I am nominating this for featured list because I happened to notice that Rambo's Revenge (talk·contribs) had got it into a pretty good state before apparently going inactive, and it only needed a few tweaks to meet the criteria. I have listed Rambo's as a co-nom even though he has not edited for several months. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments - thanks Chris for finding this and bringing it here, despite Rambo's absence. Personally, I miss him here, so it's nice to see you promoting his work as a collaboration.
General question: Not to be confused with Top Pops? Is this Top Pops worthy of an article? If not, is it worthy of a list of its singles?
I'd say a national newspaper/magazine is probably notable. I have created an article on it....
Consider linking "single".
"The charts and paper became weekly..." -> "were published weekly..."?
Any idea where the samples were being taken? London? England? Britain? UK?
Source doesn't say, sadly
Middle para is interesting, but not really specifically related to this list, right?
I think part of it is relevant in explaining the relationship between the various charts around at the time and what is now considered "official", so I have trimmed some "fat" and merged it with paragraph 3......
"The Official Charts Company" is just the "Official Charts Company".
When you sort the table, the "mid-headings" all bunch up, which makes them pointless.
Hmmmm, the same problem seems to exist for all the existing lists of number ones which are FLs, but I can't figure out how to fix it. I don't think they're actually necessary for a list as short as this one, so I have removed them.....
Apologies to TRM and others for a prolonged absense due to real-life time constraints (something I can't see changing imminently). Also thanks Chris for doing a good job with the final polish and taking it through FLC - there might be a couple of others not far off too.
Only point of note is that, by removing those intermediate rows before the contents of years becomes broken as the internal table anchors no longer exist.
Finally, these extra headers were removed because "|class="unsortable" no longer seems to work. It used to fix a row and make others sort through/around them. Had I the time, I would love to chase this up as I see this as a detrimental loss of functionality that does affect many other lists. Any list people know why this was made, or can identify where (Meta etc.) and if it was, perhaps, a mistake.
Cheers Thousand. After 5pm today I'll be off WP till Monday morning, but if you review the article in the meantime I will respond to any points as quickly as possible upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope, the wife for some reason wouldn't agree to be taken there for her birthday ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments I think this list still has some way to go before it reaches FL status. I've made some alterations here; please revert if I've made things worse.
I think one of the biggest problems with the list is how many red links there are. Given how short the list is, four's quite a lot. It would be better to have them just link to stubs rather than redlinked, especially since three of them also appear in the lead.
Two fixed, turns out they were just linked wrongly
The list currently doesn't meet MOS:DTT requirements – scopes are needed for each column and row.
I've mentioned above how MOS:DTT suggests a way to visually separate each year in the chart without mid-table headings – not a FL requirement or something I'd oppose over, but just something to consider if you'd like.
I had a look at that, and as far as I can see the table looks OK initially, but once you sort on any column the span breaks down into loads of rows which would all say, for example, 1969. Personally I think that would look silly and would rather not go with it. I don't think it's vital that the list be visually separated into years, personally....
There are couple of things not mentioned in the lead that I assumed would be, like how many singles topped the chart in total (55, right?). It may also be worth mentioning that "Mony Mony" was the only song to return to number one.
I think it would be simpler and neater to make the key a table, rather than its current state.
Song names that begin with "The" need to resorted under the second word.
WP:ISBN suggests using 13-digit ISBNs rather than the 10-digits ones. For Forty Years of "NME" Charts, this would be 978-0-7522-0829-9.
Since the ♦ symbol is only used for "Young Girl", it may be easier to just add a [nb 2] note to the song, which explains that it was number one for four weeks because it topped two fortnightly charts.
Many thanks Thousand, all done bar the DTT stuff, which is new to me (not been around FLC much for a while) - I will have to read up on how to do all that jazz, and will get it done over the next few days. Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the row scopes would need to go before the Singles cells, as that is what the list is of. I also think it needs to be !scope=row rather than scope=row. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"(Call Me) Number One" needs to sort under C.
Since Rolf Harris's song was number one before Deep Purple and George Harrison, I personally think it might be worth moving his photo above theirs.
Would it be worth highlighting which songs topped the Top Pops chart but not the Record Retailer chart (which is considered canon for dates before Feb 1969)?
Done (nice and easy - there weren't any AFAICS)
The caption for the Robin Gibb image says that "Saved By the Bell" didn't top the Record Retailer chart in August 1969, but by then the BRMB chart was canon, wasn't it?
I'm not sure how you can get a colour to overlap the scoped row cells. In my opinion, this list isn't in a drastic need for row scopes, I'd be happy to see just col scopes implemented unless there's a genuine fix out there.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to remove the row scopes if there's some sort of consensus that it's OK to do so..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)