Talk:Fascination (Alphabeat song): Difference between revisions

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

This is talk page for Fascination by Alphabeat any worries and querys about the page post up here and they will be answered

The article Tracklisten explains that the official danish music chart hitlisten.nu changed around nov. 2007. Alphabeat - Fascination charted prior to that, which explains why it doesn't figure in the charts on the current official url danishcharts.com (which covers stats from nov. 2007 onwards). Note that the former url is not defunct, but instead made to mirror the official chart stats, plus it's the place to find chart positions prior to nov. 2007 (its archive goes back to 2001). - Meewam (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the {{singlechart}} template to address the issue, in that the template supports Denmark 2007 as chart name for archived charts prior to Nov. 2007. - Meewam (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that hitlisten.nu is The official IFPI approved chart, while danishcharts.com just reports chart positions off that chart. I think the {{singlechart}} template should reflect that fact and will discuss it on the template or WP:CHART talk page - Meewam (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the midst of making changes to {{singlechart}}, and plan on making it selectable based on parameters. The advantage of danishcharts.com is that it is searchable by artist name and song title, which means that people don't have to know the week and year it charted to use the macro properly.—Kww(talk) 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realise that, but danishcharts.com, and also αCharts.us, have a different oppinion from the official IFPI approved chart at hitlisten.nu regarding the single charts for 2007. Up until november 2007 it was called the top-20 single chart, based only on physical sales of singles, but in november 2007 all the weekly single charts for 2007 were converted to top-40 single charts and included sales for digital downloads + physical sales, hence the single charts from w1-2007 onwards changed in november 2007. I have e-mailed the editors of danishcharts.com and αCharts.us asking them to update their single charts for 2007 to reflect the official hitlisten.nu chart, but to no avail. I respect the decision of the editors but it makes danishcharts.com and αCharts.us unreliable sources for chart positions for danish singles 2007 (up until November), even if they have a better functionality for searching the charts.

Here's an example: official single chart at hitlisten.nu, week 15, 2007. Try the same entering 20/04/2007 at danishcharts.com and αCharts.us. The charts differ because danishcharts.com and αCharts.us report the old top-20 charts and not the official updated top-40.

Please change the singlechart-template to use the hitlisten.nu url - Meewam (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me documentation of the change, I can put a note at WP:GOODCHARTS about the discrepancy. In a few days {{singlechart}} will be changed to use hitlisten.nu if the week and year are provided, and danishcharts.com if they are not.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change is documented here (under the headline: Track top 40). There's no descrepency if you just use the official IFPI approved chart which is found at hitlisten.nu (or hitlisterne.dk). Danishcharts.com and acharts.us is not and never has been offical chart websites. Please explain why you think that functionaliy of some unofficial chart website and the ease of using a macro, based on whether it supports 2 parameters (week and year), should be set above an official web site and above the WP policy regarding reliable sources. - Meewam (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he has anything to explain; that's not what he said. If an editor wants to use the {{singlechart}} macro s/he can. If the editor provides week and year parameters with the template, the macro'll generate the hitlisten.nu ref citation, otherwise, it'll use Danishcharts.com. Use of the parameters, meaning, as you put it, using an official web site and the WP policy regarding reliable sources, is entirely up to the editor, as it always has been. The tip-off to the editors comes about from the note in the {{singlechart}} documentation, which is clearly why Kww asked you for the info. Does that not resolve your concerns? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple responses, though. One is that Hung Medien is a reliable source. It's a licensed archive, generally considered to be reliable. Completely different from acharts.us, which is an unlicensed archive published by an anonymous editor. Remember that "reliable" doesn't mean "perfect". We've had similar problems with transition intervals in other charts before, and they need to be noted and worked around.

Second is practicality: the template can only work with the information it's given. Who's going to go through Category:Singlechart usages for Denmark and do the lookup work to correct them? Especially when the vast majority of them are perfectly accurate?

Third is that many people persist in adding charts manually. A note in WP:GOODCHARTS will give them guidance about this problem.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The singles chronology seemed to suggest that, but it's not sourced, so I altered to reflect the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.14.94 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fascination (Alphabeat song). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/345/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fascination (Alphabeat song). 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mr0Evm3j?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]