Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of top 12 singles in 1952 (UK)/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 17:35, 11 October 2010.

List of top 12 singles in 1952 (UK)

 * Nominator(s): 03  md  00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I originally got it peer reviewed a couple of months ago and it received some good comments. I hope that the list is up to scratch. 03 md  00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no links to dab pages, but the external links to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/company_history.php, http://www.theofficialcharts.com/history_first-chart.php, and http://www.theofficialcharts.com/history_first-top20.php are dead. Ucucha 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorted I think. 03  md  23:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Big Oppose – not 3. Comprehensive or accurate
 * I have my notably (NOTSTATS) reservations about this. We would certainly delete an article that was just a chart for a given week. It is certainly an interesting concept, but is completely unfeasible for later years (in fact I don't think 1955 would be do-able).
 * That aside, there are 12 singles with a entered date of 9 November. However, I know (and you've said in the lead) the first Top 12 had 15 entries so you are missing three.
 * If "Feet Up" peaked #2 on 16 November, then there must have been something at #2 the week before (cos nothing climbed to #1)
 * "You Belong to Me" by Jo Stafford was at #2 the previous week but the song peaked at number 1 in 1953.


 * There were two NEs for 16/11 but Lanza wasn't one (she charted in week 1)
 * Done.


 * Day charted week before
 * Done.


 * You're missing a NE for the 30th
 * Done.


 * There was 1 NE on 6/12
 * Done.


 * 2 NEs missing for 14/12 (the top 12 had 17 entries that week)
 * Done.


 * Basically, either you've missed a lot out and messed up a bit or your source/sources are flawed.
 * Hit "Peak" sort three times and you'll see it messes up.
 * Fixed. 03  md  23:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk)  19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have "Peak reached" for 15 November and 16 November, that's a short chart week!


 * Thanks for your comments. Regarding the review, the "missing" new entries are included here at the bottom of the article as they peaked in 1953. Should I keep it like this or would it be better to include them on the main table and add a key?
 * Quick response (i'll revisit properly later). I think the 53 table should be integrated with the other. It's confusing as is, and many of the 53 ones become in a different table just because they charted in December. Basically, IMO merging them would be a good idea. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the reason it is a top 12 is because the concept of "Top 10" was not introduced until later. I have created articles for more recent years that have just encompassed a top 10, but it wasn't feasible to leave out songs charting at 11 and 12 on the early years of the chart.

Can you recommend any more sources that could be added to the article? Thanks. 03 md  23:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * or are good. Rambo's Revenge  (talk)  13:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the status of this. Although there have been some improvements there are lots of things that make me still oppose. A few examples: Rambo's Revenge (talk)</b>  11:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the point in note D (Jo reached T12 twice in 52 anyway)
 * Sorting of both dates columns doesn't account for years.
 * Sorting of Peak isn't numerical (1, 10, 11, 12, 2 ...)
 * Additionally, how can you put references in for the above books I gave you. You clearly not read them (so haven't verified the lists information from them, meaning they aren't references)
 * As a query, I note three different IP edits here. Is it you logged out or someone else. I have nothing against anons editing but like to know (especially for FLC changes) who is accountable.


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