Talk:List of Billboard number-one R&B albums of 2001

Do lists containing properly sourced articles need to be revised to contain citations?

Do lists containing properly sourced articles (in this case albums) need to be revised to contain citations? If so I will get to work on this, please let me know in the replies. Officialangrydub (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Officialangrydub: While different lists sometimes have different criteria, the inclusion criteria for this list are quite simple and pretty much self-explanatory. Since charting is one way to qualify as a notable album, every entry should have a blue link (but per list policy, an album that appears at two different date ranges need only be linked on the first occurrence) and, by clicking on that blue link, it should be easy to verify by the sources in the linked-to article that the album did indeed chart in 2001. If there are problematical entries on the list where this is not true, such as entries on the list that are redirects and not actual articles about the named album, some work needs to be done. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

So would that mean that the "uncited article template" should be removed without needing to individually source each statement FOR THIS ARTICLE.

I spent A LOT OF TIME citing every detail in the Canadian yearly history list here from 1610s in Canada all the way until 1702 in Canada and properly cited every statement. That would be the correct protocol for that list right, since not every statement has a directly linked article. Thank you again for taking the time out of your day to address my questions. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@EdmHopLover1995: Yes, you could remove that template and point to this discussion.

Some lists have different inclusion criteria, usually expressed as "significance" rather than simple notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)