Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 23:45, 17 December 2010 [1].

List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom[edit]

List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So here we go. I'm really quite proud of this (not sure why). Revamped from former state to where it is now. Hope you enjoy the read and any comments are greatly appreciated. Only query is the name (which is inherited) but haven't come up with anything substantially better. Perhaps List of million-selling singles (UK) or List of million-selling singles in the UK, much less wordy but bit less precise. Hopefully you'll let me know your opinion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The opening sentence is a bit abrupt, and it doesn't really introduce the list.
  • "At the start of the century" --> "At the start of the 21st century"
  • "nineteen singles released in the prior century" --> "nineteen singles released in the 20th ::century" -- both for clarification
  • For both of these I deliberately didn't use that. Mainly because the 20th century ends on 31 December 2000 but I think that the source actually means before 2000 (i.e. 31 December 1999) reflecting a fairly common misapprehension, I believe. Any suggestion? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Robson & Jerome entry says just that, the other, their full names. I don't think they were ever credited with "Green" and "Flynn"
    • Actually their first single was released under their full names - see here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes single covers dictate it is correct as is [2][3]. I was going to correct to Robson & Jerome to match Wikipedia, but then the OCC credits both to Robson Green & Jerome Flynn[4]. The only consistent thing seems to be the ampersand. Suggestion? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time right now for a complete review. Hopefully I'll be able to do one later though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Sad to see the influence Simon Cowell has had on the charts! I count 10.
Twice so for Bleeding Love. Matt Cardle's performance of Bleeding Love on The X Factor gave the original a 58.5% jump in sales week-on-week and put it over 1 m. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested revisit 25 Nov and on 30 Nov without reply. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice work. Opening paragraph is a bit choppy and picture of Diana is not really needed (Elton John would be more appropriate). I agree the title is overlong, I would prefer List of million-selling singles (UK). Other than that, good.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you for your comments. Hopefully I've addressed or responded to them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "A million-selling single is regarded as one that has sold over one million copies in the United Kingdom" not true, it's not just in the UK that "a million-selling single" means that. Done
  • Could you consider linking "platinum" to "record certification"?
  • "million" features nine times in nine sentences in the lead. Repetitive.
  • Give Disc a little intro (e.g. "British popular music magazine Disc ...")
    • Went for periodical (per the mag vs paper issue I've discussed before) and without "popular" for NPOV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973, Disc introduced an initiative in 1959 ..." hey?
    • Whoops. A fragment from when I was going to start with the BPI awards (1973). Good spot. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be controversial, but I thought ENGVAR (for Brits) would say that disc should be disk?
    • May be adoptive usage but Media Week seems to use disc (Sorry a PDF was the first thing I found) Also wiktionary notes a "c" is used for optical media (e.g. CDs) and thus it had become common usage in recent times (just like ize is the correct OED spelling but we now see it as an Americanism). As an Englishman "disc" seems more correct here. Not sure why. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put (BPI) you-know-where. Done
  • " 2 × platinum" - prose so why not "double platinum", "triple platinum" etc.? Done
  • BBC Position singles which aren't i that list should have an em-dash (or something) rather than just a grey background.
    • Lazyness. With an mdash or n/a, the cells don't sort properly on multiple clicks and I thought greyed out might be a valid substitute instead of 100 nts templates; I'll get on it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "(Everything I do..." list alphabetically first?
  • "Notable omission". Always get twitchy when there's a section called "notable... something-or-other". I'd cover this in the lead. And I wouldn't bullet-point a single item.
  • Note 2 - can you make refs in numerical order? No longer an issue
  • Some "spaced hyphens" in the references. Done, wasn't sure if we preserved original title typographics or not.
  • BBC Radio 2 is a publisher while BBC News is a work. Why? Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments as always. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belive it is all done. Can I ask for on a opinion on the name (Tuzapicabit and Matthewedwards differ). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title... "List of United Kingdom million-selling singles" is my choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you on this as MoS allows UK. Additionally, it's been the status quo at List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK) etc. for a while. Anyway with three different opinions I'll wait to see if anyone else has anything to say. Hopefully all other issues are resolved and let me know if not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that UK is allowed in the title, but this is a "pretty unique" list, so I don't see a problem with it being the way I suggested. Anyhow, no great shakes, let's see what the consensus is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went for a rearrangement of yours (as that could mean UK singles that have sold a million in the US, say). Have spelled out United Kingdom with redirect for UK. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you double-check the BBC ref for "Blue Monday"? It says "Although it sold half a million copies it didn't get a Gold disc...", but nothing about over 1 million sales.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, maybe the positioning of the ref was misleading and I've moved it. That ref just references the explanation of why they weren't awarded gold/platinum discs. The million sales is referenced three fold – the two general refs and by the inclusion on the BBC top 100 million sellers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd feel more comfortable if the list was retitled something along the lines of "List of singles certified as selling more than one million copies in the UK". Anything to play up the actual relevance of the number, and its acknowledgment as noteworthy in of itself. Otherwise, this page could technically be nominated for deletion for being based around an arbitrary subject (there's nothing more notable about selling a million copies of a record than there is about selling 1,098,376 copies). Make it explicitly clear from the outset that this is an actual threshold acknowledged by the British music industry, rather than a number that gets a list just because it's a nice big round one with lots of zeros at the end. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the lead where the second sentence explains the historical significance of 1m. The name will be changed it is just a question of to what. Each user above has made a different suggestion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph doesn't establish that one million copies sold is a notable threshold in of itself. Furthermore, the "History" section gets into unnecessary discussion about the breakdown of UK certification levels and best-selling singles in the UK (only mentioning why they're relevant to the list in a few cases). The best rationale that you have that a million copies is a noteworthy benchmark worth cataloging in list format is the sentence "The highest threshold is "platinum record" and was then awarded to singles that sold over 1,000,000 units". Still, that only goes up to 1989, and then it'd be better to title the list "List of singles certified platinum in the UK before 1989" if you were going to categorize by that threshold. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful to try and establish notability with "the seven-figure mark has retained its importance"[5] where the Beeb describes it as the all important million mark. Furthermore, surely notablility is covered by tertiary reliable sources covering the subject [6] and The Official Charts Company also regard it as notable. Are you actually suggesting this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that the page needs to make it clearer that it isn't. Right now it assume too much before getting onto business. Furthermore, why is it "the all important million mark" in the first place? Establish that in the page, because it's integral to this list being around, much less reaching FL status. The way I see it, it's part a source issue and part a prose issue. Until my concerns about the list are addressed in the article, I'll have to oppose. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency. Two following posts took place on talk pages [7][8] but it was requested all discussions were kept here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right well you are sticking your guns and I don't understand some of what you ask so can we discuss parts of it here. You ask why is it "the all important million mark", Well as Caroline Westbrook wrote it only she can answer. I can conjecture (like I have tried to in the lead e.g. previous platinum threshold) but of course it does have something to do with being a nice round number – it is no coincedence that all music sales classifications are nice round numbers ending in five zeroes. However, we both know I can't put my guesswork up there so what do you want me to do. The sources are, IMO, fairly good considering what information is information. I hope I'm right in sensing you are not actually opposing on notability but playing devil's advocate in that perhaps the notability can be made clearer in the prose – please tell me if I'm wrong. Can you assist me with this as million-sellers are not "certified" by the OCC (as far as I know) in the sense that they are given anything (in a gold/platinum disc) kind of way. As far as I know, it is just a notable landmark that is announced and discussed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I hope I'm right in sensing you are not actually opposing on notability but playing devil's advocate in that perhaps the notability can be made clearer in the prose – please tell me if I'm wrong". This is pretty much it. I like asking the hard questions about things that are taken for granted. For the benefits of the FLC, it's best to keep all discussion on the FLC page, so that other editors may view it. I can provide feedback on your progressing efforts, but I can't personally help right now with tracking down sources, as I have an FARC to deal with at the moment that's my main priority. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed this [9]. I asked the user to revisit on 25 Nov and again on 5 Dec with no reply. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Just a point - some of the dates seem to be a little off at first glance, but perhaps they're listed in one of the refs? "Bright Eyes" released in January 1979? "Wannabe" in 1994? and Robson and Jerome seem to have gone double platinum before they went platinum? Also, just checked "Merry Xmas Everybody" and sure enough BPI say it went platinum in December 1980 (which in itself is strange considering that the chart entry of it that year was a completely new recording, but I digress) but you have put 1985 (five years later) as passing one million. Perhaps that needs a specific ref, where did the 1985 date come from? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every date is ref'd. As noted (except where explicitly marked) the release date comes from BPI. So do the platinum dates. The million-selling dates (unless referenced otherwise) are from the two general references. As for the Robson & Jerome case, I fixed it. It went 1x & 2x platinum on 1 May 1995 (the 8 May 1995, present before, was the release date). You noted that some of the platinum dates seem "a little off". If you notice, most were orignally just awarded at the beginning of the month. Also, you may ask how a single can be classified platinum before it was released (e.g. the R&J case you pointed out). As I've referenced and pointed out in footnote one that's because sales for the BPI are based on shipments whereas the million sellers are not. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the biggest thing that stared me on the face was "Wannabe" with a 1994 release date. Not sure where you found that date, but having looked it up on BPI it does say 15 July 1996, which is what I would have roughly guessed.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good eagle-eyed spot. I'd also made this mistake in the 1990s list and seemed to copy it across. No idea why I should make such a mistake (it seems I'd inserted the release date for Stay Another Day!?). Fixed and thanks again, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking good and well referenced. Can't spot any other errors, so I Support the nomination.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • What makes everyHit a reliable source. There have been several discussions of this site at FAC, and I've never seen it declared reliable.
    • They source check submissions: "Please quote your source as we're keen only to print factually accurate information and may need to check it." and has been discussed in NME, Reuters, and The Times calls it a "reference source" alongside publications like allmusic and cricinfo which are widely considered reliable here. Personally I'd say he was an expert in the field and qualified as a WP:SPS. Removing it wouldn't make too much difference. Dates of these "millionth sales" aren't widely publicised and I think the extra reference helps support the information. It also gives an occasional discrepancy with OCC (not surprising). One example being Bilk's "Stranger on the Shore": OCC says 1961 but eH says 1962 which also corresponds to Disc's Gold award which was given on 13 January 1962. For complete disclosure (as far as I know) eH only solely references "Torn" and "Wonderwall" being 2007 million sellers. Unless another source could be found (and you still called for eH removal these would change to 2004–2010s. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quote in the discussion here isn't nearly so encouraging, I'm afraid. I really don't think this is a source that should be used in any featured content (or good content, for that matter). This may cause a few inconveniences, but to me to the reliability of a page's sources is more important. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. That general ref is no longer used. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's still one inline cite to everyHit, which is reference 49. Not sure what you want to do about that one, but I don't see anything more to comment on after this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Didn't know I'd used another everyHit page inline. Anyway replaced. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Summer capitalized in the first paragraph?
  • History: "Such inaccuracies led to the instigation of offical classification system." Feels like "the" or "an" is missing after "of".
  • "Band-Aid released charity-record 'Do They Know It's Christmas' in response to the famine in Ethiopia". Should "the" be placed before "charity-record"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made the requested grammar tweaks. No opinion yet on everyHit. Jujutacular talk 22:43, 8 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_million-selling_singles_in_the_United_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=1089913374"