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)

Mariah-Charts.com

According to Mariah-Charts.com, Britney Spears' single "Outrageous" charted at number 1 in South Africa, which is weird since the song was only released in the US and Japan. Mariah-Charts is the only site with this information, so I'm wondering if it's a reliable source. And if not, I think it should be added to "Websites to avoid". Pancake (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Madonna-charts.com

this site should also be added to wesites ot avoid: for example [3] see how many charts are shown, at last half of them is/or should be on WP:BADCHARTS--SveroH (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

or at least emphasize not to use as the site itself states, "Certifications in green are taken from non-official sources, not confirmed."—Iknow23 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Billboard.com charts questions

I haven't delved into music charts until recently, so I'm new to this. In Shiny Toy Guns Singles section there are 3 links cited as the sources, all of which are now dead. "Le Disko" I found here, but there's no reference to the #114 on Billboard Hot 100 as the article currently lists; it doesn't make sense to me that it would be #114 anyway on a Top 100 list. I can update the source, but I'm wondering if I should just remove the #114 in the chart or leave it? Also, for songs like "You Are The One" the Billboard link is here but it doesn't refer to being on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart. I guess I'm wondering if I'm just not looking in the right places for sourcing these peaks, or if I should remove them. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, You might like to review/contribute also above at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Help with verification as there is a discussion about Billboard there.
As to position #114, see Billboard charts#Singles and Tracks Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles listing. So #114 is part of the "twenty-five position addendum to the Hot 100" as in Hot 100 position #114. So any position of #126 or higher is definitely BOGUS. It can also be displayed as #14 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart where in this display any position of #26 or higher would then be BOGUS. I hope I said that in not a too confusing fashion?—Iknow23 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help me understand that. I'm not sure if I should leave it though, since I can't seem to find a source for that number now. I do see here that the album that "Le Disko" is on charted at 114 on Billboard 200, so perhaps that was mixed up at sometime and I suppose I should just change it?

I read over the other discussion and now am not sure what to do, it makes it sound like the Billboard charts aren't that reliable on their website?  :) – gRegor (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Billboard certainly isn't consistent throughout their website. I reported it to them but I guess nothing is going to be done? I don't know how to do it, but I would guess that they could set up a database that will automatically update/revise chart info fields across all the pages/articles on their entire website; that is, a change in one will be reflected in ALL.

Re:Shiny Toy Guns Singles section You may like to use this as a ref: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0pfexq9sldje~T51 At least some of the chart info is there.

I would like to call to your attention the project page "Note that references should be individual and specfic to each chart that is being used. Sources per column or table are insufficient." Thus the references clustered at the Singles "Peak chart positions" should be moved to the individual chart name cells. The albums chart does so with the reference "9" in the "US" cell. Of course the other album charts need refs too.

Re: Other 'dead link' or unreferenced material. It's up to you. If you can't find a reliable source, you can delete that material or tag them with the 'dead link' or 'citation needed' for a while in the hope that another editor could provide the ref.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes, are they effectively 'affiliate advertising'?

I believe that Succession boxes [relating to music articles] are an indiscriminate collection of information as "Excessive listing of statistics" that is not notable to the subject. In my opinion, it is notable that the "Song" or Album appears on a reliable and sourced chart, but to provide previous and subsequent holders of number 1 chart positions is unnecessary and excessive. I am even more shocked to learn from above that they are presented not as information, but only as a navigation tool? Why is it necessary to give a link to material that has nothing to do with the article other than in sharing the distinction of charting a number 1 position?
An example of a navigation tool that I do support is the "For other uses, see [Song or Album name here] (disambiguation)" to assist in going to the page the reader is actually seeking if different than the one they are on.—Iknow23 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, especially to the following that previous and next albums are not essential and have nothing to do on the album page, and yes it's "information" that tell us how many weeks an album was in first place, it must be the only published information (Thestreamer (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, succession boxes are unnecessary to show the number of weeks in peak position [which in these cases is number 1] as it is a 'Key fact' of its Chart trajectory and may be mentioned within the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the boxes serve as a navigational aid and do not add any substantial content to any individual song or album article. If someone has an interest in the list of number ones, they can simply go to the many lists of number one singles pages that exist or they can be created. Many "number one" categories already exist so the lists should not be hard to find from any specific article on a number-one song or album. The chart positions are actual information about the song or album, but the succession boxes on some song and album articles are getting out of hand and just add clutter it seems. My preference would be too include sourced chart information (the 18 limit can be used for sub/genre charts within a country; ie. if more than 18 charts, just principal chart from a country) and make due without succession boxes at all on these articles. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the articles can be and probably already are placed in a "number one" category if one exists for the chart. Chances are that if the chart does not have a "number one" category, there is not much interest so then why should it be made a big deal on an individual song or album page to show the prior and subsequent number one position holders? It should be sufficient to show that it charted at number one in the chart table and can mention the number of weeks that it held the number one position in the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Succession boxes have the effect of being 'affiliate advertising'. They are a "navigation tool" to other number one "Songs" and Albums that really have no connection with the page they are on. Kinda like saying, "Hey, I see that you are visiting this article, perhaps you'd be interested in these others that also charted at number one around the same time." The other two [prior and after] can also show a link back to the 'current' article visited. Even better than 'outside' affiliation as you don't have to wait for the webmasters of the other pages to link to you. One person can put succession boxes on all three articles [current, prior and after].
Another problem is that succession boxes are being utilized as a 'loophole' to display Chart information that does not qualify for the table of Charts, such as component charts. I do support mentioning within the article text about charting at number one in a component chart [if it never charted at number one in the Main chart] and other RELIABLE and SOURCED charts, even when not eligible to be used in the Chart table, as I consider that a number 1 position there constitutes a 'Key fact' that is notable of its overall charting infomation. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone want to support Succession boxes being on music articles? I'm sure that there must be other opinions.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't defend them. I don't even think song articles should include chart positions, but I lost that argument long ago.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've linked this discussion on the WikiProject SBS talk page as there was a discussion there regarding placement of succession boxes for songs, where more than one version reaches number one. Notification on the WikiProject talk pages for songs and albums may be in order as well to gather consensus. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Wolfer for an excellent suggestion. An "INVITATION to discussion regarding the use of Succession boxes at Wikipedia talk page for record charts" has been extended on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs pages.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I support removing succession boxes, but I think we ought to indicate how a user can navigate to a list that includes the current song/album. So, for example, if a particular song topped a particular chart in 1980, there ought to be a link to the list of other songs that topped that chart for that particular year. Perhaps the target list will cover more than that year; that's OK. The intent is to put the song in context of the other songs (or albums) that were popular at that time, but not limited to the entries immediately before and after it. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe a "see also" section would call for that, which should contain a link to, for example, list of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1980 (U.S.) (assuming it exists). In fact, I think that's a great idea, instead of including those cluttering succession boxes. — ξ^xplicit 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support removing per Explicit's suggestion. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What about songs like "Poker Face" that were number one in many countries, that would be a very long "see also" section, list of number-one singles in the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden, etc. And also what happend with songs that were number one by two different artists, for example "Venus" topped the Hot 100 in 1970, and was another number one song in 1986, this time covered by Bananarama. The "see also" for this song would be even longer. I don't think "see also" sections would make any difference, perhaps a limit should be placed to the succession boxes to avoid things like this or this, only for the biggest markets, with priority for the English-speaking countries since this is the English Wikipedia.

I see your point. Hmm. Sometimes it seems as if we need two policies for everything on Wikipedia; one of the normal articles and one of the articles on overly popular things. They're two completely different things to control. Anyways. I think one of the first things we should be thinking about before this is anywhere near implemented, we need to go through each page with a box and add and cite the chart in a table or the prose. A lot of singles pages particularly were created simply so these boxes could exist non-interrupted. kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I remove chart success boxes from articles for a number of reasons. One, it's chart trajectory, and that should only be dealt with in the prose if there are enough sources making noise about it. Two, the information contained in the boxes is often unsourced (particularly the dates) and relies on other Wiki articles to determine what came before and after the article topic on the charts. Three, it gives undue weight to the number one position. Yes, being number one on the charts typically means you're the best selling artist that week, but there no reason you couldn't make succession boxes for acts who made it to number two, or even number 67. It's the same reason we have a guideline saying not to put the number on in bold in discography pages, which people used to do all the time. Just like there's no need to navigate between song that reached number 89 on the charts, there's no reason to navigate between songs that reached number one, aside from the assumed "importance" of the placing. Fourth, you often end up with an ungodly amount of succession boxes that do more harm than good to the article layout. Fifth, records that reach the same chart ranking are only related by the number they peaked at; there's no direct connection that would logically require navigation like, say, a succession of records by the same artist. Reaching a certain chart ranking isn't a position, an award, a post, or an honor; it's a number on a chart. Really, they need to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to the "See also" suggestion and to the comments above about popular songs that hit number one in many countries.

• I like the "See also" suggestion. A list is simpler and has almost no effect on page layout. It represents far less weight than the current succession boxes and given the links are to list pages, there's no particular emphasis on the entries that came just before or just after the subject song or album.
• Clearly, we don't want to have a "See also" section with 50 links to chart lists. On the other hand, we shouldn't strip useful content from an article because there's a lot of it. It's unlikely that hitting number one on many charts is notable enough to include a link to a list. I think we ought to be careful about creating overly-specific rules about which charts to list; there may well be cases where a song hitting number one in a small, non-English market is notable for some reason.

I am a strong supporter of removing the succession boxes. I like the idea of adding "See also" entries, but it's not critical. One could certainly argue that unless the prose mentions something about the chart—what type of songs were popular at the time, unusual sequences of number ones, etc.—then the link is unnecessary. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For those truly interested, they would simply click on the link to the chart article from the chart table. The articles on each chart typically have a see also section to a "list of number ones". This really should be enough for someone curious on the topic. Chart researchers/fanatics would more than likely go from the chart lists to the individual songs rather than the other way around. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure we should have pages that list releases that have hit number one on a particular chart, for part of the same reason I feel we need to do away with the succession boxes. But that might be best left to another discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to give another view, I don't support this at all. The succession boxes are great and give an idea of a songs place in history through previous and subsequent number 1s, encourage editors to create articles for number 1 songs that don't exist yet and aid navigation, encouraging readers to dig deeper into Wikipedia in the same way that wikilinks do. Cavie78 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support a rule mandating the removal of succession boxes from all album/song articles. The need to switch from one number-one song/album article to another can be covered by articles such as List of number-one albums of 1984 (U.S.).—indopug (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cavie: I think this is particularly interesting in the case of songs which have been #1 hits more than once, to give an added sense of historical context. One good thing about the succession boxes is that if you're not interested in that information, it's very easy to ignore (which wouldn't be the case if one had to wade through it in the article prose). I don't think that an established practice should be forbidden just because it's unnecessary or because this usage of succession boxes differs from their original purpose. Policies are generally supposed to document accepted practice rather than dictate it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With or without succession boxes, what the previous and subsequent singles are would/do not have to be included in the prose, unless otherwise notable. I do believe there is historical context to the boxes in terms of relating the #1 chart achievement. If they are kept, there needs to be far better guidelines set up. There are numerous issues on how they are being maintained. Plus they should be collapsible (see Boom Boom Pow for an example). All that being said, overall opinion (as opposed to consensus) favors their removal. How does one determine when consensus is reached and how is that implemented afterwards? Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I could support the collapsible version as it does not clutter the page. However the example of Boom Boom Pow titles it "Achievements". I say it should be titled, "Chart procession and succession" so that readers will know the type of content and not think that it lists Grammy awards, etc.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They are so HUGE. Is this really necessary for an encyclopedia? When I first seen one, I was like "What IS this". I could barely comprehend the "data" it was trying to relay. This article for example, the whole bottom of the article is nothing but tables. Five to be exact, on top of one another. What about people on mobile devices? I guess the other tables are another story, as I think they should be in prose. I'm not sure if the "chart procession and succession" is a table or a template. If the later, it should be taken to TfD, IMO. If all else fails, at least have an option to collapse the table. —Mike Allen 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the 'mystery writer' above. Your first whole line is how these things struck me also. I'd rather the default be the "chart procession and succession" display as collapsed with an option to [show].—Iknow23 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I forget to sign my name when I'm in a hurry. :( —Mike Allen

No problem, I knew who it was as it shows in my watchlist, but didn't want to tell it in case you wanted to remain anonymous :)—Iknow23 (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I couldn't get the template header to say, "Chart procession and succession" but I found a better template match and applied it at the example we have been discussing, "Boom Boom Pow". It is the template that displays the header "Order of precedence" Template:S-prec. "This template creates a header to be used with succession boxes for orders of precedence..."
Precedence! ha what could be more appropriate.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And see Order of precedence, "An order of precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of items."—Iknow23 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be a lot better. I was thinking that such a chart should be at the very bottom of the article. —Mike Allen 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really pay them any attention other then they are an annoyance (my personal opinion), but my peripheral vision usually notes that they are at the bottom of the text. I wouldn't dispute if anyone put the 'lil' collapsed header above the ref section. I mean either directly above the navbox or the ref section would be fine with me.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New chart in Finland

The Finnish chart has changed in 2010. YLE will no longer publish it. Instead, it is published by IFPI at http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/. They only have the album, mid-price and DVD charts at this point but they will also publish a singles chart. The complete charts can be seen by clicking "Näytä koko lista". YuckieDuck (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Video chart positions in prose

I am wondering if I could get some third party opinions/discussion on some video chart positions in a prose section of an article that I and another editor are having? The particular article is Kellie Pickler and this is the last edit where User:CloversMallRat added back the information about the video charts, [4].

I am against using this information because they are unofficial charts per this guideline and unreferenced material. CloversMallRat thinks the information is okay since it is not listed in a table and this guideline is only for chart information in tables. I think the first sentence of the guideline, "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles.", applies since a singer's article is a music-related article. I also feel this information could easily be challenged since there is no reference to the chart positions.

I appreciate any and all responses to my inquiry. Thank you, Aspects (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that they definitely don't belong in chart tables (which is the main idea of these guidelines), but I think they are valid enough to warrant mentions in the article. Not really much different than mentioning a win in a fan-voted awards ceremony, or a placement on a country music website's 'Best of this Year' and such. In this particular case its a Top 50 Videos of 2009, in which she placed two songs on, so I think its a nice accomplishment that might not be really vital to anything, but it doesn't detract from the article at all. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with GAC, but if it is notable within the genre I would accept it. However even then (as with any material) it would still require proper sourcing with reference as "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."—Iknow23 (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The other mainstream country music channel, CMT, has an actual fan-voted music video awards show. While the channel in question doesn't quite take it to that level, there's nothing inappropriate about its mention in the article. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aspect, that the guideline is not only for tables but for the body of the article as well. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Individual network countdown charts are not acceptable in either charts or prose, and this guideline most certainly includes prose.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is all about the guidelines for what does and doesn't belong in song's chart tables, but it doesn't mention anything about the actual article itself. CloversMallRat (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. This guideline is about how to handle record charts. It spends a lot of time on the chart format, but it applies to the prose as well.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing on this page that specifically points to guidelines on the prose, only chart tables. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read more closely. It contains such statements as "Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text when there is sufficient reason to do so (for example, a song debuted at number 100, became a sleeper hit and peaked at number 1). Key facts, some examples being the debut position, number of weeks spent at peak position, and/or number of weeks in total on the Chart may be mentioned within the article text." The guidelines about not using information from WP:BADCHARTS are certainly enforced throughout the article, and that extends to single retailer charts such as iTunes and Amazon. The chart you are attempting to add is an individual network countdown: completely unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Emancipation of Mimi

In France the album is listed as certified Gold (sales certified 100,000 units) Yet on the IFPI certification thresholds Platinum is listed as 100,000 for France, has the certification levels changed for France since 2005? Jayy008 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the certification levels changed for France in July 2006, then in June 2009. See Disque d'or and SNEP site. -- Europe22 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Question: When certification thresholds change, you MUST keep it at the level it originally obtained? Yes? In other words, do not change it to reflect a new threshold that is applied LATER.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances where the threshold changes you must keep the album's certificate at the original level. By tradition (see Whitney discography) one should note next to the certificate "old criteria" or something along those lines. Because at the end of the day at the said period of time in quest the album was certified. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. I really like that. I do not support changing the cert, but can appreciate the noting of "old criteria". By the way (as it is possible) are you aware of any instance(s) wherein the cert levels where changed to make them harder to achieve? It seems to me that they are changed to make it easier.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Finnish sales

this link is the Finnish certification for Mariah Carey's "Music Box" the numbers next to it, do they represent sales? I tried an online translation but the word wasn't in their dictionary that describes the column where these sales are. Jayy008 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Google Translate:

Artist, album, record company, year
Mariah Carey
Music Box
Sony
1993
"Total Sales 47,382" "1994 Music recording sales certification" but it doesn't say what certification level it achieved as far as I can tell. But you can look that up based upon the Sales figures, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It says the certification next to the year "Kultalevy" when translated says "Gold" maybe the certification levels have changed in Finland since 1994 because now 47,382 would be Platinum. Anyway thank you for your help, I will use Google Translation from now on. Jayy008 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha another chance to ask my question from above. 'Hmmm. Question: When certification thresholds change, you MUST keep it at the level it originally obtained? Yes? In other words, do not change it to reflect a new threshold that is applied LATER.'—Iknow23 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good question. However, I will object strongly to it being implemented. Back then as the certification levels were much higher, it was harder for an artist to reach. Once the certification is given, the provider doesn't change it so I don't think we should change it on Wikipedia. I'm finding this very difficult to explain, I hope you know what I mean lol. Jayy008 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Sorry I never saw your question from above! Jayy008 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand. If so, I agree that we should not change the certification level given out based upon later changes to the levels. Thus Music Box will remain at "Gold".—Iknow23 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Jayy008 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So now all you need to do is to add the Finland certification with ref to Music Box :)—Iknow23 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I had done it already lol Jayy008 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have said to add it to the Music Box listing at Mariah Carey discography page.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it now! Jayy008 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)