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

IRMA is the official Irish chart company however, it provides the OCC with this information, a number of months ago a user decided to use OCC instead of IRMA which is factually incorrect. If wikipedia is supposed to focus on standards and accuracy then the OCC should not be assigned for chart placements for Ireland. OCC also complies and records chart data for the US and French charts do we assign the OCC to US and French chart positions, of course not therefore the same should not be applied to Irish chart positions. I will make the appropriate changes going forward - IRMA has always been and will remain the chart holder for Ireland and OCC is not the official company responsible, saying it is, is not accurate.

Also notice how on the OCC website it clearly states copyrights of IRMA ^[1] regarding all chart entries for Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor go around making changes like this in articles, clearly don't know how charts work. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 16:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

IRMA doesn't provide the OCC with the chart information... it's the other way around, the OCC compiles the data for IRMA. Also, where is the evidence that the OCC compiles data for the US and French charts? Richard3120 ( talk) 17:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Richard3120: This editor changing the charts [1] [2] [3], I suggest these edits should be reverted. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 21:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

IRMA is the official body that represents artists in Ireland data is transferred to OCC who then publish the information on behalf of IRMA, hence they are the copyright holder. IRMA has been and will always be the issuer of chart positions. If you cared to look at the OCC website you’d see the US charts are published on the site on behalf of Bullboard, but obviously not the source material. OCC also collects data for France, this is not published on their website but you can do that research yourself. You can continue to deny IRMA is not responsible for chart positions in Ireland but I work in the Irish music industry and live in Ireland and I’ve already provided you with this evidence but you choose to ignore it. But if you want to spread disinformation that is fine. TheAmazingPeanuts Nua eire ( talk) 22:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You can view this website to see information about French chart and OCC. https://completemusicupdate.com/article/uk-charts-firm-to-start-compiling-frances-music-charts/ and for the US chart see here https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/billboard-hot-100-chart/. Are you going to change the US and France to the OCC too? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) Nua eire ( talk) 22:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

IRMA was established by both mainstream and independent record labels based in Ireland to compile and coordinate the publication of weekly charts. Over the years a number of companies have held responsibility in conjunction with IRMA to compile the weekly Irish charts these include Chart Track, Gfk and more recently OCC. The OCC contract expires after a 5 year period which started in 2017. IRMA is the copyright holder and the company responsible for chart positions. OCC has responsibility to issue the charts on its website. The charts are also available on the IRMA website. OCC is also responsible for compiling charts in France following the departure of Gfk. However during Gfk and OCC correctly compiling the French chart correctly SNEP has always referenced because SNEP is the primary body responsible for French charts and the original copyright holder.

The same is said for Irish entries. IRMA has always been referenced even though Chart Track and Gfk have complied the Irish chart in the past on behalf of IRMA. It is factually incorrect to attribute chart placements solely to OCC when the primary company and copyright holder is IRMA. The OCC would not have permission to compile the chart if it was not for IRMA under the five year deal. To deny this is spreading misinformation and undoing the hard work done by those on wiki who want to continue to maintain a high standard of accurate information on these pages. Nua eire ( talk) 22:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise the OCC has been compiling the French charts since the beginning of 2021, thank you for enlightening me. You make a fair point - it makes no sense to use the OCC for the Irish charts but SNEP for the French charts, when it's the same situation for both. Richard3120 ( talk) 02:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Richard3120: Should we change the guidelines? TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 03:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@ TheAmazingPeanuts: it should at least be consistent... if the OCC provide the data for both France and Iteland, why do we use SNEP for France but not IRMA for Ireland? Similarly, GfK Entertainment used to collect the data for Ireland, and are still responsible for compiling the charts of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria. But we don't use GfK's name as the chart owner for any of those countries. At the very least, Nua Eire is right that this change should not have been made without consultation. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines should be changed to reflect what was always the case IRMA is the correct reference as is SNEP in the case of France . I will leave it up to you to make the final decision. But OCC is not the correct reference and this should be changed. It should have never been changed to OCC by some user earlier this year without discussion on the issue. Nua eire ( talk) 06:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Nua eire: A SNEP chartered accountant creates the certifications for France with the figures they collect from the OCC. SNEP and IRMA have more or less the same activities since the latter also does the certifications ( also seen here). SNEP had worked with GfK since 1994. Oroborvs ( talk) 17:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As long as the SNEP chart is still being published okay on SNEP's website we should use that preferably over the OCC however its clear from the press released that the SNEP chart is powered/compiled by the OCC. That would make SNEP the chart name, OCC the publisher (if sourced from OCC website). IRMA is referenced for Ireland because the GfJ website disappeared. If I remember rightly for the Irish Chart, for a while they didn't have a functioning/easily archivable chart hence OCC started to be used. Nevertheless IRMA is preferred where possible. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 23:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I echo what Lil-unique1 said above. OCC's website has only been used for the top 50 of the singles and albums charts because they have individual URLs for the dates (and are more easily accessible and archived), whereas when one accesses IRMA's website, there is no change to the URL (and one has to use drop-down menus on the page[s] to find older charts). For this reason, IRMA's website is less functional (and they really need to update the layout). The top 50 of the charts IRMA publishes on its website is identical to what OCC presents on its website, so I don't see the issue for using the OCC's website when we change the date= parameter and be linked to the exact chart date instead of navigating IRMA's drop-down menus. The OCC clearly has a license/deal with IRMA to display the charts. (That being said, positions 51–100 are only available on IRMA's website.) Is this annoyance about Template:Album chart (and/or Template:Single chart) displaying "Irish Albums ( OCC)" instead of "Irish Albums ( IRMA)"? All the data is the same, whether it's OCC or IRMA in parentheses just depends on what website is being used. Ss 112 01:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just wandering through for nostalgia's sake, and this strikes me as being a particularly purposeless discussion: Wikipedia sourcing guidelines aren't based on national pride, but on reliability. Since the OCC is licensed to provide the information and does so reliably, it's a perfectly valid source by Wikipedia standards. If the OCC provides direct links to the data and IRMA does not, that makes it preferable to use the OCC.— Kww( talk) 12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 15:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Kww and Lil-unique1: That's my main problem with Nua eire's edits, they didn't even bother to have an discussion and keep edit warring when somebody disagree with their opinion. I have this issue with them not too long ago and even reported them at WP:ANI. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 16:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have serious issue with the level of bullying going on and specifically directed towards me. Nua eire ( talk) 21:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please point out bullying in this post? I haven't see any except for a group of editors all independently disagreeing with and putting forward an alternative viewpoint. Kww pointed out the dangers of focussing on national pride (which was their assumption or surmisation of your view point) and the Amazing Peanut simply pointed out that they have disagreed with you before. I dont think that constitutes bullying or personal attacks. Just because people have disagreed with you doesn't mean its personal - I can't see any insults or derogatory language aimed at you. Assume good faith also applies to you Nua eire. If you're going to make accusations of bullying please bring them up with the person(s) directly and at an appropriate venue rather than throwing out a wide net. That said, considering the conversation above, it appears that there is no consensus or agreement that the Irish Chart has to be sourced from IRMA or that there is a preference for that as the alternative sources provided are legitimately licensed to provide said information. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 21:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also be mindful when considering Wikipedia guidelines WP:NPA Nua eire ( talk) 21:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do not care what you guys decide on regarding sources for the Irish chart. Use OCC all you like. I’ve said this already in previous posts I am beyond caring. I’m no longer engaging with anyone on this topic. I won’t be communicating on this matter going forward. Have a nice life! Nua eire ( talk) 21:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel like that. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 22:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Lately, I've been seeing this source added to various song articles for Finland's chart. Normally, I wouldn't bring this kind of thing up, but the user who has been adding this chart, @ HumanxAnthro:, has been arbitrarily removing the Finnish chart template with no prior consensus that I know of. They claim they are removing the chart because the source they are adding uses radio airplay coupled with sales figures to determine Finnish chart positions while Musiikkituottajat only uses sales. This is a legitimate argument, but we should achieve consensus before too many Finland templates are removed. HumanxAnthro, it would help greatly if you further explain your reasoning here instead of using your edit summaries. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 18:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed this as well and do not entirely agree with what @ HumanxAnthro: is doing. Firstly, the chart that is being removed is/was an official chart which was based entirely on sales back in the day of physical singles. Apart from the US and Canada pretty much every other country in the world had a singles chart that was based on sales alone, so this is in no way unusual. The chart that it is being replaced with combines sales and airplay but I am not sure if it is actually "official". This chart did not start until mid way through 1992 and is not the chart that was published as the official singles chart. The sales only chart was published in Finland as the official chart for quite some time and is also the chart that was used to compile the European Hot 100 Singles. If you translate this page: [4] to English then you will see that the singles sales chart was used from 1961 until 2012 until it was replaced by the digital download chart but that the airplay/sales chart only existed from 1992 to 2007. Also the methodology for the airplay/sales chart might not be good either because it just says: "combined several popularity indicators". The singles sales chart existed from 1961 to 2012 when it was replaced by the download chart. The sales/airplay chart going by translation of this page: [5] only existed from 1992 to 2007. That's 51 years to 15 years and it is completely eclipsed. Also, if you see the second link the methodology of airplay/sales chart might not be good because it says that it actually included album sales when calculating what was supposed to be a singles chart. Based on all that I don't think the airplay chart can take priority and we should not be removing the singles sales chart. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 19:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the legend given, the right-hand column is the airplay. However, it is the positions in the left-hand column that HumanxAnthro is using as it seemingly combines sales and airplay and was published in Rumba magazine. However, this isn't the 'official' chart which is the middle column and can (from 1995 onwards) be verified by the Finnish IFPI archive. The problem with Finnish chart positions on Wikipedia is that there are various book and website sources that use different charts as their chart source, which causes confusion, especially pre-1995, as to what is the 'official' chart. DPUH ( talk) 19:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

DPUH, the book I'm citing for these hittialistalla position is published by Musiikkituottajat, which is IFPI Finland, so these positions are already verified by IFPI Finland as well. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The chart that Music & Media and Billboard used back in the day was the IFPI chart (compare week 14/1996 of IFPI to M&M and Billboard), so I've always believed this was the "official" chart. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me make clear that I'm not promoting the removal of all or even most Finland sales positions, just in cases where hittialista positions. Sales would be an component to hittialista and thus it would be WP:Too much detail to include the sales-only and sales-and-radio chart. I also wouldn't have a radio chart in these cases for the same reason. I'm pretty sure we all agreed to this when we decided not to include US Billboard Radio Songs, Digital Songs, and Streaming Songs peaks in case where the song was already on the Hot 100 which used those components.

I will appreciate the willingness to include hittialistalla even while keeping the sales chart, but I still have to call out this nebulous "official" labeling that's plaguing the discourse. It needs to stop being a thing on here. It has no basis in any one of Wikipedia's principles of notability, reliability or source quality and is opening the door to WP:WHOCARES forms of argumentation, from users with years of experience on the platform no less. Many individuals, magazines, news sites, and promo organizations still use iTunes stats as an official determiner of how well a song does, but that doesn't mean iTunes charts are reliable to include. We also don't allow Daily Mail and New York Post articles to be used because they're unreliable, even that a chunk of people consider them the official destination for news coverage over the NY Daily News and NY Times. Shouldn't the quality of each chart be what matters most, and the only time a chart be considered excessive to include is when it's a component of a bigger-methodology chart a song or album is on? No reader cares what an "official" chart of a nation is, so comments about confusion towards whatever-the-heck comes off as concern trolling. I know you are probably not doing that, DPUH, but that's what it feels like. Readers care that its methodology is good and its from a notable institution or magazine. At least there's a bit of talk about hittialistalla's methodology from QuintusPetillius, although I'm not sure how that "popularity indicators" comment, which is a literal translation no less, indicates a lack of quality in its methodology. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me add that the "various websites" is also not of concern here, because the book source I use is (a) the only one I have ever used (b) considered by many the "official" source for everything popular Finnish charts and (c) has its sales chart positions perfectly match that of the IFPI and Hung Medien archives. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, as mentioned above by the singles sales chart was the "official" chart not the sales/airplay chart. Also, although you mentioned that I had questioned the methodology, I did make two points about that and the second which you didn't mention is probably more important: The fact that it says here [6] that the sales/airplay chart actually included album sales when calculating what was supposed to be a singles chart tells me that it was of bad methodology. I certainly don't agree that the official sales chart should be removed just if there is a peak from the unofficial chart that existed from 1992 to 2007. This is also ignoring the fact that the official sales chart existed from 1961 to 2012, which doesn't mean that it became second to the sales/airplay chart for the years of 1992 to 2007. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The album sales thing wasn't there when I replied, so I didn't catch it, glad you clarified. But I disagree with that comment. At least the album sales thing is a interesting, if imperfect, perspective of popularity, and I actually don't think it's as bad as a lot may first view it, given that in the 1980s, 1990s and even in the 2000s, tons of listeners bought albums just to listen to the single that got popular. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The singles sales chart was the "official" chart not the sales/airplay chart and they were not published by the same chart provider like the Billboard charts you mention above, where we don't always use component charts. So it's not like the official sales chart was an actual component of the airplay/sales chart. I certainly don't agree that the official sales chart should be removed just if there is a peak from the unofficial chart that existed from 1992 to 2007. This is also ignoring the fact that the official sales chart existed from 1961 to 2012, which doesn't mean that it became secondary to the sales/airplay chart for the years of 1992 to 2007. To be honest I am more against the official sales chart being removed than I am of the sales/airplay chart being added. If it is to be added then I do not think the sales chart should be removed and it could be possible to have both, which would only be for the period of 1992 to 2007, which leaves a far bigger period when then chart did not exist from 1961 to 2012 for the official sales chart, so there won't be that many articles where we have both. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll willing to let my consensus on this change to align more with yours, if the sales chart is not be a component of the hittialistalla chart; there could be different retailers that are sources for sales for all I know.

However, I don't care about this "official" construct you keep bringing up even after I brought up why it was unimportant.

For a second, let's hypothetically say this "official' thing is essential. Let me just get this elephant out of the room, which, admittedly, I should have done earlier. The book I'm citing for these hittialistalla positions are all listed (and thus considered important positions to include by this institution) in a Finnish charts book published by Musiikkituottajat... you know, IFPI Finland, also the provider of that Finnish chart that you and other users describe as "official" so often. Because two music magazines just as notable or reputable as the Rumba chart called the sales chart "official", that means the Rumba chart that IFPI Finland considers just as much of an official chart isn't? And the period disparity between the charts you keep bringing up has no relevance to this conversation. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the book you’re referring to the pdf mentioned in the original post? If so, I can't find where it says the book is published by Musiikkituottajat. I may be cynical, and please prove me wrong, but I would be surprised if the IFPI said another chart is just as official as theirs. Anyway, I don't mind the inclusion of the Rumba chart (although I agree with QuintusPetillius about not removing the sales chart in its place). My main problem is that HumanxAnthro has, giving the example of " I Don't Care", kept the parenthesised Suomen virallinen lista (which as per the wiki page refers to the IFPI Musiikkituottajat chart), and I would have thought that Rumba should be credited instead. It is a minor change, but would be more accurate (which is what I care about). Maybe even a wiki page could be created for this magazine within which it could talk about this chart. DPUH ( talk) 22:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The book is online on the website musiikkiarkisto.fi.... oh wait, the spelling is different. That looked like such a similar word to me initially. Well, I am a dumb American, what are you going to do.... anyway, striking what I got wrong. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I also don't mind the inclusion of the Rumba chart, so long as the original sales chart isn't removed, it's labeled correctly, and it doesn't conflict with WP:CHARTMATH. Using "Suomen virallinen[...]" right next to each other, such as on California Love, will confuse our readers. One means "Finland's Official List" while the other means "Finland's Official Hitlist". There's a snafu waiting to happen. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 22:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• @ ResolutionsPerMinute: Where has it been said that the Finnish top 20 singles chart that runs on ifpi.fi and that is archived by Hung Medien is sales only? If that was once true, it certainly is no longer the case. The chart I've just linked to clearly combines sales and streams—there is no chance those songs currently dominating in the top 20 would be the top ones if it were only sales being measured. @ HumanxAnthro: The Finnish sales chart in the PDF you're citing and replacing the official IFPI Finland singles chart with do not "perfectly" match at all. For example, on Alma (Finnish singer): the sales column chart peaks you've recently added do not match Alma's peaks listed on finnishcharts.com (what was originally on the article) at all. They're actually closer to the streaming chart peaks you've added, but still not exactly those either. So they're clearly a combination of sales and streams or at the very least, multiple metrics are being taken into account otherwise they would align. For an artist whose career is still continuing, is citing a PDF from 2021 (that I presume will not be updated every year?) and splitting Finland's charts into three metrics (where you can fit them in) really the best course of action, especially given that at least from 2016 (going off the example of Alma) the chart was not "sales only"? I don't see any reason why the current Finnish chart should be replaced when it's clearly not strictly sales based on what I've just cited. One only has to look at the weekly Finnish chart on Spotify and the current chart on ifpi.fi to see it pretty closely matches streams, which is the primary way music is consumed in basically every Western country in 2022. Ss 112 04:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  The Alma example is unrelated to this hittialistalla discussion, because the chart ended in December 2007 and all of her singles have been well after then. For the Alma discography, no chart was replaced. All that happened what that other charts reflecting other mediums were added. And the "main chart" that IFPI and many users have a cultist religion towards still does not account for airplay data, meaning that it should also be acceptable to add positions from the radio chart even when the song appears on the "main chart". I will say on a side note that songs 2019 or later having the streaming peaks as the "main chart" peaks on ifpi.fi (Harry Styles' Adore You for example). However, I call nonsense that this is a debunk on the reliability of the charts book. The positions have been 100% accurate for the individual component charts they cover, and you can see that in the sales-chart field for pre-2012 songs (before streaming was tracked) often. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 05:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  @ HumanxAnthro: The chart that ifpi.fi publishes and finnishcharts.com archives was replaced by you—with three separate metrics from a PDF that ends in 2021. Some national singles charts don't track airplay (e.g. Australia and the UK)—clearly IFPI Finland has chosen their official singles chart to not include airplay. Is airplay so significant in 2022 that we need to replace the official chart IFPI publishes with three separate metrics from this PDF? And nowhere did I claim that I was "debunking" the reliability of the PDF source. If that's what you think I was saying, then perhaps you should not read into what I have not explicitly said because nowhere did I question the source. I questioned you, not the source. I do not think the Finnish singles chart deemed official by the IFPI needs to be replaced with three separate metrics at all. Ss 112 05:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  There's other reasons for what I did to that discography, like the fact that not all of the songs appear on the "main chart", so streaming-only and radio-only charts presented the performance of those tracks. Also, you pulling the same WP:WHOCARES fallacies that other big determiners of what charts are included do and need to stop doing: "Is airplay so significant in 2022 that we need to replace the official chart IFPI publishes with three separate metrics from this PDF?" Additionally, the notion that radio charts (even if they are from IFPI, Billboard, Nielsen or similar) are not important to cover because Australia and UK recently decided to make the arbitrary (and frankly dumb) decision to not bring in airplay on their singles chart is a complete non sequitur. There's still plenty of listeners that hear what's on the radio in all of that nations, including Finland, and especially in chunks of the Midwest of my country that doesn't have access to an internet connection still. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 05:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  And you're offering anecdotes about "plenty of listeners" (how many? How many spins on how many radio stations did these songs achieve? It can't be proven) and the importance of radio in the US (which has nothing to do with Finland—two different countries) as to why we should split an official chart into three just because you want to add chart positions from this PDF. You are also still putting words into my mouth. I did not say radio charts "are not important to cover". If I did, I wouldn't add radio charts to articles, yet I do. I questioned how important it is (I don't believe the arbitrary statistic of how many radio station programmers want to play a song is as important as what listeners are directly choosing to purchase or stream), but my main point is that the multiple-metric chart published by the IFPI does not need to be replaced with three separate charts just because it doesn't track airplay. That is excessive over-correction for the deliberate choice of an official chart to not combine airplay, just like multiple other nations choose not to. "Frankly dumb" or not they're considered the official charts of those countries and do not need to be replaced. Ss 112 05:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we have consensus there of 4 to 1. We are only supposed to be including official charts on Wikipedia after all. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 07:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I accidentally straw-manned anybody, on a side note. However, I don't care, and neither should any user here care, about this "official charts" nonsense you are all trying to win me over with. It's really hard to take these positions charitably when you all keep pulling this "official"-because-IFPI-and-Billboard-and-M&D said-so thing. You're all experienced editors, and thus should know better that reliability and quality with anything matters 100%, not this "official" construct. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 12:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Our guidelines for Record Charts on wikipedia are the IFPI-affiliated ones as priority. We don't have to win you over so to speak. If you want to include something additional outside of those, there needs to be evidence that said chart is widely recognised in the territory being spoken about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Lil-unique (1) It's not your business to control what my username is, and (2) the fact that the leading book on Finnish charts, and the fact the Rumba was able to get enough subscriptions to keep its chart going, indicates it was "widely recognized", and it would only not indicate that to a moron. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe @ Lil-unique1: was asking you to change your signature, not username. This should have been handled on your talk page, not a thread about a record chart. Ss 112 03:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I'm not trying to control your username, but there's legitimate cause for concern around the way you sign posts versus your username. It's different and that's confusing. Its not helpful to simply remove the post on your talkpage and ignore legitimate concerns and then throw around language like Moron. You're trying to change existing practice against opposition and consensus. You do have to win over others who oppose the edits you're making when they go against established consensus. It's time to stop, maybe start an RFC and engage in a discussion about the changes you want to make. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"We don't have to win you over so to speak." Cool, neither do I have to win over users that don't know what they are talking about. You users have vague, not-based-in-any-guidelines and against-Wikipedian-principles standards for chart inclusion, so I'm not gonna even bother to have these discussions. You frankly should be topicbanned, for the good of the website, from leading chart inclusions if this is how you all think. I'll edit however fast I want to edit, and add whatever edits need to be made regardless if it bothers some monopolist over discographies that could just choose themselves to not edit so frequently and stalk the pages for whatever edits look different from they want it to be, whether it makes sense to do so or not. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And also, while were the subject of recent chart guidelines that should be abolished immediately, the top-200 positions thing is stupid and unnecessary, and I will protest like hell against that bullshit too. It was only done... repeat, only done, after ATP Portugal decided to publish top 3000 ye positions. There were NO based-in-guidelines arguments there... NONE, apart from a dumbass not-guideline essay ( WP:TOOMUCH) that's just giving people a bogus excuse to make WP:WHOCARES arguments against stuff they personally don't care about. But even if ye positions that occurred from a small amount of copies was really so important for some stupid reason (which it's not), then the top-200 should only apply to weekly and ye charts of small music markets, and not gigantic ones like the UK, US, AUS and JPN, where even 0.1% of people listening means millions of listeners. And you'd really have to fool me to think the bottom 800 of a top 1000 of a decade-end or all-time chart is unessential, because there are always an estimate 1,000 songs that will appear on a year-end list every decade (10 x 100, people, with only a few songs that make multiple YEs), and there are more than 1,000 songs that top a national chart throughout its history, like the Billboard Hot 100. I will fight tooth and nail to end the B.S. that is the discourse causing these stupid policies and guidelines. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And let me remind people that the charts experts on here recently tried to get rid of the LyricFind chart "widely recognized" by Billboard because they find it "trivial". So, you know, guess that "widely recognized" thing is OK to reject when an elitist music contributor feels it's "trivial", am I right? User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, while we're on that archive page, wanna see how much water those pro-top-200 arguments held? "Does the average person really care when the [sales] number is greater than 100 anyway?" Yep, " a ReLiAbLe SoUrCe FrOm A WiDeLy ReCoGnIzEd SoUrCe CoVeRs It BuT tHaT's IrElEvAnT tO wHaT wE aSsUmE wItHoUt AnY eMpIrIcAl EvIdEnCe Is An AvErAgE rEaDeR". Most averages reader don't even care about most of the "official charts" that aren't the US Hot 100 unless they're total chart nerds, so what kind of nonsense is that?!!!!! User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and there's this juicy "Some random asian music orgs don't recognize a reputable chart as official so therefore we should reject them" comments. Keeping in the spirit of the encyclopedia about anything, amirite? :) User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

At least this calls out the bullshit of this "considered-official-by-Billboard" thing User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The widely-recognized SloTop50 being questioned at all. You know, I'm starting to think users are throwing "widely-recognized" whenever its convenient for them. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Classic WP:WHATABOUTism. This is a thread about the Finnish chart, not a place to link to all recent posts and editors you disagree with. A lot of this either is or is bordering on personal attacks and you really need to stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground ( WP:BATTLEGROUND). Nobody has called themselves an expert or acted like one, but I am concerned about you acting like one. You only started adding music charts to articles a few months ago and then began with the edit-summary rants and attitude in response to anybody who dares question your edits. You are "fight[ing] tooth and nail", in your own words—reminder that it's Wikipedia, not a fight to the death—to question every other chart considered the official chart of a country to defend you adding whichever new chart source you come across, and it appears questioning everything else or previous consensus(es) is your tactic for defending whatever you want to add. You did it with Musica e dischi for Italy (which, sure, was already in use on Wikipedia), now with this PDF for Finland, and what next? I guess it won't end. Editors are allowed to question what another editor adds without being attacked, accused of not knowing anything (in your opinion) or being a "chart expert". If you cannot respect consensus or this is just going to descend into a back-and-forth of who's in the wrong for x other opinion, this thread should probably be closed. Ss 112 03:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Quintus, this is not a vote. If comments of 4 of the users are based in WP:WHOCARES and nebulous terms that don't mean diddlysquat in relation to notability, they are terrible and should not be taken seriously. 👨x🐱 ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You can dismiss and characterise editors' disagreements all you like. They still disagree with you adding the chart. Consensus appears to be forming against you adding the chart and consensus needs to be respected on Wikipedia per WP:CONSENSUS. Ss 112 03:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Ss112: As I have explained on my talk page, I was paraphrasing what HumanxAnthro said in their edit summaries when I was talking about "sales", and I am well aware that chart methodologies have changed since then. I have a mental block against streaming, so it's probably why I phrased it that way. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 10:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little exhausted reading this, but I think the addition is unnecessary. The source doesn't really make clear what the methodology is, and what chart it actually charted on. It's complex and confusing. I don't think airplay in Finland is such a major component of the music industry there that we should remove the IFPI chart. Airplay was the dominant factor in US/Canada from 1996-2006 because so little physical singles were released such that songs got to number one on the Hot 100 with zero sales. Was this the same situation in Finland, where radio was a better representation of popularity than sales? On IFPI's website there also seems to be an airplay chart that goes back to 2013? Or, why not use Music & Media's Scandinavia radio chart which incorporates Finland? Why aren't those being cited if there is a desire to add radio chart peaks? We don't need another chart of indeterminate methodology and notability. Heartfox ( talk) 15:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) It's complex and confusing", well, duh, the book is in Finnish, any book in a foreign language is confusing to an English reader. (2) Who cares if the most people buy or stream music rather than listen to the radio in Finland? There's obviously enough radio listeners that IFPI Finland have ran a chart. (3) No Music and Media issue ever clarifies the peak of a song's run, only its position "this" week and "last" week, not to mention Music and Media has been out of print since the 2000s, and the reputable Finnish book source is the most direct way of showing what it peaked at. (4) If the hittialistalla chart wasn't notable or reliable, the book wouldn't have even bothered to list it as well as the IFPI chart. That book has standards, ya know. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Official" charts do matter, and I would like to see more evidence of notability/significance of the hittialistalla/Rumbassa positions before they are added. The reliaibility of Discopress for the radio peaks in column 3 has not been established either. Also, on page 5 it says "Kun ns. singlelista alkoi 2012 mitata suoratoistoa, sen korkein sijoitus siirrettiin vasemmanpuoleiseen sarakkeeseen oranssille pohjalle. Sijat 21–40 on otettu vuosina 2016–2020 Striimatuimmat-listalta ja sen jälkeen Spotifyn viikkolistalta" which roughly translates to since the IFPI official chart (which incorporates streaming since 2012) only goes to 20 positions, positions 21-40 on the streaming chart peaks (highlighted in orange) in the PDF for weeks in 2021 are actually from spotifycharts.com weekly stats. WTF?! How can Spotify, a WP:SINGLEVENDOR, be an accurate depiction of national popularity. For example, on page 252 it says SZA's "Good Days" peaked on the streaming chart at 36, but this is identical to its peak on spotifycharts.com... These streaming peaks are totally unreliable, and this jeopardizes the reliability of the entire PDF. We can't use Spotify positions 51–200 when something doesn't chart on Streaming Songs–how can we do so here? Heartfox ( talk) 06:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Do not conflate notability with reliability, and (2) "jeopardizes the reliability of the entire PDF" because for one field it decided to use Spotify (for songs released in a specific year, no less)? Oh, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, cut it with the hyperbolic nonsense. Plus, many music publications and promotional press releases cite SINGLEVENDOR charts like iTunes and Spotify as official charts as much as Billboard numbers because they cite chart peaks from them repeatedly when covering songs and albums, so I guess by your logic SINGLEVENDOR charts are deemed worthy to inclusion. Also, whether one field in the book (used for only songs in 2021, mind you) used Spotify is irrelevant to the reliability of the Rumba chart. It ran all at a time with Spotify wasn't a thing and the magazine was in print. For the Spotify issue, just don't include the 2021 streaming entries from the book. That's it. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 15:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can already tell you're coming from a position without knowing the publisher and author of the book. If the fact the a Finnish charts book by a long-time professional Finnish charts author, Timo Pennanen, published by Kustannusosakeyhtiö Otava ( a major Finnish publisher) isn't enough to convince you the notability/significance of the Rumba chart, then I do not know what to tell you. You just have impossible, ridiculous standards for widely-known.. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, it was established earlier by Ss112 that streaming was the biggest method of music consumption by Finnish listeners by a vast mile, and I don't imagine any other streaming service existing in usage for that than Spotify. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also explain to me how 2019-and-later Finnish entries like Harry Styles' Adore You have the same exact peak as the streaming field in that book... you know, the one that only used Spotify? Guess the methodology of that "official" Finnish chart is pretty SINGLEVENDOR when it comes to streaming, huh? User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Wherelovelives: as you have also been adding this source to articles, do you mind sharing your thoughts here? Heartfox ( talk) 02:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Stumbled across this discussion and thought might worth to give it my two cents.

I don't think the sales/airplay chart is significant enough to be included in the charts table, also it'll be WP:Too much detail to include to include a second chart. Most nation charts around the world are based on sales rather than sales/airplay. Additionally, there's no correct/right way to compile the charts, just because the Billboard Hot 100, chose its chart to be compiled by sales/airplay doesn't mean it's the definitive way to compile charts, plus every country has their own music industry, rules and obviously different methodologies in compiling charts.

I think it'll be very helpful to start a RFC and decide which chart should go and which one should stay. Moh8213 ( talk) 18:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of charts being cited from El Siglo de Torreón newspaper. For example this link The chart is not actually by the newspaper, but by UPI. This should be corrected in the parentheses next to the country. Based on the wording "según emisoras consultados por UPI", they look to be based on radio airplay. But, these are measured in capital cities only, not a country-wide sample. Is there a consensus that a chart for a city represents the country as a whole? For example the chart for Panama [City] is being used as a chart for Panama (country) in many articles. Heartfox ( talk) 02:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:Record Charts says (under single network/vendor) Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located.. If this principle is applied, UPI would be considered a reliable source but I'm not sure we could stretch it out to cover the whole country based on a single city. I would prefer us to exclude from chart tables in this case (but could mention in prose). TopHit produce charts for Kyiv and Moscow - we have never allowed those for Russian or Ukrainian artists. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 08:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Does singlevendor apply? I assume UPI was consulting more than one radio station per city. I think this is about whether we consider a city chart the de facto national chart when there is no available national chart. This is not unprecedented—the Toronto-based CHUM Chart is considered the main Canadian chart before RPM. Heartfox ( talk) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The UPI charts measure airPlay from major capitals only until 1995 or 1996. From 1998 onwards, they start ranking from countries especially in central america. So whatever the outcome of the discussion, charge that only ranks cities should not be used for single vendor. Now as for a El siglo de Torreón, they have their own Mexican charts where they rank songs by genres instead of overall. Namely, pop ballads, grupera, tropical, and ranchera. This applies to all the years, so they should be fined. EDIT: Here's an example of the former and an example of the latter. Erick ( talk) 11:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Heartfox Just following up to see if you read my reply. Erick ( talk) 21:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this chart being included in multiple singles chart of songs from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. The user Arthur Garbuio started including this chart in a HumanxAnthro fashion without prior consensus regarding its reliability or accuracy. It seems that it's a year-end chart but for whatever reason, he also included it in the weekly charts table. I was about to remove it but I thought it might be worth it to bring this matter in the talk page. Is it okay to keep the chart or should it be removed from the charts section? Moh8213 ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been removing it wherever I see it – it looks like a one-man hobby website, and it's clearly based on airplay only, as the website's name means "Most Played". It talks about data analysis, but I don't see where this comes from – it seems we just have to take it for granted that these were the most played songs for each year, although we have no way of verifying that, and no idea who was collecting radio play for every radio station in the country. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not official, their "about page" isn't clear. It says Our rankings are based on the most played songs on radio, through the analytical data of audio measurement companies on online radios. They reflect the real scenario of the popularity of music in the four corners of the country, with 24 hours a day, 7 days a week measurement and more than 5,000 registered radio stations (only those that can be heard online). In our music charts, data from Youtube and Spotify can also be used. They only use stations that can be played online so I find it hard to understand how they're reliable for charts pre-90s or very reliable as its possible they're missing out huge chunks of stations. It also says information from YouTube and Spotify can be used but not that it defo is. No mention of commercial data either. It seems like a hobbyist website. I'd say one to avoid. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 21:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

So basically, the chart is based on the top 100 most played songs now? Not the most played songs when they were released in their respective years? Moh8213 ( talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Who knows... I find it very, very doubtful indeed that there was some method of accurately collecting airplay across Brazil in 1975, for example. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it might be based on data at the time for each year, which would be very impressive given it goes back to the 1920s – the 1965 list states that it is "based on the lists of the best selling albums/singles at the time according to publications in “Correio do Amanhã”, “Tribuna da Imprensa”, “Revista do Rádio” and data from IBOPE". But yeah it is very unclear and a shame there isn't more info on the website as there are some very interesting inclusions. DPUH ( talk) 17:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this being used to source sales and have some serious issues with it. Additionally it has also been used for lots of legacy articles as a "reliable source". However the contact page here talks about synthesising various hit parades. Regarding sales it specifically says This Ranking is absolutely not a reflection of sales but simply a summary of information from the time. Later it also says This site tries to become the "Reference" of the Hit-Parades in France. In order to get closer to this objective, some Complete Rankings (Hit-Parades) are missing: and then goes on to list missing chart rankings. On this basis it seems to be a summation of different sources, and thus not appropriate for use on Wikipedia? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 21:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely, definitely is not reliable for sales figures... as you rightly say, the website itself states on each of the all-time sales pages "Estimation par l'équipe d'Infodisc" ("Estimation by the Infodisc team"). So these are not official sales figures, but guesswork by the website's creators. Most of these sales figures were added to Wikipedia by Dhoffryn, an editor who has done an otherwise great job at tracking down sales estimates from various source, but perhaps was unaware that these are not official figures. Muhandes and other editors have been removing them where possible, but there are probably many articles which still contain them.

I don't know enough about chart history in France to be able to talk about their placings with certainty: SNEP's charts began in November 1984, and so I imagine that all charts from this date are accurate and official. Before SNEP the French record industry organisation was IFOP, but I don't know if they produced charts. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: so I'm reading on SNEP's Wikipedia article that there was some sort of co-ordinated official chart from 1968 to 1977, organised by SNICOP. So I'm guessing that there are no official charts for seven years between 1977 and 1984 that can be used? Richard3120 ( talk) 22:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

InfoDisc has been used for years here, including in our certification template. The site is listed twice here, as an acceptable source (in the charts table) and websites to avoid, so it can be a bit confused. Maybe prose should be ore specific to avoid those conflicts. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 03:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"Being used for years" doesn't make it acceptable to use. It should be removed from Wikipedia:Record charts because as Richard3120 has pointed out, they're not official sales figures and positions that it reports, it's the website's own synthesised chart, so to speak. What I find pretty heinous is editors repeatedly citing Infodisc on articles while attributing a certification as coming from "SNEP". I have tried to remove Infodisc in most places I've come across it over the past couple of years and I will continue on doing so. The use of this website should be deprecated for good. Ss 112 05:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Because I've mentioned "being used for years", I'm not defending the source is acceptable to use. I pointed out this, because appears it was the case, in which users "could" use InfoDisc under certain circumstances, as the source is listed twice in this page: as a website to avoid, and as a website good to use (recommended charts); and its usage for sales claims is not mentioned neither in both sides. This maybe could be one of the reasons for the massive usage of the site in the past.

Courtesy ping for Muhandes and Harout72. Apoxyomenus ( talk) 06:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Their certifications are valid though. Their sales figures are not. I against a complete removal, because the site is really helpful for older releases, because SNEP database is such a mess sometimes. Bluesatellite ( talk) 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

How do we know their certifications are valid? I mean I think I'm taking from this that its not reliable for sales or chart positions, but possibly reliable for certfications?

If so there's a major clean up required. It's used quite extensively for 80s artists and in many cases not verified. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 07:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Apoxyomenus. I've been systematically cleaning up infodisc references for a couple of years now, and I think I can say somewhat authoritatively, based on hundreds of observations, that infodisc certifications are strictly copied from SNEP and are a very reliable source for that. In the last weeks alone I verified this again for a few dozen more certifications, from both the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. In fact, since SNEP no longer shows Silver awards correctly (they are all shown as Gold), and the Wayback Machine only holds archives of the old disqueenfrance certifications website for some years, (see exact list in Template:Certification Cite/archiveurl, used by {{ cite certification}} and {{ Certification Table Entry}}), infodisc is, in many cases, the only reliable source for SNEP Silver certifications. Ss112, based on the above, I think that quoting infodisc as SNEP certifications is valid.

Having said that, their sales figures are (admittedly by them) based on their own unofficial estimates and should be considered unreliable. Their year-end and all-time "charts" are based on those same estimates and are therefore also unreliable.

Finally, I have not checked their weekly charts extensively, so there is little I can say about that. -- Muhandes ( talk) 08:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

To know if their certifications were reliable or not, I compared the certifications in Infodisc and SNEP (at least those that exist in both), and there are very few certifications that I've found exist in Infodisc but not in SNEP's database. As far as their certifications, I find the site in that department reliable. However, that might not be the case for the charts. I would compare their listed peaks to other chart data providers (at least those peaks that simultaneously exist elsewhere), if there is synchronization in most, then Infodisc could also be used for charts.-- Harout72 ( talk) 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel still feel a bit uncomfortable about using infodisc.fr for certifications. There's no proof they are licensed to provide certification results on behalf of SNEP. There's a potential copy right issue and the website seems to be a hobbyist site run by two editors. Even if the certificates are correct,, there's no proof that infodisc.fr is licensed to provide such information and therefore a copyvio of SNEP. The issue of copyright of charts and certificates has been brought up at FA review recently. I'm willing to convinced either way so long as we agree that its not reliable for charts. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 14:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

To editors saying it should be okay to use Infodisc as most of their certifications are a copy of SNEP's, exactly as Lil-unique1 said: unless there's evidence that Infodisc has permission to use SNEP's certifications then it probably should not be used. At the very least because a thorough source check (as we just had on this very page in the thread #Hung Medien/Steffen Hung and multiple country charts -- looking for proof of reliability/licensing) by editors would inevitably question where Infodisc has been given permission to host certifications they didn't originate, and the copyright issues this entails. I don't see why using charts websites that don't have permission to display the charts would not be okay but using Infodisc if it does indeed not have permission from SNEP should be okay? That would be a double standard. Ss 112 04:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The Romandie chart, administered by Hung Medien, is a regional record chart of the highest-selling singles and albums in the Francophone region of Romandy in Switzerland. It's included in WP:GOODCHARTS and has been in use for a long time on Wikipedia. A somewhat comparable chart would be the ADISQ chart in Quebec, also widely used in articles. An argument for its inclusion would be the long standing disparity between music consumption in Francophone and German language markets as well as the fact that it provides insight into how an album is performing in a region with its own distinct cultural identity. I would contend that the inclusion is also justified by the cultural differences in Switzerland. Additionally - the Schweizer Hitparade, despite covering the entire nation, is strictly in German and offers no multilingual options. The fact that it's the only monolingual Hung Medien website further justifies the inclusion given that the Swiss Federal Law on National Languages very explicitly states that German, French, and Italian maintain equal status as official languages. Please indicate Include, Don't include, or Comment with your responses. Everm4e ( talk) 21:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I mostly say yes, include. Its a similar case of Belgium's charts (Flanders and Wallonia). Romandy and ADISQ charts, are likely to be similar cases. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• I'd say Exclude. The Swiss Singles Chart is includes all singles and formats in all regions. The Romandie charts has no specific language requirements but instead measures success in the Francophone region of Switzerland. This is distinctly different to the Ultratop Wallonia and Flanders charts. Neither chart also includes the other chart. Additionally, the ADISQ Charts also measures the same language requirements as the main Canadian Chart, the only difference being it rates singles only in the Quebec region. These are regional charts - we would not list charts for individual states within the United States. WP:RECORDCHARTS is unequivocal about component chart and regional charts. We discredit and discount regional Mexican and regional Brazilian charts. At the end of the day, if the chart for Romandie measured something other than part of the region of Switzerland, I'd argue for its inclusion. The Wallonia and Flanders charts don't add up to a single united Belgian charts so its a different situation. The only exceptions to this rule are the Scottish Singles Charts which dictate a separate recognised country by the United Nationals and the OCC doesn't produce a separate chart for England that is publicly available. Quebec and the Francophone regions are just that - regions/provinces not countries and therefore not national charts. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 21:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sending pings to Ss112, Muhandes and Richard3120 who are all active participants in this space and similar conversations. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 21:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Canadian government recognizes the people of Quebec as a "nation" FWIW ( Québécois nation motion). The Quebec music industry is certainly distinct from the American-dominant English music industry in Canada. I support ADISQ francophone chart inclusion for francophone artists. I have noticed issues with the anglophone chart, for example ADISQ says it peaked at number four in Quebec, but this was actually the national position on the Canadian Singles Chart. Heartfox ( talk) 22:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Include, but only where the Romandy or Quebec chart positions are significantly different from their respective national charts (i.e. with Francophone songs), otherwise it would just be superfluous. By the way, there is also an Anglophone chart for Quebec that also, unsurprisingly, has a number of differences from the national chart. Edit: I get what Lil-unique1 is saying above, but the disparity between the Anglophone and Francophone markets is such that the national charts do not fully (if at all) reflect the popularity of Francophone music in each country and it would be a shame for this not to be included on Wikipedia. DPUH ( talk) 22:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  DPUH for context, Everm4e is asking for inclusion because Renaissance by Beyoncé charted at number one on the Romandie chart and number three on the wider Swiss Albums chart and so wants to include the the number one position. The issue with the Romandie chart is that it isn't language specific. It is literally just depicting a subset of the wider national sales picture. If it was about Francophone artists who have charted across the whole country it would be a different story as that would not be a component chart of the main Swiss Singles or Albums chart. But when it is all songs/albums but only measures a specific region within a country it becomes problematic. Also how do you decide what's significantly different? Is number one different to number three? Or are we talking 5 chart positions? 10? 15? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 22:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, okay, thanks for the context. I would be against including the Romandie chart for such articles as it is just superfluous and as you say, it is just a regional chart. It is a double standard to say include for Francophone artists but not for others, yet I would still urge that the Romandie chart be included for Francophone artists, given the general lack of chart info they sometimes have. It is tricky because of the double standard and that "what is significantly different" is subjective, meaning that in the end for fairness/impartiality, the Romandie chart will probably have to be excluded (although subsequently I wouldn't have any problems with its inclusion in the actual text of an article, say in the Chart performance section). DPUH ( talk) 11:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Don't include if this is primarily about including the Romandie chart wherever somebody wants to include it, like in this case where it's just because the peak of the Beyoncé album is higher in Romandie than Switzerland overall (big deal, number three versus number one). Overall I'm leaning towards don't include as well. To be honest, I've noticed a large breadth of acts (English, German, Italian and French) charting in the top 100 of the Switzerland albums chart overall, so I don't think Francophone acts being left out is a worry with this chart. It might be fit for inclusion if an act somehow managed to chart on the Romandie chart but not overall in Switzerland but I don't think this is a common occurrence at all. As DPUH said, if an act has achieved particular success in Romandie it can be noted in the prose but how common is this really? This opinion has no bearing on whether we include ADISQ charts, as I don't believe the Québécois charts are comparable and they're not just a distillation of Francophone acts charting in Canada. Ss 112 14:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the IFPI Greece charts located at https://www.ifpi.gr/digital_iel.html that various editors have added to articles over the last few years, I think it's more accurate to label this the "Greece International ( IFPI)" chart where it is used instead of just "Greece ( IFPI)". The website makes it clear the linked chart (added to Western song articles regularly) is the International chart, as compared to the Local chart located at https://www.ifpi.gr/digital_el.html (both Local and International are for digital sales and streams). Judging by the absence of Greek-language songs, the International chart is not an overall chart, as one would expect an overall sales and streams chart measuring the most popular songs in Greece to have at least some Greek-language songs. As a note, unfortunately this is another chart that editors regularly add but don't bother to archive, which would be preferred as the site doesn't seem to have specific URLs for chart weeks, or an archive one can go back through. I encourage any editors reading this to change this chart to "Greece International" (usually one just needs to add "International") wherever they see it used too. Ss 112 08:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In the lead of " Pink Venom", an editor wrote "The song also topped the national charts in South Korea, Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Taiwan". However, all except 2 of the #1's in these countries were #1's on Billboard's Hits of the World charts for those territories. Per the Charts section, the song charted at #22 in South Korea on the actual national chart the Circle Chart. Surely it isn't correct to consider the HOTW charts as national charts of the countries for which they are available, esp when those countries already have existing national charts? Also, since India's official chart is the IMI singles chart, if a song charts there (or on any other official national chart for a territory), we don't need to still include the HOTW entry right? -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 06:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - HOFTW should only be used where there isn't always a national chart present. Record charts does say that the chart needs to be recognised within said country as a chart of said country. If there isn't an appropriate national record chart then Billboard's HOFTW is fine to use. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 10:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the HOTW charts need to be used with care. The UK and Dutch charts that they printed every week, for example, were the official charts. But others like Spain or Italy were often a chart "supplied" by a local radio DJ or chart watcher and not suitable for use. Richard3120 ( talk) 12:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Painful discussion like Talk:Pink Venom, shouldn't be happening if there were proper discussion with clear consensus in place previously to determine HOTW usage and once concluced, appropriate pages like WP:Record charts can be updated to clarify on usage of HOTW like with WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS's decision table. However, what we instead got are previous discussion that just got archived automatically with no clear conclusion (nor even borderline ones) on usage but instead the response at that discussion was talking about the confusion to the old HOTW of the same name for whatever reasons, I would called this in RM as "No consensus" as it's out of context imo. However, for whatever weird reasons, that previous discussion became the precedent for "there is consensus" as if there was a clear consensus in place. If this discussion still goes nowhere or became out of context, then imo RfC would be needed.

Reply: @ Lil-unique1 Please clarify what you meant by "fine to use". Can it be mentioned in prose form if the song charted on national chart? Can it be used if the song didn't chart on national chart? Should it be removed from discographies table? — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 14:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think its quite obvious for those who are familiar with charts but yes, I'll clarify. Where they exist, the preference has always been to use the relevant national chart, which is affiliated to the country's national recording industry association, which in turn is affiliated to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). There is also the express convention of using charts that are most recognised in the country they represent. For example, Media Base run airplay charts for the US but we only recognise Billboard ones. Where there is a lack of a suitable national chart e.g. Turkey, then the Billboard Hits of the World charts are good to use. However, discussions here and previously have suggested (and I agree it wasn't detailed), that Hits of the World should not be used where national charts already exist. It becomes indiscriminate especially when we end up with multiple chart providers for multiple countries. The specific issue around "Pink Venom" was that the K-Pop Hot 100 by Billboard was retired, and the following week Billboard's "Hits of the World" for South Korea started appearing as though it was a like for like replacement. From an encyclopaedic point of view, Hits of the World charts are 25 positions (the K-pop chart was 100), and although they're produced by a reputable source, they have yet to establish themselves. A similar thing happened with the Rollingstone Hot 100 - it did not establish itself as a chart and barely 18 months later was retired. Just to clarify there was no RM so not sure why "Requested Move" guidelines are linked. Also per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, a consensus is assumed to exist until someone reverts/removes said content. Fans/K-pop editors assumed the charts were okay to use, they were removed and so that's the indication there is no consensus for the use of Hits of the World charts alongside recognised national charts. Links to discussions were provided and no one has provided a good reason as to why they should be used. There is no "weird" reason that became the established consensus. The main bone of contention seems to be South Korea songs because of the retirement of Billboard' K-pop chart - presumably for some [not all editors] because PV is no.1 on that chart and not on the Circle chart. If we allow all charts we also risk becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 09:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes part of the trouble stems from the assumption that the HOTW SK chart replaced the KH100, even though BB never published anything stating this was the case, so some editors went around treating it as though both charts were equivalent to each other. I just removed the related note on both the K-pop Hot 100 and its list of number ones article which was rightly WP:SYNTH as you mentioned before. Regarding the chart being added to kpop discography articles ( ink&fables orig asked about this on the PV talk page and mentioned the BTS singles page as an example), I don't know which editor started doing that, but I don't think it should be included. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 10:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Lil-unique1 Thanks for the clarification. Apologies for the confusion pertaining to RM portion, I'm actually referencing its concept of closing discussions that are not clear as "No consensus", not actually saying that there was an RM, because that previous discussions doesn't looks to me to have consensus achieved (prior to automatically archival) pertaining to allowing or not allowing HOTW usage and/or in what circumstances (for explanation only; usage/cirumstances already addressed above hence no reply required).

If possible, please also give your comments if HOTW can be mentioned in prose form if the song charted on national chart and/or if HOTW can be used if the song didn't chart on national chart but that country has appropriate national chart. To avoid confusion, song in my sentence doesn't refer to "Pink Venom" but simply any songs. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 14:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

So if we base on convention, and therefore how we apply said logic elsewhere, the guidance should be as follows:

Where available, editors should endeavour to use the nationally recognised singles charts for the country in question. Nationally recognised charts will be affiliated to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) either directly or via the country's national trade body for the recording industry such as ARIA, RIAA, BPI etc. Other charts may exist, for example Billboard produce a series of charts known as "Hits of the World", these song charts track airplay from Luminate and streaming data. However these charts were launched in 2022, and their acceptance and use across the industry is yet to be determined. As such, there is little articulated need to include these charts alongside nationally recognised charts in the charts table or discography of an artist as this could result in lists becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are several exceptions:

1. If a song did not chart on the nationally recognised chart but did chart on the Billboard Hits of the World charts e.g. South Korea Songs, then these charts can be presented in the charts table
2. If there is no recongnised or stable national chart (see WP:RECORDCHARTS for guidance), then Billboard Hits of the World chart can be used for said country
3. If there is a specific achievement that received notoriety, then the hits of the world charts can be mentioned in prose within a chart performance section e.g. "sold 25,000 copies becoming the first Korean act to top the Malaysia Songs chart" then this can be included by exception.

Otherwise Hits of the World charts should not be included in prose of chart performance sections, where they appear alongside national charts such as Circle's South Korean Digital Singles chart, or RIM's Malaysian Singes Chart

Would text like this clear up the situation? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 16:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ngl I'm getting bothered by seeing two charts in both singles and albums articles. It's misleading to have two official charts when we only need one official national chart for a country. HumanxAnthro included the Musica e Dischi chart unilaterally without a prior discussion on the chart itself. With that being said, I suggest removal of this chart. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with the change. Moh8213 ( talk) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It was agreed that the chart that isn't FIMI would be removed here: Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts/Archive_18#Confusion_over_Italian_Singles_Chart(s) >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 20:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Musica e Dischi chart should be used when FIMI charts are available. But I'm not sure what we do pre-FIMI era, when there were no official charts, but at least three competing charts. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty then, what about the pdf Finnish chart? Is there any established consensus in regards to this chart? Moh8213 ( talk) 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Richard3120. I've got the impression, from what I’ve read, that Musica e dischi was the more commonly referred to chart pre-FIMI, plus it seems to be the only one with easily accessible/reliable info online with the archive on its website.

Regarding the Finnish chart, it was compiled by Timo Pennanen, whose previous book Sisältää hitin: levyt ja esittäjät Suomen musiikkilistoilla vuodesta 1972 has been widely used on Wikipedia. I believe the pdf is mainly a revision/updated version of this book. The pdf also lists the sources/methodology used. DPUH ( talk) 17:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

FIMI also has an easily accessible website that lists its certifications and chart peaks for albums and singles since '95. To add on the Italian chart matter, another chart that I know of is Discografia Internazionale. It seems like this chart was intended to rival the Musica e dischi in terms of international recording, and they successfully did so since their chart was representing Italy in Billboard's "Hits of the Worlds" chart section in the late '60s and early '70s, but it seems they didn't last long as their magazine ceased publication on December 1972. After that it pretty much seems that M&D was the only notable chart until FIMI appeared in 95. As for the Finnish chart, if that's the case then there's really no use to use this pdf, especially considering that IFPI Finland has an active website that lists all of its chart peaks and certifications, we can at least use this pdf if some singles/albums doesn't appear on their current database, especially for the early records. Moh8213 ( talk) 19:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Italian charts before FIMI were a complete mess – I know of at least three different charts, and none of them were official: Musica e Dischi (1960 onwards), RAI (1963–1994), and TV Sorrisi e Canzoni (1967–1997). I believe there were several others as well, but none of them lasted as long as these three. If we are going to use any chart for Italy before 1995, I would suggest, like DPUH has done, that it is M&D, because (a) they were an established, respected magazine, Italy's equivalent of Billboard or Music Week, (b) they are the only chart with accessible archives on the internet.

Incidentally, I know M&D also gave out their own gold discs – I have no idea how official these were, or who was responsible for certifying records before FIMI. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the online M&D archives ? Thanks. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 15:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

here you go, I don't know if you checked properly, but I clearly removed the M&D chart, given that both of these albums were released after the FIMI chart was launched. Moh8213 ( talk) 16:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, no worries and thanks, not sure what I was typing there :) Cheers. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 16:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, having reviewed the situation I agree that it is probably best to use 'M&D' for the pre-FIMI era. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 16:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed a discrepancy where Portugal charts at acharts.co were in both the recommended charts and the deprecated charts. Atypically, my brain actually worked and I recalled this conversation which concluded on this being the result of this undetected vandalism. I noticed Kww actually fixed the vandalism, but from some reason Portugal was not fixed. I am assuming this was unintentional, so I fixed Portugal too. If this was actually intentional, feel free to revert. By the way, my involvement was due to Arctic Monkeys discography using achart peaks (now removed). -- Muhandes ( talk) 11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent years multiple Chinese platforms under Tencent music started selling music and showcase them in charts, the sales are been acknowledge by IFPI on their 2020 Year report page 4 of the report, as well been counted towards their yearly charts of best performing songs & artist, the system and sales of those platforms been reported multiple times by IFPI, and recently Billboard as well acknowledged them and stated they will soon release a China Chart that will use those data. Couple of users are now deleting the these from all artists (note that the data are been used in List of best-selling albums in China) saying it's WP:SINGLEVENDOR sources so it shouldn't be included. I in contrary believe it should be added to all pages since it applies to the rules that listed here for Suitable charts, #1 IFPI recognised QQ Music, Kugou and NetEase as legitimate sources, #2 It is static, the data in the chart never changed, #3 an official chart is coming from Billboard. My suggestion is for the sales of songs and albums to be added in the Albums and Singles table for sales only, not to be added as weekly ranking position. Those sales are legitimate and applies to all rules, and should be at least noticed, deleting when will mean deletion of entire industry that IFPI acknowledge and uses. KLIFE88 ( talk) 23:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You didn't address the concerns about WP:SINGLEVENDOR at all. It does appear to be a single-vendor chart, and, as such, is unsuitable for inclusion.— Kww( talk) 19:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Nkon21, and subsequently myself, explained this repeatedly to KLIFE88 after their 3 reverts of Nkon's removal of SV sales data from the Big Bang discog page, but they have ignored all explanations and are fixated on IFPI using the sales data in its 2020 report as justification for keeping the inappropriate sources across wikipedia. I don't know what else can be done to make them understand. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Eesti Tipp-40, but there was also the Eesti Top 10. Are they enough reliable to be included as charts in Wikipedia's articles? Seems ranking was based in various retailers. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 22:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

VirreFriberg recently added the Danmarks Radio chart to a few 1960s song articles using archived links from the now dead website http://danskehitlister.dk/. (Some of the additions: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). The Danish entry on WP:GOODCHARTS writes, "Prior to 2001 only known archive is from Billboard Magazine Hits of the World section." WP:BADCHARTS doesn't list this one though, so I thought I'd see what people think about this source. Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Top 20 (or 30, depending on year), was a Danish record chart published by Danmarks Radio (DR), similar to the Swedish equivalent Kvällstoppen, published by Sveriges Radio (SR). http://danskehitlister.dk/ is merely an archive of these lists VirreFriberg ( talk) 17:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The WP:GOOCHARTS probably needs updating. Will give a brief early history of Danish chart: One of the first charts was Quans (or Quan or Quan's) Musikbureau founded in the mid-1950s and was a monthly chart based on sales from its store(s) in Copenhagen I believe. These charts sometimes appear in the Billboard Hits of the World section after its inception in the early 1960s (note that these were weekly despite Quans still publishing the chart monthly). In 1963, DR began its own sales-based chart which continued until 1969 when it was stopped (before being reintroduced in the mid-1970s for several more years). The Danish IFPI also had its own chart, based on shipment figures, which began monthly from 1965 until 1969, whereupon it became weekly after the termination of the DR chart. However, the IFPI information is difficult to access, though some weeks can be found in Billboard. As for the original question, it is a good source, although for the 1960s info this will be hard to prove. The 1970s stuff I was able to corroborate a while ago after looking though archives of Ekstra Bladet. Despite IFPI being seen as the "official" chart provider, there are significant differences to the DR chart (which was sales based and thus more "accurate") and given that the DR source archive is readily available through the Wayback Machine, I would definitely include where possible. DPUH ( talk) 19:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree that WP:GOODCHARTS needs updating. Based on the thread "Italian charts confusion" above, it seems like there is general agreement to add the Musica e Dischi charts for the pre-FIMI days in Italy. And that printed books exist for earlier charts from Finland and Spain. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Are Billboard's Active Rock and Heritage Rock airplay charts allowed if a song has cracked the Mainstream Rock chart? They are very much niche charts and aren't typically discussed even within Billboard itself. It has always been my understanding that the radio station panels that make up Active/Heritage charts are combined to rank the Mainstream Rock chart. I bring this up because over at the article for Moto Psycho, I've tried to remove them from the charts section but have been reverted twice now. Thanks for any additional input or help. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The only time I added either of those charts was at Nobody's Wife (song), which I only did since the song to my knowledge didn't appear on any other Billboard charts. I figured it would have been okay. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 23:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed that when editors cite a song's peak position on the Czech and Slovakian digital singles chart, they write something like "Note: Change the chart to CZ – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100 and insert 202249 into search." However, I've noticed that songs have their own page where you can see their performance in a specific chart (Ex.: Raye's "Escapism." on the Slovakian Singles Digital Top 100 chart). Would it be acceptable to cite the song's respective chart pages instead? Jvaspad ( talk) 06:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That might have been a recent change. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 14:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Muhandes Why should the "Greatest Of All Time Hot 100 Songs" not be updated? All songs on the current list had "All-Time" in their chart section and were already updated to the 2018 issue prior to my edits. The rule about stating that chart should be static explicitly states that "All-Time" charts are an exception to the rule so Rule #3 doesn't apply in this circumstance. 99.6.253.145 ( talk) 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me repeat here the answer I gave you on my talk page. I believe the way you read the rule is wrong; see the discussion where it was added. The rule excludes dynamic "all-time" charts from being included in articles. If you think the rule should be reworded, please propose a better wording. All songs that had an "all-time" chart section listed the "60th anniversary" or the "55th anniversary" versions, which are static versions of this chart and are acceptable. Muhandes ( talk) 16:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@ ResolutionsPerMinute, @ Muhandes Can we use Billboard Hot Trending Songs? Have there been any discussions about it before or should it be discussed? آرمین هویدایی ( talk) 11:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This chart is fairly recent, so I don't have much knowledge on it nor do I have a solid opinion on whether we should include it. Looking through the archives, I found a 2014 discussion that may interest you or anyone else who sees this, back when it was still the Twitter Real-Time chart. It seems like the participants were against the chart and invoked WP:SINGLEVENDOR on it. Of course, that was eight years ago. Things may have changed with these new charts, especially with a weekly edition. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 12:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it added to the prose of a handful of k-pop articles in the but never removed it because I wasn't sure what the stance was myself. It's still just a Twitter chart updated daily (realtime) and weekly. It's rankings are determined based on the # of mentions of a particular artist's @ and specific song title(s) tweeted in a certain format, so one could literally spam tweet about a song and get it ranked (this has already happened multiple times before). Doesn't measure any actual music metrics so I don't think it's a notable chart and wouldn't add it to any article myself. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If it's a Twitter chart, it falls under WP:SINGLENETWORK just like Billboard Twitter Real-Time, which is already listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Muhandes ( talk) 15:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No - single network/based on real time data and not expansive or static. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 15:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! So, i believe i found some kind of Hong Kong-based music chart named APMA Charts. I think they're known for their Asian Pop Music Awards. They released two kinds of charts, Overseas one (Ex: https://twitter.com/APMAHK/status/1611958538754220038) and Chinese one, each week on various social media platforms. Is these charts reliable or not? Byy2 ( talk) 14:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't find any information about how these charts are compiled, or what they are supposed to measure - sales? airplay? The fact that they are published by an awards organisation does not bode well. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought I remembered that Pure Charts (chartsinfrance) is considered unreliable, but I can't find a decisive disucssion on the subject, and it was last discussed 10 years ago. Pinging @ Lil-unique1 and Kww who were involved last time. -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There's been a recent discussion about it here. The consensus appears to be that their interviews can be used, but not their chart data. Richard3120 ( talk) 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Richard3120: Thanks for the pointer. I'm not sure the consensus is enough for WP:BADCHARTS, but at least it's documented in the talk page archives now. Muhandes ( talk) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This January Poland has launched a new set of official charts, most importantly a new Albums Chart (based on both streaming+sales) with the old Albums Chart (based only on sales) being renamed to Physical Albums + a new streaming-only chart was created as well. Perhaps it would be a good idea to stop referencing the old, sales only chart and start using the new chart that combines Streaming+Sales together https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-sprzedazy/albumy

Additionaly, apart from the previous Airplay Songs Chart there's a new, main singles chart - Streaming Songs Chart which now serves as the main Polish singles chart - https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-sprzedazy/single-w-streamie Aaron511 ( talk) 12:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

{{ Album chart}} and {{ Single chart}} now use the new chart locations. As for the streaming chart, it is pending discussion. Muhandes ( talk) 13:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that this site determines chart positions with a proprietary formula developed by the website owner, which I evaluated several years ago, and found to be worse than useless. You need not look beyond Wikipedia to see what I mean. We have 100 pages for Year in music in the 20th century. Somebody in the remote past decided to use tsort's rankings for each year's "Biggest hit singles" section. The data they use from RYM, DDD, POP and other garbage sites are clearly listed (see 1961 in music#Biggest hit singles, 2000 in music#Biggest hit singles). Here are descriptions of four of the sources used to calculate rankings:

POP Year

Songs of the year from //www.popculturemadness.com/Music/ a site that includes all sorts of fun lists (like "Politically Incorrect Songs") and is worth a visit.

Entries from Rolling Stone

The top 500 songs of all time listed in the magazine 'Rolling Stone' in 2004 (source //www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/5 00songs). The 'Rolling Stone' album chart closely matches with global tastes, in contrast the songs list has just about no correlation with the world's song charts.

Entries from RYM

The site //rateyourmusic.com/ gives users the chance to rate different songs and albums. The ratings are not objective (and of course they shouldn't be) but the large volume of contributors makes this worthwhile (at least for modern music). These charts were extracted during Feb 2007 with the later years each being extracted during the following year. Some entries have been removed where it is obvious that particular groups of fans have conbined to distort the results.

DDD Year

Songs of the year as listed on //digitaldreamdoor.com/ This site provides some fun lists like "100 Greatest Beach Music Songs" and is well worth checking out.

Here are complete lists of their information sources used for calculations and another list.

I posted messages on talk pages, here is one I found Talk:1941 in music#Biggest hit songs. Nobody replied to any of them, so I began replacing them myself (33 to date 1920-1949, 1965, 68 and 1970). That's right, there are still 67 pages with tsort rankings. I will have most of the 1960s completed by the end of this month. Tillywilly17 ( talk) 03:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this one, what do you think? >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 23:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Lil-unique1: I've deleted that wherever I've found it, as Triller is one app and so falls under the logic of WP:SINGLENETWORK, and while I'm not sure of its userbase, I think it pales in comparison to the significance of TikTok and Twitter (that being said, I don't support the inclusion of "Top Twitter Tracks" and the like either). Ss 112 07:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I've seen that the new Polish music charts are sourced by writing a note that says "Search for '[artist]' and select 'Wykonawca'". However, this is not the ideal way to source the charts because the website, which only shows the most recent charts with the link being the same whether you change the date range or search an artist, does not return any results if the song is no longer on the charts. Therefore, the ideal way of sourcing the charts would be indicating the date range the song peaked. Jvaspad ( talk) 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Are the following acceptable as sources?

• C. Kimberley's books on the Zimbabwe and South African charts (Albums chart book: Zimbabwe, 1998; Zimbabwe Singles Chart Book, 1997 & 2000; South Africa Chart Book, 1997)
• David Kent's Australian Chart Book 1940-1969 ( " based on charts specially compiled for this publication, from hit parades, radio charts and best sellers lists")

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Recently, I've noticed the addition of a Latvian chart from lanet.lv, a site I recall removing in the past since I didn't trust its methodology. Most of the links on the page take you to an official chart site, but a Latvian airplay chart also exists on the site, the archives of which can be found at the bottom of the page here. The only information I can find about the chart's compiler generally says, "Compiled by [line break] copyright © XXXX "Rīgas Balss" Latvijas rokzinu agentūra" and occasionally "reproduced with permission" ( [12]). I dug through the archives and found a TLDR discussion from 2009 that seems to claim the Latvian Airplay Top 50 is a hobbyist chart, but it's the "reproduced with permission" line that bothers me. Does anyone have any other thoughts? ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 11:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not so sure. There does seem to be some reliability to the methodology. For example, it says "Compiled from top 10's of:" and then lists the major national radio stations. Some examples here: [13] and [14]. It also mentions the total number of songs in each top ten used to compile the chart. So they do not seem to be just randomly made fan lists. This methodology appears to have expanded in later years: [15]. I would happy for them to be included on Wikipedia. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 18:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Further to the above, this Music & Media (European Billboard publication) article from May 13, 2000, specifically mentions the "Latvian airplay charts": [16]. So there does seem to have been some sort of recognized airplay chart for Latvia. Also, this Music & Media article from May 24, 2003, lists the Latvian radio stations of relevance, [17], including: Radio Latvia (public broadcaster), Super FM, Radio SWH, and European Hit Radio (EHR), all of which are cited at lanet.lv as being used for compiling the airplay chart. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 20:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ QuintusPetillius: For the first source, a specific airplay chart is not named. I checked lanet.lv but can't find any instance of "My Star" topping the chart during 2000 or late 1999 "for six weeks and counting" (if you do, provide a link). As for the second source, I suppose that's a valid argument, but only some of the stations are listed, not all of them. My opinion has shifted to neutral, but I'm not totally convinced yet. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 20:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The radio stations cited by lanet.lv does vary from week to week, but I can find all of the radio stations listed above by Music & Media have been used for compiling the chart, if not all at the same time (without checking each chart week). As the chart progresses more radio stations appear to have been added, as per the example from 2002 above, and they mostly seem to be stations listed here: List of radio stations in Latvia. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 21:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

According to Notion Magazine, piri's "soft spot" went to #1 on TikTok. Didn't know there was any such chart. Possibly one for WP:BADCHARTS?-- Laun chba ller 20:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I would think that WP:SINGLEVENDOR applies. Muhandes ( talk) 16:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)