- Although this is complicated by the use of {{
Singlechart}}. --
JD554 (
talk)
14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
←Personally I have no use to sort them numerically; alphabetical is just fine. Refs look good next to the chart name. Second choice is a separate column. I think that when there is a ref in the column that has also the peak position numbers things start to look a little too messy/confusing. And I wish the text in the fist column could be left-aligned but I've already bitched about that on the discographies/style talk page. Blah. -
eo (
talk)
15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible to left-align the text but it would involved some re-programming of the syntax. Other than that I'm against the use of the reference next to the chart position because it can get messy. Sometimes multiple references are required. The sortable is only useful when there are in excess of 10 charts etc. when there is a large number. But that will be an editorial choice.--
Lil-unique1 (
talk)
15:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with placing the reference next to the position (where logically it "should" go) is that it changes the field from numeric to alphabetic. That means that "1, 2, 13" will sort as "1, 13, 2" with the reference in place, not "1, 2, 13" as it should. There's just not a chance that you can get the average editor to include {{
sort}} in every position. In terms of {{
singlechart}} causing problems, it's easy enough to make it produce "scope=row" in the expansion. Is there anything else that this would demand? Are there any side effects I should be aware of?—
Kww(
talk)
15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- And, just a plug for the use of singlechart: I'll be able to modify 7000 chart positions with a single edit once people are clear with exactly what I should do. Try to beat that with manual chart tables.—
Kww(
talk)
15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware that's the main issue. The relevant pages e.g.
WP:record charts will need to be updated with how to correctly format chart tables manually. Also we need to make an editorial decision about the references and if we are happy leaving them where they are etc. (Kev, if you could take a look at the talk page of
WP:SONGS we're discussing the impact on release tables too) --
Lil-unique1 (
talk)
15:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- At risk of plugging the template more, couldn't {{
singlechart}} put the reference in the right place and use {{
sort}}? I know it's unlikely that in a manual table the average editor would use {{
sort}}, but there is a difference between your average article and one of Wikipedia's best. As long as the guideline is there giving the best practice, it is up to the editor whether they use it or not. If not, when someone wants to move the article on to GA or FA, then they should update such omissions before doing so. --
JD554 (
talk)
16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could probably do that as an option. There's enough resistance to the template as it stands that I wouldn't want to make another controversial appearance change be the default behaviour. I'd like to see more demand for even the option as well: that's not an easy template to play with, and I don't want to add unused complexity.—
Kww(
talk)
17:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- To simplify things lets stick to the existing format (shown in table 1) unless there is common consensus that people would like a ref column. --
Lil-unique1 (
talk)
22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I followed a link to this ever-moving discussion. Back on a MOS page, again. I've only glossed this page, but am glad to see some support for sorting and some use of templates to can some of the rote code; that's what templates are for. These are somewhat cleaner tables than I was looking at back at
WP:DISCOG, but they still are snotted-up with too much repetitive code; lots of align="center", for example. You can set centering for whole tables with class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" at the top. And if row-headers are determined to be best left-aligned:
.wikitable thscope=row
{
text-align: left;
}
in the site stylesheets will do it for those with teh scope attribute set to 'row'. Kevin's comment about the power of templates to hit 7000 pages with a single edit is key to why baking-in code is wrong; Just Stop It, per
WP:Deviations. This same power exists in style sheets, and this is where the look and feel of things should be determined.
Jack Merridew
23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Take a look at the fourth example. I think we have problem solved? --
Lil-unique1 (
talk)
00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone that actually has a screen reader take a look at
User:Kww/byebye? It invokes a test version of the template that inserts the "scope=row" text. I can see it by viewing the generated HTML, but have no idea if it has the intended effect. I also presume that bolding the chart name in the examples above was a mistake.—
Kww(
talk)
00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Bolding the chart names was not a mistake rather it is automatically what the syntax does. However Jack has pointed out that if we didnt want to bold them we can use CSS to unbold them which would be my preferred option. --
Lil-unique1 (
talk)
00:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or just not use the exclamation point. The problem is that people invoke singlechart with a pipe symbol in front of it. If the exclamation point is mandatory, that's going to have to be done either manually or by a bot.—
Kww(
talk)
00:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The whole point is that !scope="row" has to be used for every field in the first column. so that the reader software knows to read accross the page... --
Lil-unique1 (
talk)
01:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- But |scope="row" doesn't have the same effect? It certainly generates the scope tags in the HTML. Does anyone have one of these screen readers to test
User:Kww/byebye and see if the "!" is mandatory?—
Kww(
talk)
01:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what you're asking because I wondered the same but according to
WP:Wikitables it is mandatory. --
Lil-unique1 (
talk)
01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think we've all gone down the wrong path. For a typical singles table, no change to the row is necessary. It will read the table quite normally. If I follow the description properly, our example table modified to use column scope
will be read as follows: "Chart two thousand eight Australian Singles Chart peak position one chart two thousand eight Canadian Singles Chart position two chart two thousand eight Spanish Singles Chart position three ...", which seems like just what we want. The only time a row header is necessary is when there are multiple entries in the row, and that isn't normal for chart tables. Only the column headers will need changed.—
Kww(
talk)
02:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the change, although I remain somewhat unconvinced of its necessity. Going forward, if you precede {{
singlechart}} with a "!" character, the header will be produced with the appropriate "scope=row". If you precede it with | as is normal today, it will still work and there will be no visible change.—
Kww(
talk)
13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Change has been undone. While most editors have been preceding the template with a pipe or an exclamation point, some have not, and those charts blew up. Hopefully the correction will propagate quickly. I'm probably going to have to request a bot to make the usage consistent, and then make the change.—
Kww(
talk)
14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can change the template documentation so that it only shows the template working if the ! is present. Its certainly a step forward? ----
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I'll change the documentation alright. I'm not sure to what, yet. (It seems impossible to get a discussion to go to its conclusion these days. Maybe all the northern-hemisphere folks are out in the sunshine?)
- It's not just a change in the doc or in the template itself; we have to think about existing uses (a "legacy problem" already). Kww has made a bot request already to take out the separate piping symbol. I believe I'll be changing the doc so that it shows no piping in all of its examples. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added a "rowheader" argument. If you add "rowheader=true", then the template will output the rowheader syntax. If you omit it or set it to "false", you get today's behaviour. If I see widespread support of
WP:ACCESS#Data tables in the future, I will change the default setting. Right now, people that want to can experiment with it and see if support for the change can be developed.—
Kww(
talk)
16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've found no discusison of this being a deprecated chart, so I removed it from
WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)
00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The general consensus is that unless there is proof that the chart has credible methidology it is not allowed for Wikipedia. Charts are usually only added to Bad charts if there is significant/abusive use of the chart. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(Talk ➁ Me)
01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which I've seen none of. Did I miss something? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)
16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I didnt explain that clearly. Because the world is full of many thousands of charts, each chart must prove its notability. Not the other way round. Therefore its not a case of proving that 'Eesti Top 40' is not reliable rather its a case of needing to prove that it is reliable. It would have been added to Bad charts because of its widespread application to articles despite no evidence that it is official and/or reliable. Does that make sense? --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I know it's been discussed above, but it's long. All I want to say here is that it's being used with the UK Singles Chart. But it's a component chart, it shouldn't be used when the UK is used. Thoughts?
Jayy008 (
talk)
13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- What, 9 paragraphs is too long? Pity, all of our "thoughts" are up
there. What's the maximum length you're willing to read? We need to know so we can try to think less this time. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
14:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mine remains the same, just a little louder. It is not a component chart. It is not a component chart. I've explained the difference multiple times, and you keep describing it as a "component chart." It's not. Please stop calling it that.—
Kww(
talk)
15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Something shorter, obviously. If that's all you wanted to say then I'd rather you stay out of it. Kevin, I know it's a regional chart, but including all of those is too much. So, it's allowed?
Jayy008 (
talk)
16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok I read it. Now it seems reasonable to argue for Billboard component charts whether this is one [a component] or not. Including regional charts could go on forever.
Jayy008 (
talk)
16:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- It could, but I draw the line at countries. I wouldn't care for someone including charts that were specific to a state or city, but once we hit a chart for an entire country, compiled by an impeccable source, I think it can be included.—
Kww(
talk)
17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well when you put it like that it seems more acceptable.
Jayy008 (
talk)
19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Scotland is a country, but it is a component country of the United Kingdom, of which the national chart is the UK Singles/Albums Charts. If something charts on the main chart then the Scottish chart shouldn't be used.
Mister sparky (
talk)
16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- That extends to "France is a country chart, but it is a component country of the European Union. If something charts on the main European chart, the French chart shouldn't be used." We just don't do that, because these charts are not components of each other, and are not component charts.—
Kww(
talk)
17:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Europe is a region not a country?
Jayy008 (
talk)
17:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- scotland is a country for local and historic reasons only, it has no international, legal or democratic independance. you cannot possibly compare scotland to france for this purpose. and the european union is not a country, it is a geographic area. and you talk as though the scottish and uk charts are completely separate and different. they are not. it is called the uk singles and albums charts, not the england, wales & northern ireland singles/albums chart. the television regions they use for the scottish charts also covers half of northern england. and the sales date for scotland is used to compile the main national charts. so if both are included then the information is duplicated. is also why it is called a "regional chart" on the occ's website. and there is also the welsh singles/albums charts, are they to be included on every article too?
Mister sparky (
talk)
17:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't bother me. No worse than Wallonia. I just don't want to get in the business of deciding that some countries aren't really countries and some are. As a long-time resident of the
Netherlands Antilles, I know how pissed off I got when people said I was living in a part of
Holland.—
Kww(
talk)
18:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- The information isn't duplicated, an example would be when the song "Scotland, Scotland, Jason Scotland" reached number one on the Scottish chart
[1] but failed to make a dent in the UK charts
[2]. In order to counter
WP:BIAS, I think we should include the Scottish charts for relevant releases (ie, didn't significantly chart in the main UK chart or was released by a Scottish act) as long as it is a chart that the Scottish people are interested in - and it appears they are interested
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]. --
JD554 (
talk)
10:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- in some cases it is duplicated. using the eg above: if someone from glasgow buys kylie's aphrodite, that data would count for the scottish album chart and the main uk album chart. so having both charts included on the album's page is duplicating that persons (and many others) purchase. the scottish charts should definitely be included if something did not chart on the main chart, like jd's eg above, but not if it did.
Mister sparky (
talk)
13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Double counting is nothing new: it's true of all genre charts and all charts from countries covered by the Eurochart.—
Kww(
talk)
14:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- exactly why i dont like using the eurocharts.
Mister sparky (
talk)
15:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be used in extreme cases then. Ie, when a song reaches #1 in Scotland and not in the main chart. Wallonia is completely different, that's a ridiculous country split that shouldn't affect charts and music, but does. The UK is the main chart, Scotland seems a little redundant?
Jayy008 (
talk)
18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wallonia certainly is a ridiculous split, I won't argue that. The point is that there is no precedent whatsoever for eliminating Scotland from our charts. What parallel case is there where we argue against the charts (bearing in mind that the methodology here is similar to a genre chart)? Why is Scotland any more redundant than the UK Dance Chart or the UK R&B chart?—
Kww(
talk)
18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because, I know this is similar but not exact but here goes! It's like saying if New York or Los Angeles had it's own chart you could include them along with the Hot 100. You see what I mean?
Jayy008 (
talk)
14:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that New York or Los Angeles were countries. There's a Detroit chart, and I remove it on sight because Detroit isn't a country.—
Kww(
talk)
15:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I said, it's similar, not exact. They're states in the United States of America. Scotland is a country in the United Kingdom. I'm finding it hard to explain. Everything in the Scottish Chart mounts up to what's on the main chart. I can't really object as I can't explain myself very well - on this matter.
Jayy008 (
talk)
15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is why I go with the basic rule that if a place is called a country, it's a country. It's not my place to argue with places like Aruba and Scotland. If they are normally referred to as a country, I'll treat them that way.—
Kww(
talk)
15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think everyone is getting confused here. New York is not a country it is a State. The USA is a country. Therefore the Billboard Hot 100 is the overiding NATIONAL chart, whereas a New York Hot 100 would be a REGIONAL Chart. In context of Great Britain, the
UK Singles Chart is the NATIONAL chart but so is the
Scottish Singles Chart which is the same as the UK chart but simply over the limited geopgraphical boundries of Scotland. Whilst yes data from the sales of music in Scotland do count towards the UK Singles Chart sales from London, for example, would not count in Scotland. This is significant as there is an implication that a native Scottish Artist might perform better on the Scottish Chart rather than the UK Singles Chart. We on wikipedia have no right to criticse the sovereignty of Scotland or to somehow suggest that its music charts are not valid. We do not actually have specific information on exactly how the chart works in relation to the UK and therefore it seems clumsy to limit the use of the Scottish chart. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, I know. I said it's not the same. I was just trying to use an example of what I mean. I'm well aware NYC etc are states, not countries. My issue was Scotland is that I don't understand why it's needed unless it's charts at #1 or something. But I know I'm not going to win this one, so I'm going to give up. Just to clarify all regional charts are allowed?
Jayy008 (
talk)
23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- personally Jay I agree with you. But for policies sake we don't have a ground to disrequard it. There are some limitations with regions e.g. US Tropical Airplay and US Mexican Regional etc but these are outlined at
WP:USCHARTS. The only thing I would say is that Scotland won't trump other countries in discographies. E.g. if there are 10 charts already it is not appropriate to swap one for Scotland. But equally I dont see any plausible grounds for removing it from an article's chart table. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, Jay, I don't think regions smaller than countries should normally be used.—
Kww(
talk)
14:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies; I thought I'd replied to this. But yes, no grounds to banish it, got ya.
Jayy008 (
talk)
20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
hey guys, is there an archive of the danish charts pre-2001? danishcharts.com covers from 2007 onwards, and hitlisten.nu covers from 2001, but anything before that? Thanks! :)
Mister sparky (
talk)
16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I used old issues of Billboard magazine for positions during the '90s, for example in the Spice Girls' article "
Wannabe" - reference 65. The chart is compiled by IFPI and Nielsen Marketing Research. Here is a link in Google Books: page 63
[7] You will have to use the
Template:Cite journal to put it in the article. Regards.
Frcm1988 (
talk)
17:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I found it
http://www.impalamusic.org/award_03_cond.php I think that would be recognised for the European sales also on Wikipedia with the IFPI Europe.
SJ (
talk) 5:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- No objection to the idea. Can you show some sources that show that the award is notable? That news articles and press releases from notable groups are talking about the IMPALA award?—
Kww(
talk)
14:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, from Billboard, Music Week and European Report.
-
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3id4a71ae8a1475303fd19bbe5efd123b7
-
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=19546§ioncode=1
-
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=24266§ioncode=1
-
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4482518/Impala-launches-new-awards-as.html
-
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2342742/Impala-s-European-awards-set.html
-
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-840202/INDEPENDENT-RECORD-LABELS-LAUNCH-THE.html
SJ (
talk)
10:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The Music Week and European Report articles are press releases from IMPALA, but the Billboard coverage looks good. I think it's reasonable to include these in articles.—
Kww(
talk)
14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
A bot has been run to make all uses of singlechart regular, and it was decided to remove the | symbol in front of all the calls. That made no change in the generated chart, but lets me make changes in the future to match the accessibility MOS. Please don't put a | symbol before the singlechart call when using it in the future.—
Kww(
talk)
14:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- So now it's just one long like in between {{ ?
Jayy008 (
talk)
19:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what that meant.
Like this,
not like this. See
the difference?—
Kww(
talk)
03:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the "like" in your question was supposed to be "line", then maybe you were thinking that we're talking about eliminating the piping symbols within the
{{singlechart}} template. We're not; the parameters still need to be separated (especially the first two, which aren't named). We're talking about the piping character used in wikimarkup to indicate the beginning of a table cell. This line is often (and by me, was always) added before the template. That's the one to leave out from now on. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
08:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- At first, that set off an alarm, as the pipe character would be about defining the table cell; it would be syntactically incorrect. But I then looked at the template and see the th-cells with the scope attribute and trailing pipe is being generated there, so this does work-out to generate correct structure. I'm still concerned, though, because this plain looks odd, and may-well trip-up some tools. Tools like
WP:Reflinks will fix what it perceives to be syntactic mistakes. See
here; it's making other changes and seems to not be messing with this, so I'm only speaking of a hypothetical problem. Syntactic shortcuts like this can be dangerous. <aside>I used to freak people out with
self-modifying code; in the end, such things can be justified if there's no other way.</aside> Cheers,
Jack Merridew
04:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see the difference, yes. And to John, what I meant was something like this {{WhitneyHoustonIWillAlwaysLoveYou}} without being separated by lines, but now Kevin has explained what he meant, I get it.
Jayy008 (
talk)
14:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
is this
[8] an appropriate source for charts? they cite mediabase as their source and are the only site i've seen which publish the top 50 Mainstream songs. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I was sure it was Mediabase I would be happy with it. Any idea what the "you can change these charts" is about? Some kind of voting scheme?—
Kww(
talk)
01:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No idea. When you click on the link it takes you to ratethemusic.com which doesn't appear to be affiliated. it appears to be a different website. However the top 40 chart at americasmusiccharts.com is contradictory to the one at
radio-info.com which i believe is definately accepted and approved. The latter shows different chart positions and even a different number of radio spins for songs. yet both cite MediaBase. Hmmm i think americasmusiccharts.com is dubious. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Can
Extended plays (EPs) actually chart on album charts e.g. UK Albums Charts? Or do they chart on Single Charts? --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
23:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the Saturdays EP is going to chart on the albums charts this Sunday. So I'm guessing EP's chart on the albums chart.
Jayy008 (
talk)
19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Depends on the chart rules. Per
Official Chart Company Album chart rules, the cutoff is that an album must be at least 25 minutes in length or more than 4 songs, unless it is eligible for the singles chart. Per
the Singles Chart rules, it's still a single if the reason it has more than 4 tracks is that it contains multiple versions of the same song.—
Kww(
talk)
19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well funnily enough my quest was in relation to The Saturdays - Headlines. I wanted to define the album as mini-album since that's what both the label and critics and media call it. Yet others keep changing it to EP because its the bridge between their second and third album. As jay said its gonna chart on the album's chart this week. Its also around 28:20 in lenght. So how do you classify it? --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd go for what classifies as Mini-album and/or an EP. Even though I disagree with what I'm about to say it doesn't matter what the label or media call it.
Jayy008 (
talk)
19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well again that's the problem. BPI/Official Charts only recognise singles and albums. If the release is above 25 minutes and continues more than four songs with no remixes of songs already included, its an album. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, well I guess it's an album then. I go by how the label classifies it, but that's not allowed so I guess OCC will do!
Jayy008 (
talk)
20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on
here regarding the removal of the Canadian Country Singles charts from articles. These chart positions seem to be utterly lacking in verification. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)
19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I need some support here, because people are posting incorrect dates concerning the time frame that a song is at #1 on Billboard's charts. For quite some time now, Billboard has published their chart on Saturday, and it spans the previous six days and the chart issue date, thus SEVEN days: Sunday through Saturday. So, the current issue of Billboard was published with the issue date of August 22 and the charts bearing that date are for the range of dates Aug. 16 - 22.
I have tried to correct the errors in the succession boxes, and many are changing them back to the erroneous dates. Does anyone know of any way to make this information transparent on Wikipedia to ensure that the proper dates are reflected on the respective pages and in the succession boxes? Does anyone even agree with me?
The
Billboard Hot 100 page even says the EXACT same thing as what I'm saying here, but people are still not believing what's correct. Thoughts? Please?
Adfalcon (
talk)
15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)adfalcon
- I don't even know why there is more than one date in the succession boxes in the first place. All that is really needed is the issue date and that's it. No spanning of weeks, or notations of "(4 weeks)" or any of that stuff. I don't know why people choose to make things more confusing and difficult. -
eo (
talk)
16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just one more reason why ALL succession boxes in song and album articles should be removed. All it does is clutter the page and provide redundant information that they reached #1 already noted in the chart table. We have lists of number one songs and albums pages to tell us when they were number one. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- To begin with, I hate succession boxes, so I don't want to spend much time on making them prettier if the discussion below can rid us of the damned things altogether.
- Having said that, it was my understanding that what we're supposedly showing as the incumbency of the subject recording is the issue dates of the charts where it was number one. If a song is on a chart for one week and falls off, then we have "July 10, 2010" and that's it. If it's on top for two consecutive issues, we have "July 10, 2010 – July 17, 2010". Multiple non-consecutive reigns might be comma-separated or, more likely, line-separated "July 10, 2010<br />July 24, 2010".
- Now, that consecutive-issues example looks like the song was No. 1 for 8 days, which is why I was confused before the practice was explained to me, but if it's WP standard then we can explain it somewhere. It's also not clear to everyone that there's a difference between Billboard issue dates (or, say, UK chart dates) and actual calendar dates.
- The idea of a chart spanning a certain period of time, meaning covering certain calendar days, is too much extra complication. A chart is a chart with a certain date, and that date is the one we use on WP, even if it leads us to writing in late August about how "Love the Way You Lie" reached No. 1 on September 4, 2010.
- Now let's go kill the succession boxes. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
09:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I don't really care about the succession boxes either. I am concerned with the dates.
Adfalcon (
talk)
18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)adfalcon
I don't see an example in the MoS on how a table with multiple singles should look.
Is something like this acceptable? With links to the songs, charts and references of course. (The refs would go in the chart column still, right?)
Single
|
Chart (2004)
|
Peak position
|
Find the Real
|
Mainstream Rock
|
7
|
Open Your Eyes
|
Mainstream Rock
|
2
|
Modern Rock Tracks
|
24
|
Single
|
Chart (2005)
|
Peak position
|
Broken Wings
|
Mainstream Rock
|
29
|
This seems to be close to what's in the MOS now, but it doesn't look like other single charts.
Bobertoq (
talk)
01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- What are you trying to do that a discography isn't the right answer for?—
Kww(
talk)
02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the Top 100 Argentina an official chart? Reading the
methodology I think that it can be used on wiki.--
Talk Shop (
talk)
14:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Who compiles the chart? Can you show cases where reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, etc.) make reference to this chart? There are a lot of official looking sites out there, but very few reliable ones. To be classed as reliable, we have to know who's publishing it and see that other reliable sources treat it as reliable. In this case, it looks to be an amateur chart: the only contact address is a hotmail account.—
Kww(
talk)
15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. I wanted to be sure. Sorry for the inconvenience.--
Talk Shop (
talk)
15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Monthly Top20 for albums is available at the
capif website. --
Neo139 (
talk)
23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC))
Is tophit a bad source for charts? I assumed it was correct since I've seen it appear in other GA articles. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1
(talk2me)
20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- The
consensus was "no". I checked, and I have to concur: there's no real sourcing that says it's a reliable chart.—
Kww(
talk)
14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to get to the bottom of the complex situation for single charts in the Netherlands. Previous related discussions:
I must admit that I find it all very confusing, with (at least) three official charts and several of them constantly changing name and length throughout time. I have tried to summarize the information from the various discussions and existing articles into this little table:
I would appreciate if other editors would help me completing this table and check for mistakes. I am especially puzzled about where to find the Mega Top 50, and why
www.dutchcharts.nl shows archived positions all the way back to 1962 when
Dutch Top 40 was the first single chart in the Netherlands. Thanks in advance. – Ib
Leo
(talk)
06:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Awaiting further insightful advice, I have removed the prefix "Mega" from "Single Top 100" in our sourcing guide to reflect the
2009 name change. Furthermore, I wonder what the phrase "Weekly archive incorporated directly into charts." in the comments column is supposed to mean? – Ib
Leo
(talk)
04:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Billboard down again? So any links are returning dead error. Sigh.... —
Legolas
(talk2me)
07:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's working fine for me, do you want me to look up something for you?
Nowyouseeme
talk2me
07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind.. I spoke too soon.
Nowyouseeme
talk2me
07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh is it dead for you now? —
Legolas
(talk2me)
07:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Works just fine for me. Are there any specific links not working? —
ξ
xplicit
07:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Billboard 200 for eg, as well as if you click on some of the artists. A maintenance probably? —
Legolas
(talk2me)
07:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Every single thing I click has a pink banner that says '! Page Loading Error'; but I'm sure it'll be all fixed soon.
Nowyouseeme
talk2me
07:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. *fingers croosed* —
Legolas
(talk2me)
07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I've accessed some singles info with no problem.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What should be done with this chart? Since Billboard stop publishing the Bubbling Under chart, how do song peaks get referenced? In my opinion, Bubbling Under peaks without a source need to be removed. Regardless of how many times an artist has charted there, without making into the Hot 100, they are useless. When sourcing a discography with a Billboard.com source, no Bubbling Under peaks are found in the Hot 100 list, therefore when the source is added to ones discography, these peaks are left out in the dust. They need to go bye-bye. Also, on
David Archuleta discography, his Bubbling Under peaks were removed from his singles because they couldn't be sourced.
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
talk)
13:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The chart is still published and the positions are frequently verifiable. Before removing them, it's best to look at the Google Books archive of Billboard magazines and see if the position can be sourced.—
Kww(
talk)
15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- A side note... they should NOT be tacked on to the Hot 100 e.g. if a sound reached 12 on Bubbling under that is not equal to 112 on Hot 100 because 112 chart position doesn't exist. They should not be added to discogs for that very reason. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
16:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know the chart is still published, but it isn't archived on Billboard's website like all the other charts.
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
talk)
17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- AGREE with LilUnique1. Bubbling Under is NOT a main chart, so should not be in a discog. If sourced list on the individual song or single page, but as Bubbling Under. Again per LilUnique1, cannot have a number exceeding 100 in the Hot 100!—
Iknow23 (
talk)
21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- the bubbling under chart is only published at billboard.biz or the physical copies of the magazine. I've checked Google Books and they currently have copies uptil mid-2008 (i think). They're the only ways to source it. If someone cannot provide either one of those sources it must not be listed on a song page. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Iknow23, you're right, Bubbling Under shouldn't be in a discography. Hence,
Billboard Hot 100, not
Billboard Hot 100-125. For the ones replying to this, look
here. The Bubbling Under chart is unsourced, but another user keeps re-adding it, without a source.
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
talk)
22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've left a note on
User:CloversMallRat's talk page. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the warning. You gotta do watcha gotta do. No hard feelings.
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
talk)
22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I've warned you both because its not appropriate. But you did the right thing by starting this discussion. It is a long standing issue that in the past had divided people but now there is a general dislike for the use of Billboard Bubbling under charts and a clear message that they most certainly are not to be used in discogs. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've never been a fan of this chart. I guess I didn't know about prior discussions on this topic, otherwise I would have voiced my opinion then as well. But enough is enough, it either stays or goes. I'm not going to stay conflicted on sourcing these positions. If I can't find a source through Billboard, it's going to deleted, just like I tried to do with
Joey + Rory.
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
talk)
22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the 'Bubbling Under Hot 100' not included in
WP:USCHART in the condition table at "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →" ? But 'Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles' is 'allowed' at "If a song has not charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs you may add any of the following →"? —
Iknow23 (
talk)
23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies, that's oversight on my part. I've added it in =) --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, I remember its all complex! But hey, didn't you mean to add it to the "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100..." instead?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. That was clearly wrong, so I've changed it. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
All Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart positions through 2008 can be sourced in the 12th edition of Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles. Not saying it should be allowed, but it does provide another reliable source. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Joel Whitburn's Hot Country Songs 1994–2008 also includes all country music Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart positions. Positions below #100 are listed as 101, 102, etc. Additionally, anyone can search Billboard.biz to see whether or not a song bubbled under
here for charts as recent as this week, but only those with a subscription can see where they peaked. For the example provided above, it can be proven that
Joey + Rory's "Cheater, Cheater" bubbled under the week of January 17, 2009
here, but the actual
listing is for members only.
Eric444 (
talk)
04:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- As long as users and editors can source the chart to the physical magazine, they are fine in the articles, else no. While adding a position say 22, editors shouldnot add it as position 122 in the article, and then say the chart name as Billboard Hot 100. If added, it should be noted that it is an addndum to the Hot 100, and the actual chart is Bubbling under Hot 100. —
Legolas
(talk2me)
04:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to get this nailed down once and for all (if it's possible). We've got (as I see it) 3 different issues, keeping the discussion a bit confusing. There's (1) the question of inclusion (whether and when), (2) the question of what number to use in reporting, and (3) what references can be used for them (affecting #1).
- It seems that in an article about an individual recording, we'd all agree that mentioning the appearance on a Bubbling Under chart is appropriate, if both (1) the recording didn't later make it to the corresponding main chart, and (2) we have some kind of ref for its B.U. peak. Yes?
- In an article about an individual recording, it's appropriate and easy to say it was at #7 on the B.U. chart. We don't support saying it was at #107 on the Hot 100, or #107 on the B.U. (because heck, they're both wrong). We can use a separate row in the Charts table, and that's what we here all like, right?
- In a discography (or artist's article with a discog section in it), things get shakier. We've confined ourselves to 10 chart columns max, so we feel pressed for space. For me, and per some of the comments above, there ought to be a separate column for B.U. peaks on songs that didn't make the main chart. Agreed? But The problem is that we often don't have room for such a column. Also, the numbers in such a column would be 2s, 7s, 12s, etc., looking comparable to the 5s, 10s, and 18s on the main chart. But 122 in the B.U. column is certainly wrong, too.
- Finally (in terms of reporting), there's the problem of Joel Whitburn using the numbers 101–125 in his reporting. That gives solid support (where it doesn't belong, IMHO) for using the glued-on version of the peak numbers and then – why not? – putting them right there in the main Hot 100 or R&B column. Eric444, are you saying it's OK to use 122 instead of 22? What does that .biz listing that you pointed to use (I'm not a subscriber)?
- The second-best solution (after separate columns), and the best I've actually seen, is the treatment currently used in
Lady Gaga discography#Singles (an FLC). The larger (extended) numbers are used, positioned in the main chart column, but with a footnote of explanation. The ref link (to BB.biz) is on the footnote supporting the B.U. peak. Do you nay-sayers support this compromise?
- Another bit about sourcing: As I was trying to clean the obviously-too-large 102, 108, etc., from the 100-position charts' columns in
Fat Joe discography, I got reverted by another editor, who provided as references the XML files from BB.com you see there. My Firefox browsers will open these files, but strip the structure out of the files, so there's just a meaningless string of data left. However, my IE6 browser shows the entire contents. You have to read through the file and try to match up the song, chart, and position you're trying to verify. Have you seen this kind of file before, and what do you think of it as a ref for WP articles?
- So have I asked too many questions? Can I get more definitive, uh, precise statements from more of you? —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
22:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- What a doofus. I forgot to mention
the article where I saw the XML files as references. Now added above. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
07:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
... Ok lets make this simple and easy for everyone.
- When and how Billboard Bubbling Under Charts can be used.
- The chart like any other, must be sourced with a
reliable and accurate citation. (this includes google books and the physical copy of the Billboard magazine).
- It can be used, when accurately sourced as explained above, on individual pages for a song, on the album's page or on the artists page but must be given in the form of Song "ABC" reached number 'x' on the
Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart in the US.
- However even if it is sourced accurately, it must NOT be used on discography pages in the form of a position over 100 or as a seperate bubbling under column.
How does those three criteria sound? --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Item 1 should say "must" rather than "should", if you want me to be picky.
- Why don't you want it in a separate column? The way your criterion 3 is now, we can't have B.U. in a table at all; it must be in the (theoretically intro) text, written as its real number (7, not 107). I've got absolutely nothing against a separate column, if it's properly sourced, and we can keep double entries out (i.e., one of the songs made it into the Hot 100, so there's a 67 there, and 2 in the B.U. column).
- I see I couldn't entice you into answering my questions. I'm going to have even more trouble with the really taciturn ones around here. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair John I would have also included a tabular example of how it can be included in the charts table in a song article too but couldnt be bothered to form one. Erm I think allowing it in the discography is bad for two reasons... 1. Giving Bubbling its own column somehow makes it comparable to the Hot 100 and other single charts, 2. it makes it awkward for an artist who has say 5 Bubbling singles and 5 Hot 100 singles. (imagine their Hot 100 singles chart in positions 50-100, but their Bubbling singles will chart anwhere from 1-25). Although I can see a supporting argument where a Bubbling column might be more appropriate e.g. when an artist only charts in a handful of countries. Perhaps a rule along the lines of if an artist has already charted on 10 reliable and accurate national charts it would be inappropriate to replace one of these with the Bubbling Under Chart? --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
01:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I didnt mean to ignore your questions. I just thought that by creating a minature guideline/list of criterion would answer/agree with most of you're suggestions as well as provide something we can implement to record charts? --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
01:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The difference with the particular incident I had w/ EnDaLeCoMpLeX in regards to
Joey + Rory's "
Cheater, Cheater" was that it was sourced in the past when it debuted on the chart. And it was removed because the link went dead, upon which I pointed out that
WP:Linkrot states that something doesn't become invaluable when a link does go dead. I'm fine w/ not using the chart anymore if people have such a problem w/ it, but this was a different case than me sayin' "oh, there's no source, but let's keep it."
CloversMallRat (
talk)
00:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Answers to JohnFromPinckney:upon first reading and before reading the comments from others
- 1. Yes
- 2. Yes
- 3. Discog is a summary. Use ONLY MAIN charts, to include sub-charts denigrates the MAIN charts shown (IMO). Readers can
- go to the INDIVIDUAL album, single, song, whatever page for greater detail which may include sub-charts.
- 4. NO over 100. Clearly wrong.
- 5. NO. I say don't show B.U.'s at all in Discogs per my comment at 3 and in my position above (earlier). Re:
Lady Gaga discography#Singles the note portion "position comparable to number 122 on the Billboard Hot 100." is nonsense. ANY number in excess of 100 cannot exist there.
- 6. Please point me to a specific ref at a specific article. I'd like to try to take a look at it.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Quick interjection to answer Iknow23's request: I've added the
Fat Joe discography to my #6 above. Click the footnote link next to any peak higher than 100, the refs for those are XML files at BB.com. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
07:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- YES, I hadn't even thought of that...but its an excellent idea I SUPPORT to include B.U. and other notable sub-charts in the Discog "intro) text, written as its real number (7, not 107)" and correctly stated as B.U. As regards to ref, that is ALWAYS a wiki requirement, no exception for this.
Re: double entries. Hadn't considered that either, but now that you mention it, if the B.U. column exists editors WILL use it whether 'we' want them to or not. 'If you build it, they will come.'—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Upon further reflection, I guess I wouldn't object to a B.U. column in a Discog ONLY in cases where NO Billboard Hot 100 Column or information is used. It would have to be CLEARLY marked in the table header and not just shown as US so as not to elevate itself to the same level as the other MAIN country/region charts shown. To put only US in the header, but a note to look to the bottom of the table for an explanation that it is 'only' the US B.U. is NOT acceptable.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- John's suggestion sounds really enticing. —
Legolas
(talk2me)
03:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, tried the XML in Opera browser and Firefox. The rendering I get is the same I believe as you put it "meaningless string of data". In IE7 it renders with all the tags shown, a table does NOT actually appear. I'm not familar with all that, but a quick check at
XML reveals: "Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a set of rules for encoding documents in
machine-readable form." Thus this is not meant for 'general' reading. My guess is that Billboard would not approve this form of obtaining or citing their data. A subscriber may have done something like a 'source code' on it and found a way to get it to show without Billboard's approval as they DO require a subscription for this service (as I've been told). The data may be entirely accurate but 'misappropriately' obtained by us non-subscribers following such XML links? So they would be a IMPROPER ref citation? What do you think?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
08:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the return results of the Billboard API. I have a subscription (free), and it does return XML descriptions for charts. When it was fully supported, it purposely gave one-month old data. They haven't updated the database since May 2010.—
Kww(
talk)
13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. Is that
this? I just found that URL in the last 10 minutes (via
Eminem discography). What's your view on same-column/other-column/not at all for B.U. peaks on discogs? —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
13:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've never thought the Bubbling Under charts should be listed. If they have to be listed, they need to be clearly identified and not treated as an extension of the main chart, which they most emphatically are not.—
Kww(
talk)
15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Then you would welcome a rewording of the "can also be seen as a 25-position addendum" in
Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles and at
Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs#Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles, yes?
Who else thinks so? (I guess I'll need to mention this at those articles' Talk pages. Or just change them.) —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let's just get Billboard to change it to Hot 125, ha!
Kevin, do you mean even with your Billboard SUBSCRIPTION, you ONLY see the XML with all the field tags? You do not get to see a 'proper' table? From
WP:IRS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,..." Do WE consider XML to be a PROPERLY published source? Or is it being 'sneaky' to use it? Help me understand further please.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
20:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Additional thoughts on
Fat Joe discography.
I don't have a problem with the inclusion of US R&B and US Rap, because in most of the tables US is the only country/region shown. Thus there is not overemphasis on US (that's all there is), as I'm sure if they had charted in other countries/regions THOSE would have been shown instead. However the problem with B.U. still exists. I won't dispute the other US charts shown in the 'As featured performer' table either, since there are only a TOTAL of five charts shown and the other US are clearly identified. However the note "A" is totally unnecessary, because like "Feelin' So Good" or "My Lifestyle (Remix)" or "New York", if the "A" items had charted in other than Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles it would have been shown in those columns instead of the dash. Note "B" is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Whenever just a country/region name is in the Column header. this means ONLY the MAIN chart is to reported there. As a compromise, I could accept just a "B" in the table with the FULL explanation in the note. I shall edit accordingly. Note "B" thus will become "A".—
Iknow23 (
talk)
21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- (Interjection) Welll, you took away the note, but left the incorrect positions. "Live Big" and "What is Sexy" didn't chart on
Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, only on
Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales. The notes you removed were the only clue to that fact. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- (Reply to interjection) Oh, that's part of the problem. See I didn't understand that. All part of the confusion caused when reporting MULTIPLE charts within the same column!—
Iknow23 (
talk)
01:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since I personally do not have a subscription to Billboard, am I the only who sees the XML as just a bunch of codes and no table?
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
talk)
21:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- EnDaLeCoMpLeX, I also do not have a subscription. In IE it shows ALL the field tags but you can sort out the info. With any other browser (reported thus far), you can't even pick out the info.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
21:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I use Firefox, and it just shows about 4 lines of this:
- "Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-11-25360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-10-28360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles1995-10-28345SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot ListedRelativityRelativity251Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-10-21360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales1995-10-14360SinglesFat JoeNot ListedSuccessNot Listed1251RelativityRelativity204".
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
talk)
22:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- sorry, I'm a little confused. I think I've missed the trick with all this XML stuff. Can someone please fill me in? (if its easier leave me a message on my talk page so it doesn't distract from the rest of the convo). --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- By now you've probably noticed my attempt to explain at
User talk:Lil-unique1#XML chart info. Let me if that doesn't satisfy your curiosity. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- So I guess the question now is, "does this XML file count as a reliable published source"? My only issue is that users hard of site and those who have little web experience might find it difficult interpreting such sources which could cause unecessary conflicts. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
00:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Billboard API
There's a lot of questions above about the Billboard API and my subscription. Actually, I have an API key. The API is for use by code, not human beings. It's described
here. If I write a piece of code like
- $sdate="2005-05-015";
- $edate="2010-08-015";
- $artist="Selena+Gomez";
- $song="Naturally";
- $billboard_contents=file_get_contents("
http://api.billboard.com/apisvc/chart/v1/list?sdate=$sdate&edate=$edate&artist=$artist&song=$song&api_key=myprivateproperty");
then I get back
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><searchResults firstPosition='1' totalReturned='50' totalRecords='151'><chartItem id='10558470' rank='10' exrank='7'><chart id='3119413'><name>U.K. Digital Songs</name><issueDate>2010-05-08</issueDate><specId>917</specId><specType>Singles</specType></chart><artist>Selena Gomez & The Scene</artist><writer /><song>Naturally</song><producer /><catalogNo /><promotion>Hollywood</promotion><distribution /><peak>7</peak><weeksOn>2</weeksOn></chartItem><chartItem id='10558276' rank='71' exrank='0'><chart id='3119403'><name>Canadian Hot 100 Airplay</name><issueDate>2010-05-08</issueDate><specId>905</specId><specType>Singles</specType></chart><artist>Selena Gomez & The Scene</artist><writer>A.Armato,T.James,D.Karaoglu</writer><song>Naturally</song><producer>A.Armato,T.James</producer><catalogNo /><promotion>Hollywood</promotion><distribution>Universal</distribution><peak>71</peak><weeksOn>2</weeksOn></chartItem><chartItem id='10557828' rank='13' exrank='8'><chart id='3119389'><name>Euro Digital Songs</name><issueDate>2010-05-08</issueDate><specId>846</specId><specType>Singles</specType></chart><artist>Selena Gomez & The Scene</artist><writer /><song>Naturally</song><producer /><catalogNo /><promotion>Hollywood</promotion><distribution /><peak>8</peak><weeksOn>2</weeksOn></chartItem><chartItem id='10557521' rank='51' exrank='56'><chart id='3119371'><name>Canadian Hot 100</name><issueDate>2010-05-08</issueDate><specId>793</specId><specType>Singles</specType></chart><artist>Selena Gomez & The Scene</artist><writer>A.Armato,T.James,D.Karaoglu</writer><song>Naturally</song><producer>A.Armato,T.James</producer><catalogNo /><promotion>Hollywood</promotion><distribution>Universal</distribution><peak>18</peak><weeksOn>17</weeksOn></chartItem>...massive amounts of data removed ... </searchResults>
It's not an interface intended for humans: it's a computer-to-computer interface. Billboard seems to have silently stopped updating the database the API accesses, so it's getting less and less useful every day.—
Kww(
talk)
23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank You. "It's not an interface intended for humans: it's a computer-to-computer interface." So my position is although this detail can be accessed, it is NOT 'published' for 'human' use thus inappropriate to use at Wikipedia. AGREE or DISAGEE? —
Iknow23 (
talk)
01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's certainly a valid source of information. It's verifiable, and the API keys are free. Figuring out how to cite it is a problem, and, since Billboard is no longer updating the database, I have to assume the database will disappear in the near future. It's that probable disappearance that disturbs me, not the source: if I thought it would remain stable, I'd set up a query site that glued Wikipedia to the API. Since it probably won't stay stable, it isn't worth the effort.—
Kww(
talk)
03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Didn't quite understand all that, but I am fine in taking your word for it. So XML is OK for references.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
03:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not until you can figure out a way to provide a citation to the Billboard API. I certainly don't know how to do that. I'm just saying it's not against policy, so long as there's an agreed upon way to cite it. I don't think it's worth the effort, because the database will go away soon, and we would have to undo all the citations. We still haven't fixed all the citations from the last time Billboard took things away.—
Kww(
talk)
03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alrighty then. Billboard sure likes to keep us busy aka drive us crazy—
Iknow23 (
talk)
05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Was XML ever discussed at
WP:RSN? Is there any guidance to be found there?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you question is: Is a database a valid source. This seems to be covered in
WP:SOURCEACCESS, because 'verifiability implies nothing about ease of access'. That being said what seems more important as
Kww said that this data is not being kept up to date so it of no long term use to Wikipedia. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
“
|
Eric444, are you saying it's OK to use 122 instead of 22? What does that .biz listing that you pointed to use (I'm not a subscriber)?
|
”
|
- I'm not a subscriber either, so unfortunately I can't say. What I can do is point you towards two sample pages from Joel Whitburn's books
here and
here which equate a Bubbling Under peak of #22 to a peak of #122 on the Hot 100. I think the best way to add Bubbling Under peaks is the way they've been added on
Lady Gaga's discography, using 122 with a footnote and a reference.
Eric444 (
talk)
03:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion
Since no clear consensus came of this, I guess we shall do this the old fashioned way by using Support or Oppose the removal of these charts. And I shall be the first:
- This is not always the case, how do you explain this
[9]. I used it in the "
Voices Carry" article, there you can see how the song debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 81, but have a position of 104 the week before, when it debuted on the Bubling Under Chart.
Frcm1988 (
talk)
03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bubbling Under is not to be used when it charts on the Hot 100. It is NOT listed in
WP:USCHART in the 'Condition table' at "If a song has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts to the right →"—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- So? I didn't add it to a table I mentioned it on the prose, besides this is not about the policies, I put this example because what the user above said is not exactly true.
Frcm1988 (
talk)
18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the removal of these charts, they're absolutely verifiable to anyone with a Joel Whitburn book or Billboard.biz membership. Plus, a peak of 118 does exist, as evidenced
here.
Eric444 (
talk)
04:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is nonsense to have a peak in excess of 100 when only 100 positions exist. The 118 is in effect a position of 18 on the BU chart. They are just stating it incorrerctly as 118 as a convenience.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
04:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly! If Billboard would just make the 25 extension, I probably would have never brought up this discussion. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
contributions) • (
let's chat)
15:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is (and this is what people always fail to understand, and why I oppose listing it as 101-125) is the the "Bubbling Under" chart has different rules from the Hot 100, and is a different chart. It is purposely and intentionally biased towards newer songs, and is designed to be a chart of songs that may chart in the future.—
Kww(
talk)
15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- FYI—From 1960 to 1985 the Bubbling Under chart started at #101, since 1992 it has been numbered 1–25.
Piriczki (
talk)
15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support A difficult to verify chart of no importance: if a song only charts on the Bubbling Under, then it never made a real chart. A chart of uncharted songs isn't really a chart at all.—
Kww(
talk)
15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support removal - these positions are never referenced properly, and are burdensome to verify.
Nowyouseeme
talk2me
16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support (strongly) - it is not possible to clarify the importance of the chart, the positions cannot always be exactly verified, there is no consensus on how they should be listed (e.g. 107 or number 7), and as shown in the discussions above there are too many ifs and buts... e.g. lets use it if we have XML files but not if we dont etc... Easiest thing is to say it CANNOT be used. --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree with you more. The easiest thing to do is just to remove them. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (
contributions) • (
let's chat)
17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not just the easiest... but in the interest of verifiability. Unless you want to create
WP:Record charts/Guide to adding bubbling under charts --
Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |
talk2me
18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting then that we should remove the verifiable CAN Country peaks prior to 2000?
Eric444 (
talk)
04:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- That came out wrong, so I'll clarify. With the RPM peaks, there're only a few months missing out of a 36-year archive, which is a very small portion (less than 2%); every thing else is easily accessible from one place. With Bubbling Under, the gaps are more significant, and there isn't a consistent source that covers every single one thoroughly. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention)
04:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Joel Whitburn's
Top Pop Singles 1955-2008 boasts the inclusion of every single song that appeared on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart, more than 7,300 in total, through December 2008. The only gap is January 2009-present, and surely those will be covered in the next edition.
Eric444 (
talk)
05:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have sent an email to Google books ...in hopes that Joel Whitburn's can be digitized...I was informed that this could be possible but will take about 6 months to do and would have to be the older edition.
Moxy (
talk)
15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
|