Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"note" parameter now supported by singlechart

If you need to add a note about a particular version being used in a chart, you can now add "note=<text>" with the singlechart template. It is automatically forced to small italic text under the main chart name.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Billboard is changing an album chart policy

• [1]

Nielsen SoundScan has announced major changes coming to the way it tabulates the weekly album sales chart. The SoundScan/Billboard 200 will now include catalog releases in the official chart alongside new albums. The chart had previously only listed releases from the previous 18 months, with older releases moved to a seperate chart. However, with this year's massive sales figures for Michael Jackson and Beatles albums, their numbers were missing from the official weekly charts.

Reuters reports that the changes go into effect for the sales week ending November 22, making the November 25 sales chart the first as a "comprehensive" chart. Jackson is the second-biggest selling artist of 2009, after Taylor Swift, and his best-of set Number Ones was the best-selling album in the country for six weeks earlier this year, though it wasn't reflected on the official chart.

In other Nielsen SoundScan news, the company has released new data on vinyl and digital music sales in 2009. For the SoundScan era, vinyl sales have set a new high point, with over two million vinyl records already sold this year. This breaks last year's record of 1.9 million.

As for digital music, four artists have broken Rihanna's digital tracks sales record (she sold 9.9 million digital songs in '08) already. So far, 11.3 million digital Michael Jackson songs have been sold, 11.1 million Lady Gaga songs have been sold this year, with 10.3 million Black Eyed Peas tunes and 9.98 million Taylor Swift songs.

Nielsen SoundScan reports that next week, the 2008 year-end digital album sales total of 65 million will be broken, as well as the one billion track sales mark. - eo (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting policy

There's also this which may be worth keeping an eye on. They're playing around with digital sales due to album leaks, seems like Nielson caving into the whinging of record labels to me.

"50 Cent's album was originally scheduled to drop on Nov. 23, but it leaked to the Internet nearly a month before that, prompting his label, Interscope Records, to push its release forward. The digital version of "Before I Self Destruct" was rush-released to Apple's iTunes Store in the U.S. last Monday (Nov. 9), ahead of the CD's bow on Monday, Nov. 16.

Because of this situation, Interscope has requested that Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan uphold an existing policy regarding album Internet leaks. In a rule instituted nearly a year ago based on industry input, a label may ask Nielsen SoundScan to hold the digital sales count of an album for up to one week -- and for Billboard to delay charting that album -- when a leak situation has resulted in a digital album beating its physical counterpart to market. As a result of this rule, "Before I Self Destruct's" first-week digital sales will be added to its overall retail sum for the week ending Nov. 22 and the album will debut on next week's chart.

Billboard, along with Nielsen SoundScan, will review the merit of maintaining this rule." kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard news

Source: Editor & Publisher closing after 108 years
By ANDREW VANACORE, AP Business Writer – Thu Dec 10, 1:22 pm ET
"The Nielsen Co. is selling some of its most prominent trade journals — including The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard..."
—Iknow23 (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

radiocharts.com

in article Más (Nelly Furtado song) radiocharts.com is used as source for swiss and german airplay chart? is radiocharts.com reliable source? --SveroH (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've spotchecked the German airplay chart, and it has always been accurate. Musictrace.de seems to be a real, reliable source, and they point at radiocharts.com as a valid publisher of their charts. The main problem is archiving: there isn't one at radiocharts.com. The charts at swisscharts.com and germancharts.com are archived. In general, it's best to simply repoint the reference to swisscharts.com or germancharts.com.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, tnx, i did --SveroH (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands (NVIP)

Why does there certification site only go up to 2006? Jayy008 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There has been an ongoing argument at She Wolf (album) related to succession boxes. Thestreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding a succession box for the French Digital Albums chart. Lil-Unique and I have both removed it, but he keeps re-inserting it.

Lil-Unique's argument was apparently that if the chart wasn't important enough for the list of charts, it isn't important enough for a succession box, either. For the record, I disagree with this argument: a succession box is a navigation tool, and the 18 chart limit shouldn't interfere with navigation.

My argument is that a succession box where neither the predecessor nor the successor has an article isn't a useful navigation tool. The purpose of a succession box is to allow the reader to click the "next" links over and over and see the articles for each thing in the class. Things like "Presidents of the United States" are great examples. "Billboard Hot 100 Number Ones" is another, because every single that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 is likely to have an article. Most albums on the French Digital Albums chart haven't got articles and never will.

If I revert him again, I'll wind up violating 3RR, so I'm going to lay off it for a while. I'd like to see other people's opinions on this.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think both arguments are valid. For Lil-Unique's point, imagine if we had iTunes succession boxes or radio chart succession boxes or whatnot. It would be a hot mess. As for Kevin's point, succession boxes are meant to aid in navigation, not just to show an order. If the box doesn't lead anywhere, then what's the point, right? SKS (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your examples are for charts that are forbidden, and I agree that those should not be included. Minor charts that rarely make the top 18 but have a fairly complete set of articles are a different topic in my mind.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the same for digital and physical sales in French Albums Chart, but the real question is "the charts succession are reserved just for American or England artist ?" is a bit unfair compared to other major markets like Japan, Germany, France, which have rarely articles in English wikipedia for a number one album in their chart (Thestreamer (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes aren't reserved for US and British charts. They aren't reserved for charts at all. They are for anything with a complete or nearly complete set of articles, because they are a navigational aid, not for informational purposes. Can you please explain how you think a succession box with no link for the predecessor or successor aids navigation?—Kww(talk)

This is where we disagree, the succession box is here to indicate the number of weeks spent in first place, have a page on previous or following albums that's not the question(Thestreamer (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WP:SBS: "Succession boxes are template-created wiki-tables that serve as navigational aids..." --JD554 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say otherwise in my last comment, I said that the charts succession informs us on the number of weeks in first place for an album by country and whether the previous or next album was a page on wikipedia was not the question(Thestreamer (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time: succession boxes are not to present information. They are not to document the number of weeks on a chart. They are not to document anything about anything. They are a navigational tool. To be a navigational tool, you have to have things to navigate to. In the case of a succession box, those are the preceding and succeeding albums. Can you please explain how a succession box without a preceding article or a succeeding article helps people navigate? You have been asked that question several times, and you have never answered it.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Admit that you're right, so if I understand if I create a page for albums of Renan Luce and Benjamin Biolay, the problem will be solved is not or there will be another one? (Thestreamer (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You would have to create an article for every album that has ever been number one on the French Digital Albums chart for it to be a good idea. If you don't, you just created new problems at the Renan Luce album and the Benjamin Biolay page. The best thing to do is to just delete the succession box.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no chart succession on the albums page of Renan Luce and Benjamin Biolay the problem will be resolved. Also a point that I'd like to raise and that going against your argument, for example the number 1 in Switzerland before She Wolf by Shakira is Touch Yello by Yello in their page we can see that there isn't chart succession and it's far from being an isolated case, so it's probably imperative that the previous and next album have in their page an chart succession but not all albums before them. I suggest you go check all the pages of albums in wikipedia to check, good luck.(Thestreamer (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it won't be resolved. You are not using succession boxes properly. Yes, there are a lot of incorrectly used succession boxes. I correct problems when I notice them. The only time there is a problem is when an editor refuses to understand the corrections, refuses to follow guidelines, and edit-wars his changes in. Please remove the succession box from She Wolf (album) and drop this matter.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not over and still not resolved, however anyone would remove the Succession boxes of She Wolf (album), the discussion started by a succession box (for the French Digital Albums chart) but someone delete the entire section without having reached agreement here. I hope you will come to an agreement and restore the entire section with or without the succession box of French Digital Albums chart. Thanks D6h ^!? 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of Year charts?

I don't see anything on the project page about using Best Of Year charts. I don't believe that they should be included in the table of charts, but may be mentioned within the article text.
I don't recall seeing these kind of charts used before. The occurrence that got me to wondering is HERE, U.S. Billboard 200 Best of 2009.
So what do we all think about this?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"End of Year" charts are frequently provided as a separate table. I don't care much for them.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much for them either, but now that you mention it, I think I have seen them in a separate table. But they should definately not be intermingled with the 'peak position' charts.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

HERE's an example I found of one in a separate table.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate tables look like a good idea to me for multiple end-of-year charts. I don't think they should appear in the same tables as weekly charts, but I would leave it to editors' discretion whether to use a separate table or article prose if they want to include that information. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be logical to use the same policy as with normal chart tables; if there is multiple sourced and notable charts, create a table. If not, put it in the article's prose. kiac. (talk-contrib) 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with verification

For some reason, my "Billboard's site must be buggy" alarm is going off. Can anyone validate a single one of the charting claims made in Lip Gloss (song)? I can't, but suspect that it's a sourcing problem.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

billboard appears to show that the song didnt chart. Althought acharts appears to show that it did. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that it proves anything but Allmusic doesn't list it as a charting single, either. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay much attention when Billboard says that. It also states that "We Belong Together" by Mariah Carey "this song hasn't charted" but it reached #1 for fourteen weeks and is the biggest song of the decade. My point being that even the biggest song of the decade isn't listed. Yet acharts.us is always reliable for official charts. Besides I remember Lip Gloss charting anyway but it charted at #10 on the Hot 100 I thought? Jayy008 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The highest position I could find on the Hot 100 was #10 on June 30, 2007, using the site's Top Ten weekly archive tool [2], which confirms what acharts says. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like Jayy008 said. I have noticed the inconsistency within Billboard. Ideally they would have their site set up to automatically update through ALL their pages regarding albums and songs, but alas they do not. Whenever I see "this song hasn't charted", I know that that is UNreliable.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I think maybe GOODCHARTS should list Billboard Hot 100 for acharts, then this problem ideally wouldn't crop up again. Jayy008 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, you mean kinda like Canada "aCharts.us archives Canadian Hot 100 only." Thing is; first of all United States would have to be added to GOODCHARTS (remembering that Kww said earlier that it is not in there!)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to the artist page's chart history on Billboard, it is usually pretty reliable and up to date. The album pages seem to regularly come up with the bugs. kiac. (talk-contrib) 07:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly like that IKnow23! I think for Billboard charts it is the best place. I see where you're coming from Kiac but you says "usually" with acharts.us it is always up to date. So I propose adding Billboard Hot 100 to GOODCHARTS. Jayy008 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning "usually" from what I haveve seen. I've never seen it out of date - but I'm no measurement as to whether it is up to date or not. I can't be certain. As far as I'm concerned, when Billboard publishes it, we know it exists, before that and it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:21, 19

December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean out of date, sometimes it just hasn't got it on there. Using what you said "when Billboard publishes it, we know it exists, before that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia" then "We Belong Together" should be removed because Billboard doesn't list it. That is not a good idea. Jayy008 (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem with Billboard is in their internal 'archiving'. They cannnot be trusted. With many songs that have been 'published' and 'listed' in weekly charts, when you attempt to search this info later you get the "this song hasn't charted". I have attempted Webcite on multiple occasions of the weekly charts but Billboard does not allow this to occur (archive fails).
Regarding adding US Billboard Hot 100 to GOODCHARTS, there would also need to be some kind of mention of the other "GOOD" US Billboard charts. Otherwise their absence makes it look like we are saying they are not GOODcharts. Perhaps add a sub-section heading of US Billboard within GOODCHARTS?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ericorbit (I think) had made a guide to all the Billboard charts. If someone can find it, it would probably be best to just point to it from the sourcing table. It's too complex to mix in the same table with the other charts.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AGREED, too complex. I did not mean to put into same table. Put into a sub-section titled "U.S. Billboard" with its own table.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well as one of the biggest music markets in the world, it deserves some kind of mention so people know it's allowed. Jayy008 (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely!—Iknow23 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Argentinian Albums Chart

The Argentinian Albums Chart publish by ArgentinaTop100.com.ar is a copy of the official weekly album chart of CAPIF (http://www.capif.org.ar/). It should be considerer as a source, because the CAPIF website doesn't have an archieve, but ArgentinaTop100 does.--HC 5555 (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feelings on this. The main problems I have is that they are anonymous and the other charts they publish aren't from reliable sources. CAPIF does archive their monthly chart, and my basic feeling is that we should live with that. I wouldn't fight too hard if enough people argue the other way.—Kww(talk) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears "If U Seek Amy"

Billboard lists it as charting at #10 on "France Songs" but Hung Median and any other charts that I can find for France do not. Also it was changed to Digital Chart for the chart box but I can't find that on Hung Median either.

This is another example of Billboard being unreliable? Should I remove the chart? Jayy008 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

'If U Seek Amy' charted at #11 on the French digital chart. http://lescharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=si&year=2009&date=20090418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorant (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Billboard just must be incorrect as always. Jayy008 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Más (Nelly Furtado song)

In article Más (Nelly Furtado song) Charly1300.com is used as source for Italian Airplay Chart, Euro200.net is used as source for Polish Singles Chart. Are this sources relaible? --SveroH (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Charly1300.com has just been added to the "websites to avoid" list, and the Polish Singles Chart at euro200.net has been on WP:BADCHARTS since the beginning.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) i've seen Polish National Top 50 on WP:BADCHARTS, but i haven't seen for wich website does it mean, but now i know :) --SveroH (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

aCharts is linking to WP:Record charts!

aCharts is putting a superscript "W" (for Wikipedians) hover link after some of its chart listings and the clickthrough page then has a link to WP:Record charts. Just the text is shown below as I did not code all the links. Just sharing the news :)—Iknow23 (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikpedians, thank you for you using αCharts.us as your chart source. The charts displayed on this website are chosen to give the best as possible quantitative impression of the happenings in the global music industry. Though a group of Wikipedians believe otherwise, therefore we would like to point out to you the guidelines on Record Charts and in particular the paragraph Deprecated Charts. This means that the following charts should not be included onto Wikipedia: Bulgaria Singles Top 40, Portugal Singles Top 50, US Airplay Top 100, World Singles Top 40 and World Albums Top 40. On a side note, The Italian Charts are not official. Thank you for respecting the Wikipedia Community.

Naww how nice of them. This could save us a lot of headaches. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's actually been there for quite a long time, maybe even since last year when we decided the United World Chart shouldn't be used. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I found something new? Anyway because I read it I then used this for an edit summary, "Remove Italian Chart.See aCharts(the ref used)at http://acharts.us/help#wikipedia "The Italian Charts are not official."//Invite to relist it if you can provide a good ref. Check atWP:GOODCHARTS

Yes, this general FAQ entry has been there for some time. They have updated it a couple of times, especially to provide links back to us and provide some clarifications. Still, it is definitely appreciated that they recognise our use of their site and our concerns with some of the data. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AirCheck India - Indian chart?

Have ypu guys noticed this site called AirCheck™ Broadcast Monitoring. They claim that, Monitoring identifies and analyses commercial and song airplay on radio in the top 17 major Indian cities. AirCheck™ monitors 24 hours a day and delivers almost real time radio airplay data from the 88 most important radio stations in India. The Aircheck India National Network delivers advertising agencies,radio stations and record companies an instant online local and national perspective of their clients' airplay. Aircheck India produces independent verification of airplay and provides market Live Reports, Market Share, Brand and Category Analysis, Exception Reports and Song Rotations. They have a weekly chart here consisting of top 20 positions. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be archived, which reduces its usability. I also note that none of the songs are songs that are likely to have Wikipedia articles. It's certainly reliable enough, so it doesn't belong on WP:BADCHARTS, but doesn't appear to be useful, either.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did see articles like "Chiggy Wiggy" using it and even "Jai Ho". We might as well make a note of it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)