Jump to content

Template talk:Single chart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Singlechart)

Edit request

[edit]

Replace the link to Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique (a redirect) with a direct link to SNEP (the actual article). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Muhandes (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Could you do the same at Template:Album chart as per request? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Latin genre charts

[edit]

Tested, I also updated the names of the airplay-only Latin genre charts charts. Can these be added to the template? Erick (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude You did not sync before editing so your edit undos some previous edits, see Special:Diff/1279941821/1284941429. Can you please redo this properly? Muhandes (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget it, I did that myself.  Done. Please update the doc page. --Muhandes (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't excuse your French

[edit]

Please change "Les classement single" → "Les classements de singles" and "Les classement de telechargement single" → "Les classements des téléchargements de singles".
Or, even better, just write that in English.
P. S. No, I can't pardon your French. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscow Connection: I have exactly zero (or is it zéro?) knowledge in French, so I'm going to take your word for it.  Done --Muhandes (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: Thank you very much!!! Btw, sorry for the joke, but I couldn't resist. :-)
I, too, am not fluent in French. But this particular time my version looks "perfect" to me. I have also found similar phrasings in reliable sources. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection: I didn't author this template, so even if I wanted to, I have no reason to be offended. But if you start telling jokes about {{certification Table Entry}}, I may have to challenge you to a duel. Muhandes (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes: Oops, I've just understood that since we are talking about just one chart, it should be "Le classement de singles" and "Le classement des téléchargements de singles". Change it again, please. I hope the Wikipedia servers will be able to handle this.
Here is the prove it is correct French:
• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Le+classement+de+singles%22;
• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Le+classement+des+t%C3%A9l%C3%A9chargements+de+singles%22.
In plural ("Les classements"), it was grammatically correct too. But the way the phrases are used in the references, they imply just one chart. So please change to singular. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is just when I originally saw the references say "Les classement", without "s", I thought someone meant "Les classements", in plural. That's what I came here to correct. "Les classements" is correct, and "Le classement" is correct. But the latter is better, cause the references imply just one chart and not "French charts in general". --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection: Well, this is all French to me.  Done Muhandes (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking category for unknown chart param value?

[edit]

It seems like it would be useful to have such a category, to track incorrect fills in 1=, since it can't be easily done now. Just having a category on line 426 in the code would work.

+ also few minor fixes:

  • Billboardglobal200 is listed twice
  • "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles" should be replaced to "Bubbling Under Hot 100" being the actual chart name and the article's title
  • Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) -> Radio Songs (chart)
  • Christian Songs -> Hot Christian Songs
  • [[Dance/Electronic Songs|Hot Dance/Electronic Songs]] -> [[Hot Dance/Electronic Songs]]
  • [[Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay|R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay]] -> [[R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay]]; (Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay) -> (R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay)
  • Might be also worth changing "Japan Hot 100" to "Billboard Japan Hot 100" as it's actual chart name (and the article title) and to clearly distinguish the chart from Orion.
  • "German" value is no longer used anywhere [1] and may be removed from the code.
  • "UKchartstats" value also no longer used anywhere [2] and may be removed from the code.

Solidest (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done: [3] Solidest (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC) UPD: Took out alias removal for now for a separate discussion, leaving only what shouldn't cause any questions. Solidest (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Muhandes (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unused aliases?

[edit]

There are many aliases of chart values in the template that are not used anywhere. At the moment there are 200 variants of chart entries in total. 138 of them are unique. 62 aliases. 39 aliases have no uses (their categories don't exist or are empty). Is there any practical use in keeping the variability? It seems to me that in conditions when we track the usage of each by distinct category, it makes no sense to multiply aliases. As with template parameters, they should be gradually cleaned and removed from the code. Here's the full list with an empty categories of actual aliases with original name through the dash:

Of the whole list, I only have questions about Orion(2) vs Japan(2), where it would probably be better to use Japan for consistency. But probably if it was really needed, it would have been done with AWB by now. Solidest (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there are also a few aliases that have not so many uses, so they too could be replaced by the main version and removed if needed.
Solidest (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up all of the above by changing to the prevailing variants so that they can be removed as well. And for the sake of completeness, here are all the other remaining aliases that are still in use (paired with the alternative version):
Some of them are not used that often, but it seems that in some cases it is better to go for the variant with the least number of uses (as in the case of Belgium) as it is more accurate and standardised. I think this is worth discussing separately if needed, but for now I suggest to remove only the completely unused ones. Solidest (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: I don't see why anyone would object. Most of these are just from the demonym, which I would rather be consistent and remove. I suggest you go ahead and implement in the sandbox. Muhandes (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agree with that. Done - [4]. Removed all the unused ones, sorted the remaining aliases so that the main one goes first. And also did minor corrections to the formatting of spaces (so now it looks similar to the "album chart" code). Solidest (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely finished with the aliases at this point: [5]. Updated Template:Single chart/testcases and found some bugs there, which I also fixed in the code (errors required date when in reality chartid was needed + Oricon2 was duplicating the automatic refname from Oricon and I added a prefix there + minor formatting stuff).
The fixes can be carried over to the live version, and after that empty categories from Category:Single chart usage with aliases should be also nuked. Solidest (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: from a quick look it looks fine, but there are a lot of changes so I would rather do that when I am available to revert it if something goes wrong, and I am not available, health-wise, for that now. If no one else does it by then, I should be better by the end of the week. Muhandes (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, no reason to rush and take care of yourself! Solidest (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-US Billboard

[edit]

I think Canada should wait as I've found 2 errors so far. Can I Get A... and All of You (Julio Iglesias and Diana Ross song) are using the Canada chart. However, the Canadian hot 100 didn't start until 2007. These might be RPM Top Singles peaks instead. Therefore, any song from 2006 and earlier should be checked first before changing the template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I went through Argentina but ran into problems. Tini's Billboard page is blank. With Emilia, her page doesn't have any Argentina peaks despite being listed as a featured artist on charted songs like Perdonarte Para Que? with Los Angeles Azules. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canada is a bit tricky at the moment as there are two parallel sites. Our code now leads to the US version of billboard.com charts and it seems that many of the Canadian charts don't work there at all. Billboardcanadaac, Billboardcanadachrtop40, Billboardcanadacountry, Billboardcanadahotac, Billboardcanadarock links everywhere are not working now. And with Canada/Billboardcanadianhot100, judging by your examples - as luck would have it. While the working site with all valid charts is https://ca.billboard.com/charts , but there are no separate pages for artists there, search does not cover charts either. It is only possible to manually flip through the calendar, so using it in code is difficult. I don't know if this has always been the case, but I can assume that sometime ago links worked better and we keep them for archived versions. Probably a similar situation with Argentina - they have a distinct site, similar to Canada : https://billboard.ar/billboard-charts/ . P.S. But storing aliases for them doesn't affect anything in that regard. They've just been equivalent in the code for a long time. Solidest (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Hot 100 still works, like this link for My Life Would Suck Without You. For my above examples, it's more a matter of the wrong chart being used. RPM ended in 2000 while the Canadian hot 100 didn't start until 2007. Changing any Canada ones with RPM peaks from 2000 and earlier isn't a simple change either, as the template required the chartid. A song pre-2007 could have also charted later on the Canadian Hot 100, like at Thriller (song). But yeah, it's bad that many Billboard Canadian charts are broken. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to create a query to check all the uses of the Canadian Hot 100 up to 2007 (inclusive): https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=34576187. As far as I can tell, some singles do have Billboard's data from before 2007 on the site — for example, 50 Cent has quite a few such entries: https://www.billboard.com/artist/50-cent/chart-history/cns/. Solidest (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the search isn't capturing all of the results. Can I Get A... is from 98 while All of You is from 84. It might be easier to search for songs/single released between 1964-2000 that use the Canadian Hot 100 template, as that's when RPM ran. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, I've tried tweaking this on PetScan, but the results are still inaccurate. But it seems that the built-in wiki search handles the same query more accurately: including 2007 releases excluding 2007 releases. Solidest (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definetly looks better, as it's found other ones like Heart Attack (Olivia Newton-John song) and Catch My Fall. It can be cut down even more by removing the 2007 ones Doesn't seem to be too much as the rest are mostly later peaks (2020s) or Christmas songs. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The posted link already excluded 2007 releases, but added both for accuracy. Solidest (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the 2007 link. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TopHit update

[edit]

As you know, TopHit updated its interface more than a year ago. I suggest this code for the template: 

 
|Russia
|Russian
|Russianairplay={{!}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}|Russia Airplay ([[TopHit]])|{{main other|[[Category:Single chart used with missing parameters]]}}<span style="color:red;">ERROR: MUST PROVIDE date FOR Russian CHART</span>}}{{#tag:ref|"[https://tophit.com/chart/top/radio/hits/ru/weekly/{{{date}}} Top Radio Hits Russia Weekly Chart]." [[TopHit]]. {{#if:{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate|}}}}}}|{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate}}}}}}. }} {{#if:{{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}| Retrieved {{{access-date|{{{accessdate}}}}}}. }}|name={{#if:{{{refname|}}}|{{{refname}}}|"sc_{{trim|{{{1|}}}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} {{Single chart/chartnote|{{{note|}}}}}

But now it will be necessary to use the publication date of the chart in the articles. 

 
{{single chart|Russia|1|date=20250418-20250424|publish-date=April 24, 2025|rowheader=true|access-date=April 28, 2025}}

If so, here is a similar one for other countries published by TopHit that do not have alternative charts. 

 
|Belarus={{!}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}|Belarus Airplay ([[TopHit]])|{{main other|[[Category:Single chart used with missing parameters]]}}<span style="color:red;">ERROR: MUST PROVIDE date FOR Belarusian CHART</span>}}{{#tag:ref|"[https://tophit.com/chart/top/radio/hits/by/weekly/{{{date}}} Top Radio Hits Belarus Weekly Chart]." [[TopHit]]. {{#if:{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate|}}}}}}|{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate}}}}}}. }} {{#if:{{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}| Retrieved {{{access-date|{{{accessdate}}}}}}. }}|name={{#if:{{{refname|}}}|{{{refname}}}|"sc_{{trim|{{{1|}}}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} {{Single chart/chartnote|{{{note|}}}}}

|Estonia={{!}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}|Estonia Airplay ([[TopHit]])|{{main other|[[Category:Single chart used with missing parameters]]}}<span style="color:red;">ERROR: MUST PROVIDE date FOR Estonian CHART</span>}}{{#tag:ref|"[https://tophit.com/chart/top/radio/hits/ee/weekly/{{{date}}} Top Radio Hits Estonia Weekly Chart]." [[TopHit]]. {{#if:{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate|}}}}}}|{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate}}}}}}. }} {{#if:{{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}| Retrieved {{{access-date|{{{accessdate}}}}}}. }}|name={{#if:{{{refname|}}}|{{{refname}}}|"sc_{{trim|{{{1|}}}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} {{Single chart/chartnote|{{{note|}}}}}

|Kazakhstan={{!}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}|Kazakhstan Airplay ([[TopHit]])|{{main other|[[Category:Single chart used with missing parameters]]}}<span style="color:red;">ERROR: MUST PROVIDE date FOR Kazakh CHART</span>}}{{#tag:ref|"[https://tophit.com/chart/top/radio/hits/kz/weekly/{{{date}}} Top Radio Hits Kazakhstan Weekly Chart]." [[TopHit]]. {{#if:{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate|}}}}}}|{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate}}}}}}. }} {{#if:{{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}| Retrieved {{{access-date|{{{accessdate}}}}}}. }}|name={{#if:{{{refname|}}}|{{{refname}}}|"sc_{{trim|{{{1|}}}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} {{Single chart/chartnote|{{{note|}}}}}

|Moldova={{!}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}|Moldova Airplay ([[TopHit]])|{{main other|[[Category:Single chart used with missing parameters]]}}<span style="color:red;">ERROR: MUST PROVIDE date FOR Moldavian CHART</span>}}{{#tag:ref|"[https://tophit.com/chart/top/radio/hits/md/weekly/{{{date}}} Top Radio Hits Moldova Weekly Chart]." [[TopHit]]. {{#if:{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate|}}}}}}|{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate}}}}}}. }} {{#if:{{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}| Retrieved {{{access-date|{{{accessdate}}}}}}. }}|name={{#if:{{{refname|}}}|{{{refname}}}|"sc_{{trim|{{{1|}}}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} {{Single chart/chartnote|{{{note|}}}}}

|Ukraine
|Ukrainian 
|Ukraineairplay={{!}}{{#if:{{{date|}}}|Ukraine Airplay ([[TopHit]])|{{main other|[[Category:Single chart used with missing parameters]]}}<span style="color:red;">ERROR: MUST PROVIDE date FOR Ukrainian CHART</span>}}{{#tag:ref|"[https://tophit.com/chart/top/radio/hits/ua/weekly/{{{date}}} Top Radio Hits Ukraine Weekly Chart]." [[TopHit]]. {{#if:{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate|}}}}}}|{{{publish-date|{{{publishdate}}}}}}. }} {{#if:{{{access-date|{{{accessdate|}}}}}}| Retrieved {{{access-date|{{{accessdate}}}}}}. }}|name={{#if:{{{refname|}}}|{{{refname}}}|"sc_{{trim|{{{1|}}}}}_{{{artist|}}}"}}|group={{#if:{{{refgroup|}}}| "{{{refgroup}}}"}}}} {{Single chart/chartnote|{{{note|}}}}}

Sanslogique (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth replacing "Airplay" with "Radio Hits", as this is the actual name of the chart in all such cases. Solidest (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanslogique We discussed the technical and reliability issues with the Russian chart here. The solution we arrived at was that |date= remains mandatory, while if |chartid= is present, the template will understand that this is the second incarnation of the TopHit charts and if it is not present, it will revert to the first incarnation. I don't see this anywhere in the code.
As for counties that do not have alternative charts, I think this could be implemented into the sandbox and tested, right after the changes Solidest made above are incorporated, most likely this weekend. Muhandes (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanslogique: Are you still interested in this? You did not answer my question. Muhandes (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm interested in this, otherwise I wouldn't have started this topic. Sanslogique (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanslogique: Well then, you didn't address my respond above. Let me repeat it. The solution we arrived at was that |date= remains mandatory, while if |chartid= is present, the template will understand that this is the second incarnation of the TopHit charts and if it is not present, it will revert to the first incarnation. I don't see this anywhere in the code.
I would add that the other regions should probably follow that pattern, in the sense that they should require both |date= remains mandatory, while if |chartid=. I don't know if this makes sense, it will depend on the implementation. Muhandes (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the format I have proposed to be optimal. The dates entered in the templates before the update won't work anyway, and there's nothing you can do about it. I do not suggest using (|chartid=), but simply (|publish-date=) to indicate the date in the note. In older versions of the template in articles, you can manually correct the date by searching for it on tophit. Sanslogique (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC) UPD Is it possible to include a Russian streaming chart in the template? (Discussion).--Sanslogique (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanslogique The proposed solution would render 400 instances of the template unsourced, which I think is unacceptable. Muhandes (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the earlier discussion, but having two charts under a single name seems overly complicated to me. If we want to keep both versions, I'd suggest renaming the old one to "Russiaold" and showing only archived links for it (or keep it as is - "Russia", but it will probably cause erroneous fills). Then we could add the new chart as "Russiaradio", along with the requested "Russiastreaming".
That said, I agree it would be preferable to simply replace the old version with the new one, to avoid unnecessary complications, stop storing potentially incorrect/deprecated data from that site, and prioritize up-to-date, sourced information. I don't think it would be difficult for bot maintainers to replace the old dates with the new ones, since the logic seems consistent: the old date is always Monday, while the new range runs from Friday to Friday (−3 to +4 days). The new entries could be checked manually after the replacement — or I could try scraping this data as well. Recalculations don't seem to happen constantly, but it's hard to say how common they are. UPD: I've thoroughly checked, and it looks like date= can be any day of the week, and the chart positions are always changing. Solidest (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: It's not that I want to keep both versions. This has nothing with what I want. We have 400 articles using this version. If we remove the old version, we end up with 400 articles with unsourced material, or, even worse, pointing to a source that never existed and a position that does not match what the article says. This is unacceptable. I see your answer below addresses some of it and I will respond there. Muhandes (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, I think I made a script that can entirely update all the charts to new IDs and get new chart positions from the site automatically. So it seems to me that the most optimal option is to add a new chart "Russiaradio", I'll replace all the chart uses and then we delete the deprecated "Russia" chart from the code. Solidest (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: good news indeed. I'm not sure how exactly you are going to do that, considering the peak on the new chart is not necessarily on the same week, month or year of the peak on the old chart, but I presume you address this. Also, some songs have peaks on the old chart do not chart at all on the new chart, but I presume there are only a few of those and you can handle them manually. A remaining problem is articles which refer to those peaks in the article body through named references, using the |refname= parameter. If you create a list of articles using the |refname= parameter, you can check them manually and correct them. I presume there are not many of them but I have no way of telling. I will add the new chart so you can start running your script. Muhandes (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked a couple of dozen songs and haven’t found any cases where the peak moved to a completely different week, month, or year. In all the cases I checked, the peak still falls within the same chart week (running from Friday to Thursday). So I simply recalculate the new date range from the prepared data set based on the old date and manually approving the peak positions change. And also collect the artist name and song title from the site. Do you have any specific examples where the peak shifted to a completely different week or month compared to the old data? Maybe it's because the old chart in the article was already outdated? In most cases, peaks shift by just 2–3 positions, though in some they move by several dozen — but even then, the old date still falls within the new chart week. Solidest (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that when this was introduced, the first three songs I checked were enough to show all three options - a different peak, a peak on a different weak and no peak at all. This is especially true for songs at the end of the chart, such that with the new chart they may never enter, or may enter a week later. I will try to provide examples. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This first song I tried, Flames (R3hab, Zayn and Jungleboi song), shows the problem. The old peak is 36 at 2019-12-30. The new peak is a 37 at the next year. I'm not sure how a script is going to find that.
ETA: I thought you might be able to grab the peak from the artist page, but I don't see how. the song page is not much help either. Muhandes (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've refined the script, now it takes the old date as a starting point and then checks all the following weeks one by one until the song disappears from the charts, and then all the previous weeks. And then at the end it picks the lowest number (highest peak) it can find. I think it should work for 98% of cases, except for obscure ones when songs left the chart and came back again (these cases are probably not relevant for the script and should be treated as usual chart update) or when a song fell out of the charts due to site update - the script will also skip these cases and we will need to manually check them. And also the script will end with a list of cases where refname/refgroup was used. If there are not too many of them, I'll fix them myself, otherwise I will post them here. 10:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Btw, I saw you added it as Russia2 to sandbox. I think it's not a good idea when the only working variant for the country gonna be the one with the number 2, so we should avoid it right away given, as we now assume that the old variant will be deleted after replacements. And by the way, Airplay name should also be changed to 'Radio Hits' as I wrote it before. Or is Airplay chosen deliberately for standardization? Streaming charts on the site are also called 'Internet Hits'. Solidest (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: Apologies for the delayed response — I was busy enjoying an extended hospital stay. It's standard practice (we’ve done it four or five times already) to replace a defunct chart with a new one using a two-step process. First, we replace every instance of "Russia" with "Russia2" through some automated or semi-automated process. Once that’s done, we run a quick bot pass to finalize the switch — replacing "Russia2" with "Russia" and removing the option for the older citation. This ensures consistent sourcing throughout. The sandbox is now live and we have the options for Russia2, Estonia, Kazakhstan and Moldova (Pinging Sanslogique). You can now run your script, replacing Russia with Russia2, and let us know how it work.
By the way, Ukraine seems to be in a similar situation. We can do that at a later date. Muhandes (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, why don't we just add the final RussiaRadio + RussiaInternet charts right away? And the same goes for Ukraine. Solidest (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: If you mean replacing the existing one, that would mean 400 articles will have wrong sources, which is unacceptable. Muhandes (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean adding these two as new IDs. I'll replace the values from "Russia" to "Russiaradio" using the script, and then we'll simply delete the "Russia" chart and keep both "Russiaradio" and "Russiainternet". It's a similar situation to Hungary, where "Hungaryradio" became the main name instead of just "Hungary", because there are also "Hungarysingle", "Hungarystreaming", etc. I'm not sure we need to keep "Russia" (or maybe we still should?), and I don't see the need to temporarily add "Russia2" when we can go straight to the final, more precise names. Solidest (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Russia needs to stay until the 400-ish instances are replaced with something else. Once this is done, it can be removed. We don't have Russiainternet and no one asked for it, so I'm not sure why you mention it. If you prefer to use Russiaradio over Russia2, I don't oppose, but since this is the only chart for Russia, there is no need to use "radio" in the name. Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanslogique asked about streaming/internet chart here. Solidest (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. I changed the Russia2 to Russiaradio. Muhandes (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, above it was discussed that the date range (20130118-20130124) should be filled in chartid=, but now in the code it is filled in date=. Is this correct? Solidest (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I originally suggested using |chartid= to bridge the old and new website formats. Since you’re now planning to fully replace the older format, it’s no longer needed. Muhandes (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made 20 test edits. Overall, there don't seem to be any critical issues, except for a few isolated cases where the site previously displayed incorrect data that was added to articles, and later updated the chart entries. For example:
  • [6] — previously, the site listed the track as “40 Degrees” at position 56, but now, for the same week, only “40 Degrees (Alex Ortega & Ivan Demsoff Remix)” appears at position 96. It doesn’t appear to be a case of two different tracks being listed — the original track is no longer present on the website at all, which suggests that the site simply corrected the data.
  • [7] — previously, 2Pac’s “All Eyez on Me” appeared at position 22; now it lists a remix by DJ Dark & Mentol titled “All Eyez On Me (Gangsta Mix)” at position 23.
UPD: Another Day in Paradise has also dropped out of the chart, and the script cannot find it in +3 -3 weeks rang from the current date. Solidest (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. I recommend not marking the edits as minor, since they do alter the content. Muhandes (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes The new charts also need to have positions centered, as the numbers are misaligned in some places after the changes: In the Dark (Dev song)#Weekly charts. Solidest (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the alignment issue. Muhandes (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed all possible replacements. Among the entries that remain in Category:Single chart usages for Russia: "Another Day in Paradise" + "Safe (Westlife song)" have disappeared from the new site, "Far l'amore" - previously, there was a remix version in the chart, but now it lists the original track from the 70s - A far l'amore comincia tu. All the others are songs that ranked between positions 100 and 500, while the new links only show up to position 100. I have two ideas on how to address this:
  1. We could simply convert the links to the standard cite web format and use the Web Archive.
  2. Alternatively, we could add an extra link using the songid= parameter — following the same method currently used for CIS. Links like [8] display chart data only as an interactive chart. By selecting "Charts: Russia" above the first graph and hovering over the highest point, a tooltip reveals the chart position. For this track, it’s #195 on October 20, 2005.
Solidest (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an archive exists, I think it should be used. Otherwise, I think entries which disappeared from the site can be removed. It's most likely they had very few spins anyway. Per WP:OVER200, if the peak is over 200 it shouldn't be listed. Muhandes (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced all remaining entries for the "Russia" chart with web archive links where possible, and removed the position in three articles where the archive wasn't available. In cases where the refname parameter was used, I also updated the text where necessary. The old chart can be removed from the code, and a similar update can be added for Ukraine — I'm going to replace it as well. Solidest (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errors ouput normalization

[edit]

I updated the tests page to output all possible types of errors. And I got a message User talk:Solidest#Template:Single chart/testcases that one of the outputs gets into the system tracking of errors that have been entirely cleaned up. And you can see from the test page how scattered error output is, there are 4 variants of them now: text replacement in the table, append in the table, inclusion in front of the table, inclusion in the notes. And it seems to me that all this can be solved through the creation of a sub-template for the error text, to which we will pass the chart name and the required parameter. And call the template always from the same place - where the citations are locate, to output them in the same form in the table. This will have to simplify and standardize the code considerably and wouldn't be difficult to implement. I could start implementing it myself. But would like to get opinions or maybe there are something I'm missing with specific cases? Solidest (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest sandbox version, I have prepared a correction that implemented error sub-template use as described above. Also fixed the Australia+Bulgaria output outside of the table that triggered "Lint errors: Fostered content validation." And made all chart names always displayed even if params are missing. Everything works correctly. Next we need to decide:
  • First, whether we want to hide the citation generation completely if error triggered or whether is it still better to provide ref with unformatted url link. I have a 50/50 opinion here. On the one hand broken urls in references are bad. On the other hand it's much more convenient to have a link at hand that you can go to and find the data you need to fix, instead of always going to documentation (I miss this often).
  • Second, where do we want to display the error message - only in the table or also in the reflist.
And then we will need to bring everything to the same format. And finally, also add errors to all other charts, which now display non-working urls with placeholders, but don't output any errors. Solidest (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These changes to the error display have already been applied to the main template, but the questions above are still relevant. I’d like us to reach a consensus on how to display errors so that I can finish the code with a consistent approach. Solidest (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhandes:, I would be interested to hear your opinion on this. I'm ready to bring everything to a consistent look in the code, I just want to coordinate how we want to display errors. At the moment I'm thinking of leaving red text only in the table, and not generating refs or red text in the notes at all if one of the required parameters is missing, i.e. if error triggered, you'll need to check the documentation or the code to find the site of this specific chart. Or if we want to make things a bit more convenient, we can additionally add a switch in {{Single chart/error}} for each chart something like a message: <Look for correct data on 'this' site>. Solidest (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: My opinion remains that this template is fundamentally flawed. As such, I have no objection to any changes made to it, nor do I have any opinion on what those changes should be. Apologies if this sounds harsh, but I believe any modification at this stage would amount to little more than a band-aid solution. This template—along with the accompanying album template—requires a complete rewrite, ideally modeled after {{cite certification}} and {{certification Table Entry}} (apologies for tooting my own horn there). Muhandes (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Template:Cite certification suffers from the same issue I'm addressing here: chaotic error output. In certification templates, identical errors can appear in various places — either in the table (replacing the country name), in the notes, or both — depending on the country. This is resulted by dozens of similar error messages and error categories being placed inconsistently in the code. Therefore, it's also worth systematizing the error handling in the certification templates, as I've done here, by creating an /error sub-template. This sub-template stores standardized error messages along with the call to the missing-parameters category. And could potentially send you to a site where you should look for the required IDs directly from the article (this is what the certification template also lacks). And it also helps reduce repetitive code. Then it will be much easier to figure out where to put the error calls for uniform and convenient output, but for that we need to decide where we want them to be. That's the whole point of this discussion. Solidest (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor clarification, when I said "modelled after", I was referring to the way the certification templates distinguish between code that creates citations, and code that displays things. Error systemization is worth thinking about for those templates as well, but this is not the place for it. Muhandes (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>but this is not the place for it
What do you mean? Here we are talking about the uniform output of technical messages within this specific template. And this is a purely technical and maintenance thing, which concerns mostly people here or those who visit documentation and can check talks too. The case itself is rather narrow and specific (output to a table and output to notes in the absence of data for building external links is rather a rare case). It seems quite correct to discuss it on the discussion page among those who regularly work with the template? Or do you just mean that links to this discussion should also be posted in album chart and cite certification talk pages? Solidest (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. Personally, I always thought of the chart templates and the certification templates as very different beasts, but I must admit this smells a bit NIH-ish. I take back that statement. Muhandes (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the fact that chart templates are worth rewriting - I agree. But such fixes just build a foundation for future versions. And to be honest, it seems that all three templates should be rather generalised to a universal module, and all link-building parameters for certifications, single/album charts should be stored in three separate JSONs. As an experiment I tried to do something that in Cursor, passing two charts modules for unification according to this scheme to get a unified module for charts, and the finished result already looked quite working and flexible enough, but still required spending time with sandboxes, tests and checking for nuances, which I'm not ready to spend time on yet. Solidest (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Solidest: I guess I did not answer your original questions in a useful manner.
1) My preference is not to create a source which is invalid. I think such sources undermine the purpose of the template, which is to create valid sources.
2) My preference is alert both in the chart and in the reflist. This increases the chance that authors pay attention to their errors. Muhandes (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa2

[edit]

I think there's something wrong the Official South African Charts, not the identifier or template, but the URL. Nowadays there's always something like -3/ after the year, which is messing with the identifier. See this for an example. So, is there a way an |id= or something can be introduced to the weekly charts to fix this? dxneo (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo It is certainly not the case that [n]owadays there's always something like -3/ after the year. For example, here is a a week earlier, and two weeks earlier, which seem to work correctly. Can you research it properly and determine when it occurs? Is it a one-time thing or does it happen often? Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started noticing this when I used it on "Push 2 Start". I'll look into and see if there's a pattern. And another problem is that the template uses top-10 while the website is on top-50 now. dxneo (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo I may be able to fix the top-50 issue, but again, can you be more specific? When did the website start using top-50? For reference, the code currently uses top-100 before 2023 and top-10 from 2023 onwards. Muhandes (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The error started occurring on week 04. Week 06 is also not accessible. Okay, now here's something interesting; this is week 09, URL says week-09, but this is week 10 and the URL says week-09 and it has that -2/ thing, meaning week-10 will result in error. Week 12 has -3/, meaning it wasn't a once-off thing. They started using the Top 50 on week 13. Hope this isn't confusing. dxneo (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo From what you describe, the URL discrepancy occurred a limited number of times in an unpredictable manner. The template does not have a generic URL override feature, and implementing one may require a complete rewrite. I don't think this justifies the effort so I would simply recommend not using the template for those dates. As for the top-50 issue, I added this to my TDL. Muhandes (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo: top-50 issue  Done. Muhandes (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

As per MOS:ITALICS and WP:CS1, the website in a reference must be italicized. For all the automatic references, such as the UK charts, please italicize the website. Lazman321 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Many publications are already italicized. Please be explicit about the exact changes you want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Rock (Billboard)

[edit]

Looks like Canada Rock no longer exists at Billboard. For example, this link for Never Never (Korn song) doesn't exist. The latest archived copy I can find is from July 2024. The earliest Canada Mainstream Rock and Canada Modern Rock charts I can find are from January 2025.However, I'm not sure when these new charts actually started and if Canada Rock split into these 2 charts instead. Should Canada Mainstream Rock and Canada Modern Rock be added to the template? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: I see no reason why they cannot be used. Are you able to add them to the sandbox yourself or do you need help with that? Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it'd be easy to just add the chart history links. However, Canada Mainstream Rock doesn't appear for Shinedown and Canada Modern Rock doesn't appear for Linkin Park. Perhaps because it's on the Billboard Canada website that it's not on the chart history. Not sure how to incorporate this then. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333: Do you mean these charts does not appear on the Chart History page at all? If so, we can reference by date, the same way we do for the Philippines Hot 100 chart. Is that what you had in mind? Muhandes (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they don't show up in the artist's chart history. If referencing by date is easier, that could work. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333 Have a look at Template:Single chart/testcases#Canadamainstreamrock and Canadamodernrock, see if this is what you need. Muhandes (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Muhandes (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chart-name parameters again

[edit]

A couple years ago, I started a discussion about adding a chart-name parameter to the template, but it didn't get much feedback. I'm going to try again. If technologically possible, an optional chart-name parameter should be added to pipe links to older chart names, to maintain historical accuracy. Other users believe consistency is more important, but in truth, both are vital practices, and a chart-name parameter could fix that, as it seems rash to maintain consistency based on the automatic output of one single template. To reiterate, the parameter will allow users to pipe links used in the template to other names, like Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs to Hot Black Singles, Pop Airplay to Mainstream Top 40, Recorded Music NZ to RIANZ, and PROMUSICAE to AFYVE. We practice something similar for musical acts that previously went under different names (Kodaline, Fatboy Slim, Jam & Spoon, Dave Lee), so it's only fair to give this a try too. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such manual entries in articles will only add chaos and errors that are impossible to track. This approach has many issues and questions, such as maintaining chart continuity (some are called continuations of the old chart, some are positioned as new, and some are unclear, like Pop 100). Sources sometimes break historical context (the track was in the old chart name, but the sources such as the Billboard site point to the new one, while other printed sources point to the old one). Billboard itself creates maximum problems with how they choose titles. Some chart titles have literally been juggled between each other for several decades, like the ‘Rock Songs’ chart, which first became ‘Hot Rock Songs,’ then became ‘Hot Rock & Alternative Songs.’ Then ‘Hot Rock Songs’ and ‘Hot Alternative Songs’ appeared as new charts. And now we have two different ‘Hot Rock Songs’ charts. So, how important is it to show the historical name in this context? Or, conversely, is it better to always use the modern/latest chart names? I am definitely in favour of the second option, since I can foresee how many problems the first option would cause. Therefore, I am against the chart-name parameter. If it is truly important to preserve the historical names of the charts (which I doubt), then this should be addressed through the year parameter and the automatic display of historical names based on that. This is not very easy to implement, and it would be necessary to fill in the year parameters in every article, but at least it would allow us to avoid many problems. Solidest (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using modern chart names has similar problems, such as, when a chart or company updates its name, editors have to go through thousands of song articles making changes to non-template instances. Even if it doesn't happen often, that sounds like a pain. I understand that it would be difficult to add a chart-name parameter, but would the first option be any easier? Also, in the case with the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart, using the template can be misleading for older songs, especially those from before the 1960s, when hip-hop music wasn't really a thing. I have experienced cases where an edit I made was partially reverted for doing this ([9]), as well as a case where I was wholly reverted for "introduc[ing] supposed chart compilers that didn't even exist at the time" ([10]). In other words, they can create valid anachronisms. Using year parameters won't be enough either, as chart names can change any time (Album Rock Tracks changed to Mainstream Rock Tracks in the middle of April '96) Just to simply my idea, the chart-name parameter will be completely optional and will display what is typed in it as a piped link. Even though it sounds easy, I know it won't be, but if consistency truly outrules accuracy, I get it. I appreciate the in-depth review, at any rate. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A major issue in this regard is that the tables always display the same link to a modern website, which corresponds only to the current chart title. For example, in your first example, the text refers to "Hot Black Singles", but the source only confirms an entry in the "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" chart, and the link contains no information about the chart's former names. All contextual information about the renaming remains in the article about the chart itself. I'm not sure how reliable this is in terms of source usage, but it could arguably be considered original research to some extent. Entries in historical charts can only be confirmed through printed sources or web archives, and the template does not automate this. If you have sources for peak positions in an older variants of the chart, you will most likely not use this template and you can specify the needed chart name in plain text. And if you're linking to a modern site, it's probably appropriate to publish that information in the articles as is. It will be accurate relative to the source, as the data holder itself allows such anachronisms. But that's probably debatable. Solidest (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m with Solidest on this one—seems like too much hassle, and the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Muhandes (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Single_chart&oldid=1295412958"