Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Argentina

Where the hell are the archives for the older charts in CAPIF? Why isn't it writeen as to how to search for the archive when the whole website is in Spanish? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I can help you with this, from the main page go to Rankings Y Estadisticas at the top bar, then go to the right and there is plenty of options. Ranking Quincenal (Every 15 days), Ranking Semanal (weekly), Ranking Mensual (monthly), Ranking Anual (yearly). Discos de Oro y Platino is for the certifications, and the ones with the word DVD are for the DVDs sales. I believe that only the monthly chart have an archive. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Frcm. This should be definitely mentioned in the comment box which is extremely unclear. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add one. I tend to forget that many people don't have even primitive Spanish. Rfcm1988 is correct: only the monthly chart is archived.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The R3-30

Appears to be a radio station (or network?)-centric chart show. Is this really notable? And whether or not the show is notable, are lists of every single #1 notable enough for inclusion? TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like AFD fodder to me.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances is a national radio network run by a national public broadcaster a "non-notable" chart — especially when it's the only chart source that can be referred to for the genres of music that it covers. It's the Canadian equivalent of Triple J, and thus not one bit less notable than any of these. This new criterion basically wipes out entire genres of music as being impossible to ever quantify chart notability for, literally straitjacketing us to the utterly laughable proposition that only mainstream top 40 artists can ever be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and I have yet to see any genuine explanation for why that should be. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bearcat, it's still debatable. It's a national radio station, but it's only on Sirius radio (when did CBC get a 3rd radio network???). The top 30 portion apparently uses only airplay data, but it's only from their own CBC stations. Is there proof that it's considered the de facto chart of Canadian indie radio? It's impossible to say that CBC Radio 3 is the only broadcaster of indie rock in Canada. SKS (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A station which is operated by a national public broadcaster and is readily available to the entire nation (and internationally as well) on both satellite radio and the web still counts as a national/international radio network for the purposes of WP:MUSIC — because that distinction is defined by the service's total geographic footprint, not just by doing a raw count of transmitters. And yes, Radio 3 is the primary authority for Canadian indie rock; the CRIA certainly doesn't compile any chart of its own for the genre, and the only other broadcasters that touch it at all are The Verge (XM) and aux.tv — neither of which does a chart either. And aux.tv, which is less than a year old in its current form, isn't particularly well-known yet — and The Verge's reputation can literally be summed up as "Radio 3's ugly stepsister". Two defunct music magazines which now publish only as websites, chartattack.com and !earshot, do still publish charts, but since they're not CRIA-compiled they would be inadmissible by the same standards that are being used here to invalidate R3. And trust me, if there were any other chart source possible for the genre besides the ones I've mentioned here, I would know about it.

R3 is, in addition, the primary sponsor and broadcaster of one of the most legitimately notable Canadian music awards in existence, the Polaris Music Prize — and in that award's entire history, there has never been a year in which there wasn't at least one CBC Radio 3 host on the award's jury. And they're the only media outlet about which that can be said, which certainly demonstrates that they are considered a legitimate and authoritative voice within the industry. And while Radio 3's article could still use some additional sources, as written it does already demonstrate sufficiently referenced notability to be considered just as valid an authority within its field of expertise as Triple J or BBC Radio 1 are — and I'm sure you already know how much blowback you're going to get from the British and Australian contingents if you attempt to erase those two services from Wikipedia's pool of valid chart sources. So why is Radio 3 any different, other than "Canadian shit doesn't matter because it's Canadian"? Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll qualify my earlier comment. I don't think there's a problem with having an article about R3 (or Triple J), but I don't think there needs to be an article keeping track of the number one positions on their charts. I remove references to single-network charts on a daily basis: Triple J, Los 40 Principales, the Israeli Singles Chart, iTunes, etc. There's a big difference between saying that the existence of a chart should go undocumented and saying that we should track positions on it. Certainly references to any of these charts do not belong in articles about singles. I don't have any strong objection to the existence of articles about the charts themselves.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. My earlier comment was solely for the inclusion of R3-30's chart data, not for the article itself. SKS (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But if you're disqualifying the only chart that even exists for the genre, then songs within that genre have no way to demonstrate chart notability at all — and most of the time, an artist can't actually survive AFD unless at least one documented hit on a music chart can be pointed to. Which has the effect, whether it's intended or not, of creating an "only mainstream pop artists can ever have articles" rule, because it makes it pretty much impossible to demonstrate the notability of any artist who's operating outside that idiom, if the only chart you can point to when some witless wonder squawks about how artists aren't notable unless they've had documented chart success is disallowed because of some arbitrary rule that somebody just suddenly pulled out of a hat last week.

Now, I should clarify that I'm not generally a fan of articles about individual songs; I think our rules have been way too lax sometimes, with the result that we have a lot of bad articles about songs that don't really need them. But my concern, as a person who's done a lot of work on Canadian indie rock artists, isn't about the songs — it's about the fact that you're wiping out the only chart I can point to if somebody decides that Great Lake Swimmers — not their individual songs, which don't have articles anyway, but the band themselves — don't merit an article because they've never actually had a mainstream Top 40 hit. The only chart I can use to demonstrate that Hannah Georgas should be considered notable enough to merit an article. The only chart I can add to Dan Mangan or Shout Out Out Out Out or The Weakerthans or Basia Bulat or Plants and Animals. It's not about the songs; it's about the fact that disqualifying the only valid national charts that even exist for an entire genre of music puts a lot of legitimately notable artists in jeopardy too. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not an isolated problem. Listing Los 40 Principales and Top Latino on WP:BADCHARTS created problems for musical acts from Latin American countries, most of which don't have any valid charts at all. Latvian musical groups have a tough row to hoe as well: the only chart of Latvian music is a hobbyist chart, and there was no consensus to make an exception based on the "Latvia is so small, they won't ever come up with anything better" argument. I think the solution is language at WP:MUSIC to handle the situation of an unchartable group, not to turn a blind eye to the status of a chart.—Kww(talk) 05:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if a rule — one which utterly fails Wikipedia's injunction against arbitrary inclusion rules, I might add — makes it that difficult/impossible for entire continents to adequately demonstrate the notability of even their biggest and most famous musical artists, then some thought needs to be given to the possibility that the rule is unrealistically strict. I can understand excluding charts compiled by a single music hobbyist through completely arbitrary criteria that may not include anything more scientific than their own personal taste. And I can understand excluding single-station charts in the CFXJ-FM or KEXP-FM sense of the term "station". But if a national public broadcasting service which is universally recognized as one of the primary authorities on the music scene of a country of 35 million people can't meet the rule, then there's clearly something wrong with the rule, not with the CBC or with me. If it becomes utterly impossible to demonstrate the notability of any artist who hasn't had a mainstream Top 40 hit in an English-speaking country, then there's something wrong with the rule. When, exactly, did being the national recording industry association's own self-compiled charts become the only criterion of validity for a music chart? When, exactly, did we decide to disregard the fact that there may be other perfectly valid but less oppressive criteria for making that determination?

I can't speak for Latvia; I'm not familiar with their situation. But I find it exceedingly hard to believe that any remotely reasonable person could look at what you said about Latin America and not think that if the rule creates such an obstacle for an entire continent, then maybe the rule, not Latin America, is the problem here. And going back to the issue that I'm most familiar with, I'm talking about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is one of the most reliable and authoritative sources in the entire world for absolutely anything else — okay, it's not the BBC, but it's up there — and yet the fact that they're suddenly such a bad source on this one isolated issue doesn't say more about the rule than it does about a media organization that's one of the best gold-standard sources you can add to any other article on Wikipedia about anything else but this? Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Even a "national broadcaster" ultimately has its playlist determined by one man. Clearing up one misconception: the BBC broadcasts the chart compiled by the Official Charts Company, which are based on sales and airplay. A BBC playlist chart would be as unacceptable as any other single-vendor chart. The guideline calls for IFPI affiliation, but that is pretty loosely followed. When I look at adding a chart to WP:BADCHARTS or WP:GOODCHARTS, I focus on the reliability of source and whether the chart mixes sales or airplay from multiple networks or retail outlets. Charts are a marketing and sales tool for the recording industry, and a chart which reflects sales or airplay from only one outlet is basically a marketing tool for that single outlet.

What we need to focus on is weaning ourselves from charts as the key notability marker. There's too much of the world that doesn't get covered by them, and they are too easily manipulated by the industry. They also wind up with too many weird cases: does it really matter that an Ashley Tisdale song was at position 270 on the Russian Airplay Detection Chart for one week? Is that song truly more deserving of an article than one that fell one position below Billboard's Bubbling Under chart?—Kww(talk) 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Top 100

Kww removed all unarchived charts from GOODCHARTS which was a good idea but this chart confuses me, does it have an archive? How do I navigate it all? Jayy008 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Missed that one. It's unarchived, so I'll remove it from WP:GOODCHARTS. Remember, though, that doesn't make it a bad chart. If someone uses a webarchive or something similar to archive a position, that's fine.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it thanks! Jayy008 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Invite to discussion prompted by section above

Based upon our discussion above, I believe that some improvement/clarificaton is needed at List of music recording sales certifications. To this end I have posted in the Talk there.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive for Australia.

I've noticed that someone has added an Australia chart position for "Give It Up to Me (Shakira song)" however its for the Physical Chart using the source http://ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_physical_singles.asp?chart=1S50 However the link does not appear to show this information. Is there anyway of verifying the chart position and of accessing an archived source to add into the article? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Those charts are archived at http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790, but there's a bit of delay (about 3 weeks), so an individual position may fall through the cracks for a bit. This archive is documented at WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Shipments and Sales in box

So I know technically this isn't the place, but this has more people viewing it than the Certifications list page. I know Legolas agrees with me but I don't think shipments should be listed in the certifications Wikitable. It makes it look messy and users can easly click on the "Certifications" writing above to go to the actual page. Just wandering what other people thought so if you agree that it shouldn't be included then put "agree" if not put "disagree" I'd like to keep this simple, it doesn't require discussion. The shipments box is simply not needed. I do however think, if every certification has a separate source with it's own sales (Not a shipment figure) then a sales box should be included). Jayy008 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally refute the use of shipments and/or sales derived for a certification - that is what the link to Certifications is there for. We should not provide vague information in every single article when it can be accessed easily in a more relevant article. It's just a guideline to the value of each cert, which should really stay in the cert article.kiac. (talk-contrib) 06:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that's a much easier way to explain it to people. Jayy008 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend not to like them, primarily because people blur sales and shipments together. I will point out that you cannot calculate shipments from certifications unless you know when the certifications were issued.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Omit: I hate seeing either thing in the tables for reasons mentioned by Kiac and Kww: (1) Nobody knows the difference, and mentioning one or the other only confuses/misleads them; (2) We can usually only estimate the shipments based on the certs, and the sales are even more of a guesstimation based on the certs; (3) When we do happen to have sales figures discussed in a press source, it's more often than not (IME) based on the cert levels anyway, not any actual research into units sold; besides which, (4) these tables are generally wide enough, aren't they?

As a minimum, the column header where the putative sales or even shipments figures are shown should include the word "Estimated", as for example here. The rare exception is when we have reliable sourcing of exact sales figures, with refs next to the numbers. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that, it's to removed the column completely whether it says "estimate" or not, I have made the change to A Mariah Carey album, much tidier, no arguments on how much it's sold or anything Jayy008 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, i support the arguments by Jayy008, Legolas and Kiac. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with everyone. The mentions of shipments according to certs gets messy. The reason being because that leaves us all guessing how much Gold was in 1993. It's complicated and confusing, I do however think on the bottom of each chart it should mention Note: Most of these certs are from old criterion and are higher than current, something like that.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep agreed, I've done that to most MC pages, it'll take a while but I'll go and do Whitney too, I'll leave Celine Dion for obvious reasons. Jayy008 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

lol, sounds good, except I like Celine Dion so I will...:)...We have a consensus here.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Also like the notice discussed by Jayy & Petergriffin. Few comments though regarding the one at Music Box (album)#Chart performance; I would suggest putting the word 'Note' at the beginning and rewording the '(Sales may be higher than the certification level says now).' as it seems a bit awkward to me (says now?).

Hey! But wait just one minute. Column headings of 'Certifications (sales thresholds)'??? Isn't this FALSE? (I just realized this.) Shouldn't it be 'Certifications (shipment thresholds)'?? Following the link at the Rihanna example on the word 'Certifications' takes you to Music recording sales certification but then it states "Music recording sales certification is a system of certifying that a music recording has shipped a certain number of copies." WHAT? Sales certification = shipments? But shipments do NOT equal Sales! They equal POTENTIAL sales.

Next look at (sales thresholds) under the 'Certifications' in the Rihanna example. '(sales thresholds)' links to List of music recording sales certifications. There it is again! "Sales certifications" instead of "shipment certifications". No wonder people are confused, as the terminology used is INACCURATE.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with having it say "shipments" threshold, I only put sales because that's what all articles have and yes maybe a different wording for "the note". Jayy008 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no winning in this game. Some countries (Brazil, for example) do certify for sales, not shipments.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd like to suggest ONLY put the word "Certifications" in the column headers. This would then be CORRECT for all countries.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but make sure it's still hyperlinked to the "List of music recording certifications" page. Jayy008 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Link to List of music recording sales certifications, but L@@K at the column headers there! "Sales thresholds per award" < Again with the SALES. Which is MOST prevalent in the world? Cert for shipments or ACTUAL sales? Whichever one it is should be used in the column headers there with the EXCEPTIONS properly noted.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No I mean just have "Certifications" at the top of the column but hyperlinked to the "list of music recording sales certifications page". But that not actually be written. You just simply click "certifications" Jayy008 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No matter :). I think this is sorted now, I've began making the edits anyway, but I guess I can use this to back it up when I get reverted. Jayy008 (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: You can write that "the album was certified gold in the U.S." and you can write that "the album was certified gold in the U.S. (500,000)." Both are correct. Linking to the current certifications levels page is misleading as levels changed over the years. For exaple platinum album in France is 100,000 copies now and before 2006 it was 300,000. In my opinion, if an editor does't know the certification level, he can leave only "gold". But if he knows it, it should be "gold (500,000)". Max24 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read discussions before you comment on them, there's notes on album pages for that exact matter. Please don't over complicate a solution has already been figured. Jayy008 (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very important thing: certifications levels changed over the years, so till the Wikipedia page with the current certs won't be improved with information how they changed, linking it in the chart table is misleading. You can avoid that by adding the number to the article if you know it. Max24 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Max brought up changes in cert levels. MORE improvement needed to List of music recording sales certifications article to state these. Perhaps it should have a MONTH / YEAR indicator added for those that need it, such as

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Sales thresholds per award
		Month / Year	Silver	Gold	Platinum	Diamond
France	National Syndicate of Phonographic Publishing (SNEP)	8 / 2006		50,000 (50,000)	100,000 (100,000)	500,000 (500,000)
		PRIOR		150,000 (150,000)	300,000 (300,000)	1,000,000 (1,000,000)

I don't know if the PRIOR levels are correct. I just tripled all the 2006 ones to use as example as Max said that the Platinum used to be triple.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like that IKnow23, very much it's perfect. Diamond in France was 1,000,000 not 1.5 Max like to say these things to make Celine Dion articles look better. Jayy008 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Max said Diamond was 1.5 million. I just put that for example to put a number in the table.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You said Max said it was 3x the ammount, that makes 1.5 million. Jayy008 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Months are also important. And certifications changed few times over the years. I could help with some data in free time. Max24 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised Table. Picked a month at random.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree I know I was the first person to propose this format and I use it in the articles that I edit. This is a clear way of noting the certifications as well as directing the user's to the clear threshold page also. I have done a similar thing at The Fame if editors would like to see an example. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 02:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we need to research and include the date spans of certification thresholds.

However, I have a question about subsequent sales for recordings from a prior threshold period. For example, when the U.S. initiated multi-platinum awards in the early '80s, several '70s and '60s titles were certified at the new thresholds created (in fact prior years' releases were the majority of certifications). But when U.S. singles sales thresholds were reduced in the '90s, I seem to recall that singles — which once had to sell 1 million for Gold and 2 million for Platinum (and therefore had to sell another two million copies, for a total of four million copies to reach the third threshold of Double Platinum) — were not eligible to be up-certified when the new figures went into effect (in other words, that the new thresholds were not retroactive). Yet what I'm not clear on is whether a record released during the previous threshold period still needs to reach the old threshold levels in order to be certified at subsequent levels, or whether any sales after the threshold change are now subject to the new threshold levels. So, say a single released in the '70s or '80s or early '90s sold 1 million, going "only" Gold; does it still need 1 more million in sales in the decades since the 1990s change to reach Platinum, and another two million to reach Double Platinum, or does it "only" need to sell an additional 500,000 beyond the first million in order to go Platinum, and another million to go Double Platinum? Perhaps someone knows of a magazine column in Billboard or someplace that addresses this specific question? Thanks to anyone who might know. Abrazame (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. I never even thought of that. Just goes to show that things are almost always more complicated then we may think. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Heatseekers Songs again

Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 5#Heatseekers Songs suggested one or two ways to treat this chart: only if the song didn't chart in the Top 50 of the Hot 100, or not at all. User:CloversMallRat seems to believe that it shouldn't be included at all, yet I have one editor who wants me to add it back to Jaron and the Long Road to Love. Can we please get a consensus one way or the other? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see a problem with including this chart whether a song charted in the Top 50 of the Hot 100 or not at all. In the case of Jaron and Long Road to Love, the single hasn't made the actual Hot 100, so I don't see why Heatseekers Songs shouldn't be out there to see. We include the Top Heatseekers for albums, why not do the same thing for singles? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• If it makes the Hot 100, I don't see any reason to include Heatseekers (similarly for the Billboard 200 and Top Heatseekers. All charts are marketing tools, but Heatseekers is more blatant and redundant than most.—Kww(talk) 15:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Moroccan Singles Chart?

http://www.hitradio.ma/?lang=fr&Id=19
It's a voting site, and not based on anything else I believe. Should be added to WP:BADCHARTS, AGREED?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree the name gives it away, its a radio station chart based on listening impressions and radio-based votes. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a bad chart. Are you seeing it added to enough articles to make it worth adding to WP:BADCHARTS? There has to be something like 6000 music charts in the world (hell, there's about 1000 on this page alone), so I don't favor adding them to WP:BADCHARTS until they've become a recurrent problem. There's nothing at all wrong with removing it with an explanation.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw it once and removed it. At least those here (around this time) will be aware of it now.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Subcharts

First off when I brought up a discussion about the UK R&B Chart, I was told it shouldn't be used when it charts on the main chart, which is fine, I assumed the same goes for Australian Urban Chart, but I'm met with resistance and reversions when I make these edits, so I thought I'd bring it up for discussion to see if everyone has the same opinion on whether it should be allowed.

Secondly Legolas always removes my sub charts adding on the Lady Gaga songs his reasonsing "I don't want to give more emphasis on the US charts, but equal importance to all the territories an artist charted. Remember, every charting retailer has many sub-charts, so if you allow one, like Billboard, you will be challenged like why not allow the subcharts of the others? I agree with this but I think there should be a solid rule on both matters. Jayy008 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh? I thought that the UK R&B Chart IS allowed as a Genre chart. Again I don't like that term 'sub-charts'. I would allow the Australian Urban Chart as a Genre chart IF that is what it is and not a component of their MAIN chart. If a component then allow it ONLY if it does not appear on the MAIN chart. This is to be consistent with how (according to my understanding) we handle US Billboard. We MUST apply the same to the rest of the world, same 'rule' or 'regulation' for all.
Jay, have you been adding iTunes charts or something similar? Why is Legolas telling you "...Remember, every charting retailer has many sub-charts"? Project page states, "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer (such as iTunes, Amazon.com or Wal-Mart) should not be used."—Iknow23 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no, I'm not stupid, I added Dance/Club Songs and Latin Songs, not components but they keep being removed, so if they are allowed by a rule then they shouldn't be but I agree with Legolas's reasons. As for the R&B chart etc, if you look up the discussion page, I brought up before about clickable links and people said it should be used when it charts on the main chart. I just wanted it clarified. Jayy008 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then Legolas must have misspoken? Instead of "every charting retailer" meant "every charting country/region"? The consensus is to allow Genre charts. I recall some prior discussion of 'equal weight' being used to limit US Billboard, so we do NOT show every single US Billboard chart that a song/album appears on if the same info is included on a larger overall chart under the component rule. Perhaps ALL this arose as a compromise between showing EVERY single chart and ONLY one for the US? But the consensus was reached.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, now I'm confused! Jayy008 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If the R&B Chart was official why is it not published on the official chart company's website. My guess is that because it has not archive and is only published at BBC RAdio 1 (which is also a radio station don't forget) i believe its based on the number of radio impressions it recieves on R&B/URban radio formats. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The R&B Chart is just one of the many charts produced by the OCC[1]. I'm not sure that it is only published on the BBC Radio 1 website, is it not also available in Music Week? --JD554 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if im wrong but a previous concensus concluded that if the source was archived using WebCite or a similar website archiving tool the UK RnB chart is more than acceptable to use on wikipedia. there is no evidence to suggest its a component.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about previous consensus, but nor have I claimed that the R&B Chart is a component. --JD554 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that wasn't aimed at you or any other editor. i was just making the general point that there is no evidence to suggest that its a component chart although some users are arguing it. Its ok. I think we're in agreement that it can be used?Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding, yes I think we are in agreement. --JD554 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed the BBC and asked if they can let us know if they are aware of any valid archive of the R&B chart. If not i've requested that they begin sending us screenshots or pdf versions of the chart every week. fingers crossed that it works. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you propose we do with such screenshots or PDFs if the BBC were to send them? Not that I believe they'd bother to do such a thing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

::we could then create our own archive for the R&B charts just like someone starting doing for the brazilian album's chart? or we could upload them online and use them as a source like Pandora does for the Australia charts? hopefully they'll know of a free-to-access archivable source.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the FIMI Chart a bad chart?

According to various magazines and newspapers, the new official chart of my country (Italy) isn't so reliable. Occasionally, the results were wrong. For example (see links below), in 2001, 2002 and 2008, some old titles out catalog are back in the charts and the record companies did not know how to justify the fact. I remember that it was a species of small chaos in the Italian music industry, in fact, in Italy, many radio and television, still use Musica & Dischi charts, while others are passed to FIMI only when it has expanded the panel in July 2009, while other as you well know, use FIMI since 1997.

http://www.rockol.it/news-44496/Musica-e-Dischi-insiste--le-%27charts%27-FIMI-Nielsen-sono-fallate-

http://www.rockol.it/news-92644/musica-e-dischi-in-polemica-con-fimi--%27falsa-la-realt%C3%A0-del-mercato%27

http://www.musicaedischi.it/mdonline/72628.pdf

It's happened also with the Hong Kong Chart

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NBAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA14&dq=Hong+Kong+Chart&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Hong%20Kong%20Chart&f=false

SJ (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC+1)

By default i always source songs from Italian Charts(.com) and as far as i was aware only the digital chart is approved for use on wikipedia.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't necessarily perfect sources. Nielsen has made mistakes in every country. Musica&Dischi would be acceptable if someone could identify a licensed, stable archive for their chart. Italiancharts.com is a licensed archive of the FIMI chart.—Kww(talk) 23:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an archive on http://musicaedischi.it/ only with subscription from 2000 to date. The charts from 1960 are in some books. http://musicaedischi.it/bancamusica.php I don't know if there is a webarchive on the web without a subscription. If i found it, i will post in this discussion. SJ (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC+1)

Billboard used to publish a section on the magazine called Hits of the World, the Italian singles chart was taken from Musica&Dischi and the albums were from the FIMI chart. They have a full view option for their past issues in Google Books, here is an example from 1996. [2] Frcm1988 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Billboard don't used always the same charts. For example for the UK, sometimes it used the Chart-Track Chart.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uAkEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=it&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Also for the Canadian Charts, it used sometimes The Record.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tQsEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=it&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

SJ (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC+1)

Billboard Alternative Songs

This is a component chart and shouldn't be used in articles unless the song peaks in the main charts. So on the Record charts article, the US Billboard Alternative Songs is used as an example, but the peak number is "1". So if a song reaches #39, then is there cause for removing the component chart from the article? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Alternative Songs is a genre chart, not a component chart.—Kww(talk) 05:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm pulling my info from the Alternative Songs article: "The chart is based solely on radio airplay and is a component chart of the Hot 100." Am I reading the wrong article? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Teaches me to think I know things without looking them up. That means that "Alternative Songs" shouldn't be listed if the song appeared at any position on "Hot 100 Airplay" or "Hot 100".—Kww(talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kww, I wasn't sure, either way. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true... would be worth double-checking with a source from Billboard. Genre chart sounds more true. kiac. (talk-contrib) 23:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:USCHARTS. also if you look at billboard.com in the charts section underneath rock socks it says measured using alternative songs, triple a songs and mainstream rocks songs etc. This makes Alternative Songs a component of Rock songs.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal regarding Sales/Shipments/Certs

Trying to keep up with discussions above and over here, I've found it difficult to keep track of what consensus is building and where we might be headed. We seem to be talking about 2 or 3 different articles about record charts and certifications, as well as several individual articles about albums or artists which "do it wrong". I get the impression that some editors here are busy editing articles for Mariah and Celine and Madonna back and forth based on quick mutterings on two or three Talk pages (plus some user talk discussions).

In any case there seems to be a serious problem with the confusion between sales and shipments, and with the sourcing of either one. As a result, our reporting of either one or both is problematic, confusing, or just plain wrong.

I tried to summarize the situation for my own understanding, and I present it here for the brave and knowledgable to wade through. See how my suggestions compare with the table mods being discussed above.

Individual articles

We have some individual (artist/album/single) articles, with Certifications tables contain column headings like:

Certifications
(sales thresholds)

Country	header 2	Certifications (sales thresholds)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum

BTW, I always expect(ed), when seeing that column header, that the table cells will contain entries in the same format, namely

Country	header 2	Certifications (sales thresholds)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold (80,000)
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)
Slobovia	row 3, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)

but they never are. That's okay, though; the reader can go find out what constitutes platinum if s/he wants to. Instead, I propose that the table headings be changed to (something like):

Country	header 2	Certifications (basis)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum

In this case, we don't mention sales, shipments, or even the word thresholds. That lower link just points to an explanation of the individual valuations.

The use of sales or shipments as table columns in individual articles should be discouraged.

WP Discographies Manual of Style

In the MOS:DISCOG article, the Per-release should be changed to deprecate the use of columns for points 7 and 8 (the exception would be where reliable sources for actual sales figures are available for the majority of the works in a table. Otherwise, a note in or near the table, or a discussion in the text would be preferred).

List of music recording sales certifications

The article List of music recording sales certifications starts with the sentence, "The global music industry typically awards recordings with certification awards based on the total units sold to the retailers." This sentence might be changed to use "sold or shipped" or perhaps "sold (or shipped" for the benefit of those who don't read further but just jump down to the tables.

The tables below that include a column labeled Sales thresholds per award. This should be changed to Current thresholds per award. An additional column following the thresholds could be labeled Based on and would include "Sales" or "Shipments" for each country.

For each country (or at least each country which has changed its thresholds), a note should be added indicating an "As of" date. This might be in the Country column, in the Certifying body column following the ref note, or maybe in a new separate column. The As of-date would be a tip-off to readers whether the numbers shown in the threshold column are relevant to their needs; otherwise, they should follow the link to the article for the certifying body, which article should include the historical thresholds and the exact dates of changeover.

Note that in the example of Canada below, I've added a note visible in the table, although even our current table has a similar note in one of the refs (which may go unnoticed by readers).

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Current thresholds per award				Based on
		Silver	Gold	Platinum	Diamond
Argentina	Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers (CAPIF) Note: Only as of 1 January 2001	—	20,000 (20,000)	40,000 (40,000)	250,000	Sales
Australia	Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) Note: As of 1997	—	35,000 (35,000)	70,000 (70,000)	—	Shipments
Canada	Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) Note: Only as of 1 May 2008	—	40,000 (40,000)	80,000 (80,000)	800,000 (800,000)	Shipments

A note preceding the tables could explain about thresholds changing and that users should click through for older numbers. (Note: I have entered "Sales" as the award basis for Argentina strictly to show such an example; I do not have any idea how the awards are determined, as our article [[q.v. fails to tell me that.)

Compared with the example table from Iknow23 in the discussion higher up, this model would provide a more concise table of just the current thresholds, but require users to click through to get historic threshold info if they needed it.

Music recording sales certifications

The Music recording sales certifications article... has been changed to a redirect back to the List article. So I can't make whatever clever suggestions I was going to here. I don't see why that redirect was made. Was it to avoid explaining some details? What else got lost when that article got thrown away?

If we really don't need or want what we had in that article, then we can go back up and throw away the (basis) (or its current sales thresholds equivalent) in the column headers and just have the direct link. We should also change the MOS:DISCOG to no longer recommend the two separate links.

Record Charts

This article right here, Wikipedia:Record charts says almost nothing about sales or shipments, or sales vs. shipments, so maybe we don't need to change anything here. Which leads to the question, why is this discussion here? Oh yeah, more traffic. :-)

Thoughts? Opinions? Criticisms? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal of yours, however, we can change the word "basis", can't we? Just keeping the certifications is fine by me. That way, as you say, users can directly look into the shipments and the article won't reel of adding biased sales and stuff like that. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over. Yes, I'm not that attached to the word "basis". It could be (What is this?) or something. But as Iknow23 mentions below, if we don't have two articles to link to, we don't need to find the best word. I'm just still wondering what happened to the other article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed above. Only show Certifications being linked to List of music recording sales certifications as in

Country	header 2	Certifications
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum

Someone qualified could make a bot to change the table section headings throughout Wikipedia.
I REALLY like the "Based on" column as that answers one of my main problems of the current situation.
It could just show CURRENT levels, or a more comprehensive listing that shows 'historical' levels if can be verifiably sourced.
AGREED, Project pages should be updated to reflect these changes.
PROPOSED language. "The global music industry typically awards recordings with certification awards based on the total units sold or the total units shipped to the retailers depending upon the country/territory certifying body."—Iknow23 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for reading through it all. One problem with the "Based on" column is that we might not actually know the basis. I guess we just leave those cells blank then, until somebody can find out.

I like your text, too, except maybe the repetition of "awards". How about (Alt 1): "The global music industry typically gives recordings certification awards based on the total units sold or the total units shipped to the retailers depending upon the country/territory certifying body." or (Alt 2): "The global music industry typically awards recordings with certifications based on the total units sold or the total units shipped to the retailers depending upon the country/territory certifying body." Of course, here I'm quibbling over one or two words when the more important matter is whether the statement is true and complete. I don't know nearly enough about certs, except that different countries/bodies have differing ways of divining their totals, be they sales or shipments. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

God, I just hate this topic. This issue makes me nuts. As a citizen of the great country of Slobovia, I'd like to say I agree with this proposal and also would suggest changing "basis". So long as we have the current and previous levels of certification clearly sourced and easily accessible, there should not be a problem. In a perfect world? I say disallow any claims of "sales" and stick only to certifications. Sales figures vary so much, from so many sources, it makes one's head spin. Can you imagine if sales figures were no longer allowed? I think the Wikipedia edit count would go down by about 50%. - eo (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You make that sound like a bad thing. ;-) Thanks for your input. When you say you'd suggest changing "basis", do you mean changing (to what?) or removing? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article with current certification leveles should be extended with information about earlier levels. Some official websites include the history of certifications in their countries.

We're talking about chart table all the time, right? Not about some sourced numbers in the article body? Max24 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with either (Alt Text): offered by JohnFromPinckney. My suggestion had the word 'awards' doubled because it is in the current version, I am not beholden to that however.
  
• Could we RENAME the article to 'List of music recording certifications'? Wouldn't it be best to not have that word sales, in there?
• Yes, the 'Based on' (or could also be just called 'Basis') column MUST remain blank where not verifiable.
• I think most are agreeing here with the exception of only showing CURRENT levels or including HISTORIC levels.
  

I PREFER including the HISTORIC levels if can be verifiably sourced.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute. Think about what you're all saying. The first stated reason in the above thread for omitting actual sales/shipment numbers is that "it looks messy". Yet the table with the centered data in parentheses on a second line is far clearer, more informative, and neater and more elegant than the versions people are saying they prefer. Why go to all the trouble of making a table and then including just one data point (certification)? How many clicks and how much scanning do I have to do to find out a single country's threshold when I've discovered it in a single's infobox? Now what if I'm not interested in a single country? As a given recording is likely to be at widely divergent certification thresholds in different territories, I need to have photographic memory and mad math skills or a pencil and paper to be able to make one series of hops and scans to the threshold chart rather than going back and forth. Fredonia and Slobovia don't both have 100,000 as a platinum threshold, nor, as everyone knows, do recordings that are popular in Fredonia enjoy equal popularity in Slobovia.

As to the issue of not all recordings having a sales figure for all territories justifying excluding the data point, this seems no different than chart tables. The only chart tables that don't have blank fields are those harshly pruned to only include fields for which data points can be included for every last row, which of course can be misleading.

As to the sales or shipments argument, we should pick the more commonly cited/published figure and have that be the default data point, with the alternative figure noted with superscript or asterisk for a footnote at the base of the table. It is important that we don't simply conflate these figures. Particularly unsettling is the way the bulk of Wikipedia articles conflate singles sales with digital song sales, which of course include all versions of the song, from remixes and other alternative versions to album and video downloads and ringtones, etc., and so are double-, triple-, quadruple-, octuple- counting. If threshold levels and even the metric (sales or shipments) have changed, this is not something we should gloss over or not note because we don't know exactly when it was, it is something we need to face and represent.

Finally, as I wrote above, I think it's vitally important that we research and note in the table at List of music recording sales certifications the threshold differences within respective territories, as in Freedonia gave Gold awards to singles for shipments greater than 50,000 units between 1966 and 1992 and for shipments greater than 35,000 since October 1992.

Finally, there are a lot of comments here that "we may not know" this or that data point; our lack of knowledge is not something we should gloss over or use to alter the way we present information. The whole idea about being an open project is that if we indicate the difference between data points we know are not applicable (did not chart, did not sell well, was not certified, etc.) from data points we don't know about (can't find a chart for that country for that year, or only have access to number ones or Top 10 or Top 20 of the chart for that year — as is often the case in archives), then someone who happens to know or be in a position to more easily find out, or simply is interested in tracking it down, may do so and contribute to our understanding. Abrazame (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Abrazame. I prefer this table:

Country	header 2	Certifications (sales thresholds)
Australia	row 1, cell 2	Gold (80,000)
Freedonia	row 2, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)
Slobovia	row 3, cell 2	Platinum (100,000)

This way I can have the number in the article I am reading and I don't have to look for the data in other article. Max24 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really understand Abrazame, but maybe that is just me. Max, the problem I have with that is that is shows "sales thresholds" when it might not be true for ALL the items that are (or will be later) listed in the table. I think it is best to just state Gold, Platinum and link the column header to the 'List' if the reader wants to know the specifics of the cert level.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the version Max reposts here is the one I prefer. Iknow23, if you specified what it was you didn't understand, I could clarify. To your comment to Max, I've written that we would note it is a Sales threshold column if most of the numbers that will be found there are in fact sales figures, and note with a footnote or asterisk which data points depart from that metric — shipments, not sales. So if Australia and Slobovia figures are for sales, we will note that this is a sales column and put an asterisk or footnote next to the Freedonia figure. Then, immediately at the base of the table (as opposed to the bottom of the article), we point out that the Freedonia figure is for shipments, not sales.

It would be convenient if all territories presented the same metric (only sales, or only shipments) at all times in their history, and of course we should make every effort to find the most specific number we can, and to figure which metric is the most commonly used (perhaps in the '60s and '70s the only singles figures are shipments, so all '60s and '70s song article tables would have shipments columns with the rare sales figure getting footnoted, while in the '00s and '10s the predominant singles figure is sales, so all '00s and '10s song article tables would be sales columns, with any shipment figures being the odd footnote). To paraphrase a former public official, tongue-in-cheek, we have to work with the data we have and not with the data we wish we had. Obviously if an official figure is available, it has been used elsewhere and will be added here by subsequent editors, so if we know the figure, and know the figure is not the same as all the rest (again, if it's a shipment figure when all the others are sales figures), we don't pretend there is no clue about sales in the territory, we present the figure we have and then indicate it is a different type of figure. I hope that's clear. Abrazame (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks...I got that better. But another problem that I expect will happen by having the numerical equivalent specified in the individual articles is fan inflation of the totals. I think it best to just have these totals avail on the 'List' page where the reference is cited. Hopefully there will be less vandalism to the numerical equivalents on the 'List' page than in the individual song/album articles.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think that's a valid argument. Yes, inflation (both by fans and by vandals, which are two separate phenomena) is a problem, but your argument could just as easily extend to any data, indeed the project as a whole. You're saying that it isn't just as easy for someone to change "Platinum" to "6x Platinum"? Or that it peaked at #40 to that it peaked at #4? (Or the trite #1) I find that often at articles, whether or not they include sales figures. Why not omit mention of anybody's age given what a magnet for contention and vandalism that is? While we want to avoid excessiveness, we don't omit useful data from a table because some people have a spartan aesthetic, and we don't omit useful data from a table because somehow that material strikes someone as more likely to be vandalized than any other data point. If a fan intends to inflate the article, or a vandal, she'll do it from whatever starting point she finds.

One benefit of listing the actual sales threshold is in the case of people who may be familiar only with a certain era's threshold, for example, someone who grew up only knowing the current threshold and so when they see a recording from a previous era with a certification level, they presume it to be at the current rate. Or vice-versa, someone familiar with a previous era and presuming current songs are still selling at that level.

And what about an artist whose career straddles a threshold change? Without specifying sales figures, and only certifications, an artist with consistent success would erroneously appear to have suddenly experienced a breakthrough with a particular song. Alternately, a previous era's artist may seem to have lost steam, going from high to medium certifications or from low to none, resulting in a hiatus, while a new era's artist may look to have come out of the gates with high certifications, when in fact they're comparable in numbers and it was the whole industry that subsided, and the thresholds lowered. I'm a proponent of saying click on the link and read the other article to avoid interrupting the flow and thrust of the writing to go into textual detail on some point, or complicated backgrounds, definitions, etc., or to avoid giving tangential or problematic issues undue weight, but it seems very much less valid an argument when dealing with raw data points in a table. "Gold" and "Platinum" are, after all, trademarked promotional tools (with, as we've noted, shifting and sometimes incongruent thresholds), while actual sales (or shipment) figures are the rawer, less partial data point I'd think purist Wikipedian sensibilities would prefer. I'm certainly not arguing against noting certifications, but it's clearly the less informative of the two if we were to choose between them. Abrazame (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing the numerical data if it is true data, and not just the display of the numerical equivalent gleaned from the certification. That info can be found in the 'List'.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the last column in the table should be just called: "sales/shipment" without going into details? In most countries we have only certifications levels to put there, for example platinum in the UK (300,000). Only in few cases, for example the U.S. Soundscan we can get sales, not only RIAA shipment. In that case I suggest to put both numbers in the table or the highest one. Max24 (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"The table": do you mean the table where we show certifications in an individual article (artist/album/etc.)? We've been talking about different tables in different articles.

We're trying to get rid of the sales/shipments columns there. (Please read the rest of this discussion and the ones I pointed to in the first sentence.) I'll reiterate some of the reasons: (a) Including such a column only confuses or misleads readers. (b) Including sales figures when they're incomplete is a bad idea, and they are almost always incomplete (I think you've experienced that yourself, and I note your second sentence). (c) Using both in the same column isn't a good idea because we typically lack reliable sales data, so we only have shipments, which aren't always reliable either. (d) Extrapolating shipment figures based on certifications is an acceptable exercise for the interested reader, but if we put some number in a table and say "that's how many shipped based on the certifications and a bit of arithmetic we did ourselves", people will stop at "that's how many shipped" and think they've learned something from us. (Actually, they may still think they learned how many were sold, which is even worse.) (?) And, "the highest one"?!? We're not trying to help people set any records, here. We're trying to document reality, or at least those notable aspects of reality with reliable third-party sources. What makes you think "the higher number" is necessarily more accurate than the lower? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you in all the things you said. But please clarify one thing for me. We are talking here about a column in the chart table. But in the artcile body we can still use some numbers, right? For example, Canada: "after shipping 1 million copies the album was certified diamond" (source would be CRIA). Max24 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You agree with whom? Me? Cool! Well, maybe; without identation or names it's hard to be sure. (And I'm not asking for a lot of name-calling!)

Okay, I think that if you have some reliable sales figures and if they are of some interest and of relevance to the article, then yes, sure, sales or shipment info could be included in the text. We've got some more room there to explain what we're talking about, and why. We're also not as hard-pressed in the text to indicate a number for every country or market or song when we have only partial information.

As for your specific example, however, I probably would discourage such text— Hmmm, or maybe not. I don't know, really. Mostly, it seems redundant and messy. Why not just say it earned a diamond award? Or: "JohnFromPinckney's fourth album, Revert Unsourced went diamond in Japan six days after its release"? If that's not enough for the reader, s/he can click to find out what diamond means, and they'll find out that for Japan it means 1 million shipped. (Actually, if they pay close attention, they learn that it isn't called "diamond" in Japan, but "million".)

Maybe what you want to know is this: I am not proposing a blanket moratorium on sales figures or shipment figures if they're from reliable sources and improve the article. I just don't personally find the numbers themselves too interesting, and that's even before I think about the questions of what was counted and how. I do suggest we stop encouraging a column of (some) numbers on the certs tables in individual articles. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Article names: Music recording sales certification and Music recording sales certifications

Following up to my own post and my attempt to propose a holistic approach to a range of articles, I point you to the section above that starts like this:

Music recording sales certifications

The Music recording sales certifications article... has been changed to a redirect back to the List article. So I can't make whatever clever suggestions I was going to here.

I don't know where I got my sample charts table we've been using for examples in these discussions, but it has a different link than in some other articles. Upon closer inspection, it seems we have two articles with almost identical names:

• Music recording sales certifications is a redirect to List of music recording sales certifications
• Music recording sales certification is the article I'm used to going to when I click on the upper "Certifications" link in the charts tables that have them.

So, (I think) we need to:

1. get rid of one of these articles, or have one redirect to the other, and have neither of them redirect to the List article (um, right?).
2. discuss (somewhere, probably on those article's talk pages rather than here), the removal of the word "sales" from the articles' titles.
3. continue/complete/extend our discussion about use of the word "sales" in the text of the surviving Certifications article and the List article.
4. figure out how to fix the individual articles which link to one or the other of these (3!) articles. This depends on what consensus we reach about what the certs column should ideally contain in the first place.
5. do some other things I haven't thought about.

I'd be glad if some Wikipedian senior to myself would point us to where and how we should proceed. This page is getting kind of long and unwieldy, and I'm not sure all these discussions belong here. And that's before we even get into the latest RIAA nastiness. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

HUGE smile upon reading 2 and 3 :)...it was like, wait for it, wait for it, there it is :D—Iknow23 (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There should be just one article regarding the matter. I'm not sure how difficult it will be changing all of the articles that link to one of two of the articles but my guess is it will vast. could we get a BOT to do it? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested a bot earlier :) But don't ask me how they are done, as I have NO idea.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Me neither. I think they're manually programmed and then set to change said articles within the matching parameters. Im sure we can get the attention of a BOT owner to do it for us. Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'd like that to happen.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if i can nab the attention of a BOT owner later tomorrow/today (depending on your time zone in the UK its 7AM!!!). also could you please list what the current link is and what we want it changed to? Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Change FROM:

Country	Certifications (sales thresholds)

Change TO:

Country	Certifications

mouse over to see where the links go. The link on 'Certifications' changes.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Revised, I was at first just looking at samples above, but I believe this two column approach is more common.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
MORE. At least some discogrophies use the two link approach, so perhaps the bot should be designed to test for BOTH links within one table cell and then just change it to the one that we want, like in MS Word Find and Replace (the Replace function).—Iknow23 (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite enough. Consider also:

Change FROM:

Country	Certifications (sales thresholds)

Change TO:

Country	Certifications

The difference here: just the one trailing "s" on the piped link behind "Certifications" in the change from case.

Note that the bot writer needn't (AFAICT) be concerned with the Country column, or even the table-ness of the target. I would say:

Change FROM:

Certifications
(sales thresholds)

(with or without one or both <small></small> tags)

OR:

Certifications
(sales thresholds)

(with or without one or both <small></small> tags)

Change TO:

Certifications

How 'bout that? Probably there'd be special cases and some mangled forms of these column headers, which the bot wouldn't change, but we'd stumble upon them and edit them manually over time.

And then: what happens to the article Music recording sales certification, currently linked to by some percentage of these tables (as Certifications)? Is that still a useful article, what will link to it, does it need renaming, etc.? It looks as though it needs the same kind of sales/shipment clarification you just did to List of music recording sales certifications.

As for bots, I believe one doesn't just ask on a bot-owner's Talk page; it needs some discussion (as this will be a wide-reaching change affecting many articles that users care fanatically about). The starting point is Wikipedia:Bots, which explains how to make requests. But then, maybe you knew that already. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Charts

So I know there's a separate page now for U.S. charts and sourcing but that's mainly for genre charts, how comes underneath UK on GOODCHARTS there isn't a link to the U.S. certifications page? Would anyone object to me adding it? Jayy008 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

contradiction of opinion (Top40-charts)

On the one hand we've listed Top40-charts is listed as a website to avoid but then at WP:GOODCHARTS is appears as a mostly amber chart (used but with extreme care). Does this not send out the wrong message? Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should just be removed from either or. Jayy008 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want to undertake the task of removing the references in 792 articles? That's the real problem. For the charts that are legitimate removing them tends to be busy-work, but most of the charts they list are garbage. I opted for showing the charts that they store accurately on WP:GOODCHARTS, and I remove the references whenever I maintain an article for other reasons. The number of references has steadily been going down. When it reaches 100 or so, I'd support pushing for the final cleanup and removing the WP:GOODCHARTS listings.—Kww(talk) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion: if the three of us just decided to fix one article listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=%2A.top40-charts.com every day, the problem would be gone in about 6 months.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

790 to go.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

i've done a few more.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Audit

I see there is a lot of discussion on this talkpage and a fair amount of recent editing on the MoS page itself. I am also aware there is a brand new subpage Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide. Since both of these MoS pages seem to be in capable hands, I will probably not need to do much to either beyond some basic copyediting, if even that. If I have any particular concerns I will ask for feedback, of course. Any questions feel free to ask either me via my talkpage or the editors over at the main MOS talkpage. I am presently working on MOS:MUSIC and WP:MUSTARD (in my userspace at the moment), so I am unlikely to get back over here for some time anyway. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 23:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

UK R&B Chart

The trouble with this chart, is that it's un-archived, but since I had the Music Week trial, you can search a song and it tells you the R&B position as well. What I've been doing is putting a non-clickable ref (Because it requires subscription) saying something like this: "Music Week search results. Lewis, Leona "I Got You" UK R&B Chart peak position #3." and if I know the chart date I will add the week it charted too. Is this appropriate? To stop the BBC source.? Jayy008 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Provide a complete URL, even if it's subscription only. See WP:PAYWALL.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we even have to show this? I'd say an item is rather trivial to require sourcing to a UK genre Chart. SunCreator (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd only advise listing it if it didn't make the main UK chart or was by a UK artist.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd only advise listing it when it's got a WP:RS mentioning it in prose, not a number on a tabulated list. Personally I think the offical UK Top 100 chart is quite enough of a chart list. SunCreator (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If used and a complete URL is shown, please note in the ref citation that a subscription is required. Especially note that subscription is required if the URL is clickable to give readers a 'head's up' to not bother when they know that they have not subscribed.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I've never liked the chart, but I thought it was allowed which is why I brought it up. But I agree, only if it doesn't make the main chart. Jayy008 (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Starting from the chart with the issue date Week/end 10 April 10 i am using webCite to archive the references for the R&B chart (singles and albums). here surely it can then be used in articles? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous claims about Billboard

I just deleted the material erroneously claiming as follows:

"The only chart which actually has Billboard in its name is the Billboard Hot 100. All other charts should be named without the use of Billboard."

One has only to Google "Billboard" to see that the Hot 100 does not have the word "Billboard" in the title[3], while the Billboard 200 does.[4], so we had it exactly backwards. Calling something the "Billboard Hot 100" is not wrong, however, nor is it wrong to append "Billboard" to the beginning of any other Billboard chart, so we needn't tell someone they mustn't include this. After all, those charts are trademarks of Billboard.

On a separate note: at certain times in history there were other official charts in effect, perhaps most notably Cashbox, and at various times throughout Billboard's history they have vastly changed their chart methodologies, so we should avoid making broad statements about what is current and instead indicate that we are making statements about current usage or methodology and allow readers/editors to go to the fuller article for the history (though as I've noted in previous threads, I know we do not present a satisfactory coverage at those articles either). Abrazame (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the official chart names are found at [5] and not through google. If you would have looked at the previous discussion about Billboard Chart Names you would have seen this. You should ask editors who were involved in forming WP:USCHARTS like myself and i would have explained the reasoning for this to you. In future please don't jump the gun. There was no assumption of WP:Good faith in your comments above. Its also the reason why we have to be careful when using google a research tool.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish Certifications

Does anybody remember which month the 2008 certifications were added to the IRMA website in 2009? Because it's been 3 months since 09 and I'm just wandering when it's going to be updated. Jayy008 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

^ as well as this where can you find the updated 2009 and 2010 certfications. I had a look at the suggested page at List of music sale certifications (whatever that page is called - i never get it right) but could not find them. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Certifications can be found here. But, as noted above, they haven't been updated for 2009 yet. --JD554 (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived charts

When a chart is published online but isn't archived, such as the UK R&B Chart, would it be acceptable to archive it manually using webcitation.org? This would surely solve many issues. anemoneprojectors talk 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly such archiving is acceptable. Carefully check the results, though: if the chart uses Javascript or other mechanisms, sometimes the web archives archive garbage.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even realise it was already mentioned on WP:Record charts, but I'm always seeing people asking about the UK R&B Chart so I thought this might help. Thanks for your reply. anemoneprojectors talk 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lil-Unique has made an archive for it on Web Citation and is keeping record on his user page here in table form as it updates. Jayy008 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also the R&B archive on the official website. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/

SJ (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC+1)

I had no idea that existed, that would be better. Jayy008 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New categories

While I was adding the UK R&B chart, I added automatic categorization of the articles. If you are interested in seeing all articles that use a given chart identifier, there will be category named "Singlechart usages for xxx", i.e. Category:Singlechart usages for Slovakia. It keys off the argument, so the ones with multiple names get split. You have to look at Category:Singlechart usages for Flanders, Category:Singlechart usages for Vlanders, and Category:Singlechart usages for Belgium (Flanders) separately. I'll work on changing these to more user-friendly categories later.—Kww(talk) 04:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Billboard component charts

I thought I knew most of the Billboard component charts, but after seeing some recent edits and looking at Component charts I am confused. I have seen Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, Top 40 Mainstream and Hot Country Songs removed claiming they are component charts. Reading the articles, nothing is said about them being component charts, but reading Component charts says they are component charts of Hot 100 Airplay. This edit in November, [6], added the following sentence to the article without a source, "In turn, the Hot 100 Airplay is comprised on the various airplay-only charts, including but not limited to Top 40 Mainstream, Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, Alternative Songs, and the Rhythmic Airplay Chart." I can find nothing on Billboard or around the internet to support this sentence, which seems ironic given the editor the month before had placed a unreferenced template in the article.

I have also seen Pop 100, Hot Dance Airplay and Hot Dance Club Songs removed as being component charts, but I see no evidence and in the case of the dance charts, Component charts says they are not. I would appreciate other people's opinions on this matter. Aspects (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

you raise a very good point here. I'm glat its being discussed. Its time we produced a definitive list of charts which are allowed and those which are not. Those which are deemed components and those which are not. Anything chart listed as Mainstream is a component e.g. mainstream top 40 is a component of the hot 100, hot mainstream rock tracks is a component of the rock tracks chart. We need to look into the matter. On a personal level i feel that genre charts should be allowed specific to each song. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all the wiki articles on all the US Billboard charts need improvement for consistency. They need to properly show any and all relationships that they have to each other.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we create a summary page for Billboard Charts which shows which charts are definately allowed and then shows which charts are components of the ones that are allowed. Then we can have notes explaining when component charts can be used. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok i've done a brief stint of research based on Billboard and wikipedia and this what i've found:

• Billboard Hot 100 - no issues
  • Hot 100 Airplay - often mistaken to be different from Radio Songs the two charts are exactly the same. it is one of three components of the hot 100.
    • Rhythmic Airplay Chart - component of hot 100 airplay
  • Hot 100 Single Sales - physical chart which is component of the Hot 100, if a song has not charted on the Hot 100 then this chart is preferred over the airplay chart.
  • Hot Digital Songs - digital chart, main component of the Hot 100, if a song has not charted on the Hot 100 then this chart is preferred over the airplay chart.
• Bubbling Under Hot 100 - appears to have been was deactivated and replaced by the Heatseakers Songs and Heatseakers Albums charts.
• Pop Songs - often labelled on wikipedia as a component chart but Billboard explicitly calls it a genre chart. Additionally it is being labelled Mainstream Top 40 but again there is no evidence to support this. I'm not sure the rational used for calling this a component chart
• Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks - often mislabelled, Billboard referrs to the chart as Adult Contemporary Songs so it should be renamed to this. no evidence of being a component as it is specifically taking into account sales of songs + airplay on light-pop radio.
  • Adult Pop Songs - although an official billboard chart its methidology is dubious. There is little information know about how a song qualifies on this chart. I think is its a component of the Hot Adult Contemporary Chart and should be banned from use if not for being a component then for having dubious methidology.
• Hot Dance Club Songs - though only an airplay chart is NOT a component of anything. however it is incorrectly named on wikipedia. it should be labelled Dance/Club Play Songs because the play part indicates that it only takes into account disc jockey airplay. it is nevertheless a genre chart.
• Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs - again for some reason its labelled "Hot" even though this is not mentioned on Billboard. It is not a component chart of anything and takes into account both airplay and sales.
• Rap Songs - genre chart mainly using airplay but still not a component of anything.
• Alternative Songs, Hot Country Songs, Hot Jazz Songs, Hot Gospel Songs, Tropical Songs, Christian Songs, European Hot 100 - all are fine for use on wikipedia. All are genre bar Euro Hot 100 which is a geo chart.
• Latin Songs - fine for use.
  • Latin Pop Songs - appears to be a component of the latin songs chart as latin pop is sub-genre of latin songs.

hope that helps people.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we make it simpler somehow? Like for example if the song charts on the Hot 100 these charts are allowed (follow with charts). If it doesn't then there are no restrictions? Jayy008 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the time that Lil-unique1 put into the above. I find it verrrry interesting that wiki has several of the charts improperly named. This certainly helps lead to the overwhelming confusion. Certainly no offense, but unfortunately some is unclear and needs verification as in 'seems' or 'appears to be' is not definitive. Probably should RE-SOURCE everything (including rechecking any refs in the Billboard chart articles) as "This article does not cite any references or sources." "This article may contain original research." is on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay article for example. We can hardly cite these for our conclusions. I believe that Lil-unique1 did the best they could under the current situation. I would like to suggest again that ALL the wiki US Billboard articles be revised/corrected/verifiably rewritten as necessary if we are trying to follow a consensus regarding 'component' charts and 'genre' charts as it IS UNCLEAR what many of them really are. Also I would like to see the 'new' names in the article titles as well; such as, Hot 100 Airplay (Radio songs).
I admit to some confusion over the 'preferred' status given to some of the component charts. If a song does not appear in the Hot 100, but does appear in ALL of the components (Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Single Sales, and Hot Digital Songs) I thought that they ALL are eligible to appear with the only one NOT allowed being Rhythmic Airplay Chart as its 'level up' chart of Hot 100 Airplay is seen. But if it does not appear on Hot 100 Airplay, then the Rhythmic Airplay Chart is allowed along with the Hot 100 Single Sales and Hot Digital Songs (still using the example of NOT charting on the Hot 100). (my understanding)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Right well i think that's our answer then. I've used words like 'appears' or 'seems' where the wikipedia article for that chart is unsourced. our main problem here is going to be that Billboard does not provide any information on how the chart is gathered (unless i've missed it). So we have very little idea about how each of the wikipedia articles for the charts was written. my major concern is that without any sources to verify how a chart is formed we end up not being able to modift the status of the chart. I support IKnow23's motion to rename the charts but i would go further. e.g. I would like to see Hot 100 Airplay become 'U.S. Radio Songs (Hot 100 Airplay)' etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See below for an example of what could be implemented. We can modify this as we decide fit e.g. if we decide that a chart is incorrectly named or if some charted are premoted/demoted to component charts. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Condition	Applicable U.S. Charts
If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →	Adult Contemporary Songs Alternative Songs Christian Songs U.S. Country Songs Dance/Club Play Songs European Hot 100 Hot Gospel Songs Tropical Songs Latin Songs Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) U.S. Rap Songs R&B/Hip-Hop Songs U.S. Rock Songs Hot Jazz Songs
If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →	Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) Hot 100 Physical (Single Sales) Hot 100 Digital (Digital Songs) U.S. Rock Songs Dance/Club Play Songs R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) Hot Gospel Songs U.S. Rap Songs Alternative Songs U.S. Country Songs European Hot 100 Adult Contemporary Songs Hot Jazz Songs Tropical Songs Christian Songs Latin Songs
If a song has not charted on the Latin Songs Chart you may add any of the charts to the right →	As well as charts in line with the conditions above (depending on if the songs charts on the Hot 100 or not) you can add the Latin Pop Songs chart.
If a song has not charted on the Adult Contemporary Chart you may add any of the charts to the right →	As well as charts in line with the conditions above (depending on if the songs charts on the Hot 100 or not) you can add the Adult Pop Songs chart.
If a song has not charted on the R&B/Hip-Hop Chart you may add any of the charts to the right →	As well as charts in line with the conditions above (depending on if the songs charts on the Hot 100 or not) you can add the Rhythmic Airplay Chart 'and R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay Chart'.

Perfect! Although, I personally think the right column should be bulletpointed and listed rather than prose, but that might just be me. Jayy008 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

modified and done. Now we just need to work on improving the articles and also perhaps renaming some of the charts :P Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect, I support Jayy008 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Idea: Would it perhaps be even more perfect if the upper section (If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100) listed all the applicable charts (as it does above) and the lower section (If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100) started off with "All (or any?) of the above charts, plus:"? It'd make the lower listing shorter and the info maybe easier to use.

I can't tell though, because I think my preference would have been the tree-like presentation hinted at by Lil-unique1's analysis. With this (clean-looking!) table approach, it seems that the relationships aren't as readily apparent.

Consider (if I may display my mental sluggishness) the situation where a song has not charted on the Hot 100. May I use the Rhythmic Airplay Chart? From the upper portion of the table it appears so, because it's listed in the has not lower section up there. But what if I'm using the placement on Hot 100 Airplay, also in the lower has not section? The lower portion of the table says no, because it (Rhythmic Airplay Chart) is a component of Hot 100 Airplay, but I have to look for it at the bottom after I've already seen a kind of "OK!" at the top. I think some editors will miss that.

Maybe you see what I'm getting at. A tree (if we could devise a nice one) would let me see everything immediately. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a differentiation should be made between (for back of better terms) component charts and genre charts. Many genre charts are in fact components but I think carry more weight and importance, for example Rock Tracks, R&B tracks, Rap Songs, Country songs. When we start splintering down to very specific subsets of audiences then I think the brakes need to be put on: Rhythmic Top 40, Adult R&B, Dance Singles Sales, etc. The only one I can think of that is not a direct component is Dance Club Play, as that realm is not connected to any other charts and has no bearing on them. - eo (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I did toy with the 'all of the above' idea but it didn't really fit in with what i was trying to achieve. I do understand what your saying. Perhaps the lower section should be seperated from the upper section? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AHA - I knew I had started a page on this topic at some point in the past: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion. Perhaps we can clear that page off and start from scratch? It would keep this conversation in a centralized location. - eo (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup that sounds wise. this is an open discussion at the moment and is active on the talk page maybe its better to discuss it all here considering that a consensus appears to be developing. Also what do you think about me placing a message template on every billboard chart page on wikipedia (*sighs*) notifying editors that billboard charts are under review? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think separation is the cure, although I felt more comfortable with the table inverted (Hot 100 at the bottom); what's bugging me might be the forcing of items into two different namings.

Look at the upper portion of the (current) example. The upper-most heading talks about songs not appearing on "the main chart". Then we have a table where, sort of, the left hand column should be labeled "Main chart", so as to match it up with the component charts in the (correctly labeled) right column.

But then there's that darned Hot 100 Airplay chart in the 2nd row; it's not a main chart because we just showed it as a component in the 1st row. However, it's got its own component chart, so to make sense with the heading it has to be a main chart.

It also seems that the left column is always the condition column, and the condition is always — with one exception — "If a song has not charted on this chart you may add any of the charts to the right". Right? And the exception is, of course, where the song made it to the Hot 100, but in that case, we want to revoke the permission our table gives. So if the left column is given the (admittedly unwieldy heading, "If a song has not charted on this chart you may add any of the charts to the right (but see exception for songs on Hot 100)", we could then make our last row say, "If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 do not use any of the charts to the right."

Hmmm, even I don't like this. Forget that last bit; take a look at this approach: (— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Flow-chart approach

Top-down decision table to determine what U.S. Billboard song charts may be used
You may use any of the following 14 Billboard charts at any time
Pop Songs Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks Hot Dance Club Songs Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs Rap Songs Alternative Songs Hot Country Songs Hot Jazz Songs, Hot Gospel Songs Tropical Songs, Christian Songs European Hot 100 Latin Songs Rock Songs
Additionally, you may be able to use other Billboard charts. To determine the appropriate charts, start with Step 1 and follow the instructions in "Next step" downwards.
Step	Test	Result	Next step
1.	Did the song chart on Billboard Hot 100?	Yes: OK to add Hot 100 chart (but no charts listed below).	STOP
		No: Possibly OK to add others.	Continue with Step 2.
2.	Did the song chart on Latin Songs?	Yes: OK to add Latin Songs chart.	Continue with Step 3.
		No: OK to add Latin Pop Songs
3.	Did the song chart on Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks?	Yes: OK to add Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks chart.	Continue with Step 4.
		No: OK to add Adult Pop Songs
4.	OK to add any of Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Singles Sales, Hot Digital Songs, and Rhythmic Airplay Chart.		STOP

It's a little too computer-sciencey, probably, but I find it easier to read. (Of course, I'm a little too computer-sciencey.) You'll notice I had a problem with the Rhythmic Airplay Chart: From the current table prototype it looks like it's a component of Hot R&B/Hip Songs (as well as of Hot 100 Airplay), but in the tree analysis above, that doesn't seem to be the case. Which is right? I dunno, so it's certainly wrong here.

It'd need general checking for correctness (I may well have bungled some copy-and-paste) and the chart/article naming still needs addressing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok the main problem i have with the flow chart is that it assumes that if something charted on the 'Hot 100 airplay' it automatically charted on the 'Hot 100' which we know is not the case. I do understand your concern though and i did modify the table to try and correct it. I think the answer to the problem is a lot more simple. I've removed 'Rythmic Airplay Chart' from the lower half and then its sorted. please take another look at the table now.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, wha? It doesn't assume that at all. The only time a user is supposed to consider Hot 100 Airplay is when it didn't chart on Hot 100. There's no assumption in either direction. Since you thought otherwise from looking at the table I have to conclude that it's not as helpful as I had hoped. I don't see how you got confused into concluding that but if you came to that conclusion, regular users will be even more lost.

For my part, I also don't see what removing 'Rythmic Airplay Chart' from the lower half solves. What's confusing is the upper half, where the use of Rythmic Airplay Chart hinges on the song's failure to chart on both Hot 100 Airplay and Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs. That's in conflict with your analysis higher up. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I missed some of your edits somehow. The time change is messing up my tracking of things, I think (or maybe I need a new brain). Here's mine again, with merged cells for better visibility (I hope). Your version does more to explain the component concept, while the flow chart doesn't even mention the reasoning behind the steps. That makes yours superior, I'd say. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart names/pages

I've been through and checked a sample of around 10 of the different Billboard chart pages and i'm finding myself thinking the methidology is not sourced. Here's a crazy idea but how about merging everything into one Billboard chart page. For example we could have just four pages in totals named as follows:

• Billboard Hot 100
• Billboard 200 (Albums)
• Billboard Genre Charts
• Billboard Component Charts

Each page can have sections for specific charts. Good idea/bad idea? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea Lil-Unique, and I think Eo's idea of clearing the page he created and doing the discussion there is wise. Jayy008 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've informed Kww of this discussion because the moving of billboard charts will effect the chart macro. I'm going to start working on each of the charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you leave the existing chart article as a redirect to appropriate section in the new one (a good idea in any event), the macros won't be impacted.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

are you ok with changes being proposed? do you think we're thinking along the same lines.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed format sounds reasonable. I'd do it in a sandbox first.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Because this would have taken too much time i've instead proceeded to move some of the billboard chart pages so it now makes more sense. see below for the changes i've made. I've tried to be WP:Bold so please assume WP:Good Faith.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Former Name	New Name
Billboard Hot 100 Airplay	Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs)
Hot 100 Single Sales	Hot 100 Physical (Single Sales)
Hot Digital Songs	Hot 100 Digital (Digital Songs)
Hot Country Songs	U.S. Country Songs
Rap Songs	U.S. Rap Songs
Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs	R&B/Hip-Hop Songs
Hot Dance Club Songs	Dance/Club Play Songs
Pop Songs	Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40)
Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks	Adult Contemporary Songs

Remember, I support the correct naming of the charts. A thought though. Don't the OLD names need to remain active and be Redirected to the new names so that ALL the 'old' names in use in articles won't change to redlinks? Perhaps this is why the new names redirect to the old ones, as in 'U.S. Country Songs' redirects to 'Hot Country Songs'? An editor uinfamiliar with our discussion may have noticed redlinks occuring at the old name, so put on the redirect as their solution ro resolve it. Anyway, I believe that the redirect should go the OTHER WAY, namely the old name should redirect to the new name. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of having wiki articles...

• Billboard Hot 100
• Billboard 200 (Albums)
• Billboard Genre Charts
• Billboard Component Charts

Question, the Component Charts article will have sections for Hot 100, Latin Songs, Adult Contemporary, R&B/Hip-Hop... as they all have 'components'?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

with regards to this the Components chart page would have sections for the component charts like: Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs), Hot 100 Physical (Single Sales) and Hot 100 Digital (Digital Songs) explaining that they're components of the Hot 100. The Hot 100 itself would have its own page. However i attempted this in the sandbox but realised it would be extremely difficult first due to the number of charts and secondly due to the upkeep of the pages. Some have an extensive history whereas others don't. Some users are also coming across as fiercly over-protective of such articles.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 'condition' and 'flow' charts...I am going to speak on the presentation methods only (not accuracy as that requires greater scrutiny, even IF I would recognize any errors!)
I had similar thought as JohnFromPinckney before I saw what he said, "Idea: Would it perhaps be even more perfect if the upper section (If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100) listed all the applicable charts (as it does above) and the lower section (If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100) started off with "All (or any?) of the above charts, plus:"? It'd make the lower listing shorter and the info maybe easier to use."
I would also like to suggest putting the chart names in Alphabetical order after the renaming process in the 'Applicable U.S. Charts' area of the table. If not ENTIRELY alpha, then perhaps by sections of 'Genre charts' and 'Billboard 100 component charts'. [more to come] Iknow23 (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

with regards to the charts i am having some resistance. One user has reverted the U.S. Country Songs back to Hot Country Songs simply stating that is the name of the chart. I tried making the point that it only appears like that for Billboard.biz customers but for the general public it is simply Country Songs. From all of the pages i move i created redirects so the old pages were active. This is going to be a more length process than i thought. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that Billboard.com is more commonly referenced, so we should use the naming it provides. Alternate names for the charts should be mentioned in the articles like we do for performers in stating their 'performance names' and their 'birth names'.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... i like your thinking. I would like to move Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) to U.S. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) because i think it makes more sense and if we're going to go ahead with the move of all Billboard Charts how about having all genre charts as U.S. for example: U.S. R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, U.S. Dance/Club Play Songs etc.? This standardization would make editing articles easier no? Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it also be better to add the word 'chart' to the new names? I'm from the U.S. and unsure if EVERYWHERE else in the world is familiar with 'Country songs' and might think that U.S. Country Songs is a list of ALL songs from artists from the country of U.S.?? Even if known I still think its better to state that the article is really about a chart and not a list of individual songs for the other charts as well. So it would be U.S. Rap Songs (chart) for example. —Iknow23 (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That could become tedious. Is U.S. Rap Chart not a better solution? or are we missing the boat here? Is it something more obvious like U.S. Chart: Rap Songs?Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AGREED. 'U.S.' Standardization leads to greater clarity. I've always wondered why they didn't all have U.S. on them as Billboard does operate and have charts in other countries/regions as well.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've improved the conditions table (matrix) from above all that remains to alphabetically list the charts. But with regards to moving the charts i have no idea how we're going to achieve it. User:TenPoundHammer was quite forceful in stating that country Songs should remain Hot Country Songs end of. =( Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hmmmm...if you look at the example charts on the project page, they all show the word 'chart' except for the U.S. How/why did this occur? So for standardization with the rest of the world the U.S. charts should have the word 'chart' even the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 should be U.S. Billboard Hot 100 Chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you invite User:TenPoundHammer to come here? If they see the full scope of what is being discussed it may make a difference. They are only focused on the name of one chart, I take it, whereas we are attempting much more.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So are we then suggest the mass proposal should be U.S. Rap Songs Chart, U.S. Country Songs Chart etc. or U.S. Rap Chart, U.S. Country Chart? I will do so now although i did point out that a discussion was on-going. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see 'songs' in there to disambiguate from albums charts + Billboard uses the word 'songs', correct?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to see this implemented but we've already had another user now revert the Adult Contemporary Songs, stating that its not the proper name. *sighs* im off to bed now. but i think we're gonna need a proper consensus here. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

True. Invite them all here to participate also.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The names of the chart articles should be what the "official" name of the chart is—if the name of the chart as it appears in the printed magazine is the same as on the .biz site, that should be the name of the article. And adding parenthetical asides like Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) or disambiguation like U.S. Rap Songs (chart) is just plain wrong per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The name of the article should be the exact name of the chart; if an article about a different subject already exists at one of the titles, then—and only then—disambiguation should be added to the title. Clarification, like "Radio Songs" can be spelled out in the lead paragraph of the article. I am, on the other hand, all for the suggested trimming down of the number of separate articles. Before the final culling of articles occurs, I would like to see a list of articles that are targeted for termination. Note that the correct format of the suggested titles should be Billboard Hot 100, Billboard 200, Billboard genre charts, and Billboard component charts. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have a slight problem with these renames, they seem kinda cumbersome. I strongly agree with naming them exactly as they appear in Billboard... the problem is that several charts are shown with different titles on .com and .biz and in the print issues. Hot Dance Club Songs is so named on .biz and in the print magazine. However, the article was just moved to Dance/Club Play Songs based on how its shown on .com. I think a lot more thought needs to be put into this before more articles are moved. - eo (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i agree that the moving of the articles was a little over-ambitious or perhaps a little premature i simply do not agree with the argument that Billboard Charts should be known as their official name. We have lots of editing issues because in some cases charts are referred to by several different names by official sources like the magazine, .com and .biz. The idea is to unify the charts. The thing is it's ok arguing that .biz calls the airplay chart Hot 100 Airplay yet the majority of visitors see the chart on .com as Radio Songs. The problem here is that people are thinking from a technical/editing point of view and not from a general reader's point of view. The fact is that some of these charts have changed names so many times that it is difficult to actually state what the proper name for the chart is. A simplification of chart names would aid both in editing and fact verification. If your not from the US the billboard charts are quite confusing. The other reason for doing this is because there is a lack of consistancy for example even though the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart is named such it is referred to in articles as variations e.g. R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Hot R&B Songs, US R&B/Hip Hop Songs, US R&B/Hip Hop Chart. Etc. Again i think editors need to see that this is not about beaurocracy of what charts should be called or even that different charts have different names. It more rather that we're trying to make it easier to use and navigate through Billboard charts, to make editing easier and also to make it easier for the general public who use wikipeida. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what redirects are for. Use the .biz/print edition names as the actual article name for now. Note as well that the online AC chart is called "Adult Contemporary" not "Adult Contemporary Songs". Will someone revert the names of those that have not been changed back yet? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're suggesting here. Could you please explain what you mean a little more cleary please. Also i've been involved in discussions before we're people have used the same comment before "use the billboard.biz names for now". we've said that in the past over and over. Its time it was discussed properly and in a lenghthy thorough way. The problem with just calling it Adult Contemporary is that it is easy to confuse with the listening format and genre. Part of the whole standardsing thing is to unify the US with rest of the world. In the UK its not called 'R&B Songs' or 'Urban Songs' its called the 'R&B Chart' or the 'Urban Chart' why should US be different? And the argument that its not the official name is a pointless one because many charts have undergone many name changes. the idea is to make it easier to add charts to articles and also to create unity so that a chart is known by just one name. On wikipedia its often assumed that most of the traffic is from the United States but its just not true. Its viewed by people from all around the world and it is extremely difficult for non-US readers to understand US charts. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Names should be as they name is until Billboard change they names. It could create some confusion. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

See that's the whole point i'm trying to make. Billboard has multiple names for the charts whether you use billboard.com or billboard.biz. there is always going to be confusion because billboard is forever changing the names of the charts. The idea is to standardize what they're called on wikipedia. otherwise its an argument over the name e.g. Hot Rap Songs vs Rap Songs or Hot Club Dance Songs vs Hot Dance/Club Play Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Billboard.biz a no-free magazine? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Add more: Or what is the difference between .com and .biz Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard.biz is the commericial billboard website for those who have a subscription to the magazine. On the website it has a page where it lists all the chart it posts however these names are different to the ones found at billboard.com and are rarely seen by the public because you cannot click on them or use .biz to confirm any billboard charts. Effictively its subscription only access for any detailed information. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So names of .com must be used because not all users have a suscription on .biz; .com is a free access website and more users (including me) use it as a reliable source. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. this is what the general public see (.com) and percieve the names to be whereas this is what Billboard Suscribers see (.biz). My main issue is that .biz cannot be used to source charts but it is used to dictate their names... ? Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule that .biz cannot be used to source charts. That would be like saying you can't use books to cite because some people don't own them. Either way, the Rock Songs chart is named the same in both, yet you still renamed it to U.S. Rock Songs. Yes, managing between the charts that do have multiple names is confusing, but that's how it is, there's no need to make it more confusing. The print edition has been around much longer than online, so I'd go with that. I do like the suggestion that some of these individual chart articles should just be merged. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique1 said,"...it is extremely difficult for non-US readers to understand US charts." Well guess what? I am FROM the US and 'it is extremely difficult for [me] to understand US charts.' It's like shake my head...Billboard uses Different names for the same chart AT THE SAME TIME, Aughhhhh. Is this insane? How can we expect any 'casual' editor to understand when we don't?—Iknow23 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I too think the merging of individual articles (e.g. Rap Songs) is a good idea because some of the articles are massive stubs and have been for an extended period of time but im not sure how to do it because each billboard chart has its own page and templates. Some of the charts like R&B/Hip Hop Songs and Dance Club Play have an extensive yet detailed chart history which is unsourced. would it be ok to remove that information? With regards to calling Rap Songs U.S. rap songs it hopefully distinguishes from the rap genre. Ideally i would like all U.S. charts to be laballed as follows e.g. U.S. Chart: Rap Songs, U.S. Chart: Adult Contemporary, U.S. Chart: Hot 100. this would be the ideal solution especially since it uses the billboard.com names. Using .biz is unwise especially when .com is a viable alternative and allows verification. this is not an argue of WP:Recentism its an argument of logic and editing quality. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this (U.S. Chart: Rap Songs, U.S. Chart: Adult Contemporary, U.S. Chart: Hot 100.) is an excellent idea, merge all related charts to that links. This won't cause confusion. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a few more agreements to call it a consensus. or do we already have one? We've already resolved the component charts issue above so its just a case of finalising the chart names and instating them on a revamped Billboard central page and lisitng the change at WP:record charts. I've posted a message on every chart page that is being proposed to move and hopefully that will help close the discussion.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. If you are going to do that it would be for disambiguating purposes only and the article names should be along the lines of Rock Songs (chart) - disambiguate from "rock songs" (since rock song redirects to rock music) - and Hot 100 (U.S.) - disambiguate from other countries "Hot 100". If print edition chart names are used for the others, there is no further disambiguation needed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I'm willing to compromise and use names like Rock Songs (Chart) and Hot 100 (Chart). But i won't budge about not using the print edition names because it confuses people. Whilst i accept that the print edition names havent changed the onlines ones have and i want to standardise the charts so that all the online ones sound the same. The point is whatever we decide to do about chart names it should be the same for all billboard charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer US Rock Songs (chart), US Hot 100 (chart), etc. Note that I use 'US' and not U.S. This way the sortable table will work properly as United Kingdom uses UK instead of U.K. So we'd get to solve another problem at the same time :)—Iknow23 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You're going to confuse people either way because Billboard is using different chart names at the same time. Names of the articles should not be changed just because they created a "fancy" website. Until it's uniform, redirects should suffice and both names mentioned in the article's intro. US (or U.S.) should not be added to any name in which it is not part of the actual name of the chart. On that matter, UK Singles Chart should be renamed The Official UK Singles Chart, and similarly with the albums page, as it appears to be the precise name. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the other UK charts like the Big Top 40 have depreciated and are not allowed to be used on Wikipedia so there is no need to differentiate. Plus the UK Albums chart is not a genre. You're argument that people are going to be confused is a valid one but we're doing this because people are already confused. Either way we have a problem. None US readers (and a portion of US readers) find it difficult to understand how US charts work. The fact that we source them from billboard.com means they are verifiable but makes the situation confusing because the charts are listed differently to billboard.biz which is cited as the official/print edition. its a no-win situation.Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok i concede defeat because i often use All Music as a chart reference which uses the billboard.biz names. Therefore i will move back all the charts to their official All Music/Billboard names. it would be contradictory of me not too considering i use allmusic as an alternative source.Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rock Songs Chart needs to moved or renamed yet again. The title of the chart is Rock Songs, not Rock Songs Chart. If the article is not going to be named Rock Songs, it should at least be changed to Rock Songs chart or Rock Songs (chart). Personally I would name it Rock Songs (Billboard chart). Piriczki (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done i've gone ahead and changed this.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A full list of chart names (the correct ones from billboard.biz) and the billboard chart sourcing guide can be found at WP:USCHARTS Lil-unique1 (talk)

Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) and Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks

You probably thought we were done. However, I've looked through all of the discussion above and can't find a reason for what seems like a contradiction to me, namely: Over at Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) it says "There are forty positions on this chart and it is solely based on radio airplay and is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100." (Emphasis in bold added by me.) Over at the Component chart article, we say:

The Hot 100 is calculated from three component charts:

• Airplay: Hot 100 Airplay
• Sales: Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales

In turn, the Hot 100 Airplay is comprised on the various airplay-only charts, including but not limited to Top 40 Mainstream, Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks, Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, Hot Country Songs, Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, Alternative Songs, and the Rhythmic Airplay Chart." (Emphasis in bold added by me.)

And that Top 40 Mainstream is really a redirect back to Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), where I started, so these two articles agree. My confusion is why, in the discussion above leading to the current table at WP:USCHARTS, we permit the addition of Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) whether the song has charted on the Hot 100 or not. Did we decide this above somewhere, and I just can't find it through my bleary eyes, or is it an error?

Same question about the WP:USCHARTS table's Adult Top 40 (which redirects to Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks). This looks to be a component (of a component) of the Hot 100, but we permit it regardless of Hot 100 charting.

My apologies if I'm simply not seeing something that's obvious and clearly written somewhere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is based on genre. There are some charts like Rhythemic Top 40 which do not pertain to a genre. Billboard.com calls pop songs, adult top 40 etc. genre charts. The thing is if we go by condition that all airplay charts must be a component of Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) then one of the following could be used: Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), Adult Top 40, Adult Contemporary (chart), Rock Songs (chart), Hot Rap Songs etc. cause all of the those are solely airplay based. I posed the suggestion that there is no evidence to explicitly suggets that Pop Songs has a component of Hot 100 Airplay and no one could find evidence to suggest that it was. One of the main issues here is that much of the billboard articles on wikipedia are unsourced abd the honest answer would be that we can never be 100% sure of what is/isn't component charts thanks to ambiguity. I've used Billboard.com's chart classifications to post my suggestions. This is kind of debate i wanted to have. People are afraid of discussing changes to how we use billboard on wikipedia because they are scared that a discussion we demage the legacy of billboard. but i say what's the use of a legacy that is unsourced? for example everyone automatically calls the hot 100 Billboard Hot 100 yet billboard.biz calls it The Billboard Hot 100 and none of the other single charts have Billboard in their name.??? Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All I understand from this explanation (and I thank you for your efforts) and the mention of "airplay" is that, after all of your research and analysis, you have no idea what charts are components of other charts. Is that a correct conclusion? It's really just sort of a best guess on your part. And parallel to this conclusion is the conclusion that our articles about the individual charts, such as the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) one mentioned above, are completely unreliable and need editing by someone who knows what Billboard does, and no such person has happened by.

I gather that Billboard makes no clear information available about what charts depend on what other charts. We're all just guessing, and somehow the word "airplay" is some kind of clue, although it helps me not at all.

I'm sorry that I won't be able to propel the discussion forward; I know nothing about Billboard except that (1) their Website is an abomination and I hate, hate, HATE having to visit it; and (2) they're a big name (apparently the only big name left) besides Cashbox or Variety, and one that would offer great canonical sources if only their Website were more than marginally usable.

Sorry to sound so depressed and defeated but it's just because I'm depressed and defeated. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well to clarify Pop Songs was initially listed as a component chart because billboard didn't previously list it is a genre chart but now it does. Furthermore billboard makes clear that some charts are clearly components of others e.g. Rock Songs (chart) is calculated through the airplay of Mainstream Rock Songs + Triple A Songs + Alternative Songs (chart) etc. Then for other charts like Pop Songs it merely says "airplay on mainstream radio" etc. If your query is aren't all airplay charts a component of Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) then yes that is true to an extent. But then charts like Rythemic Top 40 don't link to a specific genre whereas Pop Songs does but essentially both charts measure the airplay on their respective radio formats: Rhythemic radio and mainstream radio. The question is then do we label all such charts as components of the hot 100 airplay? Correct me if i'm wrong but essentially what this discussion has uncovered is a central issue.... is any airplay chart a component of hot 100 airplay? Now that is something you can comment on... (and with regards to having an expert look at the matter my understanding is that a billboard expert has yet to come forward so every so often users raise consensus to modify billboard policy, i'm more than happy to facilitate discussion and make changes if opposing points of view are put accross) Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)