Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)/archive1
- 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [1].
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)[edit]
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because... I contributed the page through whole the year, not constantly though. However, in the end I wrote the lead and I think it really can pass Wikipedia's FL criteria. I am a Rihanna fan, and she was successful on the Hot 100 this year, so for that I will be really happy If I make this a FL.— Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Tomica, I applaud you for your efforts on this article. Great to see you doing something different for a change! For me, the lead is not exactly "brilliant" yet, and could use some re-organizing and copy editing. The list is not ready yet, but I'll be happy to have another look once issues have been addressed. Cheers, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] More comments:
Not yet. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The dates in the table only probably need nbsps or you can just wrap the dates with {{nowrap}}. You can take a look at User:Wikipedian Penguin/Sandbox 5 while it lasts to get what I'm talking about, but there's probably no need so who cares. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Support if there is no consensus to merge this at the end of the day. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why is Rolling In The Deep wikilinked twice in the lead? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments I did some tweaks in the lead today. Hope those help. My concern (major one) is this sentence about Adele: She became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year. Is it true? Can it be verified? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps it's just me but the lead is a little confusing with regard to what actually constitutes a number one in a given year, what constitutes weeks at the top in a given year, what constitutes multiple chart-topping entries/duration/non-consecutive weeks etc. I won't oppose right now but I certainly have concerns over what this all means. And there's little-to-no point in directing me to another list. I want to understand this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A rephrase of this whole "excluded" number one is in order. I would suggest something along the lines of "There were fourteen different number-one singles the charts in 2011, one of which, Katy Perry's Firework, topped the charts the previous year." or something. No need for this "and so is excluded" because it blantently isn't excluded, it's in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments by Status
- Would it hurt to have them sortable? I think it would be nice for the reader to see in the chart how many times one artist appeared. — Status {talkcontribs 17:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: All used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - not super-comfortable that every single reference is to Billboard, but I guess that's the way the other Billboard FLs do it. You need a comma after "Firework" in the lead. I also strongly recomend that you archive the references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites ever go away or change to lose the information (like, say, every last link in the 2008 FL) then you end up with a completely unsourced article. Also, what's up with the merge tag at the top? It doesn't link to an active discussion, but an older section links to a months-old discussion that never went anywhere. I don't think the list can be promoted with that going on, regardless of supports here. --PresN 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PresN on the fact that this shouldn't be promoted until the merge tag situation works itself out. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all thanks to all who supported. As a nominator I really don't like that adding the tag came right now. Its obvious that lists by year should be kept and the the 2010's one merged or deleted. The US charts have been written in separate lists since the start of Wikipedia, so I don't see the reason for creating one article for a decade. However, okay, its right to wait. — Tomica (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PresN on the fact that this shouldn't be promoted until the merge tag situation works itself out. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new seems to have appeared in the merge discussion there for the past two weeks. Could someone organise its closure so we can close this candidate? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Who should be able to close that discussion? — Tomica (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any independent admin would do. i.e. no-one featuring in either this or that process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.