Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one adult contemporary 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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012.

List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)

 * Nominator(s): Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I completely revamped the entire list and I think it's a really good example of definition of what a list of number ones on a chart should look like. It took a long time to re-format the table, format the references and go though each of the Billboard URLs correctly and do the lead, so hopefully it will be recognised as an FL! I really hope so. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The lead should be rewriten, FL can no longer start with "this is a list of". Use other number-one hits as an example on what to do in this case. Good example : List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). Another thing is that I would move the dagger to after the song name rather than the month date. as it follow the color table aswell.
 * I have changed the opening sentence and moved the dagger to the song. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 12:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As a formatting issue, the yellow is a little loud and too me a bit excessive. The color coding is one of the things I find annoying on the UK number one lists, even though I know many have passed FL. Maybe just the dagger or just highlight the cell for the song not the entire row? The only other thing, which I am quite unsure of on acceptability, is that the only source is the chart itself. At least, the Hot 100 charts reference an article which indicates coverage of actually being a number-one song beyond the chart itself (even though the source comes from the same publication). Just referencing the chart would indicate to me that you can just as well make similar lists on number twos and number threes, thus bordering on WP:IINFO. I'm a chart fanatic, but to be a featured list, I'd want to know what makes it important that these songs reached number one on this particular chart. Please just take these as my personal comments and not outright suggestions. Thanks and good luck. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The yellow/dagger are for people who may have difficulty determining things. I don't know how to make it so only the Song column is highlighted, it just automatically does the entire row. Yeah the Hot 100 gets extensive coverage, but this is the A/C chart, which doesn't get that kind of commentary, so we only have the archives (there's nothing wrong with that by the way, still says who is number one!). Number one songs are more important/recognised/acknowledged, so that's why this is important. At the end of the day, no one really cares about #2s or #3s do they lol. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that I could create an identical list in similar fashion using the same identical sources showing a list of number twos for this chart and it would meet the same criteria for FL that this one does. Being number one in airplay on adult contemporary radio stations just does not have the same meaning or impact that being number one on an all-encompassing chart covering both sales and airplay on all formats does; at least, if it does, it is not expressed here or in Adult Contemporary (chart). -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah but that would be irrelevant. People are only interested in number ones, and number ones are the most documented type of song. To be honest I don't really see the point in any of your points. I don't mean that rudely. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, number ones are the most documented type of charting songs, but for principal charts like the Hot 100 or the UK Singles Chart, where one can find other coverage. From this list, I don't see that number-one AC songs are documented any more than the #2s or #3s, etc, since the only references are to the top ten lists of each week's chart. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the same can also be said for the Hot 100 archive, as you can only view the top ten each week. You can only view the top 100 for the current week. I still don't see what you point is to be honest. Only number one's are documented like this as people only care about number one's. That's why 99% of people know Mariah Carey has had 18 Hot 100 number one's, but 99% of people don't know she has had 3 number two's on the Hot 100. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 17:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is I can find plenty of coverage in independent sources about "Whistle" by Flo Rida becoming number one on the Hot 100, thus indirectly confirming that "people care about number one's" on that chart; yet I find nothing significant on "Drive By" by Train reaching number one on the AC chart. What verifiable interest is there about number-one songs on this chart? -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The interest is who reached number one on this chart and any given point throughout 2011. (The fact that Adele is on the list with two songs creates a lot of interest, because of how much interest there is surrounding her). Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 3.b. This list has 8 entries. Nergaal (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So? What's your point? There is still a fully documented year for each number one's week. It's irrelevant that 8 artists topped the chart. The list is still the same length, regardless if 52 artists top the chart or 8. I'm sorry but that point isn't valid in my opinion. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * List_of_2010s_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still don't see your point. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The material in this article could "reasonably be included as part of a related article" (3b): List of 2000s US Adult Contemporary chart number ones.  Good raise  15:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why exactly a 2011 list would be included in a 2000 decade list. Besides the fact, that isn't reasonable. Zac   16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except such a list doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. Would be far too long and difficult to navigate around as it would look messy. Your reason isn't good enough to oppose because you are asking to do something which doesn't exist. AARON &bull; TALK   16:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the precedent has been set that these kind of album lists should encapsulate a decade (see the list that Nergaal above has linked you to). Just because the list doesn't exist, it doesn't make it a poor reason to oppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the precedent has been set, then why do none of the US R&B, Adult Contemporary or Dance number ones lists follow it? Just because it works for the UK number one singles, doesn't mean it does here. I personally think that a decade in one list looks very messy. AARON &bull; TALK   16:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. There's clearly inconsistency. But unless there's an agreement that by year articles should not exist, and decade ones should, there's really no leg to stand on. Just because some articles are some way, doesn't mean all have to be the same, without an agreement, of course. Zac   17:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only "leg" we need is the FLCR.  Good raise  00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Zac  16:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Billboard Adult Contemporary chart is a chart that ranks the best-performing singles in that category in the United States. This feels a bit too repetitive to me, specifically chart is a chart.
 * Removed. AARON &bull; TALK
 * How about adding some dates or lengths in which a song was number one atop the chart? It seems a bit too short at its current state, and I think that would do the trick.
 * It summarises who was number one in chronological order according to the table. I don't know about dates, and I have already listed some lengths (hence the sourcing in the lead...) AARON &bull; TALK
 * By lengths I mean, for example, "Rolling in the Deep" stayed atop the chart for 19 consecutive weeks, from July 2 to November 5. It gives the readers a better understanding of the timeline. Zac   17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Year-End most popular soft rock/adult pop songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by Nielsen BDS. would work much better as a footnote, instead of directly in the prose.
 * How? It's better to state it where it is. It's more organised to keep it where it is. AARON &bull; TALK
 * Because it makes the table looked too stretched. Besides that, I'm pretty sure the size of the font is too small per guidelines. Zac   17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just the small template to make it smaller, so not really. AARON &bull; TALK
 * What about making the table sortable?
 * What column?? AARON &bull; TALK
 * I would prefer to see the whole table sortable, but I know that's not entirely possible when you use rowspans. Zac   17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of it should be sortable, as it then defeats the point of a song being replaced/continued for each week. What would a benefit be of Katy Perry's "Firework" being anywhere else rather than where it should be? AARON &bull; TALK
 * Support— overall a well-organised and formatted list. However if possible, some more sourcing in the lead would be nice. Not a fan of decade lists as they're bulky and cumbersone to read. Till 15:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.