Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

What should we use for Japanese charts?

See Paparazzi (Girls' Generation song). What should be the cut-off? I mean, Billboard and Oricon are the "official" charts, but should the daily/weekly/monthly charts be included? I think the Chaka-Uta charts follow mobile sales.... And the RIAJ charts are official too. SKS (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that weekly and annual are sufficient, with monthly only to be used if no suitable weekly chart can be found.—Kww(talk) 05:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Same as Kww. Monthly charts are ood and may only be used when weekly (mostly) is not available. Annual charts are a different matter, although the same principle applies. —Hahc21 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian charts

I've found out that Billboard.biz is publishing Brazilian charts for albums (provided by the Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Discos with Nielsen SoundScan) and songs, which are published by Billboard Brasil through the main chart named Brasil Hot 100 Airplay, then only available from the magazine. Therefore, we have an official source for charts in Brazil. The albums chart is weekly, while the songs chart is monthly, just like the chart from Billboard Brasil. Archives for the website are needed since the page is updated regularly. So, I would like to know what other contributors think about listing this source for use in the English Wikipedia. Regards, Lucas RdS (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Great This way we won't rely anymore on the offline physical magazine to verify the chart positions and thus avoid chart data modification without verification. Thanks gor the information Lucas, it's very very valuable your advice. Regards. —Hahc21 04:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Hahc. I would also like to point out that this top 5 chart published directly by Crowley Broadcast Analysis is weekly, while the Brazil Hot 100 Airplay is a monthly chart. I've archived albums charts from 2011 and 2012:

2011:

• 05/02/2011: [1]
• 12/02/2011: [2]
• 19/02/2011: [3]
• 26/02/2011: [4]
• 05/03/2011: [5]
• 12/03/2011: [6]
• 02/04/2011: [7]
• 16/04/2011: [8]
• 23/04/2011: [9]
• 30/04/2011: [10]
• 14/05/2011: [11]
• 28/05/2011: [12]
• 04/06/2011: [13]
• 11/06/2011: [14]
• 18/06/2011: [15]
• 25/06/2011: [16]
• 16/07/2011: [17]
• 23/07/2011: [18]

• 30/07/2011: [19]
• 06/08/2011: [20]
• 13/08/2011: [21]
• 20/08/2011: [22]
• 27/08/2011: [23]
• 03/09/2011: [24]
• 10/09/2011: [25]
• 17/09/2011: [26]
• 01/10/2011: [27]
• 08/10/2011: [28]
• 15/10/2011: [29]
• 22/10/2011: [30]
• 29/10/2011: [31]
• 12/11/2011: [32]
• 03/12/2011: [33]
• 10/12/2011: [34]
• 17/12/2011: [35]
• 24/12/2011: [36]

2012:

• 07/01/2012: [37]
• 14/01/2012: [38]
• 21/01/2012: [39]
• 28/01/2012: [40]
• 04/02/2012: [41]
• 11/02/2012: [42]
• 18/02/2012: [43]
• 25/02/2012: [44]
• 03/03/2012: [45]
• 10/03/2012: [46]
• 17/03/2012: [47]
• 24/03/2012: [48]
• 31/03/2012: [49]
• 07/04/2012: [50]
• 14/04/2012: [51]

• 28/04/2012: [52]
• 12/05/2012: [53]
• 19/05/2012: [54]
• 26/05/2012: [55]
• 02/06/2012: [56]
• 09/06/2012: [57]
• 16/06/2012: [58]
• 23/06/2012: [59]
• 30/06/2012: [60]
• 07/07/2012: [61]
• 14/07/2012: [62]
• 21/07/2012: [63]
• 28/07/2012: [64]
• 04/08/2012: [65]
• 11/08/2012: [66]
• 18/08/2012: [67]

I'm sorry if it looks like a mess (I don't know how to organize lists very well), but I hope it helps other users. These archives contains not only albums by Brazilian artists, but lots of albums by internacional acts, including those from English-speaking countries (like Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Adele, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez & the Scene, among others). Lucas RdS (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You probably want to add these links to Wikipedia:Record charts/Sourcing guide/Brazil.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Lucas. I was able to update the Latin music project resources page. Erick (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lists of number twos?

Do we want to go down this road? See List of Dutch Top 40 number-two singles of 2012. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• No. We've had other "number two" lists deleted before but I don't remember where. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Please No. Someone attempted this with the U.S. chart a few years back and it was deleted. - eo (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Don't see how it's helpful to reader especially considering some of the songs reached #1 in the national chart. Erick (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the earlier AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.) for reference. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Lines usually have to be drawn somewhere, and I like this line being immediately after #1 singles and before #2 singles.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• NO, cause then someone will argue notable singles have reached number three and we should have lists for that etc... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• You guys can prod-2 the list if you want. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Also take a look at List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos. Till 03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

...Reliability

...of this? Till 13:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications on Dutch Charts

Like i written on Sourcing Guide Talk Page, I open this discussion for to do a clarification about the Dutch Charts. For many years on Wikipedia was written that the Dutch Top 40 was part of the GfK Charts and was written that the Singles Top 100 was a component chart of the Dutch Top 40. It is totally false. Dutch Top 40 is the competitor of the GfK charts and were in association for a limited period. You can read their history here

http://www.top40.nl/geschiedenis

Furthermore, the association of the Dutch Top 40 had a its albums chart active until 1999 (when it merged several charts, including the albums chart, with Mega Charts). It reactived the albums chart in 2011 ( http://www.top40.nl/album-top40 ). To avoid other errors, i edited the main page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Record_charts/Sourcing_guide ) and the Mega Charts page. At this point, i think that the user can choice what chart prefer to use. SJ (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Note on Korean charts

I have added in the Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 chart, along with further clarification regarding both charts. Either chart can be used, although I personally prefer Billboard. I also wanted to clarify that, for Gaon, if songs chart on the International chart, it should be noted as such, because songs on the International chart may not be on the main chart at all (for example, the main chart for the last week of August only has the top 5 songs from the International chart — in other words, the #6 on the International chart didn't place on the main chart at all). I hope this helps. SKS (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We're applying the Pop 100 in 2012 ?! Didn't it become discontinued in 2009?

Somebody get this corrected - Why is this an applicable Billboard chart acceptable for Wikipedia to display on pages? Do not use the discontinued Billboard Pop 100 chart data for inclusion on these artists' pages unless it is applicable at the time the Pop 100 chart data was active. Didn't another chart assumingly take its place? Then make that applicable. We're going to have a couple hundreds of pages with erroneous chart by 2020 unless we liberate the pages from this time-borne mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.135.192 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Pop 100 was made defunct in 2009. Any song charting prior to then can use the Pop 100 chart so long as its sourced. After that the Mainstream Top 40 tookover in 2010. Is there any articles in particular that you are referring to? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Belgium Ultratop and Ultratip

Is there any special distinction between these two charts? Till 11:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The Ultratip is the equibalent of the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. A song will chart on the Ultratip chart before reaching the Ultratop. Upon reaching Ultratop the Tip chart should be removed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Charts in France a reliable source?

I don't know if there is another discussion about this, but i post it for precaution. Since Charts in France began to publish its combined chart for albums and singles (2011), i had some doubts about its officiality. In fact, SNEP website didn't announce new combined charts and never mentioned Charts in France (also known as Pure Charts) as its official diffuser. So, I tried to write to SNEP, but its email doesn't function. I tried to write to GfK ( http://www.musiqueautop.com/home.php ) and it told me that it didn't know nothing about Charts in France and maybe, it is authorized by SNEP, but for safety, it reccomended me to follow the SNEP website. So, i remained with the doubts until 2012 when SNEP announced its first combined chart for the singles ( http://www.chartsinfrance.net/actualite/news-78188.html ). At that point, it was clear that Charts in France was not an official diffuser because it began with the combined singles chart one year before than SNEP, claiming that it was THE official chart and it was authorized by SNEP. Furthermore it continued to publish a combined albums chart that was never announced and officialized by SNEP. At this point, can Charts in France be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? SJ (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Erm honestly? I'm not sure. I think this is one for Kevin. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a tough call. Webedia.fr is certainly big enough that we would normally consider it to be a reliable source. They run purecharts.fr, and they run chartsinfrance.net. I have a really hard time believing that they claim to be officially licensed when they are not. My best bet is that Purecharts was publishing a combined chart based on official data, and this was agreed to by SNEP. The press release (which I have to use Google Translate to read) is really announcing the demise of the physical only chart.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Media Forest on Greece and Argentina

There are weekly airplay charts in Argentina and Greece. Are they good enough for use on Wikipedia? 2pac Is Alive (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't found any sources for Media-Forest in the Argentine news media. Erick (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable charts

For a while, it's known that charts such as Monitor Latino and Romanian Top 100 can used as charts, but they're not listed on WP:GOODCHARTS due to the lack of archiving. Of course, not every editor knows that these charts exist, so I propose a new section called "Acceptable charts" under the Recommended charts with the shortcut WP:OKAYCHARTS. I developed a sandbox to show what it might look like. If I have any missing charts or errors, let me know. I also have some questions as well:

1. In addition to the main charts, should be the genre charts be allowed as well or under the condition that it has not already ranked on the main chart?
2. Is the Tónlist for Iceland acceptable? I've seen it used in articles, but I haven't seen it discussed here.
3. Is the Mexican Airplay okay to be under WP:GOODCHARTS? There is an archive for the chart that can be found on Billboard.biz that does not require a subscription.
4. Not related to the above, but the Argentine site (CAPIF) has been down ever since it's been hacked. Is it alright if I update album chart link with a mirror link and the certifications link with an archive that contains most certifications up until 2010? Erick (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've got no problem with you compiling a list of "acceptable if manually archived" charts. It should be kept in a distinct section.

1. 1. That's always been the convention.
   2. Tónlist appears to be a single-vendor chart.
   3. Show me how to access the archive without subscribing.
   4. Go ahead.

—Kww(talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well. To access the Mexican Airplay, on Billboard.biz under the Chart tab, click "Archive". Go to Album Charts Archive (I don't know why it's under there instead of singles). The Mexican Airplay, as well as its genre charts, will be one of the choices on the Album Chart Name. Search for anything (the chart only goes up until mid-2011). In turn, under the Singles Chart Archives allows you to see singles that you normally aren't supposed on the Billboard main website. If it's alright as well, I've created a redirect for Mexican Airplay to Billboard charts since there isn't much information about it. Erick (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have added acceptable charts as its own section and created a shortcut for quick reference. So is the Mexican Airplay is acceptable then under WP:GOODCHARTS? EDIT: Also, I want to add that the certifications posted on the Mexican Airplay are from the RIAA, not AMPROFON. If you compare every certification posted at the Mexican Airplay chart to the RIAA website, you see every one of them match and note the lack of certifications for Spanish-language songs. Erick (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bubbling Under

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unfortunately I think I have to close this as no consensus - there is no clear position to use here.

The big hurdle seems to be how to handle the fact that bubbling under was counted differently before 1985 than it has been since 1992 and whether the old and new charts should be handled strictly as per the sources or consistently.

I think this issue is worth trying to resolve, and I don't think anyone in the discussion is being particularly unreasonable, but I would suggest mediation or the dispute resolution noticeboard as a next step that can hopefully produce a compromise solution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

A while back, this page didn't even acknowledge how to list Bubbling Under peaks. I had been using 1xx for them (e.g. 103 for a song that peaked at 3 on the Bubbling Under), and the 1xx format had been used on other articles. Therefore, I added a section encouraging 1xx for songs that bubbled under, since the issue had never been addressed, but precedent showed 1xx to be acceptable. Kww then over-wrote it with the following.

On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak.

Nowhere else in Wikipedia has Kww's take been supported that I know of. I fail to see how using 1xx for a Bubbling Under peak is synthesis, as the 1xx format is used widely in the industry (for instance, in the books by Joel Whitburn). After User:Eric444 addressed concerns about the handling of Bubbling Under peaks on my talk page, I decided to start this. What should we do for Bubbling Under songs? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The description of the Bubbling Under charts as being 101-125 is simply wrong. Bubbling Under charts positions 1-25 do not represent the songs that would be at positions 1-25 on an extended Hot 100, because songs cannot drop from the Hot 100 to the Bubbling Under charts. If the song that would be at position 101 of an extended chart has ever been at position 100 or above, it won't be 1 on the Bubbling Under chart. In fact, it won't be allowed to be on the Bubbling Under chart at all. Whitburn uses a shorthand, and that's his right. That doesn't mean that it's true, that simply means that he finds it to be a convenient shorthand.

If people want to use a notation like BU1-BU25 with an appropriate source, I could probably be persuaded.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's what you think. What we need is discussion. Consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most of what I said is simply factual. The only real opinion part is that I find the shorthand to be sufficiently misleading that it becomes unacceptable. Why you would find "123" better than noting it as "BU23" or something similar?—Kww(talk) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• In its current format (i.e., starting in 1992), the Bubbling Under chart lists songs as positions 1-25 (as opposed to 101-1xx). It is also accurate to say that the Bubbling Under has always been a separate chart from the Hot 100; songs that "climb" from the Bubbling Under chart to #100 or better on the Hot 100 have always been called "Hot 100 debuts". However, songs on the Bubbling Under chart were listed in Billboard magazine itself as "#101", "#102", etc for years and years. That demonstrates, to me, a level of credibility for those positions beyond one man's synthesis or shorthand used just for his books. Because of the two distinct methodologies, one used from 1959-1985 and another used from 1992-on, I can support the idea of listing peak chart positions on discography tables based on the song's age. For example, songs from 1959-1985 can use "#1xx", while songs 1992-on can have something similar to the Foo Fighters discography page (see entries for "The One", "Let It Die", "These Days").  Gongshow ^Talk 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean. Take the original release of the Beatles' "From Me to You" (1963). There are a multitude of reliable sources which note the song's peak chart position as bubbling under/#116 (e.g., [68][69][70][71][72][73][74]), including the Aug 10, 1963 issue of Billboard magazine. On the other hand, I'm unable to find any sources which state the song's peak chart position as bubbling under/#16. When listing or writing about this song's chart position in a Wiki discography/article, it seems that WP:SYNTH/WP:OR would apply more to the bubbling under/#16 way of expressing it, since everything that's verifiable appears to use #116. In these cases I think it's reasonable to use #1xx with a footnote.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you really see a guideline that would suggest handling positions differently according to the date released as feasible? What date would we use for the changeover on things like the "Rap Bubbling Under"?—Kww(talk) 05:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My dilemma is that there are two versions of the Bubbling Under (the Hot 100) chart, apparently each with its own way of numbering. The old version (1959-1985) uses positions 101-125+, and the new version (1992-present) uses #1-25. The old version can be sourced using Billboard magazine and not billboard.biz, and the new version can be sourced using billboard.biz. I guess the way I see it, changing an old song's "#101" peak to fit the current version is just as bad as changing a recent song's "#1" b/u peak to the old "#101" version, because neither is verifiable. WP:CHARTS states, "creating information not directly supported by the source" violates WP:SYNTH. Chart positions should be cited, and if the reliable source (namely, Billboard) uses #101, then I'm fine with using #101 in Wiki articles and discographies as well. I've put together examples of a Beatles discography page and a Nickelback discography page to further illustrate my thoughts. It might not be an ideal fix, but at least the pages accurately reflect the information contained in the sources. So to (finally!) answer your first question, I would say that it is feasible to ask that editors source chart positions with the positions given in Billboard magazine/(.biz).  Gongshow ^Talk 10:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I could go for this if the Bubbling Under chart was a separate column in the discography. It's the listing it in the same column as the Hot 100 chart and then listing it as "1xx" that disturbs me.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gongshow that if one is to cite the source accurately it has to be #101 for charts dated 1960–85 and #1 from 1992 onward. Piriczki (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, putting B/U numbers in a separate column could work. (1) It is a different chart, and (2) it can reduce the possible confusion some might have seeing "125" in a "1-100" column.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like it could lead to a reasonable compromise: numeric positions matching the source if the BU chart has its own column, dash and footnote if it doesn't.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been debated a myriad of times before and the outcome was always the same. While some publications refer to the 25 positions of the bubbling under as positions 101 to 125 Billboard itself lists a song as charting on the Bubbling Under in a position between 1 and 25 and then when IF the song progress it gets listed as Hot 100 positions 1 to 100. The last few times it was agreed in discographies that when a song charts on the bubbling under, providing a robust source is found it should be listed as uncharted with a footnote which denotes its position. By putting positions in as 101 and above it somehow gives the bubbling under the impression that there are 125 positions on a hot 100 chart. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reliable sources that archive the Bubbling Under peaks use 1xx format. For example, see these sample pages from Joel Whitburn's books here, here and here. If we're going to use his books as a source, shouldn't we cite them accurately?

Creating a separate column opens a whole Pandora's box because most songs that charted on the Hot 100 initially bubbled under. Does that mean we should include their Bubbling Under peak and their Hot 100 peak? If not, we wind up with two columns that will never overlap, which is a waste, especially if we can only have a maximum of ten. It makes things a lot more complicated than they need to be. The method of using a dash and a footnote is not truly accurate either and in some cases could lead to discographies with dozens of footnotes.

I think the best way to include Bubbling Under peaks is to use 1xx format, which we've been doing for years, accompanied by a reliable source and one footnote indicating songs that never entered the Hot 100 proper. Eric444 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What's "inaccurate" about the dash/footnote technique?—Kww(talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the column is called "US" and it gives the impression the song didn't chart in the US when there are published, reliable sources that say otherwise. Eric444 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If an artist has had several Bubbling Under entries, would it not make sense to have a "Bubbling" column provided it doesn't push them over the limit of 10? For instance, Kenny Chesney discography — he had several bubblers in the 90s, and adding another column for just the bubblers wouldn't put him anywhere close to 10 columns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, Bubbling Under is either a separate chart or it isn't. At the bottom of Kenny Chesney's discography, it says that dashes denote releases that did not chart. How can there be dashes in the Bubbling column for "That's Why I'm Here," "How Forever Feels," "You Had Me from Hello" and "She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy" when they all charted on Bubbling Under? Not to mention they are sourced to Joel Whitburn's book, which says nothing about "Bubbling Under," as seen in my third sample page above. Eric444 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "101-125" code is explained once in the introduction to each Whitburn book, and then not repeated with each table. Someone with the physical books should be able to verify.—Kww(talk) 05:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Top Pop Singles includes a short history of the Bubbling Under chart, describing it as "a chart listing positions past #100." In Hot Country Songs, it merely says "All Hot 100 and Bubbling Under The Hot 100 positions are now shown for easy identification of crossover hits." I hope we can come to a consensus on the proper way to include Bubbling Under peaks once and for all because right now we have discographies using several different formats, including Mark Chesnutt's, where the Bubbling Under peaks are given priority and his top 20 showing on the Hot 100 is relegated to a footnote. A cursory scan of his singles would lead the casual user to believe "This Heartache Never Sleeps" was a #1 hit on the Hot 100. Plus, I can't see how adding a dozen footnotes to Johnny Cash's discography benefits anyone. Eric444 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric has a point. The only time the Bubbling Under is not treated as an extension of the Hot 100 is if a song goes from bubbling under, enters the Hot 100, falls out of the Hot 100, then re-enters the Hot 100 — the week that it falls out, it doesn't go back into the bubblers. And I would imagine that's very rare. So for all intents and purposes, the "bubbling under" is "Hot 100 Plus". The 1xx notation is commonly used in the industry, and I don't see it as confusing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And since, ideally, chart positions are cited anyway, anyone who does have a "huh?" reaction to a 1xx chart peak position can view the accompanying reference showing that week's Hot 100 chart immediately next to the Bubbling Under chart with the 101+ numbering system. I agree that it would be easy enough to follow. Eric also brings up a good point about artists like Johnny Cash. So instead of having a dozen footnotes, maybe it would be more effective to have a single footnote that says something like, "These songs did not enter the Billboard Hot 100 but peaked on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart." The citation for each chart position could then go next to the number inside the discography box. Here's an example of what I mean using the Beatles discography again.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because the week the song would have been on the Bubbling Under but was excluded because of the "no re-entry" rule, every song that would have been below it gets moved up a place and is reported as being a higher position than it would be on an extended Hot 100 list. The only time that the actual positions on the Bubbling Under chart and the 101-125 positions on an extended Hot 100 correspond is when every song in positions 101-125 has never been on the Hot 100. That would be extremely rare. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that it has never happened in the history of the chart. The 101-125 positions are always going to contain some songs that were previously better than 100, and the Bubbling Under chart will never correspond correctly to positions 101-125.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As a direct reaction to your proposal, why is number with an individual citation amd a footnote better than a dash with a footnote? Same amount of formatting, and the dash avoids presenting false/misleading data. Making a system that only works well for older artists ignores the fact that most of the activity (and trouble) is on newer artists.—Kww(talk) 05:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

On newer artists in particular, I do prefer the dash/footnote method in presenting Bubbling Under peaks (like here). Many newer artists' song discographies use up 10+ columns, so I'm hesitant to add another just for B/U peaks. And it would be even sillier to add the peaks directly into the discography boxes, as the "1" and "4" examples, even with citations/footnotes, would appear confusing at a glance. To reiterate what I said much earlier, I'd be okay with this format for older artists as well (see here). This would keep formatting consistent across the board, at least. But I'm open to all reasonable possibilities...the main thing for me is simply to ensure the information is represented somehow.  Gongshow ^Talk 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gongshow's arrangement. This would save immensely on footnotes; it's much clearer and easily understood. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I thought it might be helpful to summarize the various options presented by everyone above. Of course, feel free to comment/critique/select a favorite/add to the below options.

1. Incorporate the Bubbling Under peaks within the Hot 100 column. All songs use the "101, 102, 1xx" format.

For the new songs (1992-present), numbers 101-125 are sourced from Joel Whitburn's book(s). Old songs (1959-1985) can be sourced from Whitburn or issues of Billboard magazine.

Examples: Beatles; Nickelback

Pros: saves on footnotes; clear format for editors and readers alike (all info kept in one column)

Cons: sourcing a licensee's info rather than Billboard itself; concerns w/SYNTH and accuracy; B/U is not part of Hot 100 so why keep in same column?

2a. Incorporate the Bubbling Under peaks within the Hot 100 column. All songs use the dash/footnote format.

For the new songs (1992-present), numbers 101-125 are sourced from Joel Whitburn's book(s). Old songs (1959-1985) can be sourced from Whitburn or issues of Billboard magazine.

Examples: Beatles; Nickelback

Pros: B/U info kept separate from Hot 100, but footnotes still allow B/U peaks to be used on discographies

Cons: Format not as editor/reader-friendly as other options, especially for artists w/10+ footnotes; Whitburn book concerns (see #1)

2b. Incorporate the Bubbling Under peaks within the Hot 100 column. All songs use the dash/footnote format.

If Whitburn's system of converting Bubbling Under peaks (e.g., from 'BU #1' to '#101') is considered WP:SYNTH of the original Billboard material, this option sources billboard.biz for the new songs (1992-present).

Examples: Beatles; Nickelback

Pros: same as 2a; plus it sources Billboard (mag/.biz) exclusively (it is their chart)

Cons: same as 2a; plus it can get confusing to use 101-125+ for the old songs and then 1-25 for the new songs

3a. Create a separate column for Bubbling Under peaks.

For the new songs (1992-present), numbers 101-125 are sourced from Joel Whitburn's book(s). Old songs (1959-1985) can be sourced from Whitburn or issues of Billboard magazine.

Examples: Beatles; Nickelback

Pros: keeps the two charts separated; no footnotes necessary; easier than #2 to follow

Cons: many artists already have 10+ columns; Whitburn book concerns (see #1)

3b. Create a separate column for Bubbling Under peaks.

If Whitburn's system of converting Bubbling Under peaks (e.g., from 'BU #1' to '#101') is considered WP:SYNTH of the original Billboard material, this option sources billboard.biz for the new songs (1992-present).

Examples: Beatles; Nickelback

Pros: same as 3a; plus it sources Billboard (mag/.biz) exclusively (it is their chart)

Cons: same as 3a; plus it can get confusing to use 101-125+ for the old songs and then 1-25 for the new songs

4. Use option #1 for the old songs (1959-1985) and option #2b for the new songs (1992-present).

Examples: Beatles; Nickelback

Pros: eliminates the footnote issue for old songs while sourcing Billboard (mag/.biz) exclusively

Cons: dependent on songs' age (one format for old, one for new) - can get confusing

 Gongshow ^Talk 22:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I vote for option #1. It's clean, consistent, saves on superfluous columns and confusing footnotes and matches the source (Whitburn's books). In response to Kww above, an individual citation and a footnote is better than a dash with a footnote because we'll have just one footnote that says "these songs did not enter the Billboard Hot 100 but peaked on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart" as opposed to twelve footnotes that say "song A peaked at #10," "song B peaked at #7," "song C peaked at #8," "song D peaked at #19," etc., and then refer users to a source which says they peaked at #110, #107, #108, #119, etc. Eric444 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are 12 citations substantially different from 12 footnotes? It's not like the main chart, where we are able to source all the positions in the column with one sweeping reference? BU positions nearly always require an individual citation per entry.—Kww(talk) 05:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why do BU positions require individual citations, especially if they all come from the same page of the same book? One citation to Whitburn's book at the end of the one footnote should suffice. Eric444 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Very few discographies use Whitburn's book as a source, a small minority of editors have ready access to it, and no songs less than three years old can be sourced to it. It's unlikely that any new edition will ever be published. Choosing a guideline based on a source of rapidly dwindling appropriateness doesn't make much sense to me.—Kww(talk) 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
        • What makes you say it's unlikely a new edition will ever be published? Top Pop Singles is now in its 13th edition and a new one seems to come out every two or three years. Furthermore, Whitburn's books are widely used in most country music discographies and WP:CHARTS encourages using them as a source. Eric444 (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I expect these books to die out the same way as the large movie guides have been replaced by online sources. Even assuming I'm wrong, that still means that every song entering the Bubbling Under charts for the next several years would have to be done one way until the book comes out and then reworked after it does. Basing a guideline around the use of a single source that is updated infrequently just seems extremely unwise.—Kww(talk) 08:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Billboard.biz citations have been used before (I think they're used on Taylor Swift's discography). The only disadvantage is that they require a subscription. Plus, as it stands, billboard.com and allmusic are missing an assload of chart positions anyway, so what does it matter if the material is cited in more than one fashion? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• When I've seen Billboard.biz citations, they have been used with one reference to support a single position. My main point in this response was that in most cases, we wind up with one citation per position, which isn't substantially different from one footnote per position.—Kww(talk) 14:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• And my point is, at least from what I've seen, Whitburn's books are far more commonly used as a source for BU peaks than Billboard.biz, and as TPH pointed out, they're more thorough. Only peaks from the last two years would need an individual citation, and only until the next book comes out. Eric444 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I believe it is a synthases to describe No. 1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart as No. 101 on the Hot 100. The BU chart simply is not an extension of the Hot 100. I do believe it is note worthy and should be annotated in the Hot 100 column as BU1 with the inclusion of an additional footnote explaining the relevance. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• That would be an acceptable compromise. Use the BUxx format with a single note at the bottom saying something like "BU indicates that the song did not enter the Hot 100 but peaked on Bubbling Under Hot 100". That way you only need one footnote to explain all the positions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, those are my thoughts as well. Additionally, you would not require an additional column because the Hot 100 would accommodate the information well. Lastly to my regards, I fully agree that the consensus approach that is adopted should be uniformly applied. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, then what should the verbiage be for the footnote? Is mine sufficient? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  To remain consistent with the existing footnote, ("—" denotes releases that did not chart), I suggest: ("BU#" denotes releases that did not enter the Hot 100 but did chart on Bubbling Under Hot 100 with # denoting its peak; from 1-25) 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• So it looks like the consensus is to use BUxx in the Hot 100 column for Bubbling Under peaks. Is this correct? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of using "BU1", "BU2",..."BU25" inside discography boxes for songs that have never been given the #1-#25 Bubbling Under formatting style. That seems like synthesis to me. I can see the case for using "#4" for a song like Train's "Cab" since Billboard itself uses #4 and not #104. But what about songs from the first Bubbling Under era? Billboard has always used "#116" for the Beatles' "From Me to You" (to resurrect that early example) and has, as best as I can determine, never gone back and adjusted the formatting for these songs to fit the current "#16" style. Beyond the charts themselves, Billboard articles from that era also seem to have always used the "1xx" format when discussing these songs' chart positions. So, while the BU formatting has changed over the years and the Billboard way of recognizing songs from each era has remained separate, the one constant from 1959 to the present is that the Hot 100 and the Bubbling Under have always been considered two different charts. With that being the case, I'm starting to lean more towards having a separate column for BU peaks. For artists whose discographies already contain 10+ columns, Bubbling Under peaks become comparatively less significant anyway.

TL;DR version: I'm in favor of having our discographies match Billboard. I would encourage editors to cite the magazine or billboard.biz as needed.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the wiki way to extrapolate information from its obsolete form to the current form in use. For example Patsy Cline's discography states ("Walkin' After Midnight" peaked at #2 on the Billboard Magazine Hot Country Songs) even though a chart by that title did not exist until 2005, or that the Willis Tower was completed in 1973 when it was the Sears Tower at that time. We shouldn't cite a song as peaking at 116 on the BU chart when the current manner lists them as 1-25 any more so than we should cite its position to an obsolete chart, IMO 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm not sure the examples are analogous, though. With the country chart change, sources continue to credit Patsy for the #2 hit. The original fact is essentially the same and it's carried over to the current name. With the Chicago building change, sources continue to credit the completion date as 1973. The original fact is essentially the same and it's carried over to the current name. With the BU chart change, I've yet to see a source credit the original #101 peaks as (BU-)#1 peaks. Do those original facts carry over to the current name or not? A 2004 issue of Billboard used the original "#116 on Bubbling Under", as opposed to "#16 on Bubbling Under", to describe the peak of a 1963 song. That issue was twelve years after the BU #1-25 chart was implemented. If all sources continue to credit #101 peaks as #101 (they seem to, but I'd be happy to see otherwise), then using #101 is good enough for me as well. That said, I can see the convenience with some of these other methods and, as I said earlier to Kww, the main thing for me is having BU represented at all.  Gongshow ^Talk 10:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You articulate your position well. Perhaps it can best resolve using context that describes the essence of both sourced renditions. Consider if the following suggestion for the footnotes could be effective:

"—" denotes releases that did not chart
"-n" the negative number denotes releases that peaked "n" positions below the main chart on its related Bubbling Under chart (n=1–25)

An additional benefit derives by it being equally viable for all BU charts like R&B/Hip-Hop or those to come. I am in keen anticipation of your reply. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I like the idea of using context in a footnote. Maybe it could be written similar to what many discographies already use, and simply add a short descriptor:

"Song X peaked at #133 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart, which tracked singles ranked below the Hot 100 from 1959-1985."

"Song X peaked at #3 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart, which has tracked singles ranked below the Hot 100 since 1992."

... or something to that effect. The Bubbling Under article already spells out the chart's old and current methods rather well, but maybe something brief like this would be appropriate, as well. Cheers,  Gongshow ^Talk 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I came across a recent (Aug. 1, 2012) Yahoo! Music article I thought might be worth sharing since part of it is on the BU topic. In "Close But No Cigar", writer Paul Grein notes the "Longest Run at #101" - "Vanity 6's 1982 recording of Prince's 'Nasty Girl' spent seven weeks at #101 without ever cracking the Hot 100."  Gongshow ^Talk 19:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• So we've had a billion suggestions, but what's the consensus here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I say you follow what was agreed previously. In chart tables for discographies the bubbling under position is not listed as 1XX. e.g. 103. But a note is put alongside where it is explained seperately. On song pages its fine to have the bubbling under peak if there is no hot 100. Agree? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So to be clear, you propose adding a dozen footnotes to Johnny Cash's discography, complicating the page, contradicting the reference the peaks come from and confusing readers? Eric444 (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pre-1991 1XX is fine. Post 1991 in the v2.0 of the chart it should be footnoted. This could also be overcome by the addition of a Bubbling under column. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on! It is always a bubbling under chart. Do you really want to see several one hit wonders with 20 or more footnotes? Furthermore, it makes confusion to the people that don't know nothing about the charts. It's enough to explain what is a bubbling under chart in one footnote. Simone Jackson (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• To answer TPH, I don't believe a clear consensus has yet been reached - some people prefer the #1-25 format; others prefer the #101-125 format. Speaking for myself, I'd be fine with the #1-25 format too if, at any time since 1992 (the beginning of "Bubbling Under v. 2.0"), Billboard or any reliable source used the #1-25 designation for songs that peaked during the "Bubbling Under v. 1.0" era (1959-1985). To reiterate a point I brought up earlier: Billboard (and all other sources I could find) to this day still uses #101-125 for these older songs. That's mainly why I'm against changing the old #101-125 peaks to #1-25. As for "Bubbling Under v. 2.0", the chart peaks are available for free at the Billboard.biz archives, and so I'm not against using #1-25 for these songs since Billboard itself uses them. In short, I'm in favor of choosing any option that uses what the sources say. If we can agree on that, then we decide on how to present the info (footnotes, dashes, and/or separate columns, etc).  Gongshow ^Talk 23:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs - Rap Songs R&B Songs

There's a discussion about the above changes at Talk:Billboard_charts#Hot_R.26B.2FHip-Hop_Songs_-_Rap_Songs_R.26B_Songs. Could people please weigh-in? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I sent a response there. Silencio faz bem (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Facebook as a source for Italian chart

Lately I've seen sources like this being used as a reference for Italian digital singles chart positions below top 10 – for example here. FIMI of course only publishes the top 10 on their site.

I haven't removed them, since basically they appear to be valid. However, as a source, Facebook seems a bit dubious to me. Any opinions? Widr (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a link from http://www.universalmusic.it/pop/ to the Facebook account confirming that it really belongs to Universal Music, it's fine.—Kww(talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Found it. It's right on the top page, connected to the Facebook icon. That means that the Facebook page is published by Universal Music, and is just as reliable as Universal Music.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Good, then it seems to be a valid source. Although it's unlikely that they would be releasing chart info for artists not signed to Universal. Widr (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Is The Official Lebanese Top 20 a legitimate singles chart?

The Official Lebanese Top 20 is used on some song articles, but the article itself is not referenced and I didn't see any discussions of the chart here. The methodology appears to be airplay based on the website information. As for media coverage, I do see some coverage from news media from Google News such as this French site, and this Arabic site. Archives can be found here. So is it a legitimate chart? Erick (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

well it is compiled by IPSOS which are a world-leading market research company. What concerns me is that it has no IFPI affiliation, although this might be because the chart is in its infancy. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

{{singlechart}}

If an article is going to use the singlechart templates, shouldn't chart positions be updated only when the assigned source is updated. For example, I noticed some updates to Billboard chart positions on some articles because another source was found. Yet that source wasn't cited, and the chart history page for the artist is not updated for this week yet so, as of now, the cited source is inaccurate. The fanboy message I got on the revert was "it will update in a couple days, so it's ok." My feeling then is if the singlechart template is to be used, then the chart position for a song shouldn't be updated until the actual source is. And if there's another reliable source, then that should be used. That would tend to violate WP:verifiability without proper citations, even if it is for a day or two. The fanboys just want to be the first. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The chart position should not be updated untl the reference is updated. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I will say I am not a fan of Taylor Swift - I am interested in making the articles on such a major topic as accurate as possible, and that involves accurate chart positions. That said, if everyone objects than I see no issue removing it - the flaw is really with the chart position template, which leaves no room for other citations. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the uncivil remark and may also like to point out that I agree with Toa, although I am a fan of Taylor Swift, I too believe in accuracy. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 19:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We did look at this when we first made the Template. I'm sure we made it so that additional reference could be used. Someone should notify Kevin who designed the template. He would have a good idea. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no way to provide an alternate reference. There's no rush to get the latest positions into an article: the position shouldn't be updated until the source is updated. That's always true: the sources for an article and the data in an article should always correspond.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not accurate if it's not sourced accurately. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two times this comes up. The first one is when Billboard just has it wrong: the song isn't being listed correctly on the site. When that happens, {{singlechart}} just shouldn't be used. The other case is when the position is preannounced in a news article. I've got no problem saying that we shouldn't be using positions from such announcements, and should wait until the actual chart is released.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I prefer just waiting a day or two for the actual chart to update, when Billboard preannounces some 'next chart' positions it is not inaccurate to report them, IMO. As long as the preannouncement material is DIRECTLY sourced to Billboard ONLY. (They are their charts, after all.) And a 'work-around' is available (for the brief necessary period) by placing a ref to the preannouncement in the note parameter of the template.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I actually used this method...here's an example [[75]]. (See Billboard Hot 100) —Iknow23 (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Country charts

The Hot Country Songs charts have been split into two charts: an airplay-only chart that's identical in methodology to the original, airplay-only Hot Country Songs chart, and an airplay/sales hybrid chart which is now the "main" country chart (more info here). How should this be handled in discographies? The current link to the Country Songs chart reflects the positions of the "new" chart, while the Country Airplay chart reflects the chart formerly known as Hot Country Songs. Do we use both positions? The "new" chart only? New chart unless it only charted on the airplay-only chart? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's covered by our standard rules on component charts: the airplay chart should only be listed if the song did not enter the combined airplay/sales chart.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was curious on this since, unlike Hot 100/Hot 100 Airplay, the airplay chart came first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If we tried to make the guideline dependent on history, it would become even more complex and less understood than it is today. I'd have to see a really strong argument for treating it differently than any other component chart situation before I would want to consider doing that.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this new hybrid country chart is horrid, I personally I think from this week on we should use the "Country airplay" positions since it has the same methodology that the country chart has been going by, and it's the chart that is released in the Chart highlights on Monday like the previous Country chart was. NYSMtalk page 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that these rule changes also apply to R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Rock Songs, Latin Songs, Rap Songs, and the newly-added R&B Songs chart. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not we personally like them, I'd say continue to use the "main" chart as the basis for discographies. This is not the first time methodologies have changed in Billboard charts and it won't be the last, which is the point. As technology and trends change the way people consume music, then the charts will change to reflect that. - eo (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As much as I hate the new chart and would like to continue using Country Airplay, and I really would, it does seem that Billboard is treating the new chart as the official country chart and a continuation of the old one. Looking up Taylor Swift's chart history, for example, Billboard has combined her previous airplay peaks with this week's new peaks under Country Songs while only her current singles are listed under Country Airplay. For now, I suppose all we can do is use the "official" chart and hope that Billboard comes to their senses. Eric444 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Combine them. TheDL (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the issue, being "canvassed" by RFC bot, but using them both sounds plenty viable. Most articles I've seen that include charting information just have it in a table towards the bottom, so have a Hot Country Songs chart and a Country Airplay chart. I suppose there's potential for confusion with previous iterations of the former, but that's not really our fault, is it? Is there a reason we'd need to ascribe primacy to one? --BDD (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I understood that Hot 100 Airplay data are used to make the Hot 100 proper, which is why it doesn't make sense to use both unless the song only made it onto the airplay chart. From what I gather, the Country Airplay chart's data are used to make the "new" country chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• As another note here, the industry itself seems to be turning its back on the "new" country chart. Case in point: this week's chart has a big ad where Curb thanks radio for getting Lee Brice to #1 on the airplay chart (he's only #4 on the "new" chart). I'm also seeing sources calling "Blown Away" a #1 even though it only got to #1 on Airplay. So far, all the press I see ignores the "new" country chart, except of course for heralding Taylor getting to #1 with "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together". I would think the lack of media acknowledgement of the "new" chart would show that the airplay-only chart is still the only game in town countrywise. Comparing this to Hot 100 vs. Hot 100 Airplay also seems apples-and-oranges, since many, many songs are charting on "New Hot Country Songs" but not "Country Airplay" or vice versa. Perhaps the best solution is just to include both? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support that. I think the "New" country chart puts too much emphasis on downloads, Taylor Swift just debuted a shitload of songs onto that chart from downloads only, but Faith Hill's "American Heart" isn't even on the chart even though it's #31 on Country airplay this week. NYSMtalk page 19:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• The new chart is a bad joke and needs to be either combined with or replaced by the Airplay Chart. Right now you have several editors constantly reversing edits by irate Carrie Underwood & Lee Brice fans who are upset that their favorite has been denied a BB #1 even though they reached #1 on the Airplay & Mediabase charts. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of months when Luke Bryan, Jake Owens, Miranda, Zac Brown, Brad & Kenny and others are blocked from #1 peak positions because Never, Ever, Ever and it's mega pop airplay is still occupying the catbird seat.TexasVet (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• That is a problem too. This chart is horribly b0rked and way too heavily tilted in favor of Taylor. She's gonna spend the rest of 2012 and well into 2013 at #1, no question about it. On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair to deny the cast of Nashville who are charting on the download chart but (besides Hayden Panettiere) aren't on the airplay chart yet. Which is why it would only make sense to include both peaks — comparing Hot Country Songs, Airplay-Only version, to Hot 100 Airplay is apples and oranges. Also, the "old" chart doesn't seem to count as a "component" chart, since it includes only country airplay, whereas the "new" chart includes non-country airplay as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also, If Airplay is just a component chart why would Billboard invest the time and funds to feature it as the primary chart in their Monday Updates? Seems to me it's on equal footing with the new Hot Country Songs Chart that's published on Thursdays. TexasVet (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• As much as I'm still opposed to the new chart, I don't think the ad in this week's Country Update is a persuasive argument. It's not clear which chart it's referring to, and further down the same ad brags that Rodney Atkins' song is #31 on Mediabase when he's only #33 on Billboard airplay. The other problem is that websites like CMT (here) and Country Standard Time (here) are using only the new chart in their weekly chart write-ups.

On the other hand, I would like to put an end to the edit wars not just on Carrie Underwood's discography but Little Big Town's, Rascal Flatts' Miranda Lambert's, Kacey Musgraves', etc. Just this afternoon 209.105.182.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added the Airplay chart to another handful of country music discographies and it seems like this is going to be an ongoing problem. Eric444 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I think the best and most obvious solution is to include both. As I said, this is clearly different from Hot 100 vs. Hot 100 Airplay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well Eric I see that someone has already reversed your Carrie Underwood Discography edit and changed Blown Away's peak from #2 to #1. Once this starts affecting other artists you guys are going to feel like that dutch kid with his finger in the dike. Folks are never going to accept seeing their favorite artists latest single listed as a #1 in the Monday Billboard update and Wiki showing the same song peaking in some lesser chart position. TexasVet (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, easy fix. List both positions! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree but getting a consensus among wiki editors to change something is like herding cats! TexasVet (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This really feels to me like people are arguing to be inconsistent with the rest of the music articles because they don't like the answer that consistency brings. If the airplay charts are significantly different from a combined sales/airplay chart, that's just the nature of reality. If the demographics of country music fans are such that the people that buy music buy songs from Taylor Swift, that's a fact. Trying to push an airplay-only chart because it tends to favor music popular with older listeners and artists that have fewer crossover sales isn't trying to paint an accurate picture of the market, it's trying to paint a distorted image of the market because you like that picture better.

That said, if the charts are really that different, there's no reason not to list both in a discography article so long as you are going to stay under the 10 chart limit. I don't think the 10 chart limit is a major problem for most country artists. The only thing that would unacceptable would be to mix positions in a column: if it's an airplay column, it's an airplay columng, not a mix of whatever positions makes the artist look best.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the answer that consistency brings. It's that the differences are so radical that IMO, neither should be ignored. For instance, Dierks Bentley's current placing with "Tip It On Back" differs by a good 15 positions between the two charts (#19 airplay vs. #34 on the new chart). Taylor's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" isn't even on the airplay chart because it took a ginormous drop and went recurrent. And as I said, a lot of the Nashville cast are getting on the charts due to downloads, but beyond Hayden Panettiere's "Telescope", none are getting airplay. My intent was that both the old and new charts be included. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If Billboard's new chart would have just been combined sales/country airplay instead of combined sales/all format airplay it probably wouldn't have been such a radical change. TexasVet (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I support allowing both to be used, as well as the airplay component charts for the new Rock and R&B charts. It is borderline misleading to not allow them, because it presents an incomplete picture without them - Taylor got a number one, for instance, entirely off of pop sales, streams, and pop airplay, with no actual country play, sales, or streams. This isn't a Hot 100/Airplay issue, it is entirely different. Toa Nidhiki05 20:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Also, the "old" chart doesn't seem to count as a "component" chart, since it includes only country airplay, whereas the "new" chart includes non-country airplay as well." This is really the only argument that should exist. I was under the mistaken belief that the overall charts counted just the corresponding airplay charts. But from [76], it states "The new methodology, which will utilize the Hot 100's formula of incorporating airplay from more than 1,200 stations of all genres monitored by BDS, will reward crossover titles receiving airplay on a multitude of formats." Since these charts take into account wider airplay charts, they are not component charts and should be allowed to be used. But even with it added to Carrie Underwood discography, an ip editor has already changed the overall chart #2 to #1 once, so this might not help out to avoid edit wars in certain articles. Aspects (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's truly not a component chart, then I can't see any argument against using both.—Kww(talk) 04:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also if these are not component charts, then articles should be created for them, instead of redirecting to the overall charts that they are not component charts of. Aspects (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to do that yet, since Hot Country Airplay is just a new name for the "old" Hot Country Songs chart that's been in place since the 1940s, and the "Hot Country Songs" name now applies to a differently-tabulated chart. They're worlds apart but yet their history is intertwined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Airplay number ones should also count toward total number ones. I noticed that Luke Bryan was still showing 4 but with "Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye" peaking at #1 on Airplay the total should be 5....same with Carrie Underwood from 13 to 14 with Blown Away. TexasVet (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not like the previous Hot Country Songs methodology was the way things were always done. It wasn't always just airplay. It's just the evolution of the biz, and it will change again. As time goes on, we'll be able to cite official counts of chart hits/top tens/number ones from actual sources and not what any of us think it should be. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Billboard Russia Top 50

What do you all think guys about this chart published by MSN Russia? Does it meet requirement to be listed at WP:GOODCHART? Bluesatellite (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

South Korea (Gaon Charts)

Does anyone know how to navigate the Gaon charts? e.g. http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

acharts.us

So, I have a question regarding acharts.us- I'm trying to source Spectrum, here it says the song charted at No. 48 on the US Airplay Top 100, and WP:GOODCHARTS says it is okay to use acharts.us to source US positions, but that position is from Charly1300.com, which is under WP:BADCHARTS. It seems conflicting, should it not be used because it isn't a Billboard position? NYSMmau5 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Acharts.us is okay for the Hot 100 positions, but the airplay chart is, like you noticed, an unofficial ranking from Charly1300.com. Widr (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube

Am I the only one who thinks YouTube is playing a bigger and bigger role in the music industry with every single passing year? And that the YouTube charts should be included here? -A1candidate (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. I believe YouTube falls under SINGLEVENDOR the same way iTunes does. Erick (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Billboard YouTube chart is a bit different than ITunes though; its a billboard chart trying to capture video views, and the only reliable way to do that right now is via the dominant youtube platform.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe YouTube contributes to the streaming charts at its appropriate weight. The views aren't being missed.—Kww(talk) 18:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Billboard charts

How come all the Rihanna articles combine the Billboard Hot 100 and Bubbling under charts, which listed as a violation of WP:SYNTH? I even changed it, and it was restored. Till 05:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Show me some pointers. Who's reverting you?—Kww(talk) 05:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed all these synthesized chart positions on the discography article, [77] [78] but was reverted two days later with no explanation. [79] [80] And every Rihanna song article that I come across states something like 'X peaked at #Y on the Bubbling under, which acts as a 25 extension to the Hot 100'. Till 05:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with mentioning the Bubbling Under charts, so long as that "acts an extension" statement isn't used. It's the phony positions that are the problem.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The synthesized sentence is used on Loveeeeeee Song and it's blatantly clear who it was added by. Also found it on Raining Men (song). However, the Beyoncé Knowles discography article has to be the worst. It's got the false chart positions and the combination of Hot 100/Bubbling under in the notes. Till 06:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Massive revision of singlechart/BillboardID

Due to the major revamp of the Billboard charts, I've had to make substantial revisions to singlechart and BillboardID.

In short, singlechart no longer listens to the artistid parameter you pass it. It will use the name to look up the artistid number using {{BillboardID}}. {{BillboardID}} now supports over 30,000 artists. It's brand new and took my computer over a week to generate, so it undoubtedly has bugs and missing entries. If the template can't find the artist, then edit the corresponding entry in the templates.

The list got so huge that it's broken up by first character: "101 strings" in in {{BillboardID/1}}, for example. If you really want to call it with "One Hundred and One Strings", that will work, but you would have to enter the Billboard ID into {{BillboardID/O}} as "one hundred and one strings".Won't work any more: you have to use the Billboard version of the name. Exactly.

Thanks in advance for your help. It's a simple system, so we should all be able to maintain the tables without having to funnel everything through me. If you can't figure it out or it's blowing up in some new and unexpected way, let me know and I'll get it debugged.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already noticed that the page targets aren't working quite right: get's you to the artist, but not to the chart. Fix in the works.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed that one. Only 47,131 left to go.—Kww(talk) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The new Billboard site is horrible. Hopefully, they are working out all the kinks, but it's making the singlechart template for Billboard charts practically useless, especially for newer songs as the artist's chart history pages on Billboard.com seem to lag far behind actual chart positions. Editors who continue to use or add the template for these charts are providing sources that do not verify the chart position. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

UK Airplay Chart?

Is http://ukairplaychart.com/about/ a legitimate source for Airplay in the UK? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks legit. You'll need to use Webcite, though: there isn't an archive. I wouldn't use it unless none of the OCC charts have the song, and that should be pretty rare.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems, problems

There are problems here regarding the usage of Billboard charts, specifically certain cases of not being able to include chart B if it charted on chart A.

1. The first problem is not being able to include Dance/Mix Show Airplay if a song has charted on Hot Dance Club Songs. Dance/Mix Show is not a component of the club chart, and the two are not connected in any way. The club chart only tracks plays in certain dance clubs across the country, while the Dance/Mix tracks across certain radio stations.
2. Problem two is the Pop section. If a song has not charted on Pop 100 you may add any of the following - the Pop 100 chart was short lived, and has been defunct for years now, but yet it dictates whether other current charts can be added or not? The Pop 100, Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), and especially Adult Top 40 aren't connected at all.

Dance/Mix Show Airplay, Adult Top 40 and Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) need to be moved above, to be added regardless of other chartings.

NYSMy talk page 03:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding on, I've seen an editor on here claim that Adult Pop Songs is a component chart of Pop Songs, and this is not true. Adult Pop Songs tracks Hot AC (Adult Top 40) music stations, such as KYKY here is St. Louis. Pop Songs tracks Mainstream Top 40 radio stations, such as KSLZ in St. Louis. They play different music and are not connected. NYSMy talk page 03:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not strictly true. The Pop 100 reference should remain (there was originally a bit of overlap when the Pop Songs chart launched as the Pop 100 was still active for a few weeks), at the time of writing this article, the billboard website was very different and at the top next to the chart name it described the chart's methodology. Under "Adult Pop Songs" it read "A sub-set of mainstream radio stations that play adult contemporary songs". The Hot AC - Adult Contemporary Songs chart is completely different. Please do not confuse Adult Pop Songs with Hot Adult Contemporary Songs. Hot AC consists of soft-rock and vocal-heavy music, predominately ballads, Adult Pop is for audiences that don't like hard rock, teen pop, dance, hip hop, or adult contemporary music. You're gonna need something more specific and precise than examples of radio stations from one place in America, there are thousands of them! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Bear with me, what you wrote is a little confusing. You're trying to say you think Hot AC = Adult Contemporary (chart)? This is not true, Hot AC = Adult Top 40/Adult Pop Songs. Pop Songs, Adult Pop Songs, and Adult Contemporary are all airplay charts, airplay charts don't have component charts. These are all different formats. It is difficult to explain the differences of these stations and formats to someone outside of the United States. Also, WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS currently says Adult Pop Songs can be added if a song hasn't charted on the Pop 100 (Girl on Fire). NYSMy talk page 12:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. The charts in question hear are The Adult Pop Songs, Hot AC (Hot Adult Contemporary Songs), and the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs). The adult pop songs per Billboard's own definitions at the time of writing the guideline was that the Adult Pop Songs is a sub-set of the mainstream radio stations in the United States which play music for adult audiences excluding the following genres: hard rock, teen pop, dance, hip hop, or adult contemporary music. In your response you seem to confuse that there is both an Adult Contemporary and an Adult Pop Songs radio format and chart which are completely different. Hot AC refers to Adult Contemporary not Adult Pop. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, Adult Contemporary and Adult Pop Songs are both radio formats. There are separate stations which play separate music that each chart tracks. Adult Contemporary stations play Soft Adult Contemporary and Adult Pop stations play Hot Adult Contemporary. Hot AC does not equal Adult Contemporary (chart). We need to get more voices here, and possibly put together a letter which we could send to Billboard.com to get a clearer picture. NYSMy talk page 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You also didn't address your exclusion of Adult Pop from Girl on Fire. According to WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS the chart can be added as long as the song didn't chart on the Pop 100. NYSMy talk page 22:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look here at the BDS Neilsen HOT AC NATIONAL AIRPLAY, you'll see it is identical to Billboard Adult Pop Songs. And here the AC NATIONAL AIRPLAY is identical to Adult Contemporary (chart) NYSMy talk page 22:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(I know R&R is defunct, but the website still shows the Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems information that Billboard uses.) NYSMy talk page 22:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that on both of those links there is a MOST ADDED section, showing stations that exclusively cater to each format, respectively. NYSMy talk page 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You can also see here the CHR/TOP 40 NATIONAL AIRPLAY, which is identical to Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), and see below in that link stations that exclusively contribute to that chart, none of which are the same as HOT AC NATIONAL AIRPLAY (Adult Pop Songs). NYSMy talk page 22:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the dance charts, Dance/Mix Airplay is a complete separate entity from Hot Dance Club Songs, one is airplay the other is club play. There is no reasoning to deny usage of the airplay chart if the song charted on the club chart, they are not connected at all. NYSMy talk page 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week with no responses even after this page has been viewed 100 times, I'm taking that as no objections so I'm making the change. If you disagree, discuss here. NYSMy talk page 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Pop 100 should still apply for the years it was an active chart and the primary pop chart. I think the priority list has more to do with the number of charts listed in an article(particularly having an undue amount of US charts) rather than an idea of others simply being "sub"-charts or components, which I agree is not the case. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Could you clarify, are you just saying you support keeping the Pop 100 in articles? Because I support keeping it in them too, just not excluding those 2 other charts. It only applies to 4 years anyways, it isn't even a concern for current articles. A big concern is editors claiming certain charts are components, when they aren't, as seen here. NYSMy talk page 19:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My main concern would be those songs that are international hits charting in dozen or more countries. In those cases, I would like to see restraint on the listing of US charts. In those cases, for the years when the Pop 100 existed, perhaps just list Hot 100, Pop 100, and a specific genre or two, if applicable. Outside of the Pop 100 years, I say go for it, particularly if it didn't chart on the Hot 100 at all, but again restraint on listing every Billboard chart it reached when it charts in numerous other countries to avoid undue weight on US chart performance. Now, if someone's trying to say a chart such as the Adult Top 40 shouldn't be listed because it's a component of another, well, yeah that's wrong. The Hot 100, in fact, before it changed to an all genre format in 1998, measured airplay only from Mainstream Top 40, Rhythmic Top 40, Adult Top 40, Adult Contemporary, and Modern Rock radio stations—all independent formats with their own charts in Billboard. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The USCHARTS guidlines should have been updated because the Mainstream Top 40 superseded the Pop 100. TBH all our billboard-related articles are a mess. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Chartbot review

The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot. I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been approved, and is beginning to attempt to drain the swamp. If you see problems, drop a note on my talk page.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dance/Electronic Songs

I think we should include Dance/Electronic Songs on the Applicable U.S. Charts since it ranks the top-selling electronic dance music singles in the United States through a combination of single sales, digital downloads, club play and radio airplay. People is removing this chart because they think it is a componet of Hot Dance Club Songs while the true is that this chart is included on Dance/Electronic. Since Dance/Electronic Songs is a new chart I think we should keep both charts.--Albes29 (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Monitor Latino - Dominican Republic / Media Forest Argentina

The main website for Monitor Latino now displays the current number-one single in the Dominican Republic. The main chart still remains only for subscribers. Will it be appropriate to use it on the singles chart provided that its manually archived? Similarly, Media-Forest has now provided charts for Argentina. Erick (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you archive them properly, they should be fine.—Kww(talk) 09:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Creative Disc

Can anyone find any sign that the charts at http://creativedisc.com/top-charts/creative-disc-top-50-chart/creative-disc-top-50-chart/ are acceptable? I'm about to add them to WP:BADCHARTS, but I would like to hear some support before I do.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Support, by which I mean, please do add them to BADCHARTS. I think that their translated "about" page [81] is open and honest, but it does suggest that they are a blog site saying their piece--great, but where's the evidence that anyone else cares? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

iTunes bombing

Last year the Elizabeth Chan article was deleted for lack of notabilty. However some of the discussion focused on the BLP's song's #4 position on iTunes for holiday Christmas songs. What was not readily obvious in the discssion is that this Christmas song charted in September, and that the BLP subject was participatint in a reality show where she campagined a form of google bombing by having participants purchase her song at the stroke of midnight when it was released with the apparent purpose of running the chart. We should be bear this in mind when considering if iTunes establishes notability in the future.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Rules on other Wikipedia languages

Just wondering if the rules on deprecated charts apply on all Wiki sites? I assume so but would just like clarification before I go ahead and remove content that this article deems as "Bad Charts". Thanks, Liam (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And to clarify, is there a page like this project page on the Hungarian Wiki site? There doesn't seem to be one that I can find easily. Liam (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an English Wikipedia guideline, so it doesn't have force in other projects. I think the listed charts should be deprecated on all other the other versions, but you will have to get consensus on each one.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013 has been relisted at AFD due to lack of participation.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Ecuador Single Charts source

I've seen this website – http://chartsecuador.jimdo.com/ – used as a source for various singles charts in Ecuador. I don't think it's reliable, as I can't find any staff or sales/airplay tracking information (and Jimdo.com is an amateur web-design site anyway, when an official source would probably set up their own domain). What do you think? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it shows the radio stations that it tracks under "Radio Monitor/Ranking", so that part is okay. However, I can find no third-party sources and as you say, it's listed on a blog site. I'm somewhat fluent in Spanish, so I did a quick check for this company and couldn't find any third-party resources. More importantly, the dead giveaway that this appears to be an amateur chart is that it lists "Mi Marciana" by Alejandro Sanz as the current number-one song, yet I can find nothing especially in the Ecuadorian news media to back this up. When a song reaches #1 on a chart, the national media usually posts articles about it. For the time being, it should be removed as it was not approved on this talk page and editor posting the charts needs to be notified. Erick (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's posted on a free webhost. What reliable chart provider would use a free webhost?—Kww(talk) 19:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Bubbling Under

As per the pages we have on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, it is 25 song extension derived from the Hot Radio Songs and Hot Digital Songs charts. Both of which also feed into the Billboard Hot 100. As a result, if a song has not charted on the Hot 100, Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles can be added. However if a song has charted on the Bubbling Under, then Hot Radio or Hot Digital Songs should NOT be listed. I've clarified this on the policy page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume, like the Hot 100, it also incorporates streaming data and however little physical sales that still take place, not just airplay and digital sales. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bubbling Under chart is not a 25 song extension of the Hot 100. Never has been. There are different rules for entering and exiting the chart that mean that its 25 positions never correspond to positions 101-125 on an extended Hot 100. Any argument based on the logic that the chart is some kind of extension of the Hot 100 are false.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not see Bubbling Under in the chart tables at all. If that's what was a song's peak, all we're reporting is that the song was almost a hit in the US. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

However my argument was that a song could chart on the Hot Digital Songs chart without charting on the Bubbling Under. However by charting on the Bubbling under it will have charted on the Digital and/or Radio charts thus it its charting on Bubbling under is dependent upon digital/radio chartings is it not? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Monitor Latino archive charts found. Possible GOODCHART?

Okay, thanks to someone who posted a Monitor Latino on En la Obscuridad, and the link directs to the week it ranked on the chart. After observing the url, I figured out how to work the chart url to give you the week you want. First, I should mentioned when Monitor Latino ranks the chart. They compile the charts from Monday to Sunday. This is important to understand how the url works. As for the url itself, here's the a rundown of how it works.

This is the basic url: http://www.monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/[Chart name][Date 1][Date 2].html. The available chart names are: General, Regional, Pop, and Ingles. General is the overall chart, Regional deals with Regional Mexican music in the country, Pop is for Latin pop, and Ingles is for the Anglo market in Mexico. Next is the date. I mentioned that the chart runs from Monday to Sunday. So, date one uses a Monday and date two uses the following Sunday. Here's an example: http://www.monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/General31120133172013.html. In the url, we have a General chart for the week of March 11, 2013 to March 17, 2013. In the url, March 11, 2013 is written as 3112013 and March 17, 2013 is written as 3172013 (do not use the zero integer for months before October). Give it a try and see how it works. Erick (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to include it at WP:GOODCHARTS. I'll see if I can come up with a reasonable {{singlechart}} implementation: that URL is really nasty.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be really helpful. I'll wait till the result of the template before I update. As for the references, the work is RadioNotas and publisher is Monitor Latino. The earliest date it can go to is the week of September 10, 2012 to September 16, 2012. Erick (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Croatia

The Croation airplay chart takes me to a non-obtained address which my computer tells me is very high risk to visit. Has the official website been moved? Jayy008 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the dead link. Looks the chart has been pulled.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Billboard Heatseekers Chart

Is it legitimate to include a song's peak on this chart in its article? If it has charted on the Hot 100 or not?  — LittleMixLove • ^{these wings are made to fly!} 17:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If it eventually made the main chart, I don't think the Heatseekers count for much.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What about regional heatseekers charts whether or not a song has reached the main heatseekers chart? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 18:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

US chart consistency

I know this is controversial but we list the US singles chart as Billboard Hot 100 whereby the syntax is [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]] which is actually bad practice. We would list the Urban chart as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (Billboard). Billboard.com has for a while now referred to the US singles chart as The Hot 100. I think our single chart template, should list it as US Hot 100 (Billboard) page on here should be called The Hot 100. this is more user friendly as they can then click on the Billboard link to find out about the chart provider. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Or even US Hot 100? Adabow (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Singlechart actually links the word "Billboard" to "Billboard (magazine)" and "Hot 100" to "Billboard Hot 100". I could easily change it to "US Hot 100 (Billboard)" to make it more consistent, and wouldn't have an objection to doing so.—Kww(talk) 05:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would support this on the condition that Billboard Hot 100 is moved to The Hot 100. Adabow (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would you link those two issues? Despite what Billboard thinks, there are far too many "Hot 100" charts to proclaim Billboards as The Hot 100. It needs disambiguation.—Kww(talk) 05:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The chart used to be called the "Billboard 100", whereas its name has been changed to "The Hot 100". If it needs dab, then perhaps The Hot 100 (US) or The Hot 100 (Billboard)? Adabow (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I support Kww's alteration to single chat. could Billboard Hot 100 not be moved to US Hot 100? The idea is to remove the word Billboard from the page name because this encourages trying to italicize the word Billboard which is not a great use of formatting styles of ease of access as it encourages the reader to click on the "Billboard" part of the page title when it is infact one single link. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• This says the chart name is still "The Billboard Hot 100" and I'm quite sure it's still the same in the print edition. People have to realize that the chart names used on the free site are dumbed-down versions of the more industry-recognized chart names in the print edition and business side of Billboard's website. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

All-time charts

Hung Medien compiles "best of all time" charts, based on points for rankings on each weekly chart. Being unofficial (constructed by HM, not recording associations), are they suitable for use on Wikipedia? I came across their use on "Halo"... Adabow (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial and constantly changing. I think that combination makes them useless.—Kww(talk) 04:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Should they be added to the list of deprecated charts? Adabow (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also used on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), All Good Things (Come to an End), and Apologize (song). I think they should be put on WP:BADCHARTS. Till 12:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Romanian Media Forest charts

Is this site a good source for Romanian peaks since it is similar to that of Israel? (http://www.mediaforest.ro/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaolympic989 (talk • contribs)

• It's fine.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Chile Singles Chart (IDERE)

Once again, I found yet another possible reliable chart this time for Chile. I found several Chilean media sources referencing a chart called IDERE. I did some snooping and found their archived website. Only problem is that I have yet to find the charts, but I'm still searching for it. According to this source, it is a weekly chart. Erick (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lists of artists who reached number one

If anyone wants to take part in a discussion about which artists to include in lists of artists who reached number one, you can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#Establishing proper guidelines for articles that are lists of artists who reached number 1. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Serbia

Is the PopTop Lista seen here a reliable source? The website is extremely bland and I can't see any indication or link to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing and never gotten an answer. I'm not aggressive about removing it, but I tend to take it out if I'm editing a table. There's no archive, and it's very rare that you find a correctly archived link to it.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Chart is based on voting and radio airplay. "Nedeljna top lista stranih singlova nastala na osnovu vaših glasova i broja emitovanja na radio stanicama u Srbiji." means "Weekly music chart of foreign singles based on number of your votes and number of plays on Serbian radio stations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.223.119 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

hitparadeitalia.it

Can anyone find any sign that hitparadeitalia.it is publishing an official chart? I can't, but my Italian is weak. I think this is a candidate for WP:BADCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2013

Gary Hold (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done If this is about ISAIMV, then it cannot be included without consensus on the talk page. And from what I've seen, the website is not a notable chart at all. Erick (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Asia Pop 40 Chart

Source says "Asia Pop 40 chart will become the main reference source for what's hot in Asian music for the world's music media" and calls it "Asia's first-ever official regional chart". I looked further into their website and here's what they say: "Asia Pop 40 counts down the most popular downloads on iTunes across Asia" We currently don't have charts from any Asian country except for Japan and South Korea maybe we should consider this Josh (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unforuntaley, if iTunes downloads is their sole methodology for charts, then it cannot be used per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. It wouldn't be any different than just using the iTunes website. Plus there needs to be reliable sources from third-party sources. Erick (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Amprofon

Is Amprofon just down temoprarily or do we need to find a new source for Mexican certifications? Adabow (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When did you noticed this? Also since the site relaunched, it doesn't list certifications anymore, so 3rd party sources are now going to be needed. You can still however, access the weekly charts PDF which contains certifications as well. You will need to manually archive it however. Erick (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Certifications are at https://www.facebook.com/CertificacionesAmprofon , which is an official Amprofon page linked from http://www.amprofon.com.mx/certificaciones.php —Kww(talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought we weren't allowed to use Facebook as a source. Erick (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to use random Facebook pages from fans, but if a company choose to publish a Facebook page, you can use that. What you can't use from a company Facebook page is posts from fans. You can only use the data posted by the company itself.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)