Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

PiffPaff Production Poland and Iceland Islenski Listinn - WP:BADCHARTS?

While busy with a GA review, I came across Piff Paff Production as an Airplay chart for Poland 🇵🇱 but it looked a bit sketchy to me. I couldn't find a clear methodology and a Google search of the name Piff Paff Production takes me to the website of a food company in Poland. If I do a Google translate I find the words "points" and "emissions". Is this a legitimate Airplay chart?

I also came across Islenski Listinn for Iceland which appears to be WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Some feedback would be appreciated? Cool Marc 07:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: I found this article regarding PiF PaF Production... running it through a translator it appears to be a marketing firm monitoring airplay for the benefit of record labels and artist management... nowhere does it give any indication that it's a proper "chart" and I would avoid its use, personally.

Íslenski listinn is a bit more complicated – it does appear to be carried out by one company, but I've seen it listed elsewhere as the accepted Icelandic chart of the time. In general the smaller European markets didn't have official charts until the late 1990s/early 2000s, but there are sources being used for countries' charts before this time, and I would love to know how "official" these are, and how they have been compiled. For instance, there are books published with Spanish and Finnish charts going back to the 1980s, websites for Danish charts before Hitlisten, and this Icelandic chart, which was published in a daily Icelandic newspaper, so it had a wide circulation. Even when the chart appears to be single vendor, it can happen that over time it becomes the official chart of the country retrospectively, simply because it was the most authoritative (or only) option at the time. This has happened in Germany, where the Musikmarkt charts before 1977 are now included on Offizielle Deutsche Charts' website as the official charts of the period, or Ireland, where irishcharts.ie has official singles chart placings back to the 1960s... but as there wasn't a proper Irish chart until the early 1990s, I have no idea where these earlier placings have come from, but apparently they are now official. Even the UK's chart before February 1969 is nothing more than an arbitrary decision made by a book published eight years later to retrospectively choose the chart of one music magazine over three other options. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I actually found a legitimate airplay chart for Poland published weekly in Music & Media whose positions were very different to those of Piff Paff, so I do think it is a dubious chart we should probably list in the guideline as it's starting to pop up everywhere in 1990s/early 2000s songs articles. The Iceland chart appears to be based on popularity from one radio station making it WP:SINGLENETWORK, the said article I found these charts on was "Doesn't Really Matter" released in 2000. Cool Marc 18:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, even though they are published in Music & Media, I wouldn't say that those airplay charts are official. Richard3120 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Music & Media are reliable source though? They were the sister magazine of Billboard. The Poland chart there is compiled by them "based on playlist reports using a weighted scoring system based on audience size". Cool Marc 19:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The publication is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean all the charts in it are necessarily official ones. In the UK Music Week has always included UK airplay charts, but these were mainly aimed at the music industry and were never official charts. Richard3120 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The UK has a singles chart, where Poland doesn't. From what I read on the ZPAV article, Poland has only ever had airplay charts and not a proper singles chart. I assume that based on this it would be fine including it? Cool Marc 10:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true to say that because a country has only ever had an airplay chart, any airplay chart from that country is valid as an official chart. This is why I say that the "official" status of charts in many European countries before the late 1990s really needs investigating. But it's going to need native speakers and people who know about chart histories in those countries. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave the Poland Airplay chart published in M&M in the article then. Cool Marc 17:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: yeah, like I said, this is really part of a wider issue and needs consensus, not just my opinion. I don't have a problem with you leaving it in for now. Richard3120 (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Czech Republic and Slovakia

I know for countries such as the UK, Australia, Germany etc Airplay Charts are omitted when a song already charts on the single charts. Similarly on Template:Singlechart for Finland for example, it says "if the release has charted on the comprehensive chart above (Finnish/Finland), this chart is to be omitted."

My question is now why is this not the same for Czech Republic and Slovakia, why are both Radio Top 100 and Single Top 100 charts included in every song article. If the song appears on the comprehensive Single Top 100 then Radio Top 100 should be omitted and a note about this should be made on Template:Singlechart in line with that of the aforementioned regions. Cool Marc 10:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Pinging editors that have posted here before for feedback @Kww: @Merynancy: @Richard3120: @Ojorojo: @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Cool Marc 08:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree, you do not see the US Radio Songs in chart tables either, and a sales+streams chart is the best indicator of a song's popularity in a country. Since we're discussing CZ/SK charts, I would also like to point out how taking the minor effort to link to a precise record's page in the source (e.g. [1], there's even the full chart run so the peak is clear) would be much better than to just redirect to the general chart's page and make the reader manually go to the chart week in which the record peaked. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

[responding to ping] It should be consistent with the approach taken for other countries and the wording clarified to reflect this. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Merynancy: @Ojorojo: Thank you for the feedback, I have asked at Template:Singlechart for a note to be made regarding this, we should probably also mention it at this guideline for consistency. Cool Marc 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this yet, and I'm not sure the editors who have commented above fully understand or care about this point: Have we proven that similar to other countries, like the US, where airplay contributes to placement on the overall Hot 100, that airplay contributes to the Czech and Slovakian Digital charts? As far as I'm aware, the Czech Republic and Slovakian Digital charts measure digital sales and streams, hence the name "Digital". The charts marked Radio for both countries measure airplay. They would appear to measure two different metrics. In a significant number of other countries, yes, airplay contributes to an overall singles chart, but it would appear the Czech Republic and Slovakia do not have a comprehensive singles chart that airplay contributes to. If the Digital charts are comprehensive, then for sure, a case could be made for excluding the airplay chart where a song has already appeared on the comprehensive chart.

The point being made above is that the Digital chart is comprehensive, whereas from its name it would not appear to be. If you would like to make the case that @Merynancy: did, that sales and streams means airplay statistics from the same country/countries is therefore redundant, that's a different matter. But we can't compare this to Finland, which has a 20-place overall singles chart that (as far as we seem to be aware) airplay contributes to. We should not be omitting charts based on an assumption that a chart explicitly titled the "Digital" chart measures all forms of consumption or impact of songs in a country. Ping @DanTheMusicMan2:, who adds these charts sometimes. Ss112 03:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Most singles charts on Wikipedia and around the world don't include Airplay. Sales and streams reflect true popularity. Like with the UK, Australia, Germany etc it makes no sense to include the Airplay chart when a song has already charted on the Singles chart, especially for such minor markets. We need to be consistent. Cool Marc 08:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

In 2016, the IFPI wrote in its yearly music report that the singles chart in Czech Republic and Slovakia incorporates streaming To date 18 countries - Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA - have integrated streaming into their singles charts Cool Marc 08:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You are still conflating the individual Digital charts of the Czech Republic and Slovakia being the overall "singles chart" of those countries when they're not. I'm aware the chart includes streaming; it's labelled Digital, which would indicate it includes downloads and streams of songs. However, it obviously does not include airplay. I feel like you're trying to make two separate points here; the first was that you seemed to believe the Digital chart is the overall singles chart when it is not and that it includes airplay when it does not, and then when Merynancy suggested that we not include the airplay chart because they consider airplay and the number of times a song has been played on radio "redundant", you are now trying to say we should not include the Radio chart where the Digital chart is present because of that. The first reason is incorrect, and the second reason seems more like a subjective opinion. As far as I'm aware, other countries that have separate airplay charts (like Finland and the US) include those airplay statistics in the configuration of their overall singles charts. The Czech Republic and Slovakia do not have an overall singles chart that airplay already contributes to, so I see no issue in having their digital charts and radio charts both listed when these charts are mutually exclusive for these countries specifically. Ss112 09:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The IFPI called it the singles chart of Czech Republic and Slovakia in its yearly music report I provided above. They said the singles chart includes streaming, thus it is the Single Top 100 and not the Radio Top 100 because that obviously does not include streaming. Why are you claiming that a singles chart needs to include Airplay to be comprehensive when most charts don't include it? Cool Marc 09:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, almost nobody includes airplay in their singles chart. AFAIK, apart the Billboard charts around the world, Belgium, Iceland and a few others, all the other official singles charts are all about sales+streams. For example, Italy does have an official weekly airplay chart, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere here on en.wiki, which correctly uses the sales plus (premium) streaming-only top 100, FIMI's Top Singoli. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter what words the IFPI has used to refer to it as elsewhere—what matters is what the chart website says. It is not referred to there (on ifpicr.cz) as the "Single Top 100", it's marked as the "Singles Digital – Top 100" chart. Obviously the word "digital" is there for a reason—to explicitly mark it as for songs charting digitally and not through any other means, like airplay. Please don't misconstrue what I said—it is quite clear I thought users here believed said Digital chart included airplay statistics. I was not saying myself in those replies that charts need to include airplay to be comprehensive, but that being said, sure, including other forms of music consumption like airplay certainly could be argued to make a singles or songs chart more comprehensive. I see no reason or evidence outside of casual terms used externally to believe the Singles Digital charts for the Czech Republic and Slovakia are intended as the overall singles chart of those countries. It would appear to be presented as just as official and valid in these countries as the airplay chart, and words to the contrary without better evidence are just looking like opinions that "airplay doesn't matter". As no compelling evidence for changing the status quo has been presented, any attempts to change the wording by directly appealing to Template talk:Single chart or expunge the Radio chart where the Digital is present I will continue to disagree with. I'm not particularly interested in back-and-forths about which charts include radio and which don't—I know notable examples do, and others I'm really not so sure about. Ss112 10:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Then why isn't Greece's airplay chart ever used? IFPI Greece publishes the digital SPS top 100 (national and international), and the airplay top 20, yet the latter is never used on en.wiki. Same case as CZ/SK! ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 11:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, The chart's website is published by the IFPI so it does matter. And the IFPI say the singles charts in Czech Republic and Slovakia include streaming, referring to the Single Digital Top 100 and NOT the Radio Top 100. This was also reported by The Music Network here. Do you have a source that supports your argument that this is not the case? Cool Marc 12:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: I did not say or think the IFPI were referring to the Radio Top 100. And yes? Of course they would say the singles chart includes streaming, as they're referring to the "Singles Digital" chart. I'm not denying it's a singles chart: I'm disputing that it's the one main chart. Besides, even if it is the singles chart, this doesn't mean that they can't or don't have two main charts, like a Radio chart that is just as official. Their very limited external use of the term "singles" doesn't mean they don't consider the Radio chart just as official as the "Singles Digital" chart. You're the one seeking a change, thus you should gain official consensus (not responses from editors you pinged, including one who appears to have their own agenda/provided a different reason to yourself to remove said chart, and another who appears disinterested), and you have provided no compelling evidence for this change. I don't need to provide external evidence to retain the status quo—besides, The Music Network is not a Czech site, they would probably have little to no interest in the Czech charts, and what they say really has no bearing on this. I'd also appreciate if you not ping me, as I have watchlisted this page, and I just said I'm not interested in a back-and-forth that you're attempting to encourage. I do not think the Radio chart should be removed in cases where the song has charted on the Singles Digital chart as well, as I see no reason beyond interpretation of the language the IFPI has used on external websites and subjective opinions about airplay being redundant in this case. Thanks. Ss112 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, You have no proof that Czech Republic and Slovakia have "two main charts". The IFPI have not stated this anywhere. As per their report it is the Single Top 100. And besides that, I can't think of one instance where an Airplay chart is considered a country's main chart when a singles chart that includes sales and steams is already present.

It appears your argument is clouded by bias seeing that you are the one adding both Single Top 100 and Radio Top 100 charts on song articles every week. Cool Marc 13:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who adds the chart or who is interested in it, but thanks for your assumption and observation on which charts I do and don't add. The fact that I do add the chart (alongside others like DanTheMusicMan2) doesn't mean I'm particularly worried about it if it is disallowed. It's not a very compelling chart and therefore of no great loss to me, so that's not why I'm disputing this. I just disagree with the poor evidence and confused logic you've provided here. If you want to try and have something removed, you will need more compelling proof and an actual consensus than what you've provided thus far. This is just the latest in a growing list of charts you have attempted to have removed or removed in all but a few instances—I'm starting to think you just like removing charts as something to do, considering that seems to be the main thing you've been doing in the past year from the articles I watch. Ss112 14:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A good point has been brought up here, which I have also noticed before. I see no reason why we should have two charts listed in Chart tables, especially when the one is clearly based solely on airplay. The Single/Digital Chart is superior in this right, as it is based on public consumption. I'm not sure why both are included, perhaps the one preceded the other in some way, but either way, we don't need the Airplay chart. That is like having, for example, the Billboard Hot 100 and the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) chart (which itself acts as a component to the Hot 100). But the point I'm trying to make is, if we include both the Czech/Slovakian Airplay AND Digital chart, then why not the same for other countries that have the same charts? AshMusique (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

AshMusique, it has been pointed out that the US Hot 100 combines airplay, as do several other countries. That's why this is not a great comparison, and why we do not include the US Hot 100 Airplay chart when a song already appeared on the US Hot 100. If you feel airplay is redundant in 2020, that is an opinion, and "I don't think it matters" has never been a compelling reason to remove a chart—I know the radio industry and DJs choosing what listeners hear is probably dying a slow death, but it's obviously still significant enough for chart publishers to publish charts on, so therefore some are still valid for inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps the case could be made for more airplay charts to be deemed valid for inclusion on Wikipedia if the chart publishers of countries publish a separate airplay chart themselves (and not a third-party shady website that has stepped up to do so in the absence of one), and it has been confirmed the official singles charts of those countries do not include airplay statistics. Ss112 14:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is redundant per se, nor did I say it doesn't "mattter". Airplay does have value to a certain degree. Just in this specific case, there should be a singular chart, and clearly streaming and downloads (or the combination of the two) are both higher factors when determining which chart truly reflects what the actual top songs in said country is - since, as I pointed out, it's consumer-based. Not a great example, I should've probably stated it this way, without the inclusion of the Billboard charts: I was moreso referring to countries where they might have two seperate charts listed (especially if its by the same company), one for airplay solely, and another for streams and downloads. And at the end of the day, I think the scope of things are: which chart is actually considered the benchmark of what the top songs in the country are? It can't be either or. AshMusique (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, comment on content and not the contributor and keep your snarky accusations to yourself. You are the only editor who has an issue with this, so please provide a source that claims the Radio Top 100 is one of two main charts in this country. I have provided the IFPI report above and article by The Music Network' both who refer to the Single Top 100 as the single's chart of these regions. The IFPI is not "poor evidence" when they are the publishers of these charts. Cool Marc 16:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc, you started out with the accusations by trying to claim I have a "bias" because I add the chart, so that is entirely hypocritical—take your own advice and keep your accusations to yourself and comment on the content, not the contributor in the first place. Saying "you have a bias" is definitely not talking about content. The IFPI referring to the Czech chart on other non-ifpifcr.cz websites, and The Music Network, which is not a Czech website that would probably have no idea or interest in learning what is/is not an official Czech chart, is poor evidence (especially as "singles chart" may just be shorthand for the "Singles Digital" chart like I said), and regardless, you have tried to throw multiple reasons out to see whatever sticks, so your approach has been entirely messy and confused from the get-go. Bottom line: You don't have consensus to remove or modify uses of the chart. I don't have to provide proof to defend retaining what is when only one person you didn't ping has had an issue; you, however, need consensus. Until you have a formal consensus, I will continue to comment at and refuse attempts to rid articles of this chart by attempts at template talk pages, because I do not agree due to nothing being presented being a compelling enough reason to remove it. Good luck with your crusade to try and rid Wikipedia of more charts. I will not be commenting here again unless there is an attempt at a formal consensus, because this has devolved into pointless arguing back-and-forth, which is what I had already said I did not want. Ss112 22:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, the bottom line is that you have no evidence that the Radio Top 100 is the main chart in these regions. Other editors have agreed with my suggestion and I have provided proof from the IFPI that the Single Digital Top 100 is the singles charts in these regions. You are the only editor with an issue here as per usual. You are not in charge of this guideline either so please stop the attitude that everything must go through you first. I don't think you are behaving in good faith, and you are clearly only objecting because you add the Radio Top 100 to song articles week after week. You are failing to provide a legitimate reason otherwise. Cool Marc 05:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the bottom line is you don't have consensus, and therefore you cannot have it changed. That's not saying things have to go through me, it's fact. Consensus is not achieved by pinging several people, only two of whom responded, and one of them didn't even care. You have no convincing proof or anything compelling, and you changed your reasons like three times. Continuing to argue with me or trying to dismiss my opinion because you seem to believe I care so deeply about adding this chart is not going to get anything changed, yet you seem to believe it will. You also said "comment on content not the contributor", yet that message was almost entirely about me. By all means, do continue to drag this on. I was done, yet you still keep attacking me and throwing out accusations. Let this be done. Ss112 06:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind with the addition of airplay charts at all. They still reflect the song's popularity, just like sales or streaming charts. I normally don't add an airplay charts unless the position is better than on the sales chart. My bigger problem actually is the excessive use of the US Billboard charts. For example "Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)" is a number-one song on the main Hot 100 chart, but the article displays a total of 8 charts from Billboard, that's the US charts alone. Some of these charts are airplay-only such as Adult Contemporary (chart), Adult Top 40, Dance/Mix Show Airplay, Mainstream Top 40, Rhythmic (chart), and the worse thing is that they are only specific genre airplay, not general airplay like those of Czech, Slovak, Hungary, etc. If we decide to remove those general national airplay, then the genre airplay charts of Billboard should not be exception. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, that's probably a separate matter. This section is about the Czech Republic and Slovakia Radio charts. Ss112 06:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I know, sorry. I just want to say that if Billboard genre-specific airplay charts can be added, then I see no issue with the addition of Czech Republic and Slovakia Radio charts, which are non-genre. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

There's only two charts in Czech republic and Slovakia digital and airplay the digital chart came later, nothing tells us that it was not intended to replace the airplay chart that had been running for years. There is no chart that includes physical sales or steaming so there are no minor charts here just major so both should be included and also there is no article on the digital side here not like I would race to add just yet.DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2020

The digital chart wasn't intended to replace the airplay one, it's just that in CZ/SK digital sales were never strong enough to justify a chart, while with streaming (which is included in the digital chart per their methodology) there was sufficient consumption data to create a top 100. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 11:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

DanTheMusicMan2, you are wrong. The Digital Top 100 includes streaming as per the methodolgy Merynancy provides from their website, and the chart's publisher IFPI refer in the annual music report to the Digital Top 100 as these regions singles charts. Cool Marc 19:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone chart problems

After a Rolling Stone Top 200 album position was added to an article,[2] some problems were noted:

1) There doesn't seem to be an easy way to access the peak for a particular album or artist. One must scan through all the Top 200 listings week-by-week to find the peak. Since the chart was begun in June 2019, this involves checking about 30 weeks of charts. However, as the years go by, hundreds of charts might need to be checked if access is not improved. This would make verifying an addition to an article very time consuming.
2) The RS chart methodology statement[3] shows that the sales numbers for standard and deluxe editions are added together, so it can't be said that the position is for one or the other (apparently some song sales are also added). When an album is being sold in several different configurations, it is unknown which edition the chart represents. In the linked example, there are separate chart tables for the original edition and a later reissue; without more info, it is impossible to say which table should include the RS peak.
3) Since the RS Top 200 only began in June 2019, whatever info it shows for significantly older albums is likely for well past the album's peak of popularity. An album that topped the charts in 1969 might be lucky now to reach the Top 200. So, the RS peak points more to its trajectory or longevity, which should mentioned in the article if it is noteworthy. It should not appear alongside Billboard and other charts that were in existence when interest in the album was probably highest.

Depending on others editors' comments, a statement of the limitations of the Rolling Stone Top 200 and similar charts should be included in the project page.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Ojorojo as I have shared similar concerns regarding verifiability of peak position at WT:RSCHART. I also disapprove of the editor who added a chart table to every frickin' Christmas song that made the Rolling Stone song chart this past December, such as Silver Bells and Do You Hear What I Hear?. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Those examples are no more than trivia; there is absolutely no context. Meanwhile, there's something fishy about the first Led Zeppelin album being their biggest (and only) RS Top 200 seller; Billboard only shows the Mothership compilation in its 200 for the same period (WT:LZ#1st album in recent Top albums chart?). Have others noticed any anomalies? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

1) and 2) are problematic and there don't seem to be easy answers... for 3) I agree that it should probably be in a separate table, but what happens for albums that then dip in and out of the Top 200 over many years? (There's a similar issue for singles that return to the charts every Christmas – do we create one table that notes the single's best position over the entire span of its existence, but doesn't recognise multiple re-entries and distinct peaks within that span, or create separate tables every year for individual peaks, making the article ludicrously long?) Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

In regards to charts, aren't re-entries generally not included in articles unless they are new peak positions? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, especially for tables that show peaks. If the fact that an older Christmas song by Andy Williams was the only rendition to appear in a recent chart is noteworthy, it's something that should be included in a section about his version or about commercial performances. But adding a table is not appropriate. For older releases, RS peaks should not be included in chart tables along with other chart providers that have been tracking the releases over their lifespan. Without knowing more, seeing "Rolling Stone #99" alongside "Billboard #1, UK #2, etc." doesn't give a proper sense of its relative peak popularity. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Greatest Hits (Queen album)#Charts includes multiple tables by year for peaks and ranks on various charts. This appears to be contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CHARTTRAJ. For example, it is ranked in the top 100 selling albums in Mexico for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019; however, this is not mentioned in the article and appears otherwise unnoteworthy. The album's chart longevity in several countries is better discussed in the "Commercial performance" section rather than spread out over several tables.

With the identified problems, RS charts have only a limited use. These should be noted on the project page, similar to WP:RSMUSIC's comments on source limitations: RS peaks should not be added to chart tables or listings for albums that were released prior to the July 2019 chart inception. Additionally, RS peaks should not be added for specific album editions, since RS does not indicate which the peak represents.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: this is what I was referring to in my comment above. "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Fairytale of New York" are two other examples of where multiple tables have been used to note that the songs have re-entered the charts on multiple and very distinct occasions over the years, and why I said that recurring Christmas hits can become a nightmare to tabulate if they chart every year from now on for the foreseeable future... I agree that according to WP:CHARTTRAJ this shouldn't be done, and indeed would make the tables much simpler for these songs. The question is though, that it seems that you are suggesting that WPCHARTTRAJ should be ignored for the example of the Andy Williams song above, and two separate tables should indeed be created... or should a table for the RS chart not be included at all, and just mentioned in the text? Richard3120 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned it, but I am definitely not suggesting chart tables for the Christmas song examples. Adding a table to an article just to list a peak is no better than "it appeared in Episode #99 of the XYZ Show" and should be removed in the same way as trivia. If (and only IF) it is noteworthy (usually determined by coverage in reliable sources), a particular version's later popularity can be mentioned in an appropriate section of an article where that version or commercial performance in general is discussed and referenced. But that requires prose, not a table, and should not be given undue weight. A better indicator of success in a particular country would be total certified sales (gold, etc.) rather than endless yearly stats. In a table, there should only be one peak for one chart (see before[4] & after[5]). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm glad you did mention it, it's something that's concerned me for a while now, and the chart tables for those two articles are a mess. I won't mention it further here, because it's diverging from the point of this thread. So basically you are saying that in the case of "Silver Bells", it would be better to just mention it in a line of text rather than create a table? That sounds sensible to me – I just worry that we are going to get a succession of editors who will try and add the RS chart table to everything over time, as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has noted, and it could be difficult to police. Richard3120 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I am curious to see @Ss112:'s opinion on whether or not old albums that charted on the Rolling Stone Top 200 should be mentioned in chart tables. In response to @Ojorojo: and @Richard3120: if we decide not to include peaks of albums that were released before the Rolling Stone Top 200 inception, then I have a question. Can peaks of albums that were released before the start of the Top 200 chart but were able to chart high on the chart be included in Wikipedia chart tables? There are a few albums I can think of that were released many months before the end of June 2019 that were able to chart high on the Top 200 chart. Also, would you think it's okay to include peaks of albums that were released right before the chart began? Ojorojo stated above that albums released before the Top 200 inception shouldn't be mentioned in the tables, but what if the album was released one or two weeks before the inception? I wouldn't say that an album that was released a few weeks before the start of the Top 200 is "old". CountyCountry (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't believe we should really be noting the Rolling Stone peak alongside contemporaneous chart peaks for older releases, hence why I haven't done so. I barely add the Rolling Stone chart as it is, and when I do, I only add it to new entries. That's why I didn't bother about adding the Christmas songs during December or going to every older album's article to add it. While I don't have as much of an objection as Ojorojo seems to have, to go and find instances of where you, CountyCountry, have added the chart to older album articles (whether in a separate table or not), I do share concerns that it doesn't convey much necessary information, as releases re-enter charts all the time. Obviously the Rolling Stone chart hasn't been around that long so it's not conveying accurate information about how older albums would have performed had the chart been around at the time of their release. For Christmas songs it gets a bit murkier, as year upon year they seem to achieve higher peaks on most charts that have been around as long as the Christmas songs actually entering—for example, most Christmas songs that entered the Billboard Hot 100 last Christmas achieved new peaks. Those should be noted, but adding a separate chart table to every article only noting the Rolling Stone peak and no other isn't necessary. I stand by my belief that the Rolling Stone charts are in no way as important as the Billboard charts nor anywhere near as official a standing to the American music public as a chart that hasn't even been around for a year. Ss112 09:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

[R to CountyCountry]: Common sense should prevail – if it's contemporaneous to other charts that are used (if the "peak" periods are generally the same), then it should be OK. However, another broader issue has been brought up in this discussion, do articles really need long tables with peaks for multiple years for the same chart? Or multiple year end rankings? The project page advises against trajectory stats as being an indiscriminate collection of information. This deserves a separate discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to say let's not misconstrue what the earlier-raised WP:CHARTTRAJ refers to. Noting peak positions or year-end positions in wikitables is not a chart trajectory. A chart trajectory by its very definition means the path the song followed on a particular chart. This was made years ago when song and album articles commonly had tables with cells noting the release's week-to-week chart position (for example, 1-3-14-17-28-26-35). This was deemed to be redundant information. Even extensively following a release's chart history in prose was deemed redundant. It does not refer to anything else. While it's not what CHARTTRAJ refers to, noting multiple peaks for the same chart over the course of a song's history on a chart in separate or joined tables is a matter for discussion, however. That being said, I don't think we should be cutting out year-end charts and for example, only choosing the highest year-end ranking. It's not being indiscriminate to include multiple annual rankings by the very fact that they occur once a year and we're not noting, for example, data on 52 weekly charts. For most releases—as in, most releases are not going to be reappearing every year—they're not that extensive, and most articles for older releases do not contain extensive year-end rankings. Some don't have them at all, so I don't see that it's that big of an issue. Ss112 03:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused because I have seen the same editor remove this chart from album articles as well as add it to album articles. What is our consensus here on the value of including this chart? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I was removing the RS charts on older albums because of consensus that we don't include those peaks for older albums. I was adding the charts for newer albums. CountyCountry (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the citations used do not actually confirm the peak even if it may be the true peak. I see no value in its use in any articles at this time. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this should have a wider airing (RfC?) —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Or not. Based on the discussion so far, propose to add RS charts to WP:OKAYCHARTS, which acknowledges search problems, rather than WP:GOODCHARTS, with the comment: "Do not use for releases prior to June 2019 nor for special editions that are not tracked separately, see [link to this discussion]", if no one objects. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we have consensus on that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Added. Regarding the Led Zeppelin oddity: the first Eagles album Eagles is their only album to appear consistently in the RS Top 200 despite not being a big seller on other charts. Maybe it's a peculiarity of self-titled albums. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Curious case

Look Up Child was released September 7, 2018 but the chart is from nearly a year later: "Top 200 Albums". Rolling Stone. October 10, 2019. Retrieved January 25, 2020.. Re-entrant or peak because it took a long time to chart? Include or exclude? I can't tell. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Since there is nothing to explain it in the article, the prudent approach is to follow the RS entry at WP:OKAYCHARTS and exclude the chart, as CountyCountry has done. Based on the dates, the charts are not contemporaneous, i.e., they are not capturing the same window of popularity (promotions, airplay, etc.). On this alone, they don't make a good comparison. Also, it seems unlikely that a relatively recent album that was certified platinum in 11/2019 would have only gotten as high as #34 a month earlier. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really unlikely. Christian releases tend to have longer tails than mainstream releases. Big names—which she was no prior to this release—will do well on initial release, but then they will have a lengthy release cycle. Other acts may have a sudden surge in sales because of unforeseen publicity. One example is Butterfly Kisses (song). It was originally released as the album's second single. It eventually found crossover success months after the album's release. The album was re-issued and it charted well only then. That seems to be the same issue with Look Up Child, which has had one song in the charts for over a year. I'm fine not including the chart though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a problem with tables of chart statistics – they may not provide a clear picture when there is no explanatory accompanying text. The Butterfly song and album articles make no mention of a reissue or how the success of the single pushed it to succeed (it's in the AllMusic review though). Whether this is the case with Look Up Child cannot be drawn from the info in the article. If this is important, it should be mentioned and referenced (AM doesn't say anything though). Otherwise, it is WP:SYNTHESIS at best. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And the problem with articles that are not well written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Albums charting before their release

Sam Smith's third album was supposed to be called To Die For, they have released 4 songs to date from the album but have since announced that the album has been delayed and would be retitled while new music is being worked on. Therefore despite charting on the Rolling Stone album's chart I removed it. A user reverted my edit here saying that album's can chart before they're released but given that we now don't have a confirmed track listing or album it doesn't make sense to include this, and if it is included it requires a very specific note which I can't quite get my head around. @Walter Görlitz: and @Ojorojo: what do you guys think? @CountyCountry: as the person who reverted my edit, taking into account the specific circumstances of this album, what do you think? → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 09:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow – an unreleased album can appear in an album chart? RS's methodology statement (linked above) indicates that "song sales" factor into the equation, but now it appears that song sales alone can push an "album" into its chart. I think this is a partial explanation for why Led Zeppelin and Eagles appear in the RS charts and nowhere else – they're based on song sales and not on the albums themselves. In light of this, whether RS can be considered a usable source on a par with Billboard, etc., should be revisited. Pinging previous participants (Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Richard3120, MrLinkinPark333, Ss112) if they have anything to add. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that we don't use the RS charts at all. The methodology doesn't make sense as the example above points out. I've also come across a number of scenarios where users are citing the non-finalised versions of the chart. Additionally although the streams/sales might be accurately reported, its ludacris that we're reporting album chartings based on one or two songs. The biggest issue I have with the scenario in question is that we don't know what songs will and won't appear on the album nor do we know what the album is going to be called anymore cause Smith has noted that they are changing the name of it. Additionally, its going to be confusing that it charted on one chart several months ahead of its release. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Rolling Stone the only chart Smith's unreleased album has charted? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Billboard doesn't allow this to happen nor am I aware of the Official Charts Company or any other charts organisations allowing unreleased albums to chart. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to back off of using RS as well. Absolutely ridiculous mythology to place an unreleased album on a chart. Rolling Stone might be a reliable source, but at minimum this chart is not remotely on par with Billboard or OCC. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

So the problem is that RS shows it charting when it hasn't been released? That's a good reason to stop using it, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to admit, it is a little strange, but they may also be counting pre-orders as well, which I wouldn't say is outright inappropriate. As I noted in my edit summary posted by the user above, I remembered seeing several charts (around 10) had How I'm Feeling by Lauv chart before its release. There were Finnish and Belgian charts (and several other charts) already listed showing that the album charted prior to the release of the Lauv album. So it isn't only Rolling Stone that is doing this. CountyCountry (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@CountyCountry: Lauv's How I'm Feeling was released as an EP with several of the album's songs before the full album was released (as many artists do these days, e.g. the Chainsmokers and Florida Georgia Line also did it). Those weren't pre-orders being counted or other countries' charts doing what Rolling Stone does, which is allow albums that have not been released to "chart" based on their song sales alone. Despite having added the Rolling Stone chart to a number of articles, I'm not concerned one way or another whether we allow it to be included on Wikipedia or (continue to) allow users to post the peak for an unreleased album if it's appeared on the Rolling Stone chart. Ss112 18:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My main worry is that if it charts on the basis of songs that don't end up being included on the album then its not an accurate reflection of the album's performance. Additionally, the album won't have the same title or track listing. There were no pre-orders available for the album. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 09:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Lil-Unique here. It's quite ridiculous tbh. There's no guarantee that a certain song will be on an album until the album itself being released. Ariana Grande's "Focus" was pretty successful worldwide, but it ended up being dropped out of the Dangerous Woman album's final tracklisting. As for pre-orders, they are counted as the first-week sales when the album is released. There's no album charting with pre-orders, because simply the copies are unavailable yet, it'll get shipped when it's released. That's why a lot of albums like MDNA fell sharply on its second week, because of those big pre-order sales. Bluesatellite (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Move RS from OKAY charts to BAD CHARTS with a link to this discussion. An encyclopedia should not use sources that provide incorrect or misleading information. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I moved it. If any wording has to be changed, go ahead. Also, would it be okay to use the Rolling Stone Top 100? It's a chart for songs, and songs don't chart before release on that chart. CountyCountry (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is in WP:BADCHARTS, what do we do with articles that use their charts?

Since we've come to a rough agreement that these aren't reliable, should be just go ahead and remove them from the pages they are used on? Toa Nidhiki05 19:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

For album's I think the consensus should be that it can be removed as it is misleading. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

One article search shows 349 occurrences of "rolling stone top 200".[6] There are probably not enough to justify a bot and can be removed manually. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not too bad. We can just remove as we see them and revert any additions of the albums chart. Toa Nidhiki05 15:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like that we're going to remove only the albums chart, but not the songs chart (Top 100). So, on WP:BADCHARTS, it should specify Rolling Stone Top 200, and the Top 100 chart (only for songs) should be moved to WP:OKAYCHARTS. Anyone agree? Currently in the "bad charts" section, it is listed as just "Rolling Stone", which gives a sense to people that even the songs chart shouldn't be used. CountyCountry (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not trying to be sarcastic, but does the RS Top 100 Songs include songs sold through albums in its totals? It's not clear from the methodology and I've heard that Billboard does this for some of its charts. If so, it really doesn't give a sense of the individual song's popularity if its sales are primarily due to album sales. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Their methodology page doesn't seem to mention that. CountyCountry (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's very likely – it's quite obvious that in the UK the BPI does this, because I can look for example at the certifications for Oasis on the BPI's certified awards website, and there are several "singles" included, which have never been released as standalone singles in any form, but presumably as the band's most popular album tracks or B-sides they have accumulated enough sales or streams simply via their parent albums to qualify for certifications. Richard3120 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

In looking through the current RS Top 100, there are 16 songs by Rod Wave,[7] which seem to be all the songs on his current album. Are we supposed to believe that these are all individual song purchases independent of his album sales? ~~By contrast, Billboard shows only one.[8]~~ —Ojorojo (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, I believe you made a mistake in your examples. Those Billboard and Rolling Stone charts that you compared are for different weeks. While the dates for Billboard and Rolling Stone are similar on the charts that you compared, they're actually not for the same week. See what happened after After Hours was released: Billboard [9] (week of April 4, 2020; 14 songs from the album charted) and Rolling Stone [10] (March 20, 2020-March 26, 2020; 14 songs from the album charted). You can see that many of the album tracks debuted on both charts. The same thing happened after Eternal Atake was released: Billboard [11] (week of March 21, 2020; 18 songs from the album) and Rolling Stone [12] (March 6, 2020-March 12, 2020; 18 tracks). You can see that many of the album tracks from Eternal Atake debuted on both charts. The examples that you cited are not for the same week. Assuming that the album tracks from the Rod Wave album are still on the Rolling Stone Top 100 by the time it is finalized (you cited the Rolling Stone chart when it is still projected), it is very likely that the album tracks from the Rod Wave album will be on next week's Billboard Hot 100 (or Bubbling Under Hot 100) chart. The one Rod Wave song currently on the Billboard Hot 100 is "Heart on Ice", a single released separate from the album that has been on the Hot 100 for 21 weeks so far. In the examples I showed above (After Hours and Eternal Atake), the number of album tracks that charted in both charts seems to be pretty consistent. CountyCountry (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've struck the comparison. But the question remains, are they actually tracking separate sales or are they lumped together with album sales? —Ojorojo (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Their methodology page doesn't seem to mention if they're lumped together with album sales. Also, does the Billboard Hot 100 include songs that are sold through albums, or do they not? You've said that you heard Billboard does this for some of their charts. I'm not familiar with their methodology. CountyCountry (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what's really happening here with this thread at the moment, but the wording added to WP:BADCHARTS seems unclear. If we're only disallowing or saying nobody should add the Rolling Stone albums chart, then that particular chart should be specified. At the moment, it just says "Rolling Stone". If the singles/songs chart is still allowed, then that should be added as an exception. Ss112 02:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Our consensus for Top 200 Albums is pretty clear. As for the Songs chart, it need more discussions (or a new subthread?). Bluesatellite (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Billboard never counted "album sales" into songs chart. The component of Hot 100 points are track downloads, physical single sales, streams, and airplay. A track from an album can be downloaded separately without having to be released separately as a single. A lot of non-single songs can chart and get certified based on downloads and streams. To be really honest, there's such thing as an album stream. How many people do stream an album entirely from start to finish? A lot of streams are actually coming from an individual song from various playlists. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit misleading to the reader to include RS charts? The Billboard Hot 100 and 200 have a 60+ year history, they're considered the official charts for the US, and they're what artists and fans check out. The RS charts were only created last year as an alternative to the Billboard charts, but they don't represent anything official or renowned yet, and I believe no artist or record label or industry expert places it on the same level as the Hot 100/BB200 just yet. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite clarified the BADCHARTS entry as applying to the "RS Top 200 Albums".[13] Regarding the RS Top 100: charts like these may be beneficial to the music industry for marketing or sales tracking, but why are they useful to the readers of a song article? If a popular album release can generate 16 or more song entries in a Top 100, the song chart is not an accurate indication of a song's actual popularity when comparing it with another charting song that is not buoyed by album sales. Also, this type of chart should not be used to establish notability, since it is comparable to "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" (WP:NSONGS). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I know the above discussion has reached a consensus, but with regards to this, does the List of Rolling Stone Top 200 number-one albums of 2020 still need/require to be updated, if at all exist? Genuine question. Their number ones almost always prove to be the same as the Billboard 200, so that seems accurate, in the least, but with the RS 200 chart now deprecated, I don't know so much. AshMusique (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Somebody should bring the list to WP:AFD. The fact that their number ones are almost the same as Billboard is another reason for the unnecessity of that RS listicle. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It does seem strange that a chart that is deemed unusable in WP articles should still have various "list of" articles. Also, when a reader clicks on a listed album, that article will not show RS chart info (now down to 241, you can help![14]). AfD probably needs a "not a notable topic"-type argument. So far at least, music writers and journalists haven't been mentioning the chart in biographies, etc., and probably don't feel there is a need when Billboard has been the accepted source for decades. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: I've started that discussion here. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Done The search shows only one redirect,[15] but I'll continue to monitor for a while. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Rollingstone Hot 100

What about the singles chart? → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Merynancy makes a good argument. Rolling Stone has name recognition, but it may take years before it is seen on a level with the Billboard charts, if ever. WP should focus on charts that are widely accepted and used by writers and journalists. Including a lot of minor charts seems like statistics-for-statistics sake and against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On it.wiki we decided to exclude the RS chart because it isn't what the industry looks up to, of course en.wiki has its own rules but this is our reason for not using it. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 15:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the Rolling Stone Top 100 is fine for inclusion. Unlike the Billboard Hot 100, the Rolling 100 doesn't include radio airplay in its methodology, so it makes for good measure. Even though the RS chart isn't on the same level and doesn't carry half the same standard as the BB Hot 100, it is compiled and published by credible sources. User:Ojorojo did make a very good point though. AshMusique (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Since there's little interest in this, propose to add it to OKAYCHARTS with the comment: "Do not use for releases prior to June 2019; note that every weekly listing must be checked to find the peak (see 2020 discussion)" if there are no objections. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the same view as Merynancy... just because a chart is published by a reliable source doesn't mean its inclusion isn't indiscriminate. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 09:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I wonder how many charts that are routinely included in articles could actually stand up to scrutiny. Also, it doesn't appear that there is a distinction between useful/noteworthy and inclusion-because-it-exists. But without more interest, I don't know what can be done about it. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Lots of older song articles use Cash Box or Radio & Records, but those were reputable outlets with lengthy chart histories. Rolling Stone isn't that yet, and that's putting aside the credibility issue with their methodology. Toa Nidhiki05 14:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: see my discussion below with Coolmarc regarding PifPaf Productions and Íslenski listinn... the use of charts before 2000 in smaller markets definitely needs a wider discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've struck my proposal. Maybe it should be necessary to demonstrate that any proposed charts are authoritative/reliable/notable before they can be used in articles, rather than trying to decipher which are flawed after the fact. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

One idea: establish criteria for listing as a "recommended chart":

Own WP article or meets the notability requirements of WP:ORG ("it has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product")
Accessible methodology statement (to ensure that it is comparable to other charts)
Track record (over ten years?)
Searchable data base that displays peak and date
Etc.

Other charts (except those listed as deprecated) may be used only if there are no recommended charts for the release's country of origin. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Slovakia and Czech Republic Radio Top 100 to be omitted when a song has already charted on Single Top 100

New rule for Czech Republic and Slovakia charts. As per the IFPI who publish the Radio Top 100 (airplay) and Single Top 100 (streaming and download sales) for these regions, the Single Top 100 is these regions singles charts. See the IFPI music report and article in The Music Network

Therefore I am suggesting a rule in line with most other regions charts on WP:CHARTS that if a song by a foreign artist has charted on the Single Top 100 chart, the Radio Top 100 chart should be omitted. Please be so kind to comment below and advise if you support this suggestion thank you. Cool Marc 09:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

~~Support~~ Oppose ~~makes perfect sense to me~~. If the record charts are official and not components then no length of list really justies cutting them down arbitarily. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. If the US can go on with tons of genre-specific, airplay-only charts, then other countries shouldn't be exception. Okay, the US is the largest market, but how about Canada (AC, Hot AC, CHR Top 40) or Hungary (Single Top 40, Radio Top 40, Stream Top 40) which is commonly found everywhere in Wikipedia song articles. I just don't like partial consensus. If we only used "main" national charts, then it should be applied to all countries, not cherrypicking. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Bluesatellite, I do agree with your point about Canada and Hungary and there was not even a consensus to include all those excessive charts in the first place. The consistency needs to be addressed and we have to start somewhere which is what I'm doing here, starting with Slovakia and Czech Republic. Cool Marc 11:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite we have no issue with Canada (AC, Hot AC, CHR Top 40) being used - just some confusion around Hungary, Netherlands top 40 versus top 100 etc. But Otherstuff isn't a valid argument to avoid trying to clarify. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Those Canadian charts are genre-specific airplay charts (AC radio and mainstream radio), while the Czech and Slovak are non-genre, comprehensive national airplay charts. The same goes for Hungary (national airplay, not for a certain genre). Dutch Top 40 is sales+airplay chart much like Billboard Hot 100, while Dutch Single Top 100 exclude airplay like the UK Singles Chart. We can't dismiss it for otherstuff, because cherrypicking chart isn't valid either. Bluesatellite (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, it's not cherry picking. Like I said, we have to start somewhere. Canada and Hungary are a discussion for another day and indeed WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Let's focus on the topic at hand here which is Czech Republic and Slovakia. Thank you. Cool Marc 13:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Czech Radio Top 100 meets the general guideline of WP:CHART: it's not single network, and it's not a component chart. Radio Top 100 and Digital Top 100 are completely different (not being a component of each other). In fact, the Czech Radio chart has established long before the digital chart exists. You're specifically against the Czech and Slovak, while in fact other countries use airplay charts too, so yes it's cherrypicking. There's no guarantee that you would open similar discussion for other countries, so why not make it clear once for all. So, as for now, I stand for oppose. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, your expectations here are way too high. There is no way we can have 1 RFC for all the regions charts, each one has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, it's not cherry picking and I have no idea why you think it is and actually find it offensive that you feel that is my intention. Cool Marc 14:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend you at all. If you feel it, then I apologize. I just want consistency, especially if the chart is not against the general guideline. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose.The US had a good enough reason to cut down the amount of charts shown they have multiple charts for R&B and Rock and separate for streaming, airplay and digital but for Czech that is not the case just the two are being used and both seem important.

Anyway the single 100 does not have a full archive or have a article of number ones on here. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DanTheMusicMan2, Please provide a source saying they are equally important. The Single Top 100 does have an archive and it not having a number ones article on Wikipedia is a bad argument. The IFPI who publish the chart have called it the single's chart of Czech Republic and Slovakia. Cool Marc 13:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Using two charts for Czech Republic is no harm, compare to 4 charts for Canada and 8 charts for the US in a song article. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, not when the IFPI have stated that 1 is the country's singles chart and give no mention of the other. Canada and the US are not a part of this RFC. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. Cool Marc 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay (not a guideline) and "is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with...". Bluesatellite (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. This is logical, especially considering the airplay chart isn't based on public consumption, so if we're gonna have an exclusive chart for the region, it should be the Single Top 100. AshMusique (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. As stated in the original section on this topic by myself and above in this discussion by Bluesatellite, the Radio chart is not a component chart of the Digital chart, and even if the Digital chart is considered the singles chart (and the same two external articles is not strong enough proof, especially when one has nothing to do with the Czech music industry or European charts), it does not invalidate all other charts from those countries. This is an attempt to whittle down the amount of potential charts included on an article by one editor when in most cases there's no need to cut down on the amount. Even if there were a need, this is not the place to start—it would be eliminating two charts at most, and those two charts provide different data to the other charts from those countries. I have turned pings off, and I am not repeating another back-and-forth argument I have already had. Attempting to argue with or invalidate others' opinions does not make you prevail in an RfC. Thanks. Ss112 15:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - Greece, Italy, Australia etc. also have official airplay charts, that aren't used in chart tables on en.wiki. The main singles chart that the music industry in CZ/SK looks up to is the one based on consumption, while just like anywhere else, the radio spins chart falls in second place in terms of relevance. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Merynancy: I'd just like to point out that Australia does not in fact have an official airplay chart, at least one published by ARIA. Australia does have the AIR Charts, which is official, but only measures airplay of Australian acts signed to independent labels. Any other chart claiming to be the official Australian airplay chart is definitely not official. As for Italy, I'm not aware of them having an official airplay chart, as FIMI doesn't publish one. (If you ping me in a reply, I won't get it.) Ss112 15:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

EarOne is responsible for publishing Italy's official radio charts, which we do indeed mention on it.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 15:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Merynancy: I'm aware of earone.it generally being considered a reliable source, as users cite it for airplay dates, but I'm not aware of its charts being considered official. Ss112 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Both digital and radio charts are obviously given about the same importance hence the website of the official chart company displaying both charts equally. If the radio chart lost its significance, the website wouldn't still be publishing extensive rankings of the chart right next to the "more important" digital chart. So unless a less reliable third-party website starts posting the radio charts, they should co-exist. -- Lk95 18:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: firstly, this isn't a case of the Radio 100 chart being a component of the Single 100 chart, they're entirely separate and the former is not a component of the latter. So it makes no sense to say that the Radio 100 chart should only be included when there is no charting on the Single 100 chart, and the entire premise of this RfC is wrong – either you include both all the time, or you decide (based on official sources) that only the Single 100 chart is the only official one and the Radio 100 chart should never be included. Secondly, it's not obvious that the Single 100 chart is "more" official than the Radio 100 chart – it's quite possible for a country to have more than one official chart, the Netherlands has done it for decades. It's not clear from the links provided that the Radio 100 chart is not official and should be excluded. I'd also note that List of number-one songs (Czech Republic) and List of number-one songs (Slovakia) both use the Radio 100 chart, so either these would need to be changed to the Single 100 chart, or two separate "lists of number-one songs" would need to be created for each country. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Not necessary, per Ss112's and Lk95's reasonings. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

R&B/Hip-Hop Albums vs. Top Rap Albums

The guidance currently specifies that Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums is to be used in lieu of Top Rap Albums or Top R&B Albums. However, this guidance is because of post-2013 changes to the charts. If there is an artist who was charting on the Top Rap Albums chart prior to that split, is this an exception? In this case, they even had a No. 1 album on the Rap Charts in 2012, but no chart position at all on the R&B/Hip-Hop Charts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean a simple choice between the chart's name when an album placed there and what the chart happened to be titled in later years, I'd say yes, the contemporaneous name should always be used. This is the approach I follow with regard to the Billboard 200, anyway, and some other charts. I work mostly on articles about 1960s music, so it's no use talking about the Billboard 200 – it was the Billboard Top LPs chart (it wasn't even a top 200 list for most of that decade, I believe). This is why I added the alt chart titles in bold at Billboard 200. Similar situation at Alternative Songs. JG66 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's kinda-sorta like that. What used to be a main genre chart became a sub-chart because another genre chart was created.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

When the Top Rap Albums chart debuted in 2004, both the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums and Top Rap Albums charts were based on a sales from the monitoring of a select panel of stores that had a "higher-than-average volume of R&B/hip-hop sales and a broader selection of titles from those genres".[16] So I believe the guidance would still stand for the entire history of the Rap Albums chart. If an album charted on the Rap Albums chart but not the R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, the Rap Albums chart can be used. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, thank you. What do I do in the case of Lecrae discography, where some albums only charted on the Rap Albums chart, but then later some charted on the R&B Albums chart as well?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You should use the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop albums chart as this is the more complete chart and if an album didn't appear on that chart then use the notes function to denote it charting on rap albums. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Blues & Soul British R&B Albums chart

The editor Wiaow has used this chart on a couple of album articles for the Emotions. When I removed them, saying that this wasn't a national chart, the editor reverted me with the words, "The Blues & Soul British R&B Albums chart is a national chart of England and Britain by extension. This was the only major chart which focused on Soul Albums and Singles in the United Kingdom from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. As such these charts are very essential to conceptualizing and understanding the British Soul Music scene from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. Given the importance and the necessity of these charts they should be kept as is."

I fail to see how this chart can be considered a national chart "by extension" just because there was no R&B chart compiled by the official UK chart compilers of the time (the British Market Research Bureau, during this period). As far as I can see this is just one magazine's own chart, and I have no idea what methodology it used to compile it. I am starting this discussion to see if I can get a consensus on whether or not this chart should be used in articles. Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The Blues & Soul British R&B Albums chart is a national chart of England and the United Kingdom. This was the only major chart which focused on Soul Albums and Singles in the United Kingdom from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. The charts were compiled similar to the pop/rock/dance charts of British publications like New Musical Express, Melody Maker and Record Mirror on the basis of record sales and so on. Additionally the charts of those magazines have been and continue to be displayed on Wikipedia. With this being said these Blues & Soul charts are very essential to conceptualizing and understanding the British Soul Music scene during that aforesaid era. Given the importance and the necessity of these charts they should be kept as is. As well I've gone on to reference the aforesaid via these following citations. [17][18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Wioaw talk 22:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The chart is too niche and specific. Its compiled by the Blues & Soul magazine but there is no documentation of the chart's methodology. If it is Blues & Soul deciding what qualifies to chart then that is classified as a WP:SINGLEVENDOR chart and therefore we shouldn't be using it. There's no doubt that in its time it was notorius because British Market Research Bureau were not tracking separate R&B releases, however the official charts were registered with IFPI and are independently verified. I couldn't find independent verification of Blues & Soul charts or any records of how they were compiled. Just because artists strived for success on the chart doesn't mean it was official. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 21:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the charts from NME and Melody Maker weren't official national charts either – just because a chart from a magazine exists, it doesn't make it a national chart. Secondly, the additional references you provide simply prove that Blues & Soul magazine itself is notable – which it is, no doubt about that – but again, in no way proves that their chart was an official one. Richard3120 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

When perusing these List of NME number-one singles of the 1970s, List of NME number-one singles of the 1970s, List of NME number-one singles of the 1980s I came across the following. "Record charts in the United Kingdom began life on 14 November 1952 when NME began compiling the first UK-wide sales-based hit parade. Prior to 15 February 1969, when the British Market Research Bureau chart was established, there was no one universally accepted source and many periodicals compiled their own chart. During this time the BBC used aggregated results of charts from the NME and other sources to compile the Pick of the Pops chart. In 1969, Record Retailer and the BBC commissioned the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) to compile the singles chart."

Additionally I noted from those lists that "prior to this, The Official Charts Company and Guinness' British Hit Singles & Albums, consider Record Retailer the canonical source for the British singles chart in the 1960s. Nevertheless, in the 1960s, NME had the biggest circulation of charts in the decade and was more widely followed. After 1969, the joint venture between Record Retailer and the BBC is widely considered as the beginning of the official UK Singles Chart. NME continued compiling its own chart until 14 May 1988".

With that being said one can surmise that NME's pop charts were established before the introduction in 1969 of the official UK pop charts. Those NME charts are though displayed on Wikipedia in a detailed manner to provide a greater level of insight and coherence of the UK Pop Scene.

As that's the case one can discern a very similar scenario between the UK Pop music scene with NME and the UK R&B/Soul music scene with Blues & Soul'. Artists of fame and prominence such as Seal, Maxine Nightingale, Light of the World, Imagination, Billy Ocean, Incognito, Gabrielle and Beverly Knight emerged from and are also icons of the UK soul scene. Blues & Soul's R&B charts were established in the late 1960's, prior to the set up of the Official UK R&B charts in 1994. With such being so Blues & Soul had an almost identical role to NME in that regard. Blues & Soul would also have had very important, essential and integral part to play with regard to highlighting the UK soul scene. As that's so one should assure that Blues & Soul's charts are acknowledged and thoroughly sustained just as NME's charts are upon Wikipedia. Wioaw talk 17:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely fail to see your point. Yes, NME began a singles chart eight years before Record Retailer did. The official UK Singles chart was established in February 1969, based on the Record Retailer (later Music Week) chart. But neither Record Retailer nor NME nor anyone else was considered to have produced the official chart prior to 1969, until 1977 when the first edition of the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles was published and established the Record Retailer chart as the official chart from 1960 onwards, and NME's chart as the official one for the eight years before that. The fact that NME produced a chart from 1960 to 1988 which indeed was widely followed does not mean it was ever the official chart during that time, and as a consequence it is never cited for chart positions in song articles (neither is Melody Maker's chart, for that matter). The Blues & Soul chart is in exactly the same position: it may well have been widely followed and respected, but it has never been an official chart of the UK, and therefore its chart positions do not belong in song articles. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Czech Republic and Slovakia archives no longer working

It has come to my attention that the archives of these charts no longer work. Perhaps they could be repaired in future, but chart positions for these regions cannot be verified now. This is a concern. Cool Marc ✉ 17:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coolmarc: I suspect it might be a temporary issue, but perhaps you might want to consider adding the singles and albums of these charts to the automatic archiving script detailed here: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 14#Archival. Then at least a copy of the charts would be saved every week, in case the archives ever do disappear permanently. Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120, I've added it there thanks. Although it is only able to archive Czech Republic Single Top 100, not the Radio Top 100 or the Slovakia charts since they use the same web address. Cool Marc ✉ 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed here. The Czech and Slovakian charts have always pointed to the same base URL of the website. They have never linked directly to the exact year and week page, because the website uses coding to change the page itself when one selects a different year and week, and doesn't change the base URL in one's browser (i.e. it still displays as http://hitparada.ifpicr.cz/). This is why when the template is used it generates the note, for example for the Czech Digital chart: "Note: Change the chart to CZ – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100 and insert 202019 into search." They are still verifiable, as the note specifically instructs a user how to access the data when they add the template, as do several other single and album chart entries and certification entries whose base website URL does not change when a search term is entered or year/week archive is accessed—these also contain prompts on how to navigate to the data. (If I am pinged, I will not receive it.) Ss112 22:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I also get an error message when I try and access charts other than the current week. Perhaps it's a country access problem? Richard3120 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on about here. We are well aware of the note. Try inserting dates prior to 2020 in the search then you will see the charts don't generate. Cool Marc ✉ 23:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If you only meant dates prior to 2020, then you should say so in your initial message and not expect users to know exactly what you're talking about. Hopefully, as Richard3120 has pointed out, it's a temporary issue. Ss112 23:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 had no problem understanding it. Good faith goes a long way. Cool Marc ✉ 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "good faith", it has to do with you being more specific in what you mean. You only mean weeks prior to 2020, so state weeks prior to 2020 next time. I don't know what Richard3120 tested, but I presume it was for a song before 2020. I tested a recent example. Someone not understanding what you mean because you weren't specific enough doesn't mean they took you in bad faith. Please stop furthering a pointless argument. Thank you. Ss112 23:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

By pointless argument do you mean yours above? Because there is nothing pointless about making others aware that a chart archive is not working on the talk page of Wikipedia guideline about charts. Cool Marc ✉ 23:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you continuing this back-and-forth is exactly what I meant by "pointless". Nowhere did I state bringing attention to something that no longer works is pointless. My only issue now is that the initial post was not specific to state that only weeks before 2020 currently don't work. Nothing more needs to be said on this specific point, so please let it go and stop finding ways to have a go at me. Thanks. Ss112 00:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not having a go at anyone. Please see your initial responses above then you will see who did. As I said earlier, assuming good faith, and interacting with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation goes a long way. I have nothing left to say here. Cool Marc ✉ 00:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

My initial response was calm and civil—I was explaining something based on a misunderstanding. There was nothing addressed at you specifically. You have continued to engage in exactly the supposed "battleground" behaviour you are now accusing me of—I'm not arguing with myself. Attacking me by continuing to nitpick what I specifically have said and expecting me and other users to know you only mean weeks prior to 2020 don't work is, however, in bad faith. @Ad Orientem: can you please remind Coolmarc to act in exactly the same way they have tried to tell me to? I'm sick of the hypocrisy on display here. Every time I comment on a post about these specific charts I'm the one being accused of acting in bad faith, when I'm not the one trying to rid Wikipedia of and focusing only on these charts for any reason I can find. For the record, that's what I would call acting in bad faith. Ss112 00:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing here that requires admin intervention. That said, I will gently remind everyone that we are all on the same team here. If the issues that necessitated this discussion have been resolved, perhaps we should all move on to the next item on our "to do" list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

UK Albums Chart Question

Hi all,

Just wondered if anyone had a clear understanding of the UK album's chart?

I know we have the Physical Album Chart, the Digital Albums Chart and the Streaming Album's Chart. We also have a fourth chart, the Album Sales chart which is the one that confuses me. My questions are as follwos:

Are we thinking that the Album Sales chart = Digital + Physical?
The full Albums Chart = Digital + Physical (or Album Sales) + Streaming?

→ Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 08:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes the album sales does appear to be physical and downloads only, the main chart is digital, physical and streaming but I'm not sure if it's the same rule as the single chart where the ratio of streams which are counted as a sale is altered after 10 weeks on the chart. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Romanian Media Forest charts

Hi there! There is a chart template for Romania's Media Forest weekly TV and radio airplay charts (see "Ruleta" as an example). However, the Wikipedia pages for Romanian Radio Airplay Chart and Romanian TV Airplay Chart don't exist anymore. Instead, pages that list their respective number ones by the decade have been created (see this, this and this).

The chart template currently displays "Romania (Romania TV Airplay)" and "Romania (Romania Radio Airplay)". However this should be changed to something like "Romania Radio Airplay (Media Forest)" and "Romania Television Airplay (Media Forest)". Or something similar. I'm happy for comments on this. Greets and thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Peruvian charts

Hey everyone I wanted to share an airplay chart from Perú. This chart goes back to 2009 and is a top 20 airplay chart plublished monthly and annually by UNIMPRO which is affiliated with IFPI. This chart is not archived the best but you can find some archives here and here. I think these charts are a good addition to wikipedia articles since they are official charts here in Perú and I recommend we start using them. (FanDePopLatino (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

South African charts

South Africa's weekly airplay chart run by Entertainment Monitoring Africa seems to have been abolished/stopped functioning since about 2016? I personally believe that a good alternative would be top40sa.co.za. The interface appears very chic and authentic, while drawing striking similarities to nztop40.co.nz (New Zealand's national chart). There are two charts which are announced on two corresponding radio stations: one representing the northern region (947) and the other representing the southern part (KFM) of the country, with both shows having been supported by both Coca Cola and Kia in the past. Although they are run by radio stations, they are not WP:SINGLENETWORK chart networks since the results account for airplay, iTunes downloads and streams.^[1]

If one takes into the account that 947 is the most popular station in the Northern region,^[2] and KFM the most popular in the southern region (KFM),^[3] they could be approached in the same way as Belgium does with Wallonia and Flanders. For example:

Chart performance for "Roses (Imanbek remix)"
Chart (2019–2020)	Peak position
Belgium (Ultratop 50 Flanders)^[4]	3
Belgium (Ultratop 50 Wallonia)^[5]	1
South Africa (947)^[6]	3
South Africa (KFM)^[7]	29

After being born and raised in South Africa, I can confirm that when people refer to "the charts" or "the top 40", they are referring to the above, since they are quite popular and are considered common knowledge. Let me know what you guys think, if you have any questions, or if you simply believe that these charts are ineligible. HeyitsBen ^talk 21:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

HeyitsBen, I live in South Africa myself and 947 is a radio station for the Gauteng province and KFM is a radio station for the Western Cape province. This is not the North and South as you say since there are 7 other provinces in the country as well. These charts do not have a clear methodology and are based more on voting and radio requests than anything else, the chart positions are a far cry from the streaming popularity on Apple Music (South Africa's leading streaming service). "ZOL" by Max Hurrell for example which has been massive here over the last month does not appear on any of these charts. "How to Be Lonely" by Rita Ora has never been in the Apple Music or iTunes top 100 is on both radio station charts. Cool Marc ✉ 00:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

References

^
iTunes downloads:
- "Coca-Cola Top 40 Receives Accolades". Coca Cola Africa.
- "Breaking: It's the Kia Top40SA with iTunes". KFM.
Streams:
- ""The most streamed song in south africa..."". KFM.
Combined:
- "Introducing Kerwin on the KFM Top 40". KFM. 'get the single onto the chart by streaming and downloading it via reputable digital services – and most importantly: showing it some love by requesting it during the week on Kfm 94.5.'
- "947 Top40 with Zweli". 947. It features all the music you stream, request and love
^ "947 has been ranked the biggest regional station in Gauteng".
^ "KFM wins big at The South African Radio Awards".
^ "Saint Jhn – Roses (Imanbek Remix)" (in Dutch). Ultratop 50. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
^ "Saint Jhn – Roses (Imanbek Remix)" (in French). Ultratop 50. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
^ "947 Top 40: Week of 30 May 2020". 947. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)
^ "KFM Top 40: Week of 30 May 2020". KFM. Archived from the original on 30 May 2020.

HeyitsBen, excuse me for this delayed response, I haven't been watching this page; I'm also South African and I agree with Coolmarc. As unfortunate as it is that there is (no longer?) an official South African chart, these charts are radio charts, and do not qualify as official charts, which is the standard on Wikipedia. AshMusique (talk)

Malaysian and Singaporean charts

These charts have not been an issue since 2017 and have appeared in every charted song article until now when an editor pointed out that they are not in WP:GOODCHARTS. Wow.

The Malaysian chart is governed by the Recording Industry Association of Malaysia (RIM) while the Singaporean chart is governed by the Recording Industry Association (Singapore) (RIAS). Both charts have a chart for domestic and international songs and a chart for domestic songs. The chart for domestic songs is not notable on the English Wikipedia (may be notable on the Chinese Wikipedia or the Malay Wikipedia). So

Chart (2020)	Peak position
Malaysia (RIM)^[1]	2
Singapore (RIAS)^[2]	1

these refer only to the charts for domestic and international songs.

The Malaysian chart references a RIM Facebook link as the official website is not updated. The Singaporean chart has to be manually archived as RIAS does not keep records of past charts.

They are not in WP:GOODCHARTS but there is no reason why they are not. I hope that there is no more issue with this. Thanks. Redthreadhx (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It was myself that noted that the charts weren't on Goodcharts and probably should be. I have some concerns around the RIM charts which are updated infrequently on their website and a variety of sources including screenshots from social media have been used in the past.≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"A variety of sources" is far-fetched and exaggerated. Although less ideal, RIM Facebook page is the only alternative source which has been consistently updated. Redthreadhx (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Redthreadhx will you please stop assuming I'm being sinister or trying to block their use. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to raise their profile so that they can be added consistently to articles. My point was that we should try and standardise how they appear in articles particular as RIM Charts is a seperate page to RIM. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "Top 20 Most Streamed International & Domestic Singles In Malaysia". Recording Industry Association of Malaysia. Recording Industry Association of Malaysia. Retrieved June 7, 2020.
^ "RIAS International Top Charts Week 22". Recording Industry Association (Singapore). Archived from the original on June 2, 2020.

Billboard R&B charts query

I've started working through the lists of Billboard R&B number one songs by year of the 1960s. The magazine didn't publish such a chart for around 14 months between late 1963 and early 1965 for unknown reasons, however in the course of my work I have found that their website actually shows charts during this period e.g. this one for 25 January 1964. Does anyone know where this info comes from? Are they using the Cash Box chart data mentioned in passing in our 1965 number ones article? And should this data be included in the articles for 1963, 1964 (which would need creating) and 1965, given that Billboard now seem to retrospectively recognise it as part of their own chart history.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

From a quick search of the actual printed issues, there was no R&B chart in Billboard during this period. Joel Whitburn wrote in his Top R&B Singles 1942–1988:

Unpublished Charts 1963–1965: Billboard did not publish a Rhythm & Blues chart from November 30, 1963 to January 23, 1965. During this 14-month period, many R&B artists continued to turn out hits. By cross-checking other Rhythm & Blues rankings of that time, we determined which R&B titles that charted on Billboard's Hot 100 pop chart would have also appeared on a Billboard R&B chart. These titles are included in this book and designated with the word HOT in the pop position column. All of their data listed is taken directly from Billboard's Hot 100 pop chart.[p. 14]

For example, in the book, three Kingsmen singles from 1964 show a peak from the Hot 100 chart, but not "Louie Louie". It first entered the Hot 100 on November 9, 1963, but does not appear on the Hot R&B Singles charts on November 9, 16, or 23 (its last R&B charts before the suspension). If "Louie Louie" didn't meet Whitburn's criteria that it "would have also appeared on a Billboard R&B chart", I don't see how Billboard later determined that it somehow did. The Kingsmen chart history at Billboard.com lists several singles on the Hot 100, but nothing for R&B/Hip-Hop.[23] Without some definitive answer, WP shouldn't use questionable R&B statistics from this period.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There should just not be a list for 1964. In fact, I'd really like to convert these lists to decade lists, too. There's just no need to have 52 rows for what usually amounts to less than 20 number ones a year. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Brasil

Hi all,

Are we accepting the Top 10 Streaming chart by União Brasileira de Compositores (UBC) which seems to be backed up by Crowley Broadcast Analysis? If so, are we accepting alongside or instead of the Top 100 Brasil (see here) which seems to be direct from Crowley too?

And then we also have this monthly chart which has begun appearing in articles too here. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

First, Brazil in English.

Second, I don't see how the charts are calculated. If either is a derivative, then no, we wouldn't use both. Do you know how they are calculated? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Establishing the facts

According to União Brasileira de Compositores, the UBC Top 10 Streaming and Top Ten Radio charts are compiled from Crowley Broadcast Analysis, "to honor the composers who create for the whole world to listen, in partnership with Crowley, we have made a ranking with the most played songs currently on the radio and streaming in Brazil, highlighting the composers. This list is updated regularly."
According to IFPI, only Promusica Brasil is affiliated to the IFPI.
The monthly chart uses scans provided by BMAT and is produced by Promusica Brasil which is IFPI affiliated. Their website says the following This publication is based on information compiled by the BMAT company based on the reports generated by the participating digital platforms. This publication is only for informational and guidance purposes in the music market in the country.
According to WP:RECORDCHARTS, it says that suitable charts are those that: "are published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Mexico, are legitimate sources of charts."

By the above definitions perhaps all 3 are notable? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

[1] Tunes downloads:
"Coca-Cola Top 40 Receives Accolades". Coca Cola Africa.

"Breaking: It's the Kia Top40SA with iTunes". KFM.
Streams:
""The most streamed song in south africa..."". KFM.
Combined:
"Introducing Kerwin on the KFM Top 40". KFM. 'get the single onto the chart by streaming and downloading it via reputable digital services – and most importantly: showing it some love by requesting it during the week on Kfm 94.5.'

"947 Top40 with Zweli". 947. It features all the music you stream, request and love

[2] "Coca-Cola Top 40 Receives Accolades". Coca Cola Africa.

[3] "Breaking: It's the Kia Top40SA with iTunes". KFM.

[4] ""The most streamed song in south africa..."". KFM.

[5] "Introducing Kerwin on the KFM Top 40". KFM. 'get the single onto the chart by streaming and downloading it via reputable digital services – and most importantly: showing it some love by requesting it during the week on Kfm 94.5.'

[6] "947 Top40 with Zweli". 947. It features all the music you stream, request and love

[2] "947 has been ranked the biggest regional station in Gauteng".

[3] "KFM wins big at The South African Radio Awards".

[sc_Flanders_Saint_Jhn-4] "Saint Jhn – Roses (Imanbek Remix)" (in Dutch). Ultratop 50. Retrieved 30 May 2020.

[sc_Wallonia_Saint_Jhn-5] "Saint Jhn – Roses (Imanbek Remix)" (in French). Ultratop 50. Retrieved 30 May 2020.

[6] "947 Top 40: Week of 30 May 2020". 947. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)

[7] "KFM Top 40: Week of 30 May 2020". KFM. Archived from the original on 30 May 2020.

[8] "Top 20 Most Streamed International & Domestic Singles In Malaysia". Recording Industry Association of Malaysia. Recording Industry Association of Malaysia. Retrieved June 7, 2020.

[9] "RIAS International Top Charts Week 22". Recording Industry Association (Singapore). Archived from the original on June 2, 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]