This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Record Charts 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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hi! I would like to revisit the discussion about the Mako Hit List Chart. After looking into the matter again, I still get the impression that their methodology is described quite clearly, and that the chart is not based on voting, editorial influence, or any other mechanism that would compromise its independence or accuracy. According to their own explanations, the ranking is meant to genuinely reflect what Israelis are listening to across both streaming platforms and radio. I searched through Hebrew-language sources and managed to find a press release from the company that developed the algorithm used for the charts by Mako. The article explains step-by-step how the chart is compiled, where the data comes from, and how the algorithms work. If anyone is able to read it—using Google Translate if needed—I would appreciate feedback on whether it demonstrates that the chart is indeed not vote-based and avoids the issues that usually make charts non-encyclopedic. As for the argument about voting, I still do not see any evidence anywhere that there is any voting that would influence these charts. All press releases emphasise that this rating is an response to previous charts of other companies in Israel, which were based on voting...

Here is the source. Tagging the people who took part in the last discussion: @Skyversay, @Lil-unique1 @Muhandes :) Szyign (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native Hebrew reader. Although the text is very promotional, taken at face value it indicates that the Mako algorithm uses data from multiple platforms and radio stations and is not influenced by voting or editorial input. Muhandes (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

I decided to contact Mako by email to clarify doubts about including the "TikTok" in the description of their charts and ask what exactly this means. I just received a reply that explains a lot. I am posting the translated version and the original in Hebrew below.

Translated:

Hi, nice to meet you. I'm Dor Meir Moalem, music editor at Mako and manager of Hitlist. Thank you very much for your inquiry. Let me explain:

At the beginning, there was an idea to incorporate TikTok into the chart data instead of weighing Israeli radio airplay data, based on the idea that TikTok had become a powerful tool for creating hits in Israel.

We thought that TikTok had even more of an advantage over radio because, unlike radio, it is not editors who choose what to play based on their taste, but rather the users who choose which songs to put in their videos. Similar to Billboard, which recently added TikTok to its charts in addition to the dedicated TikTok chart that appears on their site.

At that time, TikTok's Top 50 data was public, but they recently removed it, and we have no way of knowing the numbers today. You are right that we did not remove it from our disclaimer, and we will do so as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your interest and activism on this issue.

Dor Meir Moalem

Original in Hebrew:

היי, נעים מאוד. אני דור מאיר מועלם - עורך מדור המוזיקה במאקו והמנהל של היטליסט. תודה רבה על הפנייה, אני אסביר:

בתחילת הדרך הייתה מחשבה לשלב את טיקטוק בנתוני המצעד במקום שקלול של נתוני השמעות מהרדיו הישראלי, מתוך מחשבה שטיקטוק הגיע לעוצמה גדולה ככלי שמייצר להיטים בישראל.

חשבנו שלטיקטוק יש אפילו יותר יתרון על הרדיו, כי לעומתו, לא מדובר בעורכים שבוחרים לפי הטעם שלהם מה לנגן, אלא המשתמשים בחרו איזה שירים לשים בסרטונים. בדומה לבילבורד שהוסיפו לאחרונה את טיקטוק לשקלול שלהם בנוסף למצעד הייעודי של טיקטוק שמופיע אצלם.

בתקופה ההיא, נתוני טופ 50 של טיקטוק היו חשופים ולאחרונה הם הסירו אותם ולמעשה אין לנו דרך היום לדעת את המספרים. אתה צודק שלא הסרנו את זה משורת הדיסקליימר שלנו ונעשה את זה בהקדם. תודה רבה על העניין והאקטיביות שלך בנושא.

דור מאיר מועלם

Just in case, I'll leave a tag so you get a notification: @Skyversay, @Muhandes, @Lil-unique1 Szyign (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they've clarified that votes and social media data don't factor into their methodology, I'm fine with it being used in articles. Skyversay (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used, but only from the date they change their disclaimer, unless they provide a specific date from when they stopped using TikTok data. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I will e-mail them back and tell them that it would be great if they could clarify that too :) Szyign (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1

Hey! I have good news – the above explanation about TikTok has been added to the article describing how their charts work – here: https://www.mako.co.il/music-news/local/Article-5042af7d07ff681027.htm.

Because of that, I am now going to add peaks to the singles articles, but I have two more questions for you to make sure we avoid any misunderstandings in the future:

1. In that case, since they included this note in their article, can I now add peaks from previous weeks, e.g. from 3 months ago? If not, how should I deal with peaks that are listed in the Top 100 as the highest position a given song has reached before? Should I only take into consideration the positions they have reached on the chart since today, or can I the older peaks anyway?

I would treat it as the chart is only applicable from today's date. 21:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

2. Should I then treat the Media Forest charts for Israel as a component, as they are only based on airplay and include a division into domestic and international? If so, when a song is listed on the HitList 100, should I remove the peak from the Media Forest from the table or leave it? If I remove the Media Forest , should I also remove the Number-one singles in Israel category from the article (many tracks on Media Forest reach #1, which is why I added this category, but I am wondering how to resolve the situation when, by removing this chart from the table, it will be possible to read from the article that the track was #1 in Israel on one of the official charts)?

From today (since the explanation has been added) yes, if it has charted on Makohit List then use that chart, even if it has charted on Media Forest. If it hasn't charted on mako hitlist then media forest can be used. 21:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Cheers! Szyign (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Once again, @Lil-unique1 - per your request I asked HitList editor by e-mail if he could add the approximate date since when their charts don’t include TikTok data. In this link – https://www.mako.co.il/music-news/local/Article-5042af7d07ff681027.htm it’s now added that the charts dropped TikTok data since January 2024. Just to make sure - does it mean I can add peaks from the charts which were published from January 2024? :) Szyign (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, Szyign has been adding TopHit charts for songs that charted in a single country for almost every single year ([1][2][3]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi! I noticed that user @DLU has started adding Year-end charts 2025 from the Ukrainian FDR Airplay chart to single articles. I am wondering whether this chart is considered an acceptable airplay source for Ukraine on the English Wikipedia. i'm asking cause I see Airplay charts of FDR have existed for many years and they publish both weekly and year-end charts, but for some reason they were not previously added to articles (at least I didn't saw them). Because of this, I am unsure whether I can start adding these charts to other articles as well (especially the weekly charts), since they have not been used historically despite being regularly published on their Facebook fanpage. I would like to know if there is an established consensus regarding the use of Ukrainian FDR Airplay charts before adding them more broadly. Pinging @Lil-unique1 and @Skyversay, as I am not sure how to proceed with this and would appreciate your input! Szyign (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BADCHARTS. --Sanslogique (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the situation with the "rbs" code on Billboard.com artist chart histories is? It currently hosts R&B/Hip-Hop Streaming Songs, however in the case of Mariah Carey, it is also hosting pre-streaming song peaks which I have been unable to find in print issues. For example, "Underneath the Stars" is listed at #85 for September 28, 1996, which is obviously not a streaming peak. Anyone have an idea? This is something Billboard used to do with the now-defunct Hot Canadian Digital Song Sales chart, which also hosted the pre-digital SoundScan Canada charts at the same URL, but I'm not sure what pre-streaming chart Billboard is also hosting at this "rbs" address. Heartfox (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]