Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s/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 02:31, 22 October 2010 [1].

List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s[edit]

List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another chart, this one is not the most famous list of UK number-ones in the 1960s but it was the most widely followed of the decade. Confused, then read the list. Thanks in advance for all comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Feels a bit weird to say it but shouldn't it be "popular music" (and linked) in the lead rather than just "pop music"? Done
  • "The Beatles had eighteen number-one singles on the NME chart, one of which never topped the Record Retailer chart." odd caption. Perhaps missing an "only" before the "one" to make it properly logical? Done
  • British vs United Kingdom. Not sure if this is a can of worms but....
    • From United Kingdom: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain)..." Think it's okay as is, I'm from the United Kingdom but I'm British (there is no United Kingdomish to my knowledge). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth linking Guinness?
    • To? This was my problem. Guinness is just about the stout (not the company that did World Records etc.) however linking to Diego seems odd. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sixteen songs failed to reach number one with Record Retailer but achieved the feat with" reads a little odd to me, like achieving the feat could be misconstrued as being to fail to reach number one. Done
  • Sorting by Single name I get ( first which is a little odd!
  • In the key, you have BRMB in italics but in the lead you don't.
  • "duration of the number-ones" odd turn of phrase, you don't list how "long" the number-ones are, just how long they were number one... if you get my drift!
  • What makes "davemcaleer.com" a WP:RS?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I believe I've addressed or responded to each comment. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (a couple more)
  • "began life" do we need life? Removed
  • "began... began..." repetitive. Reworded
  • Perhaps worth linking Guinness as it's quite unusual.
  • "was the first single to have a number one" why not "first single to be number one"? Done
  • "Kenny Rogers first number-one" apostrophe needed here. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I've done all those with the exception of the Guinness one. You asked this in your first comments. Can you re-read my response and get back to me with a suggested link if you think it needs it. Thanks again, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I remember now! It was a couple of weeks ago, and at least I'm consistent (on this occasion...) I think it's okay, as you say it's not quite the right link after all. If you don't consider British Hit Singles & Albums to be a relevant pipe either, then leave it unlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think piping as Guinness' British Hit Singles & Albums is not the best, espececially, when the article title is present verbatum. I could remove the "Guinness'" but it is there because the citation refers to the book as the "Guinness Book of Hit Singles" (and I think the corporate affiliation is important because that is how I at least, probably others recognise the book). So I'd prefer it to remain present. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| Also there's uncessary redlinks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MOS mentions no such think. Note that is in the Help space not the Wikipedia space as a guideline. This is something dreamed up as an WP:ACCESS idealism (reminds me of alt text) and is clearly not feasible for complicated syntax tables like this. This has repeated headings too which cannot to my knowledge be handeled properly. Also have your read WP:REDLINK? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a little more thought and less haste to reject would be nice here. WP:Wikitable is the approved code for wikitables. WP:ACCESS is part of the manual of style so its not something 'we' dreamed up. Then changes I am asking to be made (of which I will facilitate help with examples) are necessary because they make things accessible. The whole point of accessbility is it improves an article's readibility by calibrating wikitables for Screen Reading and Assistive Browser software. Such changes are necessary so that users hard of sight, color blind users and users of no sight can still access/read/use articles. It is not an idealism rather it is consideration for those who are less able than you or I. This is hardly complicated syntax compared to discographies. But then if WP:DISCOGSTYLE can comply why can't lists like this? There is no massive ask here. For some more background on the situation see WP:ACCESS and this. I urge you to keep an open mind and actually consider what's being asked instead of judging a book by its cover. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted comments for now... its fairer since I would like to see a mass change that I am making notes on the featured list talk page instead. Sorry for the disruption caused. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:33, 19 October 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_NME_number-one_singles_from_the_1960s/archive1&oldid=1090424575"