Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 18:05, 24 April 2011.

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)

 * Notified: K. Annoyomous, WikiProject Record Charts, WP Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I am pretty sure it is a CFORK of List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (Canada). It is incredibly short, and merging it with List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada) (current FL) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Canada) seems completely reasonable. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist primarily as a result of the many, many dead links, but also perhaps because of forking worries. I'm not overly stressed about those though, because I think a good encyclopedia would have individual years as distinct lists, as purely objective and logical collections, especially since they are reasonable standalone lists. Arbitrary merges of these sorts of lists is becoming the norm now, so who am I to stand in the way of "progress"! Also, nom says it's a CFORK of a non-existent article before then going on to recommend the creation of what (according to his logic) must be another CFORK of the same non-existent article. I think we need clarification from the nominator on what he expects to see overall here.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Since we have TFL's now, would you be happy with having this on the main page? 2) Merge the three lists into a list of reasonable scope and length. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is FLRC, not TFL. And your suggested "merged" list, can you confirm you do not believe it will be a CFORK of the overall redlink list you said this article was a CFORK of?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean of List of Hot 100 number-one singles (Canada)? If Canadian Hot 100 will continue to exist (I see no reason why it would stop) for at least a couple of years then yes, it will be a fine split (i.e. passing wp:CFORK). If by a remote chance it will be pulled in the next year or so, the 2011 list could be merged with the 2000s one at some point. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean you're saying here that you want three lists merged into one. You're also saying these existing lists are CFORKs of a non-existent list. I just want to be sure that if someone merges, say, three of these lists into one, you won't then nominate that merged list for FLRC as a CFORK of the non-existent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment are you nominating it for featured-list-removal, or for article merging? Personally I don't have a problem with its demotion, however I'm strongly against the merging of the article because of its length.  The scope of the article is the same as all of the other "by-year" number-ones lists, for countless other countries and charts.  This one just happened to begin in June of 2007, so it's not as if it can get any larger. - eo (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just take a look at List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) and see that it is very doable.

Have very similar scope and look fine by FL? standards. Nergaal (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s,
 * 2) List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK),
 * 3) List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK),
 * 4) List of number-one singles from the 1950s (UK),
 * 5) List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s,
 * 6) List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK),
 * 7) List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)


 * I'd support keeping it if someone could fix the referencing- looks like Billboard moved it all to billboard.biz and put it behind a paywall. A trip to the library and verifying this against paper magazines might be required. The fact that we can smash lists together doesn't make it a good idea, and there is utility in being able to present more information by having these separate, and each year is a clearly defined topic. Courcelles 19:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Arbitrary year smashing isn't really needed here.  Fix the dead links and I support keeping the list as featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the sources can be fixed. Example, here is the current chart  and the previous weeks are sourced by changing the date in the URL, for example .  I do see that the UK is grouped by decade (not sure why that country is different) but I support keeping this one separated "by year" as all the other Billboard charts are. - eo (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I can see the nominator's point about this list possibly violating WP:CFORK and thereby failing criterion 3(b), but, by my count, there are more than twenty featured lists of music charts that only cover a single year. Does this mean that they all need to be delisted? 92.21.198.60 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Took be five minutes to fix all the dead links, so that wasn't a huge problem in my opinion. I just like to thanks User:Courcelles for fixing the previous ones I did not fix. I don't think that initiating this FLRC was the best idea to fix this issue. If this list is a content fork, I suggest you tell that to WP:RECORD, since they are the main WikiProject that maintain these articles. My opinion of this is that yes, these lists can definitely be merged into by-decade lists, but having these by-year gives the readers a more specific scope. I strong suggest this FLRC to close, and to move this discussion to WT:RECORD. -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply It is not clear to me how separating by year would give a better scope. There are plenty of cases when a single was listed #1 in consecutive years, which would be easier to deal if splitting by decade; for both 2007-08 and 2008-09 this happens to be the case. The three intros in discussion here are all relatively short, so merging them would work well. Lastly, this list has only 8 distinct items, so by itself is below the unofficial 10-item limit. The next one has only 11 new entries. The 2009 has only 9 new distinct entries. That would bring the total to an amazingly large number of entries: 28. How is that not reasonable? Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you say yourself, this delineation is unofficial. One thing we may lose sight of here is how an encyclopedia would deal with this kind of thing.  Now then, from my perspective, a yearly list, regardless of the number of entries, would be by far the most preferable and logical.  I read almanacs all the time and they deal with things in a similar nature.  Would be useful to think of it in that respect rather than apply arbitrary rules.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that almost all of the number-ones lists are arranged by year (numerous US charts by genre, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, UK genre charts, etc, etc etc). The UK Singles Chart and this pre-Billboard Canada list seem to be the only exceptions (unless I am missing others).  It seems to make more sense that the UK and Canada should be reformatted to adhere to the style of all the others, no? - eo (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, what is and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article udner 3.b supposed to mean? Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think the initial interpretation of that (i.e. the reason it was written in the first place) was to prevent unnecessary forking of, say, an eight-item discography into a list from a main article about a band (for instance). I've seen from the Phillies list discussions that this is now being interpreted as "merge similar lists into bigger ones until we hit WP:SIZE".  I'm ambivalent about this list, but frankly, arbitrary list mashing to reach an unquantified number of items to satisfy editors doesn't seem ideal to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With the dead links sorted, there's nothing requiring demotion here, and 3b is to stop splits that should have never been from getting stars, not to arbitrarily mash things together. Courcelles 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


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