Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Too many TopHit charts?

Lately, Szyign has been adding TopHit charts for songs that charted in a single country for almost every single year (). Personally, I think this is going way too far, and it is making Charts sections much longer than they need to be. It's basically the same thing as making charts for Christmas songs, and as history has taught us, if a song charts on a yearly basis, it's going to keep happening unless the music industry makes big changes. So, should there be a limit on how many TopHit charts for a specific country there should be in one article? I think only the highest peak per decade should be used. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I think there should be one table for the original chart run and then another table for the re-entries, not infinite tables for each year of the re-entries (on any chart, not just TopHit's). Heartfox (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Heartfox: So you mean like something on All I Want for Christmas Is You? I was looking at those tables for comparison. That's something I could definitely get behind. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with this. One table for chart positions at the time of song/album release, and one table for re-entries (no matter how many times it re-entered the same chart, we should only list the highest re-entry position, once). Perhaps we can make it into the standard guideline. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Kinda agree with this. I've personally added different peak positions from same countries under certain circunstances: diff official providers/databases. See Italy with Musica e dischi before 2000s and now FIMI, or Ireland's IFPI and IRMA, IFPI Denmark and Hitlisten, or if a record didnt enter into a chart during the original release, or a continuation of a chart (BB 200 and Top Catalog Albums). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

So it seems like what we're getting at is that only two chartings from the same chart provider should be included in tables: one for the original release, and one for all subsequent re-chartings, but if a song did not chart during its original release period (I'd say over two years past its original release), then only the highest peak it has ever achieved should be included. However, if a song re-charted because of a remix, then more entries can be added to reflect this, as it technically wasn't the same recording that became a hit (see the UK entries for Don't You Want Me (Felix song) and You Got the Love). ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If there are actually different releases or re-releases that makes sense to have more than 2. Heartfox (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, notable instances may also be included, like remixes, re-promotions, or global revivals. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I agree to include this, though without falling into WP:TOO MUCH. I agree with Heartfox' solution and what you said, it is true: various records have re-releases, remixes, re-promotions, then, we have seasonal tracks (like Christmas songs = new chart records), global revivals (Tiktok trends, a celebrity death) that make songs to re-enter the charts. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The common sense solution is to merge them into one long period, 2013-2025, for example, with only the peak of the performance of each chart in this period included. There's nothing wrong with doing this. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 17:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue of specifying in the table whether a given chart is airplay/streaming or combined

Hi! There is an inconsistency in how national charts are labeled in Charts tables. In several cases, charts that are explicitly streaming-only or sales + streaming are labeled simply by country name, which implies that it's a combined national chart. Per Manual of Style, chart labels should accurately reflect the scope and methodology of the chart and should not imply broader coverage than the source supports. This is already standard practice for airplay-only charts, which are typically labeled as such, and the same logic should imo apply to streaming-only charts. This issue imo applies in particular to Billboard "Hits of the World" charts, which Billboard explicitly describes as being based entirely on streaming and sales data and excluding airplay. Labeling these charts with only the country name risks misrepresenting their methodology, contrary W:V. For example, a similar situation exists for chart in Greece, where the chart represents an international streaming chart and excludes airplay, while a separate airplay chart also exists. Labeling this simply as Greece may therefore be misleading. Using more precise labels such as Greece International Streaming" would improve clarity and better align with existing labeling practices for non-combined charts. Here you can see a table with this logic implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_a_Feather_(Billie_Eilish_song)#Charts

I know so far nobody came to my talk page to say it's bad and I shouldn't do it, but since I don't want to do any troubles I decided to talk about it here first :) Szyign (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Its only appropriate to specify a precise label when a chart tracks one metric only (streaming, sales, or airplay). If a chart combines multiple metrics, such as sales and streaming, then its inaccurate to label those streaming-only charts. In the example you linked, the Hits of the World charts have been labeled "Streaming", which inaccurately implies they are streaming-only charts when they combine both sales and streaming data. Its very common for industry-standard charts like the UK singles chart to exclude airplay; by your logic, we would have to label the official UK chart as a "UK Streaming" chart, which would be incorrect and confuse readers into thinking that refers to the existing UK streaming-only chart. Flabshoe1 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Flabshoe1!

Indeed, after taking another look at the methodology of Hits of the World, I've reconsidered this, and in that specific case the label "Streaming" would not be appropriate, since Billboard clearly states that the methodology combines streaming and sales (while excluding airplay). Because of that, I’ve already started reverting those labels on pages where I had added "streaming" to Hits of the World charts.

However, I still think the situation is different for some other countries. In particular, charts for Greece, India, Singapore, and those compiled by IFPI (like UAE, Saudi Arabia, MENA, North Africa, Thailand, Vietnam (IFPI only), Philippines (IFPI only), or Indonesia) appear, based on the available methodology descriptions, to be based exclusively on streaming data, without a sales component (and without airplay).

In such cases, using only the country name as the table label can imply a full combined national singles chart, when in reality the chart represents a much narrower, streaming-focused scope. In line with the Manual of Style and the principle of not implying broader coverage than the source supports, more precise labels (e.g. "Greece International Streaming") seem justified and consistent with how airplay-only charts are already handled, at least to me...

For that reason, I’ve reverted the changes where they concerned Hits of the World, but for now I’ve left the more specific labels in place for the examples mentioned above, which-based on my understanding-do appear to be 100% streaming-based. Of course, if there are sources showing that sales data are included in those charts, I’m very open to adjusting the labels accordingly! Szyign (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss. I don't think its necessary to add the label of "Streaming" to charts that are considered the official industry standard in their countries, especially in countries like Thailand where only one national chart exists. This is because using only the country name doesn't necessarily imply a combined multi-metric chart, just that it is the primary industry-standard chart of that country. What is considered the primary chart is different for each country. For example, in the US the primary chart is the Billboard Hot 100, which currently combines sales, streaming, and airplay. However, in the UK the main chart is the UK singles chart, which combines only sales and streaming and excludes airplay. The rival The Official Big Top 40 chart includes airplay, which should technically make it the more "complete" chart, but it isn't considered the industry-standard chart in the UK. Another example is in Japan, which has a strong market for physical sales. The Oricon Albums Chart, which only counts physical sales, is considered the main industry-standard chart in Japan since 1987. In 2018, the Oricon Combined Albums Chart was launched, which combines sales, downloads, and streaming into equivalent album units. On album pages, referring to "Japanese Albums" in charts tables refers to the primary sales-only Oricon Albums Chart, while "Japanese Combined Albums" is used to specify the newer, multi-metric equivalent units chart. Therefore, I don't think there is a correlation between using just the country name and any implication of a full combined multi-metric chart, as chart methodologies and rules vary vastly between each country. The IFPI compiled charts in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia are considered the official industry-backed charts in those countries, so I believe just using the country name suffices. Flabshoe1 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! I understand your point, and I agree that in cases like Thailand (or other markets where only one national chart exists), using just the country name without label makes sense, since there’s no real risk of confusion about scope or priority.

That said, I still find it tricky to apply this consistently in countries where multiple parallel charts coexist, none of which is clearly established as *the* primary national singles chart. Examples that come to my mind are Latvia, South Africa, Poland, or Costa Rica, where separate airplay and streaming charts are published simultaneously and are both included in the articles, but there is no combined chart and i have no idea which one should be treated as more important. In Poland, for instance, until 2023 there wasn’t even a streaming chart at all, so the airplay chart was de facto treated as the main one on wiki simply because it was the only option available at the time. Situations like that make it hard to infer "primary chart" status purely from current availability.

I also still have some doubts about how to handle markets like Indonesia or Singapore, where we have both IFPI charts (streaming-only) and Billboard *Hits of the World* charts (streaming + sales). In those cases, it’s not entirely clear to me which should take priority in charts tables. Billboard tends to be more stable over time and has incorporate sales data, which could argue in its favor, but IFPI charts are often positioned as the official industry-backed national charts. Because of that, I’m not fully sure which one should be treated as the main national entry in the table, or whether one should be preferred over the other at all?

So while I do see the logic in your argument for single-chart markets, I’m still a bit unsure how to resolve these edge cases in a way that’s both consistent and avoids implying a level of "combined" coverage that may not actually exist. Thanks for your time! Szyign (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that in cases where multiple parallel charts coexist with no primary or combined chart, a specific label of "Streaming" or "Airplay" should be applied to distinguish the charts, like in Latvia, South Africa, Poland, or Costa Rica.

On the Southeast Asia charts, the IFPI charts are considered the official, industry-backed charts. Specifically in Indonesia and Singapore, the IFPI charts were compiled by the national music industry associations ASIRI and RIAS respectively for years before being rebranded as part of the IFPI's Southeast Asia Charts collection in 2025. An earlier discussion came to the conclusion that Billboard's Hits of the World should not be used where national charts already exist, as they are newer charts whose acceptance and industry use is yet to be determined. I've also noticed that the Hits of the World charts can be unstable; South Korea Songs was launched in 2022 and silently discontinued without a press release in 2025.

So I think for the cases of Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia, only the IFPI chart should be listed on a charts table when available. Per the earlier linked discussion, "Where available, editors should endeavour to use the nationally recognised singles charts for the country in question. Only if a song does not chart on the nationally recognised chart but did chart on the Billboard Hits of the World charts, then these charts can be presented in the charts table." So since only one chart will be listed, it makes adding the label of "Streaming" to the IFPI charts unnecessary as it is the sole primary industry-backed chart.

The only countries that give me some pause are Philippines and Vietnam, as those are represented by both the IFPI charts and the older Billboard Philippines Hot 100 and Vietnam Hot 100 charts. The Philippines Hot 100 is unstable as it ran from 2017-2018, after which it silently ceased for undisclosed reasons. Then Billboard launched Philippines Songs from 2022-2024, before relaunching the Philippines Hot 100 in 2024. The Vietnam Hot 100 is also somewhat unstable as it launched in 2022 but was suspended with no explanation between 2024-2025. When the IFPI charts launched in 2025, their press release stated that the Philippine and Vietnamese charts are the first industry-backed charts in those two countries, implying that the Billboard charts were not industry-backed.^[1] So to me this reads that we should treat the IFPI charts as the primary chart and only include that when possible.

To summarize, I understand your concern about not wanting to imply "combined" coverage, but the usage of solely a country's name only implies that the chart is that country's primary industry-backed chart, not that its combined in any way. Every country's main industry-standard chart has its own methodologies and metrics, so as long as a chart is that country's main chart, then I don't think adding any label is necessary (the only case where I think its necessary is when there are multiple parallel charts with no "primary" one like Latvia, South Africa, Poland, or Costa Rica). Flabshoe1 (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Your arguments makes a lot of sense to me. From now on, I will do my best to edit according to your suggestion, because it seems to be the most reasonable. Thanks for your help and clarification! Szyign (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem! Fyi, I've noticed you adding labels of "Streaming" to the IFPI Greece International chart, which inaccurately implies that it is a streaming-only chart since it also incorporates song downloads from iTunes. Additionally, for the same reasons discussed above for the Southeast Asia IFPI charts, labels of "Streaming" to charts like India's IMI International Top 20 Singles and Malaysia's RIM International Charts are not needed since those are the only industry-backed national charts in those countries. As there is only one official industry-backed chart in these countries and no alternative official chart tracking a different metric like sales or airplay in those countries that a reader could reasonably be confused with, the specification of "Streaming" is not necessary. Flabshoe1 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, alright! Sorry Szyign (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

For a chunk of most main singles charts' history, the only format recorded for them was sales. This is because streaming wasn't a format of listening to music until the early 2010s, so that meant that before then, the UK, Australia, Austria, Belgium Ultratop, Denmark, Europe, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, etc. had sales-only charts advertised as their main singles chart. There were and are separate airplay charts for a lot of them, but in those cases, it's specified that they're radio charts. Given that a chunk of readers to this website are from the country whose main singles' charts factor in radio in addition to other metrics monitored in most other countries' record charts (US Billboard Hot 100), not specifying the format misleads them into thinking both airplay and sales are factored in. I sure didn't know that fact until another chart expert (can't remember who) told me so, so I'm certainly an example. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 16:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Billboard Japan's Global Japan Songs Excl. Japan and Japan Songs (country name)

Billboard Japan published the Global Japan Songs Excl. Japan and Japan Songs (country name) charts since 2023. These charts were not added until recently appeared on "Bling-Bang-Bang-Born", "Specialz", Imase, "Woke Up", Fujii Kaze discography, and "Iris Out" articles. So, should we added these charts in the article? like Billboard Global 200 and Global Excl. US. PepeBonus (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

They're Billboard charts. You're asking whether Billboard charts should be added. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 02:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As long as the songs do not appear on the Billboard Global 200, I think "Global Japan Songs Excl. Japan" is OK to display the global reach of Japanese songs. The rest seems like just trivial charts with little value, in my opinion. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"The rest seems like just trivial charts with little value." What? Trivial? HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 21:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no value to how well Japanese-artist songs do in non-Japanese countries? HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 21:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There are hundreds of countries in the world, do we really care how well a Japanese song perform in each countries. If it really performs so well, it will enter the official chart of the countries. Trivial? well, that's my opinion. Billboard is known for their tons of charts. That's why we have WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS to have some criteria, so these tons of charts do not clutter articles. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, may I… politely ask what your evidence is that readers don't care about the performance of Japanese songs in non-Japanese nations? Polls? Surveys? Reader metrics? Section clicks? Do you have any of that? HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 23:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the proposal too much (even if it is a little bit inconsistent with we have doing with national European charts in cases where it made the chart of the continent). I will, however, have to call this out: "If it really performs so well, it will enter the official chart of the countries." This isn't a proper metric of commercial performance. There are categories of music (rock, classical, jazz, punk, ambient, drone, electronic music subgenres, bluegrass, country, vaporwave, no wave etc.) with huge listener-bases that still don't make record charts often because there is a limited number of positions (50, 100, 200) and charts are extremely competitive, not necessarily because the music is performing poorly. Heck, the genre of pop music has a lot of songs non-existent on the Hot 100 that nonetheless do well on the Pop Digital Songs, Pop Airplay and Adult Top 40 charts (The latest efforts from Meghan Trainor and Kesha come to mind). There are lots of hits on charts primarily of rock (especially in the 21st century), R&B, Hip-Hop, rap, classical, jazz, dance, club, electronic, back catalog, soundtrack, Latin etc. that still don't do well enough to make even a bubbling-under extension of a nation's main all-genre record chart. We've had those other types of charts listed on tables for a while (Mainstream Rock, Hot Rock Songs, Jazz Digital Songs, Classical Digital Songs, Comedy Digital Songs, Classical Albums, Jazz Albums, Dance Club Songs, Dance/Electronic Songs, Country Songs, Bluegrass Albums, Top Electronic Albums, Belgium's Alternative Albums and Hip-Hop songs charts, German Black charts, Dutch Urban Charts, UK Country Charts, UK American, UK Prog, the German genre charts Offiziellecharts have been running recently, etc.) without any complaints that they were reflecting commercial performances that were too poor to be listed, so there is really no problem with what are essentially J-pop charts for other countries. I can tell ya for sure that a lot more listeners of J-Pop exist in the west than jazz, classical, comedy and bluegrass combined, so this really isn't an issue. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 01:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

To respond to the "clutter", the only instances of charts that have officially been considered that on here are component chart positions in instances where the song made the main chart, and even then, that's for chart tables; mentioning extreme cases where the song made one component but not the other are allowed. These Japan Songs charts do not fit into that category, as each nations' main record charts are usually compiled and published by a different institution. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 01:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Cliffnotes version: You're going to have to do much better than "do we really care". Billboard has made a lot of fuck-ups when it comes to its charts for sure (both deliberate and intentional, such as calling their R&B and Disco charts "Black music" charts at one point), but they, at the very least, would never publish a chart for a format and genre less than a 1,000 people listen to. They cancelled the Hot Singles Sales chart in 2021 for a reason. Thus, there's clearly enough readers that care about the performance of anime intro themes, cutesy Japanese girl group songs, and weird Vocaloid pieces that the biggest, most-recognized publisher of charts in the world is willing to exploit that. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 01:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

For the record, to address the "one hundred countries" aspect that you are using to downplay the value of these chart, Billboard Japan is only running those for Brazil, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and the United States: only 13 countries, not even close to 100, and huge ones with developed music markets and occasionally their own styles of pop music at that. The only country mentioned here with a below-10-million population is Singapore, and the second-smallest of this list, Taiwan, still has an impressive 23 million people. The highest one has a one-billion+ population. Basically, this really is not that high a quantity of nations for tables, neither are most of these small. For the most part, the main national record charts J-pop make is Japan, with fewer instances of them making a few other Asian markets like Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea, so the worry about tables being too long is unwarranted. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 17:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

My proposal would be:

• If a song has not charted on the Billboard Global 200, we may add "Global Japan Songs Exl. Japan"
• If a song has not charted on the "Global Japan Exl. Japan", we may add the Japan Songs (country name) charts

There are already many variety of charts in Japan, from both Oricon and Billboard Japan. These criteria would simplify the addition. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Eh, OK. That's a pretty good compromise, all things considered. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 00:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Bluesatellite. PepeBonus (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I know that I'm not a registered user, but I just wanted to make a point. Considering that the source of all those Global Charts is always Luminate, maybe it's better to consider the "Global Japan Songs Excl. Japan" only if the song is not charted on either the "Global 200" or the "Global Excl. U.S.". I would do the same with the newly released "Global K-Songs", published on Billboard Korea. For the rest, I agree with Bluesatellite's proposal. ~2026-78511-0 (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Just so users fully understand the context, this is not a component chart to the Global 200, even if its data is from the same source. This is essentially the same components combo but for a specific category of song. We still include genre charts even when a song makes the main record chart, and we still include individual European-country record charts even in cases where it makes the main European chart, even though the data for the charts of those individual countries is also in the European chart. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 15:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

And in case someone throws a WP:BLUDGEON accusation against me, this was about how the Japan Songs charts don't meet the definition of "clutter", whereas the previous comment was about how the Global 200 Excl. Japan chart is not a component to the Global 200 and how the Japan Songs charts is not a component to the Global Excl. Japan chart. Just wanted to make that clear. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 16:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Support Bluesatellite's proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Luminate

Should Luminate record charts be used in some cases, or are they qualified as "bad charts"? —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 21:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

As someone who generally sick of the music Wikiprojects, I would not recommend talking to these people or editing on the music side of Wikipedia at all. The Luminate charts are not qualified as bad by any means. They're Billboard charts, for goodness sakes. Simply put, the few users in the top discussion just found them WP:NOTINTERESTING and genuinely believe, without evidence, that the average reader will find no value in how niche-genre and foreign music does outside its home country. Yes, there's WP:VNOT and editorializing, but even that is based on much better grounds than that. The essays Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable and Wikipedia:Popularity does not guarantee notability exist because, when left to their own devices, even the most beneficial, informed and contributive of users will make positions like this. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 19:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

anyone with billboard pro?

Hi, does anyone have access to billboard pro? We have an article at Oliver Sean that has some claims of chart positions which have dubious sourcing; I would love to verify these positions and then directly cite Billboard if this can be done. Morwen (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I do. What chart positions exactly are in question? FanDePopLatino (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)