Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:24, 28 October 2010 [1].

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand)[edit]

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have spent a few months on it now. I nominated List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand) for FLC, but people thought it was too narrow and didn't meet WP:SAL. So here I am, with the whole decade's worth. You may have periods of nostalgia, and periods of awful cringing when going through the list, but I do believe it is of high quality. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Capped comments
  • I've found the refs for the "Number-one single of the year", I now realise it they are the first of the songs run at number one but not sure its obvious. Perhaps either put them in the key (top) or notes (bottom).
  • Placed in notes
  • How are they now? I also added a note about songs of NZ origin Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, do we need the same information in the key at the top and notes at the bottom?
  • Removed bottom notes
  • Are these dates the "week beginning" or "week ending" dates? Perhaps make a note of that.
  • Added to lead
  • You mention the compiling period Mon-Sun and release date of Mon. That doesn't relate to the table though (directly). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} for references please, it'll make them smaller and put into multi-columns
  • Done
  • In the "By song" section we sort names by surname. Rectify this please ({{sortname}})
  • Done
  • You may have done this for the artist in the section "By artist" but not in "By song". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the date bold, looks a bit odd (it isn't the most important info)
  • Unbolded
  • Think the blue is a bit garish and in your face (the green is just okay). Any chance of toning it down a bit.
  • Sure. Aesthetics is not a strong point for me, unfortunately. Can you suggest a different colour? If you would like me to change the green I am happy to do so.
  • How does it look now?
  • Any reason you use [2] (some Hung Medien site) and not [3] (The Official Chart website)???
  • When I first started work on this, I didn't realise that it is possible to link to an individual chart from the RIANZ site. Hung Medien is reliable, and is used to source peak positions for WP articles on songs, albums and individual artists' discographies. It is also a secondary source.
  • Actually a secondary source is one that interprets or analyses a primary source. This does neither, it mirrors the primary source so IMO is inferior to the RIANZ sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I can change all the refs, but it may take a while. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the first few for the chart page from the official RIANZ site. If you have any problems with the formatting, can you please raise them now before I change the rest of them too? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done
  • "The first chart was published on 25 March 1966." cite?
[4] is the most reliable-looking online source I could find. Actually 11 March was first (I changed prose accordingly). If you don't find this of a high enough standard, I can go to the library and try to hunt down a book. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked down Scapolo's book, so have cited that
  • "A total of 171 singles topped the chart in the 2000s, including 21 by New Zealand artists." cite? (not sure I'd be comfortable with counting to verify this)
  • "bumped" - awful colloquial language
  • how is "took"?
    • Not much better. How about combining the two sentences so it reads continuously along the lines of On [date] [song] replaced [song2] at the top of the chart and become the 500th #1 in NZ history (but obviously in proper prose). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This became the 500th number-one single" cite?
  • Done
  • Could "By artist" be sortable?
  • Done
  • In that section could, for visual appeal, you could offset the notes A and B so the numbers stay right in the middle (see what I've done in list linked below)
  • Done
  • Okay, but you'll also have to use the span stuff too because the sorting of "Total weeks at number one" is not messed up. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I have some form of bias as I've written quite a few decade lists (List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK) et al. and I believe I was also one of those who persuaded you to go from a year format to a decade format. The following comments are all things that differ from "my (not necessarily correct) style" of decade list. Personally, I think my way has advantages but others may disagree. Therefore I'll put them down as my opinion which I hope you and other reviewers can expand on and (dis)/agree with.
    • This is a list of number-one singles, is the album any more relevant than label, say.
      • Not sure, it was the norm before I improved these lists. What do others think?
    • Is there a particular reason for having multiple rows for singles, instead of an extra column saying weeks 2, for example.
      • This gives readers a visual impression of how long a song was at number one. Also having one row would mean stuffing multiple references into one cell
        • Not if you use a different source. In fact that 500 and something refs is a bit Wikipedia:Citation overkill when a book such as this would cover about 300 of them (more if there is a newer edition of the book). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll try to go to the library some time this week. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found the book at the library, but it is not-for-loan. I photocopied a few pages for the lead, but the individual songs I didn't get. I'll continue to use the RIANZ site refs.
    • The current rowspan also means you lose any possible sortability.
      • I don't think sortability is an important feature in a chronological list.
        • I'd have thought grouping all number ones by one artist together was fairly beneficial. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Before 18 April 2004, the chart week was from Sunday to Saturday, with the chart published on Sunday." cite needed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Sort "longest run" by weeks not song?

I'd welcome comment outside opinion of the format (colspan, not sortable vs otherwise). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also

  • sigh* the RIANZ seems to keep changing the ratio. I think its sorted now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No the split is still between airplay and sales like but before but the sales are split 75,25. So its basically 50% airplay, 37.5% physical sales, 12.5% downloads. Well that's how I interpret what they've said. Do you agree? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page reads "based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles sales figures and radio play information". So 75% was sales (regardless of format), and 25% is airplay. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I was the one that misinterpreted. Couldn't read the site as interestingly they seem to have changed the page to remove that bit (go to the page and paste in "javascript:alert(document.lastModified)" to the address bar. Google cached doesn't have it but searching the quote still brings up the RIANZ website (although the content is gone) but this has it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I emailed the RIANZ and I was told that the ratio changed to 100% sales this month, which is why the 75/25 info is no longer on that page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've capped some comments but I still have concerns. The format and, IMO, excessive citations causes a huge load time. I'd welcome comments from other users on comparisons between formats. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say that I am not opposed to removing the parent albums, and if others would like that done too I am more than happy to remove them. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (e/c)
  • First instinct is that the lead looks a little stringy (i.e. lots of short paras) and could use an image to suck me in....
  • I think there's a suitable link for singles chart (or at least, music chart).
  • linked
  • Black Eyed Peas is actually The Black Eyed Peas.
  • Fixed
  • "This is the most weeks at number one by a New Zealand artist, " - ever? In this decade? Just clarify.
  • clarified by inserting 'ever'
  • Perhaps say "New Zealander" rather than continually repeat "New Zealand artist"?
  • Done for second of three occurrences
  • " bumped "Hips Don't Lie" by Shakira and Wyclef Jean off the number-one spot." not keen on "bumped".
  • How is "took"
  • 500th - not sure how MOS treats these raised "th" things.
  • Last para of lead is unreferenced.
  • Done
  • Not keen on the Week being bold.
  • Fixed
  • What's the "single of the year"?
  • In every instance of this being said it it preceded by "number-one...". Is this not clear enough? I have also a list of the annual charts in a 'See also' section.
  • Vengaboys caption seems to have a spare ]
  • Fixed
  • Some captions which are complete sentences have full stops, others don't (e.g. Guy Sebastian's).
  • Fixed
  • Sometimes you relink artists/songs within a subsection and sometimes you don't, I'd be consistent.
  • I have tried to link songs once, and artists and albums once per year (eg The Black Eyed Peas had "Where Is the Love?" in 2003, and they and Elephunk are linked again in 2004). If I have become inconsistent by this anywhere then please point it out!
  • By song is sortable but By artist isn't. Any good reason?
  • Sorted 'by artist' as well
  • Pink & Timberlake's images are huge compared to the others.
  • Oh, and Kesha's.
  • Shrunk to 140px
  • What makes ref 240 different from all the other RIANZ refs?
    • Its by RIANZ as opposed to Hung Medien, see my comment above. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good answer. So I asked the same question as you, but in a subtly different manner! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • See comment(s) above
  • Not sure you should have a red-linked category.
  • Removed

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done some of comments above, but I have to go now. I will get through them later. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I have addressed everything now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the oppose still active? If not I'll give this a review asap. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'd welcome comments from uninvolved parties as it is mainly over format now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments:
    • I'd like the references center-aligned; it just looks nicer that way instead of all on the left.
    • There's a lot of variation between when numbers are and aren't spelled out. I'm not a mosnum expert so I'm not going to touch it, but others may be concerned by that.
    • I have spelt all numbers <100 in words, all those 100+ in digits. The one exception (start of second paragraph) is for consistency. I changed a 'top 40' to 'top forty'. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting nitpicky, but perhaps a different color should be used for noting songs of NZ origin; on a skim I keep thinking it's a table break when it's not. You can ignore this one if you want.

Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Do you have any specific opinion on this format compared to List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK) (do say if you think my oppose is unfounded)? Oh, and by the way I think |align=center|<ref>... is what you were looking for to align refs. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So there's no way to align a whole column to the center? Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to my knowledge (and I'll be pretty annoyed if there is as I've spent lots of time aligning cells individually). You can set a default text alignment for a row or table though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My various draft pick lists have everything center-aligned (you can look to see if you can use that format change on yours); it's done right at the start of the table. As a result, because of the table's splits at a few points, I'm not sure how well it would work. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I've done that. I think it looks better now too, in the centre. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically fails on the WP:ACCESS#Data tables part of MOS. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? The MOS there says "Priority: high (A accessibility level)" which isn't even grammatically correct. If the MOS hasn't got it's grammar right... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "A accessibility" is explained elsewhere. Well, this is all very unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it means 'A' standard interms of improving accessibility. Do you know what this is turning into a bloodbath when its merely a friendly attempt to improve articles. I am sorry for bringing this into disruptive. I'm striking my comments and will instead discuss the overall issues on the talk page for featured list articles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. In basic remove the color or add symbols to the cells you haven't done. In a quick find on my browser I come up with 105 results of references which don't have the proper citation template, I wouuld take a guess that these would be most of the RIANZ references. Afro (Talk) 20:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All coloured rows have a symbol next to the song title (please point out any that I have missed). Some of the references do not use {{cite web}} because if they did it would cause a template overload. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question, is it possible to find references which cover two or more of the rows? Afro (Talk) 15:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible, but difficult. I have found one book, but it is not for loan. It is organised by artist, not chronologically, and would take a lot of time to get through. There is also the option of using http://charts.org.nz/ (Hung Medien site), which can list all chart entries for a song. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have no real problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing the criteria, it does appear to fail WP:REF which I do cite "Citations in Wikipedia articles should be internally consistent.", so I feel I should Oppose this till the citation problem is fixed. Afro (Talk) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are internally consistent - the only difference is the code. They are correctly formatted, and the appearance of the citations is the same throughout. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying comment: I'm off on a wikibreak until Thurs so I feel I should clarify my position in case it is unclear. I still oppose this nomination. The list is good but the large size and lack of reference templates make it unwieldy; cut this down by using a book of number-ones or something. Personally I think rowspans should be avoided and a sortable format like the UK#1 lists should be used as it is more consise and adaptable to a readers needs. Any director is, of course, free to ignore my oppose if they think it is unreasonable. I'll revisit when I come back (if this is still open). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_number-one_singles_from_the_2000s_(New_Zealand)/archive1&oldid=1090424544"