Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Archive 16

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

New Billboard Rock/Alternative charts

See https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9399590/hot-rock-alternative-songs-chart-revamped

Looks like they’re splitting “Hot Rock Songs” into “Hot Rock & Alternative” and “Hot Hard Rock”, to address the fact that Alternative is moving away from the traditional rock sound (something I’ve observed and feel makes sense, as someone who contributes a lot to the current and recent rock music areas.)

Anyways, we’ll have to rework the Billboard chart flow chart a little, but not much. Pretty much just sub in the two new ones wherever the Hot Rock Songs chart was and were pretty much good to go. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically, Hot Rock Songs was renamed to Hot Rock & Alternative while Hot Hard Rock and Hot Alternative Songs are brand new charts. This is confusing for the following reasons:

There is already an Alternative songs chart a.k.a. Modern Rock Tracks. Both Hot Rock & Alternative and Hot Alternative Songs are from this week. Therefore, there should be a clarification that Hot Rock & Alternative means the song is considered both rock and alternative while Hot Alternative Songs is just alternative. I presume this won't effect Wikipedia:Record_charts/Billboard_charts_guide as Hot Alternative Songs is a component chart of Hot Rock Songs (which has been renamed hot rock & alternative). But since two charts have alternative in their chart name (Hot Alternative Songs and Alternative Songs), is the new chart considered a main chart or another component chart? If it's a component, then a note should be added stating this is for songs that charted from 13 June 2020 onwards, but Alternative Songs still exists. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
As for Hot Hard Rock, would this be considered a component chart of Hot Rock & Alternative? There is already a Hard Rock Digital Songs at Billboard_charts#Rock, so I'm wondering if Hot Hard Rock is related. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding was that any of the charts with the “Hot (genre)” in them were a major chart, not a component chart, and that any of the charts with “Digital” are download sales charts (no streaming or radio airplay.) I don’t follow all of the genre charts, so I don’t know for sure, but that was the meaning I had derived from their otherwise counterintuitive naming structure. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If Hot charts are considered major charts (I'm sure Hot Rock & Alternative will be as its a rename of Hot Rock Songs), then a note should be added to the Billboard chart guide saying its a rename of Hot Rock Songs in June 2020 and not related to Alternative songs (both with and without Hot). As for Hot Alternative Songs and Hot Hard Rock Songs, IDK considering Alternative songs still exists without Hot in their name. A note would have to be added to Hot Alternative songs as well stating this is not related to Alternative Songs (without Hot in their name) and only applies to songs from 13 June 2020 onwards. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Songs on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart are not considered both rock AND alternative, but either rock OR alternative (although they can be both). Neither Hot Alternative Songs or Hot Hard Rock Songs are component charts. Component charts are combined via some formula to create an overall chart. Hot Alternative Songs and Hot Hard Rock Songs are distillations of the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart based on whoever decides what is alternative and what is hard rock. This is similar to the Hot R&B Songs and Hot Rap Songs charts being distillations of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. All of Billboard's "HOT" charts use the Hot 100 formula that is based on airplay over all formats, streaming, and sales (the components). Alternative Songs is solely based on the airplay on monitored radio stations that play predominately alternative music and is a completely separate chart from Hot Alternative Songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Its worth noting that Hot R&B Songs and Hot Rap songs are being treated as components of the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. Without using "Urban" as a derogatory term, the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart tracks songs with that have either components of R&B, or rap or blend both together. In the same vein (and billboard say this in their article), Hot Rock Songs and Hot Alternative Songs are the same as the R&B and Rap Songs charts. They employ the same chart methodology as the their parent chart Hot Rock & Alternative Songs (mixed readings - sales, streaming and airplay) so each chart tracks the same data that appears in the parent chart, just stripping out genre. According to the billboard article, Alternative Songs (airplay only) is a component of Hot Alternative Songs which in turn is a distillation/component of Hot Rock Songs and Hot Alternative Songs. Following the same rules as other charts, if a song appears on the Hot Rock Songs and Hot Alternative Songs then either Hot Rock and Hot Alternative shouldn't appear in the chart table. Nor should Rock Airplay, Rock Digital, Alternative Airplay or Alternative Digital. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:49 am, Today (UTC+1)

@Lil-unique1: The thing is, Hot Rock Songs have been renamed to Hot Rock & Alternative. But yeah, I think I see what you mean: if a song has charted on Hot Rock and Alternative, should Hot Alternative Songs be added as well if it charted there? To me, it's redundant having two Hot Alternative charts plus the Alternative Songs chart without Hot in their name. Also, I've left a note on Template talk:Single chart as it'd effect this template, and invited other editors to join this discussion. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hot Rock and Alternative Songs tracks songs across both genres. Hot Rock Songs and Hot Alternative songs have been introduced using the same methodology but only tracking one of the two genres. Therefore if song charts on the Hot Rock and Alternative Songs their respective Hot "genre" chart should not be listed. Similar the Hot Airplay, streaming or Digital charts shouldn't be listed either. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Hot Alternative Songs should not have been made and instead just have Hot Rock and Alternative songs as a catchall for both genres. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Country Airplay is allowed, so why wouldn't Rock Airplay continue to be allowed? Neither are components to any specific parent chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically Country Airplay isn't allowed when Country songs is present per the article for Hot Country Songs, it tracks digital, airplay and streaming of country songs. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars I haven't been involved in country music but was heavily involved in the original introduction of the Billboard charts guide. From what I can fathom from the billboard article, the following applies:

Hot Rocks Songs (as it used to) is now Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart, allowing songs from both Rock and Alternative genres to chart. Full definition below.
The 50-position Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart, which will continue to rank songs via a blend of streaming, radio airplay and sales data as tracked by Nielsen Music/MRC Data (the same methodology that powers the Hot 100), will house songs deemed either rock or alternative or both, as it expands beyond a listing of core rock titles, including those with an alternative bent, to include songs considered a hybrid of pop and alternative, rap and alternative and more.
In doing this they've also created two concurrent genre charts: Hot Alternative Songs and Hot Hard Rock Songs. Both are calculated in the same was as Hot Rock & Alternative Songs with the only difference being genre specific criteria.
As a result of the above changes, Alternative Songs Airplay and Rock Songs airplay are now tracked as part of the new methodology for Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart meaning they're components of the chart, same as Hot Rock Digital and Hot Alternative Digital. Billboard explicitly says this is the same multi-metric methodology as the Hot 100.
Its explained later in the article too; "Additionally, Billboard has launched two new 25-position charts, employing the same multi-metric methodology, as offshoots of Hot Rock & Alternative Songs: Hot Alternative Songs, which will include only songs categorized as alternative in any way, and Hot Hard Rock Songs, which will feature only guitar-based rock songs with a heavier edge."
- Thus Rock Airplay is now a component of Hot Rock & Alternative Songs (which track sales, streaming and airplay of songs that meet the genre criteria of rock and/or alternative songs)
Applying the same metric means that they're offshoots and therefore distillations/components as they track the same data.

To be honest, if there is the same rules and chart methodology for Country then those charts need looking at too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not correct. The airplay component of the "Hot" charts encompasses airplay of monitored radio stations over all formats (pop, country, R&B, rock. etc.), while the genre-specific airplay charts only measure airplay of radio stations for that format. Songs have to qualify as a song of the genre to be eligible on that genre's "hot" chart. Any song that is played on a specific type of radio format can chart on that genre's airplay chart. "Old Town Road" hit the Country Airplay chart but was not considered a country song by Billboard and was not eligible for the Hot Country Songs chart. Lorde's "Royals" received massive airplay on R&B stations and climbed R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay but was not eligible for Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that's correct buddy. If you look on Old Town Road's article, it charted on both the Hot Country Airplay and the Hot Country Songs charts. I'm not sure from Billboard's article, you can surmise that when they say multi-metric Hot 100 they mean all radio stations. Metric is specifically referring to streaming, sales, digital and airplay. Do you have a specific reference to say that "Royals" wasn't eligible to chart on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart? Another reason songs don't chart on the multimetric charts is because although airplay might be high for example, when ranked against sales and streams for the relevant genre, it doesn't earn enough weighting points to be included on the main chart. We need a clearer universal understanding rather than the two examples given, where one of the examples doesn't even support the point being made. It is very confusing but it is really important we get this right :/ ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Old Town Road" was removed from the Hot Country Songs chart because Billboard decided it wasn't country enough, thus making it ineligible. Otherwise, it would have been a number one on Hot Country Songs because it was number one on the Hot 100. "Royals" was #2 on Streaming Songs and a #1 on Digital Songs. If Billboard deemed it R&B, it would have reached at least those positions on the R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs and R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs. These sub-charts aren't based on who streams and buys them, they're based on what genre they are classified as by Billboard. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

To be specific, your statement "Alternative Songs Airplay and Rock Songs airplay are now tracked as part of the new methodology for Hot Rock & Alternative Songs" is not true. Songs classified by Billboard as rock/alternative are eligible for the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart, ranked by using the same Hot 100 methodology of airplay, streaming, and sales. This means the airplay component comes from the amount of airplay over all the same radio stations used for the Hot 100 (not just rock stations, but any station Billboard monitors regardless of format). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds a bit synthesisy. The article says the same multi-metric methodology as the Hot 100 not the same stations. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh? But that's what "same" means. It's not only the same methodology, it's the same exact formula, just parsing out the songs for each particular genre chart. That's why the order of the songs on each "hot" genre chart is in the same exact order on the Hot 100, the only difference being how each chart's recurrent rules work. [1]. Genre airplay charts are not components to their "hot" counterparts. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

So if I've understood you correctly Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, we're saying Hot "Genre" Chart tracks songs of a particular genre across all radio formats while Genre airplay songs only track songs played on specific format radio stations? So basically that means the following interms of main and component charts using this genre as a example?

Main Chart	Component Charts	Non-component charts (specific airplay format)
Hot Rock & Alternative Songs	Hot Alternative Songs Hot Hard Rock Songs	Rock airplay Alternative airplay
Hot R&B/Hip-hop Songs	Hot R&B/Hip-hop Airplay Hot R&B/Hip-hop Digital Hot R&B/Hip-hop Streaming	Rap Songs R&B Songs

Hot Alternative and Hot Hard Rock are classified as component charts because they track the same data and airplay formats just noting specific genres whilst the airplay specific charts track songs of a X genre playing on X genre radio stations. Is this correct? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on this table and how Billboard does these today, R&B and Rap Songs should be under components and Hot R&B/Hip-hop Airplay should be a non-component. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought that similar to how the Hot 100 is computed, R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay, R&B/Hip-Hop Digital and R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming were the three metrics that tracked together to form the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart? That would make sense to me so we're saying don't include the seperate airplay, digital or streaming charts except for the Genre Specific Radio Airplay charts like Rap Songs or R&B songs. Or have I misunderstood that? I'm trying to get my head around it so we can edit the WP:USCHARTS table because it's clearly now incorrect if what you're saying is correct. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

From my understanding, R&B Songs and Rap Songs have been "Hot" charts since 2012, meaning they use the Hot 100 methodology, only that one contains R&B songs and the other only hip-hop/rap songs.

Here's a family tree visual of the Hot 100. It's made up of its three components (its parents) and the various "hot" genre charts (its children, not all of which are listed here). If the #1 song on the Hot 100 is classified as hip hop, it will automatically be #1 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot Rap Songs charts. If the #2 song on the Hot 100 is classified as alternative, it will be #1 on Hot Rock & Alternative Songs as well as Hot Alternative Songs by default. The formula applied to all the Hot charts comes from however Billboard weights the three components. Genre streaming/digital charts are simply distillations by song classification of the overall streaming/digital charts.

Radio Songs

Digital Songs

Streaming Songs

Hot 100

Hot Country Songs

Hot Rock & Alternative Songs

Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs

Hot Hard Rock Songs

Hot Alternative Songs

Hot R&B Songs

Hot Rap Songs

The genre airplay charts monitor the songs being played by those radio stations of a specific format. While "Level of Concern" is the #1 song on Rock Airplay, the top "rock/alternative" song on the Radio Songs chart is "Everything I Wanted" (at #20 this week). It's these overall airplay points that make up the airplay component of all the "hot" charts. I may be beating a dead horse on that now. :) Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if you think you're beating a dead horse, I actually found that incredibly useful. In light of what you've said, its clear that WP:USCHARTS is incorrect and needs updating. Are you happy to do this, including adding a section for country? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you found it useful. I just wasn't sure if you had already understood my point about airplay, and I might have been running it into the ground. I'll mock something up in my sandbox and present it here, hopefully, within a week or so. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I’m glad I brought this up, as there’s more going on here than I previously thought. I’m fine with whatever, I just wanted to make sure the new charts were officially represented here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment – So have we reached a consensus? Should we change the name of the charts? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable Billboard song charts

In response to the preceding discussion, I have put together a revised list of acceptable Billboard song charts. Please look at this as a draft and not a proposal, as I am sure refinements are necessary. Feel free to edit as you please. Your feedback and questions are very much welcome. When agreement or consensus is reached on the content, we can update the existing criteria. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Layout is clear. I cannot vouch for the accuracy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd wait a week to see if any additional comments were received. The Billboard song charts criteria has now been updated. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about confusing Mexico Airplay article

Please see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico Airplay ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted artists of Billboard chart history

Hello. I was wondering if anyone knew why some artists are deleted from Billboard's Chart History. For example, I've found both Elise Estrada and Loverboy have been deleted despite being there in the past. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I've noticed this too and am curious as to why it's happening. Popular artists such as Nine Days, Go West, and even the B-52's have also had their histories removed or redirected to the main page without explanation. Either Billboard's planning another format change or they're gone for good, in which case we'll have to resort to citing specific chart dates (some of which require paid subscriptions), archives, or the digital copies at World Radio History. ResPM^{come to my window} 01:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Strangely, I found the B52s with an extra 2 in the url here. The other ones no luck. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Hmm... I had a nagging feeling the B-52's were relocated, so thanks for that. At least there's minimal hope. ResPM^{come to my window} 11:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: I think we need a list of deleted artists that need to be manually fixed as the single charts/album charts generate broken links. Just found that Miilkbone is broken as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I don't know who all is missing, but I'm assuming it's a fair chunk. The only other ones I can remember off the top of my head are Karen Ramirez and George Baker Selection, who to my knowledge don't seem to have any archived pages. I've encountered many more instances of this, so this list is bound to be extensive. ResPM^{come to my window} 20:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Yeah. I was going by the ones that I saw were broken. I would understand if specific charts were deleted but not the entire artist history. If you do find at least one archived Billboard chart history link for Karen Ramirez and George Baker Selection, please let me know. I'm going to email Billboard with the ones that did have an archived web copy and ask why they have been deleted. Also, I archived the B52s new linked ones just in case ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Sounds good to me. I'll keep a look out. ResPM^{come to my window} 20:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: and @MrLinkinPark333: Far East Movement are also gone. I had to use Ryan Tedder for the Rockeeter article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Yeah, it seems dance-related musicians are the most targeted group. If you can't find a song on Billboard, just look for an archive of their page or an archive of AllMusic before they removed the Awards tab, such as this one. ResPM^{come to my window} 14:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Billboard has always been a nightmare for this. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: I was lucky because the song featured Ryan Tedder, so no prolem. They even had a number one hit, let's just erase them? Makes no sense to me. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: It's the same case with Timmy T, Hi-Five, and Extreme, who all had US number-one hits but had their pages deleted. Meanwhile, Manic Street Preachers have not had one single US hit, but strangely enough, their page still survives. ResPM^{come to my window} 20:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mexican Albums

Hey does anyone know where I can see the full list of the Top 100 albums chart and Top 20 Spanish albums chart? I know that the Amprofon website shows the weekly top 10 but I'm looking into seeing the full list. If someone knows where I can see the full list of each week please let me know. Thanks! FanDePopLatino (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Nielsen Soundscan not reliable

I’ve noticed lately that several albums certifications have included a source that majority of all cite Nielsen Soundscan as a source of reference regarding the current sales of albums. But according to the [[Recording Industry Association of America (a.k.a. RIAA)]] Website it states “For accuracy’s sake, we require that you send us sales figures directly from your databases. We have been asked why we don’t use sales figures from SoundScan. SoundScan measures over-the-counter sales at music retail locations, while our certification levels are based on unit shipments and digital sales/streams (minus returns) from record labels and manufacturers to a wide range of accounts, including non-retail record clubs, mail order houses, specialty stores, units shipped for Internet fulfillment or direct marketing sales, such as TV-advertised albums. In addition, SoundScan’s archive begins in 1991, while the RIAA has tracked artists’ sales levels for nearly 60 years.” https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/apply/

If you physically can’t use Nielsen Soundscan as a source to require a certification that evidently would mean Wikipedia shouldn’t be allowing references citing Nielsen as source for current sales of albums and singles.

I have noticed from the past few days now that most references have been coming from Billboard magazine but according to this source https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-releases/2014/nielsen-and-billboard-expand-relationship/ it clarifies Billboard only uses Nielsens databases since they have a partnership together. Evidently that would show why Billboard uses them as a reference.

I believe if we are going to post certifications regarding albums and singles, it should be coming from the RIAA website stating the actual amount. If the website states an album is 3X Platinum (3,000,000 copies sold) then so should our tables. The RIAA website is cited as a source but almost never followed. All artists receive a plaque stating the level of certification and amount sold, how do you think these artists would feel knowing that their plaques physically state “3,000,000 copies sold” when Wikipedia is stating 1,500,000 because a source states it?

I know I’m most likely going to make several users upset about this, but if the certification company physically states Nielsen Soundscan is not reliable, then I would hope we of Wikipedia would follow through with it and obey it.

Thank you. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere does RIAA state that Nielsen Soundscan is unreliable, they say that they use different systems for counting sales. Certifications do come from the RIAA website (which also has a long-standing error, anyway), but RIAA doesn't give sales figures. Can you give an example of where a certification is for 3 million sales but the sales source only states 1.5 million? I'd be surprised if there was that great a difference. Richard3120 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The Fragile, Lemonade (Beyoncé album), B'Day are several examples. From how I understood, the RIAA sounds as if they don’t allow sources for a certification coming from Nielsen because it’s not reliable enough. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, over the counter sales are an accurate measure of total sales. Nielsen Soundscan does that. RIAA does something different, relying heavily on units shipped, not actually sold, and so early in the sales cycle, their numbers could be wildly out. Maybe we should ignore RIAA's numbers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you’ve ever seen an RIAA plaque it states “Sold” not shipped. But then what’s the point in sourcing the RIAA if we’re not going to follow it? If you look at other countries certification numbers, they follow what they’re agency has granted them. I would initially believe we shall follow through as well. Like I previously said what artists wants to see a random number in the table when it clearly says 3X Platinum. When was this rule enforced? Pillowdelight (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have. It's amazing what they put on plaques when clearly they state what record is "unit shipments and digital sales/streams (minus returns) from record labels", not sales to consumers. Also, please learn how to indent your responses correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree the Nine Inch Nails discrepancy looks odd. But the Beyoncé ones are easily explained by the difference in dates for the sales source and the certification... when the Billboard article quoted the sales figure for Lemonade in January 2017, it still only had a single platinum certification from RIAA, so that's consistent. It then becomes a case of whether it's worth quoting a sales figure that's clearly been superseded since.

Regarding the RIAA plaque, I don't know what it says now, but RIAA and most certification providers before 2014 used shipped units from the record company, not over the counter sales for their certifications, because before downloads and streaming there was no way of counting every single sale of a record in shops. RIAA's certifications may go back to 1958, but for more than 50 years those certifications were based on audits of the record company's shipments, not shop sales. It's also the case that before 2014 in most countries, certifications were not awarded automatically – a record company had to be a member of RIAA, and had to pay for the audit and many smaller labels didn't bother with the time and expense. So a certification is not a reliable measure of sales for records before the digital era... there are records that are known to be million-sellers from the time that never went to the trouble of obtaining a certification, so they don't appear in RIAA's database. And that's apart from the major error in RIAA's website that doesn't take note that certification levels were halved in 1989, so any gold record certified before this date should say 1 millon certified units instead of 0.5, and platinum certifications before 1989 should say 2 million units. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

But like I asked when was this rule enforced stating we need to follow over the counter sales and not the actual certification number from the main source itself. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have also noticed one song in particular has both the certification numbers included in the box. (12,000,000/2,000,000) one from the RIAA and the other being a different source. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying that the certification table should never include sales figures from other sources, simply the RIAA certification and its equivalent automatically-generated sales level? So the sales would only be accurate to the most recent million (1,000,000 or 2,000,000, etc)? Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Honestly if you take a look at other countries certifications numbers they follow exactly with what their agency has granted them. Not sure why we need to be different and follow through with what another source states. I mean like I previously asked when was this rule enforced stating we need to only add in the sales and not the actual certification number from the main source itself? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That's ludicrous. RIAA has their numbers, which are their numbers, and Nielsen Soundscan's numbers are different, that is immaterial, they are their numbers. As long as each is sourced, we report the reported figures and don't prefer one over another. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly Pillowdelight, your first statement is not true – for example, in the UK Stars by Simply Red is certified 12× platinum by the BPI, which would be the equivalent of 3.6 million units. But the latest sales figures from the OCC for the album are for 3.45 million sales. So this discrepancy exists in other countries. More importantly, it puts Wikipedia in contradiction with official sales charts from official chart providers. If, for example, I look at List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom, Thriller has a lower certification than The Dark Side of the Moon and Brothers in Arms, and by your reckoning should be at number eight equal with four other albums. And yet the UK's official chart provider explicitly states it is the sixth biggest-seller in the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The past several days Pillowdelight has edit-warred, left emotional and uncivil comments on talk pages, so it's nice to see that they've taken this step to start a thread on this talk page (even though myself, @88marcus:, @Apoxyomenus: @HaeB: and @Harout72: have tried to explain to them how certifications and sales work here, here and here. As another editor recently told me "you should realize that there is an issue of comprehension (WP:COMPETENCE). At which point, there is nothing more that can be said". So true. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely is not ludicrous, again if we are sourcing certifications from the RIAA why are we not following it? Nielsen Soundscan is NOT a certification agency. Like I’ve previously asked when was this rule enforced stating we need to add over the counter sales? The table calls for RIAA’s numbers not Nielsen’s. Unless you can prove where it states we need to add Nielsen’s numbers then please do so. If not then I would initially believe it should remain only RIAA’s numbers Pillowdelight (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

But you haven't explained why RIAA's numbers should be more believable than Nielsen's, especially when Nielsen is the company that actually collects the numbers... as Walter says, RIAA have their methodolology, Nielsen have theirs, neither is "more correct" than the other. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Blastmaster, I apologize if you believe I was being harsh and uncivil. It is once again very odd we aren’t following the correct source for certifications which I had stated. And I even apologized to you on your talk page as well. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Nielsen Soundscan is a company that is recognized for accurately reporting sales. If RIAA's numbers disagree with Soundscan numbers and both are referenced, it's not our job to justify the discrepancy. RIAA's are not more or less reliable than Soundscan's; even when they do not agree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve stated before, if we’re going to source the RIAA’s certifications we might as well follow through with their numbers as well. The table doesn’t call for Nielsen’s reports it calls for RIAA’s. I get that the numbers may be off from each other but again the table calls for the RIAA’s not Nielsen’s. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Almost all Wikipedia albums articles use sales not shipments when there's info about it. You have to remember this is a website that is used and written most for people which speak English and it's no easy to find info about sales from other countries, especially about old albums and that's why most international articles here don't use sales info, also, not all countries have companies like Nielsen Soundscan. The users can even use only sales when there's no indication that the album was certified. When record companies distribute the albums to shops and the album flopped the CDs return to the label and they're destroyed by them, that's why shippments are almost insignificant, because they don't show us nothing about the real album performance. I think the way Wikipedia users did till now is perfectly right.--88marcus (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

But like I’ve previously asked many times now when was this rule enforced stating we need to only source Nielsen’s reports on sales? You all sound like you are against this decision but can’t answer my question on when this rule was instated. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Go ahead and use RIAA's numbers, but don't remove Nielsen Soundscan numbers. If they don't agree with RIAA's numbers, it's all the more important to have a second source, one that is independent of record label interference, to support units sold.

I' be bold enough to say that if you continue to remove sourced remove Nielsen Soundscan numbers, you will likely face a topic ban at best or a site ban at worst. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please learn how to comment on talk pages? Ask if you need help, but stop making a mess of threaded conversations and indenting.

There is no rule stating we need to only source Nielsen Soundscan numbers, WP:V and WP:RS say we need to source anything that could be challenged.

Show us where anyone is making the claim you want us to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Old Town Road is an example that uses both, which I am very much comfortable with. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for my indentations. Old Town Road is an example that uses both, which I am very much comfortable with. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And where is someone making a claim about not including one or the other figure on that song? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that Nielsen figure is measuring the same thing as the certification figure. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the source, it's not. It looks like it's downloads in one sub-section. They indicate more than double that number overall in the prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the certification table is written:

"Certified units/ sales" and then, below it's explained "*sales figures based on certification alone" or "^shipments figures based on certification alone",so when there's only sales don't seem difficult to people understand and conclude that the album sold more or less than its certifications. To my view this is more accurate and informative than give the number necessary to get a Gold or platinum record by those companies.--88marcus (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t take a look at the source, just noticed 2 separate numbers one definitely coming from the RIAA the other didn’t look figured it was a Nielsen report. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

From the looks of how Template:Certification Table Entry/testcases (via Template: Certification Table Entry) Is set up if a certification is unavailable that’s when you bring in a different source stating the records sold. But since there is a certification available for all these albums you have to include it? Pillowdelight (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pillowdelight: everyone is trying to explain to you, RIAA certifies shipments not sales. Sometimes albums don't even reach reach near a certification level in sales but certify for shipments and streaming so it's unknown how many copies an album actually sold in pure sales just from RIAA. Nilsen Soundscan is the proper source to use for sales since they actually calculate pure album sales. Now you kept saying quote: how do you think these artists would feel knowing that their plaques physically state “3,000,000 copies sold” when Wikipedia is stating 1,500,000 because a source states it? but yet you are okay with lowering the sales of albums to match the certification level instead of the actual sales like you did in Dangerously in Love (from 5,000,000 to 4,000,000) and B'Day (from 3,400,000 to 3,000,000) so by doing that you are contradicting your own argument. Before when one song from an album had success, a lot of people would buy the album because of just that song. Now if someone likes one song from the album they can choose to listen to just that song instead of having to get the whole album. That's why you see that a single song from an album can have millions more in streaming than other songs from the same album. Beyonce's album Lemonade is a newer album where certifications are mostly based on streaming because nowadays is harder for an album to sell physical copies in the U.S. since most people listen only to the certain songs from the album on streaming services like Spotify for example. That's why that album has a lower number of pure sales unlike her older albums which actually sold more than what they have certified. There's nothing wrong with including sales figures from Nielsen Soundscan. They are the best source for pure sales in the U.S. that we can use. FanDePopLatino (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

they were lowered because it matches with what the RIAA has given it. And again, no one has shown where it physically states to bring in Nielsen’s numbers. And from the looks of Template:Certification Table Entry/testcases (via Template: Certification Table Entry) if a certification is unavailable that’s when you bring in a different source stating the sales (Nielsen). But since all of these have sources from the RIAA stating the certification numbers I’d leave it as what the RIAA has given it. This really shouldn’t be difficult to understand. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pillowdelight: What shouldn't be difficult to understand is that we use RIAA for certifications but if we find a reliable source for the sales then we list those even if the album/song has a certification. Sometimes albums keep selling and Nielsen Soundscan reports the sales but RIAA doesn't update the certification level. That happened with Dangerously In Love which was certified 4x platinum (4 million) in 2004 and then in 2015 Nielsen Soundscan reported that it had reached sales of 5 million but RIAA hasn't updated the certification level. Just because RIAA doesn't update the certification level that doesn't mean that the album didn't sell 5 million copies. You need to understand that. There's nothing else I can say to try to help you understand. FanDePopLatino (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

List of chart abbreviations

Is there a place where I can see a list of how each Billboard chart should be abbreviated in Discography tables? For example, the Billboard Hot 100 chart is written as "US", the Adult Top 40 chart is written as "US Adult", the Top Heatseekers chart is written as US Heat, etc. But I'm not sure where all of these abbreviations are explained, and it's not apparent what abbreviations should be used for specific genre charts. --Jpcase (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

India (and other Non-US Top Lists)

If a song charted India, what website can I use to prove that? Juju (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If the chart doesn't have its own website, it probably isn't a notable or valid chart. Does India have a nationally recognised chart? iTunes and Spotify are not valid charts, they fail WP:SINGLEVENDOR. So what chart are you talking about? Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Number-one songs categories

Consensus has long determined that categories for number-one albums is non-defining and results in overcategorization. I think the same is true for categories for number-one songs, especially when taken to the level of Category:United Kingdom number-one singles by chart and Category:Billboard number-one singles by chart. Per WP:CATDEF, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". Songs like Let It Be and Poker Face have topped charts in numerous countries but its doubtful they are referred to as such commonly and consistently (occasionally, maybe) as number-one songs, and certainly not as Category:Billboard Adult Contemporary number-one singles or Category:Billboard Dance/Mix Show Airplay number-one singles. In the scheme of things, these are just trivial facts about the song covered sufficiently by the lists of number ones for so many countries that exist on Wikipedia. Is it time to do away with this type of categorization? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly logical that if they're seen as non-defining for albums, it would seem true of singles also, particularly down to those Billboard micro-level examples. The issue of a defining characteristic is always slightly grey, of course. Categorisation by music genre is another problem area, because there can be any number of styles attributed to one song or album, yet we seem to carry each and every genre-related category, even if infoboxes tend to list only the most widely applied.

Your citing the Beatles' Let It Be as an example got me thinking about how chart number-ones tend to be the sole focus of some "See also" sections and, similar to the potential for over-categorisation, the excessive coverage we end up giving to charts. It doesn't apply to "Let It Be" – there is no "See also" at that article – but it does at, say, Hey Jude#See also. I'll raise this separately, probably at WT:Songs, just thought I'd flag it here. JG66 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Vienna" by Ultravox is regularly cited by the UK media and has become a well-known "fact" among the British public as one of the "greatest songs never to reach number one", to the point where it has topped public polls to find the best song never to top the charts, and if you ask the average man in the street, everyone "knows" that Joe Dolce's "Shaddup You Face" kept it from the top spot (although in reality three different songs were at number one during "Vienna"'s four-week stay at number two). So it's ingrained in the general public's mind in the UK as never having reached number one. And yet it did... in three other European countries. So yes, this does seem non-defining because there are reliable sources in the UK that say it never reached number one, but different countries say otherwise, so the reliable sources are only presenting a limited point of view. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say that I'm indifferent to them being deleted even though I created some of the #1 song categories. I think the "see also" section for #1's is good enough. Erick (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Canadian charts for Billboard

Hello. I was wondering if a song has charted on the Canadian Hot 100, can any of the Airplay charts under Billboard_charts#Canadian_charts be added as well? None of the Canadian charts are listed at Wikipedia:Record_charts/Billboard_charts_guide. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 all can be used except component charts. In this case these are okay to use: CHR/Top 40 Airplay, AC Airplay, Hot AC Airplay, Country Airplay, Rock Airplay. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: Ok. It would be useful to add this to the Billboard charts guide (with consensus) so I know which are good or not. I primarily do rock songs. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal on usage the Billboard Latin charts

On the the record charts talk page, the guideline mentions that if a song ranks on the Hot Latin Songs, none of the Latin genre charts should be used. I do not agree with this guideline and instead propose a change it to one of these statements: "If a song has ranked on the Hot Latin Songs but not on the Billboard Hot 100, then you may use one of the following: " or "If a song has ranked on the Hot Latin Songs but not on any other Billboard charts, then you may use one of the following: ". Let me explain: Billboard defines any song predominately in Spanish as "Latin" regardless of its actual genre or the origin of the artist. Non Spanish-language haven't been allowed to rank on these charts since October 2012 even if music journalists considers the song to be "Latin". So the Hot Latin Songs/Airplay is only ranking the best-performing Spanish-language songs in the US. Billboard considers both of these charts to be all-genre.

So here's my problem with this guideline, the actual genre of the song isn't represented on the chart. Latin music, despite how its stereotyped in the media, is a diverse musical field. The four subcharts that Billboard created for the Latin Songs chart: Latin pop, Latin tropical, regional Mexican, and Latin rhythm, are four distinct Latin genres with the only thing unifying them is that they're all sung in Spanish. I will concede that there is an overlap with the Latin pop and Latin rhythm charts at times given the blur line between "pop music" and hip-hop music today (although Billboard just made Latin pop airplay chart more genre specific just last month). Contrast that with the Latin Tropical Airplay and the Regional Mexican Airplay where little-to-no overlap exists between the two. Excluding them would be like excluding the airplay-only charts that are accepted like the country, Christian, and rock airplay charts because they rank on the Hot 100 Airplay chart as well. It's also for that reason that I think we should exclude the Latin Airplay chart from the list. The Latin Airplay chart, like the Hot Latin Songs chart, simply ranks the best-performing Spanish-language songs on radio stations regardless of its actual genre, just like the Hot Latin Songs. In that aspect, I believe the Latin Airplay is redundant much like the Hot 100 Airplay chart and should only be used if it hasn't ranked on the Hot Latin Songs chart.

I also want to bring up the fact that Billboard has a separate music awards ceremony for Latin music where the they award songs in their respective Latin genre categories in to the addition the main Latin award categories. Here's an example: "Que Precio Tiene el Cielo", a salsa song by Marc Anthony, was a #1 hit on the Tropical Airplay chart in 2006, became the best-performing Tropical song of the year, and won the Billboard Latin Music Award for Tropical Song of the Year by a Male Artist. Yet, it only ranked #14 on the Hot Latin Songs (back when it was still an airplay-only chart) and the current guideline says the Latin Tropical Airplay says the chart should be excluded. So readers would be looking at an article about an accolade that the song won for a chart that isn't even mentioned in the chart list or prose.

I do not think the guideline for the Hot Latin Songs is adequate as it doesn't take into account the diversity of Latin music in the US. To reiterate, I think the subcharts for the Hot Latin Songs should be used but only if a song hasn't already ranked on the Billboard Hot 100 chart or possibly any other Billboard genre charts depending on how consensus feels about it. I also want to do away with the Latin Airplay chart as it is redundant. I think a similar proposal can also be made for the Top Latin Albums where it doesn't rank on the Billboard 200 or any other Billboard genre charts, the subcharts can be used. Erick (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the arguments presented I have a couple of questions. How about the songs that entered the chart before 2012 and also the Hot 100 and weren't in spanish, but had elements? What charts can and can't we add to the previous ones mentioned? As the Hot Latin Songs worked as Latin Airplay, should the subcharts also be added? On the second paragraph, I do agree with you and I don't think that the overlap should be a problem, as songs enter the mainstream top 40 and hot rap songs all the time. Final question, the two sentences you are ok adding are quite diferent. Quite often songs enter component charts of Hot 100 but fail to the enter the aforementioned chart, entering only on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. So I'm bot sure wich sentence would fit better in this case. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thanks for replying. Could you provide some examples of songs that have Hispanophone elements that ranked on the Hot Latin Songs? Before the methodology change in 2012, the Latin Songs ranked the most-played songs on Spanish-language radio stations in the US no matter the language or genre. For example, "My Heart Will Go On" reached #1 on the Latin Songs chart in 1998, as well as #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay and #2 Latin Tropical Airplay. Under my proposal, the Latin pop and Latin tropical would be excluded because the song already ranked on the Hot 100 songs to reduce the number of Billboard charts. On the other hand, Billboard always had a linguistic rule for the Top Latin Albums since its inception in 1993. In fact, Supernatural by Santana debuted on top of its chart, but Billboard [removed it from the chart's listing https://books.google.com/books?id=jggEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&dq=intitle:billboard+santana+supernatural+latin+linguistic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bce8Ur3bKeXA2QXi-4HQBQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false] a week after they determined it didn't have enough Spanish-language content even though musically the album is "Latin". According to an e-mail I received by Leila Cobo (who is the head of Billboard's Latin section), the Latin charts also factor Latin instrumental music as well. Then you also have Latin artists that would release Spanish-language versions of their hits, like Shakira's "Whenever, Wherever". While the original version became a top-ten hit on the Hot 100 chart, its Spanish version "Suerte" didn't appear on it or on any other genre charts except the Latin charts. Basically, I'm trying to balance between not putting too many Billboard charts for songs like "Despacito" (where only the Latin Songs chart should appear), while also making sure that Spanish-language songs that aren't as well-known in the Anglophone market. I was influenced with a discussion I had with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on my talk page to evaluate how these charts should be handled. And you made me remember something, "No Me Ames" by J Lo and Marc Anthony was recorded twice, one in Latin pop and the other in salsa. The Latin pop version peaked at #2 on the Latin Pop Airplay, while the salsa version reached #1 on the Latin Tropical Airplay, while both versions were factored on the Hot Latin Songs where it topped that chart too. The same thing happened in 2000 with "A Puro Dolor", but that song also had an English-language and a mariachi version. So basically, I'm trying balance between not adding too many Billboard for a song's while also making sure that Latin songs in the US that aren't crossover hits are represented well. Most of the Latin songs I work on are popular with the Spanish-speaking audience but haven't crossed over into the mainstream audience. EDIT: Maybe another alternate guideline could be: If a song has ranked on the Hot Latin Songs but not on any other genre charts, then you may use one of the following: " Erick (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You welcome. Sure, how about "Cuando Me Enamoro" and "Hero", for instance? I do understand, otherwise there are song with 11 different BB charts on the table. So how would one handle the J.Lo song and "A Puro Dolor", and others in this case? I'm still unsure about the guideline, why it can't be simple, "If a song has not charted on Hot Latin Songs, you may add any of the following"? Just like the others, why has the Hot 100 or any other component charts be a handicap of this one? Is it just because you will end up with various charts? Unlikely, as the song cross over to pop, it will very likely enter the Hot Latin Songs.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well both songs already ranked on the Hot 100 songs, so the Hot Latin Songs chart by itself should be enough without it getting too cluttered. It's the Spanish-language songs that don't rank on the Hot 100 or other genre charts that I'm really focusing on. This is especially true for Spanish-language before the 2010s as very few Spanish-language songs crossed over back then. Unlike the other genre component charts on the guideline, the Hot Latin Songs is defined by language rather than its musical style. If an editor whose only interest is working Regional Mexican music, they should be allowed to use the Regional Mexican Airplay chart, regardless of it already ranking on the Hot Latin Songs and especially if a song is nominated in the Regional Mexican field on the Billboard Latin Music Awards. Not many songs that top the Regional Mexican Airplay also rank on the Hot 100 songs or other genre charts. Billboard created its own Latin music awards because of its diversity. Those are the main reasons why I don't agree with the current guideline on the Hot Latin Songs. The country, Christian, and rock airplay are not disallowed despite also being part of the all-genre Hot 100 airplay components, so it makes no sense to me to to disallow genre-specific Latin charts when they rank on the likewise all-genre Latin Songs/Airplay chart. It's also why I oppose the usage of the Latin Airplay as it is a redundant all-genre chart for Spanish-language music when the Hot Latin Songs already exists for that purpose much like how the Hot 100 Airplay is disallowed if a song already ranks on the Hot 100 Songs chart. EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that my main gripe is that the current guideline for the Hot Latin Songs treats Latin genre charts as though they all sound the same when that's far from the truth. I have no problem excluding them for songs like "Despacito" or "Mi Gente" when there's too many Billboard charts, but not for songs that aren't well-known outside of the Spanish-language audience in the country. Erick (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

, I'm pinging Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars to see if they can help because they have a good understanding of Billboard chart methodology. "Not being cluttered" is not a reason to use or not use charts, if they're different genres which Latin, Latin Pop etc are, then there should be some clarification on what can be used. Latin music is the next biggest region of music after English. In fairness (I wrote some of the original Billboard guide), this area of chart methodology has grown and developed a lot in the last ten years as Latin music has crossed over into the mainstream again and Latin-fused English songs are much more popular. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I can't help much here, I've never understood Billboard methodology at the best of times. Erick's absolutely right though, there's a world of difference between Regional Mexican music and reggaeton (they're about as similar as thrash metal and new age ambient) and lumping them all in as "Latin" isn't helpful. Richard3120 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: In addition to what Richard3120 said, the Hot Latin Songs is an all-genre chart that just focuses on music in Spanish. A country song sung in Spanish would still eligible to rank on the Hot Latin Songs even if said genre isn't actually "Latin". Spanish-language rhythm, hip-hop, reggaeton, and trap music are the ones that have a wider appeal. Latin-infused English-language songs can't even rank on the Hot Latin Songs because of the linguistic requirement unless they're bilingual like "Un Dia (One Day)". I have no problem excluding the Latin genre charts when they already rank on the Hot 100 and/or the other Billboard genre charts. Contrast that Regional Mexican and tropical music which has a more limited audience. Not to the mention the latter deals with their own genres in their respective fields. Regional Mexican has banda, norteño, mariachi, grupera, Tejano while tropical music is based on salsa, merengue, bachata, cumbia, and vallenato. Those are different genres in their own respective fields. From my view, the current guideline gives an unfair advantage to Spanish-language rhythm music while ignoring other Latin genres that don't gain as much traction. As an example I mentioned before, if an editor is only interested in working in any of the Regional Mexican music genres, they should be allowed to use the Regional Mexican charts even if a song has already ranked on the Hot Latin Songs chart since it's a much limited audience compared to reggaeton. I work on tropical music articles and I've used the Latin Tropical Airplay chart since they sometimes do very poor on the Hot Latin Songs while faring much better on the Latin Tropical Airplay while also receiving a Billboard Latin Music nomination for its field. I still don't see the use of the Latin Airplay when it's also an all-genre chart like the Hot Latin Songs chart. My problem with the current guideline for the Hot Latin Songs chart is that it has a systemic bias because it favors only certain Spanish-language genres while ignoring other Spanish-language music that are popular in their own fields. Erick (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

First off, I'm going to say regardless of what decision is made, there does not need to be a cutoff date of acceptable usage based on when the methodology of the Latin airplay charts changed. Let's keep it simple, and whatever's agreed upon applies throughout the history of each of the charts. I think you know this but to reiterate the current methodology:

Hot Latin Songs - ranks Latin songs (songs with predominantly Spanish lyrics or the rare instrumental that has a core Latin sound) by radio airplay across all formats (over 1200 stations), streaming, and sales.
Latin Airplay - ranks all songs by radio airplay over stations that play predominantly Latin music (170 stations)

Technically, then, songs not eligible to chart on Hot Latin Songs could chart on Latin Airplay. There is no reason to exclude Latin Airplay because it is not the same as being the airplay component of the Hot Latin Songs chart. But the question here is on the inclusion of the genre-specific Latin airplay charts. On one hand, they are literally subcharts of the main Latin Airplay chart, down to the same type of measurement (audience impressions) over the same exact radio stations. On the other hand, they can be considered distinct genres with little crossover (with the exceptions noted), so in many ways it's like comparing the country and R&B charts. I'm inclined to say allow all. If exceptions should be made, it would be for songs like "Despacito", which already has an excessive amount of US charts including four airplay-only charts and can be determined on a case-by-case basis. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes absolutely! I had always assumed that the Latin Airplay was a component chart of the Hot Latin Songs, so I'm surprised it isn't. From what I'm seeing on the Latin Airplay though, I don't think the Latin Airplay is actually based on audience measurement because there are non Spanish-language songs with no Latin elements that rank on that chart. Take Drake for example. Only two songs are in Spanish and the rest are just songs that are already hits on other charts. Only the Latin Pop, Tropical, and Latin Rhythm charts are audience based, so I'm still personally iffy on the usage of the Latin Airplay chart as any song, regardless of genre or language, can still rank on it. Regional Mexican is the only that isn't audience based to date, but as mentioned before, its audience is more limited so there's no worry about adding it. I'll admit that I was rash to include the Latin genre and its methodology updates so I can remove the latter part. Otherwise, I think we're in all agreement that Latin music is too diverse to include just include the main Latin chart unless it received international popularity like "Despacito" and "Mi Gente". With that said, I think this proposal for using the Latin genre charts can work for everyone: "If a song has ranked on the Hot Latin Songs chart, but not on any other Billboard genre charts, then you may use one of the following:". If we must still include the Latin Airplay chart (which I'm still against for not being audience-based) then it would be: "If a song has ranked on the Hot Latin Songs and/or Latin Airplay charts, but not on any other Billboard genre charts, then you may use one of the following:" How does that sound for everyone? If there no objections, I'll change the guideline but I can wait a bit to see if anyone else has an input to add. EDIT: I skimmed over the part where you already mentioned any song that plays on Spanish-language radio stations are ranked on the Latin Airplay, my apologies. In that case, I'll be fine either guideline even if it means including the Latin Airplay chart. Erick (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Erick, I think we can definitely use lots of the other charts for latin songs and if the song has both an English and a Spanish version then we can put the latin charts on a separate table specifying that those entries are for the Spanish version of the song. FanDePopLatino (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: Thanks for your comment. I'm honestly not sure if a Spanish-language version really warrants its own chart tables. Spanish-language version generally rank in 2-3 charts in the US. Regardless, I've made a sandbox with both of our proposals. @Lil-unique1:, @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, @MarioSoulTruthFan: and @Richard3120: I'm sorry I keep pinging you guys, but I'd like to know your thoughts on the both proposals on the sandbox. Lil-unique, I used On the Floor as an example for FanDePopLatino's proposal since you worked on the article. Erick (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is very simple. Place all 4 Latin genre charts under the acceptable charts, no further conditions. Side note: Regional Mexican Airplay is also audience based if you go by Billboard articles such as this one. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to want make sure, the way I have it on the sandbox or under the applicable US charts where all charts are accepted regardless of other chartings? Erick (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to say but I agree with other Latin charts appearing on articles if a song didn't rank on the Hot 100. I thought that Latin Airplay was a component chart but apparently it isn't. However, I don't really give much thought to it because airplay represents 1% of Latin music revenue in the US since the mid-2010s. On the other hand, there are artists that have good performances on "style-specific" charts (like Tropical and Regional Mexican) but don't do well on Hot Latin Songs, which is mostly about Latin pop and reggaeton since 2014. Brankestein (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what you have on the sadbox, I just have one question so if a song charts on Hot Latin Songs and Latin Airplay, can we use both? Ot just one of those? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Yes, you may use both charts regardless of other chartings. As Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars noted' Latin Airplay is not a component chart to Hot Latin Songs. @Brankestein: Thanks for commenting. I've changed my stance from the Hot 100 to other genre charts. Like it's fine to use the Latin subcharts on "No Me Doy por Vencido" because it hasn't ranked on the other Billboard genre charts. They shouldn't be used "Con Calma" because it has ranked on another genre chart like the Rhythmic chart. I'm not really worried about a Latin song appearing on the Hot 100 chart and using the subcharts Erick (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Support the changes and thanks for the clarification. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Canadian charts

Hello. I was wondering if any of these Canadian charts can be used in album articles. They are Music Canada and Nielsen SoundScan. I came across these charts in past versions of Hard II Love, Cardiology (album), and Stronger with Each Tear. They're curently giving a "Canada requires value for chartid=" error as it assumes its a RPM chart which it's not since they peaked after the magazine discontinued in 2000. I know Music Canada is the Canadian certification organization, but I don't know about an actual chart of theirs. I also know Nielsen SoundScan provides data to Billboard. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Which source to use?

When citing the Billboard end-of-decade charts for the 1990s, which source would be better to use in articles? Should this recent list be used or should the first decade-end chart published (p. YE-20) be used? Furthermore, the recent list seems to be conflicting with this article, a source I removed on "How Do I Live" but has since been re-added. Thanks. ResPM^{come to my window} 15:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

To me, the one published by Billboard at the end of 1999 is the official end-of-decade Hot 100 list. The recent list is from a collaboration between Billboard and SiriusXM that is 500 songs long simply called "Top Songs of the 90s" compiled last year and not at the end of the decade. Here's the article. It incorporates radio-only songs that were ineligible for the Hot 100 at the time. It makes sense to only use the original publication, because with that other list you linked to Billboard has different rankings from 1999, 2014, and 2019. "How Do I Live" is shown as the #12, #1, and #2 song of the decade. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationale Top 40 Suriname

Hello, I came across this Surinamese ranking, the Nationale Top 40 Suriname, published by the Natio40 foundation. It was born in 2013 and until July of this year it had its own website but now the domain is for sale and the rankings are published on Facebook and Blogspot. In the Fb information I read that the ranking is considered "the official hitparade of Suriname" and that "the composition takes place by processing data obtained from: airplay in various radio stations in Suriname, CMO - continuous musical research in collaboration with IDOS, an association of DJ of the country, through samples in music stores and finally trends on social media (so I assume that they also take streaming into account). Furthermore, many local newspapers consider it official, often reporting hits in the charts and new entries ([2], [3] e [4]) Since Blogspot is blacklisted, how should you move in case of its possible use? --Lrt000 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Billboard charts - Albums

Hello. Since Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide was made for songs, I was wondering the Billboard albums can be updated. For example, if an album has charted on the Top Rock Albums, can Alternative Albums or Hard Rock Albums be added? The album section only mentions R&B/Hip Hop Albums and doesn't cover any of the other albums listed at the Billboard charts template. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: is this related to the long discussion above at "New Billboard Rock/Alternative charts"? Richard3120 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: It's separate but that discussion gave me the idea to ask about it. Since the Billboard song charts were updated in the guide, I wondered if the albums should too. I used Rock as an example as I thought it'd be similar. I don't know about the other albums like Country/Folk for example. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I understand you now... yes, I would imagine that what applies to singles also applies to albums, but Billboard charts is not my area of expertise, so I could be wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Same! I just used the charts guide to determine which to use/not use depending if certain charts can only be used conditionally (i.e. alternative songs if not charted on rock songs). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this week's Top Rock, Alternative, and Hard Rock Albums charts, the two "sub-genre" charts are not just distillations of the Top Rock Albums chart. For example, Elton John's Diamonds is No. 3 on Top Rock Albums but is not considered either alternative or hard rock so does not appear on either of the other two, while Billie Eilish has the No. 2 and 3 albums on the Alternative Albums chart but is no where to be found on the Top Rock Albums chart (as of now anyway). Interestingly as well is that the R&B and Rap Albums charts are not pure distillations of R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart. The Hamilton cast album reached No. 1 on the Rap Albums chart but is ineligible for the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart for lacking required R&B elements. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we could include the component (all-genre) charts of Billboard 200.

Condition	Applicable US charts
If an album has charted on the Billboard 200, you may not add any of the following →	Digital Albums Top Album Sales Top Current Album Sales Top Internet Albums Vinyl Albums

Toughts? Bluesatellite (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Why are you adding a start row marker, |-, immediately before closing the table. While not a thought about the content, it's bad formatting and should not happen. Also, setting absolute column width is usually unnecessary.

As for restricting, the wording is entirely incorrect. It's not whether the album has or has not charted on the 200, it's whether that chart is listed in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are you focusing on the table formatting? -_- I simply copied what is used on Wikipedia:Record_charts#Album_charts (both the table and the wording). The things that should be discussed is whether those component charts should be added or not. For example, some stans insist on listing the Top Album Sales on Cher's Dancing Queen, when it's already charted on Billboard 200. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If we're changing anything, we might as well get the formatting done correctly.

You'll see that I did not exclusively focus on the formatting but on the nomenclature as well. You addressed neither. I agree with the principle, but we must present it correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Radio & Records Canada Charts

I've been looking at the several Canadian charts on Radio & Records ([5], pages 28, 44, 49, 51, and 58) recently, and I'm wondering if it's okay to keep these in. It's no secret that Billboard's Canadian Singles Chart doesn't exactly represent Canadian listening habits, which is even stated in the article itself, so I think these charts would give a better idea of what was popular in Canada before the Canadian Hot 100 debuted. These charts don't appear to be single vendor since various airplay reports are used to compile the listing, but I'd like a second opinion before I do anything extensive. Thanks. ResPM^{come to my window} 17:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

These are Mediabase airplay charts, and I've seen them used on other articles as well. I'm not sure if they are an officially recognised chart, so it would be good to get confirmation one way or another. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Radio & Records was a trade publication which provided reliable and accurate charts. Although a trade publication it was kind of a rival to Billboard, a bit like Cashbox was except it had a greater range of charts similar to many of Billboard's. I think they may have used the same system to count the airplay data as Billboard did but the difference was that Radio and Records was counting from different days of the week. So, for example a lot of the peaks on the R&R alternative chart were often similar to those on the Billboard alternative chart, sometimes with a difference of just one position. Radio & Records was actually taken over by Billboard as its sister publication in 2006 until it was discontinued in 2009. So the Radio and Records charts are definitely accurate and reliable and I am therefore in favor of using them. In some cases because of the different days of the week used to count the airpaly data compared to Billboard, there are sometimes songs that only charted on the R&R chart and not the Billboard equivalent which can be useful if there is no Billboard peak to use. There was also a book published of the Radio & Records pop charts: [6]. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The similar peaks on the rock chart make sense to me, and looking at the CHR/Pop chart, it appears to make much more sense than the Canadian Singles Chart. First of all, no winning single from American Idol reached number one, which I've always found a little odd considering the fact they stayed at number one for 5+ weeks in a foreign country. As for the Canadian Idol singles, they didn't reach number one either, but considering they were AC songs (therefore charting on the AC charts) mostly marketed via their CD releases, that too makes sense. Meanwhile, the CHR/Pop chart had many R&B/hip hop number ones during 2004 and 2005, which is no surprise, and features much more well-known songs. I'm not saying the Canadian Singles Chart is unacceptable, though; it's still reliable in a sense since Nielsen SoundScan compiled it. I'd just like to include secondary chart for this time period that doesn't track a format that sold so poorly once the digital era began. Since I too see R&R as a rival to Billboard, that's why I brought this up. ResPM^{come to my window} 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

UK Rock chart question

Alright, this is a question I’ve had for a while. It’s about the UK Rock and Metal songs chart. This may come off more like idle discussion, but the truth is that I want to understand it better since it comes up a lot in my writings about current rick music.

Let’s look at this weeks chart - https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/rock-and-metal-singles-chart/

Why are there so many old songs on there? Why is The Goo Goo Dolls 1998 single Iris the fifth most popular rock song on the nation? Why is Red Hot Chili Peppers 2003 single Can't Stop the tenth most popular in the nation? There are entries like this littered through the entire chart, and it’s not a fluke this week, it’s like this whenever I check it.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re fine songs. But why are they consistently blowing up the charts in 2020 like this? They’re decades old and havent had any particular resurgence in popularity that I’m aware of. Do they just use a different methodology than the US Billboard charts, where they include the songs that have entered permanent classic rock syndication cycles or something?

All in all, I guess I’m just questioning the significance of charting on the chart.

Any input welcome. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nearly half the 25 songs on Billboard's digital rock chart are more than 10 years old and more than half the 25 songs on the streaming rock chart are 30+ year-old songs (only 4 of the 25 I would say are actually current). It looks like the UK rock/metal songs chart is based on sales. I would just chalk it up to rock skewing older. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, are those ones like that? The US ones I tend to follow Hot Rock Songs, Mainstream Rock (chart), and the new Hot Hard Rock songs charts don’t seem to list any old ones like that. But I suppose none of those are straight sales/streaming charts either Even still though, the chart baffles me. Why in the world is that one RHCP song charting but none of their other songs. It’s a great song, but it’s neither recent, nor their biggest hit. It just feels so...random and scattershot. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much what Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars said. I'm British, but I've lived out of the country for more than a decade, and obviously all charts worldwide have undergone a lot of changes in that time. Before streaming the charts were 100% sales-based, not like Billboard where there was always an airplay element. The addition of streaming from websites like Spotify and YouTube views into the UK charts has clearly had a profound impact on them... it's not just the specialist charts like the Rock chart, the main chart also shows songs that have been on the chart for 50 weeks or more, whereas in the sales-only days even a 15 or 16-week chart run for a song was considered a long time. But I would imagine that all the various UK charts are still 100% sales-based, even if those "sales" are now equivalent sales from streaming rather than any sales as we would have called it.

As I said, I don't follow the charts as closely as I used to, but nowadays equivalent streaming units count for the vast majority of "sales" in the charts. Looking at last week's chart, the number-one song, "Mood" by 24kGoldn, sold more than 60,000 equivalent units, but only 2,100 of those were actual sales via paid downloads. Given that the no. 7 song by Jason Derulo sold less than half this amount (28,700) you can imagine that the actual sales for even top-ten singles was in the hundreds, not even in the thousands. Likewise, Pop Smoke had the no. 1 album, but of nearly 10,000 "sales", only 138 were physical and 193 were downloads. So literally only 331 people in a country of 67 million people bought the biggest album of last week.

So you can see that the charts are absolutely dominated by streams rather than actual sales. My guess is simply that in the specialist charts where "sales" will be even fewer than the main charts, even a few more streams than usual in one week will be enough to boost a song's chart placing dramatically. Added to that, rock and metal hasn't been as big in the UK as it is in the US or other countries around the world for several decades now – I see way, way more hard rock fans here in Colombia than in the UK, and I have no doubt that this is true in many other countries. So people are probably just streaming the songs they know and love, even if they are not recent – there isn't much call for new rock music, because virtually none of the younger generation listen to it. It makes me wonder why the OCC even bothers with a Country chart – country music means absolutely nothing in the UK, and sales must be in the dozens, not even in the hundreds. Richard3120 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I really appreciate it. I tend to focus more on US rock music (no sort of US pride or anything, it’s just merely the biggest rock music market.) I know rock music is really struggling in a general sense, especially with the younger generations as you say, but didn’t realize it was actually worse in the UK. A bunch of rock albums actually topped the UK all-format albums chart this year, (Oasis, Green Day, The Killers, Doves) that didn’t in the US, so I (anecdotally) actually thought the rock market might be stronger in the UK. But I don’t follow the charts all the time, I just browse it here and there once I’m already looking at the chart for some other reason. So maybe I was just looking at it wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right about them topping the charts. But then you look again and realise that all of these acts already had UK no. 1 albums 15 years ago or more... again, it's a case of the older generation sticking with the bands they grew up with 20 years ago. We also tend to prefer "punkier" alternative rock bands like Green Day or Foo Fighters to "classic rock" – look how badly top-selling but more mainstream rock artists like Creed or Dave Matthews have done in the UK in comparison to the US. Look at the line-up for the Sonisphere festival in 2011 [7] which is like a dream hard rock/metal line-up... even with this line-up the capacity was only 60,000 per day, and it still took months to sell out. Even though this is the country of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and Def Leppard, the UK's not been much of a lover of hard rock since the New Wave of British Heavy Metal faded away in the mid-80s. Richard3120 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I know Billboard's "hot" charts have recurrent rules and I believe the airplay charts do, too, so they will tend to be more contemporary. Older songs aren't even allowed to rechart unless they impact the top half of the chart, like "In the Air Tonight" did a few weeks ago on the Hot Rock Songs chart. Viral videos, memes and death seem to be the biggest reasons older songs return to the charts these days, so it is hard to understand why some of those songs you mention are ranking high on the UK rock chart beyond shared nostalgia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, viral videos or use in TV ads are the main reason for the return of old songs to the charts... I think in this case as I mentioned, there's a lack of "new" and popular songs to replace the older ones, in the rock charts at least, so the old familiar songs tend to hang around longer. Possibly with "Can't Stop", it's the mention of it in various articles discussing Jack Sherman's death, or maybe it's been used in a TV ad campaign that I don't know about. Richard3120 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that when a lead singer dies, there's a chance the band's songs recharts. In terms of UK Rock, Numb by Linkin Park has been on the UK Rock chart for almost two collective years. A week after Chester Bennington died in July 2017, numerous songs by LP re-entered and even songs by them we don't have articles for debuted that week as well. All of those re-entered/new songs are not on UK Rock's current chart (October 2nd). Alternatively, when the movie Bohemian Rhapsody about Queen was released in October 2018, songs of theirs rentered/debuted on UKRock a few weeks after the movie was released. Yet most of Queen songs those weeks were ones that were already on the chart for hundreds of weeks. Of the ones that are on the October 2nd chart, none of them were ones that recharted/entered because of the film. So, I think it depends. A singer's death or a movie based on a band might bring a song back to the charts. But, they might not stay for years on the chart even with the popularity boost. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn’t bring up Queen because I assumed that it was high up due to the biopic movie (though that’s been out for a year or two now right?) and Richard is right, "Can’t Stop" sure feels random, but maybe it’s just part of a UK TV ad or meme or something. I’ve definitely seen how deaths of musicians shoots up their sales, but I had always seen that in albums more than songs. But as Star noted, that may just be because of the particular charts I monitor. All in all, as Richard states, it just looks like its mostly coming down to rock music being more stagnant than I thought in the UK. Thanks all, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to keep this thread going Sergecross73, but one other factor occurred to me that I think is important – there is almost no outlet now in the UK for new rock music/acts. NME, Kerrang! and Q have all ceased print publication over the last year (NME is still going online, but it's basically just a news desk with a few reviews thrown in, it doesn't seek out new music like it used to). That leaves Metal Hammer for hard rock and metal, and Mojo, Uncut and Classic Rock, all of which focus very much on old rock stars from the 70s and 80s and don't concern themselves much with newer music. The only other alternatives are online magazines like Clash, DIY or The Line of Best Fit.

The only national analogue radio station which plays anything resembling rock is BBC Radio 2, but they are also very much geared towards the older generation and the mainstream – their current new music playlist shows a lot of pop and dance music, and with the exception of Biffy Clyro the rock artists are those who have been around for decades (Springsteen, Susanna Hoffs, Sheryl Crow, Bon Jovi). BBC 6 Music is the best station for new and alternative music, and Planet Rock for heavier rock, but both are only available on digital radio, online or cable TV, and Planet Rock's playlist is again dominated by old rock music. The only other digital/online stations I can think of that play rock are Virgin Radio and Absolute Radio, who have a specialist 2020s channel only available online. But in general, it's far easier to hear old familiar rock songs than anything new, which might also explain why the rock chart doesn't have much in the way of newer music. Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 - No no, don't apologize, I've found your commentary to be very helpful. I just made a "wrapping up" type comment above so that I wouldn't burden anyone further - I'm happy if you have more thoughts on the matter. Outside of my observations that started this discussion, I see a lot of similarities between Rock in the US and in the UK. The younger generation isn't that into it, so it skews more into older demographics, and most of the chart toppers are veteran acts that have been around for 20+ years. (Foo Fighters, Tool, etc - it also explains my current fascinated with Tickets to My Downfall, because it bucks all those trends.) Lots of rock radio stations are going out of business or changing format to more alternative (Billy Eilish) type music, and there aren't always a ton of rock music publications (I have to lean into Loudwire and Blabbermouth.com a little heavier than I'd like to just because they're some of the few prolific ones left.) It's all the reason why I work so much in the rock content area - when I joined Wikipedia 12 years ago, it was mostly to write for "notable but ignored" content areas, but 3-4 years ago I shifted into writing about everything modern rock because, well, rock on a whole had grown to fall under that descriptor. Anyways, to bring it back home so that no one squawks as me for going off-topic, I do appreciate your commentary on this, it does help with my perspective in writing in a number of ways. Thank you all really. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Billboard chart history

I notice recently the Billboard chart history is broken, can't search all the artists' charts. Can this be fix or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Billboard deleted many, many artist chart histories a few months ago, so it's not fixable right now aside from resorting to archived AllMusic "Awards" tabs and digital archives on World Radio History. Please see this discussion for more information. ResPM^{come to my window} 23:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Thanks for the reply. Now since Billboard has deleted almost all the artist chart histories, should we consider changing the format by using only the main pages of their charts instead, like this here. We do that with the Official Charts Company [8], why not with Billboard? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: There are still plenty of artist pages, so I don't think we should resort to that right now (sorry if it seemed like I was overexaggerating). Meanwhile, since several Billboard charts require paid subscriptions to view in their entirety, that's probably not the wisest idea unless no other options are left, because many editors won't be able to verify peaks with those pesky banners in the way. In any case, if you do wish to present this suggestion, please do so at Template talk:Single chart. ResPM^{come to my window} 00:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Thanks for the advice, I might get to that later. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: This week's Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart also hasn't updated yet (others have updated already), whether related to this?? Tim96144 (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tim96144: I'm not sure what's going on there, but I don't see how this could be related. Speaking of which, List of number-one R&B/hip-hop songs of 2020 (U.S.) has been updated, so you might wanna ask the user who added this information how they obtained it. Regardless, sometimes it can just take a while for the charts to update. ResPM^{come to my window} 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Thank you. But I think Billboard's website maintenance is getting worse and worse than before, same problem also happened 2 weeks ago, and they don't notice what's problem. and not inform at Twitter or other SNS, if write form contact, they also usually ignore, for editer that update weekly charts, Billboard has become a bad website, if website maintenance can't do well, What does Billboard have qualifications to represent global music authority?? It's ridiculous. Tim96144 (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed a few of their chart histories are also now incomplete. For instance, their Fleetwood Mac page is now missing all the Hot 100 entries from their Rumours album, including their only US #1. I'm thinking of using the print Joel Whitburn books for reference, where possible, for Billboard chart peaks at this point. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doc Strange: Yeah, I've noticed that too. Last night I discovered that the 98 Degrees song "Give Me Just One Night (Una Noche)" had been inexplicably removed from their page, so I had to use an archived AllMusic source for six different charts. I have to agree that Billboard has become too much of a mess to ignore any longer. We should start considering a secondary cite method in case the situation gets worse, which is a high possibility. ResPM^{come to my window} 13:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: I am lucky to personally own a few of the Joel Whitburn books, and I am sure other editors who are interested enough in music charts to have this talk page on their watchlist own a few as well, but their price may make them inaccessible to some editors. The books do not cover every chart - for instance, Record Research is finally coming out with a new Rock Tracks book later this year, but that book only includes Alternative and Mainstream Rock and not adult alternative. But I'm thinking their ubiquity and reputation as good sources might be our best option with American charts if Billboard does not fix their chart histories. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Since Ss112 didn't updated charts, Billboard most of the charts have updated by me. If Billboard doesn't fix their chart histories, I will absolutely joint other charts editor to resist Billboard. Tim96144 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tim96144: As will I, even if it is the official American hit parade that's been with us since the 1930s. Books like Joel Whitburn's may not be the best option since not every user can access them, but in times like these, you gotta do what you gotta do. At least we have a few more online sources to resort to, but if Billboard.com keeps this up, it's pretty much over for it. ResPM^{come to my window} 14:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Okey. I just hope Billboard can fix histories. I,m vary angry because Billboard never explained the reason about website broken, readers didn't know what's happened, and Billboard never told the reason on Twitter or SNS, I feel Billboard website maintenancers don't work, because they just fool around at work. Tim96144 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

All the weekly charts are still there and intact, but that might not be a good option because almost all of them are paywalled and you'll need to know exactly which week you're looking for to get a peak position. Should one of us contact Billboard to ask them what's up with this and to tell them how it is affecting Wikipedia sources? Might be far-fetched and we might not get a response, but it's an option. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doc Strange: It's useless. Unless you have friends that work at Billboard. Tim96144 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doc Strange: I'm familiar with the Whitburn books, but are they still being updated and published regularly? The UK equivalent, British Hit Singles, stopped coming out in print form ten years ago, so the OCC website is the only place to get chart information from the last decade. Tim96144 is right, Billboard and RIAA don't usually reply unless you are telling them how wonderful they are. Everybody knows that the sales levels for certifications before 1989 are wrong on RIAA's website, but they won't acknowledge it and change it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Yes, the Whitburn books are still updated and published regularly. The most recent edition of their flagship title Top Pop Singles, which covers the Hot 100 and Bubbling Under chart, came out in 2019 and features chart data through 12/29/2018. The new Rock Tracks book, which I mentioned earlier to be coming out this November, features data for the Alternative and Mainstream Rock charts through this summer. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. Now Billboard charts history has fixed already,and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Song chart has updated, I assume that was also some errors about website. Tim96144 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I can also confirm that the Rumours singles have returned to Fleetwood Mac's Hot 100 chart history. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That 98 Degrees song I mentioned earlier is also back, but this is still pretty ridiculous and unsettling. We shouldn't discard any ideas we have in mind to cite alternative sources—just in case. But I am glad they fixed this. ResPM^{come to my window} 02:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

New Billboard charts

Hello,

At the time I'm writing this I found out that Billboard crated two brand new charts that will be published in a weekly basis. Billboard Global 200 and Billboard Global Excl. U.S., they are both designed for songs and not albums, despite the deceiving name of the first one. Nevertheless, the data is compiled by MRC Data/Nielsen Music and it is "based on a weighted formula" that includes streaming (paid and not) and digital downloads from several retailers. The latter includes all the countries where the data is accessible (more than 200 territories), but the US, while the former includes everyone and the US as well. They end the article saying they want to add new territors and service providers as they go. Regarding publishing access "For both charts, the top 100 songs are featured on Billboard.com, while the complete 200-title rankings are visible on Billboard Pro, Billboard's subscription-based service." See 1.

The first chart was already publihsed today, see 2. One can see there are two different number ones according to the chart. All in all, are these two charts going to be consider to be added to the table? Only one of them, both? Or is something like the rolling stone one? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm interested in this as well. Billboard published an article on the methodology of these two charts. I'll note some of the points that I think are relevant. According to Billboard, the charts tracks in more than 200 territories, which includes "a good portion of the Asian markets". They're stated it includes India, and from the charts it looks like it includes Japan and South Korea as well, though not China. The charts counts sales, premium streams, and ad-supported streams, though not radio (as noted in this Vulture article). Right now, the streaming data are coming from global providers like Apple, Spotify, Tidal, YouTube etc., without local and regional providers. The sales are "download sales from top music retailers across the globe", so only digital downloads - no physical sales. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw this the other day. Seems like we should definitely use the Global one. Not sure what to do with the “Global minus USA” chart. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait to see if the chart gains traction? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

In any case. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Global 200 has already been added to a bevy of song article's' chart tables. This may seem WP:CRYSTALBALL'ish and non-neutral, but a global songs chart from an esteemed and well-respected industry pioneer is of pretty high priority, imo. A template would be helpful at this point. AshMusique (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would think only to allow the Global 200 Excl. US only if a song doesn't chart on the Global 200 or else we're adding two charts for each one of those songs. It gets excessive and the overall global popularity of a song seems more relevant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars to add the "Global 200 Excl. US" only if a song is not on the "Global 200" chart. It seems very U.S.-centric, we better stick with the comprehensive Global 200 to showcase worldwide popularity of a song. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I do have to agree regarding the use of the "Global 200" chart as otherwise it doesn't reflect a global chart. Nonthless, the peaks are quite different. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Shuipzv3, Sergecross73, Lil-unique1, JohnFromPinckney, AshMusique, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Bluesatellite I believe an agreement can be reached here as most of you, including myself, seem to support the idea of "If a song has not charted on the Global 200, you may add → Global Excl. U.S." How about we make it official so it could be added to the table on the Billboard charts and also a template for the single chart to be created. Anyone who hasn't commented is welcome to the discussion and to vote, of course.

Support. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. AshMusique (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Support, except that I would really, really hate to see an artist's singles discography with columns for both of these charts. And again, I'm not in a hurry to add either of these newborn babes anywhere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Support' Erick (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Country question

Quick question - is there a particular reason why lists such as List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2020 include only Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay, and not Country Digital Song Sales or Country Streaming Songs? Is it because these are deemed non-notable charts? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is because The Country Digital and Country Streaming songs charts are a component of the Hot Country Songs chart whereas the Country Airplay chart specifically track country songs played on country radio. The "hot" charts track country songs played across all platforms whereas the Airplay chart tracks country songs played on country radio. That's why "Old Town Road" by Lil Nas was Number 1 on the Hot 100 but not on the Country Airplay Chart. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So does that mean that the digital chart should be included in the lists for the period between when it was launched in 2010 and the period when Hot Country Songs changed to a multimetric chart in late 2012? It wasn't a component chart in that period....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Country Airplay is also included because it represents a continuation of the methodology of the Hot Country Songs chart, which had been based on airplay since 1990. I don't think any tertiary charts should be included in any list. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)