Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Top Selling Rhythm & Blues Singles number ones of 1965/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Contents
List of Top Selling Rhythm & Blues Singles number ones of 1965 edit
List of Top Selling Rhythm & Blues Singles number ones of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent FLC was the list of US number one R&B singles of 1963, so naturally here I am next with the equivalent list for 1965. Huh? Don't worry about it, nobody who didn't work for Billboard c.60 years ago understands it either, but there you go. Anyway, feast your eyes on the host of all-time classic songs that topped the chart in this particular year and please feel free to offer your feedback on the list..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14 edit
- Very minor (somewhat nitpick-y) suggestion, use
{{nowrap|million-selling}}, along with other hyphenated words to avoid line breaks, for those who use different display resolutions or mobile devices. - released on the Detroit-based label -- should it be released under the Detroit-based label?
Nothing to quibble. Another great read and work as usual. --Pseud 14 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: - done. I am British and in this country we say that a record was released "on" a label. But maybe "under" is the norm in the states.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, there's something new to learn everyday :) It could be a case of me reading music articles written in American English and its prevalent usage. If this is written in British English then that is acceptable. Either way, nothing from stopping me to support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 / Source review edit
- For File:The Temptations 1968.JPG, would there be a way to change the source link to go to the page with the image? Right now, when I click on the link, it goes to page 12 and not page 7.
- The source links for File:Marvin Gaye 1966 (cropped).jpg do not work for me, and besides, I think it is always better to use something other than eBay for this sort of thing. I have the same comment for File:The Supremes 1966.JPG.
- Should black be capitalized in these two instances: (mainstream success to black music) and (one of the most influential black musicians of all time)? I am genuinely unsure so that is why I asked.
- For Citation 1, I would italicize Billboard as it is referencing the magazine, and items like that should be represented accurately even in citation titles.
- I need a subscription to see Citation 3 so I would mark that on the source. I have the same comment for the Billboard chart sources as I can only see the top spot (which is fine in this context), but to see the full list, it is saying it is only available to Pro subscribers so that should be made clear as well.
- Richie Unterberger should be linked in Citation 8. Same for David Browne in Citation 3
- For Citation 10, I think the title should just be (Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs 1965) as that is what appears on the top of the archived version of the article. I took out the stray semi-colon after R&B as it seems like a typo, but I would not be opposed to keeping it for complete accuracy. The current citation title does not really match with the article.
- While this is not required for a FLC, I would strongly encourage you to archive citations to avoid any potential headache with potential link rot and death in the future.
.jpg){kind=link}
I hope this review is helpful! Since I have brought up points regarding the sources, I will do a full source review (i.e. spot-checks, etc.) once the above comments have been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: - thanks for your review. All done bar "
to see the full list, it is saying it is only available to Pro subscribers so that should be made clear as well
- not sure how to indicate that.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]- In that instance, I would recommend marking the citation as requiring a subscription, as done for Citation 3. It seems like there is a limit on how many free articles Billboard allows users to see. I was able to look through a few of these lists without issue and then the subscription pop-up appeared. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do other citations on en.wikipedia to Billboard mark it as "subscription required"? I don't remember seeing these but I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) I did some searching because it seems like an interesting question. I haven't seen a single case of "subscription required" (for charts like these) ... and that includes two FAs, for BTS and Meghan Trainor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of that, the site does require a subscription, and I cannot access the entire list without a subscription. When I click on the source, all I have access to is the number one spot, and while that is appropriate for this list, the source is still not fully accessible to individuals without a subscription. I know that there are some instance where subscription websites like Billboard seemingly require subscriptions for only certain parts. For instance, I can click on the Billboard articles in the Meghan Trainor article without needing a subscription to view the full thing. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit scared about how fast some rules are changing on Wikipedia, and what that may do to the cohesion of the community. Some of the changes, I'm sure, are just because things are changing in the world very fast, maybe too fast to keep up. We'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an instance of the rules changing on Wikipedia. As I have said above, for one of the examples you mentioned, the Billboard citations are not hidden behind a paywall or a subscription like in this case. This is less a change in Wikipedia rules and policies as the subscription template is not new, but more so a reflection of how more websites are adopting a subscription model for their content. Billboard has a rather clear FAQ page saying that this "Billboard Pro" subscription is for weekly charts so it makes sense that these charts would fall underneath that. While I do understand your concerns, I do not see how this is an example of this. In my opinion, this is straight-forward. A citation requires a subscription to access a full page so it should be marked as such. Again, this subscription template is not new. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit scared about how fast some rules are changing on Wikipedia, and what that may do to the cohesion of the community. Some of the changes, I'm sure, are just because things are changing in the world very fast, maybe too fast to keep up. We'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of that, the site does require a subscription, and I cannot access the entire list without a subscription. When I click on the source, all I have access to is the number one spot, and while that is appropriate for this list, the source is still not fully accessible to individuals without a subscription. I know that there are some instance where subscription websites like Billboard seemingly require subscriptions for only certain parts. For instance, I can click on the Billboard articles in the Meghan Trainor article without needing a subscription to view the full thing. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do other citations on en.wikipedia to Billboard mark it as "subscription required"? I don't remember seeing these but I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) I did some searching because it seems like an interesting question. I haven't seen a single case of "subscription required" (for charts like these) ... and that includes two FAs, for BTS and Meghan Trainor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- In that instance, I would recommend marking the citation as requiring a subscription, as done for Citation 3. It seems like there is a limit on how many free articles Billboard allows users to see. I was able to look through a few of these lists without issue and then the subscription pop-up appeared. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the response. Apologies if I was being annoying or too forceful with this. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. This also passes my source review. I did a spot check and everything passes. The sources now all have appropriate structures. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47, Dank, and ChrisTheDude: Following up on this - Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required gives a more precise answer on the question of source restrictions: if you can access a site for a few pages but then need to register to see the rest, then you can use "|access=limited". Not sure when that got added as an option, but it fits this case. Wiki-wide use of the access parameter is a bit spotty, and I don't think not using it or using "subscription" instead of "limited" is an opposable offense by any means, but in terms of being perfectly accurate, there you are. If there's a bot that does these (I know there's at least one that runs around adding "|access=free" to free journals) then it would be best for a wiki-wide run of setting billboard to limited rather than getting ChrisTheDude to go back and edit a hundred+ lists. --PresN 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Aoba and I discussed this on their talk page, and we agreed that asking for edits to previous lists would be too much. "access=limited" sounds great to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: Apologies for my late response. I am currently taking a wikibreak. I raised this point during my review because the citations should accurately represent the sources. If a subscription is needed, then it should be marked as such. I agree that the "limited" version should have been the one I suggested, but I had honestly forgotten about it. In my review, I did not bring up how this would affect other Wikipedia articles or lists, and I did not request that anyone go back into their FAs or FLs. That is a completely different conversation. I noticed that I could not access the full source, and I do not see any issue with bringing it up as part of a source review as that is the point of doing one. I did not oppose at anytime in my source review. I simply waited until the sources were accurately represented in the citations. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for any mistakes on my part. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to apologize as I would not consider it a mistake. It is good to have these types of discussions, but I just do not see why pointing this out when a list is up for review would be an issue. That being said, this is not really the appropriate venue for that and I do not want to take away from the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it was an issue; I tried to make that clear, but maybe I didn't. I said that if we're living in a world where Billboard and other companies are changing the rules frequently, in a way that requires literally millions of references to be changed (on Wikipedia and elsewhere), and if we're expecting writers to do all this manually and on demand, then we might be creating a John Henry (folklore) problem. (John Henry won the contest against the machines, but killed himself from overwork in the process.) If we're living in that world ... and increasingly, we are ... then we need to give more thought to using bots to fix these problems. That was what I was talking about. Sorry if I was confusing; I have no problem with anything you did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (I'm not talking about the burden on individual editors here, I'm talking about the total burden faced by the editing community as a whole.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I got your point, but it is not relevant to my source review or this FLC. I raised a point about the citations could more accurately represented the sources to an editor who nominated a list at the FLC process where it is expected for reviewers to provide these types of suggestions. Again, I never even remotely said or suggested editors changed this across Wikipedia or in their past work. I do not know why that even became a topic of discussion, particularly after I had already completed my source review.
- All I did was point out areas of improvements in the citations, which seems standard for a source reviewer. Apparently, I did not do it correctly. This honestly just feels like attacking or belittling my source review, and to be blunt, it does put me off from doing any more in the future. I am going back to my WikiBreak so I said above, I think it is best to just end the discussion here as the focus should be on the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it was an issue; I tried to make that clear, but maybe I didn't. I said that if we're living in a world where Billboard and other companies are changing the rules frequently, in a way that requires literally millions of references to be changed (on Wikipedia and elsewhere), and if we're expecting writers to do all this manually and on demand, then we might be creating a John Henry (folklore) problem. (John Henry won the contest against the machines, but killed himself from overwork in the process.) If we're living in that world ... and increasingly, we are ... then we need to give more thought to using bots to fix these problems. That was what I was talking about. Sorry if I was confusing; I have no problem with anything you did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (I'm not talking about the burden on individual editors here, I'm talking about the total burden faced by the editing community as a whole.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to apologize as I would not consider it a mistake. It is good to have these types of discussions, but I just do not see why pointing this out when a list is up for review would be an issue. That being said, this is not really the appropriate venue for that and I do not want to take away from the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for any mistakes on my part. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: Apologies for my late response. I am currently taking a wikibreak. I raised this point during my review because the citations should accurately represent the sources. If a subscription is needed, then it should be marked as such. I agree that the "limited" version should have been the one I suggested, but I had honestly forgotten about it. In my review, I did not bring up how this would affect other Wikipedia articles or lists, and I did not request that anyone go back into their FAs or FLs. That is a completely different conversation. I noticed that I could not access the full source, and I do not see any issue with bringing it up as part of a source review as that is the point of doing one. I did not oppose at anytime in my source review. I simply waited until the sources were accurately represented in the citations. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Aoba and I discussed this on their talk page, and we agreed that asking for edits to previous lists would be too much. "access=limited" sounds great to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47, Dank, and ChrisTheDude: Following up on this - Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required gives a more precise answer on the question of source restrictions: if you can access a site for a few pages but then need to register to see the rest, then you can use "|access=limited". Not sure when that got added as an option, but it fits this case. Wiki-wide use of the access parameter is a bit spotty, and I don't think not using it or using "subscription" instead of "limited" is an opposable offense by any means, but in terms of being perfectly accurate, there you are. If there's a bot that does these (I know there's at least one that runs around adding "|access=free" to free journals) then it would be best for a wiki-wide run of setting billboard to limited rather than getting ChrisTheDude to go back and edit a hundred+ lists. --PresN 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the response. Apologies if I was being annoying or too forceful with this. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. This also passes my source review. I did a spot check and everything passes. The sources now all have appropriate structures. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dank edit
- Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. I added a comma; other than that, all good. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
- 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
- 6. It is stable.
- Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NØ edit
- "The song was one of a number of the year's chart-toppers to be released under the Motown label" - "The song was among numerous of the year's chart-toppers to be released under the Motown label" or something simpler might work as well.
- "Marvin Gaye, the Supremes and the Four Tops also reached the peak position in 1965" - to make it clear this is about #1 peak positions only, this could maybe be "reached the summit" or "reached the top of the chart"
- Just two nitpicks from me. Great list and the image picks complement it well. If you have some time, I'd greatly appreciate your input on my new FAC. Hope everything's going well!--NØ 16:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @MaranoFan: - second one done, first one not done because "numerous of" is not a grammatically valid expression -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.