Talk:Billboard 200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Soundgarden[edit]

Soundgarden hit #96 with "Black Rain." Take them off the list of those with a #1 album but no Hot 100 hits.75.142.54.211 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ō — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.217.41 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally done, suprised no one corrected it yet. The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Soundgarden[edit]

Removed Soundgarden as one of the artists to have topped the Billboard 200 without appearing on the Billboard Hot 100, as Black Rain charted at #96 in 2010. Here is the source: http://www.billboard.com/artist/279997/soundgarden/chart GD1223 (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Billboard 200 No1 albums for two consecutive years[edit]

Is it possible to add a special section that will include the extremely rare feat of having an album topping the Billboard 200 for two consecutive years in a row? Only two studio albums had achieved that feat according to Billboard Magazine (Thriller by MJ & 21 by Adele) http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1481410/the-year-in-pop-2012-adele-repeats-as-top-artist-gotye-scores-no-1-hot-100. Along with the OST albums we have four albums since 1960 achieving that feat CK_Bad (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No italics for "200"[edit]

Why is the "200" in "Billboard 200" not italicized? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Chart names are not italicized, but Billboard, as the name of a magazine, is. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand: it was a question, not a request—and who's being accused of having a conflict of interest? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Under the section "Most Weeks On The Chart" the album "HYMNS" by Tennessee Ernie Ford should be tied with "THE KING AND I" for 277 weeks on the charts. I would appreciate if you could add this title as it is a milestone. Thanks!

Bruce Springsteen[edit]

Bruce Springsteen has 11 (Albums) #1's, not 10. Billboard links: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5877848/bruce-springsteen-high-hopes-11th-no-1-album-billboard-200-chart & http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6259282/barbra-streisand-no-1-partners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.184.194 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

how the charts work[edit]

How do these charts work? Are the R&B, rock, country, latin and christian music all within this chart if they have enough sales? If yes, was there a time when they did not?
I'm asking because Let It Loose (album) article claims it charted #6 on 200, #16 on Latin Pop Albums and #55 on R&B/Hip-Hop Albums. That would mean there were 15 better sellers in Latin Pop, 54 in R&B/hip hop but only 5 in all genres together. That is only possible if the genre-specific albums were not all eligible on the main chart, or the album somehow was not considered a latin/R&B album for a part of its chart run. 82.141.95.243 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Though, I just noticed that the US chart positions are the only ones without a source in that article... 82.141.116.89 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There are more like this: Whitney Houston's Whitney #1 in main chart and #2 in R&B chart, and Whitney: The Greatest Hits #2/#3. If her second album Whitney was the most sold album for 11 weeks, then how the hell it was not also most sold R&B album for even one week? Or are there some other rules (than commercial success) for the genre charts? 82.141.95.68 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Italics[edit]

This is the first time I've really noticed how in this article (and title) it is "Billboard 200". But Billboard really should not be italicized because "Billboard 200" is the actual name of the chart in Billboard magazine. It's not italicized in any other website that I can see -- because it's really not necessary (and looks kind of dumb too). --Musdan77 (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Linkin Park under "Most consecutive number-one albums"[edit]

Linkin Park only has 4 consecutive number one albums, not 5. Is the the fifth title supposed to be "Collision Course", which is a Jay-Z collaboration? This not a true Linkin Park album, and is also an EP, and not a full album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.186.225 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015[edit]

In the "Most Weeks on the Charts" section, Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon has now been on the chart for 892 weeks (and still rising!), not 874 weeks as shown. Also the reference is to a static Billboard page instead of a dynamic page that shows the current total number of weeks. Thus, replace:

with

(Also note that there's a reference in the line "Note that totals are for the main albums chart only, catalog chart totals are not factored in.[15]" to a Billboard article about The Dark Side of the Moon reaching 800 weeks. I expect that very soon it will surpass 900 weeks.)


Source: [2]

Jimbilsborough (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E 18:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Becky :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.16.83 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Sorry to ask what might be a stupid question, but is the listing for TDSOTM's run on the BB 200 now dynamic? IOW, will it increment each week, or is someone manually changing the count? Thanks. Jororo05 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Billboard 200 Week of August 30, 2014 : Weeks on Chart". Billboard.com. Retrieved 2014-08-22. 
  2. ^ a b Pink Floyd Billboard 200 charting history, Billboard, retrieved 1 January 2015 

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) 19:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New #1 album[edit]

Pentatonix new #1: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6738540/pentatonix-first-no-1-album-billboard-200-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.98.113 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blind Faith[edit]

"The first UK group to debut at number one with a debut album is One Direction on March 31, 2012 with the album Up All Night."

This is wrong, Blind Faith topped Billboard 200 with their only album. Progenie (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The distinction here is to debut at #1: to have so many sales pre-ordered that at the point of the album's release it was immediately the top album. Blind Faith's album reached #1 but did not debut at #1.Sensei48 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Doo-woop & hooligans[edit]

If you counted Adele's '21' also Bruno Mars' album should be in the 'most weeks on chart' section with 267 weeks on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.28.21 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Beyonce has 6 consecutive number 1 albums for Lemonade[edit]

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7350372/beyonce-earns-sixth-no-1-album-on-billboard-200-chart-with-lemonade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:332:150:5814:2F1B:4783:278F (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits, May 2, 2016[edit]

Prince's 5 albums in the Top Ten is based on an article in Forbes dated May 2, 2016 here: [2].

However, that article fails to distinguish between the Billboard 200, the subject of this Wikipedia article, and the Billboard catalog album chart, which is alluded to in the Wiki article, albeit less than completely accurately, which is not the topic of this article nor the source for the "Milestones" section.

Here is the Billboard 200 for the current May 7 issue - [3]. BB describes this chart as "This week's most popular albums across all genres, ranked by album sales, audio on-demand streaming activity and digital sales of tracks from albums as compiled by Nielsen Music" at the top of the page. Note that Prince has 3 albums, not 5, and that 2 are compilations and one a soundtrack, making all 3 ineligible for "Milestones" here in this article; extensive discussions of this can be found in Archive 1 for this article.

The 200 listing for the previous week of April 30 here - [4] includes no Prince albums of any description.

However, the Catalog Albums chart for this week of May 7 does include 5 Prince albums - here[5] - with the description "This week's top-selling albums across all genres that are at least 18-months old and have fallen below No. 100 on the Billboard 200 or are re-issues of older albums. Titles are ranked by sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music." But this is not the Billboard 200, which indicates that comprehensive sales data for this week have Prince with 3 re-issues in the Top 10, with 2 of those as compliations and 1 as a soundtrack, as above. Sensei48 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Case for CSNY being included for Most in 200 simultaneously[edit]

I have placed CSNY on the list with 8 during the week of July 17, 1971, only to have it taken off as only two were by the group proper with six more by the individuals within the group. I believe this should be left on the list for the following reasons that go beyond simple categorical definitions:
1) It was the first time any group had this many albums on the chart - even the Beatles did not accomplish this feat at a prior time;
2) This happened while the band's career was still active, as opposed to Prince, David Bowie, and Whitney Houston who achieved this posthumously and the Beatles decades after they had broken up. Led Zeppelin's 9 happened late in the band's career, but also while still active, and everyone else has less than CSNY;
3) The fact that six of the albums were by the individual members of the group makes it more impressive, not less. Generally, individuals from groups who release 'solo' albums do not fare as well commercially, either not making the 200 chart at all or only briefly before disappearing. Every member of CSNY had an album on the chart that week, all of them Top 40 albums with five Top 10 and every one certified for at least gold record sales. This also had not happened before, and only the Beatles would go on with high individual sales and simultaneous chart position in the 1970s but never that many at once, and virtually no one has done anything resembling that since, not even the ladies from Destiny's Child. PJtP (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Doo-Wops & Hooligans Bruno Mars[edit]

For Billboard 200 week ending September 3, 2016, Doo-Wops & Hooligans Bruno Mars is running at 289 weeks on the chart. That puts him on top of Adele's 21 with 288 weeks (and counting). Bruno's Doo-Wops should be listed together with (289 weeks) Led Zeppelin IV – Led Zeppelin

Source:[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psilud (talkcontribs) 02:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

== == 9 consecutive No. 1 albums for The Beatles.

==

According the next link The Beatles have 9 consecutive No. 1 albums. Please check and fix if you agree.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7511380/the-beatles-32nd-top-10-album-billboard-200-chart-hollywood-bowl

The albums are between 1965, The Beatles ’65 and 1968, The Beatles (White Album).

--Fgonmar (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Addition to biggest jumps to number one[edit]

Ashlee Simpson's album "I Am Me" jumped from 158 to number 1 on November 5, 2005, according to http://www.billboard.com/artist/280066/ashlee-simpson/chart?f=305 Would that be a worthy addition to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecreamlollipop (talkcontribs) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation[edit]

Janet's 1989 album is the only one to produce a different number one hit for 3 consecutive years, creating 4 in that time span. Most albums don't bring popular singles over many years, especially #1 songs.[1] The 10th Doctor (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "25 Greatest Moments That Made Janet Jackson's "Rhythm Nation 1814" Album A Modern-Day Classic". The G-List Society. Retrieved 26 January 2017. After topping the Billboard Hot 100 charts with “Miss You Much” (in 1989), “Escapade” (in 1990), “Black Cat” (in 1990) and “Love Will Never Do (Without You)” (in 1991), Janet’s Rhythm Nation 1814 is the only album to boast at least one #1 single in three consecutive calendar years, without a re-release or deluxe version. 

Deleting "Artists with the most albums on Billboard's Top 200 Albums of All-Time (1963–2015)"[edit]

This section needs to be removed and will be after appropriate discussion. Someone misread the explanatory note from Billboard. It is not in fact a list of the top albums or top album artists at all. It is rather a list of the greatest record sellers of all time according to BB's formula - albums and singles combined. That makes this list irrelevant to this article, which is about the BB Top 200 - albums only. Here we go - when you go to the source and click on "How This Works," here is the pop-up text:

These all-time rankings are based on actual performance on the weekly Billboard Hot 100 (from its launch on Aug. 4, 1958 through Oct. 10, 2015) and Billboard 200 (from Aug. 17, 1963 — when we combined our two leading pop album album charts for stereo and mono releases into one all-encompassing weekly chart — through Oct. 10, 2015). Titles are ranked based on an inverse point system, with weeks at No. 1 earning the greatest value and weeks at lower rungs earning the least. Due to changes in chart methodology over the years, eras are weighted differently to account for chart turnover rates over various periods. Artists are ranked based on the combined point totals, as outlined above, of all their Hot 100 or Billboard 200 chart entries.

Bolding is mine. The "Hot 100" is singles, so this list offers nothing definitive about Billboard album charts at all. Sensei48 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And Further
One of my edit summaries overstated the situation - not all of section 6 must go. But a careful differentiation must be made here between "albums only" and combined singles&albums as quoted above. BB confuses the issue with misleading headlines. The methodology note that I quote in full above appears on all of the pages cited as sources. For example, this chart [6] clearly is albums only, though not dating from 1958 but 1963. (A 1958-63 date range would have had to include Harry Belafonte, Bob Newhart, The Kingston Trio and others who had multiple top 10 and Top LP albums but divided into mono and stereo charts until the latter date.)
But this chart [7] is a compendium of Hot 100 singles and Top 200 albums per the note above.
All of the 2015 articles are mysterious and/or misleading in terms of methodology and highly suspect in terms of objective accuracy. The methodology note quoted above smacks of a Kentucky-fried-herbs-and-spices-secret-sauce approach which skews to recentism, likely as a vehicle for the magazine's self-promotion - or else why would Adele be listed as the top album etc. with 24 weeks at #1 when our Wiki article's list below of weeks at #1 includes Fleetwood Mac's Rumours at 31 weeks at #1 and Prince's Purple Rain and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack at the selfsame 24 weeks at #1? What exactly is the formula for "Top Ten Albums of All Time" that justifies inclusion of Dr. Zhivago and Nickleback on the list when the cited albums were #1 for one week each? If the criterion is total sales/downloads - then where is the recipe for the secret sauce?
Part of the problem is the lack of sourcing for the previously-existing "Album Milestones" in the article. I am almost certain that the source for most or all of those lists is the Joel Whitburn books, most notably his 2001, 2005, 2009, and I hope 2015 volumes on Billboard top albums. No secret sauce here: Whitburn's research is exhaustive and based exclusively on album chart movements, positions, and overall sales, and he has operated with the blessing of and as a licensee of Billboard for 40 years - as the magazine is proud to point out here [8] in a 2014 article.
Whatever else happens with this suspect section, it must at least be accurate in headers and dates. Beyond that, my vote would be to dump it in favor of a better-sourced series of milestones using Whitburn's two most recent books as more reliable sources than BB's under-explained series of 2015 articles. Sensei48 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also -
The "Artists with the most albums on Billboard's Top 200 Albums of All-Time (1963–2015)" appears to be WP:OR and/or WP:Synth, as though someone counted the albums and came up with the numbers. The BB article that deals with this[9] discusses Adele, Beatles, Stones, and Taylor Swift but does not include the comprehensive listing included here. Sensei48 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________

Billboard used the same explanatory note for the Billboard Hot 100 all-time list. By the way the chart isn't based on the amount of albums or weeks at #1. But also the amount of weeks in the top 10, top 100 etc. It's about the overall performance of an artist or album. BrunzPOP (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Right you are and thanks for the clarification. I did, however, adjust the dates correctly per the same note.
Having said that, however, much of the rest of my comment above still pertains. BB's formula here is still obscure and I would say suspect. If these lists were akin to Rolling Stone's endless lists of "best" this and "greatest" that - simply the critical judgment of editors who work in the field and are expressing an opinion, informed perhaps but still an opinion - then I think there would be less problem with these 2015 BB articles. The magazine's charts through its history have also always been something of educated guesses, but guesses rooted in hard numbers and though weighted differently in different eras of its long history - always with the formulae explained in some detail at the head of each different weekly list. These 2015 explanatory notes say basically, "We came up with our own witches' brew to make these rankings but we really don't have to explain it in detail and don't want to be bothered to do so." The aforementioned Joel Whitburn is far more transparent in his painstaking methodology in his 30 or so books. lending more credence to his work. BB's 2015 articles are probably good enough for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't go using them as a source in, say, a college paper or a serious critical or academic book. They just don't pass muster as dependable, serious, and clearly defined research. Sensei48 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Adele - Adele's 21 now has the record for solo female album with the most weeks in the Billboard 200, 319 weeks, surpassing Carole King's Tapestry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.56.98 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 

Pet Shop Boys not listed in the list of artists with most Top 200 Albums[edit]

Maybe the list is incorrect, as noted above. I've found that the Pet Shop Boys have placed 17 albums in the top 200, the first one being Please (1986), and the last one "Super" (2016): Please (#7), Actually (#25), Introspective (#34), Behavior (#45), Discography (#111), Very (#20), Disco 2 (#75), Bilingual (#39), Alternative (#103), Nightlife (#84), Release (#73), Disco 3 (#188), Fundamental (#150), Yes (#32), Elysium (#44), Electric (#26), Super (#22). It also amazes me that Madonna is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.122.180 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

TEADY AFRO 2017[edit]

213.55.102.49 (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER 14:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Billboard 200. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)