Talk:List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2000s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Msalmon (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 4 January 2010 (→‎2010: removed, sorry it was right). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured listList of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2000s is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
January 31, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
February 7, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
February 21, 2009Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list
WikiProject Record Charts (Rated FL-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The singles chart is the easy part. Let's do List of Number 1 albums from the 2000s (UK), and List of Number 1 albums (UK) [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 17:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to go forward with the 2004 in music (UK) articles is it worth making these new ones? violet/riga (t) 21:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it's useful to have a page with a list of number 1s and nothing else, whereas the 'year in music' pages fulfil a different purpose. BUT I think that the table format of the US charts should used, as you suggested at one time. David 5000 23:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Remove this list now? or not?

There are now articles for each year (2000 in music (UK), 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) which contain all the information in this article and more (a summary and the album charts) - this will be continued over all the other years over time. For now it would create an inconsistency in how the year details are shown but is that such a problem? On one hand I'm trying to avoid duplication, but on the other I can see the merits of having all of the years in the decade together in one list. Further, the nature of the content is such that the duplication would remain synchronous. Opinions? violet/riga (t) 21:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, I think that a simple list of number 1s of the 2000s is still a useful page, for ease of reference. I understand your concerns about duplication, but navigating through many 'year in music pages', if you are unsure of the specific year of a number 1, is too cumbersome. David 5000 23:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah I see your point - how does the new template look to you? violet/riga (t) 23:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow that's fantastic, I hadn't thought of that at all! I think you've solved the problem now, well done. David 5000 11:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Are the artist photos really needed?TubularWorld (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation at the end of 2000

I realise that all data needs to be substantiated by a valid source...but isn't the suggestion for a citation at the end of the 2000 yearly list a bit much...all one has to do to check the fact that there were more number ones in this year than any other, is to look back over the preceding and succeeding years...which sad as I am, I have done. 2000 is far and away the winner... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunc1971 (talkcontribs) 13:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

... and which sadly is a synthesis and thus not permitted. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


I dont know if anyone else agrees, but I think it might be good to make little dividers in the table just to show each year more clearly. For example, in between Alexandra Burke's "Hallelujah" and Lady GaGa's "Just Dance" to make it clear that the latter was number one in 2009. It just makes the table a bit easier to understand, and easier to find songs. I wont attempt to do this myself because I have no idea how to do it, but hopefully somebody could at least test it or give their opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleofark (talkcontribs) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting edits

While I have no reason to doubt today's edits are not in good faith, I'd like to advise the unregistered editor that your efforts may be a waste of your time as 03md (talk), the editor who spent a great deal of time and work on the list, I, and/or some other editor is likely to wikipedia:revert your edits at some point before or after you are done. If you are practicing learning how to edit, you know by now how the process works and have seen the result. This list has just made featured list status. While any editor may contribute and make productive alterations in content and format, it seems to me that your edits of format do not add value to the list. In fact your edits rob the list of utility and interactivity.

Perhaps you are unaware, but by featuring the list in the chart form, a reader can click the buttons in each header to transform their personal view of the sequence of entries from chronological to alphabetical by artist, alphabetical by song title, or ranked according to most weeks at number one. Please don't misunderstand the issue I take up with you; if a previous editor had spent all that time yet your edits made the article better, even if it undid much of his or her work, this would be merely an issue of etiquette on your part, as editors do not "own" their work here. But with any article there should be a compelling reason to make such a fundamental alteration, particularly to a version already tried and particularly without any discussion and on the heels of such a major overhaul which resulted in featured list status.

If you feel you have such a compelling reason, please discuss it here and a consensus may be reached that your argument has enough merit to warrant keeping your changes. In the absence of such a dialogue, if you attempt to reinstate your version of the formatting after a revert, it is likely to be viewed as wikipedia:vandalism. Thanks, best wishes, Abrazame (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Format Suggestion

Would anyone be totally opposed to organising the page like the number-one albums page? [1] I just think the page looks really cluttered and unclear, whereas the album list is set out clearly by year, and the dates of number-one is clear aswell. Also the best selling artists next to the list is a nice touch, making it clear which artists were [very] successful within that year. Loveable Daveo (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Million Sellers

Umberella by Rihanna was number 1 for 10 weeks, wasn't that a number 1, I find that hard to believe!--David (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Number Ones By Artist

There needs to be a standard about whether or not to credit to a soloist #1 hits from their groups. Personally, I think the numbers should reflect only specific acts. Right now Cheryl Cole is on the list as having five #1s (four with Girls Aloud and one solo). I think she should only be getting credit for one, since her solo act is different from Girl Aloud and two should not be combine. And if Cheryl Cole is down there with five, why isn't Beyonce on the list with six or Brian McFadden with 10? Ww adh77 (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Number Ones By total number of weeks at number-one

Since someone agreed with my comment above about Cheryl Cole, I made consistent changes to the # of weeks at number one by removing Cheryl Cole and Beyonce who had been listed as each spending 10 weeks at #1, a figure derived by adding their weeks at #1 as soloists to their weeks at #1 as part of a group. Cheryl Cole is a separate act from Girls Aloud, as is Beyonce from Destiny's Child, and the two shouldn't be added together and credited to the soloist. When people are members of groups, the credit goes to the group, not the also the individual members. Were we to do otherwise, this list would include 15 weeks at #1 for Brian McFadden, as well as 14 weeks each for the other four members of Westlife, 12 weeks each for each member of McFly, etc. This would be ridiculous.Ww adh77 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

McFadden left Westlife in 2004 so he wouldn't be on 15 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


This list is pretty messed up datewise. The dates given here are the date actually reached No.1 rather than the official date - which would be week ending as used in just about every chart site and book in existence. The reference given (The Official Charts Company) lists these dates - so is no use as a reference to this list as it is - in other words- despte its FL status the whole thing is Original Research. Also why is the last NO.1 of many years listed as the first of the next year in several cases? OR again, or just someone trying to be inventive with standard facts? Needs completely reshaping.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Split number ones (those that start in one year and run through the new year.

I split all the number 1s which started in 1 year, and run through to the next year, and put the number of weeks the song was number 1 in each particular year seperately, where the 1st week of the next year is anything from December 28 - January 4, such that the majority of the week (up to 4 days) is in that year, and the last week of the year in which the song became number 1 is anything up to December 28.

For example, if a song was number one on the Sundays of December 15, 22, 29 and then January 4, and 11 (a 5-week run), I put them as having 2 weeks in the original year (December 15-28), and then 3 weeks in the next year (starting from December 29 the previous year, again, because the majority of days in this week would be in the new year). --The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Highlightings

Why is one Number 1 highlighted yellow each year? At first I thought it was the Christmas Number 1, but then a Number 1 in October which ran for 7 weeks didn't go to number 1 at Christmas

Can someone explain it to me? (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the best selling single of that particular year. Oddly, Pokerface is highlighted for this year when the list is not complete.

Perhaps, miraculously, the xmas number one will outsell. It is not true at the moment until (New Year?) Regards, FM talk to me | show contributions ]  18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought Rage against the machine would be out sell poker face

could we add the number of hits that the no. 1 has got as well? (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Poker Face as 2009' biggest seller as it is not confirmed yet until Sunday 3 January 2010 (see 2009 Biggest Seller section) MSalmon (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Number-ones table

Hi, I got this list to featured list status earlier this year, with all the songs listed in a single table, something I tried to revert to last night but my edits were reverted. Why can't we just have a single table for the decade? 03md 18:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought it looked better as just one table. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
And splitting it by year has actually made it incorrect. It says Alexandra Burke reached number one on 21 December 2008 and spent two weeks there, then reached number one on 4 January 2009 and spent one week there, but the single didn't leave number one in that time so it didn't reach number one on 4 January 2009, it just stayed there, and was there for three weeks, not two and then another one. It just looks weird that way. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Biggest Seller

PLease do not keep putting Lady Gaga's Poker Face as 2009's biggest seller as it has not been confirmed yet (please wait until Sunday 3 January 2010 to find out). Thanks. MSalmon (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)