Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones/Archive 3

Edit to "Biggest drops off the Hot 100"
This category has well exceeded the top 10 entries for this chart. Continuing on the movement to keep sections to the top 10 entries, this section should be edited down.--dnsla23 17:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed. This list is only going to grow over time if we keep the threshold at all songs which fell off from #20 or higher. The cutoff for the top 10 is now drops from #16 or higher, but every entry in that top 10 has happened in the last six years or so (Jonas Brothers' "A Little Bit Longer" being the oldest entry in the top 10 biggest drop offs, from August 2008), which eliminates the notable drops from the 1960s and 1970s. I do remember Casey Kasem in one of his classic AT40 broadcasts from the 1970s (I started getting into listening to those in the last year or so, also ones from the 1980s) talking about this very thing, when he confirmed to a watchful listener about The Moody Blues' "Nights in White Satin" dropping off from #17 (and supplanting Tommy James and the Shondells' "Crimson and Clover" for the biggest drop off the chart back then). I think those record drop-offs from the early Hot 100s are still notable, given it was a different era and different methodology compared to today. So, as with the Jeannie C. Riley note in the biggest one-week jumps on the chart, which is no longer one of the 10 biggest on record even though that 81–7 leap was phenomenal back in 1968, a similar note can be provided for that Moody Blues' hit. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A further comment: I was looking at the dates listed for when these drops happened, and there's inconsistency. Some show the week the song disappeared from the chart, which should be the date shown. Others show the prior week, when it was on the chart in the position indicated; this is the case for "Nights in White Satin" (#17 on December 2, 1972, off the chart on December 9) and "Junior's Farm" (#17 on January 25, 1975, with that title listed after "Sally G" on that chart, became unlisted on February 1); it is also the case for the Jonas Brothers' hit I mentioned above (was on the chart at #11 on August 23, 2008, the date beside that entry). I don't think there's much debate about which date should be posted—the week it disappeared from the Hot 100—but then there's the question of sourcing this stuff. "Chart Beat" mentions may be the biggest help there, since using Billboard's online chart data is not practical without a subscription (only the top 10 on the Hot 100 is available to non-subscribers). Even with that, unless entire chart runs for songs were made available, there's no clear way to verify the drop-off, aside from providing reference to consecutive charts with the song listed only on the earlier chart (and then we'd need to rely on Google Books having each pair of Billboard issues). I also know you provided a web site with the charts, dnsla, back when the discussion was the claim of "Junior's Farm" dropping off the chart from #17 (I don't recall the link offhand, but it mainly had earlier charts, with a cutoff in the late 1990s I think); it is a secondary source, but some can question reliability there, plus (and few mention this) the chart data comes from Billboard and is copyrighted by them, so even legal questions can arise. Providing the dates these drop-offs happened is vital for the category, or at least the year, so without adequate sources, we may need to limit that information to just the year (even if sources provide exact dates for only some of the entries). Or we could keep the full dates, correcting the inaccurate ones so it shows the week a song dropped off the chart, and search for sources to verify them. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow that is a much longer answer than I thought would come up. The inconsistent issue is a problem in this category. Glad you researched that. IMO ideally the week it dropped off, not the final week on the charts, should be used. My sources are no help with this because they do not show entries dropping out of the top 100. As for the generational point, I faced this when I created the most #1s by a songwriter table. The guys in StarGate wrote four #1s (the same year Rihanna had four #1s). I would have liked to have it included as a more modern representation (much like Rihanna or Katy Perry with 5 consecutive #1s), but the top 5 cutoff is 5 #1s. So while I'm all for the generational aspect, some eras in the charts tend to favor a category.

If we are worried about copyrights, much of the page should come down. I wouldn't sweat it - does Billboard really have the desire to go through a wiki page this detailed and this long? I like paralleling the Harper Valley PTA example in this section, adding a note about examples from the past and what changed in Billboard's tallies to make this table favor recent examples.

It would be ideal to include the exact week they dropped off the charts. Other similar categories - biggest rise, biggest drop - show the exact dates. Junior's Farm/Sally G was an exception in that it showed Sally G on the charts the following week, where the rest of the entries (or at least much of the rest) simply dropped off the charts. As for sources that would provide dates to all of these entries, I'm somewhat at a loss. I'd correct the dates as best we can, and then look for sources along the way. This page is going through a clean up phase now. We're probably going to run into this issue in the future.dnsla23 16:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * List trimmed to the 10 biggest drop-offs, and incorrect drop-off dates corrected. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done. You certainly know about the changes in Billboard's tallying history (see Celine Dion). What was the change that led to modern examples leading the category? That would be a very interesting note to the casual reader, if it's possible to create.dnsla23 19:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * I'll have to do some thorough research on the reasons behind these giant drops off the chart in modern times, but what I've read before suggests the promotional release of singles (where there's a short period of time for downloading, like from iTunes), and the streaming component of the Hot 100 (particularly the viewing spike on YouTube after a video goes viral) are the two main ones. I did some further checking with the songs now listed in the section, and not one of them had more than two weeks on the Hot 100 when they fell off (only Bieber's "Heartbreaker" managed a two-week stay, while the others dropped off after just their first week, which in many cases turned out to be their only week on the chart). Was trying to find recent hits that had the highest drop-off from the upper half of the chart after a decent run, remembering that songs are taken off by Billboard's recurrent rule if their numbers/points would place them below the top 50 after they've accumulated 20+ weeks on the chart. None come anywhere near the #16 threshold for the top 10 biggest drop-offs; the highest I could find since the start of the 2010s was #33 ("The Man" by Aloe Blacc fell off from that position on May 31, 2014, after logging 20 weeks ). And looking at the champion dropper from before streaming, promotional singles, and downloads, "Nights in White Satin" had a very strong chart run for its day: #2 peak, and 18 weeks on the Hot 100. ("Junior's Farm" had a #3 peak and 12 weeks, which was not out of the ordinary for late 1974 and early 1975.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating and correcting the section! I'd say youre probably correct about the reason for modern-day drop-offs: digital sales and now streaming points.  Much like the album chart, fans will rush to buy new releases immediately - promotional or not - and check out the video (or in some cases viral video) on YouTube, leading to a one-or-two week surge with a major plunge in chart points afterwards.  The only thing I can reason for huge drops to occur in decades past had to do with the old methodology of manual reporting: e.g. a radio station may still be playing "Nights in White Satin" in heavy rotation but choose not to report the plays to Billboard because Moody Blues has a new single out and the radio station prefers to focus on that.  We'll never really know, however. - eo (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing your item on how long our modern examples were on the charts, I'm somewhat concerned about what this section portrays now. A list of one-offs doesn't show real accomplishment. But then older songs were severely dropped off the chart for reasons that made sense then, but not now. (ex: late 1974 - early 1975). There could be a minimum # of weeks on the chart to qualify, but would that really reflect what's happening today? It's a hard call.dnsla23 06:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Ties
I'm wondering about (tie)s. I remember using this because I saw it on other sections of this page. I probably have the most (tie)s in the sections I've created. But now I wonder if it's really necessary to have (tie)s at all. It just states the obvious. What do you think? --dnsla23 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Top 5 or top 10 entries in Most Top 10 hits?
When editing, it shows to keep this list to top 5. As it is, it's top 10. I like top 10 because it shows a wider variety of artists.--dnsla23 01:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Does this belong in the Album section, or where it currently is in the Additional section?
I wrote this question. Please ignore it, as I believe I have the answer. --dnsla23 02:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nicky Minaj
Is there a way to stop this? There's one chartbeat, and suddenly there's another chart or achievement on the page.

Hell, is there a way to put a tougher lock on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs) 04:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It did surprise me that the protection on this article expired, and it was for one year. May need to request protection again if there's a lot of unconstructive editing/vandalism, especially from IP address users. When I reverted the first edit made by VisaBlack, I also wanted to add more to the edit summary questioning the notability of that achievement, but I saw the unsourced part of the entry first, as well as the rest saying Minaj was the first female soloist to land seven simultaneous Hot 100 hits (though a featured artist on most of them), which at the time of the source presented may have been true, but became an outdated achievement a few weeks after that article, when Taylor Swift landed eleven (clearly listed in the selected achievements section, and I believe Swift was not a featured artist on any of those—not that being featured or not makes a whole lot of difference when stating these feats, just worth noting). So the entries added by VisaBlack lacked notability, and, in at least the case of the first edit, was outdated. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's Nicki Minaj. And Nothing I posted was untrue, and there were things on the list that were not nearly as impressive, nor were they nearly as rememorable. The 44 entries record is on her discography page. Instead of asking me to get another citation, you just deleted it all. That was very rude. This was not vandalism. And the second part of my first edit said she was the first, not the current. So it was still factual. I love it that people on here obviously discriminate against the type of artists they will let have their billboard achievements posted to that list. I understand you're trimming the article, but this particular section was never talked about being subject to cuts, and it's not even that long. There needs to be more than just rude deletion, must just be another page "dictator", because I don't see how someone who holds about 5 billboard records cannot be bothered to be included once, but okay. VisaBlack (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not questioning Nicki Minaj's notability or overall chart achievements, just the achievements you posted, VisaBlack, and how they were posted. About the part about her becoming the first female soloist to score seven simultaneous hits on the Hot 100—why not include the first female to score three, four, five or six, or even eleven? In all cases, the count is being arbitrarily set, and will yield a "so what?" by other readers of this article. The achievement that should be presented in this case is the one with the most, and for a few weeks in 2010 that would've been Minaj, and if Taylor Swift or another female artist didn't come along and surpass seven since, I'm pretty sure that achievement by Minaj would've been kept in the article. And you cite her record of having the most (44) Hot 100 entries of any female rapper from her discography page? In Wikipedia? Here, I will also include your second edit, which talked about her being the first female rapper to debut at #1 with her first two albums (note the name of this article, "... Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements ...", not " ... Billboard 200 chart achivements ..."), but more importantly I made note of your inline citation. It's from Wikipedia, and I will quote what it says in their policy under WP:TERTIARY: "Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself." Also, VisaBlack, please note that unsourced or inadequately sourced material is subject to deletion, rude or not. I tried to explain my reason for taking your material (first edit) out, and you may call that rude, and I'm sorry you feel that way. You must also realize the broad spectrum that the Billboard Hot 100 encompasses regarding artists and songs, and we must carefully weigh what gets included. Like, if we include information about a female rapper, why not a male rapper, or a rap group as well. If we start going into every kind of category we could include about artists, songs, chart positions, etc., this article would be much larger than it is now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. A new page needs to be made for each of the genres. VisaBlack (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Age records" and "Gap records"
I'm going through the statements in each of these sections to see what they cover, to see what is considered notable. Here's what categories I've come up with from the statements:

(age)
 * Oldest female to hit #1 (covers solo females and groups): Cher
 * Oldest male to hit #1 (covers solo males and groups, happens to also be oldest to hit #1): Louis Armstrong
 * Youngest to hit #1 (who is also youngest male to hit #1, and artist achieved it with a group): Michael Jackson
 * Youngest solo male to hit #1: Stevie Wonder
 * Youngest female to hit #1 (covers solo females and groups): Little Peggy March
 * Oldest living to hit Hot 100: Fred Stobaugh
 * Youngest to hit pop singles chart (Hot 100 or pre-Hot 100): Barry Gordon

(gap)
 * Longest gap between #1 hits
 * Longest gap between first #1 and most recent #1
 * Longest gap between first Hot 100 hit and first #1
 * Longest span between first Hot 100 and most recent

To me, it looks as if each of the above is notable, but there is one in the "age records" that is odd: Debbie Gibson (age 17 years, 299 days or 17 years, 9 months, and 25 days) became the youngest artist to write, produce, and perform a #1 single on the Hot 100 when her song "Foolish Beat" topped the chart on June 25, 1988. I'm mixed about its inclusion under "age records" because it doesn't seem to quite fit in with the rest of the categories addressing the #1 spot, which is about as perfect a puzzle put together, and this info about the "youngest to write, produce and perform" appears to be an extra puzzle piece that doesn't connect to anything. I do have a little bias toward Debbie, since I was a huge fan of hers in the late 1980s when I was late in my teens at the time, and I was definitely proud when she reached the top with "Foolish Beat", and to me, she showed Tiffany that she could hit #1, too (in the battle of the 1980s teen queens); I was much less a fan of Tiffany back then, but looking back at both artists, I like the music from both now. My bias aside, where I say I'm mixed about the inclusion of that statement about Debbie has nothing to do with my being a fan of hers; I'm just reading the entire age records section, and that one statement just doesn't seem to fit with the rest. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Awhile ago I somehow dug up the article from which this section was copied. The Stevie line confused me bec MJ is the youngest male artist. No need for Stevie's inclusion IMO, paralleling how youngest females includes solo and group. I also don't think "youngest ever" is correct. The artist "Jordy" was 4 1/2 when he hit the 100 with "Dur dur d'être baby" in 1992. This article was an OK resource, but the writer of this section did not use their own ingenuity to see the mistakes, or categories that didn't translate to this page. This leads us to Debbie, whom I love, but whose accomplishment is too specific for this page. May as well add back Nicky Minaj if we're going to include something so specific.--dnsla23 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about removing Stevie Wonder. If I were to remove "male" from his entry, to identify him as the "youngest solo artist" to hit #1, that would still be true, given that Little Peggy March, as the youngest female (solo) artist, was at an older age than Stevie with her record. (Plus, Michael Jackson's first solo #1 in 1972, "Ben", happened when he was 14 years and one or two months of age, so Stevie's record would still hold true.) Similarly with Louis Armstrong: taking "male" out of his entry to identify him as the "oldest artist" to hit #1 would still hold true, as he was at an older age than Cher, the oldest female artist with a #1 (in that case, I'd be inclined to move his entry above Cher's). Will make these alterations to see if those are better expressed, but will also remove Debbie's entry, as I do agree it's too specific. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot to mention Jordy, as the youngest to chart on the Hot 100. Will need to find the sources to confirm before updating that, though I remember coming across something about that in past research, too. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Many sources say that it's in the Guinness Book of World Records, but it costs $ to find it on their site. dnsla23 19:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Mentioned in Blue Ivy article, dated 2012. http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1099533/blue-ivy-carter-jay-z-and-beyonces-daughter-becomes-youngest-person-ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference, dnsla. Just updated the section again to include Jordy. Added a second reference, Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles (12th Edition) book, which I have, to back the debut date of "Dur Dur D'Etre Bebe!", as well as when and where Jordy was born. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Rowspan
I want to use rowspan to get rid of the (tie)s and to make the tables more legible. How do I do that? --dnsla23 20:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * Not exactly sure how to explain the details of that, but if you haven't seen the help for tables, I can refer you to that: Help:Tables. It's a matter of mapping where all the rows and columns are, and using "rowspan" on the cell corresponding to the first row of the span and affected column, and then deleting the cells for subsequent rows (up to how much you're spanning) in that column. Better to illustrate with an edit: I've done the table under "Most consecutive number-one singles" (under Artist achievements), and here are the edit differences. The number you specify for "rowspan" is the number of rows involved in the span (like for three rows, "rowspan=3"). Hope this will help. (Haven't come across any scripts which would make it easier to see the effects you make on a table when you edit it, which would be even more helpful.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MPFitz1968. Now comparing your work with others I have seen, I know where I went wrong in the past. This will be very helpful in editing many of the sections I created.--dnsla23 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Tony Bennett on first Hot 100 chart in August 1958
In the "Gap records" section, it reads:


 * When the Tony Bennett/Amy Winehouse duet "Body and Soul" debuted at #87 for the week of October 1, 2011, Bennett became the artist with the longest overall span of singles on the Hot 100 — 53 years, 58 days on account of his single "Young and Warm and Wonderful" which debuted at #59 on the very first edition of the Hot 100, dated August 4, 1958.

The word I'm flagging in the above, concerning his 1958 hit, is debuted. I did confirm that "Young and Warm and Wonderful" was at #59 on the August 4, 1958 Hot 100 chart (I found out today Billboard has a new layout for their charts online, a change they've made within the last couple of days, and for the first time is allowing access to entire Hot 100 charts of the past to non-subscribers), but as I looked at another source I have, Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 12th Edition (page 86), it indicates the song had a debut date of June 23, 1958. That puts it before the Hot 100 came into existence, so it was charting on other pop-based charts prior to the Hot 100. It would not be accurate to call its first entry on the first Hot 100 a debut. Come to think of it, every song that appeared on the Hot 100 that week "debuted" on that chart, but it doesn't mean that every song was making its debut altogether in the U.S. pop music realm. Decided to bring this up here on the talk page, in case there's some concern, though I will go ahead and change debuted to a more accurate word, appeared. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting ways to look at it. Every song on that first chart debuted because it was the debut of the chart itself. Off that alone I'd say debuted. The page does include pre-hot 100 info, mostly about Elvis, so there is precedence there. You could say 'debuted on the first hot 100 chart, after x number of weeks of being on the (fill in the blank chart or something)'. That could be a good way to include everything you're trying to say.--dnsla23 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Wait, now that I think of it, whatever was #1 on the debut chart would have been considered to be the first song to debut at #1. Since Billboard doesn't count this, appeared is a better choice.dnsla23 22:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

"The Week of"
"The week of" means to say that we're talking about a time period that includes more than just the first day of the final week listed. Using a date itself is appropriate for sections such as "age records" and "biggest jump/fall/debut at #1", which shows the exact date the the record or accomplishment was set.

There are a few sections where "the week of" should be included. "Simultaneously three or more singles in the top 10" is one. "Top 2" is another. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Billboard magazine is a weekly publication, with its charts published on a similar time frame. For many years, each chart had the wording "For the week ending..." and then usually the date of the issue. Before 1962, though, charts had different week ending dates and thus didn't match the issue date. Between April 1957 and the end of 1961, Billboard actually dated their issues on a Monday (checked the issues available on Google Books as well as compared dates to the calendar, especially when I saw there wasn't a seven-day difference between one issue and the next); otherwise, it's always been dated on a Saturday as far as I know. It was sometime in the 1990s, and I'll focus squarely on the Hot 100 but I think it may have applied to the other charts as well, that the "For the week ending..." wording was dropped, though it's been implied since. Billboard releases their newest Hot 100 on the Thursday (top 10 on the Wednesday) before the week the chart is effective for; how far back that has been the schedule for release of the chart, I don't know. We could make an issue about the ages shown under "age records" being a few days off in real-time because of this schedule, but for the sake of simplification, we use Billboard's issue date as a reference point, and that's fine. Aside from that category, "the week of" (or "the week ending" or some other similar wording) can be expressed or left out. May be helpful to identify somewhere about the Billboard charts being weekly. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to identify as being weekly. Maybe somewhere in the top paragraph?--dnsla23 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * Top paragraph is fine. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Most weeks at #2... and recent edits adding Taylor Swift's "Shake it Off"
In recent days, I've seen some edits that are trying to place Taylor Swift's "Shake it Off" in that category, like these , seeing that it has spent eight weeks (and counting) at #2. I reverted all those edits, because before those weeks in the runner-up position, it spent two weeks at #1 (debuting on top back in September), so it does not qualify for the category as it is for songs that were not able to make it to the top. For the first edit, the editor even took out the "(without hitting number one)" part. For the second, the editor fabricated information about songs spending the longest at #2 (of songs which made it to #1); without a source to verify the info, it violated the original research provision. For the last edit, the editor put a note at the end of the section making note of Swift's song, and its hitting #1, which I also needed to revert because there are a handful of other songs which would need to be identified in that note; I made specific mention of Whitney Houston's "Exhale" from 1995, which had a similar run to Swift's song, debuting at #1 and then being relegated to #2 for a lot of weeks — 11 in Houston's case. During this time, I put instructions about what songs belong in the category, making clear it is not for #1 songs. I also fixed the section heading so it is clear, and placed the source at the end of the section (to be consistent with the category above, Most weeks at number one). Speaking of the source provided, it addresses only songs peaking at #2, so any #1 hit would not be backed by that source, as it should be. Now, I also pondered over whether the category should be inclusive of #1 songs which spent a lot of time at #2 (Houston's song, if I recall right, with its 11 weeks at #2, is the record-holder for most weeks in the runner-up position, trumping both Missy Elliott and Foreigner's 10 weeks). I quickly realized that such a change would make the category violate WP:IINFO, as its notability, or lack thereof, would easily be challenged. If a song reaches #1, it does not matter how long it stayed in the #2 spot (whether it be 10 weeks, 100 weeks or even 1000 weeks); the fact the song reached the top overshadows whatever time it spent in the runner-up spot. The point of the category is to show songs which were patient in waiting to move up one more position to get to the top, only for it never to happen. If the song reaches the summit, it was not denied, so it should not be in the category, plain and simple. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * THe list used to include number-one songs also but was removed ages ago. - eo (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why the page needs a lock. In part, it's to restrain over-zealous fans of an artist(s) trying to squeeze as much of their fave artist onto the page as possible. How can this page apply for one? This is surely an example of why it needs one.dnsla23 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * I will concur with WP:RPP for this page. Here's another edit by an IP user I needed to revert . MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Most Hot 100 entries: keeping eye on Taylor Swift
If I tallied Taylor Swift's entries on the Hot 100 correctly, her four debuts on the latest chart (November 15, 2014) now place her at 67, just one shy of Elton John's 68 total and her making this list. Will still need a source to back up this count, as well as the counts of other artists, if/when she has enough entries to qualify. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the second source in that section identifies Elton John as having 67 entries making the Hot 100, not 68, so I wonder why it shows 68 in the article. My only guess is how "Candle in the Wind 1997"/"Something About the Way You Look Tonight" is counted. I did some tallying myself, and figured that Billboard is counting that single as just one entry, even though "Candle" is listed first for the first three weeks it was on the Hot 100, and "Something" was first for the rest of its run. (John had another double-hit single make the Hot 100 in 1976, "Grow Some Funk of Your Own"/"I Feel Like a Bullet", with "Grow" listed first throughout that single's run.) In any case, the source presented shows John's count at 67, and he hasn't had another song make the chart since the date of that source (hasn't appeared on the Hot 100 since 2000, though his streak of 31 consecutive years with a Hot 100 single, 1970–2000, I think still stands as a record), so I'll correct that entry. With that correction, that would place Swift in a tie with John for the last spot on the list, but without a source, I'm hesitant at present to place her name in the list, and will hold off on doing so. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Order of sections in the "Artist Achievement" section
This section was put together by many contributors (including myself) without any regard to order or holistic architecture.

We should consider the order of the achievements. Maybe start with all the sections regarding #1, then top 10 (most consecutive weeks), top 40, top 100. Self-replacements are cool, but really fit in the importance of having #1/#2 and 3 singles in the top 10. Thoughts? --dnsla23 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)


 * How about this order shown below? (Note, I took from the table of contents, and rearranged the entries as one possible scenario, leaving the numeric prefixes before each subsection) MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

2 Artist achievements 2.5 Most number-one singles 2.9 Most cumulative weeks at number one 2.6 Most consecutive number-one singles 2.8 Most consecutive years charting a number-one single 2.7 Most number-one singles in a calendar year 2.4 Most top 10 singles 2.15 Most consecutive weeks in top ten 2.3 Most top 40 singles 2.2 Most Hot 100 entries 2.1 Self-replacement at number one 2.10 Simultaneously occupying the top two positions 2.11 Simultaneously three or more singles in the top 10 2.12 Posthumous number-ones 2.13 Age records 2.14 Gap records
 * I'm loosely basing the top part on two other sections (for the producers and writers); the first two I list, I'm going on how it's arranged in another article that talks about achievements by decade. Aside from that, putting the sections about the top 10, then top 40, then Hot 100 is pretty much straightforward. The self-replacement at #1 section I agree should be grouped with the ones about simultaneously occupying the top two, and having three simultaneous in the top 10. The bottom part I left alone. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I really like this order a lot. --dnsla23 04:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * Sections rearranged, as shown above. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Most consecutive weeks in top ten
69 weeks Katy Perry — "California Gurls" (featuring Snoop Dogg), "Teenage Dream", "Firework", "E.T." (featuring Kanye West), "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.) + The one that got away 11 weeks in top ten/ + Part of Me 10 weeks in top ten/ + Wide Awake 2 weeks in top 10/ TOTAL: 92 weeks

Note Some of these songs were in the top ten at the same time. It's not adding up all of the weeks by each song, it's how many consecutive weeks Katy Perry had one (or more) songs in the top ten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar324 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the above was never signed. Had to look it up in the edit history and found this section has been here more than two years. Was originally added by an IP user, 83.40.20.234, at 01:46, 23 June 2012, with at least one minor edit made to the text since (not including yours Rockstar324), though the essence of the comment text has remained intact. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Madonna top 40 singles watch list
I believe Madge has 49 top 40s, just below the current cutoff. She is about to release another album. Given her previous chart history, we can expect her to rise above the cutoff very soon.dnsla23 19:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)
 * Hopefully, Billboard will be on top of that when it happens so we can document it here (as always, we'd need to back any changes in the lists with sources). I counted 49 for Madonna's top 40 tally, too. It prompted me to check on Taylor Swift's count as well, given that I mentioned a little bit higher on the talk page that she has made the Hot 100 with 67 titles, enough to tie Elton John at the bottom of the "Most Hot 100 entries" list (still waiting on a reliable source to confirm). But in terms of top 40 appearances, Swift is just two behind Madonna, with 47. Looks like we'll be watching both women in the near future. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's another article I found that addresses "I'm Your Angel" rise to #1
http://books.google.com/books?id=IxQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=producer+with+most+number+1+billboard+hot+100+hits+sholes&source=bl&ots=hC8MMOZK5y&sig=lTYO_kTQbJz40FCDKpGL2mt37Kc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SMyEVPziNsLfoAT4yIC4Aw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=producer%20with%20most%20number%201%20billboard%20hot%20100%20hits%20sholes&f=falsednsla23 22:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Adding a section for the best of "all-time" charts
If we really want to show the best of the best achievements and milestones, I think that we should start with a section for the "all-time" records, taken from Billboard's 55th anniversary issue.

One table in this section would be for the top 10 songs of all time, along with their respective artist(s), highest chart and year(s) on the charts. From "The Twist" down to "Hey Jude".

Another would be for the top 5 most represented artists on the list of the top 100 songs of all-time. Some artists in this table would be Paul McCartney, The Bee Gees, Boyz II Men, and Mariah Carey.

I'm happy to put this together, with go-ahead.

--dnsla23 03:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

OK here's one table to add. Not sure about making it it's own section or as the first listing in song milestones.

Top 10 Hot 100 Artists of All-Time (1958-2013)
Source:

What do you think?dnsla23 06:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped on how to lay out the tables in the article, but these 55th anniversary rankings (like the 50th anniversary ones back in 2008) are quite noteworthy in terms of the history of the Hot 100, and its inclusion here should strongly be considered. Dnsla, hope you don't mind my reformatting the section, as the tables should all be part of the one section (Adding a section for the best of "all-time" charts). First time I'm using "ref group" (under where it says "Source:"); I'm hoping it will keep the reference in this section. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes please reformat away. I'm glad you see what I envisioned. I figured that 3 tables would warrant it's own section. Look forward to seeing the next step. dnsla23 00:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi MPFitz1968, any word on how this is all going? dnsla23 22:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, dnsla. Kinda found myself busy with other projects, and even other things within Wikipedia, I nearly forgot about this one. Coming up with a name for the section is a bit challenging, perhaps "All-Time Hot 100 achievements", or even that with the range of years for which the "all-time" part encompasses (1958–2013). In any event, the "all-time" part should have sufficient explanation before the tables. Where to insert the section? I was thinking it to be more appropriate toward the end of the article, but before the "Selected additional Hot 100 achievements". Might need to try something in my sandbox regarding the layout of this before adding this to the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MPFitz1968. I like All-time Hot 100 achievements. It does explain everything. Actually I thought to insert this section at the top of the page. What a better way to start the page, than with "Top 10 All-time songs" or "Top 10 All-time artists"? The page would start with the big-picture all-time category, and then drill down to specific things like songs, artists, etc. For someone skimming along, it's like reading the summary of the page without having to get into the lengthy details (and this page is certainly lengthy). dnsla23 02:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Section added to start of article. Still looks like it needs some polishing, dnsla, but I'll let you look at it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Great job MPFitz1968! So far looks good, but will review over the next few months with fresher eyes.dnsla23 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with the table
How do I undo putting stuff into the table?
 * Songwriters table wasn't closed properly ... I needed to add |} at the end of the table, on its own line, to do that. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping track of Lil Wayne
The note about Lil Wayne is interesting. Problem is Lil Wayne is a contemporary artist, whose numbers keep rising. Do we want to be responsible for changing the numbers on his note as well?

Most Hot 100 entries[edit] 207 - Glee Cast 149 - Elvis Presley (Pre-Hot 100 and Hot 100 included) 124 - Lil Wayne 91 - James Brown 82 - Jay-Z 74 - Ray Charles, Drake 73 - Aretha Franklin 71 - The Beatles 67 - Elton John Source:[88][89][90]

Notes: *Elvis Presley has charted 149 singles on Billboard if tracking his entire career which predates the 1958 Hot 100. If tracking begins after the 1958 inception of the Hot 100, Presley only has 108. '''*Lil Wayne has 78 charted singles on which he is a featured artist. If counting only singles on which he is a lead singer, Lil Wayne accounts for 45 chart entries.'''


 * I find that part in bold rather confusing, and I'm guessing a lot of readers will, too. And someone would have to do a great job continuing to count on where he's a lead artist, and where he's not. To be honest, I'm not sure if those numbers are right for the first 123 (78+45) songs; we'd need a source to verify those numbers. Probably should remove on original research grounds, but I don't even know if that mention is even noteworthy. There are certainly a lot of contemporary artists showing up on hits as lead artists and featured artists (Drake, who is also on the list; Nicki Minaj; Beyonce; Jeremih — just to name a few, glancing at a few names on the current Hot 100). MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see a mention about Lil Wayne's featured-lead artist ratio in that first source (he had charted 120 songs at the time of the source, and they mention 76, or 63%, of those were with him as a featured artist). I still see that as trivia in the broader picture, and would rather know his overall appearances on the chart, lead and featured combined, not a breakdown. Otherwise, we should be doing breakdowns for all other artists who have been on lead or featured. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I just think for a current artist it's a lot of work to do to keep up. I agree that I'd rather see overall numbers than specific numbers. Unless there's a Lil Wayne specialist out there, this line should come out.dnsla23 21:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
With the song "FourFiveSeconds", in a collaboration with Rihanna and Kanye West, McCartney is back in the top 10 for the first time since 1986 (as a solo artist, though a Beatles song, "Free as a Bird", made the top 10 back in 1996). According to the article about the Hot 100 preview for February 21, 2015, the 29 years and 2 weeks since his last top 10 ("Spies Like Us") is a new record for longest time between top 10s (again, only including his solo work), and the span of time between his first top 10 solo and his latest is 43 years, 10 months and 2 weeks (going back to "Another Day" in 1971). At this point, notability of this achievement is lacking a little to add, but at the rate "FourFiveSeconds" is rising the Hot 100, there is a chance it could reach #1. If it should reach the top, a number of records (gap and age) will need to be rewritten, as McCartney would be the oldest to top the Hot 100 (at 72 years young), would be first #1 since duet with Michael Jackson on "Say, Say, Say" (more than 31 years ago, well exceeding Cher's accomplishment from 1999), and longest gap since first #1 (hard to pick where to mark first with that one: "I Want to Hold Your Hand" with the Beatles, more than 51 years ago; or "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" in September 1971, more than 43 years ago ... in either case, it would shatter the current record, again held by Cher). Something to watch in the coming weeks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

McCartney gap in top ten songs
McCartney's song "FourFiveSeconds" just debuted this week in the top ten. It's his first top ten song since "Spies Like Us", which had it's last week in the top 10 on February 8, 1986, for a gap of 29 years 3 days. Is this a new record for top 10 gaps?--dnsla23 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Paul McCartney section, right above this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think we were writing at the same time. If Cher's gap in #1s includes her hit with Sonny, then McCartney's should include his hit with the Beatles. However, usually his solo work and Beatles work are counted separately (except for songwriting). Should be interesting to see.--dnsla23 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

From this week's Billboard, McCartney has already set a record:

With the song's Hot 100 advance, McCartney makes history: he returns to the chart's top 10 after more than 29 years, ending the longest break between top 10s in the Hot 100's 56-year archives. He'd last graced the top 10 with "Spies Like Us" (the title theme from the Chevy Chase/Dan Aykroyd spoof), which reached No. 7 in 1986. McCartney passes Santana, who waited more than 28 years between top 10s from 1971 to 1999. Let's take an updated look at the acts to return to the Hot 100's top 10 after the five longest gaps: Paul McCartney, 29 years, 2 weeks Feb. 8, 1986, "Spies Like Us" Feb. 21, 2015, "FourFiveSeconds" (with Rihanna and Kanye West) Santana, 28 years, 7 months, 2 weeks Jan. 23, 1971, "Black Magic Woman" Sept. 4, 1999, "Smooth" (feat. Rob Thomas) Roy Orbison, 24 years, 5 months, 2 weeks Oct. 31, 1964, "Oh, Pretty Woman" April 15, 1989, "You Got It" Aaron Neville, 22 years, 9 months, 1 week Feb. 18, 1967, "Tell It Like It Is" Nov. 25, 1989, "Don't Know Much" (with Linda Ronstadt) The Beatles, 19 years, 4 months, 3 weeks Aug. 7, 1976, "Got to Get You Into My Life" Dec. 30, 1995, "Free as a Bird" Notably, given the last act on the list above, McCartney did make an appearance in the top 10 with The Beatles in between his last two solo top 10s: the Fab Four's "Free as a Bird" debuted at No. 10 on Dec. 30, 1995 and peaked at No. 6 the following week.dnsla23 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015
67.85.213.87 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

paul mccartney for longest gap of top 10 songs, 1986 - 2015
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we're not sure how high the song is going to chart, we are holding off from putting in a line item under the Gap section for now.--dnsla23 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015
Elvis Presely is no longer ahead of Lil Wayne on Hot 100 Entries.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request made by User:141.165.120.73, which was without a section title, has been moved from the top of the page into a section. Please, as a convenience to those who follow the talk page, place new discussions/sections at the bottom of the page (easiest way is to click "New section" at the top of the page). Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift - looking for reliable source (preferably from Billboard) to place her in Most Hot 100 entries list
Continuation of Talk:List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_chart_achievements_and_milestones/Archive_3:

As of the March 7, 2015 chart, Swift now has 68 Hot 100 entries (her song "Wonderland" debuts at #51 to make it her 68th), which would push her ahead of Elton John for 10th place on the list. However, there is presently no source to confirm that, and until then, the list will remain out-of-date (aside from the numbers continuing to go up for Drake—wow, I think that's 10 songs over the past two weeks for him). Check out this list of her songs which made the Hot 100 (year in parentheses identifies the song's debut on the chart, though some were promotional singles which came back in a subsequent year for a full chart run, like "You Belong With Me" in late 2008 which went on to hit #2 in August 2009): (2006: 1 entry) Tim McGraw (2007: 2 entries) Teardrops On My Guitar; Our Song (2008: 13 entries) Picture To Burn; Should've Said No; Change; Love Story; Fearless; You're Not Sorry; You Belong With Me; Forever & Always; Fifteen; White Horse; The Way I Loved You; Breathe; Hey Stephen (2009: 8 entries) Crazier; Two Is Better Than One; Jump Then Fall; The Other Side Of The Door (Boys Like Girls feat. Swift); Superstar; Untouchable; Come In With The Rain; Half Of My Heart (John Mayer feat. Swift) (2010: 16 entries) Today Was A Fairytale; Breathless; Mine; Speak Now; Back To December; Mean; Sparks Fly; Innocent; The Story Of Us; Dear John; Better Than Revenge; Haunted; Last Kiss; Enchanted; Never Grow Up; Long Live (2011: 3 entries) If This Was A Movie; Superman; Ours (2012: 14 entries) Safe & Sound (feat. The Civil Wars); Eyes Open; Both Of Us (B.o.B feat. Swift); We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together; Ronan; Begin Again; Red; I Knew You Were Trouble; State Of Grace; 22; I Almost Do; Everything Has Changed (feat. Ed Sheeran); All Too Well; Stay Stay Stay (2013: 3 entries) The Moment I Knew; Highway Don't Care (duet with Tim McGraw); Sweeter Than Fiction (2014: 7 entries) Shake It Off; Out Of The Woods; Welcome To New York; Bad Blood; Style; Blank Space; Wildest Dreams (2015: 1 entry) Wonderland That totals to 68, which tops Elton's 67, but again, until Billboard confirms that, she can't be added. While compiling that list, I saw one of her songs from 2012 was "22", which I am guessing is how old she was when she recorded it. I remember watching that song on the Hot 100, and it seemed to rank at almost every position in the 20s, except #22 (it appeared at #s 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 26 during its 20-week run, but not 22). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Source was added, and the article updated, not long after I had posted this earlier. The source from Billboard reports, however, that with the new single, Swift has 67 Hot 100 entries, tied with Elton. I list 68 above, and I hope I didn't duplicate a title, or report one not officially credited to Swift (she does have a couple of featured credits in the list). MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A stronger effort needs to be made to keep original research out of this article
I have barely scratched the surface, but already I have found a number of sections in this article that are supported only by shoddy references to stories vaguely related to the artists or songs listed in the section (or, in the worst example, to a mirror of another Wikipedia page). For example, an article recounting the UK chart peaks of all the Beatles' singles is evidently not adequate support for the section on producers who scored Hot 100 number one hits in the most consecutive years. Please be aware that, unless the reference specifically refers to that artist or song as having achieved the achievement that we list in this article, listing that achievement is original research. We cannot simply trust that Wikipedians have accurately combed through the songwriting and production credits of every Hot 100 entry (or even every song on the All-Time Hot 100 list), and Wikipedia should not be a repository for obscure achievements assembled by amateur chart-watchers (the editors of this article, including myself).

A concerted effort should be made to ensure that all the listed references actually address and support the achievements claimed by this article. Those that do not adequately support the claimed facts should be flagged as such, and sections for which no source specifically addressing the respective achievement can be procured should be deleted as original research. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is so long and so much is unsourced. —  ₳aron  09:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

longest #1
why is there no mention of the longest song ever to be a billboard #1? Seems like something that should be listed here. I believe its "American Pie" by Don McLean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.104.163.50 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Mariah Carey and Boyz II Men have hled the record since 1995 with "One Sweet Day", at 16 weeks. —  ₳aron  09:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the original poster was looking for longest song(s) in duration to reach #1. There may be some overall notability of that feat, and you will need to find a reliable secondary source which documents the information clearly. Keep in mind, however, that many songs have various versions (mixes and remixes) that can extend/shorten the time vs. the original cut, so the source should document exactly which version of each song applies. Even "American Pie" had a shorter radio version than the original length of 8.5 minutes clocked for the song. (Didn't they have to put the entire song on both sides of the single back then?) MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Does Elvis have 18 number-one hits? Or 17?
I'm seeing this note under the Most number-one singles (in Artist achievements):

''Billboard now credits the dual #1 Presley single "Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog" as a single chart entity. "Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog" spent 11 weeks at #1, Hound Dog for 6 weeks, Don't Be Cruel for 5 weeks. Many chart statisticians however, such as Joel Whitburn still lists Presley as having 18 number ones.''

I bring this up as User:Taytay9135 has three times reduced Elvis Presley's count from 18 to 17. However, one of the sources, from The Washington Post, clearly states 18. I also have Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles (12th Edition) book, which shows the same for Elvis Presley's tally of number ones (confirming the note above). With Billboard counting "Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog" as one (going by the single itself), and others such as Whitburn and that Washington Post source counting it as two (going by the songs), this can be confusing. As the consensus here seems to side with 18, per the Washington Post source, I'd rather keep that count, which is why I've been reverting Taytay9135's edits (also, because these edits have not been explained by the user). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember an Elvis-enthusiast bumped up the initial listing at the time of 17 #1s to 18. There was nothing to disprove her, so it stuck. Glad there are now many sources to support the change, not just enthusiasm. Taytay9135 may be a Mariah enthusiast, who doesn't want to see Elvis' name above hers, but that's just a guess.dnsla23 20:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is top three notable to include in this article?
I came across these edits, which includes a source, previewing the Billboard Hot 100 for May 16, 2015, highlighting the fact that "Uptown Funk" has spent a record 21 weeks in the top three of the Hot 100. Since this is another arbitrary cutoff point (three positions), I think this warrants discussion. To me, the number has a little notability, but not like top 10 or top 40. Two things come to mind which make me say it has at least a little bit of notability: (1) When Casey Kasem did American Top 40 (both eras of that, as well as Casey's Top 40), he would run down the previous week's top three before doing the new countdown; (2) At the Olympics, there are medals for gold, silver and bronze, the awards for the top three performers in each competition. Despite my recollections on the significance of top three, I still feel it needs to be brought up here to avoid violating the "What Wikipedia is not" guideline of WP:IINFO. I have reverted the edit for the time being, pending further discussion of this matter. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it warrants inclusion in this article as a noteworthy achievement on this chart. The "top 3" is very infrequently referenced with respect to the Hot 100, especially, as you noted, compared to top 10 or top 40. Even regions like top 20 or top 50 are referenced far more often, I would guess, though I obviously have no empirical confirmation. I don't expect any other publication will ever mention this feat, unlike records like longest run on the chart or most weeks at number one, which are still occasionally mentioned in other media sources. I think that achievement might be best used within the articles specifically about the songs that have achieved it as evidence of their unusual longevity toward the top of the chart, but as an achievement in and of itself it just seems too arbitrary to me. This article is too long as it is, and could probably do with some other semi-arbitrary listed categories being cut out. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015
Max Martin is now at 20 for Producer number 1's

1999 - "...Baby One More Time" (Britney Spears) 2000 - "It's Gonna Be Me" ('N Sync) 2008 - "I Kissed a Girl" (Katy Perry) 2008 - "So What" (P!nk) 2009 - "My Life Would Suck Without You" (Kelly Clarkson) 2009 - "3" (Britney Spears) 2010 - "California Gurls" (Katy Perry feat. Snoop Dogg) 2010 - "Teenage Dream" (Katy Perry) 2010 - "Raise Your Glass" (P!nk) 2011 - "Hold It Against Me" (Britney Spears) 2011 - "E.T." (Katy Perry featuring Kanye West) 2011 - "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)" (Katy Perry) 2012 - "Part of Me" (Katy Perry) 2012 - "One More Night" (Maroon 5) 2012 - "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" (Taylor Swift) 2013 - "Roar" (Katy Perry) 2014 - "Dark Horse" (Katy Perry feat. Juicy J) 2014 - "Shake it Off" (Taylor Swift) 2014 - "Blank Space" (Taylor Swift) 2015 - "Bad Blood" (Taylor Swift)

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6576177/taylor-swift-bad-blood-tops-hot-100 being the last number 1

14.201.36.36 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 14:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Already done before this showed up. Listed correctly in the producer and songwriter sections.dnsla23 01:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)