Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts/Archive 1

Established
Its established. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my late reply. That's a very good idea to created a WP for records charts. I taught of an suggestion, I don't know if it's possible but how about a separate Wikia for records charts? There some wikias for various things like South Park for example http://www.wikia.com/wiki/South_Park and perhaps the record charts could desserve their own Wikia --Sd-100 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Record charts Wikia?
I founded a Wikia titled the Music Wikia http://music.wikia.com and I posted a discussion at their music hub http://music.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Music_Hub if we could post the records charts in their Wikia or creating a separate Wikia for it. I taught of this idea because some records charts who was listed here (Brasil Hot 100, Argentina Top 40) was deleted and maybe we could re-introduce them on another Wikia. --Sd-100 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just got a anwser about on their discussion topics, and we could post about the records charts on the Music Wiki --Sd-100 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically unreferenced list articles
I noticed that the articles listed within List of number-one hits (United States) don't have the actual references in the article. I was about to go tagging them as unreferenced when I noticed the parent article says those refs apply to the child articles. In any case, it's always preferable to cite page numbers when possible... I understand this would be a significant undertaking, but it would definitely improve the quality of those child lists in my opinion.

Additionally, it is worth noting that those child articles aren't listed as part of this WikiProject... &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now listed on the project. --Efe (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List or table?
Guys, do we have a previous discussion over which to prefer? --Efe (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove blocked editor from member list...he won't be returning...at least not on that account..
Should we remove Be Black Hole Sun from the members list. The community won't be letting him back. If by some miracle error of judgment he is unblocked, he can always add his name back. — Realist  2  18:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From my POV, I say yes.-- TRU    CO   21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, will remove. — Realist  2  22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Format changes from lists to tables
Please seriously stop spreading that horrible busy format!!! 167.206.75.157 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I have moved the above comment which was incorrectly placed right in the middle of the non-related thread above. That said, please do not blatantly revert the changes that have been made, 167, before gaining consensus with other editors.  Your recent edit to Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) was reverted. - eo (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you direct me to some debate over table Vs. lists? These tables are really horribly designed and with the pictures dominated the right side of page it makes the page look ridiculous and the pictures the most important part as well as the analysis of the year before the songs! Where did this crap come from?!? 63.3.22.1 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Constructive comments are better than unhelpful rants. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that these pages have "suddenly" been reverted repeatedly with accusations of "no discussion" (within hours of each other) by 167.206.75.157, 63.3.22.1 and User:Billhits, some pages have been semi-protected for now. More protection may be needed if this continues. - eo (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems as if these pages are going to be changed no matter what anybody thinks and if you disagree with my criticisms ( horribly designed and with the pictures dominated the right side of page it makes the page look ridiculous and the pictures the most important part as well as the analysis of the year before the songs! )they will be called rants. 167.206.75.157 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting the pages before discussion can take place. You've received your final warning.  The first of the lists (2008) was featured in a Peer Review, plus the design was discussed on its Talk Page.  If you want some dialog to occur regarding this, your approach is wrong.  If you blatantly revert everything repeatedly you'll just get yourself blocked. - eo (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (to 167) Repeteated criticisms without solutions are not helpful. It would also help if you would write a bit more coherently. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote about the pictures being removed from the side which have the effect of squeezing the table! 63.3.22.1 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends on the setting of your screen resolution. --Efe (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image usage in Hot 100
Hi all, just doing a peer review of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2004 (United States) with User:Efe and he seems to suggest that images are only used in these lists "if the performance of their singles were very notable". While the most important artists of the chart should feature prominently, it seems strange to limit the usage of illustrative images when they are freely available. I'm not saying "put a photo of everyone on the list there" but I do believe the effort should be made to fill up the white space on the right side of the charting table. Otherwise, the implication is that the white space is better for the article than an illustrative image... What are other's thoughts on this matter? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly there is more space for free images, but I see no need to add more than one extra image to that article. I wouldn't let it bother you too much. — R  2  13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would stick to my "rule". But I am open to discussions. After all, its not mine. Hehe. --Efe (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's also a case of what resolution your computer has. I'm not too bothered either way. I got the the idea of more images alongside the table from previous lists I reviewed en-route to Featured List, as seen in lists like List of PGA Championship champions. Either way, I really like these almanac style entries, not least because they provide a stable reliable reference point for readers (something that is so hard to accomplish on Wikipedia). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Move
Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) is now a FL, but it doesn't start with List. There are at least two concerns regarding the proper title. Could anyone very familiar with naming convention help us out? Eric, you are the Billboard guy, could you guide us? --Efe (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just moved it. If anyone has a problem, please discuss it here before moving it back, as all other similar FLs and current FLCs start with "List of". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please move all other links to the mother page, like FLCs and PRs. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since that article has already been promoted, Gimmebot will fix the FLC links. I fixed the peer review link. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. --Efe (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another milestone, another issue
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2003 (United States) and List of number-one albums of 1999 (U.S.) were recently passed to FL status. Congrats to the project. However, there is(are) still inconsistencies. In the former, we use United States while in the latter, its U.S. Which of the two looks professional? --Efe (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (United States) - it is a more search-able topic than U.S.-- TRU  CO   02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the recent featured list Efe, waiting for more to come. I don't mind changing it, but we would have to also change the latin album lists, since I took the intro from those. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats to you, too. Yes. That lists should be updated. --Efe (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack!!! Revert all moves to so-and-so lists (United States) back to so-and-so (U.S.). Per MOS, it should be abbreviated. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a little problem because I am using US in the lead commentary. --Efe (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget it. I've fixed it myself. --Efe (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

need attention!
There is something funny going on in Top Hot 100 Hits of 2008. The colouring scheme used is to be checked whether it complies with the WP:MoS. I like to know what other users think?--Chanaka L (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As of now, those colors have no use despite the footnote added. Kind of confusing. --Efe (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I was confused at first too. I think we better introduce more conventional way to present the weeks at the top a song has spent. --Chanaka L (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COLORS, an additional visual aid (italics or symbols) should be provided to aid those who are visually impaired. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"hits" not "singles"?
Why are articles, like List of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2004 (United States), have "hits" in its name and not "singles"? It sounds less professional IMO, but I just want to know why.-- TRU  CO   04:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if singles, it appears to be more specific. --Efe (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Should we move it? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I went ahead and moved it. There is no reason not to. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well what about related lists, that have that hit included in the name and not singles as well?-- TRU  CO   22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to do "singles" for the Canadian ones just so you guys know (currently moving those...) --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 07:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Should be singles. Looks more professional. &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Is it fine if we set up an automatic archiving of the talk page? If yes, how many days? --Efe (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did that. I think ten days should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. --Efe (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering this project isn't too big and the talk page doesn't move too quickly, ten days seems a bit too much. Why not thirty days? Diverse Mentality  07:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's too long. --Efe (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two weeks seems like a good compromise. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. --Efe (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one hits (United States)
Because Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) is currently a FLC, the name is not consistent with the some other FL lists, as most start with List of. I strongly suggest you change the names of the number-one hits, not only in the United States, but every country, and start all the article names with List of. (ie. Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) --> List of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)) Though minor, I, again, strongly suggest it. Happy editing! --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24  review me 06:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of agree. I love consistency. --Efe (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as me. Another example: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If no one disagrees by Saturday, I'll personally change all the names of the lists. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24  review me 06:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait. I'll try to contact active members. For the mean time, if you have comments on the candidate, please add it on the FLC page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the name change(s). Just be careful with the wording of 1940-1957 years ("Hot 100" did not exist yet). - eo (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. --Efe (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the consistency. This will be a nice encyclopaedic way to archive all the list of singles together. But we have to be careful with the changes and their reflection in all the pages they are linked. &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree totally. — Realist  2  16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

← I see no problem with the renaming at all. Attack err, rename the articles. Diverse Mentality  19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree. It should be noted that it is a list, was the first thing the reviewer told me when I submitted the lists for the Top Latin Albums, which are now 12 featured lists. If you need any help, I am happy to colaborate. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree only if the change include all charts: Top 40 Mainstream, Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs, Pop 100, etc, etc. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, due to consistency purposes. TRU    CO   00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we going to move them now? --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I say we should. Very soon, a wave of these lists will be promoted to FL status. We need to make a decision before then. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally forgot about this. Was busy trying to finish a topic. I can't do this myself, so could some users help me on this? I'll be doing the Canadian ones. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 05:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, there is a concern raised by Indopug on the FLC page. --Efe (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved all similar FLCs and promoted FLs. If nobody complains here, I will move the others in a couple days. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I formally propose that all articles for record charts of a certain year be moved to articles that start with "List of...". If there is no complaint, then I will start to move these lists on Friday (UTC). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Consistency should be maintained. So start moving them!!!!!!!!! &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Just don't forget about my comment above.  Now get to work, Cinderella!  - eo (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can help moving lists. Every member of this project should select one chart and move the lists on it, for example I can move the lists for the Hot Latin Tracks. This way we can have consistency. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since someone took over the Hot 100, I'll probably go with R&B. --Efe (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree per above users and also I like to observe the consistency in naming conventions. Cheers! --Chanaka L (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Canadian number-one singles are moved. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 08:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Update
These are the recent change(s) made. However, please take note that not all other related lists were moved.


 * Shouldn't the Canadian one be "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada)". — R  2  09:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It should. I think we should hold off on all mass moves until the agreed day of Friday. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone should also note that in addition to moving the articles, we have to fix the redirects on the navboxes. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since particular changes to the album have been agreed, I took the liberty to moving at least from 1999 to 2009. The rest are not yet touched. Navbox has been update. --Efe (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest someone should create a subpage of this project where we post all the developments. --Efe (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is now Friday (UTC). Consensus has been reached that moving these articles to "List of" is the correct thing to do. Move on! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Canadian thing, we have three lists of it because the chart premiered in 2007. So what do we do. Realist though it should look like this: "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada)". --Efe (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be consistent with the Billboard Hot 100, sure why not. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Record Charts/ToDo
I updated our ToDo page. Please add more. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured list question
See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

New chart
I have found out that there are no lists for number-one digital singles in the United States, so I created them, starting 2005. I think we had to created it because digital charts are now the most influential chart in Billboard, IMO. And we also have sub-Hot 100 chart like List of Hot 100 Airplay number-one singles of 2009 (U.S.), which is a list for most-played songs in the United States. I am also wondering if we create lists for Singles Sales because its one of the components of Hot 100. I am worried, though, because its not creating much news unlike digital sales and airplays. Going back to the new lists, they are still incomplete, so please help. Thanks.

--Efe (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * List of number-one digital singles of 2005 (U.S.)
 * List of number-one digital singles of 2006 (U.S.)
 * List of number-one digital singles of 2007 (U.S.)
 * List of number-one digital singles of 2008 (U.S.)
 * List of number-one digital singles of 2009 (U.S.) (Complete up to the latest issue date)


 * I think I already see these lists, but they were complete and with weekly sales. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found them:


 * Hot Digital Songs 2005 number-ones
 * Hot Digital Songs 2006 number-ones
 * Hot Digital Songs 2007 number-ones
 * Hot Digital Songs 2008 number-ones
 * Hot Digital Songs 2009 number-ones

Frcm1988 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my god. Thanks for that. Its a shame. I'll instead delete them and move those pages. --Efe (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. I added my edits to the existing pages, deleted mine, and move those pages to the latter for consistency. Edit histories are preserved. Template has been updated. I am worried about the weekly sales. What shall we do about it? I can assure to source the ranking but for the sales, no idea. --Efe (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one hits featured lists
I was wondering, why didn't you guys include the albums for the List of number-one hits that are featured lists? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The albums are in a different page, some examples of featured albums list: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999, List of number-one albums of 1999 (U.S.). Frcm1988 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I first worked on these lists, I was also wondering if I could add links to albums in which the singles belong. However, it seems not very significant since we also have lists for number-one albums, although they're vastly different from the purpose for which the former would serve. --Efe (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can add a link in the "See also" section that link both lists for example the List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.) and the List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.). Just a suggestion. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about if a number one hit doesn't have an album on the Billboard 200? Just curious... --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Top 25 singles for 1994 in Australia
I saw that somebody created this article, and was wondering if the project considers it notable. If not, it can be easily speedy deleted, or PRODed. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  21:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think is notable, but if it gets erased then people will say that why we keep the American year-end charts. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i didnot see enough references to warranty notability, if so, the pages for recent years should be more notable. I don't see them being made. Hence speedy delete. --Legolas  ( talk to me ) 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take not that we have lists for year-end chart in the US (Top Hot 100 Hits of 2008), however, this is more notable than Australia's. Please also take note that speedy delete is not for notability issues (see WP:CSD). Perhaps an AFD or a further discussion in the list's talk page or here would be better. --Efe (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always assumed ARIA to be a reliable source for Australian charts, but if the consensus is to delete, so be it. I think in this case an AfD is more warranted rather than a speedy delete. MegX (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is when to stop? Most people will say that only the bigger markets are notable, like the U.S. and the UK, but slowly people are going to add articles for France, Germany or Italy, and just before we notice there is going to be articles for Poland or Romania. So we need to have a consensus to decide which ones are notable to have an article. It's much easier in the other languages wikipedias, even for songs an albums. For example the dutch only puts the peak positions in the Netherlands, and the german the peaks in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. So maybe we should only have articles for the ones that have english as a language, and of course that have a reliable database: U.S., Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.
 * I guess I see some merit with that argument. Maybe have a policy where non-English language charts are moved to the appropriate language projects eg. Dutch charts moved to the Dutch Wikipedia and so forth. MegX (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, ok maybe we don't need to erased the entire charts, I think that having the singles and albums charts are enough, maybe they can be in the same page like this List of French number-one hits of 2008 but only for non-english charts. But definitely we dont't need year-end charts, or this for example "VG-lista 2006". Frcm1988 (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okies then I guess the solution is to nominate for deletion. Have you noticed there is also a huge gap in the French charts on wikipedia? It's missing years 1969-1983 even though they are all available from infodisc. Maybe someone got tired of adding them and gave up. MegX (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe someone told the editor that the years previous to 1984 are not considered official because SNEP started it's publication in that year. I don't really know if those are considered reliable but maybe there are the only ones that go back to the 50s. Its kinda strange that France started to have this charts in the 80s when most Western-Europe countries have archives from the 60s. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The situation is perhaps even worse for Ireland. I've been told that before 1991, their whole accounting system over there was very much ambiguous and unreliable. MegX (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I think it would be better to delete pages which cannot be supported by a reliable source. --Efe (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any third-party reliable sources that mention those singles' chartings? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As of now, no. But this one is fine. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Efe, we should keep the lists supported only by reliable sources. I think that the Australian lists need a lead paragraph, some introduction to the subject, just as we do on some other lists, to make it complete. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This source looks reliable to me.--Sakrileg (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that we keep it because if we don't keep it we should deleted all other year-end singles charts User: Zacharyisawesome 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Zacharyisawesome

Dutch Singles Chart
Hi all, i saw a discrepancy in the Dutch music charts displayed at acharts.us and the ultratop website for Dutch charts archiving. For the current issue acharts displays the number one as Gaga's Just Dance whereas Ultratop Dutch displays it as Jan Smit's "Je naam in de sterren". Which one is correct? --Legolas ( talk to me ) 09:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw you have raised the same concern at WP:CHARTS. I think it would better to leave the discussion there. --Efe (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh k. I thought both of them can address the issue. --Legolas  ( talk to me ) 12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be addressed here, but I think its the concern of WP:CHARTS. --Efe (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the chart displayed in the Ultratop page is a component of the Dutch Top 40. The Mega Singles Top 100 only ranks sales of singles and albums in the Netherlands, while the Top 40 combines these data with airplay. So I think the Top 40 is the one we should use. We should only use the Mega Singles if the single or album didn't chart on the Top 40. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.--Sakrileg (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * who is gonna be our coordinator? Do we need a poll to select a one or any other way?--Chanaka L (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If nobody offers, I propose Efe, I believe he is the most involved person in the project right now. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Frcm, but I suggest Ericorbit because he was here long before I joined the project. --Efe (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. But maybe we should just designate him right away, because the group have alredy started to discuss the topic. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Since other members of this project are offline and haven't had their side yet, we call Eric as our unofficial coordinator. Would you like to drop him a message? --Efe (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I said yes, the message was there for days without any replies, and yes leave him a message so its the first thing he sees we he log in. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Eric will be good as a co-ordinator, but his responses to querries and activities is very brief and late. Efe, though he joined late, is more involved and has a very good knowledge regarding the charts. I propose Efe. --Legolas  ( talk to me ) 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, Eric's the Billboard guy. But let's wait other's comments, and Eric's, too. He'll be here before Billboard updates its charts later today. --Efe (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm already involved with this council as co-ordinator for another project so that excludes me from here. I'll be happy to support consensus on who should be the rep for this project. MegX (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldnot say that Eric is the only Billboard guy round here. There's Realist, Diverse and Kww, also myself who understands Billboard quite well. My concern is whether Eric will be able to give enough time to this project. I'm sure he got his hands full with others as well. Efe, on the other hand has considerable knowledge not only regarding Billboard but other countries' charts as well. I would say both Efe and Kww has knowledge regarding the record charts extremely well. Any one of them i propose. --Legolas  ( talk to me ) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I can't dedicate any time to it, I'm really overburdened as it is on Wikipedia. The best guys for the job are Eric, Efe or Kww. — R  2  10:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support Eric or Efe, but I don't think this is of utmost priority. We aren't that big. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Efe.--Sakrileg (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I'll take a looksee at the coodinator's wikiproject.... if needed I'll definitely help out. And yes, my responses lately have been late and brief.... real life (i.e. off-computer) stuff has been rather hectic for me lately (imagine that, "life" away from the internet, who knew), so if Efe is willing right now and has everyone's support then that is fine too. - eo (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello everybody. I think Efe is the right one for the job. I can provide help if you need it too, I also know Billboard (US) and Amprofon (MX). Jaespinoza (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I've listed my name there. --Efe (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats Efe. MegX (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RECORD goes straight to the wikiproject page, Efe. MegX (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Thanks MegX. Please check the newest thread I have set up regarding your edit here. --Efe (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Forget it. I have mistakenly changed your edit. I thought WP:RECORD as WP:CHARTS. Sorry. A bit confusing. --Efe (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tis' cool. No probs. MegX (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese charts
Anyone know where I can find Oricon charts prior to the 1980s? I've managed to find the number one singles and number one albums charts, but not complete charts. I know the chart positions from a blog which published per artist but blogs aren't that well accepted on wikipedia. MegX (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking
See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Argentina Top 40
There was a talk about the deletion of Argentina Top 40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina_Top_40 it was deleted in October 2008. I wonder if we could reintroduce it to Wikipedia since 2 of the others "officals" Argentinian charts mentionned in the talk wasn't updated since a while? --Sd-100 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived US radio charts
What are editors opinions on using archived US radio charts for inclusion on wikipedia charts? MegX (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There appears to be more action over on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. What's the matter everyone? Something from Ohio sucked out the oxygen? MegX (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What charts specifically? --Efe (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to standardise names
Hi, I'm hoping to standardise names for different chart lists of number one singles/albums. Any suggestions or input would be much appreciated here.  Rambo's   Revenge   (How am I doing?)   17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be like "List of number-one chart name(opt) singles of country (year)". What do you think? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian country number ones from RPM Magazine
I will be working on adding all the Canadian country number ones from RPM Magazine to the “List of years in country music” articles. The RPM country music singles charts starts in February 11, 1964 and it gos until 2000" And all of them can be found at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-111.01-e.php?brws=1 &PHPSESSID=ba8s59jdjscpe94qkciuevbh86. Also there are other Canadian charts listed their that would be could to add to Wikipedia as well. Anyone wanna help with this? --Devin Murphy (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging the charts
There is currently a discussion happening on WT:FLC about whether or not we should merge the record charts, and have them by decade. The discussion is here. Comments are definitely appreciated. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 03:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I started a new discussion here about merging List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995, List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998 and List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999 into a new page List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s. Please participate!-- Crzycheetah 03:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Billboard Hot 100 number-one hits
I was looking in Category:Lists of Billboard Hot 100 number-one hits, and there appears to be two naming conventions: Also they are sorted by L& H respectively, rather than by year. Convention 1 seems to be in line with other countries (see List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada)), but Hot 100 number-one hits of 2007 (United States) redirects to List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (U.S.), so moving isn't cut and dry. Thoughts?--kelapstick (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) List of Hot 100 number-one singles of xxxx (U.S.)
 * 2) Hot 100 number-one hits of xxxx (United States)
 * I believe all Hot 100 number-one hits of XXXX (United States) will be moved to List of Hot 100 number-one singles of XXXX (U.S.) . They've been working backwards as the lists have been expanded and reformatted. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2 FLs are nominated for removal
nominated List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995 for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Crzycheetah 06:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * nominated List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998 for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Crzycheetah 06:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and Remove: Merging because a comprehensive list will serve in this case much better for commentary purposes. Remove because the article fails FLCs. Most of the things are unsourced. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999
nominated List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999 for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Number-one singles template
I was wondering if having a navbox that shows the current number-one singles be a good idea? To give a visualization of how it might look like...:

Any thoughts? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 02:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)