Wikipedia

Talk:UK singles chart/Archive 1

< Talk:UK singles chart
Latest comment: 2 years ago by CycloneYoris in topic "Sssst (Listen)" listed at Redirects for discussion
Archive 1

Erm...

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For the US billboard charts, you can look artists up on the official website to see their chart history. I was just wondering if such a thing was available for the UK charts? If there is, I sure couldn't find it. : P

I'd like to add something about the forthcoming launch of the official UK download chart...

Go for it. Bonalaw 08:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Things to add to the article:

  • Controversy, e.g. Chart hyping, "Danger Games" affair, Roger Cook silliness, Deee-Lite/Steve Miller tie, "God Save The Queen"
  • changes in chart rules over the years

Bonalaw 15:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you to the authors for this entry. But :) yes, I'd put the hyping / Roger Cook in - there's no proper indication that for many years only a small and known to the industry subset of shops were used for the sales figures = they got all the freebies and other promotions. The middle of the history section isn't particularly well written either. Again, though, thanks. Lovingboth 15:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of good info in this entry but it's arranged somewhat haphazardly at the moment. Also I note that the Number One Quirks section is quite obviously paraphrased from www.everyhit.com - it's not actually a copyvio but it's very obviously taken from a well-known online source.

One more thing while I'm typing - I've been reading a book published in 1977, "The Pop Industry Inside Out", and it has a chapter on how the charts were compiled at that time. It turns out that even that late in the day, the official Top 50 was still being compiled on a points system rather than actual sales. Next time I remember to have the book and my computer in the same building, I'll get a proper reference for that. (Oh yes, and speaking of such things, we could use some references on this article too.) --Bonalaw 07:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


I have tried to do my best to add the controversy section under Number One Quirks. I don't know whether you want to change the article section title and possibly change the article quality, as it is probably not as good as the rest. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 21:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent history

I was surprised to see that the history section ends in the 1980s. I'm not an expert on the UK singles chart, but it seems to me that one of the most substantial changes in its history came in the mid-1990s. It was then that record labels began sending promotional singles out to radio to get airplay long before releasing them commercially.

The result is that singles now tended to deubt in their peak position and only decline after that. Before the mid-90s, it was common for a single to debut low in the top 40, climb for several weeks, hit its peak, and then descend down the chart. Now, a single almost never climbs above the position it debuts at. It is rare for a single to climb at all, and singles tend to spend less time on the chart now. Singles are also selling in significantly smaller quantities than they were a decade ago.

I think that all this should probably be included in the chart history section. Any thoughts?

Acegikmo1 17:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's touched on in the "Charts and the music industry" section, but could use a bit of expansion. I think Take That were the act who really pushed back the boundaries on pre-promotion, with some considerable success. -- Bonalaw 15:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyright?

What about the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it covers databases, does that include the charts? Edward 10:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are we really going to have the opening paragraph updated every time there's a new number one? It just seems a bit silly, somehow. Bonalaw 19:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do not include current number 1

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I removed the current number 1 and added a link to the bbc. unless somebody wants to update this page every week, this is the easyest and most convinient way of adding this info.

comments?

Agreed. Looks like someone readded it, though, so I've been bold and re-removed it. BillyH 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
Yeah agreed too but someone has added it yet again so i;ve re-removed it Jenny Wong 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for the purposes of comparison, the article on the Billboard Hot 100, the major singles chart in the USA, lists the number 1 single as well as providing a link to the official Billboard website, and as far as I'm aware, there's been no problems with updating the page each week. Certainly there have been no objections raised on the article's talk page. I think the weekly number 1 should be here, especially since there is no discreet article dealing with "Number 1 hits on the UK chart for (year)..." instead, that information is buried halfway through the "(year) in British music" pages. Again, for comparison purposes, the Billboard articles provide very clear and easy-to-understand articles dedicated to the list of the number 1 hits, week-by-week, for every year of the chart's existence. I haven't found this level of clarity in the UK chart articles.Phil500 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Longest time?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know what is the longest time a single has remained at No. 1 spot for? AFAIK it's not in the article. --Mark J 19:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's in UK Singles Chart records. BillyH 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actual physical singles sales chart

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there still a chart which just includes actual physical singles sales and not downloads? And where can I get it if there is? --Bonalaw

I'm not aware that there is, though the Charts Plus magazine might include it. Alternatively, if you want the info, you could get it (though in a fairly tedious manner) by looking at the difference in sales between the overall and the download charts. Robdurbar 10:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Record chart ?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I Think the article could do with a brief introductory sentence about record charts in general --BjKa 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of misinformation in this article, and also stuff that needs to be added. For example, the British Market Resreach Bureau did not always use only 500 stores for the chart return. The 'diary' system was made up of 750 shops from which the BMRB took 250 per week to compile the Top 40. I know this because I worked in a store that did the chart return for BMRB between 1978 and the end of 1982, when the contract was awarded to Gallup.

The hyping scandal of the late 70s needs to be included properly. For example, WEA and the artists 'B A Robertson', 'Pretenders', Cats UK...the list goes on and on. But they were all alledgedly hyped into the Top 40 in the first instance. The situation so engulfed WEA that Johnny Fruin at WEA was fired. Of course B A Robertson name checked Johnnyin his 79 hit 'Bang Bang'.

Update

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This needs massive updating, as the workings of the chart are undergoing massive changes. However, I trust Wikipedia to implement any changes with rapidity and class. --Montchav 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Top 150

The chart was still officially a Top 75, and has been ever since. However, in January 1983 Gallup started producing a "Next 25" section, i.e. positions 76-100

I seem to remember (c.1983-84) "Record Business" magazine (eventually bought out by "Music Week") having a "Top 100 singles" chart with a "bubbling under" section listing chart positions 101-150.

  • This could well be the case, as for a long time a listing of 200 records has been regularly produced, mostly for the benefit of "people in the industry" and not the general public. Surely down at the bottom end, songs are appearing on this chart on the strength of very low sales, maybe just a few hundred or even a few dozen, perhaps boosted to a bit more than that now by the inclusion of downloads but probably not of great importance.

Umbrella 10x

is it true?

  • Yes. And 7 in America.

Plagiarism

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pretty much this entire page is lifted from Answers.com Here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/uk-singles-chart

Nice piece of theft. At least it's probably one page on Wikipedia that's actually sourced and accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.162.24.169 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com#Parsing_method – ipso 13:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Answers.com copies from Wikipedia, not the other way round. MFlet1 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Internet age - how big a section?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Internet Age is the section that covers the most recent period of chart history up to the present day. It may be many years before this is superseded by a new era as newer technology comes in, leading to new parameters and yet another set of new chart rules.

In the meantime, the "Internet Age" section, already quite large, may become much larger as the effects of the latest set of chart rules continue to pan out. Already much of the section is taken up with the activities of particular singles which have done notable things on the chart, and more such things are regularly being added (and I plead guilty here), but as more and more singles do noteworthy things, the section may be in danger of becoming overbearing and unwieldly.

I believe that the added information in question is interesting, relevant to the article, and possibly fascinating to "chartologists" as they are known, and therefore should be presented. The question is - how? I think that the present appearance of the "Internet Age" section - a great mass of text - doesn't look inviting. It doesn't call out to you from the screen, "Read me!" Perhaps it should be broken down into titled sub-sections. The problem here is that a sub-section titled something like "Notable chart performances of individual singles" doesn't sound very snappy, and may end up looking more like a thinly disguised "Trivia" section. Yet I still think that the information it would contain is relevant.

Any ideas here would be welcome. Tonythepixel (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Broadcasting the charts" section

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This article has an extensive section, "Broadcasting the charts", that reads like a stream of consciousness and has no references at all. It contains some interesting information, so I don't think it should be deleted outright. Is anyone able to supply references and clean it up? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? I see the section is being edited to add wiki-links, but this doesn't address the problem. The section is far from encyclopedic, so if it can't be rewritten by someone knowledgeable about the topic, I think it should be removed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Should the name of this article be "The Official UK Singles Chart"? Isn't that the actual name of the chart? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm...Yep. Looks like it should be honestly. On the OCC website it's called the "Official UK Singles Top 100" so I think it should either be called that, or "Official UK singles chart". That also raises another issue: Isn't it only the top 100 singles now? Cjeam (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's about the chart that has existed for decades, and it's only fairly recently been called The Official UK Singles Chart. Also, the chart goes down at least to number 200, this second hundred placings available to subscribers of ChartsPlus. The 'Official UK Singles Top 100' is simply the Top 100 of 'The Official UK Singles Chart'. I think the 'Official' thing was added when The Official Charts Company began compiling it, probably as self-promotion. It was previously compiled by BMRB and then Gallup, and this article is about the singles chart throughout its history, so I would suggest the existing title is retained.--Michig (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely support Michig, his arguments are spot on. The compiler, size, scope and name of the UK singles chart (and many other charts) have changed frequently since 1952, this is quite well documented in the article. I don't suppose one would suggest that the article Premier League would alter its title every time the sponsor changes? No need to make any changes to this article's name. Bleddynefans (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested link

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wonder whether the link to this site is here: http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/1995/

It is very good, as it enables you to see archived records of the U.K. singles charts going back for years. I have not scrutinised this article, so I do not know whether it is there, but I certainly think that that one should have a high position in the list of external links. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs some serious work. It's become cluttered with too much stuff about the way it's broadcast and published, too much info on individual records' performance (and I plead guilty here), and a whole lot of other stuff that's not really about the chart itself and its history (see also my earlier comment above - "The Internet Age, how big a section?") I'll try to pare some of it back to a new and firmer footing on which to build the article up again in the future but in a more controlled way. Other people's ideas would be welcome. Tonythepixel (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The big re-write

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I'm going to try and re-write this page starting, initially, with the History section. This is massive full of POV, poor prose, and no citations. As such I'll be replacing virtually all of the prose. Anything I think is, potentially worthy of inclusion, but I find unverifiable I will remove and place here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of a sales chart: "...was at first little more than a gimmick, compared to the more prestigious sheet music charts. These had been produced on and off since 1936, and in their turn formed the basis of the first-ever chart countdown show on Radio Luxembourg."

I fixed an error by adding {{Reflist|group=nb}}, but I'm not sure why you group this one reference into a whole new group at all. Please explain. I will try to add some detailed citations to section Electronic Age next week. Bleddynefans (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see WP:REFNOTE for why they differ. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In early charts:

  • The NME chart "had the advantage of widespread exposure due to its use by Radio Luxembourg."
  • "There were also charts, such as that used in the mid 1960s by the "pirate" station Radio London (the "Fab 40"), which, because of the size of the audience, were influential, but were essentially airplay charts (allegedly influenced by payola) and bore no relation to sales."
  • Removed some information on "Please Please Me" etc. to be re-located later in "Chart comparison" section

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In electronic era:

  • "the first chart terminals appeared in record shops in 1984"

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • A lot of information seems to originate from this edit. However I am unable to verify most of this. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated otherwise it will be removed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I see that the last PDF added as part of that edit, Bibliography of UK chart books, contains some interesting info, although my very quick skim didn't let me match it to the rest of the edit's contents. Unfortunately, I can't say what the contents in that draft are worth, even if the book was later widely published without significant changes. Don't give up hope, though; maybe somebody else will happen along soon. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

More in electronic era

  • "By 1990 costs to produce the charts had risen to over £600,000. Gallup sampled (depending on source) 900 or 1,500 stores each week."
  • "The trade association of UK record companies, British Phonographic Industry Ltd. (BPI), announced in January the termination of the contracts with Gallup, Music Week and the BBC for 30 June 1990."
  • "On 1 July 1990, the publishing company of Music Week, Spotlight Publications/Link House Magazines, formed a new independent company, Chart Information Network Ltd. (CIN), to commission the charts."
    • I feel this is adequately replaced (perhaps even bettered an corrected) by the United Newspapers, and BPI cite.
  • "Initially the BPI refused to get involved in CIN's Chart Supervisory Committee (CSC) or to authorise the charts."

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Striking information [1] that has been re-added now verified. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note a lot of "Broadcasting the charts" information was removed in my edit here (there will probably be more to remove later). It was all unreferenced and alot of it was superfluous. The essential information had been added (I had no knowledge of removed content when I wrote this) with references. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Entire trivial quirks section removed here. Mostly WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:COPYVIO of http://www.everyhit.com/number1quirks.html Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Official Singles Chart logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Official Singles Chart logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Streaming

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added information about introduction of streaming data in the lead,[2] but perhaps someone more familiar with this article could include it in somewhere in the text, maybe in "Inclusion criteria" section? — Mayast (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is wrong

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is Wrong, Bohemian Rhapsody has sold 2,364,000, and not 3,995,000.

http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/queen-bohemian-rhapsody-is-best-selling-uk-rock-single/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Rhapsody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.208.90 (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, updated with latest Official Charts Company figures Btljs (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Most number-one singles

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Of the five Spice Girls, Victoria Beckham seems to be missing. Surely she should have (at least) the same number of group number 1's as Brown, Bunton and Chisholm? db1987db — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.34.141 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not happy with this list. The reference given doesn't contain any of these figures (apart from Madonna) and I've never seen number ones "credited" to an artist just because they are performing on the record. Every other list seems to only allow named artists (e.g. Paul McCartney & Stevie Wonder YES, Paul McCartney in the Beatles or Band Aid NO) If such a list exists then fine, else I think it should look more like UK Singles Chart records and statistics#most number ones Btljs (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, on reflection, it is so flawed I'm archiving it here and replacing with the above list. By the logic used for Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger would have at least 9 (all the Stones ones plus he dueted with David Bowie who would also have more) in fact every member of every group who also appeared on a charity record would have totals higher than their group e.g. Bono. I think it would be very unwieldy and, more importantly, I can't find a verifiable source. Btljs (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

ARCHIVED LIST:

Books for positions below 75?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As you probably know, the Official Charts Company only lists the positions up to 75 on the artist pages on their site. When verifying positions below this mark, the demise of ChartArchive has many to use Zobbel.de: however, its records only go back to 1994. This means that, in some cases (such as The Verve discography) I've had to remove certain sub-75 positions as I can't verify them. Books are often a good verifier when the web cannot help: however, the books that the Official Charts Company list on their site also only list down to 75. Is anyone aware of a reliable book that lists below-75 positions prior to 1994 (and beyond, ideally) that I could source from? Thanks. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You could try this website:[3][dead link] it usually has positions in the top 100, although I have noticed that some are missing.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
There are printed sources. Check out this: BDC and this: Chartwatch Annual Chart Booklets -- Bleddynefans (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

New website

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The Official charts new website now lists all the past top 100s going back to the beginning of 1983. Should all this information now be included as official? The Guinness Book of only ever registered the top 75 historically, but surely this is a more reliable source? Weirdly however, it only lists a top 75 between April 1991 to January 1994, not sure why, because I know the top 100s were complied at this time. Still, should it now be considered the UK charts is a top 100 since 1983 rather than a top 75?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been known all along that a top 100 existed, the positions below 75 were often published as "the next 25" or simply alongside the top 75 but without "weeks on chart" being counted. The reason these extra positions weren't considered official is that positions below 75 are "compressed", meaning that singles whose sales fell by a certain proportion were excluded, so the single at #100 might actually be, say, the 117th best seller of the week. So the current website simply reflects the official top 75 plus the unofficial next 25 that always existed. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
See entries on this at Wikipedia talk:Record charts: the compressed chart was not published from November 1994-2001, instead the only place publishing the official chart beyond no.75 at the time was Hit Music which printed the uncompressed chart. -- Bleddynefans (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about this. The point of my question was: what is now considered the length of the chart? It has been for many years called a top 75 (and I was always aware of the "next 25"). Positions between 76 and 100 were never considered part of the official chart as evidenced by the Guinness Book of for example. However, since the Official UK Charts website now lists 76-100 as part of the full chart (going back to 1983) does this mean we should consider the UK Charts a top 100 rather than a top 75?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Page name

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is not what this page should be called. See all the points made in the discussion linked above. I get that Billboard Hot 100 is recognisable globally as the US chart but it has history that Official Singles Chart simply does not. You have got to have UK somewhere in there for this to have any meaning. Btljs (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why was it moved? There was a discussion above that suggested renaming and it didn't have support. I think it should be moved back to UK Singles Chart. --Michig (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. I can't find any recent discussion and decision. Unilateral decision? Btljs (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UK Singles Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on UK Singles Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast day change missing?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm a little surprised that the change in broadcast day on Radio 1 from Sunday to a Friday isn't mentioned See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33091610 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.225.225 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Official Charts?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was the BMRB chart from 1969-1982 really "official"? There were a number of charts at the time, NME, Melody Maker and Record Buisness. Just because the BMRB was used on the BBC didn't make it official?

What about sampling methodology. Apparently BMRB charts excluded major retailers - Smiths and Boots and had a rule where records were excluded if not selling in 2 or more 'regions'. Record Business for example excluded Woolworths - the biggest retailer at the time.

There's little information on how NME and MM compiled their charts (Coachtripfan (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UK Singles Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Internet era

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Quote: "The first number-one hit never released physically was Run by Leona Lewis, the 11th song in total to reach number one on downloads alone. Unlike the previous 10, it did not receive a physical release in subsequent weeks (although it was released physically overseas, notably in Germany)."

But there was no UK CD single for Coldplay's Viva La Vida. Perhaps the writer of this statement is referring to the fact the Coldplay song had a physical release on the CD album, even though that had nothing to do with the song's singles chart sales. I suppose the chart-topper by Mint Royale had already been issued as a CD single years before it made #1, despite no such issue when it did top the chart, so that must also have been excluded from this complicated chart milestone.

--TrottieTrue (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that we are not all astounded at the idea of songs existing only in digital form, the noughties bit needs extensive pruning. By contrast, the post-streaming detail needs beefing up. Both inclusion of downloads and inclusion of streaming deserve equal weight, given their effect on the chart. 90% of recorded sales are now streaming equivalents, whole albums regularly chart all their tracks (Drake and Sheeran were responsible for half of the top 75 in one week with an album each) in fact Drake's isn't even called an album, it's called a playlist. Paid for sales have dropped to 10 year low but combined sales are the highest ever. Time marches on and this page needs to catch up. Btljs (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on UK Singles Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UK Singles Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hyping controversy

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 This article could mention that in the 1970s, there was a fair amount of controversy about some records being hyped (i.e. people were given money to buy records). Vorbee (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UK Singles Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Symmetry C" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Symmetry C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 24#Symmetry C until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

accelerated chart ratio

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can somebody put a bit about ACR in the article, as a lot of people on chart music blogs don't understand it, and to have a link to here might be better than having to explain it everytime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.174 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opposers state that "UK" helps differentiate from other singles charts (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


UK Singles Chart → Official Singles Chart – Starting this discussion on behalf of user:Erpert who proposed this at RFD. Rationale:"This redirect should be the other way around; the lead section even states that Official Singles Chart is the current name of the chart." I am neutral on this issue. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The proposed title does not adequately explain what the article's subject is and is highly unlikely to be the WP:COMMONNAME (especially with regards to the recognisability criteria), particularly outside of the UK where there are doubtless countless other "official" singles charts. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    • But the proposed title is the actual current title of the chart. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 14:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    While WP:OFFICIAL names should always be considered as potential titles for Wikipedia articles, other names are often used if they better fit the WP:CRITERIA Wikipedia has for naming articles. In this case "Official Singles Chart" fails to be sufficiently recognisable, natural, or precise for our purposes when compared to the current title, which is a far clearer WP:NDESC of the article's contents and (especially from a global perspective) almost certainly the WP:COMMONNAME. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure WP:COMMONNAME outranks WP:CRITERIA when it comes to the copyrighted name of a subject. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    The current title of "UK" scores better than the proposed "Official" in at least four of the five of the criteria listed (consistency is debatable). Also, names aren't copyrighted, they're trademarked. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    But the official website lists the name as Official Singles Chart. A similar discussion took place here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, but that move you linked to didn't go to an ambiguous title. If you tell an American about the Official Singles Chart is, they will probably think of Billboard. Ask an Australian, they'll think of ARIA. That's the problem with official - the word is so generic that, outside of the UK, it could mean anything (hell, a lot of people in the UK might ask which country's official charts you mean). It may be the official name, but it's an ambiguous official name. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    I would argue that it's highly questionable to have "Official Singles Chart" redirect to the page about the UK Singles Chart, as Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia and that redirect does not represent a global view point. It may be sensible to bring that redirect up for discussion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose UK Singles Chart is far more explanatory. Otherwise it would need to be Official Singles Chart (UK) which seems a bit pointless.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This chart has, over many years, been compiled by several different companies. For most people, the current name as it appears on the company's website is not the most common name that the chart is known by, nor does it reflect the history of the chart. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2021 (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.

"Sssst (Listen)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sssst (Listen). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 7#Sssst (Listen) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 21:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_singles_chart/Archive_1&oldid=1217661400"