Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts

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. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(record_charts)/sourcing_guide/Japan

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

Consenus was reached to not add succession boxes back. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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:

Category group	Parent Category	Category	Specific category used for articles
Songs that topped the charts	Songs that topped US Billboard Hot 100 Songs that topped US Billboard Pop Songs Songs that topped US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Songs that topped UK Singles Chart	Songs that topped US Billboard Hot 100 in the 2010s Songs that topped US Billboard Pop Songs in the 2010s Songs that topped US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs in the 2010s Songs that topped UK Singles Chart in the 2010s	Songs that topped US Billboard Hot 100 in 2010 Songs that topped US Billboard Hot 100 in 2011 Songs that topped US Billboard Hot 100 in 2012 Songs that topped UK Singles Chart in 2010

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^{Talk to me} 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^{Talk to me} 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues with templates not linking to existing chart articles

Over the course of my time on Wikipedia, I have noticed several instances most notably of the Irish (Singles & Albums) and Japanese (Singles & Albums) chart articles not being linked to in their respective templates. To fix these issues, I have previously patched the issues by changing them into manual templates including the chart article links, but have received a little bit of pushback due to a couple of users citing a note on this page, despite it being a glaring issue with the templates at hand. Instead of me coming across and fixing these on an article by article basis, it's better if these were fixed at the root of the problem in the templates themselves to be linked to the articles at hand, which is important to do so if they exist per the norm of what is done with the UK, Scottish, US and Canadian charts. Is there a reason these weren't previously in the templates or was it just an oversight? Additionally, if anyone knows of chart articles for other regions that aren't linked to either, then those issues could all be fixed at once, as I find it to be quite a big issue at present. I would appreciate it if this would be fixed in the templates as soon as possible. Many thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Rockmusicfanatic20. If I understand you correctly, you want the {{Single chart|Japan}} output to link to Oricon Singles Chart instead of Oricon. Yes?

If so, I suggest you raise your concern at Template talk:Single chart (and Template talk:Album chart). The talk page for the template is the place to discuss any perceived shortcomings with the template. Good luck and happy editing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I raised my concern here at the suggestion of sergecross73 (talk · contribs), who's an admin here on Wikipedia, which he suggested on my talk page. However, thank you for responding and I shall bring up this up on the talk page you have just linked. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks JohnFromPinckney. My thought process was to start a central discussion here and have links to this discussion alerting participants of it at any relevant music WikiProject/MOS type talk pages, but whatever works. Thanks for the suggestion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)