Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 2021

Group members' names
Despite Billboard listing the individual names of members of groups, I'm not sure they are necessary for our tables. Thoughts? Tree Critter (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not our job to decide how artists should be credited. We only procure information from sources; and we credit the way they are credited in the sources. These are Billboard's charts and we credit them here the way the magazine has credited them. Wikipedia does not grant us any authority over altering numbers/charts. End of discussion. We editors should not waste on our time on these trivial things. BawinV (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * PS: The current version is the correct version. BawinV (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing says that is the correct version. That is the correct version of the page for you. Just like I'm sure the "correct version" of last year's list would not include a footnote clarifying "The Scotts" and would credit "Savage Love" as "Jawsh 685 x Jason Derulo x BTS" for others. User:MPFitz1968 told me he agrees with me in principal, so it's worth a discussion. I agree, we should have how Billboard credits them somewhere on the page but we can use better judgement, and we often do in other music articles. Listing Silk Sonic AND Mars AND Paak essentially just credits both of them twice. If I'm alone in this I'll back off, but I don't think I am and it's an eyesore listing them that way. Billboard is choosing the route of eyesore, we can deliver the same information in a cleaner way. Tree Critter (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "That is the correct version of the page for you". Yes? who said otherwise? Am I supposed to say "in my opinion" in every single line? Talk pages exist so that editors could discuss their "opinions". Hence, please don't waste your time reminding me the default. Moving to the point, I don't think it's an eyesore. It's just credits. Lol. There's no big deal here. "Cleaner way"? It looks clean already. You're talking like there are a dozen names listed? It's just the name of the supergroup and its two members. BawinV (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I also wanna add that Billboard is not "choosing the route of the eyesore" because they purposely are crediting both the supergroup and the members, visibly. They don't do this for bands or other groups. They only do this for supergroups. I don't think credits should be turned into footnotes when Mars and Paak are the literal lead artists of the song. BawinV (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Easy On Me on the main paragraph
It belongs on there. If we're going to include one-week #1's like All Too Well and Way 2 Sexy, we cannot omit a song as huge as Easy On Me, which spent a total of 10 weeks at #1, with 7 of them in 2021. PhiEaglesfan712 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Adele has an image of her here because EOM spent multiple weeks at #1 but not enough to dethrone Drivers License; therefore, Rodrigo is mentioned in the lead. Swift has only one week at #1, hence she doesn't have an image, but the song broke an all-time record and hence is mentioned in the lead—which is the norm for all the Hot 100 articles for every year. Drake has 2 #1's and hence has an image, but he isn't mentioned in the lead because those songs did not break any historical records. BTS did both, and hence they are mentioned in the lead AND have an image. Please stop edit warring and keep your bias aside. Regards. Ronherry (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no bias in this. I don't even like Adele and I know 30 fizzled out very quick, but leaving out Easy On Me from the paragraph is erasing a huge chunk of 2021. I think it's fair if we either include both and say that Drivers License had the most weeks within the calendar year, but Easy On Me eventually had the longer run (like they did with End of the Road and I'll Always Love You in 1992), or we leave out both. I believe it's a bias if only Rodrigo is included, but not Adele. PhiEaglesfan712 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Plus, historical records and longest reigning #1s of the year (overall, male, female) guarantee inclusion of the data in the lead, since they're notable information and coveted by Billboard. The rest are not lead-worthy. Images are guaranteed for those artists who surpassed a certain threshold of weeks spent at #1 and those who garnered many #1 singles—since they're remarked by Billboard in independent articles. Ronherry (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked other years, and none of them pointed out the longest female #1 song of the year, when a female didn't hold the overall record. Besides, some years a male act will have the overall record, and in other years a female act will have it. I'm going to remove it to keep consistency with other years. PhiEaglesfan712 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)