Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Record Mirror number-one singles/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 promoted by The Rambling Man 09:50, 11 June 2010 [1].

List of Record Mirror number-one singles edit

Featured list candidates/List of Record Mirror number-one singles/archive1

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I was amazed to find out that the UK Singles Charts and Guinness Book of British Hit Singles that are completely taken as wrote nowadays only tell part of the story. Here is the otherside and a list of those songs that were number-one and are not forgotten about as such. Additionally, I think the list does meets the criteria as well as being interesting.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - really nice to find an original list like this, not wishing to be a patronising sod, but well done. Some areas of review:

You launch into the rival idea of charts before stating what this article is really about. It may end up being chronologically inverted, but start with what we're about to read.

How is this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You abbreviated BRMB but never use the abbreviation. Removed
"rival chart,NME, was" spaces? Spaced
" a phone poll." I think, being an encyclopedia, we should stick with "telephone" Done
"the he increased cost" huh? Fixed
"On 24 March 1962 the paper stopped" even for just pure aesthetics, comma after 1962. Done
"NME 's chart.[6][4]" numerical order please? Check the others.

Done, for the tables some are intentionally not in numerical order because they are in chronological order. This was once explicitlly mentioned in the MoS or something. I can't find a link at the moment, but one the other hand cannot find anything that would not permit it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always been a moan of mine, I've never seen an academic text with references out of numerical order, no matter what, but I'm sure there's no MOS order mandate either. I'd prefer numerical order, just because, if anything else, it looks better... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the way the whole table is reference, per your point below. This has also sorted this problem. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"as the best selling single of 1958" hyphenate best-selling. Done
"and spening 9 weeks" spending nine weeks. Fixed
Not sure why the tables are split per year.
- Maybe you can help with this. Ideally I want to keep the headings for each year, create an year anchor system (a la Premier League Manager of the Month) and allow the table to sort through the repeated headings. I thought this was possible and that I had seen an FL/FLC with this capability (I think it may have been sport related). Do you recall such a thing, or has Wikipedia entered my unconscious!?! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't recall right now. With a list this size, I don't see a convincing reason for it to not be a single table... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay I did some messing about with syntax and got what I had planned to work. This method isn't currently documented at Help:Sorting and may be helpful there. More importantly, what do you think if this layout? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's okay, but now you have the problem that when resorting the table, the references for each of the subheadings don't go with the sorting, so they don't necessarily reflect the right source... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay so shall I take all the sources out and put them as general references? Only I thought people had begun to prefer references on column headers and inline as opposed to the general references where direct facts are more difficult to verify as one is unsure if it is covered generally or not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Right I've put something in place that hopefully covers all bases. Let me know what you think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Put the refs in numerical order (in the notes) and you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artist should sort by surname.
- Done. Also made groups of type "The Band" sort under "Band". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References need spaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens or =. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've one question about the years and I will get round to the surname sorting when I have some more time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess just one more thing, the "Dave McAleer" reference, firstly what makes it reliable, secondly, did he really spell it "diferent"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His notability in the chart music field is such that he even has an article, Dave McAleer. He's the main Guinness' Hit Singles guy among other publications he's involved with. Whilst I believe he is one of the best authorities on the subject it does appear that his reputation doesn't extend to quality of spelling! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the disambiguating "(UK)" necessary in the title? There is no other Record Mirror publication that charts songs, is there? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, page moved along with associated candidatures et al. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Oppose~~. I found the following problems:

The Record Mirror is a former weekly pop music newspaper. Not everyone knows that it was a British newspaper.
Done, good spot. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NME chart formed the basis of the UK Singles Chart and is used as the source for number-one singles by The Official Charts Company and Guinness' British Hit Singles & Albums until 10 March 1960, when a chart compiled by Record Retailer is used instead. I do not understand why you use the past simple then suddenly switch to the present simple? Is NME chart used now as the basis of the UK Singles Chart? The answer is no. So, please, use a consistent tense.
Surely the fact that NME chart is not used, means the choice of a past tense is correct: isn't formed past tense? Also, the following sentence "is used" is present because the books still exist and it is still the source (present). My knowledge of when to use which tense is bad and, whilst I appreciate the links I'm still not that confident I've done what you mean so could you please check it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified it myself. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, prior to 15 February 1969, when the British Market Research Bureau chart was established there was no universally accepted chart. There should be a comma after 'established'. And also, why are not you using the past perfect here?
Um, not 100% I understand what you mean but is it sorted now? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, despite not reaching number-one, Pat Boone's "Love Letters in the Sand" was classified by Record Mirror as the best-selling song of 1957 having entered the chart at number eleven on 13 July and spending 9 weeks in the top three. What does 'number-one' refer to here? I also do not understand the last clause: 'having entered the chart at number eleven on 13 July and spending 9 weeks in the top three.'
The clause explains how the non-number one was the best-selling song. I've seperated the clauses more. Is it better? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand the last clause. It is incomprehensible. Ruslik_Zero 16:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tried again but I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than that. The phrase "entered the chart" is the correct terminology[2] for the first time a song appears on a chart and, after that, the rest is (hopefully) self-explanatory. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've made some amendments and hopefully I understood things correctly and if not I would appreciate it if you would put me right. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only thing that concerns me about this list is the divisions with the Artist etc. rows being re-added every year. The list is not overly long so I would think the one at the top is the only one that is needed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it is useful. The list has been (loosely) modelled on existing FL List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK). That keeps all years completely seperate (which in my opinion makes sortability fairly useless). I combined them all but kept the headings. That way the contents can be used to link directly to a year externally using the year section headings: For example 1961. I'm just outlining the reasons why I made it this way. If you are still unhappy please let me know. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Since Giants' concerns are also addressed I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Some overlinking is present in the lead. NME and Record Retailer don't need multiple links; one will do for each.
"Additionally, the Record Mirror and other charts ~~also~~ differed...". The struck word is a redundancy, unneeded due to the presence of the sentence's first word.
Note 2: I think "the" should be removed before the dates. Doesn't seem to match the rest of the article.
Many of the references should have Record Mirror italicized as a publisher of a print newspaper. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done I believe. Thanks for the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The breaking the table up by year is all well and good, but if you try to use any of the sorts it no longer makes any sense- The divisions are suddenly arbitrary, not in any recognizable fashion. Not sure if there's anything you can do about it. Also, the last sentence of the lead- I don't think that there's any need to repeat the name of the song so close to the first time. In any case, Support. --Pres N 15:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once sorted, the divisions are arbitrary but I don't see this as a problem given the advantage it caused beforehand. As for the repetition, it is not sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sandman888 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others that breaking up by year is a bad idea. I don't see the need for externally linking to a specific year either, it's not that a long lists, and it will not get longer over the years. Sandman888 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that others think breaking up is a bad idea. Wizardman seemed happy with my response and PresN accepted there is nothing that can be done about it. My problem I have with your comment is that, had I directly followed List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) and completely separated the years I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid. In my opinion, this just gives the best of both worlds. I also think you would get some opposition if you tried to put that list into one long table (I'll try it if you like). For transparency, I wish to get a fairly standardised format and will be looking at bringing the 1970s list I have been working on to FLC next. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO standardisation is a not better per se. I'd rather use breaking when appropriate, as on your long the 1970s list than on the short ones. But I shan't make a fuss about it. Have you thought about just marking the line between the years? I don't know if that's possible though. Sandman888 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is certainly possible but introduces a new problem. What happens to the lines when you sort the table? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is "many national newspapers" in quotations? Jujutacular ^T · C 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, saying something like that will always require a reference so I have used a directly referenced quotation to avoid any original research. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course provide a reference. But what makes it different from any other referenced fact that makes it require quotes? Jujutacular ^T · C 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was said by Dave McAleer who is quite an expert in all things charts. That's all I can think of for quoting. If you still feel it is unwarrented let me know and I'll remove them (or you can). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, quotations just mean its someone's opinion instead of a fact. So I think either he is reliable source, and it's a fact, and we'll reference it; or we're presenting it as his opinion. If we did leave quotes, we should include who said it in the sentence, per WP:QUOTE (although that's just an essay, but I agree). Anyway, as long as you're fine with it, I'll remove the quotes. Thanks for bearing with me :) Great work on the list. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jujutacular ^T · C 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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