Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:20, 19 May 2022

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Record Charts This page is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Italian Albums Chart

In the few days, i re-examined the criteria of the two Italian albums charts: FIMI and Musica e Dischi. I discovered that at least until the early 2009, Musica e Dischi covered more point of sales than FIMI.

• Musica e Dischi covered 100 specialized stores, the total of the large areas and the principal chain stores to free national service ( http://web.archive.org/web/20060421162255/www.musicaedischi.it/classifiche.php ). I written to the magazine for to know what is the total and is circa 600 point of sales (in the '60s was 4,000. From '60s to date a lot of shops were closed).

• FIMI covered only 275 point of sales until the end of the 2008 ( http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=42 ), when expanded its panel to 1,400. In July 2009 expanded the panel from 1,400 to 3,000 point of sales ( http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/Spettacolo/?id=3.0.3563994896 ) and from January 2010 from 3,000 to 3,400 ( http://www.fimi.it/gfk_notametodologica.php ).

I think that at least until early/mid 2009 we would include it in the table of the reliable charts (for the albums).

I don't know for the singles, i know that's used by MTV Italy and includes physical and digital singles, but physical singles sales are very poor and FIMI covers more digital stores than Musica e Dischi. Maybe before 2008 could be used because FIMI considered the Physical Chart the main singles chart and Musica e Dischi from 2006 used also the download in its single chart. At the moment, i haven't got sufficient material for to affirm what of the both singles charts covers more point of sales before 2008. SJ (talk) 1:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should do a new source page like for Japan. Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(record_charts)/sourcing_guide/Japan

SJ (talk) 0:15, 09 September 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Succession boxes are being added to song articles for specialty charts, such as Mainstream Rock, Alternative Songs, Adult Contemporary, etc., sometimes with "multiple runs":

Is this a good idea?
—Ojorojo (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No. This is just cruft. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't there some sort of consensus not to do these anymore? Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently there was no consensus at the last RFC. If necessary, a new RFC can be opened and maybe just focus on the specialty charts if there is opposition to removing all chart succession boxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Why do we need to jump from one chart topper to the next? Is it a likely navigation? If so, create a nav box, but not succession. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there can be value to succession boxes as a navigational tool, but with certain restrictions. First, it should be kept to only national singles and albums charts okayed at WP:GOODCHARTS and—for the U.S.—the Hot 100 and any chart that would be listed in a table regardless of other chartings (i.e. the ones listed in the top row at WP:USCHARTS). Second, they should also be restricted to charts for which all or almost all of their number-one songs have articles of their own to navigate to, otherwise this defeats the purpose of a succession box (Tropical Songs would be an example of a chart that does not meet this requirement). As such, I say yes for Adult Contemporary (which I would not consider a "specialty chart"), but no for Mainstream Rock Tracks and Alternative Songs. Unless a song or album has actually topped the same chart in two separate chart runs (as was the case for "The Twist"), separate number-one streaks on the same chart should be kept to a single box row. LifeofTau 05:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, this is just guff. I don't think its helpful. Many of the record chart pages have a list of number ones and this information already exists elsewhere on other sites. Many pages already list this in the chart performance section of the article anyway e.g. "XYZ" was succeeded as number on the Metal Charts by "ABC" → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a good idea. It is particularly bad for worldwide hits that reach number one on a multitude of charts in many different countries. People want to add them just because they see them in other articles not because it benefits the articles themselves. Best to nip the whole practice in the bud. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 00:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars said. For a song like "Shape of You" or "Despacito", succession boxes will take up half the article, seeing as they reached no. 1 everywhere. And is it really pertinent to the song in question to see what was number one immediately before and after it? If you want to know what the successive number-one songs or albums were in a particular country, there are articles on Misplaced Pages detailing all the number-one records by year or decade in each country. Richard3120 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Except for one editor, all of the comments so far are against succession boxes in song articles. Since they appear in over 4,200 song articles and 2,000 album articles, there needs to be more input on this. I'll open a RFC; please re-add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there some way to let editors know when there is an RfC that's relevant to things they edit? I would have argued to keep these. Now, if I'm the only one, then it doesn't matter, but I wonder how many others are out there. In any event, it's distressing when the first one hears about this kind of change is when articles start changing, and by then it's a done deal. Brettalan (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Brettalan: Presumably this RfC was mentioned on the talk pages of (at least some) relevant WikiProjects, but I cannot say for certain. I myself learned of it through the Feedback Request Service, which gives you a random RfC. —Compassionate727  19:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The entire point of RfCs is to get broad, unbiased, site-wide input from the editorial community, not to reinforce an echo chamber. It is not usual, and will likely be interpreted as WP:Canvassing, to notify wikiprojects that have a clear stake in the outcome of an RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RfC#Publicizing an RfC includes: "To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: ... Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects". Notices were posted at WP Songs and WP Albums Editors interested in these areas should consider adding the project talk pages and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture to their watchlists. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Can" and "should" are not synonymous. If the motivation is vote-stacking, or apt to be perceived as vote-stacking, we know what the resulting perception will be. "I showed up late, and don't like the result and wish I could have called more people to my side" is exactly that kind of motivation. The fact that projects were notified, apparently neutrally, and the RfC was still unanimous should put this to bed, but we should be clear that ginning up a faction to try to reverse this isn't going to go over well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the succession boxes should be added back. They make Misplaced Pages easier to navigate. I think that removing them was just plain vandalism. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism has a particular meaning on Misplaced Pages, and you've been here long enough to absorb it. Continuing to call unmistakable consensus "vandalism" is likely to get you blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As a long time reader of country music articles, I believe this particular feature was helpful. Country music in particular has historically had very few cross-over hits, and it was helpful to be able to trace changing trends in the genre over time without having to visit separate master pages for the two common charts (RCA and Billboard). Could we consider bringing this back for specific genres? K2323 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should succession boxes appear in song and album articles? Currently, they appear in some articles to show which songs precede or succeed the subject song in record charts as a "number one" single or similarly for albums. Succession boxes are not addressed in this Manual of Style/Record charts, WP:SONGS, or MOS:ALBUM. Please indicate Keep or Remove followed by your reasons. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment these are succession boxes for number one singles or records not related to the subject of the article so they don't seem relevant to me unless the artist themselves has successive number ones, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove: In my opinion, I don't think these are necessary at all.

1. I've always seen them as unattractive disruptive to the visual flow of the article...like they were put there just to be put there (if that makes sense). Also, as someone else mentioned, if there's a worldwide hit that claimed the number-one spot on multiple charts in multiple countries, it could get really ugly really fast.
2. If a number-one single has its own WP page with a succession box, and is preceded and succeeded by a number-one single that does not have its own page, the navigation is then stagnated (which, I believe, defeats the entire purpose).

Aren't there lists of number-one singles for various charts anyway? Why not direct the reader to the appropriate list(s) under the "See Also" section instead? — Miss Sarita 17:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove A nav template or a link in see also would be a better, more compact way of approaching this topic. I can't imagine that people are coming to an article to move to the next No. 1 single in a specific genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove I agree the boxes are trivial, unnecessary, and disruptive. They consume much more room than their importance or usefulness warrants. Allreet (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove The say little or nothing about the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove I don't see that these add to the understanding of the song or album. If a reliable source discusses that what was number one before and after is important, it can be added to the appropriate section, so there would be no loss of information. There are already enough navigation aids (navboxes, infobox chronologies, etc.) and the longer succession boxes (some with 10+ charts) look like overkill. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove as needless filler that tends not to be relevant to the song or album itself, and even in cases where it is significant, one would be better off describing the displacements at the top positions within article prose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove Succession boxes have long been replaced by the "See also" section detailing the list of number-one singles in XXX country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Bingo (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove agree with the above comments, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. Very disruptive, look it up! Bluesatellite (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

In case the reader misses the 23 succession boxes, there are 30 links to "Lists of number-one hits in X" in "See also", and in 25 "Categories:Number-one singles in X". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove and discontinue the practice. As the initiator of the original RFC in December 2010, I entirely support this and happy to see a more unanimous consensus this time. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 23:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove Most of the remaining ones I've seen were only for the country format anyway. Most pop and rock song articles seem to have eliminated them ages ago. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Succession boxes need to be added back

I had no idea that there was an RfC to remove the succession boxes. Had I of known about it, I would have voted to keep them. Succession boxes make Misplaced Pages easier to navigate. I have no idea who in their right mind would think that removing them is a good idea. Succession boxes need to be added back and I will not rest until I get exactly what I want. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Another RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In May 2018, it was unanimously decided that succession boxes should be removed from song and album articles. I have disagreed with this decision ever since it was made. I believe that succession boxes make these articles easier to navigate because you can go directly from one article to the other. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

GamerKiller2347, when you say succession boxes can you give a specific example of how you think it improves navigation? Do you mean if a song reaches number one on a particular chart then a successful box would show you what is number one before and after it? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: That's exactly what I'm talking about. If someone wanted to know what the previous or next number one song or album was, they could go directly from one article to the other without having to go to other articles to find the previous or next number one song or album. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347: But adding the record chart template also adds the song to the "xx chart number ones" category doesn't it? For ease of understanding, it might be worth linking the previous discussion so others can see the original rational for deletion. Additionally, I'm yet to be convinced personally, but its worth noting that some songs are non-concurrent chart toppers and may therefore appear at number one at multiple points throughout the year. Additionally, I have some reservations about the volume of navigation boxes this could lead to in an article where a song or album has been number in a bajillion countries or genre charts. I'm also yet to be convinced that this couldn't be served better by the categories system - e.g. US Billboard Hot 100 number 1 singles (2010), US Billboard Hot 100 number 1 singles (2011) etc. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Something like this, I guess. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: @Redrose64: You have a good point. There should definitely be a limit on the number of charts.

Chart successions

Maybe this would be a great limit. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: @Redrose64: Another thing that I should mention is that when the succession boxes were removed, Billboard did not give us access to the Active Rock, Heritage Rock, or Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop charts. Now, they do. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

where there is multiple entries on the same chart because a song topped that chart multiple times, I do think it should be a separate row how each entry. Equally, I'm still yet to be convinced that this adds anything that categories couldn't already do. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: How do you believe that categories will help this issue? GamerKiller2347 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347:, for example "Tooshie Slide" by Drake reached number on Billboard Hot 100 as did "Savage" my Meghan the Stallion. So if both articles appeared in a category called 2020 US Billboard Hot 100 Chart Toppers (or something similar), I could click on the category to see which other songs had topped that chart this year. This would be preferable to navigational boxes because then we could have them same rules as record charts and avoid arbitrary rules or limits on what charts could be used. It wouldn't disrupt the flow of articles- they'd be hidden from view instead of having large lists/tables at the bottom of the article. It would also be easier to add and remove articles from the category and ensure standardisation of how the navigation is used. The only thing that categories won't do is exact sequencing of what song came when i.e. the exact order but having categories by year will offer some solution to that. Plus at present, the table formats do not mean WP:ACCESS requirements in their current format. I could mock up several accessible examples but at the moment its just you and I that seem to be discussing this. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: Number one categories for each year does sound like a great idea. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347: the system could work something like below:

As an example. These would have to be manually added for now but there could be a way to automate for example a BOT could detect the present of a record chart template entry that says a song is number one and add to the relevant category. It would be interesting to see if others see a benefit. I'm neither here nor there at the moment about the whole thing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: Great idea! GamerKiller2347 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to ask those at WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG to comment too as you're more likely to get a thorough discussion. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: This RfC has just been posted in both places. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem – and the reason why the succession boxes were removed in the first place – is when you get a song like "Despacito" which topped 52 national charts, plus five more Billboard genre charts. How would you then decide the number of charts to limit it to, and which countries? Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: that's a very good point. Even that number of categories would be eye watering... ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to overturn the unanimous May 2018 RfC that appears directly above this one. I'll just repeat my comment again:

I don't see that these add to the understanding of the song or album. If a reliable source discusses that what was number one before and after is important, it can be added to the appropriate section, so there would be no loss of information. There are already enough navigation aids (navboxes, infobox chronologies, etc.) and the longer succession boxes (some with 10+ charts) look like overkill.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I support the consensus of the previous RfC. Too much clutter - there's already the chart performance table and having these can lead to WP:UNDUE in relation to the rest of the article. Further categorization is not a solution. The lists of number-one albums and list of number-one songs are the best way to navigate between otherwise unrelated albums/songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 17:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with the user above me. Categories and lists exist that contain this information. These boxes are just a waste of space and clutter. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• I too am against the idea of succession boxes. There are already plenty of ways to navigate. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm also concerned that GamerKiller2347 is the new username for RugratsFan2003, who contested the last two RfCs on this topic and ended the last one (see above) by declaring, "I will not rest until I get exactly what I want". This could be seen as WP:BLUDGEON by not accepting the RfC result (both of them). Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I am still here. I have learned my lesson since then and I have decided to make a change. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose including succession boxes in song and album pages as needless clutter. In addition to potentially taking up a ridiculously large amount of space for tracks that topped many charts, it doesn't really tend to be relevant which record was number one right after/before that, at least not as much as the time spent at the top spot. Such succession orders are better for lists like List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2020 and List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2020. My stance hasn't changed at all since the previous RFC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

After seeing many people's opinions on this issue, I am starting to change my opinion on this issue. I am starting to understand why people wanted the succession boxes removed. If I can't get any comments from people wanting succession boxes back anytime soon, I will end the RfC. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

But they're the same opinions expressed in the last RfC. WP:SNOW anyone? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 01:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess I have paid attention to them more since this RfC was started by me. This is embarrassing. I will now end this RfC. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• NA-Class Record Charts pages
• NA-importance Record Charts pages
• WikiProject Record Charts articles