This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
Number one songs
The chart website says Makes Me Wonder, Girlfriend and Give It To Me as #1. How come they aren't mentioned in this article? Even though the chart started on June 16, why does these songs still say they were #1 when they were never #1 after June 16? Can the songs still be included here to indicate this? RaNdOm26 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished test charts were run prior to the first official week. Some test chart info was included (such as peak position column, etc) to aid industry people when it was finally released. I don't think those peak positions should count, and there's no way of knowing which weeks had which song at #1 anyway. - eo 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't there be note, possibly a footnote mentioning that the above songs were #1 when the test charts were used before the official chart was released? I think they shouldn't be excluded as they were officially #1 songs in the Canadian Hot 100, because they are shown on the peak position columns in all the regularly released official charts. RaNdOm26 18:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not official. They were on test charts. There were test charts produced every time Billboard did a major revamp of one of its U.S. charts too (such as Hot 100 in 1998, for example) and those stats aren't mentioned. For those who have an interest in music charts it may be interesting to see when looking at Billboard's website, but its totally not notable for an encyclopedia. - eo 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way, I disagree. It doesn't matter if they are official or not. The website still mentions those peaks even though they are reached in the test charts, and these peaks are notable. Otherwise, they would have discarded them and only include the peaks when they were in the official charts. Where is your evidence/proof explaining that these chart peaks were there only to "aid industry people when it was finally released"? The info is still there and it is not because to simply to aid the industry people, it is there for the people out there to see. Then, it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, why is it not notable? RaNdOm26 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both parties on the above discussion. I think the #1 peaks for each song should be mentioned in the article with an explaination of how the songs in question peaked at #1 prior to the chart being released to the public. Here is another motivation for adding these facts. The wikipedia articles to the songs in question (Give It To Me, Girlfriend, and Makes Me Wonder) have all added the Canadian Hot 100 #1 peak position to their respective chart sections.Agdonald 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a source for how those "number-ones" were calculated then they should not be added. They shouldn't be added to the song articles either. Before the U.S. Hot 100 was revamped to include airplay-only hits, test charts were produced. How legit are the number-ones on those charts? It's the same thing. - eo 11:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you refuse the information discussed above to be on the article? The fact that these songs were peaked at #1 as I recall was public domain on billboard's site, and so was legit! There is no corresponding dates for when they peaked, so no point in adding to the list, but I agree with Agdonald and RaNdOm26... but the article is difficult to maintain this trivial change because eo disgrees and keeps changing. I'd rather have additional wikipedia users refute your side so that this can be a concensus article!24.215.98.40 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because charts themselves are for the music industry. Billboard is a trade paper. That's why they exist... not for people who have become chart watchers or fans of the songs. Those positions are there to indicate to those who monitor the growth or decline of the product on the market their relative position when the chart was put into effect. As they were test charts, there is no way of knowing what criteria was used to compile them or what kind of kinks may have still not been worked out, etc. For chart statistics purposes, those weeks are not official, as June 16 was the issue date where the Canadian Hot 100 premiered. - eo 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today is September 4th and the Canadian Hot 100 is not yet updated for this week. Yet the #1 song for September 8 is listed as "Hey there Delilah". Since the website has not been updated past September 1st, how has this information become available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaceofdiamonds (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just one question, what happened to the number-one singles in Canada during January-May 2007? (Well, if there really is an official #1 single)...--Ja 1207 (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Hot 100 started on June 16, 2007. Look at the navbox below the article to find which the years in which it was the RPM chart and the CHUM chart. -- [[
