Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones/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 promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 28 May 2012 [1].

List of 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones[edit]

List of 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't the albums be in the first column and the artist in the second? It is a list about albums after all. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having the artist first and then the album/single next seems to be common practice both on Wikipedia (e.g. here, here or here) and off (e.g. here, here or here). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Don't need to reproduce the table headers after every year, its redundant, and does the reader when using the sort function.
  • I'm willing to make that change, but my reasoning is that, given the the sheer number of rows that the list has (about 276), it makes sense to repeat the table headers so that they visually break up the table. It also means that a reader wouldn't need to keep scrolling back all the way to the top to see which column is which. Additionally, that particular format is also used on similar Wikipedia articles (e.g. here and here) – I feel that it might be somewhat jarring to a reader to go from a series articles that all follow the same layout to another that does not. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to visually break up the table, I see where you're coming from, but repeating the headers is redundant. The table may be long, but I think the columns are quite self-explanatory anyway, and its not hard to just scroll up the page if you forget. The fact the format is used on other lists is beside the point, if anything they should be changed as well, if uniformity is an issue. NapHit (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed the headers. Personally, I prefer the list with them, but I'm not massively passionate either way. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • we have 3.29 million and four million, be consistent in your use of digits.
  • On that four million, you give a precise figure for the simply red album, why not do the same for the oasis album? instead of saying over four million
  • "It went on to spend nine weeks at number one during the nineties..." -> "It stayed at number one for nine weeks during the decade"
  • Done.
  • "Stars was also the second biggest-selling album of the decade, being outsold only by (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, the second studio album from Mancunian band Oasis." -> "Stars was the second biggest-selling album of the decade, it was outsold by Mancunian band Oasis' second album, (What's the Story) Morning Glory?"
  • Done.
  • "Following the success of this album..." -> "Following the album's success..."
  • Done.
  • "It was also the highest-certified album of the 1990s, achieving platinum certification 13 times over."
  • Done.
  • Think it would be simpler make the key a table, instead of having init current state. Would look a lot neater

NapHit (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • MOS:HASH advises against using the hash symbol to indicate rankings, would change to No. NapHit (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • typo on Tom Jones reload, just got 199, instead of 1999 which I assume it was. NapHit (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think this article is suffering from a case of Overlinking. Do we really need repeated links to the same article? Should only be linked the first time.
Just a note, over linking does not apply in sortable where every instance is linked. cheers NapHit (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this article suffers from the same problem I found on the 1970s article - all the dates are inconsistant with the references given. To come up with your own system of dating is major WP:OR across the whole article. To ignore the information in the references given would prevent this from ever passing.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I echo this sentiment, after looking at this ref the first two dates are not what is in the table. NapHit (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This seems to be one of those issues where there doesn't yet seem to be any clear consensus either way. My reasoning for using the dates that the albums that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending dates given by the OCC, is as follows:

  • It's more intuitive for the reader. We've had a several comments left on the talk page of the 2010s singles article from confused readers not understanding why entries aren't listed by the date that they first topped the chart. I believe that the main reason why someone might view this Wikipedia page is to learn which album was number one on a specific date in the 1990s. At the moment, they would simply need to find whichever album was number one either on or immediately before the date in question – asking them to first add on six days makes it far more prone to errors, particularly for albums that were at the top for more than one week.
  • I don't feel that it's necessarily original research. I can find a few reliable sources that talk about singles/albums reaching number one on the Sunday, rather than the following Saturday (e.g. BBC News; The Independent; STV; Newsbeat).
  • I don't think it's any less verifiable either – all the dates can be taken from the OCC site (although obviously the article would need a note to mention that the dates that they list are six days after the dates that the albums reached number one). Also, searching on the OCC's search facility for, say, the number ones on 21 January 1990 shows that the Colours by The Christians was number one, rather than ...But Seriously by Phil Collins. This method continues throughout the decade.
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but that links says 27th January 1990 not 21 January 1990. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the URL states "1990/1/21". So if you search for 21st January 1990, those are the number ones that comes up. This is my reasoning, at least. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While listing by the week-ending date may be the "official" way of charting British number ones, my understanding is that Wikipedia does not necessarily use official names and methods. For example, Flea's official name is Michael Balzary, but he's referred to as Flea throughout his article, as that is more intuitive for the reader. I applied the same reasoning for this list.
  • It's also how other articles have listed number ones (e.g. the list of 1990s UK Singles Chart number ones, and the list of 2000s UK Albums Chart number ones). Obviously I'm aware that "Other stuff exists" isn't necessarily a valid argument for inclusion, but both lists have gone through a significant community review, so I assumed that it would be okay to repeat the practice here.

Using the Sunday dates for 1970s albums wouldn't be appropriate, as each week's number one was first revealed on Tuesday (I've actually been meaning to change the 1970s dates; I just haven't got round to it yet). But I feel that, for the 1990s albums, when the weekly chart show was broadcast on Sundays, it would make sense to list them by the date that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending date, for the reasons that I've given above. Now, if I'm wrong about any of this or if anyone disagrees, I'm willing to change the dates. I just wanted to explain the logic behind why I've listed the dates in this way. Thanks very much, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the issue, but the problem at the moment is that to the average reader and reviewer the table appears incorrect. This is especially so when note a states: "The artist, album, date of reaching number one and number of weeks at number one are those given by the OCC." yet the dates in the table do not match the references. You could add a note stating the discrepancy, but the problem would still be there a vast section of the table would not be referenced. I think that would stray a little too close to original research to me. I think you should use the dates given by the OCC, as that is the primary source for the tables, unless there is another reliable source which gives the dates from sunday then I think you should use the OCC's method. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll make the change. Bear with me though, as there are nearly 300 entries to get through, so this could take quite a while. On a semi-related note, is there nothing to be said for having some way of visually separating out each year in the table? If not repeating the headers, then maybe having 10 rows that span all seven columns and indicate where each new year begins? At the moment the list looks to me like a huge, unwieldy table, rather like a page of text that contains no paragraph breaks. Just a thought. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have now made the changes. Didn't take too long after all... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • After "(What's the Story) Morning Glory?", the period should be removed as a case of double punctuation.
  • Done.
  • Period needed after "and sold 4.16 million copies".
  • Done.
  • In the key, the Silver and Gold on the left look a bit unusual since they're not centered.
  • My thinking was that, since they appear right-aligned in the table itself, then that is how they should also appear in the key. If I'm wrong about this, I'll change it.
  • In the Christmas album table, the Reference column could be shortened to Ref. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • When I sort by No. the first time, all the re-entries disappear to the bottom of the list. I would have expected them to stay put...
  • Changed.
  • UK Album Chart is really UK Albums Chart.
  • Changed.
  • "by Mancunian band " picky perhaps but I'd rather see that as "Manchester band"...
  • Changed.
  • Peter Andre doesn't have an accent. On his e, I mean, not when he talks...
  • Haha! Changed.
  • Any reason that the months have been truncated to three characters?
  • The code for the Dts template (which this page uses) was recently changed to abbreviate all months to just three letters. Given the umbrage that this alteration has caused, it seems very possible that it will be changed back again sometime soon.
  • Can't see a really good reason for the certification column to be right justified.
  • I right-justified the certification column so that the platinum multipliers all lined up – it just seemed neater and clearer that way. Hypothetically, I could change them all to, say, "Platinum ×8" and then have them left-justified, but an album is usually described as having gone "eight times platinum" rather than "platinum times eight".
  • The "out" in "Bat out of Hell" should be "Out".
  • Changed.
  • Our article on Celine Dion also refuses to use an accent.
  • Changed.
  • Spice Girls shouldn't have "The" in the link (in the caption).
  • Changed.
  • "1991–2," perhaps a personal preference, but for year ranges, I usually expect to see the decade repeated, so "1991–92".

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed. That actually agrees with the MOS, so it really should have always been like that. Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • All seems to be in order now. Goodraise 00:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Harrias talk
  • London doesn't need to be linked repeatedly in the references: in fact given that it is a pretty well known place, I think you can safely remove all the links to it.
  • Support other than that I don't have any issues with the list at all, and as it is only a minor point, I'm happy to support this article. Nice work. Harrias talk 13:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great list--GoPTCN 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Changed.
  • "Throughout the decade, the chart was based solely on physical album sales" - Why does physical link to CD? I seem to remember audio cassettes being available until at least the mid 1990s (in North America, at least)
  • Removed wikilink.
  • I think capitalisation should be standardised for reference titles
  • Done.
  • "Like ...But Seriously, Come On Over remained at number one into the following decade, and was the biggest-selling album of 1999." - I doubt ...But Seriously was the biggest selling album of 1999. A rephrase may be in order.
  • Hmm... Reworded slightly so that it's hopefully clearer.
  • That's it. I can't see any issues with the lists themselves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks like it fits the FL criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_1990s_UK_Albums_Chart_number_ones/archive1&oldid=1089913596"