesn't guarantee a Chart position.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LilUnique on the many questions the user brought up on what to include in the charts. I think it should be written on Record Charts that for major international stars it should be very balanced as long as it still included the major markets UK, Germany, US, Oceania and France etc. As LilUnique said for Shakira latin American charts should be used it should be written "If an artist is from a specific region, mainly charts from their home region should be used as well as including the big markets" It should also be written in it's own right that the charts should in no way be biased, if a song reached #1 in 18 counties, those charts should not always neccesarily be used. Well that's just what I think should be mentioned anyway. Oh and about Belgium and the US and UK, it should be written that if a country has two charts that are allowed to be included, they only count as one where the 18 chart rule comes into effect e.g. Flanders and Wallonia because I didn't know this until LilUnique told me. Jayy008 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to gauge what the 18 biggest markets are, be reasonable guys. I think 18 countries, not charts, as the guideline would work for me. A while back I was re-writing this page, I then decided it was a bit pointless as i wasn't going to be able to make such a massive change, even if we did need it. Anyway, I wrote this, it needs to be adjusted following this discussion, but it has the gist of things: "A maximum of 18 charts should be featured in a table for an album or single article. In the case of more popular releases, there will obviously be more than this available to add. They should then be selected in accordance with the chart's relevance to the artist (eg. home country[2]) and the general notability and/or the size of the music market.". kiac. (talk-contrib) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite easy to pick out the biggest markets to an extent by the sales certification in that country ie. if they have the same ammount for international artists as domestic and also if they have a valid singles chart in there own right. UK Ireland US Canada Australia New Zealand Japan Germany France Those should be listed as the biggest markets, it should be said these biggest markets should be used no matter what, then for example if you're Shakira more latino charts should be used (Spain, Mexico, Brazil) or if a song become a big hit in Europe then more EU charts should be used instead of Latino charts as long as the biggest markets that are listed above are used and as long as the total number of charts doesn't go above 18. You should in no way used the 18 charts where the song charted highest as this would create a biased summary. I know that needs alot of copyediting but I think something like that should be written. Jayy008 (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Using charts that have 'relevance' to the artist or genre will probably skew the Chart table to reflect the charts ONLY with the highest positions. The non-'relevant' charts that meet the criteria of also being legitimate and sourced will probably reflect lower positions, but will not be seen if the number of charts would exceed 18 according to the current discussion. Failure to display these 'hidden' charts is bias. We should be able to see not only the 'smaller' market charts that have 'relevance' but also the 'smaller' non-'relevant' charts for comparison.
If a "Song" or Album is released and it charts on a legitimate and sourced chart, it should be RELEVANT to a table displaying charts.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always ignored the 18-chart maximum part of the guideline as I feel doing so would be detrimental to the reader to get a better perspective on how an album or single performed in smaller markets and the market as a whole. As long as the chart isn't under WP:BADCHARTS and can be adequately sourced, I don't see why there should be an arbitrary limit on the amount of charts that should be displayed. — ξ^xplicit 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem being that including every single chart can easily result in chart bloat and an indiscriminate collection of information. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems I've caused a big debate and we have no direct consensus of what to do. Maybe just abolish the rule of 18 charts and use all charts as long as they're WK:GOODCHARTS. This seems like the most logical and easiest thing to do judging by people opinions. What does everyone think? Jayy008 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. I think like Explicit per the same reasons. --Europe22 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok here's what i think we should do:

• 1) ABOLISH the maximum of 18 charts rule.
• 2) Make it clearer that charts should only be included from WP:GOODCHARTS.
• 3) modify WP:record charts to include a visual representation of {{singlechart}} because still not everyone is aware of its presence.
• 4) sources need to be strictly archivable.

Please vote agree or disagree for each of the proposals

• EXAMPLE, Agree (1,2,3,4) Disagree (5) (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

There was a earlier problem experienced with the use of the word "vote". Therefore, I shall just say that I SUPPORT & AGREE with 1,2,3. With number 4, I AGREE in the long term (after the charting activity has completed for a country), but it should be allowed when the charting action is active in a country to use non-archivable material from reliable sources as it is too early to appear in archives. [A web-archive site should also be acceptable.<added later and revised here to show my position in one place]
I do not see an item 5, so cannot speak upon it.—Iknow23 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree (1,2,3,4). -- Europe22 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok now we finally have a consesnus. I agree 1,2,3,4! Also adding a 5, remove the WK:GOODCHARTS like Venuzuela that have no archive, there's no point in them being there because they can't be used. Who is going to make these changes? Jayy008 (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have a consensus for all of this. Removing the 18 chart maximum, probably. But trying to claim WP:GOODCHARTS is exhaustive, and no other charts should ever be listed? That only charts with formal archives are acceptable? Nope. First, note that no Billboard charts are in WP:GOODCHARTS, nor are any number of perfectly good charts, like the Australian Urban chart. Second, if someone took the time to archive an individual date of the Mexican Airplay chart or the Venezuelan chart, that would be fine.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they haven't taken the time to archive them, so why are they there if they can't be used? Seems like a waste of space. Can you not archive them like you do with Brazil? Also 1) and 3) seems to be consensus so can you make those changes please. Jayy008 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't archive Brazil: the ABPD does. All I do is keep track of where they publish their chart because it's pretty irregular and poorly organized. My point is that if someone used one of the web-archiving sites to archive a single page of a site (and people certainly can do that), the chart would be fine to include in an article. I don't have the resources or time to archive a pile of different charts. I'll add singlechart to WP:Record charts as soon as I get the bug with non-standard characters like Á á Ć ć É é Í í fixed. I'm not sure how to do that yet, because Hung Medien's server doesn't support the standard interface. Stefan Hung and I are talking about ways to fix it.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin. I know it's possible to archive a site but unless it's done is neccessary to keep it on WK:GOODCHARTS? Anyway thanks for your help can you also remove the 18 chart rule from the page as I think enough people want it gone. Jayy008 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a web-archive site should be acceptable. It is sort of like a screen capture but held by an outside source and shows the original url that it came from. A screen capture [picture] on an individual's image hosting site like Photobucket must NEVER be acceptable because it could have been altered before uploading.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to state the obvious, but there is multiple very easy ways of archiving these charts. One is to use the Wayback Machine, which automatically archives websites. Another is to weekly archive yourself with something like WebCite; and update it when they update their page. I have done this a few times in the past with the ARIA Chartifacts page, but they publish it monthly on Pandora, so it was a little pointless. An image copied and uploaded to Photobucket would be a copyright violation. If people really want or require these charts on a page, they should be acceptable. Remember, not every album charts on 25 charts, some may have notability only supported by one chart that is archived. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DECISION

• from above it seems feasible to agree that we have reached a consensus on all four propsals. We should dicuss and finalise proposal 5 (about removal of non-archived charts) a little further before implementing. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

I'd like to visit what Kww said, "... trying to claim WP:GOODCHARTS is exhaustive, and no other charts should ever be listed?...note that no Billboard charts are in WP:GOODCHARTS"

Perhaps we should 'flip' ITEM 2) into something more like:
"Only reliable and sourced Charts may be used. Thus, WP:BADCHARTS are never to be allowed."
The effect to be that WP:GOODCHARTS would always be allowed but there would be leeway to use Billboard, etc. If we make this excessively restrictive it will just be ignored.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice that ITEM 1) has already been implemented.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As Kww said, we can't limit what is to be used to Goodcharts. It is an exhaustive list with pretty tight constraints, this is a MOS page remember, not an instruction manual. I think it is pretty obvious that Badcharts should not be used. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop the whole: 1. Make a suggestion 2. I agree 3. I agree 4. Let's implement it. You need to discuss these things, at the moment there's been about 10 proposals in this discussion, which is not all that long of a conversation. And we've just moved on an on, giving some of us no opportunity to reply. I am loving the enthusiasm, just hold your horses and let us evaluate these things properly please. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kiac, let's talk about the current issues. I've removed the 18 chart rule from the page because everyone agrees (from what I can tell) I just propose adding a part saying any number of charts can be used as long as they're reliably sourced and are IFPI affiliated unless the artists home country is not IFPI. That's all. Jayy008 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a slight revision to the text, "Sources should be archived meaning that they can be accessed at later dates." The reason is that allowances should be included for 'outside' archiving of the charts as explained in greater detail by Kiac above. As it currently stands, one may think that ONLY the archives listed in WP:GOODCHARTS may be used.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also what about when the charting action is still active in a country? It should be allowed to use non-archived material from reliable sources as it is too early to appear in archives.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, if you could implement them that would be good! Jayy008 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We could allow a little more time in case others do not agree or even have better suggestions. We should at bare minimum wait to hear from Lil-unique1 as it is in regard to their edit. [courtesy counts] —Iknow23 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Apoligies for not responding quicker. I have made an attempt to implement some of the earlier proposals (minus the only use charts from WP:GOODCHARTS but recognise that there are more changes to be made to WP:record charts and im not sure i worded the changes best. But i did make an attempt. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

That's fine. The project page is 'organic' and will grow and change, then change again. I think it is still preferred to wait a little while more before making further changes along these lines to give others a chance to speak.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)