Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one country singles of 2000 (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 Dabomb87 15:42, 5 August 2011.

List of number-one country singles of 2000 (U.S.)

 * Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just felt like picking a random list and seeing if I could improve it to FL status in a couple of days :-).... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving and nominating a page I made :)  Nowyouseeme screed  16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment (oppose)
 * I definately owe you some reviews after all of my music lists you have reviewed but I have to state one immediate concern. I realise that other FLs in this format exist but I disagree with the year format. Basically, if you were to bring 10 of these to FL I can't see how you can justify individual years over a decade format like the UK #1s. I realise 3b is thrown around and there isn't an absolute bright line here but I am definately concerned that we have 10 lists when one would do. The rowspans IMO just fill space and because the lead is just covers one year it is fairly superficial. I'm pretty sure I voiced some opposition to single year #1 lists in the past but I realise I have been absent for quite a while and maybe they came back. This seems to be a very negative "review" but it is how I feel, if you can give a convincing rationale for having 10 lists rather than one I will of course reconsider and if the community disagrees with me then obviously this comment can be ignored. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  13:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If other people think the same and it fails, I won't lose any sleep, working on it filled a couple of boring lunch breaks, that's enough for me.  If it does fail on those specific grounds, though, would the next logical step be to take the existing Hot 100 number ones by year FLs to FLRC........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - it's not time wasted Chris, it's made a better list! Now all you need to do is merge in every other list from the "Naughties"...! Seriously, this is a recurring theme here, that these kind of lists could just about stand alone, but a decade would be a monster, with something like 500 refs, and would invoke WP:SPLIT. I'd like to hear more from the community about how best to resolve this kind of issue, I know Rambo's Revenge is a leading light when it comes to our chart-based FLs, and it may just be that this is the nomination where we can make a suitable decision on a Wiki-wide basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "leading light" is a bit strong, the decade format was not my idea I just spruced a couple up! My counter argument to WP:SPLIT would be that many of the 500 refs are superfluous given that for the Hot 100 Billboard has an online list of #1s, and for country songs a book would do e.g. this covering until the end of the 80s or more recent ones up to 2008. If you like the online references there might be something more general online or if not you could always just supplement a general print ref by stating that weekly charts are available at http ://www.billboard.com/charts#/charts/country-songs?chartDate=YYYY-MM-DD. Rambo's Revenge  (talk)  21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I would suggest adding that "How Do You Like Me Now?!" was the top hit of the year for the Billboard Year-End chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to be able to find a reliable source to confirm that fact.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go. Just googled it and played with the Billboard url. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Now included..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.