Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s/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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 21:15:15 5 May 2019 (UTC) [1].

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s

Featured list candidates/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s/archive1

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list on the songs that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, arguably the most notable record chart in today's music industry, throughout the 2000s. Comprehensive, detailed and well sourced, this list is up to FL criteria in my opinion. I look forward to comments, HĐ (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

Change chart date to Issue date. Chart date sounds more like the period the charts are compiled. The charts are issued on the date.
Weeks at number one could be abbreviated as Wks. with Template:abbr. The column is quite large for 1 and 2 digit numbers. <- goes for all tables
Looks great otherwise.--Lirim | Talk 05:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of abbreviating "Weeks" I did so with "Number one". Otherwise everything's done :) HĐ (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue I see in the table is the old syntax. align="center" – Old version; |style="text-align:center;" – New version :: Shoul be replaced everywhere--Lirim | Talk 06:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter (I think the latter is the old syntax anw, how can one tell which one is new and the other is not)? HĐ (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Old syntax still works, even though I'm not a fan of it. Overall great list.--Lirim | Talk 00:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92

I was about to say that I appreciate that the list consolidates the decade much more efficiently than individual year lists, but then I realized there are lists for every year as well. I'm really confused, why do we need this article and List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000, etc. duplicating the exact same content? If we can have a featured-quality article that effectively gives every number-one hit for the 2000s, there should absolutely not be articles that show the exact same information with no additional content.

The list for the 2000s decade summarize the chart data for the decade overall, while respective lists for years elaborate further on music trends/statistics of that year only. For instance, the 2004 list mentions the rise of urban music with specific data on chart entries, and the 2005 list contains information on successful artists of that year that is not very significant compared to the decade as a whole i.e. Kanye West. Hope this helps :) HĐ (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a "Trends" or "Genres" section would be a great way to discuss various genres! A single paragraph there doesn't justify the duplication of the list itself, and the last sentence applies broadly to several years. The info about artists like West isn't exactly additional information, it's just selected facts from the table in prose form. The decade list is still welcome to include year-specific mentions (A sort of "Highlights" section would look great even). Reywas92^Talk 08:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think for a list on chart data the discussion of genres or music trends should serve only to provide readers a glimpse, as the in-depth discussion can be found in 2000s in music; therefore I'm hesitant to add a separate section analyzing such subject matter. "Highlights" can be seen from "Statistics", I believe. HĐ (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1990s's -> 1990s'

I think the usage of the apostrophe here is correct per Oxford Dictionary. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I guess that's a fair interpretation of whether it's singular or plural to begin with but actually I'd suggest just "1990s" as an adjective modifying "trend"

"accumulating...spent..." should be parallel

Done

acts -> act

Done

over -> at least

Done

Reywas92^Talk 05:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the comments, HĐ (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Allied45

Have not done a full review, but a quick glance shows the table does not meet WP:ACCESSIBILITY due to the column headers in the middle of the table for each of the years. Allied45 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks so much for the crucial issue, HĐ (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I have done a wider review and have the following further comments:

Justin Timberlake is not linked in entry #938
All images need WP:ALTTEXT
Make the "Titles" column unsortable for the "Artists by total number of number-one entries" (sorting the multiple artist singles is pointless)

Looks good though! Allied45 (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. Thanks for the comments! :) HĐ (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Allied45 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

I agree with Reywas92. This fails section 3a of WP:FLCR. The subject of the lists are identical (i.e. coverage of Hot 100 number ones in the 2000s just over 10 different pages instead of just one). That has to be resolved. The other issue is that there are no secondary sources. Primary sources should be used sparingly and to add context. Per WP:PSTS, analyses "must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Without reliable secondary sources, that's all this is. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to Reywas92 above, this list encompasses statistics for a ten-year duration incl. artists with the most number ones and similar subject matter, while lists for respective years focuses on the trend/data for that year only. And analyses in this list are not my analyses as you claim, they are done by editors of Billboard, who themselves analyzed the data on the Billboard charts. Not sure if secondary non-Billboard sources provide any in-depth analyses at all, but so far the result has been futile. Furthermore in this case I won't describe Billboard as a "primary source", because the articles already elaborate on the chart trends, stats, etc. HĐ (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are the list of number ones of the 2000s and the list of number ones in 2000, which represents 1/10th of the years represented in the former. By summarizing the key trends and chart info from both sets of lists, either could reasonably be included as part of the other. That can be decided upon by consensus. Yes, "the articles already elaborate on the chart trends, stats, etc." which are discussed in Billboard, the primary source of this info. So Wikipedia is synthesizing the material Billboard provides about their own charts. It's well written and looks great, but it doesn't meet the criteria for FLs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "primary source" the way you think it is; "primary sources" are sources from which raw/unprocessed data/info are provided. Thus the purpose of "secondary sources" is to explain/interpret the data/info. Billboard being primarily used here does not necessarily mean it is a "primary source". And Wikipedia's articles all synthesize available information on the internet/in books, so I don't think it's a big deal. Regarding this list and lists for separate years, I'm having second thoughts and will come back to resolve prolly after a week or two. HĐ (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for withdrawal @Giants2008: I would like to request for withdrawal for this FLC, to resolve the issues concerning this list and lists for respective years, raised by two commentators above. Thanks so much in advance, HĐ (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 21:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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