Talk:K-pop Hot 100

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ïvana in topic Songs with most weeks at number one

Untitled edit

What's with Shinee? Have they even released 4 singles since this chart's conception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

K-Pop Hot 100 is still active edit

Although Billboard magazine has stopped publishing the chart in the United States, it is still active over at Billboard Korea's website; with the recent issue date July 16, 2014. They haven't updated the main page (as currently displays the June 25, 2014 chart) but most past and current charts can be found using the URL, and replacing the date that follows under a Wednesday, eg. 20140702, 20140709 etc. Rockysmile11 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like Billboard Korea's website along with the chart has been suspended. Rockysmile11 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chart inactive again (as of December 11, 2019) edit

It appears to be that the Chart has become inactive again, since Billboard hasn't updated it for the past three weeks in a row. Should this be noted? -- (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The chart is back up with chart dates for December 7 and December 14 now, here. Hopefully they will add more dates in the future.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artists with most number-one hits edit

@Carlobunnie: I'm asking here so it stays on this talk page for future reference (even though we're the only ones maintaining this article). I updated the "Artists with most number-one hits" table a few days ago and with the new additions the section with 2 songs has now 26 rows. Isn't that too long? I think we should limit the table to top 5/minimum of 3 songs. What do you think? - Ïvana (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ïvana: I'm good with that. Like you said, the '2 songs' section is really big now, and has so many entries that imho it's veering into more common occurrence territory than special achievement. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number-one debuts edit

@Ïvana: should refs be added to the '#1 debuts' table? I would feel more comfortable sourcing it ofc, but the page has been this way ever since so idk if there was a specific reason it was never done in the first place. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carlobunnie: Yes, I think it would be better to add refs (to the other tables too, except maybe the ones that reference the list of number ones), because otherwise there's no way to know if the info is correct. On K-pop related articles there's usually a high level of vandalism/fans changing info, inflating numbers, etc etc; so the more refs the better. - Ïvana (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: agreed. I'll get started on it later tonight. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ïvana I feel like I'm going a little crazy so I'd like you to take a look at this. For Twice's WIL, acc to BBKorea, it debuted at #1 for the period April 16–22 and remained at #1 for the week following (Apr 23–29), so you'd think that's pretty straightforward right? But Billboard's Kpop 100 only shows WIL at #1 on the chart issue dated Apr 28, which corresponds to BBK's week 2 update. BB's update for the week prior (dd Apr 21) shows WO's Boomerang at #1, and then Loco/Hwasa at #1 for the week after (dd May 5), indicating that WIL only spent one week at #1, so you can understand my confusion. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carlobunnie: Yes, I saw some discrepancies like that when I was compiling refs for the "most songs in top ten within the same week" table. BBK covered the week from monday to sunday. BB Kpop 100 starts the week on saturday (or at least the week mentioned starts on saturday, like April 28, 2018). And now that applies for both BBK and BB because the websites finally match. BUT there were two instances where only BBK was available (May 17, 2014 - July 16, 2014 and May 29, 2017 - December 30, 2017). So my solution would be to use the US version for everything except those intervals, to mantain some sort of consistency. It's still confusing but we don't have a lot of options. What do you think? - Ïvana (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: I think there'll possibly be some more exceptions as we continue updating both articles. The list of #1's article had 2 weeks cited for WIL (which means other editors knew/know that the song charted for 2 weeks) but only showed the one US BB ref so I added the 2 BBK refs to support it. Using the same BBK chart issue for WIL's debut, it also showed that Exo-CBX's Blooming Day single's debut+peak was #2. The artist discog table+the song's article both cite this and use the BBK ref, but if we use only the US BB chart update, won't that directly contradict both of those articles? The US chart shows the song debuting at #19 and only 3 other songs from the Blooming Days EP making it into the top 100, whereas BBK shows all 7 tracks debuting in the top 10. If we stick only to the US chart, it will majorly impact the performance of all those other songs and we'd have to remove them from the "most songs in top ten in same week" section too.
I also came across instances of there being no archives for some US chart refs in that same article (while updating missing refs from the table, and also hunting thru chart archives to fill out the #1 debuts table for this one) and again had to use BBK refs. Also, I use whichever chart archive best clearly states a song debuted on the chart (whether it literally uses the word debut or the debut/new entry symbol properly archived when the page was saved) because not all archives reflect this, which is partly why it takes me so long sometimes to update things. I feel like if we have BBK refs to support more than what the US chart archives show, then we should use those where applicable. Idk if any of that sounds valid to you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlobunnie: The list of number one songs uses BB refs til May 10, 2014, and then BBK refs from May 14, 2014 til June 17, 2018, even tho BB was reinstalled in December 2017. My guess is that the editors updating the table saw a lot of BBK refs and decided to stick with that. The discography and song articles you mention were probably based on that list. The list goes from June 2, 2018 -saturday- to June 17 -sunday- and then June 30 -saturday-. From June 30 onwards the issue date is always saturday and the refs are always from BB, with a few exceptions. For example, for Sunmi's Siren the issue date says September 22, 2018. But the ref is from BBK and covers the Sept 10-16 period; the next update is from Sept 17-23 and Siren is #2. Seems like they couldn't find the BB ref for that week (it's this one). In short, I think the problem arises when covering anything between May 14, 2014 and June 17, 2018. Before and after that the issue date always aligns with the US version (there are too many numbers, I don't know if I'm making sense lol). So, maybe we should use BB for everything and BBK for that interval to mantain consistency across the other articles? - Ïvana (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: I am sooo sorry. I only just realized I never replied to this but yes I agree with what you said about using BB refs for everything, and BBK for the stated exceptions/where BB was unavailable for whatever reason.
I need the help of your eyes again. (Technically?) There should be at 2(?) more chart issues after Taeyang's ENL peaked at #1 on the July 21, 2014 issue—28/06, 05/07, 12/07—but I cannot find any more BB chart archives after this issue date. The list of no.1's article has these three BBK refs as the last ones for 2014. I need you to tell me if I'm missing something or if this is another one of those exceptions. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlobunnie: Lol no problem. I had to check all the numbers again bc it is still confusing. The period you mention is an exception; I mentioned in my last comment that anything between May 14, 2014 and June 17, 2018 has to be sourced from BBK. BUT seems like my dates were wrong. Billboard supposedly stopped publishing the chart in the US in the 17/05/14 issue (which is why the list of no. 1s goes from May 10 -BB- to May 14 -BBK-) but looking at Taeyang's ref seems like BB actually stopped publishing it on June 21? There are different archives of the same page (see 1 & 2). I couldn't find anything explaining that discrepancy. Either way, you're not gonna find BB refs after that, bc the chart didn't exist anymore. The BBK ref for July 16 is the last one after BBK was also discontinued. In short:
Does that make sense? I think my numbers are ok this time but feel free to double check. - Ïvana (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: I figured that same Taeyang chart might've been the last one BB published (like you said) since I couldn't find any further archives but I wasn't sure because the BBK chart continued after that BB issue, which in turn made me think there was possibly an additional BB issue or two I didn't know about. So thank you for confirming that it was indeed the last issue. I did see that same msg (in the 2nd archive you linked) abt the chart being "discontinued as of..." in older archives for other songs I added a few edits back, so it was also a bit confusing to see the chart going beyond the date in that notice. Then again, BB also said that Sistar was the first number-one on the chart and yet there were 2 chart issues prior to that w 2 other number-one songs on them lol. I just have Umbrella+BUTMU to add in and then I'll be done w every debut prior to the chart discontinuation. If/when you have the time, would you mind terribly giving everything up to that point a lookover, just to make sure I got it all down? I don't think I missed anything but a second pair of eyes never hurt. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlobunnie: Sure!   I'll look it over after you're done (I usually have free time after midnight/before dawn.. English doesn't have a word for that specific period of time lol). The "Artists with most songs in top ten within the same week" table has to be revamped bc some refs use BBK when BB was available which means that, if you look at the list of no. 1s, the dates either don't match, or they do but the number of tracks do not because the charts are different. But some of the dates on that list need to be modified as well.. Anyways, I can check the top ten table later today. - Ïvana (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: thanks. I have some of the 2018 debut refs (like the Exo one we discussed before) that I prev added to replace, and then 2017 to fill in. Once I'm done with that, if I have the time, I'll try to start looking over the most songs in the top 10 table until you come back and take over. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlobunnie: I added some entries that were missing. I also compiled every week, no. 1, debut and archive in a spreadsheet so we can use that for the list of no. 1s and some of the tables here (a few archives are missing bc I couldn't find them but you can infer who topped the chart with the info displayed next to the song in the next chart). I have doubts with Heart Shaker by Twice. The song debuted in the BBK chart on 24/12/17 at no. 1. It only shows as new in the 30/12/17 issue bc it is literally the first no. 1 song in the new BB chart (in fact all of the songs have the 'new' tag). The list of no. 1s shows that the song was there for two weeks but I think we should include either one or the other, bc they are two different charts and some days overlap. Let me know what you think! - Ïvana (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ïvana: so basically what you're saying is that for Heart Shaker's entry we should use the BBK ref as opposed to the BB ref because the latter lists all entries on the issue as "New", which is misleading since the only reason they're tagged as new is because it was the first issue of the newly-resumed chart? If yes, I have no problem w replacing it, and I can include a hidden note explaining why as well. I just wanna clarify that I orig put the BB ref because when I viewed the particular chart issue while clicking thru archives on mobile this is what I saw, so I didn't scroll the rest of the page since I only needed support for the debut entry. Otherwise, I'd have used the BBK ref (which I actually had open in another tab) so my apologies if that caused any sort of confusion when you saw it in the table. And nice job of that spreadsheet! I've been contemplating doing something similar myself but editing on mobile is a btch enough on its own as is, and with an old phone too, so imagine me trying to do what you did 💀. Seriously, bless you for that, because it is super convenient. Though I might still find myself automatically going to Wayback out of habit until my brain gets used to remembering the spreadsheet is there lol. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carlobunnie: I just saw your edit! I agree w using the BBK ref for Heart Shaker, but maybe -and this is just me nitpicking- we could put dec 24 instead of the interval? Otherwise when we revamp the list of no. 1s we would have to do the same for the few entries that use BBK and it is a little bit confusing/eyesorish (I used 24/12 on the spreadsheet for this reason). But if you consider that it's fine as it is then that's ok too. And yes, the hidden note would probably work better as a fn to avoid confusion. My concern was also regarding the list putting HS as #1 for two weeks, which is technically true, but a little bit misleading since the new chart counts days already included in the old chart. But that's a problem for another day lol. - Ïvana (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: you can change it to Dec 24 sure, I got no problem with that. I wasn't sure what would be the most appropriate way to write the date as you saw in the edit summary. If someone says something about the dates later on, we can find another way to handle it then. I didn't even think to check your spreadsheet to see what date you put for HS entry tbh. For the list of number-ones, what do you propose we do since the dates overlap? Or should we leave that for after we're done with this page lol. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlobunnie: Done! For the list of no. 1s I still don't know what would be the best option, because the dates go from Dec 24 to Dec 30 and HS is #1 on both. We could mark it as 1 week anyway and add a note explaining how the days overlap. But I would worry about that later   better to finish this page first. - Ïvana (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlobunnie: Hi again! I checked every week to update the most songs in top ten etc table. The section with 3 songs needs to go bc it has 38 entries which is simply too much (and at that point it stops being noteworthy imo). The one with 4 songs has 13 which, again, is a lot. Looking at the other tables (I only have to revise the most weeks in top 10 from 2011-2014) some of them are too long. Kinda makes it hard to navigate the article with the constant scrolling, and I imagine that it's worse on mobile. But that's just my opinion, I don't mind leaving it as it is. Should we limit everything to top 5? What do you think? - Ïvana (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: Top 5 for every applicable table is fine by me. I've been thinking the same thing (and yes it is hell scrolling on mobile) so it's good you mentioned it. We should be consistent across the board after all. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlobunnie: Hey, I was checking the songs with most weeks in Top 10 (2011-2014) table and it's a mess. I'm halfway done and pretty much every week is wrong, and I haven't even checked if there are missing entries. Looking back a lot of ips and fans modified it which explains the inflated numbers. Do you think we should get rid of it? There's already a table for most artists in top ten etcetc and a table for songs w most weeks at #1, which I think is more relevant than top 10. Idk I just feel like it's too much work for something that is not really an achievement, or at least not one that stands out. - Ïvana (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ïvana: I've got no problem w it being removed. If (and this is a big if) you have the time & you want to, you could always keep the table in a sandbox page and finish going through the records later on to see if completion is possible (I did that when working on some of the older MCD winners lists w EN-Jungwon), and then restore it to the page if it is. But I also believe the other tables are more relevant/notable than this one so the effort may probs not be worth it.-- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Songs with most weeks at number one edit

Ïvana, think it's time we remove 6th place from the table? For consistency w the other table that only lists up to 5th place. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carlobunnie: Yes, I agree. Done! - Ïvana (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]