This page is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
Israeli Mako Hit List
Hi,
I recently saw that since May 2023 Mako publishes charts, that according to them are the first official Israeli chart. Their statement (taken from here) says:
"There has never been a body in Israel that would truly measure the "power of songs" in the country and include all existing platforms: from radio, through YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music and social networks like TikTok. In the 70s and 80s, songs were rated by listeners in letters and postcards, in the 90s they upgraded to teletext, and in the 2000s, people vote online. This is while all over the world, the charts have always been based on single sales and in recent years on streaming.
In other words, there has never been a real chart in Israel that was free from any manipulation by voters or editors. Until today! Mako is proud to be the first media outlet to present Israel's real parade by developing a unique algorithm that weighs the tastes of hundreds of thousands of Israelis who listen to songs every day on a variety of platforms.
The data is collected, among other things, using Soundcharts."
So, if I understood correctly, it sounds like a definitely combined Israeli chart, then not only airplay but both radio+streaming... Am I correct? I would consider adding the new weeks to the singles articles in the future, but I wanted to ask here first before I begin.
Greetings! Szyign (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szyign: It includes TikTok data, which is an aspect of several charts listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Also, just because something calls itself official does not mean that it necessarily is. How can a chart be set up and the organisation immediately say "we are the official chart of this country"? You set about adding these charts on a multitude of articles before waiting for any opinions. Fine if you thought since nobody raised objections it was okay to go ahead. But now that there are dissenting opinions, myself and @Lil-unique1:, who maybe erroneously pointed out that the list incorporates fan voting (whereas it would appear Mako, per the Mako Hit List and translated text on its website, is saying it doesn't, whereas Galgalatz etc. do), you should wait for consensus before restoring it. Skyversay (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I waited for about a month and didn't get any objections, so I figured no one had a problem with it. Sorry, but your argument about "maybe they're telling the truth and maybe not" seems to be drawing conclusions in your own favour. If they have explained the methodology themselves, how else am I supposed to verify it to meet your expectations? If you look at it logically now, then by this route you can delete half of the charts currently in use, because the companies themselves have stated that this is how their methodology works, but after all we have no confirmation.... actually, I don't know where else it would come from if not from the provider? I don't understand your reasoning. Szyign (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Szyign: I'm not aware of any other main charts of nations around the world that integrate TikTok trends or somehow integrate TikTok data into their calculations. I also did not say or imply anything along the lines of "maybe they're telling the truth and maybe not". I said that this chart was set up in 2023 and immediately begun saying it's the official chart of Israel. How does that work? Immediately the number one official chart based on what, because they said so? Because they say it's the first Israeli chart to integrate data from multiple metrics? Skyversay (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding of their publication - Because they say it's the first Israeli chart to integrate data from multiple metrics. As they themselves point out, previously there was no chart that included streaming + airplay data without fan votes etc. in Israel, so they claim they're the first to do so, and it seems true since there's no other chart which combines that. Szyign (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that doesn't make it official, which was something you said in your original post. Again, integration of TikTok data is dodgy and I'm not sure of any other charts, actually official or claimed "official", that do this. Skyversay (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know how to respond to this allegation, as the article simply uses the word ‘TikTok’ without further explanation as to how it would work, so it's hard for me to say what the author had in mind. Nevertheless, all the other issues mentioned, in my opinion, were not true and lend credibility to this chart in terms of transparency and independence. Szyign (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me where can I vote in this chart? Cause I can't really find any confirmation there's a voting for this chart in the internet. Szyign (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for joining late to this conversation. I think Mako is too obscure about what they include in this chart to make it valid. In essence, they say it is a popularity chart, which means anything can be included. Typically, we focus on airplay, streaming and sales, not on popularity per se. I would therefore object to this chart being used. Muhandes (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard LyricFind charts
Hi!
Can we get some consensus on the Billboard LyricFind chart? 'Cause I am really confused whether it is reliable or not. I am also curious and I see on X (Formerly Twitter) posting the charting of the songs on LyricFind. Although Billboard is reliable and notable too, but in LyricFind is suspicious on how the charts working. ROY is WARTalk!16:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wanting to get some feedback regarding component charts and what should/shouldn't be included in a chart table. So when you look at Decision tree for adding song charts on WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS - for example when a song does not chart on the Billboard Hot 100 but does chart on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 as well as the Digital Song Sales and the Radio Songs charts — would you add the digital and radio songs to the chart table? I always assumed you wouldn't due to the song charting on the Bubbling Under which measures both digital, airplay and streaming. I've seen editors also do this, I've been doing this and a few days ago an editor pointed out that I've been doing it incorrectly. I always assumed if it didn't chart on the Hot 100 you add the next best thing (in this example would be Bubbling Under) - if it doesn't then you add in the separate digital and airplay charts - but never all together (Bubbling under, digital and airplay). Another example, if a song is charting on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay - do you also include the airplay chart? I again, always assumed you don't due to the fact airplay is already being compiled within the "Hot Songs" charts. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart is measuring play on radio stations that primarily play R&B and hip-hop songs, while the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs airplay component is tracking play of R&B and hip-hop songs being played on all radio stations. As an example, Taylor Swift can reach number one on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart but would probably never do well on or even reach any Rock or Alternative Airplay chart. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Ohh gotcha, now does this mean the same thing regarding "Bubbling Under…" vs "Digital Sales" and "Radio Songs"? I always assumed you don't include them as it's measuring the exact same as the Billboard Hot 100 but as an extension. Pillowdelight (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unofficial Album Certifications
@Everm4e recently removed several certifications for Katy Perry's albums, claiming that only Pro-Música Brasil (PMB) issues valid certifications, and that Universal Music Group (UMG)-issued certifications must be excluded. However, this perspective overlooks some evidence supporting UMG's involvement in certification processes across various countries.
For instance, UMG-Canada awarded Katy certification plaques that were officially recognized by Music Canada, showing a collaborative relationship between the two.[1] Similarly, UMG-Sweden issued a plaque that mirrors the certifications from the Swedish official certifying body, Grammofonleverantörernas förening (GLF).[2]Indian Music Industry (IMI) has an album on their website that compiles pictures of Katy Perry receiving plaques of certifications issued by them and UMG-India.[3] Furthermore, PMB posted the Diamond certification of "Harleys in Hawaii" and tagging UMG-Brazil.[4]
PMB only certified "Prism" then they stopped updating after certifying it at the Platinum level. They haven't certified any of her other albums. UMG-Brazil, which works closely with PMB in the Brazilian music market, has certified all of Katy Perry's albums. To share my observation, many official certifying bodies in Latin America are now inactive or seldom update certification records for foreign albums. Another Wikipedian has a similar observation, saying that "the organizations affiliated with IFPI in Latin America rarely ever have information on certifications anymore. Most of them still have charts, but certifications are harder to find, with a few exceptions. For that reason, we've allowed other sources to be used for certifications in those countries as long as they are reliable."
Personally, I think it's reasonable to consider alternative credible sources, like UMG national offices, for certifications. I consulted @SNUGGUMS, an active editor of Katy Perry's album articles, and he said nothing about the removal of these certifications. I also asked @Muhandes and he even suggested a template for the proper inclusion of these certifications.
@Everm4e questioned the validity of certain certifications, noting that they don't appear in the database. This occurs because the database this user was referencing, specifically PMB, isn't included in the citation of these certifications issued by UMG-Brazil. I believe proper citation and correct template format was used when these certifications were listed before their exclusion. Also, the user at least edited some articles, listing some "unofficial" certifications, like the Philippine certification for Fearless, but didn't remove those;[5] they chose to remove only those that are included in the articles about Katy Perry's album. He is not an active editor of Katy Perry articles. To add, the user was accused before of having preferential standards when editing.
With these, let me ask everyone. What is the general rule of including these certifications, or those that are not issued by official certifying bodies? Are they really excluded? Is it conditional or situational? Because it is too vague whether we include them or not. They are listed in several articles of music records released by various artists.
I'm not sure whether Everm4e knew about the Philippines part when editing Fearless, but to my knowledge, the most ideal practice is to stick with certifying bodies when possible. It varies what else other sources use as a basis when said bodies aren't actively updating such levels. Such pieces from the news might be a good backup when there's no reasonable concerns of authenticity or inflations. Since those taking record companies at face value and not going off anything else have been contested, that makes it trickier to update certifications sometimes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS The certifying body for the Fearless album certification in the Philippines is MCA Music, also known as UMG-Philippines. It may have been accepted there based on the attached news article. However, considering the user's reasoning behind removing Katy Perry's certifications, it suggests that any certifications listed for various albums that are not issued by official certifying bodies should also be removed. Regardless of if they are published by the news since they are not issued by the official certifying body. To be fair, it should be the applied across all album records. 143kittypurry (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah chances are whoever added the article didn't account for how it was basing the claim off what UMP Philippines said. That piece's author may have truly believed the record company was being honest with this update. Nevertheless, us not relying solely on what labels give would render it ineligible for use. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Philippine certifications for The Fame and Born This Way are issued by UMG-Philippines. I don't see any issue with these certifications, especially since some countries lack active certifying bodies or databases. I believe it's better to have a certification that includes the specific certifying body than to rely on sources, including news articles, that mention certifications without naming the certifying body. While I understand concerns about potential inflation, given that UMG is connected to these artists' labels, they also work closely with official certifying bodies. This involvement justifies their certifications and inclusion in the articles. 143kittypurry (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS To add, I do not think UMG would falsely report the certifications of these records, especially given the oversight of official certifying bodies. Regarding the inflation concern, they have awarded several albums with only the lowest certification level, such as Gold, especially those that have not sold much in their respective regions. 143kittypurry (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS I've noticed that some albums by Madonna, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Shakira, One Direction, and many more have unofficial certifications listed on their album articles. Some of these certifications are issued by UMG, others are mentioned in news articles that didn't specify who issued them, and some are just photos of the artist holding a plaque. If we decide to remove the unofficial certifications from Katy Perry's albums, we should do the same for other artists' albums, too. This is especially true if the reason for removal is because these certifications are unofficial or issued by different certifying bodies. 143kittypurry (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS I do not know how to create a poll that allows editors to decide whether they want to keep these unofficial certifications. Can we make a poll regarding this? Or will comments be enough? 143kittypurry (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to obtain consensus through comments. As for a poll, writing out a question below where others would give a "support" or "oppose" stance for could make it easier to keep track of who wants what. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Record labels are not authorized to issue certifications. Rather, certifications are issued by the official chart company of the country or the local branch of the IFPI. Labels may produce plaques on behalf of their artists, but these are not the same as officially issued certifications. The previous consensus was that certifications should come directly from the certifying body - see: WT:Record_charts/Archive_14#Romanian_certifications_awarded_by_Universal_Music_Romania. In the cases of Brazil and Finland, there are already recognized certifying bodies with searchable databases that provide official certifications (Pro-Música Brasil and Musiikkituottajat respectively). In many instances, Universal Music Brazil’s plaques are inconsistent with those published by Pro Musica Brasil, i.e. Demi Lovato and Mariah Carey’s diamond plaques from Universal Music Brasil, the latter of which has been removed from Wikipedia since at least 2017 and remains missing from the Pro-Música database, despite the fact that it was reportedly issued in 2015. For a certification to hold validity, it should be formally authorized and verified by the appropriate body. For the record, I was not the one who added the Philippine certification to Fearless, and accusations of bias are ad hominem in nature and thus irrelevant to the matter under discussion. This is not about handpicking specific artists as I have also objected to the inclusion of such certifications in other articles. Thank you for working toward consensus on this issue.
@SNUGGUMS @Everm4e Just to factually correct you, Katy Perry's label is Capitol Records. Capitol is one of several labels under UMG.[6] UMG is a large corporation that encompasses a wide range of labels, each with its own roster of artists and distinct marketing strategies. You can check them here. Each label under UMG focuses on developing its artists independently, which means that while UMG provides a vast platform for exposure, it doesn't inherently inflate the success of any single artist. Moreover, the presence of multiple labels within UMG means that resources, marketing strategies, and promotional efforts are spread across many artists, making it less likely that the group's collective power would artificially inflate one artist's numbers.
If you read my previous statements, I have provided some instances showing how UMG is affiliated and works closely with various certifying bodies in multiple regions. The situation with UMG-Romania, you are citing, is quite different due to Romania having an inactive certifying body and database, and lacking a defined sales threshold for certifications. Therefore, the proposed solution is to exclude Romania, whether the certification comes from its official certifying body or UMG.
Regarding the examples you mentioned, there are some inconsistencies about the certifications from UMG-Brazil and those in the PMB database. One reason could be that PMB doesn't constantly update album certifications, which can lead to differences compared to UMG-Brazil's records. For example, as I pointed out in my previous statement, PMB stopped updating certifications for Katy Perry's album Prism after it was certified Platinum. None of her other albums have received certifications from PMB either, which is why they are not in their database. It's hard to believe her studio albums, especially the first three, haven't sold well in Brazil. In contrast, single certifications issued by PMB and UMG-Brazil mirror each other.
Lastly, I want to clarify that I never said you are responsible for adding the UMG-issued certification for Fearless. I meant to say that you edited the article at least once, but didn't remove that particular certification. However, when it comes to Katy Perry, you went through her album articles and removed all the UMG-issued certifications, including the IMI-issued certification for "Witness," just like you did here, despite its validity for inclusion. I brought it back, but you reverted it. Just so you know, IMI is the official certifying body of India. Looking through several pages of your edit contributions, I don't see you removing certifications from any other album articles, but you did with Katy's. This gives the impression of preferential standards of editing, which you've been accused of before. You aren't an active editor for Katy Perry articles, and your recent actions raise questions about whether she is a specific target for removing these UMG-issued certifications. 143kittypurry (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. To me, the word "certification" implies an impartial, external certifying body, and I don't see how a label can legitimately certify itself. On top of that, I don't know what methods labels use, nor whether they follow the same thresholds as recognized certifiers. Muhandes (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YES. I believe we should keep UMG-issued certifications on list of certifications. Some of these include certified sales figures, which address concerns about unclear sales thresholds. UMG's certifications could serve as a useful alternative to official certifying bodies that have become inactive and no longer issue certifications, as pointed out by 143kittypurry.
Also, UMG is more active and has a stronger social media presence than some of these so-called official certifying bodies. Outside Wikipedia, there's no clear distinction between receiving a certification from an official body versus an unofficial one, especially when credible news publications recognize UMG national offices.
Removing UMG-issued certifications would require significant changes to multiple album articles, not just the certification list, but also in various sections of each article that reflect these certifications. Unofficial certifications have been accepted for a long time, and I don't see any negative effects from including them. If we decide to remove the UMG-issued certifications, then we should also remove all unofficial certifications from every album article without exception. That seems fair, doesn't it?
