Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 17

QQ Music & saoju.net
Hi everyone. I would like to know if QQ Music and saoju.net are reliable sources and if can be used in Wikipedia. Both are Chinese sources, and we can found them in several articles, including List of best-selling albums in China or albums from some Western musicians. And both sources has been added for certifications and sales from China (see this or this example; although both were reverted and I think is fine). A few years ago, the main contributor from the List of best-selling albums in China article, argued about QQ Music: "It is the largest provider of legal, paid music & streaming in China, with its owner, Tencent, having a 70% share of the music market in China, as confirmed by the 2017 IFPI Global Music Report (see pag. 28)". Maybe that could be right, but idk if we can use them in case there is a music certification from QQ Music (example) or in sales matters. So if they are RS or we need add them in "Websites to avoid" (WP:CHARTS) or this discussion need to be open in Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how a music provider has the authority to decide music certifications - is QQ Music recognised by IFPI as the official organisation with the authority to award certifications in China? Does China not have an independent certifications organisation? Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's what I mean and that's why I've open this discussion. Maybe we can add them in "websites to avoid" if is applicable because if both are really "bad sources" we need to avoid more additions. Maybe I'm wrong. Opinions are welcome. NOTE: I don't know if QQ Music is bad only for certifications (Certifications criteria) or sales or both. With saoju.net till now seems is used only with sales matters. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * QQ Music is a digital music store in China and awards in-house certifications for sales on their platform just like American labels did in the early 20th century before the establishment RIAA Gold awards in 1958. Therefore, I completely support adding QQ Music as a website to avoid as far as any chart positions or certifications go, but not for sales. I distinctly remember iTunes sales being mentioned in the article for Beyoncé’s self-titled album after its unexpected release in December 2013 broke digital sales records. Nearly 7 years later, references to those iTunes sales are still on the article for that album, which is now a Good article. Similarly, any mentions of QQ Music sales on comparable cases in China, such as the articles of ex-K-pop-idol-turned-Mandopop-star Lu Han’s albums are just as valid – provided they are notable. This is highly likely since Lu Han has also broken digital album sales records.
 * As for saoju.net, while it is a blog and is not an authoritative source on anything in and of itself, it’s only being used as a single source that compiles sales on 5 of 6 of China’s largest music stores. These include the aforementioned QQ Music, KuGou, NetEase Music, Kuwo, and Migu.-- Mαuri ’96  ( talk  ·  cont ) 16:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Idk if it's proper to see a general opinion in Reliable sources/Noticeboard or WP:RSP using a translator available who can properly interpret those Chineses websites because seems like nobody in ad hoc WikiMusic Projects have a different opinions rather than the main contributors who already used both refs. But at this point, I don't will run the extra mile once again, due my time and other factors. While I know we can't usually use sources such as WP:BLOGS/WP:NEWSBLOG, the blog saoju.net and the website QQ Music (for sales reports as it was suggested) will still be used in Wikipedia due there is a non-consensus (of course, in case both sources have to be actually "avoided"). Otherwise, if they are actually good to use, disregard and keep both. Regards, Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These certifications represent nothing official--they aren't even recognized by the IFPI. On top of that, they only represent one of the many digital services available in China. I'd definitely avoid adding them to articles, just like data about Spotify streams (unless record-breaking and thus highly relevant) aren't mentioned anywhere.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  23:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of new links with Portuguese charts
The Portuguese charts are currently issued by a company called Audiogest, and no longer by AFP site, that is defunct. This link shows the weekly album charts for the current year, and the certifications appear in the chart, similar to the ancient AFP ones: http://www.audiogest.pt/-97?lang=pt

This other link shows the weekly airplay charts: http://audiogest.pt/top-airplay-2020?lang=pt

And this other one contains archives from both chart types: http://audiogest.pt/tops-vendas?lang=pt

I would like to know if these links could be included in the Portugal chart list. I'm Brazilian, so sorry if my English is bad. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and there is another discussion about this – I will link it to this request. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Australian-charts
As per this discussion, would Australian-charts.com be considered a reliable source?2603:8081:160A:BE2A:5908:73E8:2063:87AE (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Billboard Dance Club Songs year-end charts and Hot Dance/Electronic Songs year-end charts pages were disappeared??
I knew Hot Dance/Electronic Songs year-end charts page was vanished on February, but today Dance Club Songs year-end charts page was also vanished, What happened for Billboard?? Is it nothing for Hot Dance/Electronic Songs year-end 2020?? Tim96144 (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The charts on Billboard's website have been disappearing regularly over the last year – sometimes they reappear a few weeks later, sometimes they don't. You'll just have to wait and see if they come back, sorry. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

UK Singles Chart positions between 101 and 200
As editors may know, the UK Singles Chart has 200 positions, but positions 101 to 200 are only published in an obscure trade publication available by subscription, which makes it hard to source positions for songs that peaked in that range. Zobbel.de has details of songs that peaked within that range up to 2012, but for 2013 and 2014 it only lists the positions at which songs entered as opposed to peaked, and nothing at all from 2015 onwards. Would it be better to simply not list positions outside the top 100 in artist discography articles, given that the available info is so patchy........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the point of listing songs that didn't make the top 100 – if a song has peaked at no. 173 I think it's hardly worth mentioning, as its sales must be pitiful... we're talking no more than a few hundred sales here, if that. And Zobbel is a personal blog, I don't know why we continue to use it. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Official Charts Company actually stopped producing the Top 200 singles (positions 101-200) in week ending 15th July 2017 which is over three years ago so you no longer have to worry about it in that respect. The "obscure" trade publication your refer to is UKChartsPlus which stopped publishing it back in July 2017 as well. However, I do not see a problem in adding these peaks to song articles. UKChartsPlus is a reliable source that is officially licenced from OCC. If a song has peaked at no. 173 then as you say its sales must be pitiful, but Wikipedia is not about promoting things or promoting how popular things are, it is about providing factual information. Providing peaks between 101 and 200 is factual information that can be very useful to researchers. That's why UKChartsPlus had so many people subscribing to it. I happen to know that they may disband in 2021 for the very reason they have lost a lot of their subscribers since they stopped publishing the 101-200 positions in 2017.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that UKChartsPlus may fold soon, I would have thought that the 101-200 chart positions were what 90% of the subscribers paid for. I know they were official places, but they were only really useful to people who worked in the industry. But if people want to add them, I don't remove them, I know some editors like them. Richard3120 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually know that positions 101-200 had been discontinued. I don't have a problem with them being listed, my concern is sourcing them.  Essentially (even if we take Zobbel to be a reliable source, which as noted above is questionable) we don't have any source for positions 101-200 after 2012 (unless there are editors who have back issues of ChartsPlus), so an artist's discography might list songs that peaked in that range in prior years but not songs that peaked in that range thereafter, so their UK chart data would be incomplete.  But maybe that's not a big issue and I am overthinking things..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as being a problem issue because if you can provide one official peak in an artists' list of singles then it is more accurate than not providing any at all as though they did not chart when actually they did. Regarding UKChartsPlus again, just for info, the email correspondence I had with them told me that they will fold unless OCC reduces their licence fees having lost many subscribers since OCC stopped producing the 101-200 peaks in 2017. Ever since they stopped the 101-200 peaks OCC have allowed UKChartsPlus to publish the Official Top 100 Welsh singles, which is based entirely on downloads just like the official Scottish singles chart. The Scottish chart still being available on the OCC website but the Welsh having been missing for some time. Cheers.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Dutch Top 40 year-end positions
Dutch Top 40 year-end although was published, but that's not correct. It have to wait until week 52's chart was published, and that is correct. Because before 2021 week 1, all positions may change. https://www.top40.nl/bijzondere-lijsten/top-100-jaaroverzichten/2020, this page has a link which was wrote in Dutch "Download lijst als PDF", unless the link has finished and had complete list, otherwise do not try to add too early. Yesterday an User:Ss112 didn't figured it out and added Dutch Top 40 year-end positions at will, caused a little confusion. I hope everyone who add Dutch Top 40 year-end position can notice this in the future. Tim96144 (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, there are two weeks left of the year. That's not going to change the point tally that decides the year-end positions of songs on the Dutch Top 40 very much at all. There may be some minor differences, so then after week 52, by all means, change and fix them. It doesn't mean when the data is available to us now (in week 50) we should all hold off because of a few differences. We can't expect that every user was going to somehow get the unwritten memo to not add these year-end placements.  Ss  112   13:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nationale Top 40 Suriname
Hello, I came across this Surinamese chart, the Nationale Top 40 Suriname, published by the Natio40 foundation. It was born in 2013 and until July of this year it had its own website but now the domain is for sale and the rankings are published on Facebook and Blogspot. In the Fb information I read that the chart is considered "the official hitparade of Suriname" and that "the composition takes place by processing data obtained from: airplay in various radio stations in Suriname, CMO - continuous musical research in collaboration with IDOS, an association of DJ of the country, through samples in music stores and finally trends on social media (so I assume that they also take streaming into account). Furthermore, many local newspapers consider it official, often reporting hits in the charts and new entries (, e ) Since Blogspot is blacklisted, how should you move in case of its possible use? --Lrt000 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, may I have an answer since it is already the second time that I propose the discussion and I am not receiving answers. --Lrt000 (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As blogs can't be used on Wikipedia, it's difficult to see how this chart could be used. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice on inclusion of multiple Billboard US charts
Have to admit, I'm absolutely nowhere on present-day song charts. Does anyone have any thoughts on the eight Billboard entries for the US at Come On to Me (Paul McCartney song) (perhaps the three Japanese entries also) ... are they all notable and appropriate for inclusion? Seems extraordinary to me, to be listing so many for one country – but as I say, I'm no expert. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some dodgy charts on there, for sure. I'm 99% certain that the last four US charts are not acceptable additions... I also think the Rock Digital Song chart should not be on there, as the song charted on the overall Digital Songs chart. Likewise, the Adult Alternative Songs chart has to go because the song already charted on the Hot Rock and Alternative Songs chart. See WP:USCHARTS for the explanation behind these last two.
 * The UK chart position may or may not be correct but the source used definitely isn't acceptable. I think the Polish chart used is a single vendor radio network chart and can't be used, and I'm not sure about the Croatian chart either. The Japanese FM Toyama chart shouldn't be there either. I could be wrong on some of these, so hopefully someone more clued up than me will confirm or deny my initial analysis. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the other Billboard charts, Adult Contemporary is fine to use. Japan Hot 100 i think is fine as well even though its not on the above list. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Japan Hot 100 and Japan Hot Overseas are both fine. I've removed the radio station one, however. --Prosperosity (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, and especially for the advice on US Billboard (Richard). I'm not in any hurry to right any chart wrongs at that McCartney song article, necessarily; it's more about an issue that's across a few of his song articles, I suspect. JG66 (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

EarOne a chart?
For some odd reason their is a user who is adding EarOne as a chart position on Let Me Reintroduce Myself in Italy. EarOne is not a chart company, rather just an owner of multiple radio stations in Italy. EarOne is not listed on WP:BADCHARTS nor is it listed on WP:GOODCHARTS. I strongly disagree with it’s inclusion. I should also add that the user who added it as a chart seemingly admitted that EarOne is not even a chart company here. If anyone agrees or disagrees please feel free to comment. Pillowdelight (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that what I said has been taken out of context. For the sake of transparency, I want to make clear that I said EarOne "is not a chart", but rather a company that posts Italian airplay statistics weekly. I included the EarOne reference in Let Me Reintroduce Myself because I have classified it as a reliable and reputable publication that has been used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of WP:GOODARTICLES. I, too, am curious what others have to say about this chart, and am willing to hear other's feedback. Pillowdelight, please stop insisting that my actions are "odd" and that I have "seemingly admitted" to a falsity of some sort. I've done no such thing. I would prefer to hold a civil discussion without your repeated condescension. Carbrera (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC).
 * I would also like to point out that EarOne is commonly used on the Italian Wikipedia in the same manner: (see, , , , , , , among hundreds of others). Carbrera (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC).


 * Whether it’s a chart or not you still said EarOne is not a chart. No need to backtrack now. I found the edit rather odd because again, I’ve never seen EarOne being a source for charts in Italy when FIMI and Hung Meiden (proper sources for music charts in Italy) exist— which I told you. I’ve only seen EarOne being used to show the dates of songs being played on their radio stations. Please stop insisting I’m being rude to you, their are far more users on here who can come off as not so shallow than the way I’m speaking to you—which I’m speaking to you in a normal manner.

Pillowdelight (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

When a country has 2 active/relevant charts...
I asked this on the "Dynamite" talk page about a week ago but have not gotten a response so I'm trying here. In Japan there's Oricon and Billboard Japan. South Korea has Gaon Music Chart and the Billboard Korea Hot 100. I've seen both charts mentioned before in other articles, but in the Comm Perf section of this page only one chart is mentioned for each of these countries. Is anything wrong with mentioning both? Dynamite was the best-performing song of 2020 on the BBK Hot 100 having spent 17 weeks at number 1 and I believe this is a record worth mentioning but idk if it's ok to add or not. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, especially when the competing charts use different metrics (i.e. Oricon tracks physically sold copies only, while Billboard Japan tracks physical sales+digital sales+streaming+radio+the number of times people stick a CD into a computer+and I think Twitter metrics too?). If there's a big difference in methodology, it's a great opportunity to explain why a song performed better on one chart than another. I wouldn't recommend just stating the positions in the prose without explaining it, since this would be confusing (i.e. "The song reached #1 in Japan on Oricon, and #1 on the Billboard Japan Hot 100. Also in France, the song..." without explaining why there's a difference). --Prosperosity (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Scottish and Welsh singles charts (OCC)
The OCC website is no longer publishing the Scottish Singles Chart and hasn't had the Welsh Singles Chart for quite a long time. Both charts are still being published in UKChartsPlus, but my email correspondence with them has told me that "a major digital service has stopped supplying regional data due to consumer policy" for both the Scottish and Welsh singles chart. So there is a big amount of download data missing from them now and neither charts included streaming anyway, and they said that now these charts will surprisingly be compiled mostly from physical sales. Non of the entries on this week's Scottish and Welsh charts made it onto the official UK singles Top 100 chart as a result.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, so given the populations of these two countries and the fact that the majority of singles aren't released on physical format any more anyway, I'm guessing the weekly physical sales will be minuscule. Richard3120 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I never knew there was a Welsh chart for OCC. I knew about the Scottish one. Interesting. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also did not know there was a Welsh chart, but if only physical sales are going to be tracked from now on, it'll definitely create some issues. The sales are no doubt bound to be negligible and therefore non-notable, and I'm thinking a bunch of song from the pre-2000s are gonna appear on the chart, much like the case with the UK Rock Chart. It might end up looking like a recurrent chart. QuintusPetillius, is that what it resembles right now? ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 01:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking exactly the same thing. For example, Little Mix have always done better in Scotland than the UK overall, and their singles chart very highly there. But I don't think they release physical versions of them. So are we going to see a situation where they go from having number-one singles to barely charting at all? I also agree that this change is going to benefit alternative/indie bands, who tend to release physical product more than the average pop group, who tend to be downloads and streams only. I'm not sure how useful it is going to make these charts in future. Richard3120 (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Leaving streaming out I don't mind personally (mostly because I question the whole process), but when they take out all the rest, that's when I begin to look at charts negatively. I had the same issue with the Canadian Singles Chart a few months ago, but at least there was an alternative radio chart to refer to that better reflected what was popular in Canada. Since Scotland and Wales have no alternative charts, and considering the fact they are compiling based on obsolete formats, they barely serve a notable use anymore. Here come two more potential UKR mimes. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 12:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The top 5 for the Scottish Singles Chart for week ending January 16, 2021 are: 1) Liam Gallagher - "All You're Dreaming Of. 2) Billie Ellish - "No Time To Die". 3) New Order - "Blue Monday". 4) Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark - "Enola Gay". 5) Taylor Swift - "Our Song". The top 5 on the Welsh chart is: 1) Liam Gallagher - "All You're Dreaming Of. 2) New Order - "Ceremony". 3) Thunder - "Christmas Day". 4) Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark - "Enola Gay". 5) "Mick Fleetwood & Friends Celebrate the Music of Peter Green and the Early Years of Fleetwood Mac". Make what you will of that, certainly some oldies in there.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see... Some of these tracks have never appeared on the Scottish chart from what I know (Wales I'm not sure). As I said before, I think their notabilities are in question now, but it's best to wait and see what happens before doing something about it. Either way, it looks like some of these songs are going to chart for a long, long time if nothing changes. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 18:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I think continuing to use these charts if they are only based on physical sales will be a joke. The current UK number one as I type this is "Driver's Licence" by Olivia Rodrigo. Its total weekly units were 94,770, of which 90,856 were streaming units and only 3,914 were actual sales (this is from the current issue of Music Week), so just over 4% of its total are physical sales. This was for the whole of the UK – the population of Scotland is 8% of the UK total and Wales is about 4.5%. Obviously it's not a straight proportional split, but assuming these percentages, the physical sales in Scotland would have been 300 copies, and in Wales 175 copies. And this is for the number-one single... the number-two song by Little Mix sold less than a third of Rodrigo. Now you can see why there are songs from the 1980s in the Scottish and Welsh charts – it's very likely you could get into the top five with just double-figure sales. There's every possibility that a school band in Glasgow or Cardiff could press up 500 copies of a song they recorded, have 100 friends and family buy copies, and have the biggest-selling single that week. Richard3120 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I was saying before, sales this low are negligible and are a very poor indicator of popular music. It wouldn't be a considerable loss if we stopped including them. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability for LyricFind Global
What is the notability for Billboard's listing for LyricFind Global? Is that an acceptable main chart or not really? Example: https://www.billboard.com/music/coldplay/chart-history/LGL/song/1243072 AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, the notability is absolutely zero. It's a chart based on how many people are looking for a lyric. So nothing to do with sales, or even listening to the song or watching the video. See here. Richard3120 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Poland's LP3 chart—again
Here we go again. Let me get straight to the facts. Lately, several editors have been adding Poland's now-defunct (I believe) Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego (LP3) to song articles (1, 2, 3). Based on what I've seen and heard, this was Poland's only widely known music chart up until the early 2000s. Looking at this previous discussion, I see that several editors disagreed with adding it to the bad charts section because is supposedly comes from Polskie Radio. What is "comes from" supposed to mean here? I've checked around the site, but it's not too eager on explaining how exactly it works. It appears as if the radio station simply aired the chart, not compiled it. The list seems to be compiled by votes. Apparently, there was an earlier discussion about LP3, but I can't find it in the archives. Is it somewhere else? Well, regardless, let me continue.

On the main page, if you click on "Nagrania do głosowania", it opens a message. I translated the message on Google Translate, so please excuse the grammar. It says, "Throughout the week - until Friday, until At 12:00 we invite you to vote for a maximum of 10 songs from the voting kit. We will present the voting results in the Hit List after 19:05." It says viewers can vote for songs, and the site will publish the list at a certain time. I think Polskie Radio simply communicated the results via airplay. Furthermore, if you look at the final chart published on the main page, you can see that the top 30 mostly consists of rock song by rock musicians that don't get talked about anymore. The closest hit single I can find is Billie Eilish's "Everything I Wanted" at number 31, which also happens to be its peak...months after it was released. WTF? Looking at the countries bordering Poland for comparison, this song peaked at No. 9 in Germany, No. 2 in the Czech Republic, No. 3 in Slovakia, and No. 1 in Lithuania. I suppose this is not a strong argument, but considering I can't find runaway hits such as "The Ketchup Song (Aserejé)" and "Despacito", I don't believe my accusation is totally wrong here. I initially thought the Iron Curtain was the reason behind it, but comparing the ZPAV and LP3 charts on 23 July 2010, it's clear that they are built differently. ZPAV obviously seems more believable. LP3 appears to be a site for rock fanatics to gather and compose a virtual critic's list.

I used to support LP3 because I love rock music, and because it was the only Polish chart I could find, but over the course of late 2019 and 2020, my opinion has shifted greatly, and I now find myself removing the chart or reverting edits that add the chart more and more often. I understand some editors believe this chart should be used, so I brought this issue here. However, as implied above, I think this chart should be added to the Bad Charts subsection of the project page. If I have made a mistake in my arguments, please point them out in simple terms so I can understand your logic. I'm pinging the participants of the archived discussion, and I'll also ping since they also tried to start a discussion about LP3 but did not get a response. I'm going to bed now, so I won't be able to respond until about 12:45 UTC. ResPM (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 03:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . LP3 is definately a bad chart per Wiki rules and it should not be used. I know this chart rules, I'm from Poland. It was and still is made by people voting. So it's not airplay, not sales, not streaming, not anything combined. And it is only this one radio station chart. Other radio stations have their own charts. In early 2000s there was official airplay chart for whole Poland (PifPaf) and now ZPAV is the only official site. So, LP3 is just a single-vendor/single-network chart and it's not even based on airplay. People just vote for songs. And yes, LP3 is not a "pop" radio, rather rock, so audience of this station votes for songs they like. Max24 (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not bothered either way. I think previous arguments were based on the fact that Polskie Radio is Poland's national public-service radio broadcasting organization owned by the government of Poland, and so not private network.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see how that may deter some people, but there's a similar case with the Editors' Choice Top 40 of Hungary's Mahasz record charts. It's published by a trusted, well-respected music industry, but all in all, it's ultimately a list compiled by a group of critics. With no sales, airplay, or streaming figures to relate to, it ultimately carries no weight in Hungary's music industry. ZPAV is based on these figures, but LP3 is based only on personal opinion, and they have a limit of 10 votes per week. Society doesn't have a limit of buying/airing/streaming 10 songs per week, so it's a bit unjust. Believe me, if I had voted for the poll back in 2001, I probably would have selected every song available, limits aside. Only a select few songs had a feasible chance of appearing on the listing in the first place. Given that handicap, frequently derided songs have no chance of charting on LP3. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 12:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the fact it looks like it was based on listener votes is a bigger problem than being broadcast on the state radio station, to be honest – the debate whether LP3 passes or fails WP:SINGLENETWORK is redundant if the first issue is not addressed. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any links/sources to show how LP3 is compiled ?QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a lot of promising information, but the following links say or imply that the chart was compiled by listeners votes:, , , . BTW, I didn't check their reliability. The third source says something about the results being "falsified". Any other sources I came across only talked about how upset everyone was when the program ceased or the program's history. LP3's page on the Polish wiki seems to go more in-depth, but most of the material is uncited. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 17:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly seems to be compiled by votes.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of national airplay charts in artist discography pages; quality of sources
I was last here about the inclusion of multiple US and Japanese charts at a Paul McCartney song article; now, there's an editor looking to add what seem to me to be spin-off charts at Paul McCartney discography. Personally, at an artist's discography page, I'd expect to see only the most all-encompassing national sales chart for each country (whereas song and album articles might allow for more detail). But perhaps I've got that wrong ...?

So, could anyone tell me if the following are appropriate to use in a discography as representative of a single's chart performance in a given country, also if the sources are acceptable:


 * Spain / top-charts.com
 * Japan / chartsaroundtheworld.com
 * France / top-charts.com
 * Argentina / top-charts.com

Thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm almost positive that chartsaroundtheworld.com shouldn't be used. The site seems to be run by one person who reproduces information that can be found on other reliable sources or sources whose origins are unknown. As for top-charts.com, I'm not sure. Looking at this week's Billboard Radio Songs chart, the top three songs are "Go Crazy", "Mood", and "Positions". However, the "United States Top 100 Songs" listing on top-charts.com says the top three songs are "Drivers License", "Streets", and "Whoopty". The site says the charts are compiled by radio airplay, but their methodology claim is very vague and is not specific to any particular country. Meanwhile, their status as "official" charts is debatable. I'd say no, but I might need a second opinion. I am unsure of how much leverage MyTuner Radio has since it's fairly recent. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 13:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They've added the top-charts positions to Elton John and Madonna discographies as well, and they've included them as if they were equivalent to the actual charts from those countries, e.g. they've added the Irish top-charts position to the column for the IRMA charts. Richard3120 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Madonna's singles discography is a featured list, so if these charts aren't completely reliable, they need to be removed immediately, especially if they go against the established reference (IRMA for Ireland, FIMI for Italy, etc.). ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 16:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . Hopefully some others can weight in on this, especially on top-charts.com.
 * Richard: yes, I've seen a bit of that – just inserting a chart position from one of these airplay-based "charts" as if nationality alone makes it appropriate in the column.
 * RPM: yep, for sure they should go at the Madonna discography. I mean, unless someone weighs in here and persuades us that the charts and the sites are acceptable ... JG66 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hits Daily Double as sales sources
mentioned it 5 years ago which says "Is Hits Daily Double reliable for sourcing sales?" but there is no reply. I noticed that Post Malone discography use Hits Daily Double for sourcing pure sales, but the sales data conflicts with data from Billboard/MRC data. (I mean I don't know to use which one as the reliable source) Taking the album Hollywood's Bleeding for example, MRC data's report says the album has a sales amount of 357,000 in 2019 and 117,000 in 2020, (474,000 total, from and ) but Hits Daily Double says it is 312,000 in 2019 and 165,700 during 2020. (477,700 total, from 2019 Top 50 Albums and 2020 Top 50 Albums on hitsdailydouble.com). Is Hits Daily Double reliable for citing sales and which data of the two should be used? -- BrandNew Jim Zhang   (talk)  02:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Billboard's data is supplied by Nielsen Soundscan, the company that actually collects the sales data, while Hits Daily Double gives no source for their figures. So I guess that answers your question. Richard3120 (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your reply! I think we should place hitsdailydouble.com on the "Websites to avoid" section. Ping this user because here is an answer. --  BrandNew Jim Zhang   (talk)  03:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Being different with Billboard figure doesn't automatically make them bad or unreliable. Especially not with that small gap, it could be different tracking date as well (We know that Billboard year-end chart usually ended around November). After all, they are different organizations, of course their numbers are not exactly same. The same goes for Rolling Stone that made their own charts. I personally always stick to Billboard figure for the US sales, because they are the de facto official source for American music sales. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's very likely that both are using Nielsen figures but with different timescales... I meant that we can only assume the source for the second one, which would be original research, so like you I would prefer to use the one that we know for certain is compiled from official sources. I think we all agree here that the figures from Billboard is the better option Richard3120 (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hits Daily Double use predictions and extrapolations. Their tracking periods are also slightly different. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 11:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't know how much is the coverage of SoundScan system for albums (example, when were popular they didn't count BMG clubs copies or the coverage for books of Nielsen BookScan were only 70% around 2000s), seems Hits Daily Double shows always different sales even for worlwide claims, see this example. If Nielsen/Billboard claims are available I would prefer use them, instead Hits Daily Double. In United Kingdom there are also figures provided by Music Week or Official Charts Company (OCC), but aren't slightly different in most cases. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The figures between Music Week and the OCC shouldn't be different, as Music Week uses the official OCC charts and sales figures. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese airplay chart
Hi! I was wondering if anyone could add to the singles chart template a new entry regarding the Portuguese airplay charts. The new Top 100 can be found here. Thanks!ManuelButera (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

India Music Charts.
I see that iTunes charts are not considered for chart performance on songs or albums or wikipedia. But, in India , No official Charts are maintained by IMI(Indian Music Industry). The IMI considers iTunes India charts. Please refer IMI wikipedia page, it says the same. Hence, I propose that for India , iTunes India Charts be considered. IndieOKB (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RIAA does not recognize any charts, per se, for the US, and there are several for the nation. RIAA only certifies sales milestones, not charting.
 * Where has IMI publicized the detail that they recognize iTunes as an official chart? I notice that there are several "major charts" listed with primary sources as references in the article, but there is no indication that any are officially recognized and they should all probably be removed from there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi here is a website the I've seen people use in several articles. This website has charts for several countries including India. FanDePopLatino (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * but the point is, is that an official national chart? If it isn't, we shouldn't be encouraging editors to use it. Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * what I was doing was mentioning that it is used in other articles. If the charts from that same website are being used in other articles then maybe they are good charts but if you think they are not then maybe you can look into it to see if they are good or not and if in the end they are good, great we can use them. If they are not good, then we can add them to WP:BADCHARTS. It's no big deal. FanDePopLatino (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@FandePopLatino Thank you for your reply. I visited this website you mentioned 'radiomoniter'for charts. But is it a reliable source? IndieOKB (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

On week of February 27, 2021, Billboard all charts have updated, except Hot 100.
It's many times for the situation, all Billboard weekly charts have updated, then forgot another charts. In the past I had paid attention the problem, I found they forgot to update Country Airplay chart, or I also found they forgot updating Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart once, and this time forgot to update Hot 100 !! What a shameful company!! If can't update all weekly charts on time every week, I wonder, where is the credit of Billboard?? Especially for those editors that update Billboard charts every week?? Tim96144 (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also notice that, like Taylor Swift Chart History: Hot 100 | Billboard excluding Swift's charting tracks this week. However, be calm bro, here's not a place to post complaint. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang   (talk)  15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm too impetuous, just a moment ago hot 100 has updated, so I'm nothing to say, just hope Billboard can value the problem. And thank you give me a 编辑星章!! Tim96144 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This week on Billboard, it's f**king really a enough!!! Every week charts has not updated new list until now, I don't know how the standard is for updating time, is it diffcult for Billboard update new weekly charts on time diffcully?? Tim96144 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting your complaints here. You were already warned once. Billboard can do whatever they want, however they want. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is right... Billboard has no obligation to post the charts immediately every Tuesday, and the world won't end if Wikipedia updates a few days late. I don't know how you would have survived when I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s, when you had to wait all week for the chart rundown on Sunday evening to hear who was number one... Richard3120 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Ss112: Please update Billboard weekly charts
User:Ss112: Please update Billboard weekly charts, all editors are waiting for your update, please update as soon as possible. 120.109.130.153 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – Please stop leaving these types of inappropriate messages for Ss112. While their edits are highly appreciated, they are not under any obligation to edit on a schedule. Carbrera (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC).

Portuguese year end charts
Does anyone know where portugal's year-end charts can be found? I saw someone today talking about this but I only know of the hung medien site and didn't see anything on it like what that person mentioned (top 100 albums/top 3000 singles). I googled with no luck so asking here. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would imagine it's the "Tops Musicais" section on Audiogest – I know ManuelButera added the year-end positions for previous years, but anything with a year-end position more than a top 100 seems pointless to me... does anyone genuinely care that a song was no. 2438 for that year? Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose if a song was the only one of its genre/language to make it onto that chart in that country then that would be something of note (though you'd need a rel 2ndary source saying so rather than the chart entry alone), but I was asking because I didn't know if these year-end charts were an actual legitimate thing or not. So thank you for your reply. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Midweek / temporary charts
WP:CHARTTRAJ needs to have a paragraph about how to document tentative charting positions, or mid-week/mid-period updates, from Official Charts Company (which uses the https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/albums-chart-update/ link) and other charts, which may place the song/album until the official report comes out later. Per discussion with on my talk page, the temporary position or TBA should not added as a chart entry on the song or album's page, and any verbiage concerning estimated charting should only be in the prose section if sufficiently documented, example Made in the Pyrex   Otherwise, wait for the final version to come out. The dash should still be used for discographies. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ss112, the midweek chart is only there to hype up the final chart: it means nothing in the long run, and temporary positions and "TBA" should be avoided. It's true that if an record is on course to chart highly, it probably will, but then it can wait three days until the actual chart is revealed, and there have been many cases where records lower down have a tentative midweek placing, but it turns out that all their sales were in the first couple of days and they end up not charting at all, so adding any kind of placeholder position is meaningless. Richard3120 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Providing a link to said discussion w/ Ss112 would have been a courteous gesture. Having found and read through that discussion, I, too, agree with Ss112. I can't think of any reason it would ever be beneficial to use/print/mention/refer to a mid-period publication. They are entirely unofficial, may not reflect the ultimate results, and are therefore inappropriate for use on Wikipedia. Sheesh, we have enough trouble getting real source citations for the actual results (and keeping track of wherever Billboard has hidden their charts now), without adding new non-facts that need to be sourced. I don't think WP:CHARTTRAJ needs changing, though; it already basically says we don't need this junk. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah here's the link sorry HERE. Not sure when it will be archived. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Norway
VG-lista from Norway, seems to divide their ("yearly") charts per season (Winter, Christmas etc). I noticed those peaks provided by VG-Lista are used in numerous year-end charts, we can see an example in Enrique. That's acceptable or is something to avoid? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bulgaria and issue with Acharts
I've noticed that we state that aCharts is a mirror of the PROHON website, however this is incorrect. If we take Positions (Ariana Grande song) as an example, for the w/c 25th December, aCharts have it at number one but PROHON have it at number seven. I've searched PROHON archives and there's no mention of the song reaching number. On this basis, I suggest we note acharts is not reliable for Bulgarian singles. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Latvia
I notice that Latvijas Top 40 is cited in some articles as the Official Latvian singles chart, however it is just one Latvian radio station. I can't see anything on their website. which says it is the definitive/official chart. Other radio stations such as Radio SWH and Spin Radio also produce charts. Does anyone know if any of these are official? ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Japan Hot Overseas
Does anyone know if a song has entered the Japan Hot 100 the chat mentioned above can be used simultaneously? Or only if it hasn't charted on the Japan Hot 100? Is independent from it?

Greetings, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – personally, I do not think the Hot Overseas chart should be used if the song in question has charted on the main Japan Hot 100, per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. I understand this specific case is not listed, but I believe this situation mirrors what to do when a song has charted on the Global Excluding US 200, and not the Billboard Global 200. I hope that helps, Carbrera (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC).
 * It's a subchart focusing on Western releases, it's perfectly fine within the bounds of WP:CHART (not a component chart, multiple vendor). Many countries such as Australia have charts in a similar vein (though usually the opposite intention - trying to signal boost local releases vs. international). It doesn't have some of the issues that the Global Excluding US 200 vs the Global 200 has (aka they're basically the same charts, everywhere-excluding-the-US is not a distinct territory of the world, that the importance and reason for having the Excluding chart is vague, etc). --Prosperosity (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - Japan Hot Overseas tracks the top non-Japanese songs for the week, regardless of its Japan Hot 100 position (so it's more akin to a genre chart than the US Bubbling Under chart). If the #1 on Japan Hot 100 happened to be a Western song, that song would be #1 on Japan Hot Overseas as well, since Japan Hot Overseas uses the same metrics, just removing Japanese domestic artist entries. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * and Thank you for the help so far. Still these are two very distinctive opinions here and I can see both points of view. Its easier to chart on the Japan Hot Overseas than the Japan Hot 100. However, the songs that enter the chart on the Japan Hot 100 usually have entered on the Overseas one, since it excludes the "local" releases. You can be number one on the Overseas and peak only in the top 40 of Japan Hot 100. I would like to gather some sort of consesus to list on the page Cabrera pointed out in order to help out future editors. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that if a song has charted on the Hot 100 then you should not include the Hot Oversees chart. That's what logic we applied to the Billboard Global 200 and Global 200 exc. US. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 22:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Cashbox is active again
Cashbox Magazine is now active again and producing music charts. Given that Rollingstone Top 100 was adopted despite not really being widely recognised (publisher aside), what are people's thoughts on it being used? ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 22:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As with Billboard, there's a ton of different charts on here, and not all of them are Cash Box charts, so we may need to discuss which ones we would use. For some reason the various singles charts are hidden away as a submenu of the album charts. It's getting to the point where almost every song released will now be considered notable, because it's bound to have charted on a specialist chart somewhere. Richard3120 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing I notice when I follow the link above is that their top story is "Rapper DMX reported in grave condition in New York hospital". So, I've got a bad feeling about this. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it: grave condition. Har! &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that as well... I think the first thing to find out is who is behind the website - it could be somebody bought the domain name and just uses it as a news aggregator and to link to suspect charts from around the country. There's no guarantee it's as reliable as the old Cash Box magazines. Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Uruguay charts
Hey I found this page archive with the official airplay chart in Uruguay before the site stopped. This was the country's official airplay chart and it shows on the side of the page how the chart is calculated. Seems pretty reliable and other wikipedia users also agree. We think we could use it on Wikipedia. What do you guys think? FanDePopLatino (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't access the archive. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can access it, but I'm not sure how useful it's going to be. Even for the three best years, 2007 to 2009, we only have 13 weeks archived out of 52 for 2007, 19 for 2008, and 12 for 2009. There's no "highest position achieved" column either, so it's impossible to say what the chart peak of any song was (unless it reached no. 1 in one of the weeks that have by chance been archived). Richard3120 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In a way it can be helpful. I know there's not many archives of the chart with the first one being from 2004 so we surely can't find all the number ones but some weeks like this one where a song by La Oreja De Van Gogh is at number 4, you can tell it was number 1 the week before because the column that show the "difference" in position shows that it dropped 3 spots from the prior week meaning it did peak at number 1. Same for the song by Mika for this week. Even though it's not the best archived chart, I think it could be useful on articles for the songs that appeared on the charts that are archived so we could use them on Wikipedia. FanDePopLatino (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be good. For that airplay chart they specified data was supplied by 30 radio stations across that small nation and seem isn't a WP:SINGLENETWORK problem. I also noticed they listed in their external websites national organizations such as CUD (official certification body in that country), AGADU or ANDEBU. The problem with the highest peak position is comparable with European Top 100 Albums by Music & Media as well other websites such as charts by CAPIF among others in which editor need to search by himself/herself that peak position or include the "known highest position". The other worried part came with the "archiving problems" as WP:GOODCHARTS states "many reliable charts are not included on this list, primarily due to archiving problems". Perhaps doesn't need an inclusion here (GOOD/ACCEPTABLE CHARTS) which is fine but overall IMHO it can be used for those songs available under existing archives as it happens with other charts not listed here. BTW, website also contains rankings for Argentina and have yearly charts (2003-2006); I don't have an opinion (yet) for that chart. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Apoxyomenus. It seems a Good chart and it can be included in song's articles. There is even a link to Thalía's En éxtasis album which reached #1 there, it seems reliable.--88marcus (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't know about the Argentinian chart. That chart also seems to be good and calculated the same was. The year end charts for that country shows us the peak positions of the songs during those years so I think that would be helpful. I think we should list them as "Good" charts and start using them on articles. FanDePopLatino (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Chartmasters
Do you guys think chartmasters.org is a reliable source for worldwide sales data? Their CSPC method seems to be very efficient, but I have no idea where they are getting their sales figures from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.160.44 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No – it has been discussed in the past (Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 14) and added to WP:NOTRSMUSIC for exactly the reason you state above: nobody knows where the author of the site gets his sales figures from, so it's impossible to verify whether they are true or not. Richard3120 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A problem with Billboard Hot 100 and more
Billboard has posted that Hot 100 and Global charts will be delay to announced on May 18 on Twitter, but now it's on May 19, Billboard dosen't still announce, it has a lot of abuses on Twitter Billboard Charts, Who can tell what's wrong with Billboard? Tim96144 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Billboard delaying updating their charts isn't something that anyone on Wikipedia has control over or can give an answer as to what caused it, so I don't understand why you're asking that here. We also have nothing to do with what people are saying about it on Twitter. Just wait until the charts are finally updated and then go about your editing as usual. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some people think Billboard preventing Dua lipa's Levitating to reached No.1, is it possible?. This week is not American holidays, I think Billboard's staffs are not good, last week they spoofed Billie Eilish's Your Power, from 8 to 10, instead The Kid Laroi's Without You, from 10 to 8, Billboard intends bullying specific fans, that's bad.
 * Why on earth would they want to stop a particular song reaching no. 1? They wouldn't need to delay the release of a chart in order to do that, they could just release the chart on time, say it's no. 2, and nobody would know any better, because we have no way of contradicting them. I don't see how they are "bullying" anyone by not releasing the chart when they say they would. Richard3120 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ultratop All-time charts
I see someone is adding the Ultratop All-time charts. I think listing being all-time 4,000 in Belgium is WP:TOOMUCH. --Muhandes (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) pinging --Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that in Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland had their own All-time charts (for singles and albums) from the year their charts first started on its respective countries until 2021. In the Netherlands and Switzerland, their All-time chart ranking counts until 1,000 positions. But in Belgium, it's a little weird that it counts until 5,000. Other thing that surprised me, which I also found a little rare, that was there actually recent songs from 2021 that already charting on those All-time charts, especially in Belgium, for example: "Olivia Rodrigo's "Drivers License". Even The Weeknd's 2020 song "Blinding Lights" was placed as the number-one song of all-time in the Flemish region of Belgium. RingoSmitz (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is that this is quite fishy, on top of being WP:TOOMUCH. Then why add them? --Muhandes (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding the Hung Medien AT charts is a good idea. As well as being TOOMUCH, these listings are also based solely on chart longevity and are not a reflection of sales/airplay/streams/etc., which causes them to change weekly. They also ignore songs that were released before the conception of the charts—Australia's is a good example since it goes back to only 1988. As you can see, the top 11 entries are songs released from 2017 onwards. Guy Sebastian's "Angels Brought Me Here" (2003) was Australia's best-selling single of the 2000s, but it's not even in the top 2,000. Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997" barely made it into the top 100. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 12:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's anything suspicious about "Blinding Lights being rated the number-one of all time in Flanders - these charts are calculated on a points system, with points allocated for the chart position each week. Seeing as "Blinding Lights" spent 17 weeks at no. 1, and another seven weeks at no. 2, I can easily believe that it's the highest points scorer of all time. But I do think it's pointless listing any placing of more than 100 on a year-end or all-time chart or whatever - Portugal now does a year-end chart of 5000 places, but does anyone really care that "Bounce Back (Little Mix song)" was the 2993rd top single of 2019, as another editor has added?
 * But RingoSmitz, there's a big problem with these all-time charts, and it's that they're dynamic, they're not permanent. Say another song like "Blinding Lights" comes along and is the new no. 1 on the all-time charts... every other song will now move down one place, so now you have to change the chart position by one place on 5000 articles. Are you or any other editor willing to do that? And there will probably be several other songs per year that will end up being ranked no. 793, or no. 3148, or whatever, so you're continually going to have to update these charts and hundreds of articles, for three countries. It seems an awful lot of work for something so trivial and with minimum interest for other readers. Richard3120 (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed; TOOMUCH in Belgium, non-static "all-times" but with limited scope, and outrageously high (large) numbers. I recently removed a ranking of 2688 in a Top 3000 list from Portugal, which I find just about as silly. I think these huge ranking numbers are not so much encyclopedic as they are ridiculous. Let's not. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Ultratop All-time charts
Both and  pointed out (and  agrees) the most important fact which I missed: these "charts" are non-static, which should obviously exclude them. Since obvious things always need to be explicitly specified, I propose to add the following line to the Suitable charts section:

The words "both of" at the first sentence would also be deleted. Any objections? --Muhandes (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "both of": deleted, or replaced by "all of"? (The rest is good for me.) &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree: delete or replace "both" with "all". ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 14:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, because it's also weird that on the Dutch "All-time" charts, it seems that some Christmas songs placed in the top-ten, including Wham's "Last Christmas" (at number five) and Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You" (at number ten), so it makes no sense at all.
 * There was another "All-Time" charts on Belgium, which ranked the 1001 songs of all-time from 1954 until 2014 (for 60 years, just like Billboard later did for its 60th anniversary in 2018), with Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997" being the number-one song of all time there. Probably it could be the official Belgian "All-time" chart, but I don't really know. RingoSmitz (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: replace "both" with "all" in the lead sentence. As ResPM pointed out, these all-time charts don't tally up with yearly/decade sales charts at all because they are based on a points system instead, so they aren't comparable and just end up adding another level of confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there is overwhelming support, I went bold and made that change (and "both" changed to "all"). If anyone objects in the future, feel free to restart discussion. --Muhandes (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the matter, but would this include the Billboard all-time charts as well? Erick (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it shouldn't do, because that isn't a dynamic chart: it was fixed at the end of July 2018 and hasn't changed since. Of course it will probably be updated at some point in the future, but it's a one-off change that will then not change again for several years... that's easier to make changes to than having to constantly monitor a dynamic "all-time" chart for changes. Richard3120 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Got it! I just wanted some clarity on how all-time were being dealt with. Erick (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: removing All-time charts overall from Hung Medien because are very dynamic. However, I have my doubts using "large" numbers, like the example in Belgium (their "all-time" chart: 1954–2014), since they have 1-1001 positions. What is considering actually a "high number"? In my perception maybe year-end charts are ok, like with Portuguese example of 1-5000 positions. But when it came from "all-time" this slightly changes (at least for me) as we are talking about years/decades. Also, as some are outrageously high, in the opposite version some are outrageously lower like the Irish case (all-time), or yearly there is even only Top 5 for some countries. If this Billboard example is ok, should be only used for the regular number of the chart (1-200), for example? Because the same logic could also applies beyond positions +200. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We covered the issue of dynamic charts but I indeed there is also the issue of TOOMUCH. The former is an objective matter but the latter is subjective and thus may be harder to find consensus. Personally, I find any number beyond 200 to be TOOMUCH but I don't have a strong enough opinion to form a proposal. If someone would like to pose a concrete suggestion on how to handle this issue, maybe start a new subsection with a guideline change proposal. --Muhandes (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Agreed with all of this. The all-time charts change constantly, and they even compile them for sites like australian-charts.com when that isn't even officially published by ARIA. It's just the Hung Medien series of sites' points system. I've been removing the impermanent all-time charts when I see them on articles for years (I've left ones published by Billboard alone), and since late last year I've been removing the ridiculously low Portuguese year-end positions added by ManuelButera—I started up again removing them earlier today. I left them a talk page notice last year about this being some kind of WP:INDISCRIMINATE-violating statistic. They spent months of 2020 methodically adding these to articles, which is just over-the-top to me. Even if we had Billboard positions lower than 200 for year-end (or weekly) charts, I'd be inclined to remove those as well. WP:TOOMUCH is a good thing to cite as well.  Ss  112   18:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Top-charts.com
Is top-charts.com a reliable source for chart listings? I have observed that it was powered by AppGeneration but I am not sure if the charts they have displayed are reliable or not. I am really looking for a record chart for Philippines and somehow the charts here could be one. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 07:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See previous discussion. I think consensus was that these have no official standing and are not acceptable anywhere. --Muhandes (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Muhandes: I have read the discussion. I found out that @ResolutionsPerMinute got it wrong. The "United States Top 100 Songs" on top-charts.com and other country-specific top 100 song charts on the site are not solely based on radio airplays. The methodology was stated on the upper right saying it "includes airplay from 15000 radio stations, iTunes downloads, Apple Music, Spotify and YouTube streams", so it's just comparable to the Hot 100 of Billboard but with different weight calculations. The chart is owned and operated by AppGeneration which is supported by the European Union. The radio airplay data are retrieved through the myTuner Radio application which they also own. The app was featured on several publications if you will search on the internet. So, in my opinion, I'll go a yes for its inclusion in artist discography pages. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 13:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I said I needed a second opinion. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 13:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @ResolutionsPerMinute: So, can we consider this chart as reliable or not? Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, since all those chart started up fairly recently and I rarely edit articles for songs released past 2014, I'm ambivalent. It may help if some other users gave us their thoughts. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's problematic, because doing a quick check, they clearly aren't the same as the official charts in other countries, so I don't know how we can say that they would be valid for the Philippines but not for any other country. They also have a completely different time period to all other official charts (top-charts' week runs from Monday to Sunday, official charts run from Friday to Thursday). Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Richard3120: What do you mean by not the same as the other countries' official charts? Rolling Stones and Billboard are two different charts of the same countries. Moreover, does a chart's tracking period affect it's reliability? Honestly, I'm really looking for a reliable chart for the Philippines for the reason of giving local artists at least a goal or a motivation for releasing more quality music that will top the charts. You know, for the music industry to be more competitive and engaging. And top-charts.com is the most reliable chart so far I have found. I'm so sad Billboard Philippines was discontinued. Is there any other way top-charts could be considered or nah? Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 15:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I don't see how we could include this chart for the Philippines without including it for every other country as well. And then we'd have to have a discussion about including other charts as well - Mediabase do an airplay chart for the US as well, which is longer established than this chart, and we don't include that on Wikipedia. So I think we would need a much wider discussion about charts before deciding to include this one for the Philippines. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Richard3120: I'm sorry I think I misunderstood something so I'm deleting my recent reply. Anyways, so, it's really hard for this chart to be included even in WP:OKAYCHARTS. Well, that's unfortunate. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 18:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Music Weekly Asia
I am here again. So, I have found another chart which is the Top 30 Asia covering eight countries in Southeast Asia published by Music Weekly Asia. I want to ask others if the charts here are reliable or not. Also, I have noticed on Itzy's It'z Different, it was added on the chart section. Could anyone have a check on this? Thanks. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 18:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Upon searching on Wikipedia articles using the Music Weekly chart, I have found several which includes some of Mariah Carey's songs. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This chart was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 13. The comments there suggest that this isn't a promising chart. ✗ plicit  03:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

TurnTable Charts
Can TurnTable Charts be added as a charting system for Nigerian music? It's Nigeria's first aggregate music chart and would be helpful in Nigerian music related articles. Thanks.  Princess of Ara (talk)  12:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

TikTok Charts
Many culturally relevant songs are currently surfacing due to their popularity on TikTok examples include; Wellerman sung by The Longest Johns, "Castaways" and "Into the Thick of it" by The Backyardigans and Ahses by Stellar. I think we need a way of citing how popular these viral songs are on social media, rather than a wholly commercial one. In lieu of a proper chart system for tracking song usage on social media platforms I propose the usage of the Spotify Viral 50 chart list https://spotifycharts.com/viral/global/weekly/latest. Gsykesvoyage (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Spotify charts fail WP:SINGLEVENDOR and they aren't officially recognised national charts. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can an exception not be made as there is no other way of tracking the use of viral songs in social media. For instance the popularity of using Backyardigans song castaway (1.1M videos on TikTok now include the song) marks it as culturally relevant despite not being played on radio etc. The only other option would be to directly cite TikTok but i don't think that's sustainable as new social media will come along. Gsykesvoyage (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can absolutely mention a song's performance on stuff like that in an article, in a section that isn't about charts and not treating it as a chart. But there needs to be some actual third-party reliable sourcing on the matter I would think. Toa Nidhiki05 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Cash Box, Radio & Records, and Gavin Report
Can the charts of Radio & Records, Gavin Report, and Cash Box be added to WP:GOODCHARTS? Most, if not all, back issues are archived at https://worldradiohistory.com. I've seen Cash Box chart positions cited to this website's archives, primarily for 1950s and 1960s artists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * These charts are already widely used, I see no reason why not. The chart was reliable up until it was discontinued. Toa Nidhiki05 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , To add what said, how about making a section called "Legacy charts", to explain to editors that even though they are discontinued, they may still be used? Erick (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At WikiProject Christian Music, our policy is to use R&R charts even in contemporary times because it monitored formats Billboard didn't touch and also wasn't identical in terms of chart rankings. I agree a "Legacy Charts" section advising on the usage of these charts and where to find the archived results would be a good idea; R&R in particular had a very wide variety of charts going into modern times. It might be worth noting that duplicative chart results might be unnecessary for more contemporary songs, however, so there is a degree of editorial discretion there.
 * As a side - I personally have access to the complete chart results for the CCM Update/CCM Magazine charts, which are an additional set of charts that tracked exclusively Christian radio stations from the 70s to the very early 2000s. This would also fall into the "Legacy Charts" category, in my opinion. The database includes the weeks spent, weeks entered and dropped off, and entry and peak positions. These results aren't available anywhere else online, as far as I can tell, so not sure how to best publish or cite to them. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

India
Finally India have an official top 20 chart, compiled by Indian Music Industry and based on streams from Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music! --Lrt000 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The first link is broken. There's another link to put in its place? LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland
The IFPI Finland site (Musiikkituottajat) doesn't show anymore the peaks for albums and singles. What can being to do in this case? LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * When did this start to happen?
 * Are the peaks available in print or somewhere else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know exactly when this started to happen. The peaks are showed according this link, for example: http://www.ifpi.fi/lista/artistit/billie+eilish/when+we+all+fall+asleep%2C+where+do+we+go/, but the command in the article fails to do this process. There's other articles with the same problem: https://www.ifpi.fi/lista/artistit/Billie%2bEilish/When%2bWe%2bAll%2bFall%2bAsleep,%2bWhere%2bDo%2bWe%2bGo/
 * Another example: http://www.ifpi.fi/lista/artistit/gorillaz/demon+days/ (right) and https://www.ifpi.fi/lista/artistit/Gorillaz/Demon%2bDays/ (wrong) LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like a URL encoding issue. https://www.ifpi.fi/lista/artistit/gorillaz/demon+days/ https://www.ifpi.fi/lista/artistit/Gorillaz/Demon+Days/ and http://www.ifpi.fi/lista/artistit/gorillaz/demon+days/ are the same, but Gorillaz/Demon%2bDays has that odd character in ther, and does not seem to be the same landing page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, now how this could be corrected? LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it's being encoded, so I'm not sure how to start to resolve it... Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Taiwanese Albums charts
I have some doubts about which is the Official Taiwanese Albums chart. Some think that it would be G-Music, which is the most popular record album chart in Taiwan and it's still active as you can see the chart here: https://www.g-music.com.tw/website_module.php?website_module_classify_sn=106

But other album charts in Taiwan includes Five Music and KKBox, but these are WP:SINGLEVENDOR/limited-statistic charts. Anyone knows if there's an official national album chart in Taiwan? RingoSmitz (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's complicated. There's no official body, but I used to be a proponent of the chart since it met the bare minimum requirements under WP:GOODCHARTS (combined sales from both Rose/Tachung stores across Taiwan). Since 2015 they got rid of their overall combined chart, splitting everything into Chinese/Asian/Western categories (so there was no objective way to sell which releases performed the best that week). I'm not even sure what it's tracking anymore, as far as I can tell all the physical stores except the Tachung Records Classical Store have closed. It definitely only tracks physical CD sales, meaning it's not a very appropriate chart in 2021 if you want to measure what's popular in Taiwan (and it's likely become a WP:SINGLEVENDOR chart now).
 * Personally, I think it should be fine for pre-2015 positions (if you can find archives), but not for anything else. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Radioairplay.fm/Radiomonitor charts
Charts from the site Radioairplay.fm have been appearing on wiki recently (countries like Uganda, Serbia, North Macedonia, UAE and others). The site says it gets the chart data from Radiomonitor which states Radiomonitor monitors the music played on radio and TV in over 120 countries. This airplay data is used by all major record labels, music broadcasters, media, PR and for royalty management. Access to this data is provided through a suite of powerful online tools, via the Radiomonitor App, by emailed reports or through a custom data feed."

I noticed that airplay charts already used by Wikipedia, for example Czech Republic, do not match with airplay chart posted on this site. Other examples: Russia (Radiomonitor vs TopHit), Slovenia (Radiomonitor vs SloTop50), Bulgaria (Radiomonitor vs PROPHON).

Does anyone know if these charts are reliable and notable to include on Wiki?  Cool Marc  ✉   16:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion above about Top-charts.com applies (perhaps would like to comment). To summarize, since these charts contradict official charts in many counties, I don't see how we can use them on any country. Having multiple such monitors just means the problem is worse. --Muhandes (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's really getting very confusing with so many charts appearing in recent years. I note that Radiomonitor are responsible for compiling the Nigerian TurnTable charts that Princess of Ara mentions a couple of threads above this one, so I wouldn't like to say that they are completely unreliable as chart compilers, because that Nigerian chart looks as though it could be reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * AS long as we apply the same principles to the use of new charts that we have to the existing charts, it should be simple. Be sure to update WP:GOODCHARTS, etc. as needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Radiomonitor is a British music company worldwide airplay of songs, with the information given to record labels and radio stations. They have established partnerships with several international companies located in Ireland, Australia and South Africa, and compiled several airplay OFFICIAL charts in the United Kingdom, Italy, South Africa, Nigeria and more. Also, the company work in some small countries as base of the most consumed songs in these countries provided by official music company of the country. Radiomonitor can be an official charts in small countries that don’t have a company to accurate these informations about songs and not countries where already has an official company. The page here on Wikipedia has all reference and operation. Accept radiomonitor as official chart of small countries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiomonitor Biduxm (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Radiomonitor SA
,, The South African chart is run by a separate Radiomonitor South Africa company that's based in Cape Town, South Africa. They have been posting a Weekly Top 20 chart on social media for a few years now, with more charts dating back on their Facebook page. A number of South African publications and websites appear to recognize this as the country's airplay chart as well 1 2 3 4. Chart methodology is based on audience impressions from 170 radio and 24 TV stations in the country per provided sources. Being South African myself, it does look like a true reflection of popularity here similar to the Entertainment Monitoring Africa chart from several years ago.

Outside of South Africa, Australia and the UK, I'm not sure that the other countries have separate Radiomonitor companies physically running these Airplay charts. The ones like Serbia, Macedonia etc all seem to only feature international artists and don't have a clear methodology or secondary sources written about them. Might be best to assess each on a case-by-case basis?  Cool Marc  ✉   23:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Official Peruvian charts
The UNIMPRO has started publishing streaming-based weekly charts on their website. Although the first published chart is from two weeks ago, they have been compiling the charts for 38 weeks, so there are several peaks to be added! And maybe we can get rid of those poorly representative Monitor Latino charts for yet another Latin American country.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  21:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I just want to comment that the streaming chart is new but UNIMPRO has actually been publishing airplay charts for over a decade now as noted here but unfortunately most of the charts are private and some you can only see if you have a subscription for their monthly newsletter. Though these charts are hard to access they are still official and reliable charts so they should definitely be used as I wrote on here last year, but I think we can still use Monitor Latino since it's another reliable chart for the country and includes charts for different music genres (pop, tropical, urbano, anglo, popular). FanDePopLatino (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Official South African Charts
Hi, last week RiSA finally launched an official charts system for the country: via the portal TOSAC the IFPI affiliate publish two weekly top 100 of the most streamed songs on the most important platforms in South Africa: Spotify, Deezer and Apple Music. While one is only for domestic repertoire, the other including international tracks. --Lrt000 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Chile Single Charts
Since 2020, I found this blog (http://top100chile.blogspot.com/?m=1) and after some search I discovered this blog was an official site before but down after. Currently the unique official charts for Chile on Wikipedia is Monitorlatino but the report of this blog is accurate by stream/copies. How blogs aren’t a REF, can it have a change to be a possible source of Chile’s chart? Biduxm (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , It needs two things. 1) The methodology that doesn't go against WP:CHARTS]. 2) Mentions of the chart by reliable source. I cannot find the methodology on the blog page. Erick (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Billboard question
Until 1958, Billboard published separate sales/airplay/jukebox charts for the country and R&B genres, before merging them into what would now be called multi-metric charts in the autumn of that year. Should any records/statistics relating to those earlier charts be included in our articles on the multi-metric charts? I ask because the article on Hot Country Songs has a list of the longest-running number ones, and some of them are pre-1958 and therefore didn't appear on the "Hot" chart at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

NZ HOT Singles
These should either be removed or it made clear they are not the main official chart. Coachtripfan (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the fact that it says "NZ Hot Singles" rather than "NZ Singles" make it clear it's not the main chart? You could argue the same same thing for the Dutch and Belgian Ultratop/Ultratip charts, or the Billboard Bubbling Under chart. Richard3120 (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm not aware of any past confusion on the matter either. Sergecross73   msg me  19:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese Year-End Top 3000 charts (and too much detail in general)
I think the Year-End Top 3000 charts are WP:TOOMUCH. For example, A 2016 single which charted #1513 in 2019, seems a little silly to me. I don't think the entire chart should be labeled "bad", but we should limit ourselves to meaningful information, say, top 100 or top 200 at most. (list of usages)

Note: I previously initiated a similar discussion about all-time charts, and there was agreement that they are WP:TOOMUCH, but a more important reason (not being static) was used for deprecating them. I am initiating this discussion to consider charts which are static, but seem excessive. Pinging past participants and courtesy pinging who added the charts. --Muhandes (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In general, anything over about 300 for an all-time most fantastically incredible list is too much for me. My preference would be about 200 or so albums, and maybe as high as 300 for songs, because there are so many more of those in existence. But 200 seems like a good limit to set for everything. Otherwise, our listings become meaningless for the readers and more effort (with minuscule return) for the editors. Any regular (weekly) chart listings over 200 should be ignored. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with John. 200, maybe 300, should be the limit for songs, although I am more inclined to 200 since I've never seen a YE list go any further. If I see a Portuguese YE chart with a number over 300, I take it out immediately because it becomes trivial and unnotable by this point. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 11:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose to that with YE-charts, despite every country will have their own methodology/counting (Top 5, 10, 75, 100, 200 and now 3000 with Portugal). But all-time charts should be different, because is a counting of several years/decades, like one from Billboard Hot 100 with 600 different positions (maybe anything below 1000 should be ok IMHO). After all, are just "simple" numbers and not applicable to all countries like to argue its "very long" and "vague information". WP:TOOMUCH for me is more applicable in music articles in having a long list of critics lists "of albums of the years", like with Future Nostalgia or Folklore to mention some examples but not simple numbers like the all-time charts (not YE-charts). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of these were added by one editor – Ss112 removed some of them, rightly pointing out that Portugal has always been a very small market for singles anyway, so no. 1513 is probably only going to have sold a few hundred copies, which isn't much of an achievement to note. And does the average person really care when the number is greater than 100 anyway? Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion has dwindled down, I suggest we vote on a proposal. Rather than making it complicated, I made a simple proposal below. --Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal
It is proposed to limit chart tables to position 200 for every chart, be it single or album, weekly, yearly, decade or all-time. --Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. --Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. 200 is acceptable and not too trivial. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 13:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems fair any more and it's too much and not really a record or notable achievement to post.DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Unistar Radio Top 20
I don't see many uses of the Belarus chart Unistar Radio Top 20. I can't find any information about the methodology, it might be single vendor or it might even be Vadim Savin's personal preference. Any opinions? Should it be added to WP:BADCHARTS? --Muhandes (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Heads up, Billboard has updated their website
Right now, all of charts besides the Hot 100 aren't working and, I really hope I'm wrong here, but it looks Billboard removed the artists chart history pages. Not to sound conspiratorial because I know it's not true, but it's almost like they're doing this just to spite us. EDIT: Never mind, the artists page is still up, but the links to other charts still don't work. EDIT 2: The links to other charts work now. Erick (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's give them a few days to work out the kinks. I personally like this new look much better than the previous one, and I'm relieved the artist pages survived the transition. In any case, I think we're going to have to update the urls of Template:Single chart. Compare Madonna's previous location to her new location ("music" changed to "artist"). I'll post a message there. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 00:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think the new look is better, although I think it's odd that Billboard have chosen to order an artist's songs by total number of weeks on the chart, rather than chronologically or by peak position, which seem far more logical options. I was hoping the "Awards" column would show something more exciting, but it appears to be nothing more than what Billboard used to mark as the "bullets", given to the fastest risers on the chart.
 * One big problem the old website had was that many, many artists never had their own chart history, which made it difficult to use the Single chart template on their song articles. Has anyone checked whether the new website now has chart histories for everyone? Also, presumably the same adjustment will need to be made to Album chart, so it will need a message there as well. Richard3120 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Right! Thanks for reminding me. I have a one-track mind. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 01:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * well, singles ARE only one track... Richard3120 (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Another problem, new Billboard website has deleted year-end charts page, including Billboard 200, Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Top Country Albums, Hot Country Songs before 2001, and Adult Contemporary before 1990, actually these charts were existing before on the old website, if so, many articles must be used Wayback Machine to check one by one, There isn't enough time for me to deal with. Tim96144 (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Either that, or see if the World Radio History website has the relevant year-end copies of Billboard, and cite that instead. Richard3120 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that's a problem. Regardless, this change just happened, so let's not jump to conclusions yet. However, knowing Billboard, this is probably a permanent adjustment. If worse comes to worst, you can always cite Billboard magazine directly with online PDFs. This is actually more practical since print sources don't change every five years. Just be careful with copyright. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 13:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and make sure you give a full citation with the date of issue and the page number... World Radio History is a fantastic site for finding old copies of music magazines, but at the end of the day, it's just the personal website of one radio enthusiast, and it could go offline tomorrow for numerous reasons... breaking copyright laws for uploading the magazines, he runs out of money to maintain the website, or he dies and his family have no interest in keeping it running. So the links could go dead at any time, and at least if we still have a full citation, we know where to search for the information in paper copies in libraries. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For charts can't find on website, I usually use online PDFs to add them, as ResPM and Richard said, and this is my Routine. Okay, just hope Billboard can update old year-end charts again, I won't say much. Tim96144 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * World Radio History could't entry recently, but you can use wayback machine to go in, the website is useful, also hope it don't permanent failure. Tim96144 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * my apologies... when I was writing that above, I was thinking of the many other editors (not you) that often leave a citation with a basic link to a website, and don't think about whether that link will be there in the future. I guess when I was writing the message I was thinking that if any other editor sees it, they would follow the advice, but now I read it again, and it does sound like it was specifically aimed at you, so I'm sorry about that. Richard3120 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone charts
Should records pertaining to Rolling Stone charts, more specifically the Top 100, be kept in articles? Or should they be removed because the chart is now defunct? An editor recently removed a record citing that as a justification, so I wanted to hear different opinions about it, to know if that's a valid reason or not. - Ïvana (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised that the Rolling Stone charts had ended. Being defunct is not a valid reason to remove them from chart tables – after all, plenty of song articles from the 1970s and 1980s cite the US Cash Box and Canadian RPM charts, and those ended a long time ago. The bigger issue is that the Rolling Stone charts were in existence for little more than two years, so given that they had little time to establish themselves, and that consensus has already decided some time ago that the RS album chart was not suitable for Wikipedia, I think there is a valid case for discussing whether we keep the singles chart or not. I think you should post a link to this thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, because this will affect those WikiProjects, and they tend to get more active editors than this WikiProject. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to only incorporate the charts into the prose of the chart performance sections; discussing charting differences compared to Billboard shown by their different methodologies/sampling (if there aren't any significant differences, I can't see that's much value being added to the single articles). --Prosperosity (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've notified WikiProject Songs and WikiProject Albums of this discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought there was a consensus not to use them to begin with, though maybe I'm thinking of some local consensus or something. Anyways, any idea why it was discontinued. Like Richard, I hadn't heard of this before either. Sergecross73   msg me  14:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that consensus only related to the album chart, not the single chart. The single chart was deemed acceptable for the time being. See Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 15. Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question. Whatever it is decided, should that also apply to descriptions of records? Such as mentioning in the commercial performance section of a song how it was #1 in the RS chart, or how it broke a specific record in that chart. Like this one. - Ïvana (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping them in chart tables on individual song articles, but perhaps the lists of number ones (eg, List of Rolling Stone Top 100 number-one songs of 2019) can be merged into a single page or just deleted altogether since they really don't pass WP:NLIST. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me
 * A chart ceasing publication is no reason to remove them., could you perhaps link the diff of the edit where the user removed the chart from a table? Thank you. AshMusique (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My original question was regarding the description of a record (this is the diff). I probably worded it wrong (I'm not a native english speaker) but the discussion about whether to keep the singles chart or not is also valid. - Ïvana (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam Hot 100
Yesterday Billboard Việt Nam launched the Vietnam Hot 100, the first official chart for the country based on streaming data from MRC which includes Vietnamese and foreign launguage songs. --Lrt000 (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes this is official. Its mentioned on Billboard's US website here ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Billboard LyricFind Charts
Hello Wiki world! I'm really confused on why Billboards LyricFind Charts are not a notable chart? I mean artist are making tons of money from these Lyric searches and it's like they are selling the music. Only difference is they make the money through LyricFind who collects the royalties for these searches. So there is a reason Billboard created a chart for this, so why is Wikipedia shying away from these charts. If so many people are searching for your lyrics to your song that you hit the charts then you should be notable. Someone needs to look into this asap as these charts on Billboard exist for a reason and also produce revenue so if millions are searching for your lyrics that turns into a check. You are not only high on the charts but you are getting paid as well. So it might not be record sales but searches equate to revenue 1000 percent. Maybe the wiki gods could factor this into the notability chart system at some point moving forward. Here is the current link to the charts here https://www.billboard.com/charts/lyricfind-global/ I read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_17#Notability_for_LyricFind_Global that its not notable because it has nothing to do with sales or listening to the song or watching a video, but what it did not say is money is 1000 percent being earned for these lyrical searches and this is why I believe Wikipedia should factor these charts into the system. If you are popular on these charts that means you are a highly search individual.Godsentme1 (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know how many people search the lyrics on these charts, so we don't know if they are highly searched or not. Personally, I think these charts are total nonsense – I look at the chart for October 23, 2021, for example, and I see 11 of the 25 songs are more than ten years old... including three songs from the 1970s and three songs from the 1980s. And two more songs that never charted anywhere... so why did someone suddenly decide to look for their lyrics this week? It seems very random and meaningless. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would actually agree with Godsentme1 and I think in reply to Richard3120 the reason why a lot of these "old" songs chart on there is due to resurgence in popularity from re-releases, news media and anniversaries etc. The lyric charts, although a relatively new type of chart, are relevant with the modern world and the internet and it really does not matter if an "old" song charts. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is coverage of these searches and chart placements outside of LyricFind and Billboard, I haven't seen it. Simply existing and noting a song's ranking in Billboard is just chart trivia. Some significance needs to be attached with it along with reliable sources. I am surprised there is not an article for LyricFind, though. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with concerns about this so-called chart and its notability, having just noticed peaks added at a few Beatles song article (as a result of Peter Jackson's Get Back documentary, no doubt). This reminds me of that recent issue about each and every publication compiling an annual best albums list, or best albums of the year "so far". Just because an organisation thinks up a new product or feature, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should consider it worthy of inclusion. I'd like to see something that shows LyricFind Global is a significant list before we include it; perhaps it's telling that we're unable to even link the chart name right now. JG66 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

QuintusPetillius Yes thanks for agreeing. It is 2021 when someone is searching for your music so much that it appears on the charts then there should be some form of notability from that alone. I heard Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Richard3120 say something about It being trivia and some significance needs to be attached along with reliable sources or we don't know how many people search the lyrics, well the fact that it charts on Billboard is very significant Billboard is the biggest chart in the music industry so I see this as being a reliable source just on its own. That's like buying a Honda Accord and Then Buying a Honda civic then someone comes and says your Honda can't make it to the supermarket. That would be a lie because just cause the Hondas are different they both do what they are intended to do and that's drive down the street. Billboard is intended to pull "Popular" chart data and compile it to the most popular data by numbers. So If a song is appearing on the LyricFind Billboard charts it is deemed popular we don't need to know how many people searched the song, that's what we have Billboard for they are the ones who gather the data and decide what songs were searched the most and then place on the charts by numbers. So if Wikipedia trusts Billboard as a source then again I do not see why LyricFind Billboard charts are not counted for notability. Again this needs to be looked at by someone of authority. If you are charting on these charts it equates to you being highly searched, which holds as notability In my eyes. If you have again millions searching you up on the internet then how are you not notable? To me it does not make any sense at all. Hopefully someone authoritative can check this out. Good day to everyone who has responded as well and cheers :) Godsentme1 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * LyricFind is trivia - its a ranking of how much lyrics have been searched for whereas Record Charts are based on consumption. I do not think they should be included in articles. It is trivia / WP:FANCRUFT. At the moment, the fact that there is a lyricfind chart has not proven notable - it hasn't been mentioned in other notable coverage. Whether Billboard is reliable or not is not in question. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)