Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

View the Archive of older discussion. Last archived 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

Order

Are there any guidelines/preferences for the order in which the charts should be listed? Alphabetically? By posiition? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My assumption was that the charts would be listed alphabetically. If not that, then at least listing the home country of the artist first. Anyone else have a preference/opinion on this? -- eo 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

Shouldn't we be able to see chart trajectories for US, UK, Australia, and World on songs that charted there. It would be nice. I mean, if we are able to site sources for the trajectory. For example: (note the next examples are not real singers, chart position, or songs)

Chart (2006)	Peak position
U.S. Billboard Hot 100	2
UK Singles Top 75	7
Australia Singles Top 50	1
World Singles Top 40	1
Swiss Singles Top 100	34
France Singles Top 100	11
Austria Singles Top 75	12
New Zealand Singles Top 40	1

U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart trajectory
Week	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26
Chart position	100	76	31	10	10	8	11	8	9	4	5	2	2	2	3	6	7	11	12	18	23	29	32	33	47	43

UK Singles Top 75 chart trajectory
Week	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Chart position	9	7	8	10	14	19	24	26	29	34	33	47	58	50	67	66	56	75

Australia Singles Top 50 chart trajectory
Week	01	02
Chart position	1	etc

World Singles Top 40 chart trajectory
Week	01	02
Chart position	40	etc

I mean, it's just a thought. Also, "My Humps" already has this done. There's a good example. Tcatron565 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't there already about a billion song articles with trajectories already? I see them all over the place. -- eo 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There was some talk about putting this kind of thing in a project called "Wikidata", but I've heard nothing about that project for more than six months now. Jkelly 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll say what others (some on this very page) said months ago: this level of detail is more appropriate for a fansite or dedicated music wiki than an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Has a definite agreement been made about the inclusion or exclusion of trajectories? I tend to side with Extraordinary Machine's opinion and I noticed that ShadowHalo has started removing them from various articles (get ready for a bunch of angry pop music people!... I've already seen some reverted with snippy edit summaries... you're a brave soul). There are so many with trajectories (and component charts) at this point I don't even know how they will all be found - if it is decided that they should be removed from articles, that is. Anyone else have more to add? - eo 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I loathe singles trajectories, but have somewhat of a soft spot for albums trajectories, but we won't go into that right now. They should be removed, so go ahead and do it at your command. :) Velten 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you that I'm VERY upset with this new rule where we're deleting trajectories...so much so that I will no longer contribute to this site anymore (and you can see by my history that I've made a substantial # of contributions to various music-related Wiki-articles). I really don't see how having that data on the individual song's page hurts the quality of the article (especially when its placed at the bottom of the page...out of the way). For example, some of single pages on this site (i.e. Because of You), myself and others have been updating the trajectories week by week for over TWO years now...to just delete it all of a sudden is absurd. A LOT of people also use that data for various purposes, and there is really nowhere else you can find these stats (other than paying Billboard a hefty fee every year).

Finally, just putting up the first chart (i.e. the one that says "U.S. Billboard Hot 100" #2 etc etc.) is somewhat useless on its own. When you look at a song's performance, you don't ONLY want to see where the song peaked...how do you know if the song had a long run on the chart, or if it peaked and crashed very quickly? There's no context behind the initial chart, and that's exactly what the chart trajectories provide. Just because a song hit #1 doesn't mean it was necessarily successful (see: Do I Make You Proud)....just my 2 cents. Vikramsidhu 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We can write about the song's trajectory in the text. For example (from Cool (song)): "Cool" peaked at number thirteen in its eighth week and remained on the chart until its twentieth week"; "Cool" debuted higher on the Canadian Singles Chart than it did in the U.S. and ascended to number one three months later for two weeks, from October 13, 2005"; "Cool" debuted at number ten [in Australia] and quickly descended the chart". It's better to summarize than to elucidate. Velten 01:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But then that means one would have to wait until the song completely finishes its run on the charts before anyone can comment about the song's trajectory. Until then, no one would be able to write about how the song has done. In addition if one thinks about it, where did the information for Cool's trajectory come from? The trajectory chart (which was deleted some months ago). There's really no where else you can find a week-by-week breakdown of a song's trajectory unless someone either has a Billboard sub or is willing to dig through chart archives to piece together the song's history...Vikramsidhu 02:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it obvious by the amount of anger over the removal of the trajectories, and the constant reverting of the article to include the trajectory's that many people want to keep them! There are no other sites that provide this information so having them on wikipedia is very useful. Maybe if we cut down on the number allowed, maybe just UK, USA, Australia for example. Extraordinary Machine and ShadowHalo are the main offenders in removing them. Couldnt we just keep them until a definite decision is made on them. --Bojach 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing the Australian, UK and U.S. positions only is POV. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia from a worldwide perspective. For example, I'm Canadian and usually like to see Canadian chart positions and not the others indicated (and when I was still supporting them, I liked Canadian trajectories). There should also be international chart positions because some readers might want to know how an English song performed in a country where that's not the native language. Velten 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My belief is that only the Peak chart and Worldwide trajectory should be included, as these offer the best source of non-partisan data. Both are useful for showing the overall popularity of a song...Peak for individual countries, and World trajectory for overall sales. Worth a consideration? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. The world chart, definitely, but I don't know about the peak chart. Velten 01:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one can come to an agreement on the issue, why not just have the 'World Chart' (from mediatraffic) which please's Velten, ShadowHalo, Extraordinary Machine and then the rest of us will be happy that we still get to see the songs performance!--Bojach 01:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Having chart trajectories is not acceptable because it falls under WP:NOT#IINFO. It doesn't matter where a song charts in its fifth week on a specific chart. The peak position and duration on a chart are the significant information, and having every recorded position on one or more charts is completely excessive. Because this is an official Wikipedia policy, it can't be left in for the sole reason that Wikipedians want it there. — ShadowHalo 06:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a guideline

Why does the main page have no history as a proposal? Someone just made a guideline and labeled it as such? That doesn't seem proper to me. Wikipedia's gradually gaining the problem of having too many policies and guidelines to follow. However, if theres consensual support that this page is very useful - then so be it. Anyone want to verify that they support this page as a guideline? Fresheneesz 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I address your queston, perhaps I ought to ask you why you felt it necessary to archive (i.e. hide) the several days' worth of discussion (actually a few weeks, all told) — which included a straw poll of its own — that led to this guideline's having been created. If you'd actually read it, or even checked the page history, you'd have seen that this page was initially created as a talk page by a group of editors variously involved with WikiProject Music, of conflicting opinion on how certain information was best displayed; those editors were then able to hash out their differences before eventually, and with consensus, arriving at a solution. Only then was the "guideline" page created.

Your zeal to eliminate instructon creep is commendable; however, please don't lump legitimately agreed-upon solutions to editor conflicts that actually make a large number of articles better in with the needless red tape we're trying to cut through. --keepsleeping slack off! 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't. And your comment convinces me that this definately has consensus. I archived the content because it was old, stagnant, and this discussion page was pretty huge. Given that the discussions are over, I think most people won't be interested in reading them when first coming to this discussion page - of course if they are, theres a neat little archive link. I did glance at the history, but i was mostly looking at dates. If you feel that the content shouldn't be archived, feel free to put it back. Fresheneesz 06:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Table bonita

I've seen table bonita being used in some articles, is this allowed? Or is it supposed to be the normal table? ~ EmeZxX 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to be "wikitable". I don't know why the bonita template is being used, but whenever I see it, I correct it... don't know what other editors are doing. -- eo 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Weeks

Why aren't the charts allowed to show how many weeks a song was at number one? It's easier to measure a songs success with the amount of weeks included, a song which spent 14 weeks at number one on any given chart is more successful than one that spent one week. I think that's notable. --Thankyoubaby 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its more appropriate to mention number of weeks within an article. Once people start adding comments and # of weeks, etc. within a table it starts to look extremely sloppy. It also looks inconsistent when the amount of weeks is shown for some charts, but not others. It seems that some articles go overboard with non-#1 chart positions as well, I've cleaned up some tables that have shown, for example, # of weeks at number six. That's a liitle ridiculous in my opinion. - eo 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be detailed within the article only, however, perhaps the weeks could be listed next to the chart position if it's written as "(x)" instead of "(x week[s])". Velten 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Subscript numbers in charts

The relevant discussion is here. The current guideline states that subscript numbers should have a space between the chart name and itself. I find this questionable; why create unnecessary space and widen the table when they could simply be beside each other? This makes them look untidy too. My proposition is the following (taken from Cool (song)):

Chart (2005)	Peak position
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play1	1

instead of

Chart (2005)	Peak position
U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play 1	1

Thoughts? Velten 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like to have a space before the superscript number, but I find that to be a minor thing... I don't think the omission of the space is going to destroy the layout. Not sure what others are doing, but I think the space looks better. Probably can be done either way without many people noticing. - eo 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Which would also be fine. Velten 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I already said at Talk:Cool (song), I think it's easier to see the superscript when there is a space before it, though it's not terribly important. I'd advise Velten not to revise a guideline page after only one day's worth of discussion. Extraordinary Machine 13:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I suppose I jumped to a conclusion too quickly. Any other comments? Velten 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Component charts

It says that Billboard component charts shouldn't be used. Does this apply just to Billboard component charts or to all component charts? — ShadowHalo 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It should apply to all component charts, but very few other countries apply component charts to determine a chart position. I can't think of another country other than the U.S. that does this. Velten 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the article ¿Quién Me Iba A Decir?, which has airplay charts for Spain and Argentina. I'm also a little confused about the meaning of component chart. Are Modern Rock Tracks/Mainstream Rock Tracks considered component charts? — ShadowHalo 06:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Airplay charts should only be included if a song did not enter the singles chart. However, if an artist is not American, it would be all right to include both the singles and airplay chart for their heartland since many Billboard charts already occupy six fields in the "Charts" section of most articles. The Modern Rock Tracks and Mainstream Rock Tracks are not component charts. Velten 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If a country's official singles chart is available, there's no need to include an airplay chart because one chart is enough to give the reader an indication of the song's popularity in a certain country, regardless of whether the artist is from that country. If there was a significant discrepancy between airplay and sales, it should be discussed in the article. Genre-specific charts (e.g. the Billboard charts) tell the reader with which audiences the song was popular, and there are far fewer countries with genre-specific charts (much less easily available and/or verifiable ones) than airplay charts. Extraordinary Machine 16:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right, unless an airplay chart is genre-specific, such as Latin rock airplay, technopop airplay, etc. Velten 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the Billboard singles sales chart be included? A song could top that chart (an achievment) and not do as well on the main chart. Therefore a number one in sales should be included... --Thankyoubaby 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, because a song such as Madonna's "Jump" will reach #1 on the Hot 100 Singles Sales, but then fail to chart on the Hot 100. Velten 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Thankyoubaby 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps we can get more specific with cases such as this, like if a song failed to chart on Hot 100, but still did well on Sales or Airplay? Or maybe only if it reached #1? Seems as if that's what most song articles are doing now anyway. The only scenarios I think that need to be looked at are ones in which there are like 50 component charts shown. Overkill is overkill. - eo 14:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds good. There should really be no more than twenty charts. After all, most readers are probably looking for a worldwide overview of a song's chart performance and not merely Billboard's thousands of component charts, especially when the song in question was not recorded by an American performer, if you catch my drift. Velten 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Songs like "Jump" are exceptional cases anyway, so the discrepancy should be discussed in the article itself and there's no reason to add the component chart to the list of charts. — ShadowHalo 03:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I have another problem, songs like "Butterfly" by Mariah Carey were never released commercially, so never charted on the Hot 100, only on the Hot 100 Airplay chart, yet that is considered a component chart and was removed from the page. I think the airplay chart should be left on to give a better understanding of the songs performance at radio, if it was ineligable to chart on the Hot 100. --Thankyoubaby 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Butterfly" situation is just like the "Jump" situation. Personally I have no problem with using Hot 100 Sales or Hot 100 Airplay if the song did not make the Hot 100 for one reason or another. I'd guess that the component was removed from "Butterfly" accidentally in the midst of all this component-removal. - eo 20:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Charts for Albums

I notice that the main article specifically mentions singles, but not albums. Is there a separate charting guideline for albums that I've yet to discover, or is this a catch-all? If so, should the first line not be modified to reflect a wider coverage than just singles? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an incredibly good question. Well, if you look at Love. Angel. Music. Baby., I've formatted the charts according to this guideline. Velten 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline text should probably be changed to include albums as well as singles. - eo 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm very happy to see a guideline one way or the other (I'd preferrably like to see charts banned period, but oh well), perhaps some wording should be added addressing the permittance of other types of charts (trajectories, cumulative sales, etc). Or, a statement that only Peak position charts are acceptable. As it is, there is a tremendous amount of nebulosity in this official guideline :) Eh? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I should also ask (specifically referring to the Evanescence series of articles), to appease those who love charts, would it be acceptable to create a separate page (such as Evanescence music charts) to house them, and sub a main link and short paragraph for the charts on a given article? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this! The solution to a section of an article that may violate WP:NOT#IINFO is not to make an entire article that violates WP:NOT#IINFO! --keepsleeping slack off! 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's what I figured. I'm just having nightmares about the reverts that will have to be done. Oh well. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all those IPs. *sigh* Velten 01:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on including Albums under this guideline alongside singles? Without such a definition, it leaves those Album articles free to throw tables around. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Chart trajectories

Seeing as a few select people have a vendetta against chart trajectories. I propose to just have the 'United World Chart' which will allow everyone else to still be able to see the songs performance week by week. --Bojach 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

United World Chart
Week	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14
Position	1	1	2	5	6	10	13	20	19	24	23	28	33	31
Sales	615,000	327,000	257,000	184,000	143,000	112,000	103,000	90,000	76,000	71,000	70,000	66,000	66,000	73,000
Total	615,000	942,000	1,199,000	1,383,000	1,526,000	1,638,000	1,741,000	1,831,000	1,907,000	1,978,000	2,048,000	2,114,000	2,180,000	2,253,000

Just an example showing the position, sales/airplay for that week and cumulative sales/airplay.

It is not a vendetta against trajectories - it is a discussion about whether they are notable enough to be included on all of these song pages and whether or not they go against WP:NOT (see past discussions). Allowing one (United World Chart) could very easily lead to other trajectories being added in by various editors who are unfamiliar with the guideline and then we will be back to square one... so both sides need to be considered. This "everyone wants them except a few people" is untrue. Of all the editors of the Wikipedia, there really is a very small fraction that have any interest in chart positions anyway, much less a complete trajectory. - eo 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, chart positions are not supposed to be boldfaced, as you have done above. - eo 02:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point of the "trajectories" as a whole, but I absolutely must say that adding a "sales" trajectory (of which the example above is the first I've seen) is adding completely superfluous information — what could it possibly add to an article, besides the fact that the sales figures grow as more copies are sold over time (well, duh!!) that isn't pure cruft? It's numbers for the sake of having lots of numbers, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

As for the trajectories themselves, what is the source of the data? If it's being collected from a website or other source that's already updating in trajectory form, why can the article not simply feature a link to that source, so that the readers who actually care about trajectories can easily find them, without indiscriminately collecting trivial information in the article itself? And if it's not being collected from such a source, please give a reason that it shouldn't be considered original research. --keepsleeping slack off! 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They're categorized as original research; I agree on this entirely. Velten 01:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Even when they're not original research, chart trajectories go under indiscriminate information, plain and simple. They provide little useful information, especially for the space they use (see discussion above). — ShadowHalo 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely too. Velten 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability of national charts

Since only ten national charts should appear in a chart, how does one determine which countries' single charts are more notable than others? — ShadowHalo 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. Just look at Call Me When You're Sober for an example of extreme overkill... (of course, The Open Door suffer's it's own variety of problems chart-wise, and could use a knowledgable editor's culling skills). Population could be the criteria, but perhaps a better one might be annual sales averages (which might allow for smaller countries with more...purchase power?...than its larger cousins). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we referring to albums charts or singles charts? If you take a look at Cool (song), twenty charts are listed. I think this guideline should be applied to albums charts too. Anyway, because this is the English Wikipedia, I'd suggest including Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and United States as six essential charts. Fourteen positions would remain at this point. In my opinion, the most notable non-English charts include Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, South Africa. We should compile charts from all the continents to have a basic overview of how well the album or song performed across the world. Seven positions would remain after this, but... I'm uncertain of which should be included. Velten 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, both albums and singles need to be considered and included in these policies. Another one to include would be the United World Chart as the master summary. Spain and France might be good additions. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought only ten were supposed to be national charts and the other ten were additional charts like Pop 100 or Hot Latin Tracks. Speaking of Latin, that brings up another issue. Would it be preferable for Latin music to show the charts for English-speaking countries or Spanish-speaking/Latin American countries where the music is more popular? — ShadowHalo 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there should be as few Billboard charts listed as possible, especially if the recording artist is not American. If they aren't, a few charts from their heartland is acceptable, but the number should be kept low as to permit inclusion for charts around the world (remember, we want a worldwide perspective). Also, Latin music should come first in related articles (Shakira comes to mind) and English second. Velten 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

It'd be nice to settle the issue with chart trajectories, since there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus regarding them. So, my proposal:

A song/album's chart trajectory should not be included in an article, even if it is verifiable. Including the chart trajectory constitutes an indiscriminate collection of information. Chart trajectories should instead be described in the text of the article or in a table for charts. — ShadowHalo 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I favor album trajectories over single trajectories, I concur with this - I think allowing trajectories for some things and not others will lead to more confusion and argument than its really worth. Lets get a decision made, update the guideline and start removing this clutter. - eo 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur as well, and add that even textual descriptions in the body should be limited to only the most pertinant information, or else you'll have users go overboard like they do with trajectories currently. How to define this is another story, and can be defined at a later time. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I favour album trajectories over singles trajectories too, but it's just too much hassle. The information should be summarized in the article. Velten 20:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been over two days since the last response on this, and everyone who has responded concurs. Should we wait another couple days, or should I add this to the page? —ShadowHalo 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't add it just yet. Seriously, two days is nothing; give it a week, maybe even longer. It'd probably be a good idea to publicize this discussion a little more, too, say via a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and possibly Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; I've added notices to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. As of now, only four people have even given an opinion, and half of them have been working with this guideline since it was created. By the way, I concur. --keepsleeping slack off! 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, another week or two would be appropriate. Velten 02:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay; sounds good. As you can probably guess, I've never done a proposal. —ShadowHalo 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur On the rare instance of an interesting trend with chart positioning over time, such a thing can be explained in the text of an article. Like, if an album spent three weeks at #2 and then immediately dropped out of the top 50, that might warrant a mention. But not a table. -Freekee 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)