List of Number 1 Hits, Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 1998 et al - too broad to be useful; it is unsourced, unwikified, incomplete and does not specify who or what is being counted. I might be alone in thinking that mass importation of Billboard chart rankings would be useful, but this is certainly not the way to do it. Tuf-Kat 03:18, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete... or clean up, restructure, and change the miserable naming scheme :) Fennec 03:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No vote. This is country specific (e.g. the USA billboard charts are quite a different beast from the UK charts), which is not covered as is. That said, the content is reasonable for WP, just needs cleanup. I'm not convinced that deletion is benefical here rather than re-writing. Syntax 03:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Redirect, renaming, merge or whatever suffices. -- Taku 03:48, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
The problem with lists like these is that they're finite -- they can't be edited, or the information will become wrong. If that's the case, they should be protected so as not to be editable. RickK 04:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Formatting can change. Typos can be fixed. More information can be added. Protection would be a terrible idea. Anthony DiPierro 04:17, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea of this, but we need to hammer down a format for this: which charts to use, etc. Sorting popularity by week is probably of less value than using like the US (and/or UK) Billboard Top 40, which charts the top songs for the year. Is there a different place we can move this discussion to? RadicalBender 04:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have been searching for "official" music charts (i.e. the chart being referred to when someone says a #1 Australian hit) to no avail for several months. What little I've found was either not-searchable or not archived, or was distinct to some radio station or individual with a website... I do agree that Billboard info (and any other encyclopedic charts that can be found) should be in Wikipedia, but these articles are not a reasonable basis to begin such an importation. Billboard alone has dozens of charts that measure different things -- and that's only for the US. My point is simply that if someone wants to important chart data en masse, they have my blessing, but these articles are not really a beginning of that. They're just a dump of info almost certainly cribbed from some other unverified, non-official website with a vague title. Tuf-Kat 05:49, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
For Australian charts, check out ARIA. They have charts there, for example, the end of year charts. ShaneKing 05:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
For the UK charts, everyhit.com is a good resource. I'm not sure what their sources are, but it certainly seems accurate. Also, [http:www.britishhitsingles.com Guinness Book of British Hit Singles] is a definitive guide, though I couldn't find charts per se on the site. As for other countries, sorry, no idea. Graham 06:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, everyhit.com is great (seems to be collating info from someone else, though, and copyrighting it -- though it's probably mostly not-copyrightable). Britishhitsingles.com may very well be useful, but I wouldn't know because the site is so obnoxious I can't even be bothered to use it. ARIA is the "Australian charts" but isn't searchable enough to be very useful, as it only provides a tiny tidbit of the information in a difficult-to-use fashion -- not worth my time... Tuf-Kat 08:23, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
The American information is very hard to find. Billboard restricts the information on their site, so there are only certain years available. Other lists on the internet only have some years as well. I checked iTunes Music Store and it has every list back to 1946 BUT only for the tracks they have available in the store, so for 2002, the #1 track of the year (whatever it is) is not listed, along with several others. I can try to start aggregating some of this information, but it'd sure be nice to have a central list that we can pull information from... RadicalBender 13:57, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a place for these articles here, not sure about the titles though. Also agree that distinction needs to be made as to which country's number 1s, or whether this is a global list, if so what reference is to be used. -- Graham :) 11:57, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
