This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
Shouldn't "number two singles" be "number-two singles"? Wasn't it correct before? AnemoneProjectors 13:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about merger mentioned above was superseded in July 2011 when the editors of the destination page decided that they didn't like having the number twos there too. As the topic is highly notable, I am restoring the content per our policy WP:PRESERVE. I have added further sources to demonstrate notability. Warden (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the number two singles list has been restored, it's hardly "highly notable" but it is of moderate interest, and deserves a page of its own. This content certainly doesn't (and never did (the deletion discussion was very weakly attended)) belong in the Xmas number ones list, which is quite obviously of far higher notability (i.e. it's notable every year, while the number two single is often forgotten about entirely). But glad to see this mildly interesting nugget preserved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
downloads are done in singles, so it counts as a charted single doesn't it?[edit]
[1] Shouldn't this be in the article? The charge for physical units sold and the chart for downloaded singles, its still the same thing, people paying money to get a copy of a single song one way or another. DreamFocus 15:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different chart entirely. — foxj 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted dates to dmy format for a quintessentially British subject. I have started to move citation definitions to the reflist, this will mean that the definition is in a predictable place, makes the list entries more readable and consistent and avoids long definitions interrupting paragraph text. --Mirokado (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also converted the list format to a table similar to that in List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones. Sortability is a bit problematical without suitable sort keys, so I have not made the table sortable, at least to start with. --Mirokado (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, Uptown Funk by Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars was the Christmas number two in 2014; while according to this article, it was also the Christmas number 1 in the same year. Hmmm. Which one is it? Seagull123 Φ 10:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 09:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
