Talk:Lists of Billboard number-one singles

Something

Editors of this page might be interested in the AFD discussion for 2004 Oricon Top 100 Singles and similar articles. Kappa 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the dates. The July 22, 2006 chart is out now. So does that mean that that is the chart for July 16-22? --Scaryice 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

other lists

Does Wiki have a List of number-two hits (United States) or if it doesn't, how about a List of number-three hits (United States)?

If those lists don't currently exist, somebody ought to post one. I am looking for an old song I haven't heard in 30 years, and apparently it never made it past #2 or #3.

-Some songs who are #2 or even #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, menaged to go #1 on Cashbox like 1976's hit Dream Weaver by Gary Wright was #2 on Billboard and #1 on Cashbox. Safety Dance by Man Without Hats was #3 on Billboard but reached #1 on Cashbox. By a coincidence, I mentionned also a suggestion to post the list of number-one hits from Cashbox like the Top 100 singles and specialized charts (dance, rock, country) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cash_Box That's a good idea to suggest a list of number-two hits. User: Sd-100 March 22 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd-100 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think #2 and #3 are a bit frivolous and fall under WP:NOT#IINFO. Reaching number one is a significant milestone and much more notable than a list of songs that reached #3. Why not make a list of songs that reached #16? - eo (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the list of #2 and #3, however what about a list of #1 hits by Billboard's competitor Cash Box? - Sd-100 (talk - contribs March 27 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cashbox definitely, until the 1980s it was very notable, as far as I know. Do you have that information? Actually there is a website somewhere that has all of it, I think. Pretty sure it's linked in the Cashbox article. - eo (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

the website who have the original archives of Cashbox Top 100 singles is at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/randypny/cashbox/

and it's mirrored at http://www.cashboxmagazine.com/archives.htm and there another site who list the Billboard hot 100, Cashbox Top 100, the UK chart and the Eurochart at http://musicseek.info/ but unfortunetely musicseek.info wasn't updated since 2005 and it could had been interesting to see the #1 lists (including the ones from the revival of Cashbox) since 2005.-Sd-100 (talk - contribs March 27 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I created the Cash Box Top 100 singles of 1969 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashbox_Top_100_singles_of_1969 --Sd-100 (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1958

I am creating two 1958 pages

• one for the pre Hot 100 category
• one for the Hot 100 category

This is easily verifiable information.

Thank You — 金神猴泰金 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with this need for this. All of the pages are arranged by year, the Hot 100 just happened to begin in mid-1958. Creating a new page is completely unnecessary and in fact disruptive. - eo (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The category for Hot 100 includes information for 1958 that was not on the Hot 100 because the HOT 100 in fact did not exist until August of that year. I dont see the issue with having 2 1958 pages that are both in their proper catagories. — 金神猴泰金 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason is for historical perspective. Things are grouped by year, whether they be music, sports, film, world events, etc. This is the year that the Hot 100 was created, but the separation by year makes much more sense. You cannot assume that the average readers is going to know the Hot 100 started in August 1958. The more plausible scenario is that someone would want to see what the #1 songs were in 1958. - eo (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then they shouldn't be listed as seperate categories, They should be under one category say Songs by Year: — 金神猴泰金 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What categories are you talking about? There is no confusion with the way the pages are set up now; I don't understand what the need is to make yet another page. A change was made to the chart in mid-1958 but its still all in 1958. - eo (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the article page you will see a catagory called Pre-Hot 100 era and another called Hot 100 era. Yet the information from 1958 that belongs in the Pre-Hot 100 era is not in that category. If you want to list the information by year without having 1958 in both, then you should combine the catagories. Just call it Pre-Hot 100 era combines with Hot 100 era or some other fancy title. The way the categories are called now, its wrong to have the Pre-Hot 100 era information in the Hot 100 era category. This is a very minor fix to make a seperate page for it. Then it would be accurate and verifiable. Conversly One Category makes it accurate as well, but the way it is now is not accurate at all. Please use wisdom in your decision, I have no more to say. Thank You — 金神猴泰金 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

←Are you talking about the headers? If you're adamant about the 1958 being in both places (pre-and-post Hot 100) then copy the 1958 link and put it in both sections. That doesn't mean that an entirely new page needs to be created to separate them out. - eo (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok that works and makes more sense than creating seperate pages. I wonder why I didnt think of that? :) Thank You — 金神猴泰金 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hot 100 lists by year or by decade?

The List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) was recently created, modeled after the British lists of number ones, such as List of 2010s UK Singles Chart number ones. It just survived an AfD, but with lists in a yearly format, List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (U.S.) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.), already providing the same identical information, it should be decided how these lists will be maintained going forward. I would call for a halt of any further decade lists being created until the matter is resolved because it seems ridiculous to have two separate lists sharing the same info. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly second this suggestion. As it stands now, the UK lists are the only ones grouped by decade. There is a wide number of US lists that are by-year (songs, albums, different genres, Billboard charts, etc.), as well as several other non-US countries. It seems to make more sense to split up the UK lists (if anything is to be changed) to adhere to the styling of what is clearly the majority of these number-ones articles, rather than the other way around. - eo (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything inherently wrong with having decade/yearly formats coexist, and I think there's a chance for the decade lists to be useful if they were restricted to simply listing number-one singles from the decade, ie. making them a concise aggregate of the yearly lists without them being essentially the yearly lists pasted together. I tried to clean up the 2010s article to fit that mold by eliminating the individual song runs, which make more sense on the week-by-week format of the yearly lists anyway, and if it strikes anyone else as a good idea, perhaps the individual years could be collapsed if the list becomes too bloated, so then it could serve as both a portal to the individual yearly lists and as its own overview of the decade.--Wikipeep 494 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should just summarize chart performance for the decade rather than repeat the actual chart lists, which is satified by the links to the yearly chart pages anyway. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was deleted per AfD. Now what? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Errr, I don't know. One was deleted (2000s), one was kept (2010s). They should have been grouped together in an AfD to prevent this. Having only one of the article deleted is the worst scenario, I'd say. - eo (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the 2010s up again with the 90s one after the end of year write-up has been completed for the 2011 Hot 100 list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. But to be fair tho, make sure you mention that one was deleted and one was kept. I'd rather have all of them or none of them than article-less gaps in between decades. - eo (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)