Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts/Archive 10

Chart lists
Why is there a need to color code table headings for such lists of #1 songs charts such as List of number-one country hits of 2010 (U.S.) and List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2010 (U.S.)? It adds nothing and I'd just prefer using the wikitable format and being consistent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The blue and purple look better than your plain, generic attempt.  Nowyouseeme talk2me  05:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations, please.
 * No, really; what if you say they look better, and I say they don't? Frankly, the weird colors look goofy to me, because I know the table is supposed to be gray.
 * But if you really believe the blue and purple look better (which is it?), then please go get the color for wikitable defaults changed, because Wikipedia is filled with standard gray tables. Sounds like our first priority should be to change the default (although the film & TV project people have had, uh, some difficulty achieving consensus, even amongst themselves). &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The country list was blue (until that user above changed it) and the AC list is purple. This seems like such a trivial thing to have been brought up in a discussion, it's only about a color, I think it's strange that you two could have such a problem with something of such little importance. I mean seriously, I'm concerned for the two of you for being so concerned over something so trivial.  Nowyouseeme talk2me  09:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your concern. It makes me feel better knowing there are random wikipedians who care about me. Dealing with formatting, stylization is what I do for a living when submitting potential articles to trade journals, so I guess you just insulted my entire profession. Well, I'm glad you didn't care enough about how it looks, that you still had to change it back. LOL. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Caring is what I do best, so glad I made you feel better honey <3  Nowyouseeme talk2me  22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be no special formatting or colors. It's frivolous and there is no reason why the US country chart should have a special table.  class="wikitable" and standard column headings are enough. - eo (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Pandora
Normally when I used Pandora for Archived Australian Charts this link http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20100611-0000/ usually pops up the page which usually lists all the archived PDFs. Am I doing something wrong because I can't seem to access them now. (btw this is manually trying to find the pdfs, so that i can verify the position to use the singlechart macro). --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't work for me either, if that matters.  Nowyouseeme talk2me  16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also tried searching manually through pandora.nla.gov.au but cant find a link for Aria Charts. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I use this link: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790. It lists all the charts which are archived. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Billboard "component charts"
The lead specifically mentions "component charts" and a detailed explanation, however when I follow the link there is hardly a mention of what is a component chart or a detailed explanation. Even the chart articles themselves do not mention "component charts". Should this be rectified? Fixer23 (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe there used to be an article for it but I think it got deleted in the last few months (around the time the WP:USCHARTS section was incorporated). I still occasionally see redlinks pointing to the old article.
 * I'd love for there to be an overview of which charts are components of what, but I got the impression that Billboard is so secretive about its methods that its impossible for outsiders like us to divine the component-main relationships. As it is, we don't seem to even have an explanation of what component charts are (anymore). And the info at Billboard charts is apparently rather dubious. Sorry. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was completely unaware of Articles for deletion/Component chart. It's created a gap that we need to address.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Brasil Hot 100
The Brasil Hot 100, now is published by Billboard Brasil magazine. Thus, it is now a chart reliable? --DeivsonPrescovia (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. It says this on the main page. Jayy008 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, though: the Brazil chart at hot100brasil.com cannot be used, nor can the chart at top-40charts.com. You must reference either the magazine or http://www.gpradio.com.br/con-nivel1.aspx?id=3&id1=10, and the only way to use the charts at gpradio.com is by using WebCite to archive them properly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Greek certification
Is there any way to obtain the certifications for the greek albums from IFPI or Hung Medien? At present the IFPI.gr website lists the chart for the current week only, while the old charts are not available. They are instead archived at Hung Medien, but this website doesnot list the certifications along side it. Can anyone help out? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 08:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Certifications column heading links (pointer to MOS:DISCOG discussion)
We already had a lengthy discussion a few months ago here (now archived at Alternative Proposal regarding Sales/Shipments/Certs) about this, so I won't lay out arguments again, unless it proves useful. In any case there is now a (lethargic) discussion over at WT:MOS:DISCOGS where I'd like to see more activity, even if it's all simply in favor or all vehemently opposed.

The reason our nominal consensus at the time of our previous discussions here in March–April hasn't been more widely applied is that it's different from MOS:DISCOGS, which is treated as part of the Manual of Style, even though it appears to be not technically part of the MoS. So FL and FA reviews and applicants fear to diverge from the guidelines there, so I'm trying to stem resistence by getting consensus there, changing it there, and moving forward.

I'd also like to know people are (still) as interested in seeing the change in record chart tables in individual song or album articles as in the larger tables in discography and artist articles. As a quick reminder, the idea is just to remove one link and the word "thresholds" from the column heading, as here:

Change FROM:

Change TO:

For arguments and background, which I don't want to plague anyone again with here, see the discussion at WT:MOS:DISCOGS. Please do join that discussion, if you haven't already, but feel free to leave a supporting or dissenting comment here too regarding "record charts" usage in particular. Thanks. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Chart template formats
I've just updated the chart macros to support the UK from the Official Charts Company. I'm sorry, but it can only be done by date because of the incompatibility between the OCC's search function and Wikipedia's URL formatting. I've also updated the reference format based on feedback.

The next issue is the format of the table entries themselves. I can see that the format difference causes resistance, and I would like to come up with an agreed upon format that everyone likes well enough that they will stop driving backwards by removing chart templates.

First, an explanation of why it is different in the first place. When I was first trying to do these things, one of the things that struck me was the listing of what are essentially imaginary charts. For example, what is a "Dutch Singles Chart"? It doesn't really exist. There's a Megachart 100, a Megachart 50, a Dutch Top 40, and a Dutch Tipparade. It's not just them:Belgium is worse, with a language split chart. Japan has Oricon and Billboard, and the dreaded WP:BADCHART, the Tokio Top 100, and all three get called the "Japan Singles Chart". Naming something the "suchandso Singles Chart" works only in a handful of cases. For most countries, it ranges from vague to downright wrong.

So, there's the issue: what can we put in the chart line that is:
 * 1) Consistent looking
 * 2) Sortable by country
 * 3) Specific as to what chart is being listed.
 * 4) Attractive enough that people won't complain all the time.

I'd like to see some concrete proposals. I did my best, and it obviously wasn't good enough.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't mind concrete objections, either. I'm just frustrated by vague "I don't like it" comments without enough meat for me to actually act on.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been behind and playing catch-up all day (or really, for 8 or 9 years), so I may have to save my best suggestions for later, when I've thought of them, but for now, a few quick remarks:
 * It's very cool that you do this work on the templates. I would be glad to see them more widely adopted. Thank you.
 * Since it appears you've just finished reworking the references, it's probably a bad time to whine about how "your" refs are different in format from et. al. templates, which of course aren't always the same as other formats used by WP editors. It'd be nice if  and  could meet somewhere and shake hands.
 * For the fictitious-chart problem, one thing we might do is establish a stronger culture of building these chart tables by country name, that is "Australia" instead of "Australian," "Netherlands" instead of "Dutch." This part would be unlinked whether macro- or hand-crafted, followed by the actual chart name. I believe always(?) does this already, but we'd have to give the standardization a bit of a push by changing over the tables when we visit music articles for editing, pointing "over there" (or here) to where we reached consensus to do it that way. Then the results wouldn't look so different (eventually) and scare people into reversion.
 * The big goofy exception to the idea above is that we regularly report positions on the Canadian Hot 100, which builds as Canada (Canadian Hot 100)[2]. This might look a little too redundant to some folks. I think the other countries/charts work out more smoothly, although I may be ignoring one or two.
 * Irish Singles Chart, Swiss Music Charts, UK Singles Chart, Canadian Hot 100, and most if not all of the BB charts have directly linkable articles (I'm cheating a little with Swiss Singles Chart, which redirects.) The other Foovian Music Chart texts generally redirect, be it to IFPI, VG-lista, Megacharts, etc. I think this also encourages the form "Foovian Music Chart" instead of "Foo (IFPI)" or "Foo Hot 42". Again, my thesis here is that our exact little macro looks too different from those now-usual forms. Eek. Rv oddity.
 * Most folks mucking around with charts positions have a good clear idea of "Hot 100" being the name of a chart, so they intuitively understand "Megachart 50" or "Iberian 60 Singles" when they see them, even if they didn't guess their existence before. Then we confuse them with non-charty-sounding monikers like RIANZ and IFPI and ARIA coming out of that dang-nabbed macro thingy; I wonder if this adds to their resistance? And if so, how can we reduce that while still using accurate nomenclature?
 * Since there are only two things keeping me from adding at every opportunity, I can't pretend to understand what holds others back. My guesses above are only guesses. But maybe all we need is a few of us pushing the template's use a bit more, combined with patient education about its use.
 * Oh, the two items holding me back? 1. Reference format not matching other formats as I usually see them (quote marks for page titles, periods following most ref elements, etc.); and 2. Fear that other editors will complain because the template is weird/different/complicated, esp. as for the last few months I've understood these things to be still in trials and not necessarily ready for the big push. Are we now?
 * Good thing I decided to be quick. 8-o &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to be in complete conformance with cite web. Unfortunately, I never noticed the periods. I'll add those.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Periods added. The references should now match those generated by "cite web". If they don't, please point out where they don't. Of course, I missed the damn quotation marks, so I have to make another pass.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Quotes in there now. I can't believe I went this long without noticing the punctuation was wrong, and that no one ever specifically said "You are missing periods, and there should be quotes around the page name".&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, who knew you'd be such a responsive developer? I guess I could have complained earlier. As it is, I've been looking at your changes, and I'm quite impressed, although I'll have, uh, a few notes for you about some coding details. Probably best to post those over at Template talk:Singlechart when I get ready. When I'm done with all my whinging, you'll hardly complain you never got any feedback. Although, um, where is everybody else? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re point 5: take a look at the problematic ones. Dutch Singles Chart redirects to Dutch Top 40, even though 90% of the time people are using the Mega Single 100 from dutchcharts.nl. Japanese Singles Chart redirects to Oricon, even though most people use Billboard. Belgium Singles Chart redirects to Ultratop, which describes all four. UK Singles Chart directs to a historical article that spends half of the text debating what chart should actually be called the UK Singles Chart at any given point in time. These just aren't specific labels.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we seem to have systematically generated a slew of random articles. Some talk about one real chart (which in many cases really means one chart which used to be a differently named chart, which used to be two others...); some talk about charts and their publsher but not their methodologies; some are about charts which are actually chart shows, where we get more info about the presenters and what time and channel than about the relevance or basis of the actual chart; some articles just list songs that have been successful on those charts.
 * It'd be swell to go through and attack these articles in a project-like way, establishing content guidelines and then filling them in, but I fear we'll quickly hit a dead-end. The recent flurry of excitement regarding Billboard's charts and their renaming here died out (AFAIC) when it turned out nobody really knew anything about how BB determined the chart results. Lil-unique1 fed me some talk about airplay and non-airplay, but in the end it seemed he wasn't sure about what charts were components of what. We don't seem to even be able to get a complete list of all of BB's charts, much less map them by dependency.
 * That Ultratop article actually looks like one that could be easily improved. It starts off with the schizophrenia you mentioned showing in its first sentence: "Ultratop is the official Belgian record charts." The second sentence says they is/are two, because of the languages; the third says it's two (album and singles) in each language. Then Ultratop is the organization, too, but then there are two more Ultratip charts to throw on the heap. Dang, I'm gonna fix that one up myself; I can't make it any worse. Would you agree with leaving the (several) charts the focus of the (more clearly phrased) article, or should we shift it to be the organization, which also produces some charts?
 * But enough moaning and wailing; what should we do? Do you propose we simply start pushing to address the misdirection problem? People may be skittish with that scary templatey stuff, but if it generates the ref for them (and they remember to check before saving), they might like the trade-off. I can tell you, BTW, I've recently seen a few template-using pages where the  fields (or other) were just left empty. I guess that's no worse than not having a ref at all, as often happens without templates.
 * Lemme finish my testing and results for you (later today), and when we're done (whether anyone else speaks up or not), I'll start whacking the things into articles I work on. A lot of my WP life is spent cleaning up music article formatting, so I won't be without opportunities to evangelize.
 * It still leaves our various charts articles in an inconsistent muddle, though. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll make the error cases noisier. Take a look at User talk:Kww/singlechart, and you can see that it bitches mightily if you try to source to the Official Charts Company without a date, and only a little less loudly if you don't tell me the artistid for a Billboard chart. As for the articles, I currently use piping to handle that: if there's a good chart article available, clicking the provider name takes you to the chart article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for what to do, I'm tempted to precipitate things. Once people agree that the reference formats are good, it's time to upgrade all the Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus articles in one fell swoop. That's sure to get people discussing things, at least.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I second almost everything JohnFromPinckney said before (the six points paragraph), but since there's already too much to read, I'm just going to have my say. As much as I appreciate the initiative itself, I'm not pleased by the "Country (Provider)" format displayed by the chart macros (despite it being deemed "vandalism-proof") and still consider the "X Singles Chart" format (used in Lady Gaga articles, for example) to be more visually intelligible and aesthetic. If only chart macros displayed the "X Singles Chart" format, I'd definitely embrace them; this way charts like the Dutch Top 40 wouldn't be changed to Dutch Singles Chart and so on. Hope I was able to make my point.  Snap Snap  17:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, not so much. What would you propose get listed that would distinguish the five different Dutch charts, the four different Belgian charts, the two different Japanese charts that would distinguish them in the table, and still be consistent? Obviously it can't be "Dutch Singles Chart", "Belgium Singles Chart", and "Japan Singles Chart".&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok i've had a brief look at i sit somewhere in between comments made by Kww and JohnfromPinckney/Snap. could charts not be displayed as in the following way? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1
 * United Kingdom (Singles Chart)
 * United Kingdom (R&B Singles Chart)
 * Belgium (Wallonia Singles Chart)
 * Belgium (Flanders Singles Chart)
 * Belgium (Wallonia Tip Chart)
 * Belgium (Flanders Tip Chart)
 * Japan (Japan Hot 100)
 * Japan (Oricon Singles Chart)
 * Finland (Singles Chart
 * Sweden (Singles Chart)
 * Norway (Singles Chart)


 * Proposal 2
 * United Kingdom (The Official Charts Company)
 * United Kingdom R&B (The Official Charts Company)
 * Belgium Wallonia (Ultratop)
 * Belgium Flanders (Ultratop)
 * Belgium Wallonia Tip (Ultratip)
 * Belgium Flanders Tip (Ultratip)


 * Those look good enough. What would the consistent format be for Sweden, Norway, and Finland?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the linking strategy in this proposal. Is "Belgium" supposed to link to Ultratop, as the chart provider? The piped link for Japan Hot 100 down there goes to the article about huge advertising signs, but even if it went to the magazine's article, I'm still not sure what we're aiming for here. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * i've just added a few more examples. i believe the single chart template currently focusses on country and chart provide or country and single chart. I think Kww wants us to agree on a standard format that takes into account the variations in chart names. The enw way would try and pipe country names to chart providers and bracketed links to the country's chart. p.s. the japan article should link to the billboard magzine article now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for Norway, yours is at least consistent, and I assume your Norway listing is an error. Country name linking to chart provider certainly isn't my preferred technique, but I wouldn't refuse to cooperate if everyone else likes it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, erm what's norway supposed to link to? i've linked it to VG-lista as i thought that was the official chart. but yes its for demo purposed so the links would have to be refined. Hmmm i was trying to work out the ways that you could effectively standardize how the charts appear but if people are determined to have the chart provider as part of the format then you might as well link country name to chart providers to reduce the number of redundent pieces of info. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like Lil-unique1's formatting and structure and I second that version. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 07:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more interested in getting people to agree than agreeing myself, but I have to say that I find this proposal a bit strange. That said, if I understand right, what is being proposed is:
 * Lead with country name, not adjective (i.e. Belgium, France, Netherlands; not Belgian, French, Dutch).
 * Link the country name to the chart provider. Note that this will result in US linking to Billboard (magazine), and "Netherlands" linking to places like MegaCharts and Dutch Top 40.
 * If there is only one chart, call it the "Singles Chart" and link it to a chart article, if possible, the provider again, if not.
 * If there are multiple charts, use an abbreviation of the chart name and link it to a chart article, if possible, the provider again, if not.
 * It can be done. I'm going to encourage people to keep discussing, because I don't want to do this multiple times. I dislike the inobvious linking.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever since the introduction of Singlechart, I've felt that this template was forced onto articles, and WP:CHARTS became all more creepy. Aside from formatting issues, such as the template always generating music charts from the United States as "US" (when U.S. is used in the United States), the lack of italics were the belong (like Billboard and whatnot), it was a break from the, should I say, "normal" convention that had been set for several years. I'm not sure if there was a discussion regarding the new format, but if there was, I completely missed it—I had an extreme loss of interest in writing articles starting late last/early this year, which resulted in my lack of participation in several pages like WP:CHARTS, but I digress... As far as the proposals go, I generally like Lil-unique1's first proposal, though I'm not fond of linking the chart provider through the name of the region. We didn't do it before, and I don't see a compelling reason to do it now. I'd prefer a plain  format, but that's just my two cents. — ξ xplicit  21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple comments:
 * by sheer volume, the most common thing to do is to force pipe the single chart to the country article, i.e. Pottsylvania Singles Chart . I always hated that.
 * I'm going to have to dig around to find it again, but I'm positive our MOS dictates "US" over "U.S.". I'm American, and I certainly use US and USA. Addition: I may be wrong on that. I can easily change it.
 * As for forcing it on people, I'm sorry if it ever came off that way. I've been frustrated from the beginning by people's lack of constructive commentary on the formatting. I'm happy to change it to anything people can actually agree on.
 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Like i said myself i'm not fond of piping the chart provider to the country but then it is the only way that you can format all of the charts equally. It allows all the charts to appear the same and the only way we can distinguish between the 4 Beglian charts, 5 Dutch ones and so on. I've noticed in some articles that's what's done to certifications e.g. [British Phonographic Industry|United Kingdom]. I'm happy to look into this a little more. Give me a few hours and i'll see what i can do. =P Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Kww: I think you may be referring to WP:MOS, which states In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States. As an American myself, I use U.S., otherwise I have the tendency to read "US" as the pronoun "us". As for the chart macros, the issues that arises is that it doesn't mirror the cite web template, which I agree with JohnFromPinckney that it should.
 * @ Lil-unique1: From what I've seen and use, the certifying bodies are pipe linked to the respective article. See Songs in A Minor, for example. I'm not sure why one would link United Kingdom, as I'd expect that to take me to the United Kingdom article. — ξ xplicit  22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The MOS does say "U.S." is the preferred way, except when used with non-dotted abbreviations such as "UK". Guess which country is most commonly right above the U.S. charts?
 * As a left-pondler myself, I prefer the "U.S." form to "US", and that's how I tend write outside of WP. For WP articles where UK or similar are present, I just rely on "US" being upper case. Sometimes it helps if a sentence can be recast to use "the", as in "...was released to US radio" recast to "...was released to the US radio market".
 * Kww has done great work on the template recently, and the refs it generates match cite web much more closely now.
 * Yes, linked country names should go to country articles. (I don't know what to say about Music of Scotland-type articles; they make me itchy, somehow.) &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The page states When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, so it doesn't necessarily state that the same applies to tables. To be honest, I avoid using "U.S." in the body of the article, especially when the sentence ends with "U.S.". You either get "U.S." or "U.S..", and they both just look wrong to me. I'm not really going to get into the whole issue, but my opinion is this: if the song is by an recording artist or band where they use American spelling, "U.S." should be used; recording artists and bands from non-American spelling regions should use "US". — ξ xplicit  23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding in print like some obnoxious, wikilawyering jerk, I ask you to read the rest of the sentence you quoted, which in its entirety says, When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). and so doesn't have much to do with our topic here. It's immediately followed, however, by For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK, and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K., and the P.R.C.).
 * That's the basis I use for turning "U.S." into "US" thoughout entire articles wherever I see that "UK" is present. I know it's a bit hard to adapt to and a lot of competent USian writers are surprised by it. I think it's also a sign that the MOS is so huge that we tend to skim through it (as I suspect you did) as fast as possible because we don't have time to read the whole damned thing. Respectfully, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess my pedantry scared off those who were discussing this. :-( &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @Explicit, Agree piping links to other articles are not really useful and can be misleading. What do you think of the proposal (below) alongside the original? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't match cite web now, please tell me how it is different.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll use Example 5 from Singlechart, the Japan Hot 100 reference (ref number five). Billboard should be italicized and the publisher would be Nielsen Business Media (by the way, what's "Japan Hot 100 for Shakira" standing all by itself? I can't tell if it's part of the title or something else. It can't be the publisher). — ξ xplicit  22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I used "Billboard" for publisher. Yes, Nielsen Business Media would be better. As for "Japan Hot 100 for Shakira", it's the "work" parameter. What would you suggest? The page linked to is a page that represents Shakira's performance on the Japan Hot 100. That means that the work isn't just "Japan Hot 100", it's something else. I'm open to suggestions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Like in the cite web template, Billboard should be in the  parameter (assuming an equivalent parameter exists or can be added), as it's a magazine, and magazines are italicized. As mentioned, Nielsen Business Media would then go into the publisher. The whole "Japan Hot 100 for Shakira" should probably be part of the title. I hate how Billboard doesn't specify chart names in their titles which I think they had in the past, but we've been stuck with that since their redesign, so I've went ahead and took that route since then. —  ξ xplicit  23:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the cite web output as a template. There's no actual argument to play with. I'll question using italics in the work name for a website: if I was reference the physical magazine, I'd agree, but I only reference websites, which, to the best of my understanding, should not be italicised. Legolas2186 was certainly insistent on that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Regarding cite web, it differs primarily in how the work/Web site name is used. The discussion is ongoing over there, and elsewhere, but the last time I looked, the work parameter of cite web was meant to be filled with the name of the Web site (Billboard or Billboard.com, depending on whom you ask; danishcharts.com; allmusic; etc.), which then gets italicized, on the basis of it being "like a book". I've personally never subscribed to that idea and I hope discussions continue until consensus gets to My Way and then stops, but that's a difference between the templates; Singlechart seems to include that name in the clickable title, and nothing's italicized. But I understood that to be the deliberate intent of some of the latest changes. Other finicky details from my template tests are in my post here. I can do more detailed comparisons (or reporting, hah) if anybody wants me to. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like to add a couple of thoughts I've been wanting to share, even though we've been going so fast here I've had trouble keeping up, and it looks as though we're already deciding on final options below. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I've actually been quite happy with the look of the template as recently changed. I've adapted my mind-set to it and like the way its results look.
 * 2) The "Singles Chart" shown in most tables (including the default for the new proposals below) is almost always redundant; we are invariably providing current peak positions for either a single or an album, usually in an article which is specifically about that single or album. Additionally, these listings typically have Chart as the column heading. What singles chart is actually named "Foo Singles Chart"?

As a bit of a follow-up to this stalled discussion, I'd like to report that I've been seeing more of the template's output lately, since I've been adding singlechart to more and more articles. I stand by my appraisal above: I like the tables it builds. Although I could choose (or maybe propose) some next-favorite format, my preference is still the current table output and reference text. Are the rest of you still interested in seeing changes made? Are you still reluctant to use the template in its current form? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So if the discussion stalls like this, do we take it as consensus not to change anything? Does that mean we decided not to replace "US" with "United States", and not to remove the (Billboard) and other providers? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What do the new proposals look like?
To help the matter i've done a quick mock up of what the new proposals might look like against the old. Its based on some of the chart positions for "She Wolf" by Shakira. Leave comments below. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the current format and the demo above shows how each of the four Belgium charts appears.

This is my intial proposal where chart provider pipes to the country name and bracket links are piped to actual charts.

This proposal is same as proposal 1 but removes the links to the chart provider and is furthest away from the current format. It demonstrates that it might be possible to unify chart appearance.

Naturally, I'd go with proposal two here per my comments above. But I have to wonder, how would the Billboard Hot 100, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, etc., be formatted? — ξ xplicit  22:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added them and funnily enough it solves the US vs U.S. problem. =) Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added Spain to all three examples, please do edit the Proposals if I've misrepresented/misunderstood what you suggest.
 * I really can't get comfortable with Proposal 1, linking twice to the same place. The Belgian example sticks especially, since I know the links to "Ultratip" all currently redirect to "Ultratop".
 * I much prefer the small text to the bullet; to me, a bullet indicates a list, and we'll only have one item there (right?). Besides, it appears to take a lot of space.
 * I wasn't aware ultratip redirects to ultratop. It is demo/model. In proposal 1 the country links to the chart provider and the brack/single chart name links to the relevant single chart article. Btw both the spain link's you've added should have been the Spanish Singles Chart not the spanish chart provider. sorry i wasnt aware of the Spanish redirect either. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do I understand correctly, that we're (or Lil-unique1, anyway is) suggesting we omit the Billboard indicator (as with all the providers) for all charts which aren't named with it (i.e., Billboard Hot 100)? I thought somebody argued for its inclusion a couple of months ago when we were renaming the articles. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * correcting bullets and per WP:USCHARTS we did actually go ahead and removed Billboard from all chart names except for Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard 200. To be fair before the introduction of singlechart i was never aware of it being a requirement to list a chart provider. It was just done by default with Billboard. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

&mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now also added some UK and BB charts to the proposal summary tables.
 * I consider the current expansion of  to "United Kingdom" to be a mistake as it's not consistent with the "UK" and "US" expansions of other Chart IDs in the template.
 * I've got a question open with Kww about what the current expansion of  should be: UK Singles (Chart Stats) or UK Singles (Official Charts Company). I don't know what's right.
 * Please take a look at what I've surmised the proposals for Country and Digital Songs to be. The Proposal 2 form has no links, per the pattern. OK with you?
 * Also, if the template's about to be changed based on our discussions here, follow the links for Pop and Radio Songs. Those are redirects, even in the current template. What should we be using and displaying?
 * Resize your browser to wide and narrow sizes. I know we've crammed three tables next to each other here, but consider a possible Certifications column, and the fact that some readers will be using different size screens, fonts, browsers, etc. Do we really need to spell out the country names UK and US? And again, do we have to say "Chart" in every case?
 * Actually there are many links for those charts. I've added in. Also the whole point of saying United States instead of US or U.S. is that MOS states that the language dialect should be consistant per the subject content. Therefore a Beyonce single would contain U.S. but a Jay Sean single would use US because he is a non-US subject and so its written from an international point of view. By default certificates should not be adjoined on to chart tables. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you:
 * changed Pop Songs to the actual target of its redirect
 * trimmed the word "Chart" from Country Songs
 * corrected the link target for Radio Songs (my mistake), but did not change its display text to the actual target of its redirect
 * trimmed the word "Chart" and in fact changed the display text for Digital Songs Chart, but not to the actual target of its redirect
 * left the word "Chart" on the end of other chart names, including the longest, Independent Singles Chart
 * I'm not bitching at you and I don't want to kill us with details but there are a few inconsistencies here, and we'll need some consistency and exact info (if the rules are consistent, he can guess) for Kww to make any changes. As he points out, no need to do it multiple times (again).
 * I'd be interested to know where you've seen the non-adjoined-certificates default described. Or is that more just your viewpoint? In reality I see it a lot around here. Fortunately, I don't spend much time in reality. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I corrected UKchartstats. "Ultratip" does not redirect to "Ultratop", it redirects to "Ultratop#Ultratip". That's a significant distinction in my book.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, thanks. Looks neater. And you are correct about the redirect target; I am significantly and distinctly abashed. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:USCHARTS i changed the charts to their actual approved names that we recommend people to use. Would you like to see 'chart' and 'songs' removed from the end of the proposal? Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. Hardly at all, in fact. WP:USCHARTS says, "When listing the chart in chart tables list it exactly as its page is named: Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs)." With the exception of the last three BB charts there, most of Proposal 2 does not use the approved names. And that's not terrible, IMO, but it means that we must either (1) make a table here (or at WP:USCHARTS, which may need some editing) listing the actual chart and what we want the template to display for it; or (2) just trust Kww to pick something to display for each chart as he sees fit, and then 'never, ever complain about it''.
 * To your second question: The word "Songs" isn't bothering me; it seems to be part of the chart name, and some of the charts' simplified names only make sense with them there (United States Pop, Country, Digital, Radio). I'd be happy to see the word "Chart" disappear, though. It seems to be part of few actual names: UK Singles Chart, UK R&B Chart, Rhythmic Airplay Chart, Latin Rhythm Airplay Chart. Otherwise (and even for those four, I say) it's redundant in a column headed Chart. It might take a moment to adjust to; if we look at the example of Spain, Proposal 2 would be just: Spain (Singles). But again, one reason I was asking about it is that you removed it from some proposed cases but not others. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As a rare contributor to this project, but nevertheless creator of several chart tables in my WP-career, please allow me to provide my 2 cents to this discussion. (1) Thanks to everyone for putting a template together for this purpose; we could definitely use some streamlining for chart tables. (2) I believe that linking the country name to the chart provider (as in proposal 2) would be against WP:EASTEREGG. (3) I don't really see why the chart provider is needed in the chart template at all. A link to the article about the relevant chart should be sufficient, and the few people who would like to know who collects the data should read that article. An exception to this rule could be done when the chart provider is part of the chart name, like Billboard Hot 100. (4) For those three reasons I much prefer proposal 2 over proposal 1. (5) I would even take it a step longer, and make a separate column for the chart name (instead of the current brackets after the country). That would allow merging country cells when the single entered several charts in the same country (i.e. one merged cell for "United States" spanning over 7 rows). (6) And why not making an extra column for Certifications, as already proposed by JohnFromPinckney. This could of course be done in a second phase to keep things apart. (7) Why is the template reserved for singles? Album chart tables have exactly the same format, except for the chart name. It's common practice in a lot of articles out there to have one common table for chart positions and certifications. It could probably be handled easily with a parameter "type" that would take values "single" or "album". – Ib Leo (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "albumchart", "singlecert", and "albumcert" are under construction. I've been waiting for singlechart to be better accepted before rolling them out. As for changing the number of columns the template occupies, that would be nearly impossible at this stage: it's deployed in about 400 articles in its current form.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also for consistancy ... i recommend that even charts which are entered not using the singlechart should appear the same way. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Lil-unique1's revised proposal comparison tables (below) are now gone from his sandbox (although I guess they're still viewable via the revision history). I made some proposals in my sandbox, to provide alternate (and more complete listings of) versions of Lil-unique1's proposals. The versions in the JFP2 and JFP3 tables differ in that JFP2 is meant to show some kind of actual chart name, where JFP3 tends to just show "Singles" or similar. If we liked those, we'd have to make a few more decisions about names to use, so I invite discussions on those details. I still prefer JFP1, which is the status quo, the unchanged templates. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

proposal modification
Ok per John's request and questions above i've mocked up some more examples and actually i agree. From the new tests based on proposal 2 here Chart formats (my user sand box) i would support proposal 2b personally. it gives room should people want to add certs immediately afterwards. i would be interested to see what other user's think. Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer 2a with the full chart names. - eo (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * in 2b you have the UK charts as "Top 75", the uk singles chart is a 200 position chart. Mister sparky (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Kww what do you think? are you 'feeling' any of the proposals or ideas? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I lived in a vacuum, I'd stick with what I have. I don't, so I'd like to see one of these emerge a clear winner from this discussion. I lean towards 2c, with the caveat that I think you meant "Latin Songs", not just "Latin".&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 singles
I have been busy creating lists of top 10 singles for various years. The format I have decided upon for the lists is shown in the 1992 list. I would appreciate some help from editors on some of the other years, or possibly help with changing the tables in already existing articles, e.g. the 2006 or 2008 lists. Please let me know on my talkpage if you can help. How do people think the 1992 list looks?

Secondly, I have created WikiProject Songs/UK top 10 singles (redlinks). Can editors please create stubs for the redlinks as I add them. Thanks. 03 md  10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be creating stubs for the majority of these singles. WP:NSONGS says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --JD554 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with JD554; these songs don't necessarily need an article. Even though they've hit the top 10 in the UK, they might not be notable (or reliably noted) enough for a WP article.
 * As to the critique you asked for:
 * The octothorpes in the Peak position column disturbs me, as they're usually not used in music articles I've looked at. I suggest they be removed (and if I'd come across this page without you asking I'd have likely deleted them myself).
 * I assume the column heading Weeks in top 12 is a mistake, and "top 10" is what was meant.
 * If you know the date in the Date peak reached columns are going to always be the same year within a table, you could remove the year from the entry. I see you have three tables on that page, where the '91 and '93 tables seem to be devised to handle the overlap with adjacent years. Is that right?
 * I think I'd prefer the dates being centered in their respective columns.
 * Especially if the table has a strong preponderence of alignment, e.g. centered as above, but in any case, the table markup could be simplified a bit. A table has a default alignment anyway, but it appears that the 1992 article specifies  or   for every single table cell. I would edit the first line of the table to , delete all specifications of  , delete the alignment specification for the column headings, where they currently have no effect, and use style="text-align:left;" on the remaining individual cells which should be left-aligned (Single and Artist).
 * If I were the person making this table from scratch right now, I think I'd use a heading like Entered for the first column, rather than Top 10 entry date. It's a teensy bit shorter, and I think it matches the Weeks in top 10 heading better.
 * Again, if I were starting fresh, I believe I'd make the Weeks in top 10 come second, right after the Top 10 entry date in the first column. This leaves the Top-10 columns together, the peak columns together, and the Weeks at number 1 off on the end. I think will pay off with a slight gain in usability, since the main table is so long, and it's hard to remember what columns mean what if they don't seem logically grouped to the reader. The zeroes in the last column will be a subtle reminder that it can't be a peak or even the number of weeks in the top 10, and everything else should be easier to discern, once the reader has seen the column heading once or twice. Which leads me to:
 * Long tables are harder to use, but it's not too hard to put column headins on both ends of a table, even if you don't repeat them every 20 or 30 rows. See the tables in List of music recording sales certifications for examples of double-ended headings.
 * Even with the existing headings, I think it would be better to allow bold full-size on all the columns, including the last two. Maybe I do too much WP editing, but they just look broken to me. Again, eliminating the years (#3) might help with the widths. Date peak reached could be just Peak reached. Peak position might be merely Peak.
 * The tables allow for no specific column for references (Cf. List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1992 (U.S.)) and appear to contain no individual refs. The page itself shows only two references: one is a search page at everyHit.com, the official nature of which I do not know, while the other is chartstats.com, which appears to be considered reliable here despite its anonymity and sub-official appearance. The everyHit page lets me verify peak position and month, no more. Chart Stats gives me peak position on a week-by-week basis, with a date for each week, but I have to manually count the number of weeks in the top 10. In both cases, however, I am required to do a bit of effort to verify the stated dates, peaks, and week counts. It'd be much better if each week or each title had a ref link which took the reader to a source page which the info already on it, rather than, say, the Chart Stats home page (which looks like some hobbyist did it in his spare time).
 * My items #6 and #7 above are quite a bit of work, if you decide to adopt them, since there's no easy way (that I know of) to edit tables on WP. Of course, any preferred arrangements are still better decided now, rather than after making multiple copies... &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input John. I will try and take these into account but I would need some help as it is quite a monotonous task and I have already adjusted the style of the articles several times. 03  md  19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 03md:I have taken the liberty of extracting your unsigned interjections you put within my numbered comments above, and copying them here (below), where I have also added numbers referring to my original numbers above, which I have now repaired. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. Yes it was. The 1952, 1953 and 1954 lists all feature a top 12 so it was accidentally copied over.
 * 3. The additional tables are for songs that entered the top 10 in one year but peaked in another, yes.
 * 4. Done.
 * 5. I have enacted those changes.
 * 6. Done.
 * 7. Is this what you mean?
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"

!Entered top 12 ! Weeks in top 12 !Single !Artist !Peak !Peak reached ! Weeks at number 1
 * }
 * 10. If you can suggest anywhere that I could find references, that would be very helpful. Sources seem to be sparse for years before 2000.
 * Above section consisting of additions in the form of unsigned comment added by 92.4.149.237 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC), presumably IP form of 03  md  moved and refactored by JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how my #1 was completely ignored, even though it'd be the easiest change of all to make; and #4 and #6 both say "Done"; and #5 says effectively the same; yet the table at List of top 10 singles in 1992 (UK) remains completely unchanged, I am left to conclude that we are talking about completely different things, so I don't really want to waste any more time talking about references or the revised table headings you've shown here. First, what article are you really talking about? And how does this align with what you and Kww were talking about below? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made these changes to the 1952 list (which follows the same format but had less entries to change). Sorry that I did not make this clear. In answer to your second point, this is not related to the discussion below as I am not aware of policies on these sorts of articles. I am trying to develop them into high quality articles. 03 md  22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I hadn't noticed the jump from 1992 to 1952, as I apparently skimmed through your note, assuming you'd be talking about the same thing as before. Now you want me to critique a completely different page from the one you originally asked about. OK. But just ignoring concerns about whether an article is legal or not because you are "not aware of policies" is, well, silly, isn't it? If you spend a lot of work making a set of articles which the WP community thinks should be deleted, what have you achieved? Well, I guess it keeps you off the streets at night.
 * Regarding List of top 12 singles in 1952 (UK): I repeat my #6 and #9 above, as well as my remark about heading alignment in #5. The wikitable code would start more like this:


 * etc., which would render like this:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"

!Entered !Weeks in top 12 !Single !Artist !Peak !Peak reached !Weeks at number 1
 * 18
 * style="text-align:left;"|"Here in My Heart"
 * style="text-align:left;"|Al Martino
 * 1
 * 9
 * }
 * I also still think you need inline references, if you're going to do a page like this at all (see below, again). That means dropping the two general search-page refs, and providing specific citations; it might be something like this for "Zing a Little Zong":
 * One more thing, the footnotes on that page need fixing, so that they link back up to the table instances.
 * Does this help you proceed? Remember, I'm just one voice here. You should get more input. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also still think you need inline references, if you're going to do a page like this at all (see below, again). That means dropping the two general search-page refs, and providing specific citations; it might be something like this for "Zing a Little Zong":
 * One more thing, the footnotes on that page need fixing, so that they link back up to the table instances.
 * Does this help you proceed? Remember, I'm just one voice here. You should get more input. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thankyou for the advice. The problem is, when I have used Chart Stats references in that way (ie for individual entries in number-one singles articles) in the past I have been told that a general reference to the site is better. I am not sure which is the best approach to take. My other point about not being aware of policies was only given because I thought you might have a better idea of what would be considered copyright infringement than I do. Why are articles listing number-one singles not considered in breach of copyright? I only started these lists because I find I can create them very quickly and thought they would be a useful addition to the site, as long as they are deemed legal. I will not proceed further unless I get assurance of this. Thanks. 03  md  20:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose the very existence of this kind of article. Articles that do nothing but tabulate and index a copyrighted list are themselves a copyright infringement, and have no place on Wikipedia. &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely that is what all the record chart articles are doing? 03  md  23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the good ones. Articles that describe the history of a chart, what its selection rules are, etc., are fine articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why I am trying to develop these articles but I may need some help with that task. 03  md  00:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to amplify my comments, so I will. I think any article that simply reproduces chart positions without commentary violates the copyright of the chart producer. Let's take an obvious case: let's say an editor sat down every week and created articles corresponding to every Billboard chart for that week. I don't think anyone would dispute that that injures Billboard: why would anyone buy a subscription to Billboard.biz if the information was available, verbatim, on Wikipedia? To justify our use of information that was generated by Nielsen for Nielsen's profit, we have to add value: commentary, historical information, or analysis. Mechanical transcription doesn't cut it. It's basically a fair use issue. These articles that reproduces lists of number ones or lists of top tens cause less damage, but they fail on the same basic test: the Wikipedia article isn't adding anything of value, it's just transcribing copyrighted information.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you are saying. The influence for these articles was the already existing Top 10 singles articles for the Billboard Hot 100. Do you think all such articles should be deleted? 03  md  23:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Does that not make articles like List of number-one dance singles of 2010 (U.S.) also a candidate for deletion because it recreates chart information with no commentary? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But through development of these articles we will be adding commentary. 03  md  09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong order of development. You can't violate a copyright for years/decades with the promise that you will correct the problem at some future point.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So what do we propose then? We would like to propose a mass deletion of such pages? In which case the 'chart success and procession' boxes come into question as to whether then they become redundent or not. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll bring up the topic at an RFC. Give me a few days. It's been an issue that has bothered me for some time, but I haven't taken action on it. Certainly it's nothing to move forward on without a consensus that my interpretation is correct.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair play. Its something I've been growing concerened with myself... (mainly more to do with the usefulness of nav. boxes which in my eyes pad out an article and lead to the creation of such lists). --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As a test case I've nominated one such article for deletion. See Articles for deletion/List of number-one dance airplay hits of 2010 (U.S.)  Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility Issues
A recent update to the accessibility guidelines at WP:ACCESS requires the use of "scope="col"" and "scope="row"" for table column and row headers. This is so that screen readers will repeat the relevant column and row headers when moving from cell to cell in a table.

The current samples given don't include the scope for either columns or rows. For columns it is easily added (and the use of colspan etc doesn't cause problems). There is an issue over the row header however.

Using the existing samples as a base these could be re-worked.

The existing table would therefore become:

Though perhaps this would work better?

What do people think? Either way we need to modify WP:record charts so that we take into account the accessibility changes. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My preference is for the first one on the left! And if we could discourage people from making the columns sortable, I would be ecstatic. - eo (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about the sortable thing though I'm personally indifferent about the ref column thing. I've added some more charts to show what it might look like in the future. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you wouldn't want the table sortable, isn't it useful to see how many countries a release made it to a certain number in the charts? Anyway, I would prefer to see the citation by the chart position as that is what the reference is verifying. To that end you could use Sort so that it worked like this:


 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

!scope="col" | Chart (2010) !scope="col" | Peak position !scope="row" | Australian Singles Chart !scope="row" | Belgium Tip Chart (FL) !scope="row" | Belgium Tip Chart (VL) !scope="row" | Canadian Hot 100 !scope="row" | UK Singles Chart !scope="row" | US Billboard Hot 100
 * align="center"| 10[1]
 * align="center"| 5[2]
 * align="center"| 5[3]
 * align="center"| 20[4]
 * align="center"| 5[5]
 * align="center"| 1[6]
 * }
 * Although this is complicated by the use of Singlechart. --JD554 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

←Personally I have no use to sort them numerically; alphabetical is just fine. Refs look good next to the chart name. Second choice is a separate column. I think that when there is a ref in the column that has also the peak position numbers things start to look a little too messy/confusing. And I wish the text in the fist column could be left-aligned but I've already bitched about that on the discographies/style talk page. Blah. - eo (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible to left-align the text but it would involved some re-programming of the syntax. Other than that I'm against the use of the reference next to the chart position because it can get messy. Sometimes multiple references are required. The sortable is only useful when there are in excess of 10 charts etc. when there is a large number. But that will be an editorial choice.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with placing the reference next to the position (where logically it "should" go) is that it changes the field from numeric to alphabetic. That means that "1, 2, 13" will sort as "1, 13, 2" with the reference in place, not "1, 2, 13" as it should. There's just not a chance that you can get the average editor to include sort in every position. In terms of singlechart causing problems, it's easy enough to make it produce "scope=row" in the expansion. Is there anything else that this would demand? Are there any side effects I should be aware of?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And, just a plug for the use of singlechart: I'll be able to modify 7000 chart positions with a single edit once people are clear with exactly what I should do. Try to beat that with manual chart tables.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware that's the main issue. The relevant pages e.g. WP:record charts will need to be updated with how to correctly format chart tables manually. Also we need to make an editorial decision about the references and if we are happy leaving them where they are etc. (Kev, if you could take a look at the talk page of WP:SONGS we're discussing the impact on release tables too) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At risk of plugging the template more, couldn't singlechart put the reference in the right place and use sort? I know it's unlikely that in a manual table the average editor would use sort, but there is a difference between your average article and one of Wikipedia's best. As long as the guideline is there giving the best practice, it is up to the editor whether they use it or not. If not, when someone wants to move the article on to GA or FA, then they should update such omissions before doing so. --JD554 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I could probably do that as an option. There's enough resistance to the template as it stands that I wouldn't want to make another controversial appearance change be the default behaviour. I'd like to see more demand for even the option as well: that's not an easy template to play with, and I don't want to add unused complexity.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To simplify things lets stick to the existing format (shown in table 1) unless there is common consensus that people would like a ref column. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I followed a link to this ever-moving discussion. Back on a MOS page, again. I've only glossed this page, but am glad to see some support for sorting and some use of templates to can some of the rote code; that's what templates are for. These are somewhat cleaner tables than I was looking at back at WP:DISCOG, but they still are snotted-up with too much repetitive code; lots of align="center", for example. You can set centering for whole tables with class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" at the top. And if row-headers are determined to be best left-aligned: in the site stylesheets will do it for those with teh scope attribute set to 'row'. Kevin's comment about the power of templates to hit 7000 pages with a single edit is key to why baking-in code is wrong; Just Stop It, per WP:Deviations. This same power exists in style sheets, and this is where the look and feel of things should be determined. Jack Merridew 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

!scope="col" | Chart (2010) !scope="col" | Peak position !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"| Australian Singles Chart[1] !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"| Belgium Tip Chart (FL)[2] !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"| Belgium Tip Chart (VL)[3] !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"| Canadian Hot 100[4] !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"| UK Singles Chart[5] !scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"| US Billboard Hot 100[6]
 * align="center"| 10
 * align="center"| 5
 * align="center"| 5
 * align="center"| 20
 * align="center"| 5
 * align="center"| 1
 * }
 * Take a look at the fourth example. I think we have problem solved? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone that actually has a screen reader take a look at User:Kww/byebye? It invokes a test version of the template that inserts the "scope=row" text. I can see it by viewing the generated HTML, but have no idea if it has the intended effect. I also presume that bolding the chart name in the examples above was a mistake.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bolding the chart names was not a mistake rather it is automatically what the syntax does. However Jack has pointed out that if we didnt want to bold them we can use CSS to unbold them which would be my preferred option. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or just not use the exclamation point. The problem is that people invoke singlechart with a pipe symbol in front of it. If the exclamation point is mandatory, that's going to have to be done either manually or by a bot.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that !scope="row" has to be used for every field in the first column. so that the reader software knows to read accross the page... --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But |scope="row" doesn't have the same effect? It certainly generates the scope tags in the HTML. Does anyone have one of these screen readers to test User:Kww/byebye and see if the "!" is mandatory?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what you're asking because I wondered the same but according to WP:Wikitables it is mandatory. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think we've all gone down the wrong path. For a typical singles table, no change to the row is necessary. It will read the table quite normally. If I follow the description properly, our example table modified to use column scope will be read as follows: "Chart two thousand eight Australian Singles Chart peak position one chart two thousand eight Canadian Singles Chart position two chart two thousand eight Spanish Singles Chart position three ...", which seems like just what we want. The only time a row header is necessary is when there are multiple entries in the row, and that isn't normal for chart tables. Only the column headers will need changed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change, although I remain somewhat unconvinced of its necessity. Going forward, if you precede singlechart with a "!" character, the header will be produced with the appropriate "scope=row". If you precede it with | as is normal today, it will still work and there will be no visible change.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Change has been undone. While most editors have been preceding the template with a pipe or an exclamation point, some have not, and those charts blew up. Hopefully the correction will propagate quickly. I'm probably going to have to request a bot to make the usage consistent, and then make the change.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can change the template documentation so that it only shows the template working if the ! is present. Its certainly a step forward?  Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll change the documentation alright. I'm not sure to what, yet. (It seems impossible to get a discussion to go to its conclusion these days. Maybe all the northern-hemisphere folks are out in the sunshine?)
 * It's not just a change in the doc or in the template itself; we have to think about existing uses (a "legacy problem" already). Kww has made a bot request already to take out the separate piping symbol. I believe I'll be changing the doc so that it shows no piping in all of its examples. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a "rowheader" argument. If you add "rowheader=true", then the template will output the rowheader syntax. If you omit it or set it to "false", you get today's behaviour. If I see widespread support of WP:ACCESS in the future, I will change the default setting. Right now, people that want to can experiment with it and see if support for the change can be developed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Eesti Top 40
I've found no discusison of this being a deprecated chart, so I removed it from WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is that unless there is proof that the chart has credible methidology it is not allowed for Wikipedia. Charts are usually only added to Bad charts if there is significant/abusive use of the chart. -- '''Lil_℧niquℇ №1  (Talk ➁ Me)  01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I've seen none of. Did I miss something? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didnt explain that clearly. Because the world is full of many thousands of charts, each chart must prove its notability. Not the other way round. Therefore its not a case of proving that 'Eesti Top 40' is not reliable rather its a case of needing to prove that it is reliable. It would have been added to Bad charts because of its widespread application to articles despite no evidence that it is official and/or reliable. Does that make sense? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Singles Chart (part 2)
I know it's been discussed above, but it's long. All I want to say here is that it's being used with the UK Singles Chart. But it's a component chart, it shouldn't be used when the UK is used. Thoughts? Jayy008 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What, 9 paragraphs is too long? Pity, all of our "thoughts" are up there. What's the maximum length you're willing to read? We need to know so we can try to think less this time. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine remains the same, just a little louder. It is not a component chart. It is not a component chart. I've explained the difference multiple times, and you keep describing it as a "component chart." It's not. Please stop calling it that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Something shorter, obviously. If that's all you wanted to say then I'd rather you stay out of it. Kevin, I know it's a regional chart, but including all of those is too much. So, it's allowed? Jayy008 (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I read it. Now it seems reasonable to argue for Billboard component charts whether this is one [a component] or not. Including regional charts could go on forever. Jayy008 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It could, but I draw the line at countries. I wouldn't care for someone including charts that were specific to a state or city, but once we hit a chart for an entire country, compiled by an impeccable source, I think it can be included.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well when you put it like that it seems more acceptable. Jayy008 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scotland is a country, but it is a component country of the United Kingdom, of which the national chart is the UK Singles/Albums Charts. If something charts on the main chart then the Scottish chart shouldn't be used. Mister sparky (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That extends to "France is a country chart, but it is a component country of the European Union. If something charts on the main European chart, the French chart shouldn't be used." We just don't do that, because these charts are not components of each other, and are not component charts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Europe is a region not a country? Jayy008 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * scotland is a country for local and historic reasons only, it has no international, legal or democratic independance. you cannot possibly compare scotland to france for this purpose. and the european union is not a country, it is a geographic area. and you talk as though the scottish and uk charts are completely separate and different. they are not. it is called the uk singles and albums charts, not the england, wales & northern ireland singles/albums chart. the television regions they use for the scottish charts also covers half of northern england. and the sales date for scotland is used to compile the main national charts. so if both are included then the information is duplicated. is also why it is called a "regional chart" on the occ's website. and there is also the welsh singles/albums charts, are they to be included on every article too? Mister sparky (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't bother me. No worse than Wallonia. I just don't want to get in the business of deciding that some countries aren't really countries and some are. As a long-time resident of the Netherlands Antilles, I know how pissed off I got when people said I was living in a part of Holland.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The information isn't duplicated, an example would be when the song "Scotland, Scotland, Jason Scotland" reached number one on the Scottish chart but failed to make a dent in the UK charts. In order to counter WP:BIAS, I think we should include the Scottish charts for relevant releases (ie, didn't significantly chart in the main UK chart or was released by a Scottish act) as long as it is a chart that the Scottish people are interested in - and it appears they are interested. --JD554 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * in some cases it is duplicated. using the eg above: if someone from glasgow buys kylie's aphrodite, that data would count for the scottish album chart and the main uk album chart. so having both charts included on the album's page is duplicating that persons (and many others) purchase. the scottish charts should definitely be included if something did not chart on the main chart, like jd's eg above, but not if it did. Mister sparky (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Double counting is nothing new: it's true of all genre charts and all charts from countries covered by the Eurochart.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * exactly why i dont like using the eurocharts. Mister sparky (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be used in extreme cases then. Ie, when a song reaches #1 in Scotland and not in the main chart. Wallonia is completely different, that's a ridiculous country split that shouldn't affect charts and music, but does. The UK is the main chart, Scotland seems a little redundant? Jayy008 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wallonia certainly is a ridiculous split, I won't argue that. The point is that there is no precedent whatsoever for eliminating Scotland from our charts. What parallel case is there where we argue against the charts (bearing in mind that the methodology here is similar to a genre chart)? Why is Scotland any more redundant than the UK Dance Chart or the UK R&B chart?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, I know this is similar but not exact but here goes! It's like saying if New York or Los Angeles had it's own chart you could include them along with the Hot 100. You see what I mean? Jayy008 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that New York or Los Angeles were countries. There's a Detroit chart, and I remove it on sight because Detroit isn't a country.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said, it's similar, not exact. They're states in the United States of America. Scotland is a country in the United Kingdom. I'm finding it hard to explain. Everything in the Scottish Chart mounts up to what's on the main chart. I can't really object as I can't explain myself very well - on this matter. Jayy008 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I go with the basic rule that if a place is called a country, it's a country. It's not my place to argue with places like Aruba and Scotland. If they are normally referred to as a country, I'll treat them that way.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think everyone is getting confused here. New York is not a country it is a State. The USA is a country. Therefore the Billboard Hot 100 is the overiding NATIONAL chart, whereas a New York Hot 100 would be a REGIONAL Chart. In context of Great Britain, the UK Singles Chart is the NATIONAL chart but so is the Scottish Singles Chart which is the same as the UK chart but simply over the limited geopgraphical boundries of Scotland. Whilst yes data from the sales of music in Scotland do count towards the UK Singles Chart sales from London, for example, would not count in Scotland. This is significant as there is an implication that a native Scottish Artist might perform better on the Scottish Chart rather than the UK Singles Chart. We on wikipedia have no right to criticse the sovereignty of Scotland or to somehow suggest that its music charts are not valid. We do not actually have specific information on exactly how the chart works in relation to the UK and therefore it seems clumsy to limit the use of the Scottish chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I know. I said it's not the same. I was just trying to use an example of what I mean. I'm well aware NYC etc are states, not countries. My issue was Scotland is that I don't understand why it's needed unless it's charts at #1 or something. But I know I'm not going to win this one, so I'm going to give up. Just to clarify all regional charts are allowed? Jayy008 (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * personally Jay I agree with you. But for policies sake we don't have a ground to disrequard it. There are some limitations with regions e.g. US Tropical Airplay and US Mexican Regional etc but these are outlined at WP:USCHARTS. The only thing I would say is that Scotland won't trump other countries in discographies. E.g. if there are 10 charts already it is not appropriate to swap one for Scotland. But equally I dont see any plausible grounds for removing it from an article's chart table. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, Jay, I don't think regions smaller than countries should normally be used.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I thought I'd replied to this. But yes, no grounds to banish it, got ya. Jayy008 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Danish Charts pre-2001?
hey guys, is there an archive of the danish charts pre-2001? danishcharts.com covers from 2007 onwards, and hitlisten.nu covers from 2001, but anything before that? Thanks! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I used old issues of Billboard magazine for positions during the '90s, for example in the Spice Girls' article "Wannabe" - reference 65. The chart is compiled by IFPI and Nielsen Marketing Research. Here is a link in Google Books: page 63 You will have to use the Template:Cite journal to put it in the article. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

European Sales
I found it http://www.impalamusic.org/award_03_cond.php I think that would be recognised for the European sales also on Wikipedia with the IFPI Europe. SJ (talk) 5:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection to the idea. Can you show some sources that show that the award is notable? That news articles and press releases from notable groups are talking about the IMPALA award?&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, from Billboard, Music Week and European Report.
 * http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3id4a71ae8a1475303fd19bbe5efd123b7
 * http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=19546&sectioncode=1
 * http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=24266&sectioncode=1
 * http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4482518/Impala-launches-new-awards-as.html
 * http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2342742/Impala-s-European-awards-set.html
 * http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-840202/INDEPENDENT-RECORD-LABELS-LAUNCH-THE.html

SJ (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Music Week and European Report articles are press releases from IMPALA, but the Billboard coverage looks good. I think it's reasonable to include these in articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pipe symbol before singlechart calls
A bot has been run to make all uses of singlechart regular, and it was decided to remove the | symbol in front of all the calls. That made no change in the generated chart, but lets me make changes in the future to match the accessibility MOS. Please don't put a | symbol before the singlechart call when using it in the future.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So now it's just one long like in between {{ ? Jayy008 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that meant. Like this, not like this. See the difference?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the "like" in your question was supposed to be "line", then maybe you were thinking that we're talking about eliminating the piping symbols within the {{tlc|singlechart}} template. We're not; the parameters still need to be separated (especially the first two, which aren't named). We're talking about the piping character used in wikimarkup to indicate the beginning of a table cell. This line is often (and by me, was always) added before the template. That's the one to leave out from now on. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At first, that set off an alarm, as the pipe character would be about defining the table cell; it would be syntactically incorrect. But I then looked at the template and see the th-cells with the scope attribute and trailing pipe is being generated there, so this does work-out to generate correct structure. I'm still concerned, though, because this plain looks odd, and may-well trip-up some tools. Tools like WP:Reflinks will fix what it perceives to be syntactic mistakes. See here; it's making other changes and seems to not be messing with this, so I'm only speaking of a hypothetical problem. Syntactic shortcuts like this can be dangerous. &lt;aside>I used to freak people out with self-modifying code; in the end, such things can be justified if there's no other way.&lt;/aside> Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the difference, yes. And to John, what I meant was something like this {{WhitneyHoustonIWillAlwaysLoveYou}} without being separated by lines, but now Kevin has explained what he meant, I get it. Jayy008 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

americasmusiccharts.com
is this an appropriate source for charts? they cite mediabase as their source and are the only site i've seen which publish the top 50 Mainstream songs. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I was sure it was Mediabase I would be happy with it. Any idea what the "you can change these charts" is about? Some kind of voting scheme?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. When you click on the link it takes you to ratethemusic.com which doesn't appear to be affiliated. it appears to be a different website. However the top 40 chart at americasmusiccharts.com is contradictory to the one at radio-info.com which i believe is definately accepted and approved. The latter shows different chart positions and even a different number of radio spins for songs. yet both cite MediaBase. Hmmm i think americasmusiccharts.com is dubious. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about EPs
Can Extended plays (EPs) actually chart on album charts e.g. UK Albums Charts? Or do they chart on Single Charts? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  23:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the Saturdays EP is going to chart on the albums charts this Sunday. So I'm guessing EP's chart on the albums chart. Jayy008 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends on the chart rules. Per Official Chart Company Album chart rules, the cutoff is that an album must be at least 25 minutes in length or more than 4 songs, unless it is eligible for the singles chart. Per the Singles Chart rules, it's still a single if the reason it has more than 4 tracks is that it contains multiple versions of the same song.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well funnily enough my quest was in relation to The Saturdays - Headlines. I wanted to define the album as mini-album since that's what both the label and critics and media call it. Yet others keep changing it to EP because its the bridge between their second and third album. As jay said its gonna chart on the album's chart this week. Its also around 28:20 in lenght. So how do you classify it? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd go for what classifies as Mini-album and/or an EP. Even though I disagree with what I'm about to say it doesn't matter what the label or media call it. Jayy008 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well again that's the problem. BPI/Official Charts only recognise singles and albums. If the release is above 25 minutes and continues more than four songs with no remixes of songs already included, its an album. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, well I guess it's an album then. I go by how the label classifies it, but that's not allowed so I guess OCC will do! Jayy008 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Country charts
There is a discussion going on here regarding the removal of the Canadian Country Singles charts from articles. These chart positions seem to be utterly lacking in verification. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Charts: Each charts spans a WEEK's time, not just one day.
I need some support here, because people are posting incorrect dates concerning the time frame that a song is at #1 on Billboard's charts. For quite some time now, Billboard has published their chart on Saturday, and it spans the previous six days and the chart issue date, thus SEVEN days: Sunday through Saturday. So, the current issue of Billboard was published with the issue date of August 22 and the charts bearing that date are for the range of dates Aug. 16 - 22.

I have tried to correct the errors in the succession boxes, and many are changing them back to the erroneous dates. Does anyone know of any way to make this information transparent on Wikipedia to ensure that the proper dates are reflected on the respective pages and in the succession boxes? Does anyone even agree with me?

The Billboard Hot 100 page even says the EXACT same thing as what I'm saying here, but people are still not believing what's correct. Thoughts? Please? Adfalcon (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)adfalcon
 * I don't even know why there is more than one date in the succession boxes in the first place. All that is really needed is the issue date and that's it.  No spanning of weeks, or notations of "(4 weeks)" or any of that stuff.  I don't know why people choose to make things more confusing and difficult. - eo (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just one more reason why ALL succession boxes in song and album articles should be removed. All it does is clutter the page and provide redundant information that they reached #1 already noted in the chart table. We have lists of number one songs and albums pages to tell us when they were number one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

July 24, 2010".
 * To begin with, I hate succession boxes, so I don't want to spend much time on making them prettier if the discussion below can rid us of the damned things altogether.
 * Having said that, it was my understanding that what we're supposedly showing as the incumbency of the subject recording is the issue dates of the charts where it was number one. If a song is on a chart for one week and falls off, then we have "July 10, 2010" and that's it. If it's on top for two consecutive issues, we have "July 10, 2010 – July 17, 2010". Multiple non-consecutive reigns might be comma-separated or, more likely, line-separated "July 10, 2010
 * Now, that consecutive-issues example looks like the song was No. 1 for 8 days, which is why I was confused before the practice was explained to me, but if it's WP standard then we can explain it somewhere. It's also not clear to everyone that there's a difference between Billboard issue dates (or, say, UK chart dates) and actual calendar dates.
 * The idea of a chart spanning a certain period of time, meaning covering certain calendar days, is too much extra complication. A chart is a chart with a certain date, and that date is the one we use on WP, even if it leads us to writing in late August about how "Love the Way You Lie" reached No. 1 on September 4, 2010.
 * Now let's go kill the succession boxes. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't really care about the succession boxes either. I am concerned with the dates. Adfalcon (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)adfalcon

Making Table for Multiple Singles
I don't see an example in the MoS on how a table with multiple singles should look.

Is something like this acceptable? With links to the songs, charts and references of course. (The refs would go in the chart column still, right?) This seems to be close to what's in the MOS now, but it doesn't look like other single charts. Bobertoq (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to do that a discography isn't the right answer for?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Top 100 Argentina
Isn't the Top 100 Argentina an official chart? Reading the methodology I think that it can be used on wiki.--Talk Shop (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who compiles the chart? Can you show cases where reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, etc.) make reference to this chart? There are a lot of official looking sites out there, but very few reliable ones. To be classed as reliable, we have to know who's publishing it and see that other reliable sources treat it as reliable. In this case, it looks to be an amateur chart: the only contact address is a hotmail account.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I wanted to be sure. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Talk Shop (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Monthly Top20 for albums is available at the capif website. --Neo139 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Top Hit / Russian Airplay
Is tophit a bad source for charts? I assumed it was correct since I've seen it appear in other GA articles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus was "no". I checked, and I have to concur: there's no real sourcing that says it's a reliable chart.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch singles charts revisited
I am trying to get to the bottom of the complex situation for single charts in the Netherlands. Previous related discussions:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(record_charts)/Archive_4
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(record_charts)/Archive_7
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(record_charts)/Archive_9

I must admit that I find it all very confusing, with (at least) three official charts and several of them constantly changing name and length throughout time. I have tried to summarize the information from the various discussions and existing articles into this little table:

I would appreciate if other editors would help me completing this table and check for mistakes. I am especially puzzled about where to find the Mega Top 50, and why www.dutchcharts.nl shows archived positions all the way back to 1962 when Dutch Top 40 was the first single chart in the Netherlands. Thanks in advance. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Awaiting further insightful advice, I have removed the prefix "Mega" from "Single Top 100" in our sourcing guide to reflect the 2009 name change. Furthermore, I wonder what the phrase "Weekly archive incorporated directly into charts." in the comments column is supposed to mean? – Ib Leo (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Billboard again
Is Billboard down again? So any links are returning dead error. Sigh.... — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's working fine for me, do you want me to look up something for you? <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind.. I spoke too soon. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh is it dead for you now? — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Works just fine for me. Are there any specific links not working? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  07:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Billboard 200 for eg, as well as if you click on some of the artists. A maintenance probably? — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single thing I click has a pink banner that says '! Page Loading Error'; but I'm sure it'll be all fixed soon. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  07:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. *fingers croosed* — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've accessed some singles info with no problem.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bubbling Under Hot 100
What should be done with this chart? Since Billboard stop publishing the Bubbling Under chart, how do song peaks get referenced? In my opinion, Bubbling Under peaks without a source need to be removed. Regardless of how many times an artist has charted there, without making into the Hot 100, they are useless. When sourcing a discography with a Billboard.com source, no Bubbling Under peaks are found in the Hot 100 list, therefore when the source is added to ones discography, these peaks are left out in the dust. They need to go bye-bye. Also, on David Archuleta discography, his Bubbling Under peaks were removed from his singles because they couldn't be sourced. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The chart is still published and the positions are frequently verifiable. Before removing them, it's best to look at the Google Books archive of Billboard magazines and see if the position can be sourced.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A side note... they should NOT be tacked on to the Hot 100 e.g. if a sound reached 12 on Bubbling under that is not equal to 112 on Hot 100 because 112 chart position doesn't exist. They should not be added to discogs for that very reason. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the chart is still published, but it isn't archived on Billboard's website like all the other charts. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AGREE with LilUnique1. Bubbling Under is NOT a main chart, so should not be in a discog. If sourced list on the individual song or single page, but as Bubbling Under. Again per LilUnique1, cannot have a number exceeding 100 in the Hot 100!—Iknow23 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the bubbling under chart is only published at billboard.biz or the physical copies of the magazine. I've checked Google Books and they currently have copies uptil mid-2008 (i think). They're the only ways to source it. If someone cannot provide either one of those sources it must not be listed on a song page. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Iknow23, you're right, Bubbling Under shouldn't be in a discography. Hence, Billboard Hot 100, not Billboard Hot 100-125. For the ones replying to this, look here. The Bubbling Under chart is unsourced, but another user keeps re-adding it, without a source. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on User:CloversMallRat's talk page. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the warning. You gotta do watcha gotta do. No hard feelings. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've warned you both because its not appropriate. But you did the right thing by starting this discussion. It is a long standing issue that in the past had divided people but now there is a general dislike for the use of Billboard Bubbling under charts and a clear message that they most certainly are not to be used in discogs. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never been a fan of this chart. I guess I didn't know about prior discussions on this topic, otherwise I would have voiced my opinion then as well. But enough is enough, it either stays or goes. I'm not going to stay conflicted on sourcing these positions. If I can't find a source through Billboard, it's going to deleted, just like I tried to do with Joey + Rory. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the 'Bubbling Under Hot 100' not included in WP:USCHART in the condition table at "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →" ? But 'Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles' is 'allowed' at "If a song has not charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs you may add any of the following →"? —Iknow23 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that's oversight on my part. I've added it in =) --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I remember its all complex! But hey, didn't you mean to add it to the "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100..." instead?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That was clearly wrong, so I've changed it. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

All Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart positions through 2008 can be sourced in the 12th edition of Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles. Not saying it should be allowed, but it does provide another reliable source. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Joel Whitburn's Hot Country Songs 1994–2008 also includes all country music Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart positions. Positions below #100 are listed as 101, 102, etc. Additionally, anyone can search Billboard.biz to see whether or not a song bubbled under here for charts as recent as this week, but only those with a subscription can see where they peaked. For the example provided above, it can be proven that Joey + Rory's "Cheater, Cheater" bubbled under the week of January 17, 2009 here, but the actual listing is for members only. Eric444 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as users and editors can source the chart to the physical magazine, they are fine in the articles, else no. While adding a position say 22, editors shouldnot add it as position 122 in the article, and then say the chart name as Billboard Hot 100. If added, it should be noted that it is an addndum to the Hot 100, and the actual chart is Bubbling under Hot 100. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 04:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to get this nailed down once and for all (if it's possible). We've got (as I see it) 3 different issues, keeping the discussion a bit confusing. There's (1) the question of inclusion (whether and when), (2) the question of what number to use in reporting, and (3) what references can be used for them (affecting #1).
 * It seems that in an article about an individual recording, we'd all agree that mentioning the appearance on a Bubbling Under chart is appropriate, if both (1) the recording didn't later make it to the corresponding main chart, and (2) we have some kind of ref for its B.U. peak. Yes?
 * In an article about an individual recording, it's appropriate and easy to say it was at #7 on the B.U. chart. We don't support saying it was at #107 on the Hot 100, or #107 on the B.U. (because heck, they're both wrong). We can use a separate row in the Charts table, and that's what we here all like, right?
 * In a discography (or artist's article with a discog section in it), things get shakier. We've confined ourselves to 10 chart columns max, so we feel pressed for space. For me, and per some of the comments above, there ought to be a separate column for B.U. peaks on songs that didn't make the main chart. Agreed? But The problem is that we often don't have room for such a column. Also, the numbers in such a column would be 2s, 7s, 12s, etc., looking comparable to the 5s, 10s, and 18s on the main chart. But 122 in the B.U. column is certainly wrong, too.
 * Finally (in terms of reporting), there's the problem of Joel Whitburn using the numbers 101–125 in his reporting. That gives solid support (where it doesn't belong, IMHO) for using the glued-on version of the peak numbers and then – why not? – putting them right there in the main Hot 100 or R&B column. Eric444, are you saying it's OK to use 122 instead of 22? What does that .biz listing that you pointed to use (I'm not a subscriber)?
 * The second-best solution (after separate columns), and the best I've actually seen, is the treatment currently used in Lady Gaga discography (an FLC). The larger (extended) numbers are used, positioned in the main chart column, but with a footnote of explanation. The ref link (to BB.biz) is on the footnote supporting the B.U. peak. Do you nay-sayers support this compromise?
 * Another bit about sourcing: As I was trying to clean the obviously-too-large 102, 108, etc., from the 100-position charts' columns in Fat Joe discography, I got reverted by another editor, who provided as references the XML files from BB.com you see there. My Firefox browsers will open these files, but strip the structure out of the files, so there's just a meaningless string of data left. However, my IE6 browser shows the entire contents. You have to read through the file and try to match up the song, chart, and position you're trying to verify. Have you seen this kind of file before, and what do you think of it as a ref for WP articles?
 * So have I asked too many questions? Can I get more definitive, uh, precise statements from more of you? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What a doofus. I forgot to mention the article where I saw the XML files as references. Now added above. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

... Ok lets make this simple and easy for everyone.
 * When and how Billboard Bubbling Under Charts can be used.
 * 1) The chart like any other, must be sourced with a reliable and accurate citation. (this includes google books and the physical copy of the Billboard magazine).
 * 2) It can be used, when accurately sourced as explained above, on individual pages for a song, on the album's page or on the artists page but must be given in the form of Song "ABC" reached number 'x' on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart in the US.
 * 3) However even if it is sourced accurately, it must NOT be used on discography pages in the form of a position over 100 or as a seperate bubbling under column.

How does those three criteria sound? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Item 1 should say "must" rather than "should", if you want me to be picky.
 * Why don't you want it in a separate column? The way your criterion 3 is now, we can't have B.U. in a table at all; it must be in the (theoretically intro) text, written as its real number (7, not 107). I've got absolutely nothing against a separate column, if it's properly sourced, and we can keep double entries out (i.e., one of the songs made it into the Hot 100, so there's a 67 there, and 2 in the B.U. column).
 * I see I couldn't entice you into answering my questions. I'm going to have even more trouble with the really taciturn ones around here. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair John I would have also included a tabular example of how it can be included in the charts table in a song article too but couldnt be bothered to form one. Erm I think allowing it in the discography is bad for two reasons... 1. Giving Bubbling its own column somehow makes it comparable to the Hot 100 and other single charts, 2. it makes it awkward for an artist who has say 5 Bubbling singles and 5 Hot 100 singles. (imagine their Hot 100 singles chart in positions 50-100, but their Bubbling singles will chart anwhere from 1-25). Although I can see a supporting argument where a Bubbling column might be more appropriate e.g. when an artist only charts in a handful of countries. Perhaps a rule along the lines of if an artist has already charted on 10 reliable and accurate national charts it would be inappropriate to replace one of these with the Bubbling Under Chart? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didnt mean to ignore your questions. I just thought that by creating a minature guideline/list of criterion would answer/agree with most of you're suggestions as well as provide something we can implement to record charts? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference with the particular incident I had w/ EnDaLeCoMpLeX in regards to Joey + Rory's "Cheater, Cheater" was that it was sourced in the past when it debuted on the chart. And it was removed because the link went dead, upon which I pointed out that WP:Linkrot states that something doesn't become invaluable when a link does go dead. I'm fine w/ not using the chart anymore if people have such a problem w/ it, but this was a different case than me sayin' "oh, there's no source, but let's keep it." CloversMallRat (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Answers to JohnFromPinckney: upon first reading and before reading the comments from others
 * 1. Yes
 * 2. Yes
 * 3. Discog is a summary. Use ONLY MAIN charts, to include sub-charts denigrates the MAIN charts shown (IMO). Readers can
 * go to the INDIVIDUAL album, single, song, whatever page for greater detail which may include sub-charts.
 * 4. NO over 100. Clearly wrong.
 * 5. NO. I say don't show B.U.'s at all in Discogs per my comment at 3 and in my position above (earlier). Re: Lady Gaga discography the note portion "position comparable to number 122 on the Billboard Hot 100." is nonsense. ANY number in excess of 100 cannot exist there.
 * 6. Please point me to a specific ref at a specific article. I'd like to try to take a look at it.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick interjection to answer Iknow23's request: I've added the Fat Joe discography to my #6 above. Click the footnote link next to any peak higher than 100, the refs for those are XML files at BB.com. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * YES, I hadn't even thought of that...but its an excellent idea I SUPPORT to include B.U. and other notable sub-charts in the Discog "intro) text, written as its real number (7, not 107)" and correctly stated as B.U. As regards to ref, that is ALWAYS a wiki requirement, no exception for this. Re: double entries. Hadn't considered that either, but now that you mention it, if the B.U. column exists editors WILL use it whether 'we' want them to or not. 'If you build it, they will come.'—Iknow23 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, I guess I wouldn't object to a B.U. column in a Discog ONLY in cases where NO Billboard Hot 100 Column or information is used. It would have to be CLEARLY marked in the table header and not just shown as US so as not to elevate itself to the same level as the other MAIN country/region charts shown. To put only US in the header, but a note to look to the bottom of the table for an explanation that it is 'only' the US B.U. is NOT acceptable.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * John's suggestion sounds really enticing. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 03:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, tried the XML in Opera browser and Firefox. The rendering I get is the same I believe as you put it "meaningless string of data". In IE7 it renders with all the tags shown, a table does NOT actually appear. I'm not familar with all that, but a quick check at XML reveals: "Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a set of rules for encoding documents in machine-readable form." Thus this is not meant for 'general' reading. My guess is that Billboard would not approve this form of obtaining or citing their data. A subscriber may have done something like a 'source code' on it and found a way to get it to show without Billboard's approval as they DO require a subscription for this service (as I've been told). The data may be entirely accurate but 'misappropriately' obtained by us non-subscribers following such XML links? So they would be a IMPROPER ref citation? What do you think?—Iknow23 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably the return results of the Billboard API. I have a subscription (free), and it does return XML descriptions for charts. When it was fully supported, it purposely gave one-month old data. They haven't updated the database since May 2010.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Is that this? I just found that URL in the last 10 minutes (via Eminem discography). What's your view on same-column/other-column/not at all for B.U. peaks on discogs? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never thought the Bubbling Under charts should be listed. If they have to be listed, they need to be clearly identified and not treated as an extension of the main chart, which they most emphatically are not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you would welcome a rewording of the "can also be seen as a 25-position addendum" in Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles and at Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, yes?

Who else thinks so? (I guess I'll need to mention this at those articles' Talk pages. Or just change them.) &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just get Billboard to change it to Hot 125, ha! Kevin, do you mean even with your Billboard SUBSCRIPTION, you ONLY see the XML with all the field tags? You do not get to see a 'proper' table? From WP:IRS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,..." Do WE consider XML to be a PROPERLY published source? Or is it being 'sneaky' to use it? Help me understand further please.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional thoughts on Fat Joe discography. I don't have a problem with the inclusion of US R&B and US Rap, because in most of the tables US is the only country/region shown. Thus there is not overemphasis on US (that's all there is), as I'm sure if they had charted in other countries/regions THOSE would have been shown instead. However the problem with B.U. still exists. I won't dispute the other US charts shown in the 'As featured performer' table either, since there are only a TOTAL of five charts shown and the other US are clearly identified. However the note "A" is totally unnecessary, because like "Feelin' So Good" or "My Lifestyle (Remix)" or "New York", if the "A" items had charted in other than Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles it would have been shown in those columns instead of the dash. Note "B" is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Whenever just a country/region name is in the Column header. this means ONLY the MAIN chart is to reported there. As a compromise, I could accept just a "B" in the table with the FULL explanation in the note. I shall edit accordingly. Note "B" thus will become "A".—Iknow23 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Interjection) Welll, you took away the note, but left the incorrect positions. "Live Big" and "What is Sexy" didn't chart on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, only on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales. The notes you removed were the only clue to that fact. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Reply to interjection) Oh, that's part of the problem. See I didn't understand that. All part of the confusion caused when reporting MULTIPLE charts within the same column!—Iknow23 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I personally do not have a subscription to Billboard, am I the only who sees the XML as just a bunch of codes and no table? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * EnDaLeCoMpLeX, I also do not have a subscription. In IE it shows ALL the field tags but you can sort out the info. With any other browser (reported thus far), you can't even pick out the info.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I use Firefox, and it just shows about 4 lines of this:


 * "Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-11-25360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-10-28360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles1995-10-28345SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot ListedRelativityRelativity251Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-10-21360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-10-14360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204". EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, I'm a little confused. I think I've missed the trick with all this XML stuff. Can someone please fill me in? (if its easier leave me a message on my talk page so it doesn't distract from the rest of the convo). --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By now you've probably noticed my attempt to explain at User talk:Lil-unique1. Let me if that doesn't satisfy your curiosity. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So I guess the question now is, "does this XML file count as a reliable published source"? My only issue is that users hard of site and those who have little web experience might find it difficult interpreting such sources which could cause unecessary conflicts. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Billboard API
There's a lot of questions above about the Billboard API and my subscription. Actually, I have an API key. The API is for use by code, not human beings. It's described here. If I write a piece of code like

then I get back

It's not an interface intended for humans: it's a computer-to-computer interface. Billboard seems to have silently stopped updating the database the API accesses, so it's getting less and less useful every day.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank You. "It's not an interface intended for humans: it's a computer-to-computer interface." So my position is although this detail can be accessed, it is NOT 'published' for 'human' use thus inappropriate to use at Wikipedia. AGREE or DISAGEE? —Iknow23 (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a valid source of information. It's verifiable, and the API keys are free. Figuring out how to cite it is a problem, and, since Billboard is no longer updating the database, I have to assume the database will disappear in the near future. It's that probable disappearance that disturbs me, not the source: if I thought it would remain stable, I'd set up a query site that glued Wikipedia to the API. Since it probably won't stay stable, it isn't worth the effort.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Didn't quite understand all that, but I am fine in taking your word for it. So XML is OK for references.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not until you can figure out a way to provide a citation to the Billboard API. I certainly don't know how to do that. I'm just saying it's not against policy, so long as there's an agreed upon way to cite it. I don't think it's worth the effort, because the database will go away soon, and we would have to undo all the citations. We still haven't fixed all the citations from the last time Billboard took things away.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. Billboard sure likes to keep us busy aka drive us crazy —Iknow23 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Was XML ever discussed at WP:RSN? Is there any guidance to be found there?—Iknow23 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you question is: Is a database a valid source. This seems to be covered in WP:SOURCEACCESS, because 'verifiability implies nothing about ease of access'. That being said what seems more important as Kww said that this data is not being kept up to date so it of no long term use to Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Eric444, are you saying it's OK to use 122 instead of 22? What does that .biz listing that you pointed to use (I'm not a subscriber)?
 * I'm not a subscriber either, so unfortunately I can't say. What I can do is point you towards two sample pages from Joel Whitburn's books here and here which equate a Bubbling Under peak of #22 to a peak of #122 on the Hot 100. I think the best way to add Bubbling Under peaks is the way they've been added on Lady Gaga's discography, using 122 with a footnote and a reference. Eric444 (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
Since no clear consensus came of this, I guess we shall do this the old fashioned way by using Support or Oppose the removal of these charts. And I shall be the first:


 * Support removal of these positions, as they are unsourced and unverifiable. There is no such #118 (just an example) on the Billboard Hot 100. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not always the case, how do you explain this . I used it in the "Voices Carry" article, there you can see how the song debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 81, but have a position of 104 the week before, when it debuted on the Bubling Under Chart. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bubbling Under is not to be used when it charts on the Hot 100. It is NOT listed in WP:USCHART in the 'Condition table' at "If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →"—Iknow23 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So? I didn't add it to a table I mentioned it on the prose, besides this is not about the policies, I put this example because what the user above said is not exactly true. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose the removal of these charts, they're absolutely verifiable to anyone with a Joel Whitburn book or Billboard.biz membership. Plus, a peak of 118 does exist, as evidenced here. Eric444 (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is nonsense to have a peak in excess of 100 when only 100 positions exist. The 118 is in effect a position of 18 on the BU chart. They are just stating it incorrerctly as 118 as a convenience.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per above comment, and the fact that they are completely verifiable. Yvesnimmo (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose they can be sourced with the examples Eric444 brought up. Seems ridiculous to remove them as this is a well known chart. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal as long as they can be properly sourced and used in accordance with WP:USCHART. Best (less confusing) is if Billboard would just make it a Hot 125 and forget BU!—Iknow23 (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! If Billboard would just make the 25 extension, I probably would have never brought up this discussion. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 15:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is (and this is what people always fail to understand, and why I oppose listing it as 101-125) is the the "Bubbling Under" chart has different rules from the Hot 100, and is a different chart. It is purposely and intentionally biased towards newer songs, and is designed to be a chart of songs that may chart in the future.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI—From 1960 to 1985 the Bubbling Under chart started at #101, since 1992 it has been numbered 1–25. Piriczki (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support A difficult to verify chart of no importance: if a song only charts on the Bubbling Under, then it never made a real chart. A chart of uncharted songs isn't really a chart at all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support removal - these positions are never referenced properly, and are burdensome to verify. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (strongly) - it is not possible to clarify the importance of the chart, the positions cannot always be exactly verified, there is no consensus on how they should be listed (e.g. 107 or number 7), and as shown in the discussions above there are too many ifs and buts... e.g. lets use it if we have XML files but not if we dont etc... Easiest thing is to say it CANNOT be used. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree with you more. The easiest thing to do is just to remove them. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just the easiest... but in the interest of verifiability. Unless you want to create WP:Record charts/Guide to adding bubbling under charts --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak support since there's no singular source to verify them all. If we can only verify some of them, then we probably shouldn't have them at all, just like the CAN Country peaks from 2004 onward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting then that we should remove the verifiable CAN Country peaks prior to 2000? Eric444 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That came out wrong, so I'll clarify. With the RPM peaks, there're only a few months missing out of a 36-year archive, which is a very small portion (less than 2%); every thing else is easily accessible from one place. With Bubbling Under, the gaps are more significant, and there isn't a consistent source that covers every single one thoroughly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2008 boasts the inclusion of every single song that appeared on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart, more than 7,300 in total, through December 2008. The only gap is January 2009-present, and surely those will be covered in the next edition. Eric444 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Eric444; I forgot that Whitburn's book covers the Bubbling Under as well. As Moxy says, it's okay to use an offline ref. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose only those not verifiable should be removed...off line refs are just fine. Moxy (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have sent an email to Google books ...in hopes that Joel Whitburn's can be digitized...I was informed that this could be possible but will take about 6 months to do and would have to be the older edition.Moxy (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Difficult chart that adds extra unnecessary burden to verify. SteamboatBilly (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)