Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

India's IMI Singles chart again

India currently has only one official chart, the IMI International Top 20 Singles. When adding this chart to a table it's usually written as India (IMI), but a new acc randomly appeared last night insisting that this is wrong and misleading to say the song debuted at #1 in India since the IMI chart only tracks Intl songs and is not an "overall" chart and that it needs to be written as IMI Intl Singles and that Billboard's HOTW chart should also be included. They made several changes to "Left and Right accordingly (which I only reverted once) and also added unsourced and redundant information on the IMI chart article even though I explained why their edits were not appropriate. They reverted me twice there and I have zero energy to waste my breath explaining over and over when they don't seem to get it, so both articles are currently as that account last edited it. Could someone please take a look and do something if necessary? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No evidence for this assertion. Also, if a national record chart has notoriety and is generally accepted as the main chart of that country then it should be used over the BB HOTW chart >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I explained that multiple times but they didn't listen so I just left the page alone to avoid breaking 3RR. After about a week, I went back and restored the orig information as the user seemed to have disappeared following those few edits, so the page is back to its original form once again. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You have mentioned about correct format which should be used and reverted my change which correctly represents the charts " India International singles". I dont understand whats wrong with this format? This is the correct name of the chart. Why did you only write " India" ? This would obviously give an impression that the chart includes all songs, not particular genre or type. When for other specific charts , same format as mine is used. Example- In end year charts, position of song i

Billboard USA adult top 40 chart is mentioned and format clearly specifies it instead of just saying " USA" and mentioned song reached 33 in USA end year charts.

Similarly for other charts like US digital sales, US Mainstream. It doesnt say " USA" only but also mentioned particular genre or type that chart includes. So when adding " International singles" after India, I am only making it clear and removing confusion. Ha1231d (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

India currently only has one official chart. When the IMI launches additional charts for singles, then entries on those various charts would require differentiation when including India in a chart table. That is why charts for other countries like USA, Japan etc. have differentiators, because they have multiple charts in those territories, though in Japan's case it has two official charts: Oricon and Billboard Japan. The BB chart is a secondary chart that is used only when a song does not enter the IMI chart. The current consensus for how Indian chart entries are displayed is the format you keep reverting. If you insist everyone else on WP is wrong, then get consensus first, rather than insisting on your changes on a specific set of articles only/reverting edits (like mine) that correct you. And don't say in your summaries that you haven't been told why you're incorrect, because I've explained in my summaries every single time I had to revert you and it's been explained here to you as well. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You explained to me that Billboard chart will not be included so I am not including it but I request you not to change the proper format of IMI chart which is India International Singles and same has been mentioned in many other articles. And Please don't change the sentence which says song reached number 1 in India which is false and incorrect statement especially when it is clubbed with countries where song reached number 1 overall. I request you not to keep editing again and again without giving any proper reason. I have explained many times why I am writing India International singles instead of just saying India chart is literary for International songs. Similar format is used for Malaysia . Malaysia chart mentioned there is written as Malaysia International instead of just Malaysia. I request you not to revert edits again and again. Thanks. As a good gesture, I am not adding Billboard chart even though Billboard chart is for all Indian songs where IMI is only for International songs so they are technically different charts but I am not adding it . Ha1231d (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to say but it seems you have no interest in reaching consensus. Its only me who is trying and I have explained to you several times why you are wrong. As requested by you I am not adding billboard chart position to reach consensus but then you are even keep reverting proper format of the charts. Nothing wrong is calling " India International Singles" chart as " India International Singles " chart whereas you are only calling it " India " charts which is not appropriate and proper was to represent the chart. If someone reads that first impression would be that this chart represents all Indian songs and I am sure you very well know that chart don't represent all songs but you still keep calling it all India charts. When charts is for particular genre, usually that is mentioned and even in the article which you keep reverting , you can see list of other genre/region specific charts where proper name of chart is mentioned/ For example:- Malaysia chart mentioned in Left right article clearly says " Malaysia International" instead of just saying " Malaysia" because chart is for International singles but when it comes to India you keep calling it " India chart" when chart is " India International singles " and the reference provided for the chart literary says that and calls it India International singles Ha1231d (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Carlobunnie: Carlo, I'm not sure that the only reason other charts have "differentiators" is because there are multiple official charts from those countries. IFPI Greece publishes the only "official" charts for Greece, and I made it a point to previously ask here (with no objections) that other editors could modify the name of that chart to "Greece International" as I had been doing so and felt that without it, it was misleading. Now, granted, they publish more than one chart unlike India, but countless editors have added this Greek chart without any specification that it's not the "main" chart and only one of three songs charts they publish (the other two being a "local" digital singles chart, and an airplay chart), and considering the very nature of this Indian chart is, as stated in the chart name, the "Top 20 International Singles", should we not clarify that for this too? Even with it being the only official chart published in India, it still doesn't pertain to anything other than non-Indian songs and without "International" it almost misleads somebody into believing it's an overall metric of songs in India when it isn't. We can't necessarily expect readers to know at a glance India only has one chart or that they should automatically know of course this means the "top-20 international/non-Indian songs published by IMI". I feel like the specificity introduced by Ha1231d isn't a detriment, as it's clarifying that if a reader were to navigate to this site why where there are no Hindi etc.-language songs. Where other countries are listed and generally don't specify anything additional in the name, it's because they're the overall chart, or that's the expectation, not just because there are additional charts from those countries. Ss112 01:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem if consensus says that's how the chart entry should be identified instead, as per my previous comments to Ha1231d. My main issue was that existing consensus indicated that "India (IMI)" alone was appropriate (as seen in all existing entries of the chart across WP prior to this) and Ha1231d was selectively editing contrary to that, hence my repeated reverts of their changes until a resolution had been determined, as is happening now I guess. I still don't think it's necessary to specify in the case of India (the Greece example you cited has multiple charts so I think it's necessary there), but if the differentiator is better then okay. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think its worth arguing about to be honest. India International Singles (IMI) or India International Top 20 (IMI) suffices and cut shut this down. There's bigger fish to fry on Wikipedia. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I came here seeking clarity when contributing to an AfD of an artist who has charted in Billboard India Songs and it is unclear if this is not an RS even though it is produced by Billboard. Irrespective of that, I see that IMI International Top 20 Singles is still listed in the table as just 'IMI' and there's no explanatory text. Carlobunnie you appear to have conceded that the entry should be changed per Ha1231d and Ss112, with agreement from Lil-unique1 but nobody has made the change. Would someone go ahead and do so? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I started updating chart entries that I'm aware of to "India International Singles (IMI)" about half an hour ago. You are welcome to do the same wherever else needs it. I didn't realize nothing had been done after the discussion petered out and only remembered about this today. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok Carlo. Thanks Ha1231d (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I have completed updating all India chart entries for song pages linked to the IMI page per the above discussion, so they are now consistent across Wikipedia. If there are any related pages I missed, please let me know. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

IMI chart url redirecting to spam/ad pages

Within the past 3 weeks (inclu this one), the IMI chart url has began redirecting to spam/ad pages after the chart loads. Archiving it has also proved troublesome, esp on archive.vn, as it now saves as a captcha page instead of the chart. I asked an editor from another country to check on this for me, and they also experienced the same issues. Archiving on Wayback is hit or miss now as I am unable to save the usual archives, but someone else (idk who) has been able to save a few that show the chart. Idk if this person will continue to archive the chart page every week, so I'm a little worried about being able to properly preserve the records. Can anyone advise? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hot Digital Tracks prior to 2005

Posting here per @ResolutionsPerMinute's suggestion. Digital sales were not counted on the Billboard Hot 100 prior to February 2005 and thus including chart positions on the Hot Digital Tracks from before that date should not be against the component chart guideline. Is there any opposition to including this info on the project page? --Sek-2 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with including the Hot Digital Songs chart before the inclusion of digital sales in the Hot 100 methodology; however, I would not include Hot Digital Tracks since we don't need the chart position of each version of the song from a tertiary chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this French source reliable?

I recently happened upon this site that lists year-end charts for France before 1994, when records on SNEP's website begin, as well as sales estimates. Looking at the Source page, if it translated correctly, it seems like these ranking were compiled during the writing of a book that recorded the net sales of 7-inch/45 RPM singles; it also appears that (maxi-)CD singles were also included ([1]). Does anyone have any thoughts on this site? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding the combined charts as well in Oricon (Japan)

Since most charts in other countries are incorporating digital downloads and streaming, is it necessary to add the combined singles and albums chart, introduced in 2018, as a separate list in the Oricon lists because it gives it a more accurate picture of what the country is listening in recent years than sourcing from just physical sales. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Official Charts update

Just a heads-up, the Official UK Charts site has undergone a major makeover. All single/album chart URLs I bothered to check seem to be working, but it appears as if songs and albums now have their own pages where the charting data is kept, including data for genre-specific charts (examples: "James Bond Theme", Spiceworld, "Cold Heart", Thriller). If anything else has changed, please report it. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Although there is now more of them, most of the chart histories are unarchivable by Wayback Machine and Archive.today. Heartfox (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Tejano Gold Countdown

Would the Tejano Gold Countdown be eligible for inclusion as a good chart to use in prose and chart tables? According to the website, it gathers airplay data and metrics from ten radio stations including iHeart Radio. According to their 'About Us' tab, it is hosted by news anchor for KIII, Rudy Trevino, who founded the Tejano Music Awards in 1980. The charts have been used by Tejano Nation and Trevino's Domingo Live segments on KIII. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no. The actual rational/methodology is not clear and Tejano is subset of Latin Music. I'm also unsure about a chart that is primarily for radio audiences and only has an audience of 250k listeners within the US - a country of several hundred million. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Well Tejano is a regional music scene similar to cajun music, so the total number of listeners would be way less than more popular genres. But I'll avoid using this chart in future edits based on your points. Best – jona ✉ 18:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Tokio Hot 100

The Tokio Hot 100 has been described on the linked Wikipedia page as a single network airplay chart. However, according to the website it is compiled using the following components: Billboard JAPAN data: data for each music streaming service, download data, number of video views, CD sales data, number of tweets on Twitter [2] (translate to English). So this would seem to show that it is far from being single network airplay chart and at least covers the whole of Tokyo. Maybe this is new information that has come to light since it was added to deprecated list and it could be reconsidered ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple issues I can think of that would best to be clarified first:

• When did they make the change to multiple components? They very much used to be a single network airplay chart (so it would definitely be inappropriate to add the chart before a certain period, e.g. for 1990s songs).
• What are they measuring? It doesn't say on their website, if it's streaming/video data for the whole of Japan plus their own network airplay charts, or if it's specifically for the Tokyo area. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Oldtimemusic.com

A variety of IPs have been adding chart positions for "Top 100 Songs of [YEAR]" with links to "oldtimemusic.com" as the source.[3][4][5][6][7] The linked source pages include the statement "Below is a list from Billboard magazine’s Top ear-End Hot 100 songs for [YEAR]. Chart © by Billboard, a part of MRC Media and Info, a division of MRC. All Rights Reserved. Learn more about Billboard here. [link to WP Billboard page]".[8][9][10][11] One problem with is that Billboard, the actual chart preparer, is not identified in their edits. Another is that chart positions for Billboard are already included in the same article and the two often show different positions.

A search of WP articles that include "Oldtimemusic.com" shows 268 different articles.[12] A quick review of the edit histories shows that these were added by IPs that only make one or two edits to add oldtimemusic.com before moving on to a new IP address (see links at end of first sentence). Propose to remove chart positions with Oldtimemusic.com as the source.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. These positions do not match up with the actual Billboard year-end positions, even though that's what the site claims. For 1972, Billboard says "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" was the most-successful single ([13]), but OTM says it's "American Pie" ([14]). Following a quick Google search, nearly every source agrees that "Face" was the most successful hit of the year. Wherever this Paul Thompson person is getting their information, it's probably not accurate unless they've somehow included modern sales figures, but there's no evidence of that. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem with many of the unaffiliated re-publishing sites. When the actual Billboard charts are available, there is no reason to use a re-publisher, as advised in WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. Since most of the "oldtimemusic.com" edits were made by different IPs, it will take a little more time to remove them all. Want to split up the 268 or? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

These have now been removed (thanks to those who helped).[15] It was surprising to see that all of the articles also use other self-published/user-generated type websites as sources, such as musicoutfitters.com, musicvf.com, tropicalglen.com, etc. I'll add Oldtimemusic.com to WP:BADCHARTSAVOID, so it can be ignored along with the rest. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Billboard's year end charts are very problematic. I did extensive testing to understand their methods (to avoid misinterpreting data and making false representations. I found many years where 2-4 months of chart activity was excluded for various reasons such as print deadlines. Eventually, I adapted BB's own formulas to produce a reliable list for each year that I used to work through problems. Most of the sources Ojorojo mentioned are terrible, don't use them. Also, matching up with BB's erratic and truncated year end charts is also undesirable, major hit songs are often missing or split between 2 years. If you run into a problem, message me and I will at least give you accurate dates and numbers to work with. Tillywilly17 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

European Hit Radio

I've seen articles that include European Hit Radio's Latvian airplay chart; however, isn't that chart a single-network chart since EHR is a radio station? Besides, there is already a reliable Latvian airplay chart, which is compiled by LaIPA. Jvaspad (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this a good chart?

I was going through Let Me Reintroduce Myselfs page and there’s an airplay chart in Italy under EarOne, which appears to just a be a radio station in Italy. [16] — Is this considered a chart that should be included? Pillowdelight (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope its a WP:SINGLEVENDOR, EarOne is the partner of the Italian music industry. Born in 2008, thanks to an absolutely innovative vision, EarOne immediately established itself for having introduced real-time services linked to airplay and for having made data available to the public that were reserved only for professionals. A revolution that immediately attracted the attention of operators for the quality and reliability of the data, so much so that today EarOne is the reference in the music sector. EarOne was responsible for the introduction - in 2012 - of the real-time processing of airplay charts, the visualization of radio and TV playlists, and detailed searches on song broadcasts. The airplay-related services were also supported by MediaSender >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

TikTok Billboard Top 50

I've just seen that an article has been created for Billboard's newest chart, the TikTok Billboard Top 50. I've just removed the chart from two articles, as, no matter the size of the platform, it functions much like Billboard's Twitter Trending chart—it tracks what's trending on TikTok (the chart is "based on a combination of total creations, video views and user engagement"), so is basically a WP:SINGLENETWORK chart. Ss112 01:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Heartfox (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Should we explicitly add it to the WP:BADCHARTS section? People keep adding it despite it being a clear case of WP:SINGLEVENDOR. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@CAMERAwMUSTACHE: I've gone ahead and added it to WP:BADCHARTS. I think this is as good a consensus against its inclusion as we're going to get, and it's been over a month since I proposed it. I haven't noticed any additional cases of it being added, but if it has then this is all the more need for it. Ss112 03:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)