Talk:Billboard (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Billboard (magazine) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 15, 2016 Good article nominee Listed


Shouldn't the title of this page be Billboard (magazine) instead of Billboard magazine? I would move it myself, except that I don't want to deal with the massive number of links that go to this article. --Lowellian 04:46, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think there is an easy method for moving the article somehow, I am not sure if the redirections are automatic though. If you goto the #wikipedia channel on ask about this? --ShaunMacPherson 07:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


As far as I know lists are5 not copyrightable, anyone know/feel like compiling a list and putting it on wikipedia? Comments? --ShaunMacPherson 07:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I was just wondering why the section saying "To this day, the most successful acts on Billboard's charts are Mariah Carey, Bing Crosby, Madonna, Elvis Presley, Diana Ross and The Supremes, The Beatles, Janet Jackson, and Michael Jackson" has those artists listed. It seems like some information could be found on who had the most time on the charts, or the most songs or albums, or any type or record, instead of just listing a bunch of random names.

The records for each specific chart are mentioned at that chart's article. For records on the album chart, see Billboard 200. For the Hot 100 singles chart, there is actually a separate article about chart achievements at List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia. --musicpvm 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2005 billboard.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:2005 billboard.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What's a Black Album chart?[edit]

In the article about the track album Saturday Night Fever, there is a reference to "Billboard Music Chart's Pop Album and Black Album charts". I can't find any explanation to this use of the phrase Black Album. (I thought all albums where black in the vinyl age...) -Ulla 12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As indicated at Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Billboard has used various designations for what it now calls the R&B/Hip-Hop musical genre. For some time, including much of the 1980s, it used the term "Black Singles" and "Black Albums" to refer to its music charts for this genre (or its forerunner genres at the time). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

List of acts in chart section[edit]

More importantly, is that an article about Billboard magazine, or their charts, need not mention popular pop stars. That is the stuff for the charts themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This problem was raised about eighteen months ago, but wasn't resolved -- why is the following paragraph included in the charts section?

"To this day, the most successful acts on the Billboard charts are The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Madonna, Michael Jackson, The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, The Supremes, George Strait, The Bee Gees, Bing Crosby, Pink Floyd, and Whitney Houston."

I'm not disputing that all these artists have achieved significant success on various Billboard charts, but there are others who might equally well be featured (Garth Brooks immediately springs to mind). More importantly, without qualifying the nature of each artist's success, this isn't much more than a laundry list, and one which people clearly add to at random from time to time.

It seems to me that the best option is to delete the entire paragraph -- the entries for individual charts include details of the most successful acts in that category -- but thought I'd raise it here before going ahead. Gusworld (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and removed the offending paragraph. Gusworld (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good deal, thanks for removing it. - eo (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't Billboard always be in italics, even when it appears in charts? For example, the Billboard 200? —Werson (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been going along with the crowd on that by italicizing it, although I'd be in favor of not doing so for the two charts Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100, since those are the actual names of those charts. That would avoid a lot of unnecessary piping. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Wolfer. - eo (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Quote: When founded in Cincinnati in 1894, Billboard Advertising magazine was a trade paper[...] - Founded by whom? -- Hartmann Schedel Prost 16:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

again, after more than 1 year I ask: founded by whom? thanks in advice -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

thumbnail — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Billboard was founded in 1894 by William Donaldson and James Hennegan as a trade publication for bill posters. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

New tracking week adjustments occuring in July[edit]

Link to the story so that this info can be inserted into the article when it occurs: [1]
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) 19:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

eo This chart adding a date to new releases is a source of information for the individual record releases. I do not think it should be part of this article even though this publication is offering this service to its readers. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone a subscribing of[edit]

?  — Calvin999 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


I would like to request consideration/review of my work at Talk:Billboard (magazine)/draft, which I am proposing as a replacement for the current article. It represents quite a body of research and I appreciate your time taking a look in advance. I realize it is difficult to compare two entire versions of the article and am happy to go over it section-by-section or do something else that may be easier. The images are most placeholders for now, since copyright-protected images like magazine covers are not allowed in draft-space. Thank you in advance for taking the time to give it a lookover. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this request. I will consider it and compare. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I made some changes and did some edits. I am moving to main space. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
More changes and there is no image for November 2015 cover in wiki commons. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
David King, Ethical Wiki Thank you for the request. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for reviewing @Geraldshields11:! That was probably one of the most prompt reviews I've ever gotten. I uploaded and added the images. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I've taken it the GAN route, but I'll probably delist it as unstable if any regular page watchers raise concerns, given how quickly the draft was just merged. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And I promised myself to take a wiki break. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Billboard Archives link[edit]

Good to see this article has become a GA. But it seems that in the process, we've lost the external link to the magazine archives on Google. I always found it very useful, coming here and then following the link when looking for details and sources for music articles, so I was surprised to see it removed. The same archive appears on the magazine's own website … Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a reason we no longer carry the link? JG66 (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting it. I dug up an old version of the article, identified the link in reference and restored it. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks! JG66 (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

I have removed: "The scanning project by Google Books, in partnership with major libraries, includes back-issues of Billboard. Aspects of the project were challenged in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (Authors Guild vs. Google, et al.; 2005). The upshot is that Google prevailed under the Fair Use doctrine.[1]" Authors Guild vs. Google has nothing to do with the display of Billboard magazine. Fair use under Authors Guild vs. Google was for scanning magazines and books to create an index of names and words, and for display of snippets of copyrighted material. If full issues are on display post 1923, then they were done in conjunction with Billboard magazine. Google does not even display material that has not been renewed and is in the public domain and does not even display government publications that are post 1923. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Billboard_2015_Oct_16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).