Talk:List of UK singles chart number ones of the 2010s

WRONG SONG

The single listed for September 2011 should be Pixie Lott "All About Tonight" not "Broken Arrow". Check BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles THanks. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.108.135 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Too early?

Is it too early for this? I know I created it, but I just felt like doing it ahead of 2010.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I found it today thinking it wouldn't exist yet! I do think it was too early when you created it but it doesn't matter now as we have the first number one of the 2010s. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe

Should Joe be listed here? Alexandra was listed under 2008 even her single went through to 2009. Should Joe be listed under 2009 and then the next #1 be listed here? I'd like to become involved in the development of this page seeing the other one is a featured article--David (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe will be number one on the first two days of 2010, so I think he should be listed here. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever gets the first number one of 2010 (not Joe) should be listed here MSalmon (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

But is Joe not the first number one of 2010 seeing as he'll still be number one on 1 January 2010? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it will be whoever replaces Joe from number one will be the first of 2010 (add on the number of weeks to the 2000's page for Joe) MSalmon (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, even discounting the first two days, if Joe is number one next week, he'll be number one in the first 2010 chart. It won't be whoever who replaces him if he's not replaced next week, it'll be him. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that but if you look on the OCC website Westlife were not the first number one of 2000 Manic's were MSalmon (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Westlife were number one on 1 January 2000, making them the first number one of the 2000s, and they were also number one in the first new chart of 2000. It might be better to discuss this on the 2000s article where more people will see it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Table

I think we should use the table from the US chart articles for all the british ones, look at List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (U.S.), it describes it better I think--David (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The table should carry on from 2000's table to keep consistant MSalmon (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Article splits

All the other countires have an article of number 1's per year. Say the U.S. have one for 2008, then for 2009 they created a new article and listed them all there. Should we split up all the year into different years?--David (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because articles like 2009 in British music list all the number one singles, albums and downloads for each year. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are not going to have yearly number-one articles then the [Year] in British music article needs to be better referenced and have a substantial lead section. The US also has lists for top 10 singles, therefore this information should be included in the [Year] in British music article. I created List of top 10 singles of 2009 (UK) but this could be merged to 2009 in British music. 03md 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Current top ten singles

I don't think this should be included on this page, as it is a list of number one singles, not top ten singles. The current top tens are updated in 2010 in British music anyway. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good article

This is a good article. The reason? It was updated on the day of the chart. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a Good Article by Wikipedia's standards. It's a good thing that it's updated. But the number-one singles articles always have been. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sections (for now)

I understand keeping this article uniform in structure and content with those for past decades, but as we are only eight months into 2010-2019, I think that "By artist" and "Million-selling and platinum records" simply are not needed. So far there are just a few artists tied with 2 number ones, and there are no million-selling/platinum records at all, which leaves an empty table. Sections like this are clearly useful when there is a large amount of data from which to choose. So far, in August 2010, there is not. - eo (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. I think it I'd added the table formatting then was about to add the platinum records and found there were none. Having done the work, I thought was easier to update in future with the tabling already present. Bit stupid, really. I agree, at this stage it is not needed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the "by artist" table should be re-added in a few years when there's more #1's but the table for million selling singles can be re-added when such a single reaches 1million--David (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh?

I'm confused. Why does it list the 16 October 2010 no.1 (Cee-Lo Green) even though that date isn't until next week. Does it mean "number 1 until 16 October 2010", because that's confusing! --77.99.231.37 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. That is how The Official Chart Company works. Their website shows this as todays number one and the date given is the 16th (i.e. week-ending). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But every other article has the date of the Chart - Surely keeping the date it became Number One would keep it consistent, and stop confusing people Adamml13 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

IP users

I have had this page on my watchlist since it was created, and I've noticed the amount of vandalism it gets from IP users, could we disable them from editing this article?--David (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Platinum singles

Fireflies is also Platinum, that section is wrong. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful if someone could find the information for the platinum singles of the 2010s so far, as the current list is out of date. Tompage1994 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

fireflies is only silver. Mister sparky (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely Eminem's 'Love The Way You Lie' will be platinum as it was the biggest selling song of 2010? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.87.113 (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dates of the Number 1

Can we please change all the Dates back to the Sunday that they became Number 1, not the Saturday of the first week that they were Number one. I feel that this is confusing, and I know that the Official Chart's Company use the Saturday, but Wikipedia doesn't always have to follow suit, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamml13 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

the OCC uses the week-ending date, and every single other article of this type uses the week-ending date. so no. Mister sparky (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you at least state this on the table heading? This had me confused for half an hour thinking my spreadsheet was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.114.220 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It already is. If you click on the note ("nb 1") attached to every column heading it explains the situation. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But it makes no sense! The column header says "Reached number 1", which would suggest that the dates given are when the songs, you know, reached number 1, but they're actually the dates SIX DAYS afterwards! Just because the OCC uses a retarded system doesn't mean that we need to as well. It's really confusing, as you can tell by the comments from FOUR different people on this talk page. The lists for the 1990s and 2000s number one don't use this system, and it makes them a LOT easier to understand. Please, please change the dates back. 92.16.99.0 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you IP editors don't know the rules. The dates are supposed to be the "week ending" dates from the official source, OCC, which are the Saturdays ***SIX DAYS AFTER*** they are announced on BBC Radio 1. Remember, this is part of a historical record that goes back nearly 60 years--15 years before Radio 1 itself, much less its chart show. In the beginning, both UK and U.S. charts were first published in magazines; technically they still are in the U.S. (though they actually appear first on Billboard's websites--public and private--as the magazine goes to press). At least here in the U.S., weekly magazines (including Billboard) are dated by when they should be taken OFF sale, largely for stocking convenience. OCC apparently still respects this tradition, as well as maintaining historical continuity, by dating its charts for the "week ending" the Saturday after the Radio 1 chart show. (Continuity is particularly important in the U.S. as Billboard used several other dating systems for its charts before settling on the issue date; the standard U.S. sources, as listed in List of number-one hits (United States) and similar articles, have all retconned past Billboard charts to their issue date for that reason.) Now, excuse me while I fix over 20 years of charts (and expressly add "week ending" to the heading for clarity)... --RBBrittain (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm more ok with it if the header is saying "week ending". Will this change be made going back to the beginning? Last I checked, there were still inconsistencies between what was using week beginning and week ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.218.137 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already changed the headers to include "week ending", as well as added footnotes and hidden comments instructing people to use the week-ending date; that is *in addition to* the red "Attention" banner that already appears over the edit window. Alas, two days after semi-protection expired the IP vandals struck again. I'd like to see indefinite semi-protection this time. --RBBrittain (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"You IP editors don't know the rules"? Sorry, but I'm an IP editor, and I know enough to know that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. 92.16.142.105 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Expand "Number-one singles" section

I'd like to expand the "Number-one singles" section so that it includes things such as record labels by which the singles were released (sourced from the OCC's and Radio 1's websites). I've made a start here. Let me know what you think. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose this change as unnecessary table bloat. There are lots of things that could be put in the table but we don't because all these things are listed on the individual song's article. Why is the Record Label anymore notable than the album the single is taken off (I believe Radio 1/OCC lists both). The point is you could add any number of columns: release date/genre/running time etc. but they are not essential. All the current columns are essential and it would be stupid to omit the artist or date say. Just because something can be put in does not mean it should. I can see a case for adding the #1 chronological number but as it is very rarely noted and any notable milestones (e.g. 1000th #1) are extensively documented elsewhere I don't really see the benefit. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a look on the sites of Radio 1 and the OCC, and I'm afraid I don't see where either site lists in their singles charts the albums from which tracks are taken. They do, however, both list the record labels through which the tracks were released (here and here), as do Music Week and UKChartsPlus. Q certainly used to (although I'm not sure if that's still the case), as did Dotmusic before they were bought out by Yahoo. So it does seem that the record label that released the single is entirely relevant. Maybe it's just my monitor, but there's currently a massive gap of white space in between the table and the images, and it's crying out to be filled. It just strikes me that, as Wikipedians, we should be aiming to offer the most comprehensive resource that we can, and I don't think we currently do that. Maybe this is something that needs more discussion... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong in my OCC/Radio 1 belief but I stand by my reasoning. On those sites it is not a list of #1s it is a chart and this is the only place they have to put the information about the songs, for notable songs we have individual articles to do this. If you look at the OCCs list of number ones it does not include labels as it is not seen as relevent to the list of #1s. Like I said, it is relevent to the song (in it's article) but how often do you see the label remarked upon in the context of a #1. For example, reliable sources don't refer to song as "Universal Studios Nth #1". As for your percieved whitespace, there is actually an WP:ACCESS issue with making tables to wide. I'll never forget one at an old place I worked that didn't have widescreens but lots of normal almost square screens and as such many Wikipedia pages, especially lists, were difficult to read. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing WP:ACCESS to my attention. I still think there's merit to expanding the table, but I suppose it's something that requires more input from other editors. We may have to agree to disagree, but I certainly won't make the change for now. Thanks again. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It has now been a couple of months since I put forward the idea of expanding this list to include things such as the record labels by which the singles were released and their procession and succession (see above), and I am still keen to make the change. I've continued to update the userpage containing my proposed draft, but I wanted to propose the change here again before doing so. I welcome any discussion on the matter. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No objections? Very well, I shall just be bold and make the change. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of number-one singles (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2012

Bruno Mars: Grenade did not sell 1 million copies

Mariounited (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests

We Found Love has now sold 1 million copies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123456ABC (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Lock Page

Would it be possible to get the page locked? I find many unregistered users edit it and a lot of the time their edits are of little use and some are vandalism; this happens on a weekly basis when we get a new #1 the list gets changed every so often (confusion between Radio 1 top 40 and the Big Top 40 show?) and addition of pointless chart trivia. Thanks --David (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Climb

According to the OCC chart, the first number one of the 2010s was Joe McElderry's "The Climb". So, why is "Bad Romance" listed here as the first number one of the decade? --WABBAW (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would guess it's because they use the week ending date and we use the week beginning date. The number one of the first new chart of 2010 was "Bad Romance". –anemoneprojectors– 15:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Miley. Cyrus

She had two number 1in 2013 but they dont appear in the list of most number 1 by artists

Miley. Cyrus

She had two number 1in 2013 but they dont appear in the list of most number 1 by artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julyr222 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

An artist needs to have been at number one for at least five weeks before they can be included on the list – Cyrus has only been at number one for two. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Dates

Dates changed to match OCC see 1990s talk page for details. Please use the week-ending Saturday for future weeks as given in the Official chart. Btljs (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Platinum and million sellers lists

I've replaced the lists in this section with links to the relevant pages because these don't belong here (they are not all no. 1s) and they were incomplete so it will be easier to keep them up to date if they are in one place. Btljs (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I've long held the belief that conflating "numbers ones" with "platinum-selling" isn't necessarily logical. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No flag icons please

see WP:MOSFLAG Btljs (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Standardize these pages...

The pages for the American #1s and T10s are far more beautiful, concise, and organized than this. Can I propose that we change this to individual pages for each year with each song blocked out for the amount of weeks that it has been #1? Also individual pages for songs that hit the T10? It would be a lot cleaner and concise. Plus, nearly every other nation's charts follow this format; I believe that it's just the UK that has this weird format... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.183.222 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008223942/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/faqs/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/faqs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726000000/http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf to http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/68UgRGerI?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/singles-chart/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/singles-chart/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Record labels

There's a big problem with record labels, the number one table doesn't give the same record labels for songs as the Official Chart website does. Also; the by record table can't be right - how can Atlantic have only had 15 weeks at number one this decade if "Shape of You" alone was number one for 14 weeks?--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Side images

On the last few side images, Justin Bieber's picture doesn't mention features on "Cold Water", "I'm the One" and "Despacito (Remix)", Ed Sheeran's picture doesn't mention his 2014 number ones "Sing" and "Thinking Out Loud", and Drake's picture doesn't mention his 2011 feature on "What's My Name?".

Also: If there's a way the images can be formatted in another way, so they don't go past the number one table?--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran

As stated, Ed has UNCREDITED vocals in Love Yourself, therefore his total weeks at #1 should not include the 6 week from Love Yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.215.161 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It shouldn't have been added. Ss112 21:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903045039/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist-chart-history/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist-chart-history/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Drake caption

As it stands now, Drake's caption only mentions the 15 weeks spent at number one with "One Dance", but after "God's Plan" spent it's ninth week at number one Drake made Official Chart history (the feats he accomplished here). Because of this, I think it should be changed to a small summary to include these and moved to the bottom after the Camila Cabello caption. --Theo (contribs) 06:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Drake at the top

@Ss112: Is there any reason why Drake's caption is at the top of the article back with the 2010 number ones? If not, should it be at the very bottom, or after the Lukas Graham caption? --Theo (contribs) 18:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I didn't add it there, but I would presume it's because Drake has the longest-running number one song of this decade with One Dance. Ss112 03:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: Ok, I assumed they were in order of number one, like the table. --Theo (contribs) 03:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The table is arranged chronologically, but there's nothing saying images have to be arranged that way, especially considering the image of Drake/bit of info about "One Dance" has a claim to a more prominent place due to it spending the most weeks at number one of the overall decade. Ss112 11:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

All good, thanks. --Theo (contribs) 13:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Drake at the Velvet Underground - 2017 (35986086223) (cropped 2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sweetener Leg 2 Uniondale.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:UK Singles Chart which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)