Wikipedia talk:Record charts/Billboard charts guide

Please point to the consensus

Has it been established for this promotion to the MoS? Tony (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We discussed the idea on the talkpage of WP:record charts and it was decided that something was needed to distinguish between all of the different billboard charts to help users decide when and which charts can be used. Two alternatives of the table were discussed then this version was modifed. It was intially created at Billboard charts guide but was subsequently moved her. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We are in the middle of conducting a rationalisation of the sprawling MoS pages that make it very difficult for editors to consult.

I wonder whether this page could be merged with another. Do you have any suggestions? Tony (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The table was initially going to be placed at Billboard charts but it didn't really fit in with the content and couldn't appear on WP:record charts because it is quite detailed and would fill up another already large page. Users suggested it be created as a subpage of record charts and navigational links be placed to direct users here. We did discuss rewriting the Billboard charts page for which i've done a mock-up of at my userspace maybe we could incorporate the MoS on a page like that if it is decided to go ahead with the re-write? Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is project content not MOS content . Should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Record_Charts/Billboard. Gnevin (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Condition table questions

Hot Dance Airplay would be where in the condition table? I guess here? "If a song has not charted on the Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the charts..."—Iknow23 (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done i've added it in. Apologies i underestimated the number of US charts. I'm still learning myself.Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. No problem :)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other countries have 'Billboard charts'

Please see Talk:Billboard charts#Other countries have 'Billboard charts'. I am from US but realize that article should NOT be US-centric.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
^ Similarly, should THIS project page be titled Wikipedia:Record charts/US Billboard charts guide?? Plus have sections for both 'singles/songs' and albums? Just some thoughts.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm listing my opion there... :) Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What about my second comments about THIS project page?—Iknow23 (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well i tasked myself without sorting the US charts. If someone wants to add a section for international charts they can do but it certainly won't be me lol it was a difficult job working out the US charts. i would prefer and personally endorse having the page moved to Record charts/US Billboard charts guide or Record charts/Guide to US Billboard charts. Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

AGREE. I could support either of your titling suggestions. Of course if anyone ever does section(s) for international charts, then the 'US' would have to be removed. But this is not what is 'currently being worked on' and we cannot (as is said at Wiki) Crystal Ball that someone will add international Billboard charts to this project page.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Other countries may have "Billboard charts", but do they need separate MoS pages? Surely it is easier to coordinate and easier for editors who want to consult them that they be sectionalised on a single styleguide page? Tony (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be sufficient to keep Canada and Japan (both have Billboard charts) right in the WP:GOODCHARTS table. They aren't nearly as detailed as the U.S. ones. If people still disagree, then perhaps Canada at the very least could be added here, as Billboard now has Canada-digital-only-sales component chart. - eo (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I will look into the information available at billboard.com, billboard.biz and a few other sites and get back to you on that one. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with move to Record charts/US Billboard charts guide as long as it is marked {{guideline}} not {{style}} --Jubilee♫clipman 19:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Styleguide audit

Can i just state that this page is a new edition to the MoS and was only on April 1, 2010. I fully support the audit but i would like auditors to bare in mind that this page is in its infancy in the sense that it will soon contain a breakdown of the US charts too. I just wanted you to know that when auditing the page. This is a newly promoted policy/guide following a recent consensus. As the editor overseeing/designing the guide i will be more than happy to discuss and implement recommedations as required. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted. It will be necessary to collaborate with as many people as possible during this audit and input from the main editors is crucial, of course. So far, I am simply copyediting but other changes might be necessary for clarity and particularly for consistancy across all MoSes. Thanks for the heads up on status of the page. I look forward to us working together --Jubilee♫clipman 09:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Update - I think I am beginning to agree with Tony1 and Gnevin on this (above). So far, I have quickly scanned the contents of the page and am unsure what the status should be: I am not convinced it is a Manual of Style, per se, though. I will read the page in full and the related discussion and get back to you with more constructive advice soon. However, I recommend demoting this to Essay status for now rather than moving it. Alternatively, use {{proposed}} for now and request greater participation from the community per Wikipedia:PROPOSAL#proposal --Jubilee♫clipman 09:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Jubilee. To me, the questions is what is the most convenient, logical and accessible way of presenting information about record / billboard charts. What opportunities are there for making the whole style thing more collegial, involving a greater critical mass of editors from a number of related areas. I am also concerned about the tone of this "styleguide" in a few places. So ... is it possible to save text and merge what is unique in this page into another place, or not? I approach this from a place of ignorance about the content; but I am keen to support the process of making the current sprawling mess of styleguides into a powerful, lean, coordinated tool for WP. It is not that at the moment. Tony (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to state that the plan was to implement this policy at WP:record charts but there simply wasn't enough room and it was felt that another table would clog up the page. WP:record charts is quite full the current way its layed out and it was felt that adding this necessary information would make the page more difficult to navigate. In theory it could be merged if thats what you want to suggest as long as we could leave the WP:USCHARTS and WP:USCHART shortcuts? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You still seem to be working on it at the moment, so I'll leave you to it for a while (but check back in to see how it's going). I think the main concern that I (and probably Tony and Gnevin) have is that the page isn't to do with the style of presentation it is to do with the inclusion of information and thus is not a Style Guide, as such. It may well be a genuine Guideline, though. Maybe the present {{style}} template should be removed and replaced with a less specific {{guideline}} template? Anyway, no rush: finish the task and let me know when you are ready for an audit --Jubilee♫clipman 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Question, please recheck.

I have noticed that Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay is listed at both
If a song has not charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs you may add any of the following →
and
If a song has not charted on Hot Rap Songs you may add any of the following →
Just wondering if that is correct?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apoligies. I've made a typing error. I've correted it. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The component charts of Rap Songs are:
  • Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop
  • Rhythmic Airplay Chart
    

^ ADDED strikethrough per discussion in following section.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rhythmic Top 40

Where is a source that say the chart is a component of Hot Rap Songs. Per the current chart[1], few of the songs are of the rap genre, and I don't even see where the chart is a component of R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, due to some of the songs that chart from rhythmic radio. I think the chart is just a component of Radio Songs. I also still would like its conclusion, due to the fact that it points out crossover pop/R&B/hip-hop songs. Candyo32 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

the source i've used its billboard. on the rap songs chart page it says rap songs are "the week's most popular rap songs ranked by mainstream R&B/hip hop and rhythmic radio airplay impressions."[2] This makes Rhythmic Airplay Chart and Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop component charts of Rap Songs. Additionally Rhythmic Airplay is a component of Rhythmic Top 40. I'm not sure about the status of the Rhythmic Top 40 itself. That i will need to check. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But I was under the impression that Rhythmic Top 40 was another name for Rhythmic Airplay Chart. And I am still kind of confused about it being a Rap component, but the I don't think that is only what the chart is, because I can't see Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, and Kesha charting on the Rap chart. Candyo32 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a rap component. If anything, its a small subset of stations that contribute to Hot 100 tabulation. - eo (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just cross references the Rhythemic Top 40 at billboard.com and billboard.biz they are indeed the same thing. .com calls it Rhythemic Airplay whereas .biz calls it Rhthemic Top 40. well i think the point us that Rhythemic is more a type of R&B rather than rap. The rap chart looks as the rhythemic airplay and the mainstream R&B/hip-hop airplay. Mainstream in billboard terms means main genre. Therefore the rap songs takes into account the R&B/Hip-Hop radio stations which play mainly this genre. Rhythmic is defined by billboard as uptempo, pop, R&B and contemporary hits. So effectively its a crossover format. Does that make more sense?Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the reasoning for not using Rhythmic Top 40, if both are radio songs components? Candyo32 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not recommend using it as it is a smaller subset of radio stations than say, Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs), which encompasses just about all genres. Radio Songs in itself is already a component to the Hot 100 and "Rhythmic Top 40" is not a genre chart in the same way country, modern rock or rap is. - eo (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry maybe i was a bit confusing with that last comment. Rhythmic Top 40 = Rhythmic Airplay Chart. (two different names for the same chart). It is also a component of Hot Rap Songs, and so under current guidelines it would be advised that it is not used on Wiki unless the song doesn't chart on Hot Rap Songs. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So per what you said, since Tik Tok didn't chart on the Rap Songs, the chart is to be added? Candyo32 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

nope because as Encorbit said it is also component of Hot 100 Airplay. Its best not to include it at all because its difficult to source and also is not the same as other conventional genre charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well shouldn't it be removed from the flow chart then? Candyo32 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done as per discussion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another question, should the T4M/Pop Songs be included for songs which charted on the defunct Pop 100?Candyo32 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes if a song has charted on Pop Songs regardless of where it charted on Pop 100 it should be included. However if a song did chart on Pop 100 and there is a credible source for it then it should remain in place.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ay yi yi - great news everyone!

Billboard just rolled out twenty-one new digital charts! [3] - eo (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. JEEZE! gosh there's gonna need to be some discussion about this and i think we're gonna have to include the information on this page.... Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed status of page to Draft Proposal

Since this page is still in its infancy and hasn't yet been proposed to the community, I have changed its status to that of Draft Proposal per the explanation found at Template:Draft proposal. The page has already been referenced in discussion and we need to make it clear that it is not yet finalised. I hope you understand my rationale and see this as means to avert the hammer of an over-zealous sysop... Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 03:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

i'm not sure i fully agree with this. Although i agree it is in its infancy there is definately a consensus in the discussions that formed this page for clarity on billboard charts in the US. the page is in its infancy in the sense that more information is added but it has already been used quite a lot and many users are aware of it now thanks to editors refering to the page in their edit summaries. Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

But i do support a move to guidelines over MoS.Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll be away over the weekend but Tony might pop by at some point to give pointers. He is far more experienced than me, in such matters, so I would defer to his judgement anyway personally. Sorry if I seemed a little rude by not asking first: I get a little impetuous at times and forget myself! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, for the sake of editors we need a significantly rationalised system of advice and guidance for Billboard charts. MoS editors are very concerned about the fragmentation in this area. My question is: can the information be more centralised—conflated into a smaller number of pages, possibly one? Tony (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted the information to be contained at WP:record charts but i was told the page is already quite full and difficult to navigate. Maybe it could be merged there? alternatively i suggest it be placed at Billboard charts but was told that the page is about the facts behind billboard and less about how to use them on wikipedia. What do you think? Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is much redundancy.

I won't support this proposal when it goes to being voted on. There is too much redundancy in it. Showing the same song charting on 3-4 charts from Billboard is just an attempt to brag. Example: A song is often on the Hot R&B/Hip Hop chart and the Hot Rap chart at the same time. The difference negligable. But showing them on both just makes it look like it accomplished more than it actually did. Once a song makes it on the Billboard 200, no other Billboard Chart should matter. If it makes it to the Hot 100, no other chart should matter. If it's on the Hot 100, that shows it is doing well compared to everything, not just "Adult Top 40" or "Adult Contemporary". If a hip hop song hits the Hot 100, it is a given that it performed well on the hip hop chart. It couldn't have made it to the Top 100 without charting on the more specific hip hop chart. Including all these other ones is like coming in 2nd at the Olympics, winning a silver medal, but wanting to brag about how you were #1 among runners wearing blue shoes. Pick a single Billboard chart for a song/album, whichever one you want, and use it. The rest are just excess.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. The motion has already passed. It is a draft in the sense that the exact information is being verified. The genre charts which you've belittled in your comment are of grave importance to an article. A song might not do well on the Hot 100 but do considerably well on its genre chart. And actually based on their relative component charts the R&B/Hip-Hop Chart and Hot Rap Tracks both only share one component chart in common: R&B/Hip Hop Airplay. I'm afraid this page hasn't made any new rules its simply co-ordinated all the information that's already available into one central easy guide. None of the current wikipedia policies support your comments. What you are suggesting is a completely seperate overal point of view which needs to be brought up on WP:record charts because as i've said before this is nothing new. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• It passed what? I'm talking about when it's put up to be adopted as an actual guideline. I'm not belittling the genre charts, but including all of them when a place has been obtained on the more prestigious charts is redundant. Every one knows that #15 on the Hot 100 is usually a bigger achievement than #5 on the rap chart, so saying both really serves no real purpose other than to try to say "look, I got a higher number on another chart". If a song only charted on the hip hop chart, but didn't make it to the Hot 100, fine, show the hip hop chart. But once it makes it to the Billboard 200 or Hot 100, ditch the others. If they make it on there, it is implied that they charted on the narrower, genre specific charts. Or even limit it to a single genre chart. But showing the same song on multiple genre charts is pointless. Let me ask you this: Can you show me a song that made it onto either the Billboard 200 or Hot 100 and did NOT chart on a narrow, genre specific chart? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

no that's the whole point. The genre charts show how the song did compared to other songs it their genre. Its passed in the sense that it was approved for use on wikipedia and is in transition from demoted from MoS to Guidelines. We're currently discussing we're this information should be place for easy access. What you are suggested is much wider ranging policy which needs to be brought up at WP:record charts because it is more about component charts in general rather than the actuall information contained in the charts guideline here. This is simply a matrix or conditions table to help people decide which charts can and cannot be used under which conditions. Also don't forget that not all songs will chart on every genre chart. it will and does vary. For example a song charted on Hot Rock Songs is unlikely to chart on Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs or Hot Dance Club Songs. You appear to be suggesting that a song charts on multiple genre charts and that also a song will chart on genre charts before appearing on Hot 100. what you are advocating is much wider ranging issue which would need to be addressed in the wider sense and would have to take into account international charts e.g. UK R&B Chart for consistancy.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• So riddle me this: If it shows how well they did in their genre, how can a song be on charts of more than one genre? Clearly those charts are imprecise. As I said, The 200/Hot 100 and a single genre chart would be fine, that would show how it did within its genre (solving your desire to do so), but showing multiple genre charts doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

because some songs fall into more than one genre. For example Telephone (song) by Lady Gaga is both a pop song and a dance song so it has charted on both. Come on think about all the song articles you've seen how many can you say honestly list one genre? Like i said i didnt make the rules i simply cordinated information from wikipedia and billboard to make a central station for users to be clear about wikipedia policy. I personally have no vested interest or desire for songs to have a handfuls of billboard charts. The problem is more to do with retailers, labels and critics all classing the a song as a different genre. E.g. some retailers say Rude Boy (song) is pop music whilst others say its R&B equally critics have called it ragga, pop and electro. Since its charted on Pop Songs, Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs, Electro/Dance songs which would you include alongside the Hot 100? Its not a black and white argument. And i know i keep saying it but this page advocates nothing new to what wikipedia already states.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• And that's the imprecise nature of the genre charts. The BB200 and the Hot 100 aren't imprecise. A song being on the hip hop and rap chart at the same time.....well which is it? Which one would I pick? I don't care. Pick one, whichever one you want to make the song look good, and use it. Who cares it a retailer calls it hip hop and another calls it rap. This adult contemporary versus adult pop versus mainstream pop makes no sense. Again I ask you to show me an example of a song that made it to the BB200 or the Hot 100 and never charted on the chart of the genre it belongs in. Can you do that for me? Is it even possible? When you graduate from high school, it is implied that you graduated from elementary school. When you make it to the 2 big charts, it is implied that you already charted in narrow genre charts. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

see your suggestion is asking me to make an arbitary choice over which of the genre charts is more significant. My opinion could be very different to another user's view of what genre a song is. Where is the consistancy? Again you've asked me: "show me an example of a song that made it to the BB200 or the Hot 100 and never charted on the chart of the genre it belongs in." but this is irrelavant of the question and issue at hand because it suggests that a song charts on a genre chart before the Hot 100. Charting is nearly always simulatanious. Whilst i'm spearheading changes to this page i cannot do anything with your opinion because i've edit this page based on the information billboard and wikipedia (through articles and consensus) has provided. If you are unhappy with the current situation that's fine and i accept that some of the charts need reviewing but to suggest that songs should be limited to one genre chart i dont not currently accept. like i said i havent created this page for a new implemented policy. This page is merely a demonstration of current wikipedia policy and billboard information. If you feel otherwise you need to raise the discussion at WP:record charts and see what a general WP:consensus says. Currently there is not a consensus for what you're saying and it is not the general community's opinion. Furthermore i cannot make edits to the page to implement what you're suggesting when WP:record charts and Billboard.com/billboard.biz suggest otherwise. If there is a consensus to change the rules at WP:record charts then obviously i will be more than happy to change this page to reflect that. But right now the rules at WP:record charts have no stipulation of the number of sourced credible charts (genre or main or national etc.). These rules have been in place for a long time... i dont see why the creation of WP:USCHARTS has suddenly changed the sitatuation as though there's been a massive revelation or change in policy because there hasn't been.Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked you simple questions. You either refuse to or cannot answer the simple questions. Which is it, won't or can't? You've spent a lot of time explaining what I'm not asking, but still haven't answered the question. Do you need it to be even more specific? Like a specific song? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've actually said your question cannot be answered because it is illogical. A song charts simultaniously on a genre chart(s) and the hot 100. However songs can chart on a genre chart without even charting on Hot 100. For example Hot Dance Club Play is nothing to do with the Hot 100. Therefore in theory a song could chart on the hot 100 quite highly (through sales and airplay) but chart low or not even chart at all on the Hot Dance Club Play because club DJs refused to spin the record. There really is no need to be rude. I won't answer the question because i dont think it's relevant but i've attempted to above. You appear to be having a go at me as though i've implemented some new policy that never existed before. don't shoot the messenger! Also i've explained exactly why genre charts are currently allowed and i've tried to tell you that your having the dicussion in the wrong place and with the wrong person if your trying to implement a chang in Billboard charts policy.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• The question isn't illogical. The problem is that you aren't just answering what I asked, instead you're trying to justify why you are right. Of course a song charts on the genre chart on the way to the Hot 100/BB200. That is the point. To get to those, it is a given that they charted in the more narrow charts. And of course a song could chart on a genre chart and never make it to one of the main ones. In that case, the genre charts would be the correct one to show. But showing both is redundant. If you made it to the top ladder, why bother talking about the lower one. As for all your "you're taking it out on me" stuff...I haven't attacked you personally. I've addressed you because you responded. Stop acting like I'm singling you out, holding you responsible or attacking you in any way. Nor was there any rudeness. It was simple: I asked if you can't answer or won't answer. You've shown that you won't answer. That's fine. But there is nothing rude about asking which is the case. But I'll stop since a) you have no interest in actually discussing what I asked, b) I don't want you to feel like your being "attacked" simply because I disagree with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rock Songs component charts in discography singles tables

Since two of Rock Songs' component charts, Mainstream Rock Tracks and Alternative Songs, actually predate Rock Songs, what are we to do on singles chart tables on Discography tables with long-lasting bands who have both a long string of chart positions on one of the two component charts, and maybe one or two entries on Rock Songs? I'm thinking of an artist like Green Day, who have over 20 appearances on the Alternative chart - including numerous #1 singles - but only a handful of Rock Songs chart appearances (songs that also appeared on Alternative).

Also, in articles, what are we to do if a song peaks higher on, say, Alternative Songs than it does on Rock Songs, like for instance a song which peaks at #1 on Alternative but #5 on Rock? Wouldn't it be best to include both positions? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue 1: In the first example your suggestion is fine. Both can be left in. But as of 2010 and for new songs the guidelines at WP:USCHARTS should be used.

Issue 2: In the second example the Rock Songs chart should appear in the Chart Table and but critically the number one position on Alternative Songs should be mentioned in prose in the chart performance but and/or the introduction. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In your reply to issue one, you mean like a new band, not a previously charting artist, right? If Green Day release a new single this year that peaks on both Rock Songs and Alternative Songs, am I to list both singles peaks on the discography, or leave the Alternative one blank, making the information for that chart incomplete? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook

If the discography already contains many peaks in both alternative and rock songs then carry on using them for any new releases. But in a new band or a band where the rock song charts eclipse the alternative songs charts the the AC should be removed completely. I'm not really sure if in Green Day's case it would be right to remove the AC chart. It should prob be left in. Also its only because Billboard has changed the chart rules and classified AC as a component of Rock Songs that we have this issue. Like you said an incompletely discography is not wise. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's understandable. I think that the Alternative Songs positions for artists whose streak on that chart (which launched in 1988) predate Rock Songs, then those discography singles positions should never be removed. It wouldn't make sense to remove a chart position from before - or even after - the creation of the Rock Songs chart, if the band charted several times in the Alternative Songs chart before the creation of the Rock Songs chart. What good is it to suddenly have, say U2's US Rock chart information be only their Rock Songs positions - which means that that part of the table will be empty until the No Line On The Horizon-era, when the band charted on Mainstream Rock and Alternative Songs for several decade before the creation of Rock Songs? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook

Well seen that i've had the aweful job of having to put the new changes into the chart guidelines i've had to answer a lot of questions lately. But yes that sounds sensible. There should be the not about how Rock Songs is now the front genre chart for rock but maybe no more Alternative Song/Mainstream Rock song chart positions post 2009 should be included?Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For new bands, not the older ones like U2 or Green Day or Radiohead, right? It is very important that new positions for Alternative and Rock continue to be added to the discographies of older artists so the Alternative songs positions - which reach back before 2009 - be complete. I actually think that Alternative and Rock positions can co-exist on the discography pages of even new artists.

As for the pages for Rock Songs charting songs by artists whose chart appearances not predate the creation of Rock Songs, I believe that component chart positions should be mentioned in the prose somewhere, but not in the chart table of a song's article.

An example of this is the page for "Ain't No Rest for the Wicked" by Cage the Elephant, which peaked at #3 on Alternative, #8 on Mainstream Rock (a different rock component chart which uses different information than Alternative) and #6 on Rock. The #6 Rock position can remain in the table, but the #3 Alternative and #8 Alternative positions should be removed from the table and be mentioned somewhere else in the article - for instance directly above the table or directly below it. On the singles chart on the band's main article (Cage the Elephant doesn't have a dedicated discography page) all of these chart positions can be listed. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup sorry i got a bit confused there but yes i agree and support.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What parts do you agree with? The fact that discography pages should be left out of this whole discussion? that Alternative Songs/Mainstream Rock Tracks etc. positions be mentioned somewhere else in the article? another thing I mentioned? everything I mentioned? I really thank you alot for listening to me ramble =). I'm a member of WikiProject Discographies, so that's I primarily asked about discographies. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with and will support the kinds of things you recommended and suggested in your last comment. It makes logical sense. I will work on writing something about the implications of the rocks songs chart for discographies on the policy page.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, excellent! I'd like to see that when you've finished it. How about my suggestion of keeping the information about Alternative Songs (and other similar charts) somewhere in the article (so the information isn't lost), but not in the table? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup that seems fine too. If you do an example of one to show me so i can just double check we're on same wavelength that seems fine.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll use the song Sweet Disposition as an example. The Alternative Songs and Hot Dance Club Songs peaks can be removed from the table and instead inserted into prose underneath or above the table stating something like "Additionally, the song peaked at #14 on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart and #4 on Hot Dance Club Songs" with those statements properly sourced. As for Discographies, I think those should be left as they are. There's no problem at all to include both main and component charts in those articles because they are meant to be a complete portrait of the artists' chart information. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hot Dance Songs should be left in cus its a different chart all together.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But otherwise do you think a notation - maybe even a footnote? - is a good idea? Basically my gist is, I agree with the fact that the chart boxes should only focus on a few component charts, but that doesn't mean that the information about Alternative Songs needs to be removed from the article entirely: it's still a chart placement on a notable, long lasting chart for a notable radio format, even though, yes, it is now a component of Rock Songs. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook

Many articles have a chart performance section seperate to the chart tables. If the article doesn't then the information should be contained in prose under the charts header followed by the charts. see Sweet 7 and Still Standing (Monica album) for two different ways of doing it.Lil-unique1 (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rhythmic Top 40 proposition

I am proposing that the chart be used in the absence of R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and ANY of its components. This way R&B-leaned songs have a chart, whilst not charting or necessarily being released to urban radio, but receiving on R&B-leaned rhythmic. Agree or Disagree. Candyo32 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree component charts are not allowed, since forever, the only reason Pop Songs is now allowed is because the Pop 100 was disc-continued and there was no pop genre chart, the R&B/hip-hop songs chart still exists. Jayy008 (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree also - this is too small of a subset of radio stations. - eo (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

'Disagree as explained previously the Rythmic Top 40 is a subset of stations dedicated to playing a whole range of musical genres and so does not equate to being a genre chart. Mainstream Top 40 does equate to a genre - Pop. And as explained previously chart positions for rap songs which have recieved airplay on rhythmic radio are counted towards the Hot Rap Songs chart. Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But I'm only saying use it in the absence of the R&B/Hip-Hop and its components. Candyo32 (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But we're saying that by definition it is a component of the hot 100 airplay making it a sub-component of the hot 100 itself. therefore when hot 100 is present the the rhythmic chart cannot be used because it is the component of a component of the hot 100. Its criteria for chart entry is limited because it is a minority set of radio stations. under these conditions a song would have to fail to chart on Hot 100, and Hot 100 Airplay and R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and R&B/Hip-Hop Songs component charts. Do you not see why it then becomes unusuable? Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I have decided to remain impartial for the most part in these discussions, I feel I have to break the rule here and to agree with Lil-unique. A component of a component just isn't usable, IMO. Anyway, the song would hardly be notable enough for inclusion in WP—at all—if it failed to chart on any of those other charts listed by him so the whole question becomes somewhat moot, perhaps --Jubilee♫clipman 02:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to move forward and formally propose this page as a Guideline?

I have been keenly watching this guideline and the developments of it (as well as other developments over at WT:MOS, especially the creation and promotion of WP:Words to watch). The process of proposed promotion to WP Guideline involves a week long RfC and full advertisement of that debate in prominent places. Are we ready to go ahead and ask for consensus from the rest of WP? A few important question first, though. What kind of Guide should this be? (MoS seems wrong as I explained above; general Guideline might be fine though.) Where should it be: subpage, mainspace, merge to Record charts (which will, by default, make it part of the MoS, obviously)? We will need to be very clear about exactly what we want before starting the RfC, I think, so editors don't get drawn into side issues, non-issues and issues-already-dealt-with etc. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will make just one comment about the proposal unless other editors request further comment from me or there is a fundemental issue because i have a heavy personal involvement in writing this policy from the discussion so i dont want it to seem like i've forced it through. In its last incarnation i believe that yes it was suited more to a guideline. Although now (due to a recent discussion) and the decision to include information about how to present US Billboard Charts and their formats etc. in its current form i would support and propose a merge to WP:record charts with the shortcut WP:USCHART still being active.Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that, although there is some style guidance on this page, the lead proclaims this: "This guide is designed to help editors to determine which charts are acceptable for use on Wikipedia in which circumstances." The words I have emphasised seem to clearly indicate that this is a Content guide and the table (the main feature) is designed to help editors decide which of the charts to include rather than how to style the information in an article. Since WP:record charts is designated as part of the Manual of Style, merging this information over there would not seem appropriate. However, I just reviewed that page and now realise that much of the information there is also about inclusion rather than style, pretty much everything from Wikipedia:Record_charts#Chart_trajectories down, in fact. Perhaps an entirely new page is needed: WP:Content Guide (Record charts) for all that plus this page and the remainder of WP:record charts should be renamed WP:Manual of Style (Record charts)? We really need more people's eyes on this, though, so I'll drop a note at WT:MOS and see what they suggest. Whatever else is true, I don't think this page should remain a subpage --Jubilee♫clipman 04:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That is actually an important point. That was why i thought merging to record charts would be a good idea since that page is already a crossover of MoS and inclusion/content. But yes maybe this situation does need wider review as does record charts in general.Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good: we are of one mind, then. I have asked the others to comment so we'll wait see what they say --Jubilee♫clipman 04:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't the expertise to know exactly what the ins and outs are, but I wholeheartedly support the proposal for rationalisation and merging. Our editors deserve to be able to easily locate the information they need, and the cause of managing and coordinating these sibling guidelines suggests that merging is a very good idea. Tony (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But Content and Style are two different things. I suggest we split the main page into two pages and link them to each other. This subpage can be merged into the Content page --Jubilee♫clipman 04:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Prose looks fine. Got a link to the Content page? And the vital question: how much simpler will the structure be for editors, then? How many MoS current pages will conflate down to how many via this change? Tony (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • • I have just realised what you meant by "Got a link to the Content page?" No, basically, because there isn't one as far as I'm aware: all the Style and Content advice is conflated on one page --Jubilee♫clipman 13:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• I've just reviewed the page quickly, and I agree that after finalizing the style vs. content question it should be promoted to WP guideline status. Like any guidance, it needs to be seen to be authoritative to become credible and worthy of acceptance by editors generally. I strongly agree with Jubilee's encouragement that as we review and maintain any guideline documents, we preserve a keen distinction between content and style. Form and content are two different things requiring very different guidance, and that is reflected in the fact that both guideline types exist. I didn't see much here that is in fact style, so what little there is will presumably end up being subsumed into a higher-level music style guide. PL290 (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • So there's a disadvantage in putting both style and content in two distinct sections on the one styleguide page, I'm presuming ... Tony (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I should experiment in my userspace? I'll create two guidelines from WP:record charts and this subpage, one for style and one for content. We can then see how it might work for other guidelines like MUSTARD, MUSICMOS and, indeed, all the other "style"guides. OK? --Jubilee♫clipman 13:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. PL290 (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll make a start later today. I'll wait for more feedback first, though: I have only just placed a note on the parent page (I forgot earlier) --Jubilee♫clipman 13:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

• User:Jubileeclipman/Manual of Style (Record Charts)
• User:Jubileeclipman/Content Guide (Record Charts)

It didn't take that long actually. More tinkering will be in order and I'll need to verify that the MoS really does cover formatting only and the Content guide covers content only. I only cut clearly redundant info and removed the categories and style banners (obviously). This present guideline is merged into the content page, BTW. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• This in theory could work. However i do have one question.... the whole point of having the information together on one page was that users could make the following comments when editing "Actually if you observe WP:record charts you will find that top-40.com is a website to avoid, the bulgarian singles chart is disallowed and once chart macros are in place they should not be removed". My point is that although it makes logical sense based on what the policy shows - there are both content and style aspects to the policy — it appears to conflict with the idea of having one page which cohesively contains all of relevant policy information in one place with relevant shortcuts. is there not a more adept or bolder solution to the problem? does WP:record charts have to be classified as either MoS or Content guide? is there not another form of classification?Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Good points and good question. Yes: it could be a General Style Guide like Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. Would that make more sense? Perhaps I am over-thinking this? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • OK im going to sound really picky but ever since i started debate over this im more and more unhappy with the suggestions that are put forward. the main concern is that the issue is that WP:record charts and WP:USCHARTS are both essentially rules for what can be included and how it should be formatted. Although something like Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry could be a good compromise it gives some troublesome editors a window of opportunity to argue otherwise because the page's tag uses the terms "generally accepted" and "should". When in actual fact with U.S. charts we are saying these are the rules for inclusion and record charts is primarily style focus. maybe i'm coming at this from the wrong angle. I'm slightly concerned about the level of disinteraction of wikipedians. Many have made numerous complaints about record charts and billboard but when given the chance to influence change there has been a limited input.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      • That's not "picky": that's probably the whole point! Regarding "disinteraction of wikipedians": been there done that. Not sure how we solve that except by being bold and awaiting the inevitable reversion and discussion. But even then... Your work here has not gone unnoticed, however, and it clearly does reflect the consensus. As such, I suggest we start by requesting that it be merged back into WP:record charts and worry about more theoretical points such as the difference between "Content" and "Style" and how to deal with it at a later date. As such, I propose we start an RfC stating: "It is proposed that Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide be merged into WP:record charts. The proposed merger will bring all the information under one styleguide." I vote we keep silent about the other issues I have raised and "keep it simple and stupid". Agree? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I think the choice over whether records charts is content or style is something which needs long term review. but yes i would support the notion that we request that UScharts is merged to record charts and then we can review content vs style seperately yes?Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes. I'll get the ball rolling --Jubilee♫clipman 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It is proposed that Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide be merged into WP:Record charts. The proposed merger will bring all the information under one styleguide and make the contents of this subpage part of the Manual of Style by default. Editors at WP:record charts, WP:MOS and WP:MOSMUSIC have been informed --Jubilee♫clipman 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I support the merge. For purposes of keeping editing reasonably simple, I suggest that it just be transcluded, much as WP:Record charts/sourcing guide is. I was a bit surprised above by the discussion above that suggests that WP:Record charts as a whole is not a widely accepted guideline. In practice, it's adhered to fairly closely by numerous editors across thousands of articles.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Agree, as long as it's appropriately titled. Jayy008 (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this will make the guidance authoritative by branding it as part of Wikipedia's main style guide. Better to ensure new editors have this awareness than rely on past practices only. PL290 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support—makes a lot of sense. Tony (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support A sensible merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, agree with comments above and inline with earlier discussions. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I concur. A merge would increase the usefulness and the authority/acceptance of WP:Record charts. Cjeam (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - looks like a runaway snowball to me... FWIW, I also agree with this merge and, if there are no objections, will implement it within the next few days (probably transcluding it per Kww's excellent suggestion) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• In hand - I'll get to this tomorrow: there are a few tidy-up issues that will need to be attended to (removal of duplicate statements, closure of RfC, etc). I'll have more time tomorrow, I hope! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Done per consensus --Jubilee♫clipman 14:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bubbling Under chart

What is the consensus regarding this? See my discussion. I think I got confused eventually. As far as I can work out, on Discography pages, such as here and here the US chart listings point to The Hot 100 chart, but will include listings below 100, so the Bubbling Under Hot 100 charts are treated as a simple extension of the Hot 100. On Taylor Swift's discography page notes have been added to indicate that the track didn't get into The Hot 100 chart. However on song pages the chart listing includes the Bubbling Under Hot 100 position separately. I think that Bubbling Under charts are confusing and give a false impression of how the track performed when it isn't listed alongside The Hot 100 position. However adding both charts seems like duplication, and adding the Bubbling Under position and a note that this means the position+100 seems somewhat anal. Should 'Bubbling Under Hot 100' be replaced with a 'The Hot 100' that reaches 125 on song pages? Or alternatively just assume that 'The Hot 100' along with the 'Bubbling Under Hot 100' be considered the 'US Singles Chart'? Cjeam (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well in my opinion Bubbling Under Charst show not be used for the following reasons:

1. They are difficult to source as they are not regularaly published on Billboard.com although they can supposedly be access through Billboard.biz.

1. They are are independent 25 positions below the Hot 100 not necessarily an appendix to the Hot 100. Just as the heatseakerz chart is not an appendix to the hot 100Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I had trouble seeing any reliable sources for chart positions in my brief search to be honest, so I suppose the 'Bubbling Under' would be particularly problematic. And indeed the way I understood it is that a song will pass through the bubbling under charts (e.g. #112 then #102) on it's way to charting on the Hot 100 (e.g #98) but then will not be listed on the bubbling under charts on its way out. Only if it drops out of the charts altogether and then re-enters will it go through the bubbling under charts again, as they are intended to show which songs may enter the Hot 100 the succeeding week. I don't think it should be used on song pages; for the reasons I gave above. However, on discography pages the use seems fairly widespread, so maybe there a note could be used to explain. Cjeam (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well all of the guidance given is that it shouldn't be used because it cannot be readily sourced. Your explaination of the chart is correct. Songs on Bubbling under tend to have only charted based on 2/3 hot 100 components. However good sources and information for this chart is not readily available and it is not widely known by the general public outside of America. The Billboard Singles Chart is clearly called "The Hot 100" and so we should stick to that.... positions 1 to 100 only. Suggesting that a song has for example charted at 108 is deceptive and contradictory. There is similar situation with belgium charts. The ultratip is the bubbling under for the ultratop singles chart. and in that case we NEVER add tip positions to the ultratop. for example 1 on ultratip never equates to 51 on Ultratop. The case for UScharts should be the same. consistancy.Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, agree. Maybe this could be explicitly clarified in the style guidelines, obviously when this page becomes policy bubbling under inclusion is not allowed according to this page so that should help. I'll change it where I see it. Cjeam (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. I will add it to this page so that it is made clear. Whilst you've mentioned this page's transition to policy it would be useful if you could voice your opinion in favour of/or against the proposal in the discussion immediately above.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tropical songs?

I have question about what may be included. I've noticed that the "Tropical Songs" (aka Latin Tropical Airplay) are included if a song did not chart a particular record chart. But my question is why Tropical Songs over "Latin Pop songs" airplay? I ask because Tropical Airplay deals more with Caribbean and South American music genres and Latin pop songs include songs that aren't necessarily in Spanish. Magiciandude (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How to include new column for Bubbling Under

Hi. I noted that it is advised for a separate column to be added in a discography table when there are multiple Bubbling Under peaks, although this doesn't seem to be used often like in the 50 Cent discography with lots of footnotes. I would like to clarify if there should be an NA and grayed out box for the Bubbling Under section when it has charted on the Hot 100. Also, are there any existing examples of a discography that has included that in its table for reference? I wish to use this for the Glee Cast discography because there are 64 singles for that and footnoting would be far too massive e.g. User:Maine12329/sandbox#Glee bubbling under Maine12329 (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)