Talk:Billboard Hot 100

message: I don't see any mention on the algorithm used to compile the chart. Is it by any mean an objective method or is this chart just a marketing tool?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.248.61 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algorithm 

message: On the Wikipedia page it says Do I Make You Proud as number one, but the Billboard website still lists Hips Don't Lie as number one.  What's up with this?
:There is an extra external link in the article pointing to the Billboard.com news article confirming that Hicks is at number one for the July 1 issue.  That new chart is released by Billboard tonight/tomorrow. -- eo 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In both the print and online editions of Billboard I see it credited solely to Timberlake. -- eo 02:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Timbaland did produce it, but Bronson is a columnist for the magazine.  For the official namecheck, you need to look on the actual chart.  You may want to see Bronson's "Chart Beat Chat" feature from this week, which coincidentally addresses this very issue: link.  A reader asked about determining who gets credit... in short, part of Bronson's reply was "Artist credits are determined by record companies in collaboration with artists and their legal representatives. Billboard is guided by how an artist is credited on a single or album. On rare occasions, if there is confusion or the credits are unclear or vague, our chart department staffers will contact the label to determine how the credits are supposed to read." so ya. -- eo 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number One

message: The Hot 100 List of Number 1 Hits (USA) seems to be weekly, but some Hot 100 websites show 100 songs for a year.  Anyone know what is going on? --ShaunMacPherson 14:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it might be necessary Drdr1989 20:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: The second paragraph of the article is vague and sounds like guessing. "Almost a half-dozen" is useless; a half-dozen is six and anything below that can be simply stated as a number. "Apparently all the charts became a little too difficult..." sounds like guessing. Unless a source backs this up, I'm going to change it so it's reflective of obvious facts. -- Mjwilco 18:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous charts to the Hot 100 

message: I have reverted the text in the "Most #1s" section and removed a new reference to Diana Ross and Michael Jackson, who were noted by combining their hits with the Supremes and the Jackson 5.  This is getting into a real grey area, as technically early singles by the Supremes did not have Ross's name listed out front (i.e. "Diana Ross & the Supremes").  Also, if we begin to add artists' solo and group #1s then we'll have to start doing with other people, such as the individual Beatles, etc.  The general rule is that if an artist is "name-checked" in the credits of the song, then they get credit for it, but not if they are a current or featured member of a group.  So for example, Ross's solo #1s do not technically include her hits with the Supremes, yet it does include her "Endless Love" duet with Lionel Richie, since at that time she was already established as a solo recording artist.
If anyone disagrees with my assessment, by all means put the text back but I think we'll be entering into an arena that is up for a lot of debate if we start combining group and solo #1s.
Also, the Elvis stats were removed as male soloist with the most #1s and I put it back.
* eo 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most #1s (revert text)

message: Eric, if you describe yourself as a Billboard fanatic, you'll know that Elvis Presley's Don't Be cruel/Hound Dog never spent OFFICIALLY 11 weeks at #1, but 7. 
:Yes it did spend 11 weeks on top, however I think seven weeks listed "Cruel" ahead of "Hound Dog", while four was vice versa. The official tally is 11 weeks for the "double" single Drdr1989 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you in regard to everything you posted here. Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog might have been only one single, but it included two monster hits. The idea that it didn't include two gigantic recordings that both went to #1 is patently absurd. BTW, whoever changed the criteria for double-sided hits was flat-out wrong. At least you can tell the relative strengths of two songs on the same single pre-1969, but there is no real way to do it after that. jtmatbat 10:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billboard Hot 100 changes 

message: Err, ok so no one responded above regarding pre-Hot 100 totals, so I changed the text in the article so that everything reflected Hot 100 hits only, this included adjusting the totals in other sections like "most chart singles," "most top 40 hits", etc.  Just now I had to revert again because someone put the Elvis #1s total back in, without updating any of the other sections.  This is lame, people.  Either the article includes pre-Hot 100 stats or it doesn't; it's that simple.  Do we want them in or not?  I don't care either way, but if I or someone else goes to the trouble to make this article accurate it's really frustrating to have someone swoop in and make a half-assed modification.  And please, enough about friggin' Mariah Carey - yes, she has plenty of achievements but must every section have something inserted about her "smash hit singles"?  Lord knows there's enough POV in her bio, album and singles articles already, we don't need more here.  Sheesh, sorry to rant.  Input from anyone else is appreciated.  See ya.
* eo 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You got a problem with Mariah Carey, buddy? LOL jk. Anyway, I think we should include the pre-hot 100 stuff, but include the technically correct stuff first with the stricly Hot 100 stats (and songs credited strictly). Then in a subsection you should include stuff about Elvis and about MJ and Diana Ross having more #1's. OmegaWikipedia 19:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis #1's

message: I am removing page protection as it seems unneeded. Rich Farmbrough 09:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Not to take away from the achievements of Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey, but aren't we getting just a little too detailed about discussing artists who almost replaced themselves at number one?  Come on now.  Why don't we also add text about artists or songs that almost achieved other milestones?  It's becoming ridiculous, and its so obvious at this point that this article has become yet another Wikipedia page that has slowly turned into a fan-page for Mariah Carey.  Now it's displaying the entire chart history of "Shake It Off"?  Sorry people, but that needs to be removed!... It is something that would belong on a "Shake It Off" article (which I'm sure exists already).  Listing Carey and/or Jackson within sections explaining (without POV!) chart achievements is one thing, but someone wanting to learn about the Hot 100 does not need to know the week-by-week chart placings of "Shake It Off." -- eo 01:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Omega: Thanks.  To continue with this topic, do you (or anyone who contributes to this page on a regular basis) think it may be time for an additional page dealing solely with significant Hot 100 achievements?  It seems like statistics and lists are constantly being added here.  Perhaps the Hot 100 page can contain just the basics about its history in Billboard and how it is compiled each week, and the 1998 change in policy to allow album cuts... and then have a new page on which people can expand all of these ever-growing lists of most weeks at #1, most chart entries, most hits from one album, #1 self-replacement, etc.?  Or am I jumping the gun?  -- eo 04:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I agree. We should make another page for Hot 100 achievements. I've actually kind of started working on one on my space here, .  It's not complete at all, but yeah, we need to make a seperate page for achievements. OmegaWikipedia 04:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Omega, I've been putting together my own Hot 100 achievements page as well... perhaps we can combine what we're both working on and then work with others to decide what should be removed from the main Hot 100 page?  Anyone can check it out.  All I ask that that people leave comments about it here instead of on the temp page, as I'll eventually delete it from there.  -- eo 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: update: as I didn't hear from anyone, I published it: List of Hot 100 (US) chart achievements and trivia.  I have not removed stuff from the Hot 100 main page, although I would eventually like to see that happen.  I'm curently re-writing the Hot 100 page in an external text editor but do not want to publish it without others reviewing it first, as there are a bunch of us who visit/modify this page frequently.  More later..... -- eo 16:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: self-replacement at number one

message: Just explaining revert which removed No Doubt "Dont Speak" from this list.... article already points out that there are several big songs that only hit Airplay chart due to no-retail-single rule.  Also, if No Doubt song is listed, then Goo Goo Dolls "Iris" also needs to be mentioned (18 weeks #1 Airplay I think?) and any other songs that spent long #1 stays on Airplay chart.  List should not have some songs and not others.... unless consensus agrees that ALL of big Airplay only #1s should be there. -- eo 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: songs w/most weeks at number one

message: I just made a change in the article. According to the American Top 40: Countdown of the Century book by Rob Durkee, it's mentioned that AT40 switched to the Airplay chart only when Billboard started using Soundscan. The reason was simple: They knew from the test charts that Billboard had been running that the new Hot100 would have many more rap and metal records on it and most AT40 stations weren't comfortable playing that kind of music. So they switched. IIRC they went even further and went to the Mainstream Top 40 airplay chart eventually. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hot 100 and AT40

message: Editors: I've made a new Hot 100 article which retains portions of the old version (the history, the policies and weekly calculations) and got rid of a lot of the growing clutter (trivia, achievements, records, musical act mentions), which I moved to a new article (link is in this new version).  I think this is more encyclopedic and keeps things a lot more direct and streamlined.  I researched as much as I could from archived articles and old print issues of Billboard that I own.  Is anyone interested in tweaking this new version to bring it to a FA status?  -- eo 14:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Re-write

message: We need to keep the notes I made about several album cuts listed due to the fact that the songs in question *did* actually chart on the Hot 100 chart for various reasons. "Torn" (Natalie Imbruglia) and "Iris" (Goo Goo Dolls) charted due to a change in chart methedology which allowed album cuts to finally chart. "I'll be there for You" (Rembrandts) was eventually released as a single on the flip side of "This house is not a home". In all 3 cases the song entered the Hot 100 chart well after they dominated the airplay chart, resulting in a Hot 100 chart position that didn't nearly reflect the popularity of the song.
:Yes this is true, but I dont think that amount of detail is necessary in this article.  Mentioning in the text above that songs either a) didnt chart or b) charted well after their airplay peaks nicely and concisely explains the scenario. - eo 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Album Cuts

message: This is kind of a trivial question, but has a song ever peaked at #100 on the Hot 100? I know of two songs that peaked at #99 on it ("The Talkin' Song Repair Blues" by Alan Jackson and "Why, Why, Why" by Billy Currington"), but I don't know of any #100's. TenPoundHammer 18:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there have been plenty: "Girl" by Beck, one of James Blunt's songs peaked at #100 last year, just to name two.  There was a trivia item (since removed) about an artist who had multiple #100 songs.  Really, there have been a lot of 'em. - eo 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Has a song ever peaked at #100?

message: I have kept track of this over the years. Both the running count of the Hot 100 number ones and those prior to that starting with Rock Around the Clock - the Rock Era. The pre-Hot 100 information is based on Fred Bronson's books. Here is the list which I update now and again . It is possible I have missed one out somewhere and my count is wrong and if so please let me know. -- Phildav76 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: W00t!!  Thanks for the correction, Phildav76! - eo 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of number one hits 

message: The Sources section doesn't need a cite notice because each source has a link or ISBN numbers and no additional cite is necessary for a source.  Removed the notice. Sundaybrunch 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite notice

message: On a singles page I think the position it peaked at on the Hot Digital Songs chart should be added rather than the Pop 100. Why? Because The pop 100 chart i just a different version of the hot 100, airplay is used and airplay is promo and not how popular the single is in the shops or on the internet
Please concider this.
Dmkimberley (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hot Digital Songs

message: Please read source carefully:  the "1000" represents the beginning of the rock era, generally agreed to have begun with "Rock Around the Clock" hitting number one.  The Hot 100 had not yet been created at that time.
Except from Fred Bronson's "Chart Beat" column:
:"I should point out that "I Kissed a Girl" is the 1000th No. 1 of the rock era, not the 1000th No. 1 on the Hot 100. The chart as we know it today was first published Aug. 4, 1958, three years and one month after the rock era began. Before the Hot 100, the official singles chart of the day was Best Sellers in Stores. The first 39 No. 1 songs of the rock era topped the Best Sellers tally. The song that was No. 1 on the first Hot 100 was "Poor Little Fool" by Ricky Nelson. "I Kissed a Girl" is thus the 961st No. 1 on the Hot 100." - eo (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please note: "I Kissed a Girl" is 961st number-one, not 1000th

message: There is still some confusion on my part whether "Bird Dog" by The Everly Brothers actually was a #1 single or not. While all the older publications, including Joel Whitburn's, list it as a #1 hit (according to Whitburn, both it and The Elegants' "Little Star" supposed to have occupied the top spot simultaneously on the week ending August 25, 1958), the current list on Billboard's Hot 100 anniversary page omits this entry. According to the song's Wikipedia entry, it only reached #3. Allmusic.com on the other hand, still lists it as a #1. I suppose, if Billboard itself claims it not to have been a #1, you should stick with their data, but it still puzzles me how it historically used to be considered a #1 hit, when, all of a sudden, in retrospect it never was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keemo23 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hot 100 started in August 1958 and Bird Dog did not top the chart. But it was likely a #1 hit in the months previous to the Hot 100s begining. —  MateyAhoy  18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Joel Whitburn lists "Bird Dog" as #1 on the Best Seller in Stores chart and #2 on the Hot 100. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bird Dog" #1? 

message: I distinctly remember a few years ago there was a United World Chart, what ever happened to that chart and why don't we use it anymore? Str8cash (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: UWC has nothing to do with Billboard magazine.  See WP:CHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS. - eo (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United World Chart 

message: That is the question. Shouldn't "The Twist" be counted twice when it comes to the number of actual #1 hits (not the number of songs that hit #1)? Although Billboard at the time treated is as the same item by adding the number of weeks from the initial chart run during the second one, probably because it was the same issue with the same catalog number, I think they should be regarded as two separate things since they charted over more than a year apart from each other. They did the same in Britain when it came to assembling the list of their first 1000 #1 singles. JW also lists it twice. Whether they had the same catalog number or not shouldn't make any difference, IMO. Therefore I think the info about the number of #1 hits on this page should be corrected to that effect. However, the chief author of this page seems to disagree as he kept removing the change, even deleting the Twist reference which I had added. I guess, since we're only a couple of months away from hitting the 1000 in any case, there will probably be another feature on Billboard like the one for the 50th anniversary, so that we'll know which one will be the 1000th #1 hit of the Hot 100 era.--Verda stelo (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two Twist" or not "Two Twist"? 

message: in the section "Paid digital downloads" it says that billboard is now compiling the Digital Songs chart, whice charts the versions of a song in the same place. In the section "Remixes" it says billboard " separates airplay points from a song’s original version and its remix, if the remix is determined to be a "new song". Since administering this new chart rule, several songs have charted twice, normally credited as "Part 1" and "Part 2". The remix rule is still in place." What does it mean? How do they summerize it in the Hot 100? and why they aren't seperationg the versions in the Digital charts? Thank, Ofekalef (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different versions 

message: Katy perry's, "Part Of Me" is now number one, not Kelly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayythehuman (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New number one 

message: By the end of 1957, the Top 100 was, for lack of a better term, a component chart to the Best Sellers in Stores chart, as it was based on the sale of records depending on which side of the record a customer asked for, and did not incorporate any data from surveying DJs. I'm not sure how or if to incorporate this, however. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 100 

message: It'll be extremely helpful....Spbone (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a copyright violation.  And, ya know, Billboard.com has the Hot 100 listed so why not just look there? - eo (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Suggestion: A table that shows the hot 100 songs and is edited weekly? 

message: Link to the story so that this info can be inserted into the article when it occurs:  
Please add this message to other talk pages of Billboard-related articles (so that I don't hve to do ALL of them!) Thank you! - eo (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New tracking week adjustments occuring in July

message: Perhaps this should be added 
"Billboard announced its first-ever Billboard Hot 100 Music Festival, a weekend of live music featuring some of the charts' biggest artists as well as quickly rising newcomers. The festival will take place Aug. 22 and 23 at New York's Jones Beach." http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6605863/billboard-hot-100-music-festival -- Cyrusdurden (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot 100 Music Festival 

message: The list is named "Hot 100", not "Billboard Hot 100". Eurohunter (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong article name 

message: I've noticed that an administrator's revision removing the real-time Hot 100 updates was undone without consensus. It would only be right to bring it to the talk section to form a consensus and conclude whether or not the weekly update should stay.
I'll start by saying that I think that the real-time update is useful for readers and would make a great addition to the page. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly no. 1 update: necessary? 

message: It's music related anyway  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian ARIA chart has no connection to the Billboard charts.Nqr9 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ARIA Charts]] in See also section please 

message: is inaccurate and needs to stop. Regardless of who started it or since when its been like this, its still inaccurate and too soon. People need to control themselves for a few hours until the URL updates--NØ 06:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "people" don't. It is not inaccurate whatsoever. Billboard literally published an article saying "the new number one is 'Sicko Mode'", so regardless of what the chart URL shows, it is the new number one. You are acting like the current URL for the actual chart is law or the last word on the matter and that we have to wait only because that's all you want to follow. I don't think anybody else is going to agree with you, I'm afraid, and you'll need consensus to try to change it. I think you're being ridiculous and only taking issue with the wording because you were reverted. You need to pick your battles. No other user has ever had an issue with it, and that tells us that that's because it's common sense—we don't need to wait for the specific Billboard Hot 100 page to update if Billboard is clearly telling us itself elsewhere on their website that there is a new number one on that chart. Ss112 07:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating that something is the "current #1" when its not #1 on Billboard's "current" chart issue 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect /Billboard Hot 100. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  /Billboard Hot 100 listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In the section "Use in media" is mentioned that Michael Jackson is one of the five artists to have a Hot 100 Top 40 hit in four different decades. Actually, he has at least one Hot 100 Top 10 hit in five different decades, starting with 'Ben', which peaked atop the chart in 1972 and, so far, ending with 'Love Never Felt So Good', which peaked at number 9 in 2014. That can be verified in his own Wikipedia page and the songs' Wikipedia pages. That is a huge deal that should be corrected. ;) 2804:14D:688E:444:E84D:882C:EFC3:2A95 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done. First, you are lacking a source stating this. Second, the sentence says "Only five artists had a Hot 100 Top 40 hit in each of the four decades from the 1980s through the 2010...", and excludes the 1970s (1972). --Mvqr (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022 

message: * https://www.vulture.com/2023/09/billboards-hot-100-doesnt-make-sense.html Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for future use