Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steve.hawtin (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 30 December 2010 (→The World's Music Charts TsorT.info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia's styleguides are currently being audited by the Wikipedia Styleguide Taskforce. The aim is to make improvements in the prose, formatting, structure and—critically—the relationships between similar styleguides. The results of the audit will be reported at the talk page of the main MoS styleguide

The auditor assigned to this page is Jubileeclipman. The Taskforce welcomes participation by and comments from all interested editors.

WikiProject iconRecord Charts NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Italian Albums Chart

In the few days, i re-examined the criteria of the two Italian albums charts: FIMI and Musica e Dischi. I discovered that at least until the early 2009, Musica e Dischi covered more point of sales than FIMI.

I think that at least until early/mid 2009 we would include it in the table of the reliable charts (for the albums).

I don't know for the singles, i know that's used by MTV Italy and includes physical and digital singles, but physical singles sales are very poor and FIMI covers more digital stores than Musica e Dischi. Maybe before 2008 could be used because FIMI considered the Physical Chart the main singles chart and Musica e Dischi from 2006 used also the download in its single chart. At the moment, i haven't got sufficient material for to affirm what of the both singles charts covers more point of sales before 2008. SJ (talk) 1:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should do a new source page like for Japan. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(record_charts)/sourcing_guide/Japan

SJ (talk) 0:15, 09 September 2010 (UTC)

#1 Latin singles categories

Hello, I just some consensus on whether it's okay or not to do this. Would it be okay to include categories on singles that reach #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay, Regional Mexican Airplay, Latin Tropical Airplay? Not all that songs that reach #1 on one of these charts also reach #1 on the Hot Latin Songs. Take Mientes for example. It spent 10 weeks #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay chart but only reached #4 on the Hot Latin Songs chart. Corazón Sin Cara was #1 on the Latin Tropical Airplay and reach #4 on the Hot Latin Songs chart. For covers, the Spanish version of All by Myself by Celine Dion reach #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay chart and La India's cover of Stupida (Alessandra Amoroso song) reach #1 on the Latin Tropical Airplay. So what do you think? Magiciandude (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always thought that having categories for #1 single on each chart was a good idea, far better than succession charts or list articles.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, why is the "Tropical Songs" listed under if the song has charted on the Hot 100? It's the same chart as the Latin Tropical Airplay. And to do about "if the song has not charted on the Hot Latin Songs" rule? Just about every Latin song charts on the Hot Latin Songs. Magiciandude (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should a change to the "if the song has not charted Latin Songs" to "if it has only charted on the Latin Songs". It doesn't make to sense to have only a Latin chart and ignore the other charts (Latin pop, Tropical, Regional Mexican). Billboard hands out the best performing singles each year for these charts. In addition, the Billboard Latin Music Awards has a "Hot Latin Track" for each of these categories. But if these charts are not mentioned and wins one of these awards, how would it make sense to viewers? The reason I say only on Latin charts, is because I understand that there are songs that #1 on Latin songs and topped other charts in parts of the world. Take "Loca" by Shakira. It has charted #1 on Latin songs, but it has also charted #1 on various countries, in which I can see why the Latin Pop, Tropical, and Regional Mexican would not be significant. Magiciandude (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Use of succession boxes

Succession boxes have been added over the past few years to albums and songs that have reached #1 on music charts from various countries as well as the many Billboard charts to display the succession of these #1s. 3, possibly 4, charts have a complete or near-complete succession listing on song articles over their chart history. However, their use for most other charts is inconsistent at best. Some songs have them for a specific chart while others from the same chart don't, or a song that reached #1 on 5 charts has succession boxes for 2 of them. The style of their use also varies from article to article. Over the past year, there has been sentiment to remove them, or at least to come up with some standardization for them, as evidenced by a history of discussions on this talk page, WT:ALBUMS and WT:SONGS. A summary of the known history can be found at WT:CHARTS/Archive 11 - Section 9 with the latest proposal in section 20 of the same archived page. Consensus on their full and consistent use (or use at all) is at a stalemate. For the most part, most wikipedians probably don't care whether they are there or not. There are editors though who like them and want to see them and other editors who would rather see them gone. Do they aid in navigation, that is, do they do what succession boxes are intended to do or do they violate policy such as WP:IINFO? In the end though, can it be determined whether they should be used for all music charts, select charts, or not used at all, and can policy be enacted and added to WP:CHARTS and/or WP:MOSMUSIC, and noted on project pages WP:ALBUMS, WP:SONGS and even WP:SBS? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removal, I am of the same opinion as the nominating editor. Succession boxes can get extremely messy when popular songs are massively consumed with a length list of boxes. Though others have argued that the boxes can be collapsed etc. I dont believe they have a rightful place in articles. I support the notion that a list of 'See Also' links better represents the information. Either way the fact that there is not a common usage method and that they add unnecessary size to an article when the list presents the information in a better and more efficient way. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have never used them to navigate from article to article, but I'm sure someone out there has, or else they would never have been added in the first place. Thanks for inviting me to give my two cents, but I have a pretty marginal opinion on this matter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm certain that viewers find them helpful for navigation, and if there is a large amount of them on articles then they can just be collapsed. Nowyouseemetalk2me 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Justin and Nowyouseeme. Caden cool 00:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is good for navigation. I don't understand how its not helpful to have the songs in succession rather than having a "See also" section clicking on the page that would show it to you. Same difference. As for it being lengthy, I say just put it in a collapsed box. But what we do need is a consensus on the charts to put them on. Like US component charts shouldn't be allowed in there, and you see alot of them in the successions. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I find the "See also" sections to be unattractive, visually I think the boxes are more appealing; the boxes are just a faster and more convenient way of giving you what the links in the "See also" section give. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I find the succession boxes very useful for navigating a list of No. 1s, usually the UK series which seems pretty complete. With regard to the UK series, it would take a lot of work to remove them all (and destroy a lot of existing work in the process) and I don't see listing them in 'See Also' as a good alternative. What happens to the date information in such a scenario? The pages with long lists (where a song has been number one in many countries) seem mainly to have been moved to a collapsed box anyway. A template could help with standardising the styling more, if necessary. Gnu andrew (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I personally find them to be useful. I think they're beneficial to have more than they are a detriment to articles in any way. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and encourage consistent use. I think there are some ways these can be improved (for example, using optional collapsing when there are more than 3 of them to avoid overwhelming a section), but removing them is not the answer to concerns about their implementation. They provide valuable context. 28bytes (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove (as the last couple of times this has come around) as unattractive tables of dubious usefulness. They:
    1. take up a bunch of space, although they can be collapsed for those users with JS turned on, if we remember to add the collapsibility;
    2. place undue emphasis on the number-oneness of songs, since we never show sucession of this week's #3 song on such-and-such chart after last week's #3;
    3. are almost pure layout tables which exhibit terrible accessibility and violate multiple points of WP:ACCESS, part of the MoS;
    4. are never locally referenced (and depend, like the lede, on having claims referenced in the body of the article);
    5. very often have the chart dates wrong (and since these are not only never referenced inline but are usually not even mentioned in the article, are totally unverifiable);
    6. are an abuse of navigation templates meant for something else entirely: office-holders and members of royalty.
It happens that I personally never use these things (except occasionally to try to check the veracity of the table's claims), so this will seem like a case of I DON'T LIKE IT. However, the ugliness of bulk I perceive can be largely hidden with JS collapsing, but the ugliness of unverifiability can't be fixed with the succession boxes as currently implemented. I guess I'm swimming against the current here but the use of these tables needs to be either fixed or stopped, IMHO. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove They generally fail to be navigation boxes, as most international charts have frequent entries that never have and never will have a Wikipedia article. That means those charts have to be excluded from the succession list (which are navigation boxes, not informational items), which then creates a bias in favor of the English language charts.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. There are a few main issues. Firstly, if we are making succession boxes for albums and songs that reach number one on charts, there's no reason that there shouldn't be succession boxes for reaching number two, or ten, or 435. Reaching number one is no more notable than reaching any of those other placements. Naturally, if we were including succession boxes for all chart peaks, things would get ridiculous pretty fast (they already create an insane amount of clutter for huge worldwide hits). Another issue is that much of the information is uncited. Rarely if ever is it indicated in an article which recording preceeded the subject at number one, which succeeded it, and how long the subject maintained that peak. This information must be sourced, particularly in Featured Articles. I for one remove boxes immediately if the data contained within is unsourced. Thirdly, reaching number one on a chart isn't a post or title; there's no true succession involved like, say, with presidents, kings, or other office holders, the type of thing the succession boxes were actually designed for. Fourthly, it's not all that useful as a navigational aid, given you are only linking articles on the basis that they attained the same number on a chart; the association is trivial. Finally, linking to an article titled "Songs which reached number one on insert-national-charts here" in a "See also" is a far more straightforward and less cumbersome solution if someone is really interested in reading up on chart peaks.. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people were adding #2, #10 and #435 succession boxes to articles, I'd be right there with you removing them, but fortunately no one in the history of the universe has proposed doing such a thing. I could not disagree more strongly with the statement "Reaching number one is no more notable than reaching any of those other placements." Whatever the faults of the #1 succession boxes, the idea that they would inevitability lead to succession boxes for every possible chart position is probably the least compelling reason I've read for removing them. The argument that they're often (almost always?) unsourced is compelling, I think, but why not just require they be sourced? 28bytes (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument isn't that "they would inevitability lead to succession boxes for every possible chart position", it's that logically if we are including succession boxes for songs that reached number one, we should be doing so for all chart positions. It should be all or nothing. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've never found these useful myself, and I would have thought that any chart should have separate articles listing number ones (which of course are more 'notable' than other chart positions). If they are kept they should be collapsed by default. I'd like to see more evidence of their usefulness before supporting keeping them.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it will be tough to provide evidence of their usefulness, but speaking as a reader, I find they provide useful context, especially in regards to older songs. When I'm reading about a song that was (for example) a number one rock hit in 1982, I like seeing the song that preceded and succeeded the song as number one on that chart, and I almost always click on one or the other to refresh my memory of the song (if I'm familiar with it) or learn about it (if I'm not.) I've re-familiarized myself with songs I'd forgotten about this way. As a bonus, if the previous or next song is a redlink or redirect to an album, I dig around, find some sources, and create an article for it. This provides a great way of filling in the gaps of notable songs that don't yet have articles. I'd be much less likely to click on a "see also" list than an actual song title. If nothing else, these succession boxes are a tool to encourage people to build the encyclopedia. 28bytes (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd be in favour of keeping the succession boxes as long as they're cited. I don't buy some of the other criticism: I'm afraid I have to disagree with Wes, reaching number 1 is seen as a massive achievement even today, at least in the UK and, given that this is the English language Wikipedia, I don't see any reason why there should be a problem with chiefly covering English language charts. Cavie78 (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number two is nothing to sneeze at either; Pearl Jam's Ten peaked at number two for much of 1992. Hell, reaching the top 40 of a record chart is often seen as noteworthy in of itself. The situation would be different if there was an actual title to accompany being number one (since the succession boxes are intended for titles and offices), but there isn't. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I think both JfP and Wesley summed things up very well. What started out as a nice addition to a few song articles (and the concept of these are more of a "looks good on paper" scenario) has turned into somewhat of a mess. They're really just not needed and it drives me crazy to see incorrect dates, or worse, the dreaded "first-run", "second-run" disaster when a song will drop-then-return to number one. A nice idea gone bad, I think. Time to nuke 'em. - eo (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I completely agree with everything Lil-unique1 said. When a song like "Bleeding Love" has been number one on 18 charts, it's just a hideous mess. The see also links are much better and that's what see also sections are actually for. If I wanted to know what number one song came next, I'd probably want to know the whole year of number ones, so I'd look at the list of number ones. AnemoneProjectors 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Inconsistently used, biased, no added value. Get rid of them. – IbLeo(talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I also find these very helpful and are easy to navigate from one page to another. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 17:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These are very useful to navigate through other articles. I don't see why this needs to be a big problem. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove How do these not violate WP:NPOV? They give undue weight to the fact they reached #1 on some charts. These articles will most likely have a chart section and/or table which summarizes all of its peak chart positions, but the succession boxes disproportionately hightlight on what charts it hit #1. More NPOV exists when editors want to see the succession of #1s for the chart they are interested in and ignoring other charts on which a song/album was #1. Speaking to the matter brought up by WesleyDodds, regardless of whether someone would ever do it, those who favor these succession boxes could not argue against them if they were to be done for songs/albums peaking at #2 or #3 because, again, that would violate NPOV. I would find them just as useful to navigate through; I would even find it useful if there were a section for "songs that charted at the same time", but it would be irrelevant to the article, as is linking to two other songs that just happened to reach #1 on the same chart. Is being #1 more notable than being #23? No, unless you think "Stuck with You" is more notable than "Born to Run". Then there is no need to further highlight its ranking then to just state it within the article.
Which takes me to another point. Being #1 is based entirely on a ranking. Objective as it may be, that's all it is. Succession boxes were designed for titles and honors and have been extended to awards. Titles, honors, and awards are typically given once a year and often quite longer, making the management of such successions much more reasonable and manageable than multiple music charts that come out once a week. No one would argue for the top-rated television shows or the top-grossing movies of each week to have succession boxes, yet these are just as sourceable, and I'm sure I would find the information just as useful.
I make no mention of "see also" sections providing lists to the charts a song/album reached #1 as this is not either/or argument (although such a list can be collapsed, too). The succession boxes should be gone regardless of any alternative. And what good are they if articles such as Thriller (album) and Nevermind don't have them. Is policy going to be set that they have to be on such articles, because, if not, the value of the boxes is lost right there. It really has to be all or nothing. For those who think it would be too much of a job to remove them all, I am your volunteer. :) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment in my opinion they violate WP:NPOV in the same way that making number one chart listings bold violates WP:NPOV. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to judge whether they violate NPOV is to look at what the reliable sources say. Do the reliable sources consider the #1 spot "special" in some way? Yes, they do. Sources like this devote entire sections to the #1 succession chronology. Do they devote similar sections to #2 hits? No, they do not. We should reflect what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources say that yes, there is something more notable about the #1 spot than all the others. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not succession, that's a chronology. Available in the same way on Wikipedia as lists such as List of number-one mainstream rock hits (United States). Same info and just as succinct, rather than providing the undue weight on individual articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a day and age when songs from an album can chart without recieving official release our 'navigational aids' simply provide another way for users to mention how fantastic it is that a song reached number one on xyz charts. If someone wishes to make edits to a series of articles because they're number one singles then go to pages like List of number-one mainstream rock hits (United States) and navigate from there. But the assertion that somehow they aid navigation without breaking WP:NPOV or cause other issues is incorrect. A lot of people have spoken about how ... "it doesn't matter as you can collapse them" well it does matter because it still adds unnecessary size to a page and can increase loading time. Succession boxes were originally designed for lineage. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remember how people used to bold the number one on discography charts, until we stopped the practice because it placed undue weight on the position? I feel the same principle applies here. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per JohnFromPinckney. --Kleinzach 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't yet read an argument here that doesn't either have a simple technical solution or isn't flawed. The idea that a No. 1 isn't more notable than a No. 2 is bizarre. For the UK, number ones are commonly cited (especially Christmas ones) while the No. 2 slot is usually only mentioned in reference to very popular songs that only ever made No. 2 and not No. 1 (e.g. "Last Christmas" by Wham!). I believe such lists are notable. There is probably a case for more obscure charts not being notable and I wouldn't object to a white-list of charts that are listed by succession being established, perhaps using those that have clear references like the UK No. 1 list from the Official Chart Company. You also shouldn't forget that this survey is only taking the narrow view of a few editors, and not of the vastly larger number of casual Wikipedia browsers who may find this useful. I say this because I only stumbled across this discussion by chance as I was updating some of the recent UK No. 1 entries and normally I would have been completely oblivious of it, until such a time as someone decided to delete all the boxes and lose that information Gnu andrew (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Of course #1 songs are more notable than lower-peaking singles. We have endless lists and categories of #1 songs and I don't see anybody arguing that they shouldn't exist or place undue weight. What makes them less objectionable? If #2 songs are just as notable, where are their lists and categories after all this time? There aren't any succession boxes for #2 songs, nor should there be. Number 1 is the pinnacle of the chart. I don't even know how succession boxes for #2 songs would work; would it merely be for songs that peaked at #2 or would it include songs that stopped at #2 on their eventual ascension to #1? There's a reason adding succession boxes to #2 songs has never been suggested. All 1,578 songs that reached #1 on Hot Country Songs have articles - and succession boxes, for that matter - but very few songs that peaked outside of the top ten have articles. In fact, many have been deleted or redirected because of their low peak position. I'm one of the users who does use them to navigate through articles and I've always found them to be beneficial. See also sections, in contrast, are a lot less user friendly and require a lot more clicking around for something that has been so easily achieved by navigation boxes for so many years. Many of the gaps Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs) is complaining about were created by their own haphazard removal of succession boxes over the past few months from otherwise complete series. Succession boxes work in conjunction with the aforementioned lists and categories and should be left alone. Eric444 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, none of my examples are ones I touched. Gaps have existed long before that. Also, people have "complained" about categories for #1 albums, as they have been defeated in CFD (see WP:CFD/2006 July 15) in favor of the lists that exist. It would be easy to create lists of #2s, based on the sources used for your #1 lists for country songs. And I also don't buy your argument that, using the Hot 100 as an example, every #1 song is more notable than any song by Bruce Springsteen, Journey, and Creedence Clearwater Revival. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying every #1 song is more notable than every song that didn't hit #1, any more than they are saying that Millard Fillmore, who has several succession boxes, is more notable than Jesus, who does not have any. The succession boxes aren't "prizes" for being super-notable, they're simply navigational and informational tools. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what Gnu andrew ("The idea that a No. 1 isn't more notable than a No. 2 is bizarre") and Eric444 ("Of course #1 songs are more notable than lower-peaking singles") said. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reaching number one is a more notable achievement than reaching number two, by definition. That doesn't mean that's the only thing that determines a song's notability, as the Springsteen and CCR examples you provide illustrate. 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does reaching number one necessitate navigational templates more than any other number, though? It doesn't. There's also the issue that the templates aren't being used correctly. As others have pointed out, these templates are intended for offices and titles. You can't abdicate a chart placing. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the current number one on a chart is not the incumbent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I know, you can't "abdicate" winning the Super Bowl either, but somehow the NFL articles have managed to include succession boxes without a problem. I have no idea where the idea came from that only royalty could use these, but it's sure an odd one, and one quite out of touch with how succession boxes are actually used across the project. 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is that on the Superbowl articles, they actually serve as a navigation box: every Superbowl article but the first has a predecessor that actually has an article, and every Superbowl but the last has a successor that actually has an article. On singles, it's a random mish-mash of multiple successors and predecessors that sometimes have articles and sometimes don't. Because of that, they completely fail as navigation boxes.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are for the song/album that is the subject of the article, but not for the preceding and succeeding song/album.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also not unusual to have no information about when the subject recording hit #1 on the chart, and it's typically the case that no referenced info as to the last chart date at #1 is provided. In summary, we don't know most of the info usually presented in the succession boxes. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the reference to the chart peak itself, references would have to be included for each preceding/succeeding song/album (and not that it was #1 but that it was the #1 before/after the subject article), in which case we're adding sources to show that a completely unrelated article was #1 and when it was #1. As is, sources will also be required for each and every week that the song/album was at #1 for each and every chart it reached #1. This borders on being a chart trajectory, which as stated should be included within the text of the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have used these all the time and find them increadibly useful and even fun (I know I'm weird) to navigate. I would be very disapointed if they were removed. I even once spent hours adding the boxes to the songs that reached number 1 on the Alternative songs chart. Sbrianhicks (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per JohnFromPinckney. I do not believe that it is appropriate per WP:WEIGHT to provide such disproportionate focus on being #1 in a chart, rather than, say, in the top 10. Even if there was consensus on such a narrow focus, these boxes are an illustration of how an apparently good ideas doesn't scale. Succession boxes work well for a limited number of series such as I Will Always Love You are so massively cluttersome that they overwhelm the article, and introduce a lot of unsourced assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I observe that most of the keep !votes here are proclamations of "I find it useful", and none seem to have addressed the fact that these uncited boxes violate WP:V, one of our central policies.—indopug (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I have to disagree with that observation. I'm in favor of keeping these and I've certainly not objected to stricter sourcing requirements. (Indeed, I proposed exactly that.) For a recent example of this in action, see the history of Hungry Like the Wolf. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars added a [citation needed] tag, I sourced it, problem solved. 28bytes (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • His comment was principally addressing editors who did not elaborate on their comments. In regards to your statement, the verifiability issue is only one aspect of the problems with the boxes, as I and others have raised. Furthermore, the boxes in "Hungry Like the Wolf" still don't verify the accuracy of the preceeding and succeeding chart-toppers. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source I added does indeed verify the accuracy of the preceding and succeeding chart-toppers; the book referenced is available online via the Google books link if you would like to confirm this yourself. 28bytes (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those books confirm the order which is a valuable resource to the lists of number ones that already exist on wikipedia. However, Whitburn's books do not relate the songs in any way to each other, as ending up being implied by including the links within the article. Can I use Fred Bronson's book of #1 hot 100 hits to source what the top 5 was when a song reached #1 within the article for that song? That's what it does and I'd find that info useful. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I've never seen a sucession box sourced and often I find inconsistencies in listing them between the chart peaks section and the succession boxes (sometimes it only shows up in the chart peaks section, sometimes just the succession). Additionally, what is the encyclopedic value of showing which song was number one before and after it? If someone wanted to know, they could look at a page like List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (U.S.). This is just one of those things that has gone on for so long that people expect it. It doesn't really add anything to the article. Grk1011 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Digital Chart

Would DigiListan be an acceptable chart for Swedish digital sales? According to the article, it gets its information from Nielsen. [1]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people agree it's acceptable, I'll add an option to {{singlechart}}, as it has an easily generated link structure. My only concern is whether it is a download chart or a ringtone chart. Can you find anything that specifies which one it is?—Kww(talk) 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the description on the page: "The list shows Sweden's most downloaded songs from the past week. DigiListan is based on sales to computers, mobile phones and media players and compiled by Nielsen SoundScan." Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Combined ringtone/download. I'll wait a few days and see if anyone objects too strongly.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that's ringtones and not digital mp3 sales via mobile phones? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not.—Kww(talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, i've had a poke about the website but cant see much clarification. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions sales to phones, but doesn't actually say ringtones specifically. I'm inclined to believe that they are full song downloads. What would be the issue if if was ringtones though? Grk1011 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Music Charts TsorT.info

Apologies if this was discussed before, but what's the standing of The World's Music Charts? --Muhandes (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of the site before, so I went and had a look.
Seems to be of little usefulness to us on WP, although a search for "tsort.info" shows it mentioned on quite a few article pages (not that that's necessarily a good thing).
At least one user, Abrazame, has some strong feelings against citing TsorT.info in WP.
To clarify that he objected to quoting sales information (which is a valid concern and quite different from quoting chart positions) Steve.hawtin (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site appears to be run mostly by Some Guy, who has also edited WP. He had some COI trouble because of some of his additions here but came to clearly understand the problem.
The site gets its info from several sources, not all of them reliable. They include AOL user pages, Geocities user pages, and for Billboard results, a site called Bullfrog's Pond, run by Some Other Guy. The collection of data is haphazard at best, from a variety of sources both notable and non-notable, and doesn't purport to include the latest data. Wikipedia is used as one of the sources. Read through http://tsort.info/music/charts.htm#us_billboard for some insight as to the data collected and whence it's gathered.
All this is not to say that the site has no use. As an individual, you may find it interesting. It may be of some use in locating info from older recordings. (And again, I see that it's pointed to by some WP articles.) However, I did not find a useful search mechanism. I don't consider it a useful replacement for, say, Billboard itself, and the unique rankings it provides are not notable enough or reliable enough for us to cite here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also includes known bad charts, such as hot100brasil.com, single network charts like www.polskieradio.pl, and worse yet, Claims of the total worldwide sales for single reported on Wikipedia. Completely unusable.—Kww(talk)

World sales are totally useless I agree, but my question was focused at using it as a source for record charts and chart performance sections. I saw quite a number of articles (some examples) using it as s single source for the entire table of record charts. Is there consensus for adding it to WP:BADCHARTS? --Muhandes (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly agree adding this url to WP:BADCHARTS. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems like it belongs on WP:Record charts#Websites to avoid.—Kww(talk) 07:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it then, and I guess if someone objects they can voice their opinion here. --Muhandes (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the guys that administers the site I think it is unfair to add it to this list. Abrazame's issue was about citing our sales figures (not chart positions), and we agreed with him (see the discussion). On our site we specifically state that our estimates of sales are "Not to be trusted" at the top of the one page that mentions them. Kww failed to point out that our source description he quoted goes on to say "As an example quoting ...these... figures in a Wikipedia article would be wrong". And we are aware that some of our sources are not "notable" (but only for locations or periods that have no better sources of data). Anyone that looks will see that all these cautions are explained in detail on our site. Within the constraints of available chart data our listing is (we believe) a valuable, valid and accurate source of chart information. Like all sources of music charts it should be used with some caution but placing it on this list implies that it is BAD (which it isn't) Steve.hawtin (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see this site as bad at all, all the charts look accurate, the ones i've come across are 100% accurate. The site also states that the Brazil charts looks unofficial but is the only one that can be found so it is a warning for readers. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the charts listed are single network charts and are unacceptable for use. Additionally, so far as I can tell, the site isn't licensed to reproduce any of the information at all: it's taking information from licensed sites. Any of the information that is good can be derived from a licensed source, and the rest of it shouldn't be used. There's no benefit to using this as a source whatsoever.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your licensing comment is irrelevant, where is Wikipedia's license to quote from Billboard? Some Wikipedia pages quote 100% of particular Billboard's charts, we ensure that our summary is both innovative (by consolidating more than 100 sources) and a summary (by only incorporating up to 40% of any single major chart such as Billboard's). But the question is not "is this site licensed?", because under "Fair Use" neither Wikipedia nor our site needs a license.
The question is is the site bad? If you see no personal benefit then you shouldn't use it, but clearly other people have found it to be valuable in the past. I agree that where possible any editor should link to the original source, but its not always available, it is certainly not true that all the information that is good can be derived from a licensed source. Even when all the links can be resolved to alternate sources I would claim that also including a link to our site would make the completed article more valuable to the users (but of course I understand if you don't share that opinion). Of course any new link to inappropriate data, such as sales figures or non-notable charts, should always be removed from Wikipedia, but in the almost two years since Abrazame expressed his concerns those issues have been addressed anyway. Our site contains valuable and accurate data, as Ajsmith141 said our site is *not* BAD, so it shouldn't be on a list of BAD sites. Steve.hawtin (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would remove the single network and amateur sites from your list, I'd reconsider my opinion. The majority of sites listed on your website aren't suitable for use here:
  • Tokyo -- Tokyo Hot 100 listed on WP:BADCHARTS
  • Poland -- Single network chart
  • Belgium -- Single network chart
  • France -- Sourced from charly1300.net, on "Websites to avoid"
  • Germany -- anonymous top 35 chart, no indication of source
  • Flanders -- no indication of source
  • US WABC -- single network chart
  • US ARC -- ARC Top 40 on WP:BADCHARTS
  • Brazil -- hot100brasil on WP:BADCHARTS
  • Osaku -- Single network chart
  • Ceylon -- Single network chart
  • RYM -- blog
  • DDD year -- blog
  • POP year -- blog
  • Scrobulate -- blog
  • DMDB -- blog
  • Vinyl Surrender -- blog
  • NuTsie -- blog
  • MTV Video -- single network chart
  • RIAA -- a poll of politicians?!
  • 2FM -- single network voting chart
  • TOTP -- single network voting chart
  • Australia Oznet -- vague compilation of unspecified stations with unspecified criteria
  • Virgin -- single network
  • WXPN -- single network
  • Global -- Wiki mirror
  • TheQ -- single network
  • Party -- anonymous website, vague criteria
  • D Marsh -- critic pick
  • DZ Entertainment -- critic pick
  • Music Imprint -- critic pick
  • NY Daily -- critic pick
With so much unsuitable material and nothing of value that can't be found elsewhere, there's every reason to recommend that Wikipedia editors not use the site as a source of information.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you failed to find are both clearly listed on our "source charts" page. We think that the fact that we've consolidated Billboard and the UK charts alone delivers great value, other Wikipedia editors seem to agree. The goal of our site is to provide a reasonable listing of popular music, not to act as a Wikipedia source, so we will continue to incorporate charts that you dislike (and to ignore other apparently bad data sources like acharts.us, chart-surfer.de, and top40-charts.com that for some reason you do seem to like). Steve.hawtin (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are allowed in good or featured articles. Top40-charts.com is listed at Websites to Avoid, and is only included in GOODCHARTS because it is so deeply entrenched: editors are advised to remove references to it when found and not to add any new references. I derived my sourcing information straight from your "source charts" page, but I didn't see the lower details. It doesn't change the thrust: the website shouldn't be used to source data on Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 18:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ajsmith141 and Steve.hawtin, no one said TsorT is bad. On the contrary, I sometime use it myself before citing the official licensed source. There is place in the Internet for both. What editors here say is that it cannot be used as a reliable source, as not 100% of the information is reliable. I think the worst part is that some of the numbers used are from Wikipedia itself so by using TsorT we are using ourselves as a source (search http://tsort.info/music/charts.htm for "Wikipedia" to see some examples). As Kww nicely stated, we have official, licensed sources for the reliable charts, and we can't accept the rest of the charts, so we would rather avoid TsorT and used the licensed sources. --Muhandes (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is listed in a section headed "Websites to avoid". I would be happy if there were a new section that said "these sites are OK and contain data that is mostly accurate (as far as we have tested) but because they are not official you should use them to help track down the original source and link to that when you can". Of course then there are other charts listed in the later table that should also have the same designation, but that's a different story. What I don't like is the fact that we are listed as a "website to avoid", along with some sites that actually should be avoided Steve.hawtin (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of compromise how about if we add a new section after "Websites to avoid" called "Chart Websites". With an initial para "These sites contain data that is accurate (as far as has been tested). However they are compiled from both notable and non-notable sources so while they can be helpful to track down original chart sources they should be used with some caution. Where possible articles should link to the original sources and not these web sites" Steve.hawtin (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to mention sites that shouldn't be used for sourcing except to say that they shouldn't be used for sourcing. This isn't a Wikipedia article, it's a guideline for article content, and articles shouldn't include tsort.info as a source.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't think you are being reasonable. The list under "Deprecated charts" is nothing but a list of sites that shouldn't be used for sourcing each one with a short sentence explaining why. tsort.info could be added to that list with a simple sentence explaining why not. You seem to be saying that Tsort is BAD and so should be a "website to avoid" (which, from whats been said I suspect is not the consensus here) Steve.hawtin (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read consensus as very clearly "avoid this website as a source". In fact, your voice, which is in very clear conflict of interest, is the only one supporting it as a source. --Muhandes (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. I'm not supporting it as a source, I'm asking just that it not be labeled as BAD. If the section its included in was called "Good Websites you shouldn't link to" I would have no issue with it (well I would because of some of the other sites in the list really are bad). If the site was listed in the "Deprecated charts" section with a sentence explaining why then I wouldn't have an issue. If there were a new section that explained why these otherwise good sites shouldn't be linked to I would be OK with that. The one thing I think is unfair is inserting it into a list of "Websites to avoid" which any casual reader will misinterpret to mean "Bad Websites" Steve.hawtin (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the comment you've just made. If I saw "website to avoid", it says to me that I should if posssible use an alternative source. But there might be a situation(s) where it could be used with caution. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve.hawtin, the purpose of this list is not to make judgment of websites but to say which ones to use as sources and which not to use. As even you agree it should not be used as a source, any further discussion is futile. --Muhandes (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that by placing the entry where it is you are making a judgment, and there are many alternate ways to have the right impact without being so aggressive Steve.hawtin (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience I thought I'd let you know that the UK end of year charts have appeared. So far only the top-40 is known... thanks to the BBC. I archived the links so they will be permanently available.

See:

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error on UK charts dated 26 December

People may wish to note this article here which notes that The Official Charts Company made some errors in the christmas countdown chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Record_charts&oldid=405053195"