Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

UK Year-end 1998 singles chart

Hi. Does anyone have a reliable source for the UK Year-end 1998 singles chart? Marshmallow Honey (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marshmallow Honey: yes, I do, I have the official year-end charts as compiled by the Chart Information Network, CIN (the previous name for the Official Charts Company, but they are the same company), and printed in Music Week in the issue of 16 January 1999. Were you looking for the placing of a particular song?
I've updated most of the year-end charts on Wikipedia since the first sales-based chart in 1970, apart from a few from the early 70s where I don't have an official source, and those of 1996, 1997 and 1998. The reason I hadn't done these last three years is because the OCC website used to have the year-end charts going back to 1996, and I had noticed that for these three years the list on the OCC website was slightly different from the charts they published at the time in the 1990s, which is strange as it was the same company in both cases. I emailed them to ask why the charts had changed, but got no reply. And now that the website only has year-end charts going back to 2005, I guess I will revert back to the originally published charts and update using those sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Richard3120: Thank you for your reply and explanation. 1998 was such a great year in music but I was particularly interested in singles by All Saints - Never Ever, Under the Bridge/Lady Marmalade and Bootie Call if you might know? Marshmallow Honey (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Marshmallow Honey: I've updated the year-end top 50 singles at the 1998 in British music article and will work on the year-end artist albums and compilation albums today. "Never Ever" was no. 16 for the year (it was also no. 13 in 1997, its 1.3 million total sales being split over the two calendar years), the cover versions of "Under the Bridge" and "Lady Marmalade" were at no. 27, and "Bootie Call" at no. 70. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Thank you. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of views ?

Hello, guys. I'm a music fan and follow this wiki topic. I have few questions about. I would like to know why number of views on the Internet is not added into General guidelines as reliable source? As you know, all international producers assume number of views and likes as very important achievement. Also, I saw TopHit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tophit) has individual page and they are confirmed as reliable. Are they? I'm asking because they are not fit (very well) with Wiki guidelines. I didn't understand why Top40Charts has own wiki page and are consider like unreliable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top40-Charts). Actually, they have not any methodology (didn't find any on their site).

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music charts fan (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

First, they are single-source "charts" like those from the iTunes Store. We don't use them. Second, there's no indication that the views are not doctored by bots, etc. There is no indication that the views translate to notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Billboard issue dates

Hi guys, does anyone know (and preferably have a reliable source for) what the relation was in the 70s between the issue date on the cover of an issue of Billboard and when it actually came out? Elvis jumped to number one in the country singles chart in the issue dated 20 August 1977, which of course is four days after he died, but I don't know if the issue came out on that day (in which case the increase in sales may possibly have been directly attributable to his having passed away) or if it would have been published earlier (in which case it seems to have been a coincidence)........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: it's coincidence, I think. Both in the US and in the UK, an issue date was generally Saturday (as with August 20, 1977) which was the week ending date, but the magazine itself would come out earlier in the week, usually the Tuesday or the Wednesday, so that particular issue of Billboard would have been on sale on August 16 or 17. In any case, don't forget the chart in that week's issue would have been compiled from sales figures from the week before (if not two weeks before), so clearly Elvis had the top-selling country song a week before he died. Richard3120 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Richard3120: - good point about when the sales would have to occur - now I'm trying to work out whether it's 100% accurate to say that Elvis' other country number one of 1977 ("Moody Blue", in February) was the last chart-topper recorded in his lifetime. It sounds from what you say like the issue showing "Way Down" as the #1 country song could have literally hit the news-stands on the morning of the day he died...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, presumably "Way Down" was also recorded in Elvis' lifetime! ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
”Recorded” in the sense of achieved :-P — ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit: @ChrisTheDude: I should note though, that until recently Billboard charts were dated about 12 days ahead of the magazine's actual publication date, for some reason – I'm not sure if that was the case in the 1970s, so a magazine date may not be representative of the actual date, if you see what I mean. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, not sure what that part means - does it mean that the issue dated 20 August 1977 could in fact have come out 12 days before that date? Or have I misunderstood? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about it myself – I just know that until very recently, if you looked on Billboard's website on, say, March 1st, the charts on that day could be dated March 12th, and I never understood why. They now have more "normal" dates, so this week's chart is the week of March 24th, which makes sense. But I'm not sure how the charts were dated back in the pre-internet print-only era, and which week's sales they actually related to. I'm British, so I know how the UK charts worked at the time, but an American would know more than me about Billboard charts. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Up until recently, the Billboard issues were dated 10–11 days in advance; at the beginning of this year, Billboard wanted to make their print issue date (and thus the online chart dates as well) closer to their actual release dates. I'm not sure how long the dated 10–11 days in advance cycle lasted. Billboard (magazine) and Billboard charts still have a bit about how far in advance the issues were dated prior to this year. If the 10–11 days stood in 1977 (and I'm quite sure it would have been similar), then I'd say it'd be coincidence. Ss112 04:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all - I've re-worded the article I was working on to use wording that's less ambiguous and skirts the issue somewhat :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

At that time Billboard was published on Friday, usually arrived in the mail Monday, with a cover date of that Saturday (the week ending date). The August 20, 1977 issue would have been published August 12, and the survey period for that week's Hot 100 would have been August 3 to August 9. Don't know if the Country chart had the same survey period but either way "Way Down"/"Pledging My Love" was already No. 1 at the time of his death and didn't really "jump" to No. 1 since it was No. 2 the previous week. Piriczki (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ss112 and Piriczki for clarifying things. @ChrisTheDude: I've been looking at copies of Billboard from the period, and a couple more things point toward it being just coincidence that "Way Down" reached no. 1 on the Country Singles chart in the week of Presley's death. Firstly, the song's trajectory on the chart in the previous five weeks was 21–12–6–4–2, and then reaching no. 1 on the chart dated August 20. So as you can see, it was seemingly headed to the top spot anyway. Secondly, as Piriczki points out, the survey period was effectively two weeks before Presley's death – the next week's survey would have been August 10 to August 16 (the day Elvis died) for the issue dated August 27, and so any boost in sales from Presley's death would have shown up in the survey of August 17 to August 23, which would have been published in the issue of September 3, 1977. And indeed this is where the sales boost appears to show up... in the Hot 100, "Way Down" was no. 47 on August 20 and no. 53 on August 27, but rebounded to no. 35 on September 3. In the Billboard 200 albums, Moody Blue was no. 24 both on August 20 and 27, but leaped to no. 5 on September 3. The album also moved from no. 3 to no. 1 on the Country Albums chart on September 3. But "Way Down" had already fallen from no. 1 to no. 3 on August 27, and on September 3 it fell a further two places to no. 5. So there is no sign that Presley's death had an effect on the single's performance on the Country Singles chart. Richard3120 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Citing chart compilers for chart positions

There was a discussion during a recent featured list nomination about citing chart positions (such as the number ones of a record chart) to the organisation that compiles the chart (e.g. Billboard in the US, the Official Charts Company in the UK, etc). The discussion was specifically about whether said organisation is a primary source and that therefore to reference them is original research.

Of the 65 record charts that we've featured over the last 10 years, 59 of them (>90%) cite information about chart placings to the chart compilers. Many of the 228 artist discographies that we've featured do the same. So there's been a significant precedent in usage over the last decade to source this information in this way. My feeling is that chart positions are non-controversial facts, and that the implicit consensus has been that citing them to the chart compilers is not in violation of WP:OR. I welcome any and all opinions or thoughts from the community on this issue. Pinging Francis Schonken for his opposing viewpoint. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

All right, I'll rephrase my question: the Number Ones section of the article Official Classical Singles Chart is cited to the organisation that compiled the chart (the UK's Official Charts Company). Sourcing information about chart positions in this way is in line with 59 of the 65 record charts that have been promoted to featured lists over the last 10 years (>90%), plus many more that have not been featured (precedent in usage, implicit consensus, etc etc). Given that, should the section be tagged with a multiple issues template, as it currently is? I welcome any and all opinions or thoughts from the community on this issue. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think your article should be tagged, however my thoughts on number-one lists becoming featured is most are unlikely to ever be due to their very nature of sourcing the site that publishes it. I don't think that primary sourcing in this manner is a problem in and of itself, I just think most of the list articles are too basic to really get to featured status because they function primarily as a document of the chart's history and a list of links. There are a few featured lists of this type, but unless it's a US chart with a long history of coverage outside of the publication, I don't know if it would ever meet the secondary sourcing requirement(s). Ss112 13:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Re. "... should the section be tagged with a multiple issues template ...?" – It no longer is. As I tried to explain a couple of times, the WP:PRIMARY issue applies to the entire article. I didn't place the banner on top of the article before, while trying to work for a middle ground solution. To no avail. The entire article is problematic while more than half of its content depends on primary sources. And yes, something published by the Official Charts Company is a primary source for Official Classical Singles Chart. 10 out of 23 references *for the entire article* are to material as published by Official Charts Company, in total covering more than half of the content of the article. With other questionable sources (which I didn't detail yet, for reasons I explained in my first contribution to the FLC page), this list article is all in all an excellent example of how Wikipedia should not be written. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not that Wikipedia can't use the OCC to source an OCC position, it's that there are no sources support the proposition that we care about this chart. If no one besides the OCC ever mentions the OCC chart, what evidence do we have that it's important enough to have an article about? While the charts are evidence of notability for the songs contained on them, and it's pretty obvious that the Offical Charts Company itself deserves an article, an article per chart that serves to do nothing but archive the chart's number one positions isn't something Wikipedia needs to have.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a question for notability for an article. As a project, we have created WP:GOODCHARTS and used objective criteria to determine what should be on it. We have added charts to it and removed charts from it over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely it's a notability question, and I would suggest that Official Classical Singles Chart probably doesn't even scrape past WP:N without better sourcing, much less qualify as a featured list. WP:GOODCHARTS was written with the goal of indicating which charts met the criteria of being verifiable and written by a notable authority, not to say each individual chart warranted an article. I feel pretty confident of the author's intent on that one: Wikipedia:Record charts/Sourcing guide began in my user space.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

chartmasters.org

Can data from chartmasters.org be used?Richard Hendricks (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so – it's a one-man blog, and there's no indication on the site where he gets his sales figures from or if they're official. Richard3120 (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
So, should chartmasters.org be listed under Websites to avoid?Richard Hendricks (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It should be, yes. I already remove it when I see it used. Falls under WP:SPS, and as Richard3120 said, there's no indication of where the figures are from. They could be the owner's own original research. Ss112 04:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
ChartMasters is definitely unofficial, and they have no affiliation with International Federation of the Phonographic Industry which is the only official representative of global music industry. However, their estimations are quite conservative, trustable, and well-analyzed. I think we should not directly use this website as Wikipedia's reference, but instead we can cite "similar figures" from other reliable news services. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Chartmasters contains completely bogus information and should never be used as a source on Wikipedia. It does not cite any plausible sources as to where the information could have come from, as the sources it quotes are not all accessible for the general public to get this information. I have seen loads of blatant false information on Chartmasters. For example when they did a an article on the band Nirvana there was a page ([1]) giving sales figures for the band's "physical" singles. Yet two of the songs listed, "About a Girl" from the Bleach album and "You Know You're Right" from the Nirvana comp, were never released as physical singles which just goes to show that Chartmasters is completely bogus.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Greece Digital Songs - Billboard or IFPI?

I noticed two digital charts for Greece. Billboard and the IFPI. The positions are different and the IFPI chart says it includes data from streaming platforms but the chart is called "Digital Singles"? I assume the Billboard chart is only based on digital downloads. Is one of these charts preferred over the other? I see on the "Good Charts" section the IFPI is recommended. CoolMarc 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

BPI (UK) certifications archive

The BPI link at WP:GOODCHARTS produces a "Page not found".[2] Attempts to search the site produce a chronological listing of all artists[3] and attempts to access the web.archive go nowhere.[4] A BPI announcement indicates some changes,[5] but includes "The database and archive for the BRIT Certified Awards will remain on the BPI website for the time being, but this too will be migrated to The BRITs as part of the second phase of the relaunch later this year." Meanwhile, what is the best way to source past certifications for FLCs? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: it's really annoying, they only revamped the website and the web address a few months ago, and now they've changed both yet again. If you click on "Search/Filter" it brings up another page, and on that page there is a grey box that says "Search BRIT Certifications"... typing in your search query there and clicking the "Apply" box underneath will bring up.the result you want. The text on the certification template is going to have to be changed to reflect that. As for the archive URL, it looks like that's going to have to be removed from anywhere it's currently being used. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I've tried several times, but after filling in "Search BRIT Certification" and hitting enter/return, an "Apply" box never appeared. Do all the boxes (label, certification date, etc.) need to be completed? —Ojorojo (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: that's bizarre, because I can see the "Apply" box there on my mobile/cellphone screen even before you fill in any of the fields. And no, all you need to do is type either the artist or the song/album title in the grey box, and the search function does the rest - I never fill in any of the other fields. Richard3120 (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Richard3120: It must be particular to my computer. I've also had another unexplained problem here. Thanks for your efforts. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Brazilian singles chart

There's a PDF file featuring Brazilian chart positions for songs between 1999 and 2015, which was added to tons of song articles by Canadaolympic989 last year. I did some digging and found out that the source of the PDF file is this site. Turns out the chart used in the PDF file has no affiliation with Pro-Música Brasil, Billboard Brasil or any other official chart provider, and it's actually the same Hot 100 Brasil chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, whose article was deleted a decade ago due to dubious methodology. snapsnap (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Flavour of New Zealand

The New Zealand Listener or its "Flavour of New Zealand" charts are used in a number of articles, usually in singles chart tables.[6] The web page[7] states:

These charts courtesy of NZ Listener. Not sales based music charts; rather, they were based on voting by NZ Listener readers. Later called POP-O-METER.

Between 1961 and 1975, there were (to my knowledge) no sales-based music charts in New Zealand. In an attempt to depict what pop music was in vogue in NZ in the period 1966 to 1975, I have used the weekly music charts published in the NZ Listener.

These weekly charts were compiled from voting coupons sent in by readers of the NZ Listener. Only Listener readers would vote. The charts underwent a few name changes during this decade, but were always published weekly in the Listener.

A chart based on a such a limited poll doesn't meet the "Suitable charts" criterion #2, that requires that a suitable chart "covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources." Propose to add Listen and "Flavour of New Zealand" to WP:BADCHARTS. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a (long) discussion about NZ charts and certifications at Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Archive 3#New Zealand sales. The earliest official sales-based chart by RIANZ (the former name of Recorded Music NZ) was on 2 May 1975, and this is the earliest chart you can search for on Hung Medien's New Zealand chart archives [8]. The Listener charts seem to have been the most widely accepted ones before this date, but it's not entirely clear whether they became a sales-based chart during the 1970s - they certainly started out in 1966 as a listener poll, as stated above.
Either way, are there any official archived versions of the Listener charts to be able to use for pre-May 1975 chart positions anyway? The link above for various songs seems to quote an enthusiast's web blog as references for this chart. Pinging JG66, as he may well like to have some input in this discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought, Richard. Btw, based on that 2016 discussion you linked to, am I not right in saying that the Listener chart was indeed sales-based from 1970 onwards? I thought that was what we concluded.
I can't argue about the readers-poll nature of the chart, at least during the '60s. It was recognised as representing the popularity in New Zealand of contemporary singles, in list form, though. Which is what interests me in an effort to capture how countries around the world responded to a single (or album) in what was largely a pre-sales chart era – at least in the sense of an official, industry-representative and comprehensive chart as we know it now. James Murrells' The Book of Golden Discs and Steve Sullivan's two-volume Encyclopedia of Popular Song Recordings each talk about a pre-1970 single being "number 1" in New Zealand, and Billboard's weekly "Hits of the World" lists from the time reproduced the chart published in The Listener – well, in the case of this week from May '66 they didn't name the source (other times they do), but I can't think what other chart it could've been.
Point being that, unlike most of the charts at WP:BADCHARTS, The Listener's was not some bogus chart of little to no notability. For all intents and purposes, it appears to have been the New Zealand national top 30. JG66 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that including Listener or "Flavour" alongside bona fide chart sources is a good idea. Flavour is self-published (not by a "recognized expert"), who believes that it isn't sales or airplay derived (at least pre-1975). Unless it can be shown that the Listener meets the acceptable chart criteria, it may be included in a reception or similar section that identifies it as a reader's poll. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Richard3120:, @JG66: "Lever Hit Parade" is also being added to chart tables in song articles, using "Flavour" as a source.[9] Again, the website includes the statement:[10]

The Lever hit parades featured on New Zealand government radio stations that were in the NZBS's commercial arm. They were compiled by Lintas NZ Ltd and the sponsors were Lever Brothers. These charts were not sales based and more information is needed on how Lintas went about gathering data though my information is that is was via polling.

Although they may not be bogus, I think that "Flavour", Listener, and "Lever Hit Parade" should be added to WP:BADCHARTS, with the explanation that currently these do not meet the criteria for record charts. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

French charts pt. 2

I already addressed this six months ago, but I got no responses. Something needs to be done about the French charts: this is the official singles chart (sales plus streaming), but en.wiki keeps using the download-only chart, which is highly inaccurate because the French market is determined almost entirely by streaming now. The lescharts.com website only reports the download chart. For the sake of the accuracy of the data, I suggest to label the download-only chart as something like 'France Download', and use the SPS chart as the official French one, the only accurate representation of what's really popular in France. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 07:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: @IndianBio: any comments on this? It's not an area I know much about. Richard3120 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree. Also we can update {{singlechart}} template for France (SNEP) and France Downloads (SNEP) → The former can link to snepmusique.com and the latter to hung medien website. —IB [ Poke ] 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that lescharts.com will be updated one day or another, which is what happened to spanishcharts.com--they were publishing the highly inaccurate download-only chart until, a few months ago, they switched to the sales plus streaming one and changed all of their archives, leaving hundreds of song articles to be updated. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Romanian certifications awarded by Universal Music Romania

So this discussion stemmed from my talk page between myself and @Cartoon network freak:. CNF added a number of certifications on the Lady Gaga album articles (eg:[11]) which is from a Facebook page of Universal Music Romania, showing the record label awarding certification plaque to Lady Gaga. I reverted them, with the explanation that record labels have no authority to award certification to any artist, and Facebook being a social media website, is NOT at all a reliable source. CNF has contradicted me resulting in a discussion between him and me. CNF believes that Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (Romanian Phonographic Industry; UPFR) has authorized the record label to award artists based on sales of the albums. He provided the following sources: [12] and [13]. However, I cannot find anywhere it says that the UPFR has authorized the record label to issue certifications on their behalf. CNF himself says that "Actually, I don't think UPFR ever awarded something to someone; it was always the label who handed out certifications on their behalf." Now this is grossly problematic since record labels can easily inflate certifications and award plaques on their own whim. CNF does not think so and has continued to add these certifications in the Romanian lists. I would welcome other editors of the music articles for their input. @Harout72:, @Ss112:, @Richard3120: and @SNUGGUMS:. —IB [ Poke ] 13:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

List of certified albums in Romania wasn't mentioned in IndianBio's post. Just clarify my point for all users stepping in, I believe that, although certifications are awarded by labels, UPFR still has 'approved' that as the required amount of sales has been reached, and thus the certification is official. That's why I believe the Universal Music Facebook ref can be used; it is an official statement from the record label and it awarded certifications to Lady Gaga in accordance with UPFR. Thank you for comments! Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Record companies do not issue certifications, the certifying bodies do. Certifications as we all know are issued by certifying bodies only when record companies submit the required fees along with proof of sales. In this case, it seems like they have paid the fees to receive those certifications from Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România. While that facebook page seems like the official Universal Music page for Romania's division, we don't know the certification-levels for Romania, therefore, it's best to leave those certifications out for now.--Harout72 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly my point, we don't know if the record labels were ever given the authority to issue certifications. So it is bound to inflation since record labels would want their artists to have the best won't they? —IB [ Poke ] 14:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Harout72:@IndianBio: So all my hours of research and work on List of certified albums in Romania will be just removed by one edit? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: not at all, I think we are opposing the addition of sources which directly come from the record label, like the Facebook page links you added. Those need to be removed. However, if it is listed in a reliable newspaper or website, that an album was awarded so-and-so, that passes the threshold of inclusion. —IB [ Poke ] 14:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@IndianBio: I was having a heart attack, I'm just sorry... I will remove the Lady Gaga ref after this discussion is over, but we may hear the opinions of other users as well. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak:, as you know the certification templates are designed to have certifications with corresponding certification-levels in the next column. In the case of Romania, we don't know their certification-levels, therefore, it is useless to list their certifications. And normally we don't list certifications provided directly by Record Companies. It should be provided by Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România, but even then we could not use it, because Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România doesn't have the certification-levels posted anywhere on their page. Romania's certifying body has never been one of the more organized certifying bodies to have provided their levels for all periods.--Harout72 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Harout72: So, certifications can't be used for album pages but can be listed in List of certified albums in Romania with the condition of being reported about in a reliable magazine/website article and not in a post from the record label itself? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak:, It's always safer and more reliable when certifications come directly from certifying bodies and not some magazine. I personally rarely rely on certifications posted by the Billboard magazine. We have no information about Romania's certification system, so I would not use them anywhere on wikipedia. Besides Romania's music market isn't anything notable size wise, so I wouldn't worry too much about their inclusion.--Harout72 (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If it isn't from an official certification company and only from a label, then don't include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: @IndianBio: @Harout72: I found a page on the internet listing UPFR's members [14]. This list includes, among others, labels Universal Music Romania, MediaPro Music and Cat Music, who often hand out certifications. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
That does not explain that they have the authority to do so. All record labels are members of the RIAA in the US, that does not make them the governing body to award certification. —IB [ Poke ] 05:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Are these Romanian certifications reliable at all? There's no archive for them, and they get reported independently in various websites' articles. There don't seem to be any clear thresholds, as some albums are Gold with 2,000 and 10,000 copies, or Platinum with 20,000 and 25,000 copies sold in the same year. Most seem to be just made up. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 09:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Merynancy: The levels have however somewhat of a consistency. They got lower in the past years due to heavy piracy and crises, and that is pretty evident from the information found on the internet. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yet, there doesn't seem to be a fixed threshold within very same years, leading me to think that those certs are made up. Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România's website doesn't say anything about certs. Those websites might as well be reporting real sales along with non-existing certifications. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 10:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Merynancy: The great majority of websites — all of which are reliable — show pictures of the artists receiving the certification for their album, so certifications are definitely handed out. Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think UPFR ever got involved in certifications, it was always the labels that handed the plaques. But I also don't think they're 100% made up. They clearely have some data about sales. Not every foreign artist that comes for a concert in Romania receives something. I don't know if this helps, but here's a close-up look at Gaga's plaque for Born This Way. --Gabrielflorin01 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Record labels don't certify records, the official chart company of said country or their local version of the IFPI offer the certification. Labels often produce plaques on behalf of their artists. If in doubt contact the local record industry body - but otherwise without independent verification we shouldn't take what labels say as gospel truth.→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As Harout72 says, without any evidence of what the official certification levels are in Romania and how they have changed over the years, I don't see how we can include them. That Lady Gaga plaque simply says "for the sales of Born This Way" – no indication of exactly how many sales they are. What's to stop a record company producing a gold or platinum disc in-house and awarding it to their artists for a specified number of sales, regardless of whether or not those sales match the official certification levels? IndianBio is right when he says record companies in many countries often produce in-house plaques to award to their artists, just for publicity purposes, but they're not officially sanctioned by the certifying body, so they can't be used as proof on Wikipedia. I remember a couple of years ago several Little Mix fans insisting that a photo on social media of the group receiving a plaque from their record company counted as proof of certified sales in the UK, and it was obvious from the photo that the plaque had nothing to do with the BPI and was created in-house by Syco or Sony Music. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Americanradiohistory.com - as a source

Hi, is there any problem with using the archived Billboard magazines and other magazines that are available at www.americanradiohistory.com ? I noticed that the website owner has said not to link to Wikipedia because the URL's change, but this can always be altered on Wikipedia too. Music & Media magazines have also been archived there and appear on the whole to be a reliable source for charts with the exception of one or two countries: For the UK top ten Music & Media was using the UK charts that were compiled by the Media Research Information Bureau (MRIB) and they ran to a different week to the OCC charts and also included airplay data. The MRIB chart is mentioned in this article: The Network Chart Show. So clearly the UK charts are not right but for all the other countries listed in Music & Media the peak positions seem to match those found in the usual chart archives for those countries. The Music & Media magazine also stated which companies provided the chart info for each country and in many cases it is the same company that provides the charts for those countries today. For example AFP in Portugal. The other odd one is with Belgium. It is well documented here on Wikipedia that two charts have been recorded for the Flanders and Wallonia regions of the country. But for a time Music & Media was publishing a Belgium chart for the whole country combined. So as an example if you see the chart peaks for Nirvana's MTV Unplugged in New York it had both peaks in Flanders and Wallonia as well as for the whole of Belgium sourced from Music & Media. If you check this page of Music & Media dated Feb 18, 1995, [15], at the bottom right it says that IFPI Belgium has stopped publishing the official chart but that they would return in in March. From that point onward Music & Media was publishing the Belgium charts separately for Flanders and Wallonia. In any case I don't see a problem with using the chart which covered the whole of Belgium on Wikipedia as long as it is properly sourced, as it was produced by the IFPI. Thoughts appreciated. Update: the americanradiohistory.com website has already been used a a reference over 750 times on Wikipedia anyway. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The MRIB chart isn't the "wrong" chart, it was for a long time a well-recognised alternative to the official Gallup/Millward Brown/OCC chart, but was never accepted as an official national chart for the UK. But that's by the by – thank you for clarifying that detail.
My personal feeling would be that it's OK to quote American Radio History's page as the archived page, but quote the original source as well, e.g. the citation would end up reading something like "Billboard Hot 100 – Chart history, April 23, 1983. Billboard. April 28, 1983. Archived at American Radio History [link to web page]." I don't know what other editors think. Richard3120 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. I did not actually say or imply that MRIB was the "wrong" chart, but it clearly was never the official chart in any case. However, all the issues of Music & Media where MRIB was being quoted were from the no later than the early 90's. If you see the link to the page I posted above from Feb 18, 1995, here again [16], then by that point in time they were quoting the Gallup (company). Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, you said "not right", which I interpreted as "wrong", apologies if I made a mistake. Anyway, I suspect that Music & Media switched to the official charts in 1993. Up until that point the MRIB chart was well respected and had been widely used in pretty much any UK media that wasn't the BBC – it was the chart used for The Network Chart Show played across the entire UK independent local radio network at the same time as Radio 1's official chart on Sunday evenings, it was used for ITV's The Chart Show programme in the 1980s, and it was the chart the music magazines NME and Melody Maker printed in their papers. However, the Network Chart switched in 1993 to the official chart compilers when it became the Pepsi Chart, and The Chart Show's popularity declined throughout the 1990s before being dropped, which meant MRIB's chart lost its two main outlets and its importance faded away. Richard3120 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I should also point out here that Gallup were not compiling the chart in 1995 either, as in your example above. In 1994 Gallup lost the contract to compile the chart and Millward Brown took over. Gallup were unhappy with the decision and carried on compiling their own rival chart for a while, but it never gained much attention and they eventually dropped it. I don't know if this 1995 chart really is the Gallup chart, or if Music & Media just hadn't updated the information at the bottom of the page to say it was the Millward Brown chart. In any case, there's no reason to refer to this printed chart when the OCC has its own database available. Richard3120 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no need to refer to the Music and Media printed UK chart when we have the OCC database. However, from what I can make out all the other countries listed by Music & Media are the official charts for those countries and the peaks seem to match those found in other online databases. Added to that most of the chart companies are still the same for those countries today. For example, as I mentioned above AFP in Portugal. Thanks for the info about the old UK charts.QuintusPetillius (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Country R&R charts

In 2010, it was decided to add the Canadian Radio & Records Country Singles charts to WP:BADCHARTS since the positions were never archived anywhere. However, since then, back issues of Radio & Records have been put on American Radio History, allowing verification for most if not all of the positions on that chart. See SHeDAISY discography for one example. Most of these positions have been put back into the articles by Caldorwards4 (talk · contribs), who has gone out of his way to cite the back issues when adding the positions. With this in mind, can the R&R Canadian Country charts be removed from WP:BADCHARTS now that a source exists for their positions? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is country even music ; ) ? Yes, that is a compelling reason to delist it from there and add it to the list of good charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

DRT (Digital Radio Tracker)

Are DRT Global charts suitable for notability or sources? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

LP3

This Polish radio chart should be added to the "bad chart" section. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This was discussed before, a few years back and the result was inconclusive. Basically because the LP3 chart is broadcast by the country's state-funded national radio station and so it is/was kind of like the official air play chart or at least that gave it some official status. ZPAV has only been publishing the official Polish singles chart since 2010, and even so it is still only an airplay chart. Before 2010 the LP3 chart was the only one that had any official status because it is state funded by the Polish Government, and therefore not a "private network chart".QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@QuintusPetillius: Do you have any sources/links to support your claim ? The only thing I can see is an unreliable radio chart, like many others already listed here. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
It is not a "claim". The chart comes from Polskie Radio which is Poland's de-facto state-owned national public-service radio broadcasting organization. So unless all the associated Wikipedia articles which state this are wrong, which have all been well sourced, then there is nothing to doubt this.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
National broadcasters are different from a single station. They quite often incorporate local stations from multiple locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Walter, this backs up my point in that it does qualify as a single network/vendor chart.QuintusPetillius (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Archival

To page watchers: I'm setting up a script to archive links on Wikipedia:Record charts/List every week. Please add more links to that page if they need to be archived. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Billboard China Top 100

Billboard China Top 100 was launched at the beginning of this year, and I believe it should be added to the list of recommended charts, which currently does not have one for China. -Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Latvian charts

May I ask why the Latvian airplay chart is considered legit when it only covers one station (Latvijas Radio 5 - Pieci Hiti) that broadcasts international pop music? How is it remotely accurate? I'm pretty sure there's a rule that does not legitimate charts based on only one station on en.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 18:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it listed somewhere as legit? I don't see it or any Latvian source under recommended or acceptable charts. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
It encompasses more than 10 radio stations if you read the station's Wikipedia article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
It says nothing at all here. All I can understand from that airplay chart is that it only lists foreign mainstream songs, so it clearly doesn't cover all those radio stations - rather, only the pop and hits one. IMO not a legit chart at all considering en.wiki's rules. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 16:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So, single-network source. No reason to suppose that it is a good, reliable source for Latvia generally. Not legitimate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yet, it's used in a lot of articles. What shall we do about it? Is there a way this discussion can reach more potentially interested people? ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 01:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Merynancy: I'd probably recommend Template talk:Single chart, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music as the best places to try and get more editors involved. Richard3120 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Also WT:RECORD. --Muhandes (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I have added a notice. I feel like the Latvian chart is on the exact same boat as the Lithuanian M-1 airplay chart, which is, indeed, listed as deprecated because of its very limited representation of the national airplay. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not a suitable chart, WP:SINGLENETWORK, no third-party notability. Typically dubious top 40 radio station chart being misrepresented as a country's national chart. Abi-Maria (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that any editor who added the Latvian chart was trying to make it seem as if it was Latvia's national chart... one could certainly click on the link to see what it represented. Regardless, it was run by Latvijas Radio, which is the national public broadcaster for Latvia... you can clearly see on its article. If those editors were too lazy to add "Latvia Airplay" or the like, then that's their problem. Ss112 15:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Croatia ARC chart

No consensus was achieved in a previous RFC which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 13#RfC about notability and reliability of the ARC 100 as a record chart for Croatia. The chart can be found here. From the previous discussion it was pointed out that chart has a dubious methodology. No affiliation with the IFPI, Nielsen was found on the website which says the chart only includes foreign songs based on music trends and data from 1Played. I am concerned because this does not ring true to me as a legitimate chart of Croatia. User:GregorB, a Croatian editor, also expressed concerns regarding the methodology. I was hoping to finally get some consensus regarding this chart. Pinging @Merynancy: @Walter Görlitz: @Kww: @Hobbes Goodyear: @Harout72: @SnapSnap: @IndianBio: for opinions on this. Thanks. Abi-Maria (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you've just pinged a bunch of editors because you think they will agree with removing charts, including this one, but trying to get consensus because you were unhappy that basically nobody chipped in last time... perhaps you need to just accept it and move on? The chart link you've provided doesn't work; the link is http://radio.hrt.hr/ac/airplay-radio-chart/5/ The chart is run by Hrvatska Radiotelevizija, which is a public broadcaster that was created by the Croatian Government. It is not just some random radio station set up by somebody who knows how to make a website. The only thing it may be disqualified on the basis of is that it may be a WP:SINGLENETWORK chart, but there's certainly no concerns that it is legitimate if it is run, in part, by a public broadcaster that has been around for over 90 years. Ss112 15:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that it's a legit airplay chart, divided by national and international artists (exactly like IFPI's official Greek chart, with the difference that it's sales plus streaming). ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me go a bit off topic: the one that we should discuss is the Latvian chart, which counts plays from one single radio station, albeit major, for international pop songs and is thus not representative of the popularity of songs in the country. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally speaking, there is little I can add to my comments from the 2017 RfC. Indeed, the HRT chart may well be seen as fully legitimate (and I'm unaware of other Croatian charts), it's just the question of whether this outweighs its limitations, some of which I pointed to in the earlier discussion. GregorB (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-Billboard charts question

If an artist's song charted on another chart but did not make the Billboard charts, is it acceptable to put a footnote indicating as such?

For example, in September 2003, Kenny Chesney charted a rendition of "Luckenbach, Texas (Back to the Basics of Love)" on Radio & Records, as seen on page 43 of the 10/17/03 issue here. Since the song charted on a non-Billboard chart, and the Radio & Records position is verifiable, would it be acceptable to put the song in the discography and add a footnote like "Luckenbach, Texas did not chart on Billboard, but reached number 49 on Radio & Records"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only acceptable, it should be written about. R&R was waning in the early part if the century, but was still important. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Radio & Records is a valid source. If it charted on R&R, by all means cite it! Thanks to American Radio History we have much easier access to it as a source. Many of the articles I write (mainly in Christian music) use it as a source, as it is historically significant, reliable, and has a ton of niche charts that Billboard did not cover until it absorbed them. Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

chartdata.org

Should chartdata.org be listed as a website to avoid? Richard Hendricks (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Do editors actually use it? It seems difficult to classify it as a reliable source when its founder insists on remaining anonymous and says that it's pretty much a one-man operation, as stated in this interview [17]. I could understand why he wants to remain anonymous, to protect his sources and links to the music companies, but it means we have to go on his word regarding the data. More to the point, is there any need to cite this source? All the chart data provided like highest positions, weeks on chart, etc. can be sourced directly from the relevant chart companies of each country. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that this blog is about a useful as Wikipedia: you can't use it as a reliable source, but you can use it to find reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding charts, I'm not sure in what case you would prefer this website over the chart itself. On the other hand it's also used from time to time in the "Sales and certifications" section and I'm never sure how to treat it. I usually decide that I don't care enough and leave it be. Are you saying it is categorically considered unreliable? --Muhandes (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Billboard database: Why does Billboard have streaming chart data before streaming charts even existed?

Does anyone know what's going on with the Billboard database reporting data from before streaming-related charts existed? I think most people watching this page are already aware of the background, but for those who aren't: over the last few years Billboard began to incorporate streaming data into some of its charts, as well as introducing new streaming-only charts like Streaming Songs. In addition to new streaming charts, there's a new "everything except for streaming" chart too: after the Billboard 200 began incorporating streaming data in December 2014, they introduced a new chart called "Top Album Sales" that continues the old methodology without streams. In other words, Top Album Sales just shows "here's what the Billboard 200 would look like today if we had never factored in streaming."

The problem? Billboard's online charts database seems to pretend the streaming charts and the Top Album Sales chart always existed. I noticed this recently while working on the FAC for All Money Is Legal. The album was released in 2000, three years before the iTunes Store opened and many years before there were major commercial streaming services. Nevertheless, Billboard reports that the album charted on Top Album Sales, peaking on July 22, 2000, 14 years before the chart itself existed. The info on that page is an exact mirror of the album's actual chart performance on the Billboard 200: same peak date, same peak position, same total weeks on the chart. Which is what you'd expect, since there was no streaming in 2000 and thus no reason for there to be a difference. It's redundant at best, but ahistorical at worst—it's inaccurate to say that an album peaked on a chart that didn't exist!

The streaming charts for singles are even more baffling. Billboard reports that Amil's song "4 da Fam" charted on R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs, peaking at #97 on July 22, 2000. Bizarrely, this is slightly different than its actual performance on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs: same number of weeks on the chart and same peak date, but it says the song peaked at #99. I don't understand the discrepancy, but nonetheless the streaming chart didn't exist in 2000. I genuinely have no idea what's up with the streaming singles charts having data that predates their existence.

Has anyone else come across this? Does anyone know more about what's going on? Maybe I'm missing something. But if I'm not, I think this page should inform editors not to list data from charts that didn't exist yet, even if Billboard shows data from those charts. For example, no Top Album Sales data should be used for any chart performance prior to its introduction on December 13, 2014. (Side note: this issue doesn't include pre-2014 songs charting on streaming charts after 2014—for example, "Bohemian Rhapsody" reentering the charts in 2018 on the strength of streams. That's totally valid, as long as the chart performance occurred when the chart actually existed.) —BLZ · talk 20:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Could it have been a differently named chart at the time that turned into its current name? For example, Billboard shows Nirvana (band) all over the Aternative Songs charts here, even though the band ended in 1994 and the chart didn’t start until like 2009. But that’s because they charted on the Modern Rock Songs chart, which eventually turned into the Alternative Songs chart. It’s not so much an “error” as it is then retroactively applying the new name to the older chart name. I don’t know if that’s the case here, it’s just something I’ve noticed with working on rock music song articles. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing's being retroactively applied in this case, it's just a name change now being referred to by the current name. That seems to be different than the issue being raised here though. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwar: Good point, tho I'm glad Sergecross73 made the comparison because it's a useful way to illustrate what's going on. It's a similar situation in the sense that the best-informed and historically accurate way to describe chart performance in the early-90s Nirvana era would be to refer to "Modern Rock Songs", not "Alternative Songs". But you're right that the shift from "Modern Rock" to "Alternative" is only a change in name—not even a shift in the formal definition of the genre (other than the many natural, ever-evolving shifts in genre definitions that happen regardless of a formal name), let alone a shift in methodology (such as incorporating a new technological method of music consumption such as streaming, which arguably changes the chart itself and not just the music being charted). Also, a change like the shift from "Modern Rock" to "Alternative" didn't generate redundant charts, it just changed the name of a single continuous chart. It would be better if Billboard's database showed early 90s chart data as "Modern Rock" and contemporary data as "Alternative", but at least it describes the same chart; the situation created by the Billboard 200 and Top Album Sales is like if Billboard pretended Nirvana charted on two separate charts, both the Modern Rock and Alternative charts, which just so happened to have the exact same data.
Maybe part of what needs to be done is combing through Billboard's historical charts more thoroughly. If Billboard's own database is going to retroactively mislabel its own database (with the right data but under the wrong name), then we should try to define precise, definitive beginning and end dates for all charts, or as many charts as reasonably possible, so that editors can easily check here to see whether they need to make adjustments due to Billboard's own institutional imprecision/laziness. —BLZ · talk 04:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Having looked up that week's issue of Billboard, I'm even more confused. "4 da Fam" is listed at number 29 on the Hot Rap Singles chart on page 38, and at number 56 in the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Singles Sales chart on page 41. It's not in the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Airplay chart on the same page. But that page also gives a listing of "R&B Singles A-Z", and it's given a position of 99 in this list, which presumably is the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs position that BLZ notes above. So where does this list and its positions come from... how are they calculated? Is it a combination of the Singles Sales and Airplay charts? Is the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Airplay chart the one that Billboard now calls the R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs chart? The Airplay chart only went up to 75 positions in 2000, so there's no way of checking from this song (which supposedly peaked at no. 97) whether this is the case. I can't see any other R&B/hip hop charts in the issue – it's here if you want to check it out yourself. Richard3120 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
As you noted BLZ, the Top Album Sales chart just shows what the Billboard 200 would look like today if we had never factored in streaming. So the Top Albums Sales charts shown prior to December 13, 2014, IS the Billboard 200 because that is what it measured before that time. The two are literally the same thing, at least in terms of how Billboard is presenting it today. However, you certainly wouldn't want to cite something as charting on the Top Album Sales chart in 2000, as technically it's the Billboard 200. I have to say that I'm at a loss regarding the pre-streaming Streaming chart info and why it would even be listed. If you click on the dates from those lists of songs, it just goes to the earliest dated chart. It would certainly be incorrect to say a song peaked on a chart for a technology that wasn't even being utilized or even know about yet. To answer Richard, the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs back then was based on a combined airplay/sales methodology from R&B/hip hop radio stations and record stores that targeted a R&B/hip hop audience. I noticed the actual page containing the R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart is missing in the issue you linked us to, so it's just an incomplete copy. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: thank you, yes, I should have checked the page numbers more carefully. Richard3120 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue why it would do this, but ‘’Billboard’’ does have a history of making retroactive changes. After they added in singles sales and streaming to their genre charts, they created new Airplay charts that officially run parallel to the main chart: so, for example, the Country Songs and Country Airplay charts run the exact same until October 12, 2012, the date the Country Songs chart effectively became Country Airplay and the “new” Country Songs chart began. But for the life of me I can’t figure out the streaming thing, since that didn’t exist in any form. Toa Nidhiki05 12:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Planned new charts from Billboard and Rolling Stone

Please see this thread about the new charts planned by the above publications, and please give your views about whether either or both charts should be included in future articles. Richard3120 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

BuzzAngle Music Charts

Should BuzzAngle Music chart information ever be used in an album or song article? Richard Hendricks (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How to cite charts in Canada

What's the best way to cite older (i.e. pre-2007 Billboard) Canadian charts? The archives of RPM don't make it easy to comply with the standard WP layout MOS. The Beatles discography just cites the RPM search results from the Library and Archives of Canada, with 199 (!) nondescript links; The Who discography doesn't cite anything; Elvis Presley singles discography uses a unique source; and The Rolling Stones discography just omits Canada altogether! I can't see any way around citing each single individually, unless we leave the readers a lot of homework. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The Canadatopsingles parameter can be used with the {{single chart}} template to cite the RPM charts (there are also parameters for the Canadian Country charts, Adult Contemporary charts, etc.). However, you need to find the "chartid" number first (the template tells you where to find this), and I've stated before that I don't like the output as it currently stands: it shows this chartid in the references section as "Issue no. xxxx", which is not the same thing at all. At present I add the citation manually, but that's not what you're looking for, obviously. Maybe this is a good opportunity to ask to get the Canadian parameters cleaned up. Richard3120 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and I agree that those template parameters should be fixed as you say. But what is really confusing me is how to cite Canadian charts in tables. It seems like each single would need a separate citation instead of one master citation at the top of the column. Is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveStrummer (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you mean like in a discography table? Yes, I think it would have to be an individual citation for each single, I'm afraid. Richard3120 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: If you want the citation text fixed please leave me a note, preferably at Template talk:Single chart, stating exactly how you want it to look, and I'll have a go at it. --Muhandes (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

UK Official Charts - genre charts and regional charts

If an artist has charted on the main UK Singles Chart or UK Albums Chart, should the relevant genre chart which it also appears in be excluded from the peak chart positions in the artist's discography page? Quite a lot of discographies currently include them.

I propose to reduce clutter that genre charts (such as Christian & Gospel, Classical, Dance, Indie, Indie Breakers, R&B, Rock & Metal, Specialist Classical) and regional charts (such as Scottish) are not included in the table for an artist's discography. A note using {{efn-ua}} can be used next to the main chart position and the genre charts can be included on the release's own page. Ellm6 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't support that. They may have charted low on a main chart, but topped one of the smaller ones. It is this recognition that should be reported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree as well – we accept the Billboard genre charts, so why not the UK ones? We use Canada and Australia's genre-specific charts as well (e.g. Canadian Country Albums, Australia Dance Tracks). Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone charts

@Nice4What compiled some useful advice regarding the new Rolling Stone Top 100 and Top 200 that can be found at WP:RSCHART. I'd recommend anybody interested in contributing to record charts give it a look. Thanks TheKaphox T 13:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Very useful indeed. Regarding their implementation, I'm not sure they should be included in the same columns as weekly charts when Rolling Stone updates their charts daily. At the same time, one could argue that a single daily chart on its own sticks out like a sore thumb. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Japanese combined charts

Since June 2019, Oricon started publishing the Weekly Combined Album and Single Charts, which combine CD sales, digital sales and streaming, and are the main charts for albums and singles, replacing the weekly charts based solely on CD sales. They are the first charts to appear on the Oricon website. Should we include this change into the templates and tables? I have noticed some differences for peak positions in the combined album chart and the CD album chart, so I thought about addressing this issue. Lucas RdS (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Currently all archived positions in their database (when looking up individual releases on the regular site or at their paid site) are for the physical chart, which complicates things. Ideally we should be using the combined chart, but finding the positions for everything sounds like a massive task. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is mentioning of #1 songs that kept #2 songs from the top on articles for #2 songs really mandatory?

Most articles about songs that peaked at the number-two position of a record chart will often mention the song that kept it from reaching the top spot of that same chart. "Causing a Commotion", by Madonna, spent three weeks at the runner-up position of the Hot 100 in late 1987. On the article, only one of the two songs that kept "Causing a Commotion" from #1, Michael Jackson's "Bad" (which only held the top-spot for two weeks), is mentioned, but apparently, IndianBio does not want the other song (the Tiffany Darwish version of "I Think We're Alone Now") to be mentioned in the article. I felt like I was on the verge of an edit war with IndianBio because of his reversions, especially considering that "Causing a Commotion" is a Good Article. He reverted the "I Think We're Alone Now" mentioned twice: In November 2017 and March 2018. After the first reversion, I tried to point this out on the talk page for "Causing a Commotion", but there was no reply from IndianBio. The second reversion came after I added a source for the "I Think We're Alone Now" info (the Hot 100 chart from the week of November 7, 1987 on Billboard's official website which proves it). After this, I tried to point this out to IndianBio on his talk page, but he stated the addition of the "I Think We're Alone Now" mention was "not relevant" and was "undue weight", and discouraged under the chart trajectory policy. I then suggested to IndianBio that the article may need to be re-written entirely to include mentions of both "Bad" and "I Think We're Alone Now". It should be noted that all of Madonna's other #2 hits mention the songs that kept them from the top position (for example, on the article for "Express Yourself", both the Simply Red version of "If You Don't Know Me By Now" and Martika's "Toy Soldiers" are mentioned). Right now, I need a Third Opinion from a different user regarding this. Jim856796 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Billboard added a metric sh*tton of charts to the artist chart history on Billboard.com

Go to any artist page and check it. It’s crazy! Here’s Switchfoot as a sample. Heritage rock, Active rock recurrent charts, Canadian charts, Music video sales, Bubbling Under - all new! Toa Nidhiki05 13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Tagging y’all from above @SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Mjs1991, Trialpears, Toa Nidhiki05, Jc86035, and Ss112: Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, now we know why the charts disappeared for a while... they were busy adding all this in. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not: on the plus side, it will stop people claiming that #24 in the Bubbling Under chart is equivalent to #124 on the Hot 100. But it could make chart sections ridiculously long, adding in every minor chart. And we'll have to determine which of the new ones are component charts and therefore should not be used if the song charts on a major chart. There's also the issue that a whole load more songs will suddenly become "notable" enough for article creation by charting on one or more of these charts. Richard3120 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Recurrent charts should definitely remain banned from tables and articles. That’s the one absolute rule that has to remain imo, and unfortunately they did add recurrent charts here. As for the new genre charts, it’s all contextual and might need to involve discussion from genre WikiProjects like Rock and Christian Music, which specifically have (or had, RIP Soft AC/INSPO and Christian Rock) a ton of genre charts. Specifically, at least as a Christian music WikiProject editor, the AC Songs chart is one that can (and should) be added to discographies alongside the Songs and Airplay chart when there is room and reason. Toa Nidhiki05 13:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
That's great! They have also added an absolutley huge chart search feature. This seems to be replacing the Billboard Biz search, which {{single chart}} use for a few charts, so those will have to be updated. --Trialpears (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
So they are basically getting rid of .biz and moving everything to the Billboard.com domain? This is alright but everything we have on .biz needs to be replaced because that site is dead now. Chart search should definitely be a easier at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: cause I know you work on Christian music articles. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks I skimmed this earlier. Looks good. As for making charts long, pick the ten most important and use them. Do not go past ten. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I would think the standard now on (most) Christian music articles should be Christian Songs, Christian Airplay, and Christian AC Songs. Might be useful to have a {{single chart}} for it as well. Wish they added the CHR chart to this archive as well, but can’t get everything I guess. Toa Nidhiki05 17:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, Christian CHR Songs is currently in thechart search drop down, but gives no results. I wouldn't be suprised if they actually support it really soon --Trialpears (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I would hope so. I’m actually concerned they might ditch the chart entirely at some point, unfortunately, as they recently ended the Soft AC/INSPO and Christian rock charts. They were far smaller than the CHR chart, but I’m concerned. Toa Nidhiki05 18:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This looks interesting. Does that mean a project is going to be set up to go across articles with the .biz reference and change it to the normal Billboard search?--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Mjs1991 Most .biz references seems to auto redirect so that shouldn't be a problem, however the searches do not. Most of the 2500 search references should be using {{single chart}} and will be fixed as soon as my edit request is accepted, but there could be a lot left which I'll either deal with using AWB if it's not that many or ask GreenC to help out with his bot. --Trialpears (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It also depends on the age of the work, but for Billboard-era I think the ones Toa Nidhiki05 mentioned would be standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Spotify and chartdata.org

According to this Chartorg tweet, Random Access Memories has surpassed one billion streams on Spotify. Per this recent discussion, Chartdata.org isn't considered reliable, but its sources can be used instead. Does anyone know how I can access and cite the sources it uses for Spotify streams? Popcornduff (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

South Africa charts

Is this web site an acceptable source? rock.co.za/files/sarock_charts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnothimagain (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think that the South African singles chart that existed from 1965 to 1989 was definitely the official chart. It's just whether or not the website is reliable as a source for it. I don't see why not.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Lithuanian charts

I would like to report the launch of the official Lithuanian singles and albums top 100 (based on sales and streams), published weekly by their recording industry association AGATA. The archive can be found here. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I've also found the top 30 singles and albums charts compiled by LaIPA (the Latvian recording music association) which is once again based on sales and streaming here. We should definitely use this one instead of the 'Latvijas Top 40' chart that's only based on one radio station. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Billboard online archives gone?

OK, it's looking like the Billboard archives are no longer accessible online. Some categories, like Adult Contemporary and RnB are still up, but the Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are gone. So is the Artist Chart History. There isn't even a way to purchase archive access, as far as I can tell. Does anyone know what's going on? SteveStrummer (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, but I guess we should wait a few days and see if they reappear in some format. I can't believe that Billboard has plans to remove them permanently. Richard3120 (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I was able to find some (2001 Hot 100, for example) but I've been having issues on individual artist pages for charts. For the time being, you can still access songs and positions manually in the Billboard.biz chart search. It's finicky and it shows stuff you didn't intend to search for, but you can find individual chart weeks and positions for basically every chart they have - just not the full chart, and you have to manually search for everything. I hope this is just temporary. Toa Nidhiki05 20:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's been this way since early May-! I added some chart histories in April and they got replicated at the Internet Archive; but a chart I added on May 10 was not replicated, and it's apparently gone for good. If Billboard is planning to restore that data online, they're not doing it fast. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Dang. I've been working on some discographies and hadn't noticed until now. Billboard.biz still seems full operational at least, so I'd recommend using that to find the exact positions and then citing to Wayback machine archives. Barring that, every song has to be sourced individually for things like discographies. Total pain in the butt. Toa Nidhiki05 01:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if Billboard are planning to move their charts to billboard.biz and make you have to pay to access them... I wouldn't be surprised if all chart companies are planning to make you pay for access to charts in future. Richard3120 (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I don't think they're gone, it's just that the chart archives page that you linked to isn't working correctly (though it does look like the artist chart history data has mostly been disappeared for some reason; this is definitely wrong, and it was fine just last week). You can still get to the weekly archives (e.g. https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/1999-07-17), and every edition of the main charts should have been saved in the Internet Archive at some point. Jc86035 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jc86035: the problem is that the artist chart history is exactly what the chart templates use... it means that for almost every article for singles and albums on Wikipedia now, you can no longer verify the US chart positions. Richard3120 (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Acharts.co (which is recommended by Wikipedia:Record charts/Sourcing guide) seems to be able to replicate this functionality, although it does display week numbers instead of chart dates in some areas (the chart dates seem to only be visible on the chart archive pages), and it doesn't distinguish between remixes of songs by the same artist. For older songs I think it would probably be acceptable to link to the Internet Archive, if the current links are going to stop working permanently. Jc86035 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you here... are you suggesting that the template is rewritten to use acharts instead of the Billboard website? There are various problems with that. Firstly, the acharts archive only seems to go back to 2003. Secondly, it only has the main Hot 100 chart, and many articles use the various specialist charts, like Hot R&B/Hip Hop Singles, Hot Latin Songs or Alternative Rock Tracks. Thirdly, acharts doesn't include the full charts - it only lists the top 75 of the UK charts (which go up to 100) and the first 100 of the Billboard 200, so any positions below this are lost. Fourthly, I don't see how the template could be used to link to archived charts on the Wayback Machine, so these would have to be inputted manually for every article. Richard3120 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: In the event that the data isn't restored to the Billboard website, I think it would be sensible to use acharts and the Wayback Machine (given that there seems to be no good alternative other than the billboard.biz website), although I would nevertheless be concerned about the feasibility of most of the options. It could be possible to use a bot run to add any valid Wayback Machine links. Jc86035 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I honestly don't think acharts would be a popular option with other Wikipedia editors, given that the specialist charts are important for a lot of songs and albums, and the difficulty in implementing a combination of acharts and archived Billboard website for 100,000 songs and 80,000 albums. But perhaps we're getting ahead of ourselves here – I can't believe that Billboard has permanently wiped its chart archive, so I think the best solution for now is to wait and see if it reappears as a completely redesigned website, or as subscription-only access, and then the templates can be adjusted accordingly. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I've implemented billboard biz search sources for Euro digital songs, Luxembourg digital songs and Portugal digital songs in the single charts template since they're not in the chart history since a while back. It's currently in the sandbox waiting for more inputs but it seems to be working well. I could easily implement the same system for all other affected charts if desired. -- Trialpears (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Incredible work. That sounds amazing. It seems to be affecting all artist chart pages - is there a way to make specialized artist searches as well? Toa Nidhiki05 15:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: @Jc86035: If you have to link to the individual chart & week instead of the artist/band, I don't see an issue. Sure, it'd be annoying to verify but GBooks has 1942 to 2011 while American Radio History has 1920 to 2016 (with some holes) all freely available. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: but you'd have to know beforehand which chart week a song or an album reached its highest position, wouldn't you, so you can link to that particular week's chart? Richard3120 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: True. You'd have to search the issues to see when they charted and link the highest peak from there. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, and we'd have to do this search for 100,000 songs and 80,000 albums... and that's not taking into account that it may peak on a different week on the Hot 100 than on one of the specialist charts, so you may need to search more than once per song. That was the advantage of the artist search, it just listed the peak position, you didn't have to find out the date when it reached that position. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, that's just presuming the charts are going bye bye. I highly doubt it @Richard3120:. Else there'd be a lot of unhappy visitors to the Billboard website. Like some artists still have the chart history like Andy Williams, but others are gone. So i don't know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Recently, when creating album articles, I've been using Billboard.com/biz and inputting the artist and album name to get the charts that they're in, but then have to go to that Billboard chart to look for it. Quite time consuming.--Mjs1991 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Mjs1991, Trialpears, Toa Nidhiki05, and Jc86035: Most of the artist chart history pages appear to be working again, as do the number-one archive pages. Ss112 05:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ss112: That's great to hear! Any of them still missing? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
ROCKIN'! SteveStrummer (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Amazing news. Glad this was just a technical glitch, I guess. Toa Nidhiki05 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Mjs1991, Trialpears, Toa Nidhiki05, and Jc86035: I hope it's only temporary, but two months later, it appears Billboard has started vanishing charts again; I've noticed https://www.billboard.com/music/lewis-capaldi/chart-history/pop-songs (that link displayed a peak earlier today, now none of Lewis Capaldi's do). That's the only artist I've seen whose information has disappeared entirely so far, but it could be a sign of things to come, and Billboard's artist chart history pages are doing some other weird things too, like mismatching its chart names with its data as well. For example, https://www.billboard.com/music/madonna/chart-history/hot-100 displays the Hot 100 peaks, but shows "Billboard Argentina Hot 100" at the top, and the chart links and "More Chart History" button at the bottom lead to /charts/ARG, whereas it should be /charts/hot-100. I hope this is another technical glitch, but considering last month Billboard most of their charts behind a paywall, this may not be looking so good. Ss112 02:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Not suprised this is happening and it's very worrying indeed. I will make sure {{single chart}} points to the best option avalible, with the chart search looking the least bad right now, even though it's now behind a paywall. Hopefully it will be resolved shortly, but I wouldn't bet on it. --Trialpears (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolute worst case scenario, some of these chart positions could be sourced from select Joel Whitburn books, but obviously we'd be beholden to the years covered in those books (and those books are quite expensive). For instance, Record Research's last book on the rock charts came out in 2008, and does not feature the Triple A charts at all. The most recent Hot 100 book came out this year, and features chart information through December 2018, which would work for chart positions before that. Hopefully, however, this information gets restored or is publicly available elsewhere. Does anyone here have a subscription to Billboard? I'd be very interested to know what these artist chart history pages look like now to subscribers. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I had a bad feeling about this and I started archiving my chart citations while they were still live. I wish I'd done more because they seem to be vanishing quickly. I'd recommend archiving anything you can find. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc Strange: If needed, Google Books and American Radio History have a lot of coverage for Billboard, but this would require manual searching. As for Whitburn, you can always check if your local library / school library has a copy of the book you need instead of buying the book. I really hope these charts are not going to be hidden behind a paywall for individual artists. Else, it might come to the point where we'd have to suggest for an account for Billboard to The Wikipedia Library. Considering I've had access to Billboard for years without problems until now with the limited access to the chart search and now this, I really hope this doesn't end up like that. Also pinging @Sergecross73: as he had similar issues with locked Billboard charts very recently. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This is depressing, and it seems to be universal. I checked Billboard for Switchfoot and only three charts remain: Album Sales, Soundtrack Album Sales, and Catalog Sales. Awful, awful news. Toa Nidhiki05 22:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Doc Strange and others – most of the Whitburn books for various Billboard charts are in the British Library, for starters, although I don't know which editions they are. But it's still the case that someone would need to be both a member and live in London (I meet the first criterion, but not the second). Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: Considering how essential these chart histories are for citations to song and discography pages, an account at the Wikipedia Library might have be something we'd look into if they don't come back. It doesn't look good, though. They've moved and changed the URLs for these chart histories at least five times since I started editing chart pages over a decade ago, including the removal of positions from Allmusic, but I don't ever recall them gating them all off like this. Individual weekly charts, yes, but not artist histories. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc Strange: It could be cause of the new implements. But yeah, I hope this isn't the case. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@SteveStrummer, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Toa Nidhiki05, and Ss112: It looks like the chart history pages have been restored once more; See this example. Looks like they were reworking the URLs, which have all been changed and shortened. For instance, if the slug was "..../[artist]/chart-history/triple-a", it's now "...[artist]/chart-history/AAA". However, all the old URLs redirect to the new ones, so there's no immediate need to replace them all with the new URLs just yet. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doc Strange: Whew. Good to hear. But I think some of them have to be tweaked to the new url. i.e. this to this. I'm not fond of the abbreviation especially if it's nowhere close to the chart name. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
They seem to be having difficulty with their transition to whatever. I see they inexplicably changed this link (my archive) to this. I wouldn't expect the pages to be reliable for a while. Keep on archiving any good pages you find. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Billboard paywall

A heads up for those who monitor this page or add references from Billboard - Their site now has a pay wall on news articles and all genre or archival charts. The Hot 100 and Billboard 200 for the current week, plus recent news articles, are not under paywall, but all genre charts and all archival charts are. For chart positions, the artist chart histories we've been using as references on discography pages are unaffected by the paywall, and all are still visible (Here's a random page just for example's sake). Hopefully that does not change. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Muhandes: as this discussion (and the ones above) is relevant as it might affect album and single chart templates per other discussions on the single chart template talkpage. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks for letting me know. As always, once consensus is achieved I am happy to assist in implementing it. I see Trialpears has taken interest in these templates so I'm not really needed, but do ping me if you need my assistance. --Muhandes (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Muhandes: In that case, you might be more interested in learning that billboard URLs themselves are being changed per the discussion with Doc Strange above. I don't think all the current urls will redirect to the newer ones per the Christian Albums example I noted above. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cuban Charts

Hi I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to make proper edits on latin artists articles. I know that Monitor Latino is a good source for charts in latin america but I noticed that it doesn't have a chart for Cuba. Does anyone know if there's a legit chart for Cuba that can be used? FanDePopLatino (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: I think it's very unlikely that an official chart exists. There is a chart created by Popnable that's been in existence since 2016, but it seems to be created entirely based on likes and dislikes of YouTube videos. Richard3120 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Ok thanks. The only chart I could find was: https://www.pistacubana.com/lista/top100/. I don't know how this chart is calculated or if it is legit so I didn't want to just use it. Do you know if the pistacubana chart is ok to use? FanDePopLatino (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I doubt it, to be honest, until we can find out if (a) it is officially accepted as a national chart and (b) how the placings are calculated – I can't tell how they are worked out either. I'll ping Magiciandude and CHUI372 as they are interested in Latin music charts as well, and see if they can add anything. Richard3120 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Canada Country charts gone?

List of number-one country singles of 2019 (Canada) has not been updated since August. The entire Canada Country chart seems to have been taken off Billboard's site, meaning that List of number-one country singles of 2013 (Canada) onward are all entirely sourced to 404 links. What should be done to remedy this? The current chart doesn't seem to be anywhere on Billboard, either, making the addition of new positions impossible. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, the Billboard are as always messing up their charts so it's very possible more changes will be needed. The article currently uses Billboard biz which was shutdown in August and was replaced by chart search which should have the same information. Only catch being that chart search is behind an expensive paywall. another option would be using https://www.billboard.com/charts/canada-country/2016-03-05 where information for each is avalible. While this can't be used in {{single chart}} due to backwards compatibility it should be fine in a manually maintained list article. --Trialpears (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Billboard now includes a paywall

For some of the charts, like this one, have a paywall that won't let you scroll past the first entry, I don't see this posted anywhere else, so just thought I'd bring this up. Maybe we should replace the existing reference links with archive links. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Champion: uh, it's mentioned above in both the Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Billboard online archives gone? and Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Billboard paywall threads. Billboard seems to have changed their access status several times over the last couple of months and we're still not sure what their final version will be, so I think that's why any potential changes have been put on hold for now. Richard3120 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Slo Top 30

Came across this article with a notability tag and figured I'd defer to the experts before prod or AfD. Is this chart, which appears to be maintained by a public radio station (Val 202), notable? Raymie (t • c) 05:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Are these charts reliable?

Hi, I recently saw that someone has been using 2 unlisted sources for Mexican charts. They are:

Are these reliable/legit charts or should they not be used? FanDePopLatino (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The first is a personal website (compiled and edited by Tobias Zywietz) and so fails any reliability test, while laurentpons.com has no information and so its reliability cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, they may have information about charts but you cannot source the charts to them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Okay thank you. I wanted to make sure before using it. I saw that those charts are being used in articles for songs by Paulina Rubio. You should look into those.FanDePopLatino (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@FanDePopLatino: the Mexican charts listed on Zobbel are the Telehit "charts" from 1994 and 1995. The Zobbel website itself states, "The Telehit Top Ten is neither an airplay nor a sales chart. It's compiled in-house by Telehit, who describes it as 'the ten best videos'... So this chart should be viewed as just a guide to Mexico's music scene (newsgroup) and not necessarily as an accurate market indicator." So it's not even a real chart of any sort, it's just the videos that a music channel thinks were the best videos that week. Even if Zobbel were a reliable source, that Mexican "chart" is 100% unreliable.
We've had discussions about the use of Zobbel several times here (see Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 7#Chart Stats, Zobbel, everyHit and αCharts.us, Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 10#United Kingdom chart?? and Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 13#Reliability of Chart Log UK (zobbel.de). Editors still use it, especially for positions 101 to 200 on the UK Singles Chart, but I agree with Walter Görlitz here, the website is problematic for several reasons: (1) It's a blog... yes, it reproduces the official chart, but it's still a blog, and the positions 101 to 200 can't be verified through any easily available sources; (2) The reason they can't be verified is because they are only available to music industry professionals and people who subscribe to UKChartsPlus – the official UK Singles Chart available to the general public is only the Top 100, and this is what is published on the Official Chart Company's website and in the UK music trade magazine Music Week; (3) Is it really worth noting in a song article if a song didn't even make the top 100 in the UK? We're talking about a song that has only managed to sell a few thousand, maybe even only a few hundred, copies. Looking at this week's UK Singles chart, for example, the no. 70 record sold 7,067 copies... so how many copies do you think the no. 150 single sold? It's not going to be a number worth talking about, and that's why the OCC don't publish numbers 101-200. I do think it's high time that Zobbel was added to the list of "Websites to avoid" on this Wikipedia page. Richard3120 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: yes I understood they were bad charts when Walter Görlitz told me. I don't question that they are bad now. When I replied to him I was just letting him know that I found those charts because they are being used in articles for Paulina Rubio songs and someone should look into correcting those articles if the charts are not reliable. FanDePopLatino (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Which articles are they being used on? There are a lot of Paulina Rubio articles – it would help if we knew where to look. Richard3120 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Pretty much all her songs from the 1990's. FanDePopLatino (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Link search is your friend:
—Kww(talk) 04:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Asian Charts

Hey everyone I found this website: http://musicweekly.asia/charts. It provides weekly music charts for several southeastern Asian countries based solely on digital downloads in that country and updates every Monday. Do you think we can add these charts as acceptable charts on wikipedia? FanDePopLatino (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This has come up several times before (see Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 13#Music Weekly Asia charts, for example) and the general consensus has always been that they do not meet the reliability criteria for charts - the basic problem is that they don't say how their charts are compiled, just a vague "compiled from the week's top tracks". Even if it were decided that they are acceptable, because they do not have an archive, you would also have to manually create an archive of each country's chart every week. Richard3120 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay I didn't know. That Wikipedia archive 13 that you showed me is from 3 years ago and I only started editing wikipedia 6 weeks ago. I don't know yet about all the acceptable charts that's why I asked. Also the record charts page just has a lot of charts for European countries so I was looking for charts in other parts of the world. FanDePopLatino (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@FanDePopLatino: Yes, I know, I was just showing you that other editors have also thought it was an unreliable website, so you don't think it's just my opinion. The internet era, especially over the last ten years, has produced an explosion in charts from everywhere in the world and of so many different kinds, it's sometimes hard to determine which ones meet the criteria for WP:GOODCHARTS. It's hard for newer editors to believe that even countries like Italy, Portugal and Denmark didn't have established music charts until the late 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Official Latvian and Lithuanian charts, x2

The music industries of Latvia and Lithuania have been publishing official charts, respectively a top 30 and a top 100 for both albums and singles based on sales and streaming, since 2018. I think it's time we add them to the official charts and start using them instead of the inaccurate airplay-only Latvijas Top 40. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

These definitely seem legit and should be used instead of the dubious radio station charts that keep popping up everywhere in articles. CoolMarc 10:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
That may be so, but this is only an attempt to establish consensus. There is not consensus to replace the Latvijas Top 40 on articles (yet), so this should not be cancelling out the already existing reliable chart for Latvijas Radio 5, published by the public broadcaster of Latvia, at pieci.lv, so nobody should be removing that. Editors can say the chart published at pieci.lv is a WP:SINGLENETWORK all they like, but it's technically nine internet stations and a nationwide FM frequency and, I repeat, published by the a public broadcaster funded by the government. You're going to have a hard time proving to everybody that that's not reliable considering where it comes from. As for the Lithuanian chart, it's not published by a public broadcaster, so I've never kept it on articles. All M-1 (Lithuanian radio station) has to say is that it's "the first commercial radio station in Lithuania", not even an official broadcaster but most likely one among several. Ss112 14:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Still, when available, the sales-plus-streaming-based charts should prevail over the airplay-only ones - and that's why we don't see the German or Australian airplay charts in chart tables, although they do exist. The charts I linked are indeed legit - the Lithuanian one is on AGATA's website (their national recording industry association), while the Latvian one is linked directly from Latvia's recording industry association LaIPA's website. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 15:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

France Downloads Chart gone?

Does anyone know if SNEP has abolished the "Top Singles Téléchargés" and "Top Albums Téléchargés" charts? They are both quite popular charts that many discography/musician articles rely on and I'm not sure as to why people haven't been talking about their disappearance. heyitsben!! talk 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego chart

Hi. Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego chart is a single vendor chart. It is just a one single radio station in Poland. And the chart is based on voting. I noticed that users started adding this chart to the chart tables in various articles. Shouldn't it be recognized as a BADCHART or chart to avoid? Anyway, a guidline for this chart would be nice to avoid edit wars between editors. Max24 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Latin America

I recommend to use, when possible, the official charts posted by these Latin American countries' recording industries:

  • Top Streaming by Mexico's AMPROFON, a weekly top 10 of the most streamed songs nationwide;
  • Fonotica's weekly top 20 charts for both airplay and streaming for Costa Rica;
  • SodinPro's weekly top 50 airplay chart for the Dominican Republic.

All these URLs need to be archived at each update, the past few weeks have been saved to be used as permanent sources on it.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Merynancy: if the charts need archiving weekly, you might want to read Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 14#Archival. it looks like the Mexico Top Streaming are already archived, but you might want to add the other two. I ought to ask for the Colombia/Venezuela/Ecuador charts from National-Report to be archived as well, these are official charts for the three countries. Richard3120 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Lithuania

Are we allowing charts published by AGATA as seen here? According to the article for AGATA, it does appear to be an official trade body representing Lithuania and is an IFPI member. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 17:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes this was agreed to already. You will see in the previous talk page archive. CoolMarc 10:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_14&oldid=1137434081"