Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand)/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 22:24, 28 October 2010.

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

 * Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from

Rambo's Revenge (talk)  17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * I'll try to go to the library some time this week. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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


 * Sort "longest run" by weeks not song?
 * Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome comment outside opinion of the format (colspan, not sortable vs otherwise). <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also
 * http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_facts.asp says the sales are "compiled based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles" &ndash' worth mentioning and since when?
 * sigh* the RIANZ seems to keep changing the ratio. I think its sorted now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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? <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  10:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Is the oppose still active? If not I'll give this a review asap. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'd welcome comments from uninvolved parties as it is mainly over format now. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Still have a couple reservations, albeit not enough to oppose. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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  is what you were looking for to align refs. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b>  <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  00:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So there's no way to align a whole column to the center? Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  00:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * OK, I've done that. I think it looks better now too, in the centre. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No only the references should be centered, not the whole thing. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 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  --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1  &#124;  talk2me  18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It specifically fails on the WP:ACCESS part of MOS. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oh, "A accessibility" is explained elsewhere. Well, this is all very unclear.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124;  talk2me  22:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support - I have no real problem with the list. Afro  ( Talk ) 21:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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). <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


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