Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s

Discussion
A discussion on the need for duplicative lists of Hot 100 number-one singles is taking place at Talk:List of number-one hits (United States). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please consider a more detailed approach
This article does not make any sense and needs to go though many changes to be easier to read. Please try a better approach and add on to the article so it can be easier read to many who read this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach464 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Altough there is some overlapping information in both series of articles, there is much information in the by-decade articles which does not appear in the by-year articles. Either way, because there are some Wikipedians whom insist that we must choose one of the two series of articles (three AfDs were already held in the last months on this matter), believe we should keep the List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles charts by decade series of articles. In my opinion there is a significant advantage to display the data in an article covering the entire decade, since by doing so we could present sortable lists for each decade which allow easier, quicker and more efficient navigation through a larger amount of data which the users can also sort automatically. In addition, in this way our readers would be able to find important information that an encyclopedia reader could quite conceivably want to look up (some of which is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia, or is available in various different articles) - for example, without the List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles charts by decade series of articles, how would the readers know which artist managed to get the most number-one singles in the Hot 100 chart during the 1980s, or for example what is the song which remained the longest in the Hot 100 chart during the 1990s? I think it would be wrong to refer our readers to various other articles or external links to find this information now that we can present this information in this series of articles.

It is also worth noting that since the List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles charts by decade series of articles were created the tables in them were significantly expanded and now they are superior to the tables that appear in the List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles charts by year series of articles.

It is also worth noting that the List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles charts by decade series of articles were based partly on the similar series of articles for the UK Singles Charts which also presents this data by decades rather than years.

The extended overviews in the yearly number-ones articles is essentially the only thing that needs to be merged to the the number-ones by decades articles.

What do you think should be done? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I had mentioned in AfD discussions, I don't think there is a need for a by-decades list.
 * The by-year lists have been in place for years. In addition to the Hot 100 by-year lists, there are also by-year lists for a large number of U.S.-based charts, most of them via Billboard magazine.  It's silly to have some lists by year and yet others by decade.  It's even sillier to have both.  That said:
 * The UK lists are the only ones arranged by-decade. By-year lists feature U.S. charts as well as charts for many other countries.  It makes more sense to split up the UK decade lists to match the format of the others, not the other way around.
 * The additional info shown in these by-decades lists are trivia-based diehard-chartwatcher-only info that the casual reader is not going to have an interest in. I'm talking about highlighting/coloring the longest running #1 of each year/decade (along with the musical-note icon), compiling even more tables on the bottom of the page to tally most #1s, most weeks at #1, etc. etc.  These are less-notable items that belong in artist and/or song articles, perhaps a mention within the text or included in a song article's charts tables.  This extra stuff, to me, represents clutter.
 * The articles were created as lists, plain and simple. Each week, there is a number one song, and it is recorded into the article.  It's here as an encyclopedic reference to popular music during specific points in time.  A small summary written at the end of each year is quite sufficient, we needn't compile and/or find a bunch of nitpick-y ways to rank songs and artists.  It's just not necessary.  My $.02. - eo (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By my opinion we should keep the List of Hot 100 number-one singles by year and merge the List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) to the certain lists. And I totally agree with Ericorbit. —  Tomica   (talk)   21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the decade lists are pointless, and will just become too big overtime, if each year was to be merged into one. Each year should have its own article. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs 03:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you take out the trivial summaries at the bottom you get exactly what the title of the article says, a list of number ones. Outside of having 10 lists versus 1, there is no difference in the information in either method - what was number and by whom, when it was number one and for how long. Cosmetic differences are just that and preferred ways of how to present the information can be discussed and merged into the other. If staying with the yearly lists, if there is any interest in retaining the "by decade" summaries, I've merged the info to List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade as an offshoot of List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. In the end, I don't care if that one stays or goes, but its a way of keeping the information and calling it what it is rather than having it in a "list of number ones". -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge the three standalone lists (2010, 2011, 2012) into this article. I don't really see the point of the standalone lists if this one amalgamates all of the necessary information. Either merge the standalone lists into this article, or keep the standalone lists without this article existing. However, I do think this one should stay. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 17:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's better to have both of types. The year by year lists will be more accessible and easier to comprehend for many of us. And the decade ones could be a summary of each group of the corresponding 10 years lists. Let's be real and unbiased, do you prefer to have a single list that consists 10 years in front of you (looking endless) or having a set of 10 individual lists? Note that this discussion is about the 2010s decade. However, this decade is not over yet. 2012 is not the end of the world. If these three years are merged, then each group of ten corresponding lists of the seven previous decades will also have to be merged. So, will we ignore so many FLs? What a waste that would be be!!!
 * And as I said, many will prefer the year by year lists. Well, some may prefer the decade lists since they can assimilate a large amount of text at once. But why not keep both? After all, this encyclopedia is free and accessible to all. Why lose articles that have already been written? There are so may red links on Wikipedia. Perhaps, you can use your time creating pages for them rather than wanting to merge three lists from a decade that is not even over ... far from that. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Neutral on merge Perhaps I'm a little biased here, as I regularly update the lists of number ones of the UK music charts, so I'm very used to seeing this kind of information presented in a by-decade format rather than by-year. There are advantages to both, but I personally believe that by-decade will better serve our readers. Being able to sort the data gives the reader far more freedom with how they can view it, e.g. by being able to see all number ones by Beyoncé at once. I don't agree with the argument that the by-year lists should be kept simply because of their age, as consensus can change, and what was once deemed appropriate may no longer be. I also don't believe that the statistics at the bottom of the page are trivial – they're certainly no more trivial than the statistics given in the leads of the by-year articles. For example, I believe that a reader is far more likely to want to know, say, who had the most number ones during the 2000s, rather than, say, who achieved their first number one during 2008. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But a reader wouldn't be seeing all of Beyoncé's number ones at once, only within a specific time period. This seems to give undue weight to artists whose main success took place within a 0-9 decade over artists whose success may have spanned such decades. Personally, as a reader, if I wanted to know how many number ones Beyoncé had, I'd go to Beyoncé Knowles discography, which wouldn't limit me to any particular decade. If I wanted to know what the number-one song was in July 2003, then I'd refer to these lists. Finally, in regards to consensus changing over the type of lists, I don't see it having anything to do with age because a lot of newer lists have been created after both the UK decade lists and the US yearly lists had long been established and most of those authors seem to prefer "by year", including those for UK rock, indie and R&B charts. What's odd is that Australia's number-one song lists were by decade and now they're by year, while New Zealand was by year and now it's by decade for the 2010s. But, at least neither have redundant lists that cover the same time frame. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 10:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I totally agree with user Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. This is something that 99% of non-music editors do not understand. For instance on the List of songs recorded by Rihanna, they insisted on making known which songs were released as singles. (I know it seems ridiculous, right?!). They could have known which ones were singles by simply running an eye through Rihanna discography. These types of discussions happen often and what is most regretful is that the opinion of those who not edit articles related to the discussion are taken as the final word (nearly always). Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 10:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to know what your definition of a "music editor" is. I personally don't see how it is in any way "ridiculous" to indicate on List of songs recorded by Rihanna which tracks were officially released as singles. It's highly relevant to the list, and each Wikipedia article needs to be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit anyway – I think it's wrong to simply assume that readers will know that they can find information they're looking for in a completely different article.
 * Anyhow, this is all besides the point. While I can see Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's argument that the list could give undue weight to artists whose main success took place within the 2010s, how is the same not also true of the by-year articles? Does List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.) give undue weight to Adele over, say, Britney Spears? A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 13:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why you end up seeing some edit wars on those pages because some editors want to highlight their favorite artist over others. My point on the undue weight had more to do with the summary tables which overly emphasizes the main artists by numbers rather than an introduction that summarizies the number ones for that year. Whether by year or by decade, the emphasis should be on the list of number ones (you know, the title of the article), not on extraneous tabulations. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And why shouldn't it? 2011 was Adele's year. Didn't you know? By the way, it partly defines "music editor". That's why I say the year-by-year lists should remain as the whole decade did not belong to Adele. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral – I really hate to crash on 1111tomica's FLC (which shouldn't be taken into consideration during this discussion), but a merge really looks like it's the way to go right now. As per A Thousand Doors consensus can change and probably will in a few years from now. I've done a brief comparison between this list and the year lists, and the same information is conveyed, just in a more tighter manner. A Thousand Doors' argument regarding the accessibility in a standalone article is also very valid.


 * However, there are arguments against this merge I see as valid. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars highlighted that the yearly lists describe notable accomplishments for a particular year better. They also seem to effectively focus on a particular year. It's difficult to say, find the artist with the most number-one singles of 2012 in a table that will only sort by artists with the most number-ones of the entire decade. If there's a workaround for this, I stand corrected.


 * That said, I do think the decade table can be better formatted. We could remove the year subheadings and can place the anchors on the first issue date of a particular year on the table. (e.g. place by "January 7, 2012"). This will allow for the sort function to work much better and we can customize the order in which we want the items listed on the entire decade. This eliminates the need for the Songs by total number of weeks at number one table, although I guess we still have the problem of singles returning to number one after losing the position for a few weeks. (Thank goodness it hasn't happened yet!) — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment — What exactly would/should be merged? If we're talking about moving all of the extra tables and tallies and colors over to the by-year lists, then I strongly oppose.  It either has to be a year list or a decade list (and the last thing we need is all the extra crap in the by-year lists).  This, to me, seems to be a situation where both articles may need to co-exist.  It's been AfD-nom'ed 3 times now and the consensus seems to be split between the two versions... and it looks as if the consensus in this discussion is split too. - eo (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Having both has already resulted in the creation of List of UK number-one singles of 2012 with the primary reason being if there are going to be two types of lists for the US, there should be two for UK charts. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sicko Mode
Should Drake’s uncredited vocals on Sicko Mode be put on “Artists by total number-one singles” and “Artists by total cumulative weeks at number-one” like they are in the UK Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.62.44 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe it should be, but with some sort of asterisk Koday44 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Images of Rihanna
There are two images of Rihanna on this page and their captions basically say the same thing. Should one be removed? If so, which one? 2601:601:1001:E120:F9AD:C4FC:EF11:8220 (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Drake at the Velvet Underground - 2017 (35986086223) (cropped).jpg
 * Drake at the Velvet Underground - 2017 (36398066420) (cropped).jpg