Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 1960s (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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [1].

List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK) edit

Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK)/archive1

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the 50s, 70s, 80s to FL and revamped the formatting to match on the 90s and 2000s lists which User:ChrisTheDude brought to FL in early 2009. So I present to you the 1960s list, the missing piece in a featured chronology of number-one singles (as canonized by The Official Charts Company). Thanks in advance for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—dab links to It's Now or Never and On the Rebound; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. They did exist but were fixed hours before your comment. I think the toolserver has been havingtrouble. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I struck my comment. Ucucha 00:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support pumpkin support this-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"achieved 7 number ones; 2 solo and 5 with the Shadows. The Shadows had a total of 10 number ones; 5 solo and 5 with Cliff Richard." would expect all these numbers to be spelled out.
- Done. Wasn't sure if comparable quantities should apply between table and prose. I agree it probably doesn't in retrospective. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps worth clarifying that Disc is a magazine?
- I'm not sure it is. This front cover describes itself as a "pop paper" and looks like a newspaper to me. Dave McAleer's site also calls it a "paper"[2]. I haven't changed Disc (magazine) as I can't find a reliable I think the line between mag/paper was fine back then. For a time it was published by Go Magazine according to the British Library. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"selling a million copies." "over" a million copies? Done
"Million-selling and gold records" section, Year of millionth sale col doesn't sort correctly for me, it'll be the N/A forcing it all to sort as text, so use {{sort}} to fix it.
- Huh. I checked in the main three browsers and it works fine. By deliberately not using N/A it sorts in 4 ways (not 2) leaving N/A at the bottom ascend and descend and then at the top ascend and descend. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. So you're happy to have that col sort four ways? Seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Personally, I think it is better to sort ascend/descend with N/A at the bottom for bother, after all it is non-applicable. On the general concept of 4-way sorting I think this other list is greatly advantaged by 4 way sorting. So if your opposition remains can you let me know if it is on 4 way sorting in general or just in this case. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting again. I think I would have noted that odd sorting if I'd been alert enough! I'm not comfortable with four-way sorting in a column, and it may set a precedent that we'd need to all be happy with. I can't recall using any other mainstream software where sorting up and down results in more than exactly two results. But is it a problem if it does? I'm not sure, other than I wouldn't expect it to happen that way... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a real need for the Gold record (Disc) col if they're all Yes? Or is this in keeping with other similar lists where, perhaps, the answer is mixed?
- It is, it also explains those erroneously awarded a disc. Additionally a 1960s record could have become a million-seller recently and wouldn't of been awarded an award then. Sources on this are very slim. The BBC suggests The Archies may have gone to actually sell over a million anyway (but that might be a mix up due to the awarding of a gold Disc). I discovered List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK recently, it is supposedly based on the BBC show but is sketchly sourced. I can remove the column if you wish. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think if you can replace the column with relevant prose preceding the table then I'd do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've replied to or addressed each of the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - May I ask why you don't include the symbol's in the table yet do so in the key? Afro (Talk) 23:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. I thought I'd already added them. I also corrected some vandalism whilst fixing this. Thanks for that, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - That was the only issue I had with the list, it all seems good to me. Afro (Talk) 06:49, 7 November 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.