Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 45: Line 45:
::As of now, no. But [http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-50-singles-1994.htm this one] is fine. --[[User:Efe|Efe]] ([[User talk:Efe|talk]]) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::As of now, no. But [http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-50-singles-1994.htm this one] is fine. --[[User:Efe|Efe]] ([[User talk:Efe|talk]]) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree with Efe, we should keep the lists supported only by reliable sources. I think that the Australian lists need a lead paragraph, some introduction to the subject, just as we do on some other lists, to make it complete. [[User:Jaespinoza|Jaespinoza]] ([[User talk:Jaespinoza|talk]]) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree with Efe, we should keep the lists supported only by reliable sources. I think that the Australian lists need a lead paragraph, some introduction to the subject, just as we do on some other lists, to make it complete. [[User:Jaespinoza|Jaespinoza]] ([[User talk:Jaespinoza|talk]]) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw that we keep it because if we don't keep it we should deleted all other year-end singles charts Zacharyisawesome 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Zacharyisawesome
I saw that we keep it because if we don't keep it we should deleted all other year-end singles charts [[User: Zacharyisawesome]] 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Zacharyisawesome


== Coordinators' working group ==
== Coordinators' working group ==

Revision as of 22:50, 6 March 2009

Welcome to the discussion page of the Record Charts WikiProject!

Archives
Archive 1
Template:Werdnabot

To start a new discussion section, please click here

I saw that somebody created this article, and was wondering if the project considers it notable. If not, it can be easily speedy deleted, or PRODed. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 21:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think is notable, but if it gets erased then people will say that why we keep the American year-end charts. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i didnot see enough references to warranty notability, if so, the pages for recent years should be more notable. I don't see them being made. Hence speedy delete. --Legolas (talktome) 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take not that we have lists for year-end chart in the US (Top Hot 100 Hits of 2008), however, this is more notable than Australia's. Please also take note that speedy delete is not for notability issues (see WP:CSD). Perhaps an AFD or a further discussion in the list's talk page or here would be better. --Efe (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always assumed ARIA to be a reliable source for Australian charts, but if the consensus is to delete, so be it. I think in this case an AfD is more warranted rather than a speedy delete. MegX (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is when to stop? Most people will say that only the bigger markets are notable, like the U.S. and the UK, but slowly people are going to add articles for France, Germany or Italy, and just before we notice there is going to be articles for Poland or Romania. So we need to have a consensus to decide which ones are notable to have an article. It's much easier in the other languages wikipedias, even for songs an albums. For example the dutch only puts the peak positions in the Netherlands, and the german the peaks in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. So maybe we should only have articles for the ones that have english as a language, and of course that have a reliable database: U.S., Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.
I guess I see some merit with that argument. Maybe have a policy where non-English language charts are moved to the appropriate language projects eg. Dutch charts moved to the Dutch Wikipedia and so forth. MegX (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, ok maybe we don't need to erased the entire charts, I think that having the singles and albums charts are enough, maybe they can be in the same page like this List of French number-one hits of 2008 but only for non-english charts. But definitely we dont't need year-end charts, or this for example "VG-lista 2006". Frcm1988 (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okies then I guess the solution is to nominate for deletion. Have you noticed there is also a huge gap in the French charts on wikipedia? It's missing years 1969-1983 even though they are all available from infodisc. Maybe someone got tired of adding them and gave up. MegX (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe someone told the editor that the years previous to 1984 are not considered official because SNEP started it's publication in that year. I don't really know if those are considered reliable but maybe there are the only ones that go back to the 50s. Its kinda strange that France started to have this charts in the 80s when most Western-Europe countries have archives from the 60s. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is perhaps even worse for Ireland. I've been told that before 1991, their whole accounting system over there was very much ambiguous and unreliable. MegX (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I think it would be better to delete pages which cannot be supported by a reliable source. --Efe (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any third-party reliable sources that mention those singles' chartings? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, no. But this one is fine. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Efe, we should keep the lists supported only by reliable sources. I think that the Australian lists need a lead paragraph, some introduction to the subject, just as we do on some other lists, to make it complete. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that we keep it because if we don't keep it we should deleted all other year-end singles charts User: Zacharyisawesome 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Zacharyisawesome[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

who is gonna be our coordinator? Do we need a poll to select a one or any other way?--Chanaka L (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody offers, I propose Efe, I believe he is the most involved person in the project right now. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Frcm, but I suggest Ericorbit because he was here long before I joined the project. --Efe (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. But maybe we should just designate him right away, because the group have alredy started to discuss the topic. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Since other members of this project are offline and haven't had their side yet, we call Eric as our unofficial coordinator. Would you like to drop him a message? --Efe (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said yes, the message was there for days without any replies, and yes leave him a message so its the first thing he sees we he log in. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Eric will be good as a co-ordinator, but his responses to querries and activities is very brief and late. Efe, though he joined late, is more involved and has a very good knowledge regarding the charts. I propose Efe. --Legolas (talktome) 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, Eric's the Billboard guy. But let's wait other's comments, and Eric's, too. He'll be here before Billboard updates its charts later today. --Efe (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already involved with this council as co-ordinator for another project so that excludes me from here. I'll be happy to support consensus on who should be the rep for this project. MegX (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnot say that Eric is the only Billboard guy round here. There's Realist, Diverse and Kww, also myself who understands Billboard quite well. My concern is whether Eric will be able to give enough time to this project. I'm sure he got his hands full with others as well. Efe, on the other hand has considerable knowledge not only regarding Billboard but other countries' charts as well. I would say both Efe and Kww has knowledge regarding the record charts extremely well. Any one of them i propose. --Legolas (talktome) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I can't dedicate any time to it, I'm really overburdened as it is on Wikipedia. The best guys for the job are Eric, Efe or Kww. — R2 10:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Eric or Efe, but I don't think this is of utmost priority. We aren't that big. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support Efe.--Sakrileg (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'll take a looksee at the coodinator's wikiproject.... if needed I'll definitely help out. And yes, my responses lately have been late and brief.... real life (i.e. off-computer) stuff has been rather hectic for me lately (imagine that, "life" away from the internet, who knew), so if Efe is willing right now and has everyone's support then that is fine too. - eo (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. I think Efe is the right one for the job. I can provide help if you need it too, I also know Billboard (US) and Amprofon (MX). Jaespinoza (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Singles Chart

Hi all, i saw a discrepancy in the Dutch music charts displayed at acharts.us and the ultratop website for Dutch charts archiving. For the current issue acharts displays the number one as Gaga's Just Dance whereas Ultratop Dutch displays it as Jan Smit's "Je naam in de sterren". Which one is correct? --Legolas (talktome) 09:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you have raised the same concern at WP:CHARTS. I think it would better to leave the discussion there. --Efe (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh k. I thought both of them can address the issue. --Legolas (talktome) 12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be addressed here, but I think its the concern of WP:CHARTS. --Efe (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the chart displayed in the Ultratop page is a component of the Dutch Top 40. The Mega Singles Top 100 only ranks sales of singles and albums in the Netherlands, while the Top 40 combines these data with airplay. So I think the Top 40 is the one we should use. We should only use the Mega Singles if the single or album didn't chart on the Top 40. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]