|
Its established. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my late reply. That's a very good idea to created a WP for records charts. I taught of an suggestion, I don't know if it's possible but how about a separate Wikia for records charts? There some wikias for various things like South Park for example http://www.wikia.com/wiki/South_Park and perhaps the record charts could desserve their own Wikia --Sd-100 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I founded a Wikia titled the Music Wikia http://music.wikia.com and I posted a discussion at their music hub http://music.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Music_Hub if we could post the records charts in their Wikia or creating a separate Wikia for it. I taught of this idea because some records charts who was listed here (Brasil Hot 100, Argentina Top 40) was deleted and maybe we could re-introduce them on another Wikia. --Sd-100 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just got a anwser about on their discussion topics, and we could post about the records charts on the Music Wiki --Sd-100 (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the articles listed within List of number-one hits (United States) don't have the actual references in the article. I was about to go tagging them as unreferenced when I noticed the parent article says those refs apply to the child articles. In any case, it's always preferable to cite page numbers when possible... I understand this would be a significant undertaking, but it would definitely improve the quality of those child lists in my opinion.
Additionally, it is worth noting that those child articles aren't listed as part of this WikiProject... —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now listed on the project. --Efe (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, do we have a previous discussion over which to prefer? --Efe (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) is currently a FLC, the name is not consistent with the some other FL lists, as most start with List of. I strongly suggest you change the names of the number-one hits, not only in the United States, but every country, and start all the article names with List of. (ie. Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) --> List of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)) Though minor, I, again, strongly suggest it. Happy editing! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 06:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of agree. I love consistency. --Efe (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as me. Another example: List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one disagrees by Saturday, I'll personally change all the names of the lists. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 review me 06:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. I'll try to contact active members. For the mean time, if you have comments on the candidate, please add it on the FLC page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem with the name change(s). Just be careful with the wording of 1940-1957 years ("Hot 100" did not exist yet). - eo (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. --Efe (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the consistency. This will be a nice encyclopaedic way to archive all the list of singles together. But we have to be careful with the changes and their reflection in all the pages they are linked. "Legolas" (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree totally. — Realist
2 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
← I see no problem with the renaming at all. Attack err, rename the articles. DiverseMentality 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree. It should be noted that it is a list, was the first thing the reviewer told me when I submitted the lists for the Top Latin Albums, which are now 12 featured lists. If you need any help, I am happy to colaborate. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree only if the change include all charts: Top 40 Mainstream, Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs, Pop 100, etc, etc. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, due to consistency purposes.TRUCO 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we going to move them now? --Efe (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I say we should. Very soon, a wave of these lists will be promoted to FL status. We need to make a decision before then. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally forgot about this. Was busy trying to finish a topic. I can't do this myself, so could some users help me on this? I'll be doing the Canadian ones. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, there is a concern raised by Indopug on the FLC page. --Efe (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please seriously stop spreading that horrible busy format!!! 167.206.75.157 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I have moved the above comment which was incorrectly placed right in the middle of the non-related thread above. That said, please do not blatantly revert the changes that have been made, 167, before gaining consensus with other editors. Your recent edit to Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States) was reverted. - eo (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you direct me to some debate over table Vs. lists? These tables are really horribly designed and with the pictures dominated the right side of page it makes the page look ridiculous and the pictures the most important part as well as the analysis of the year before the songs! Where did this crap come from?!? 63.3.22.1 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Constructive comments are better than unhelpful rants. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems as if these pages are going to be changed no matter what anybody thinks and if you disagree with my criticisms ( horribly designed and with the pictures dominated the right side of page it makes the page look ridiculous and the pictures the most important part as well as the analysis of the year before the songs! )they will be called rants. 167.206.75.157 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that these pages have "suddenly" been reverted repeatedly with accusations of "no discussion" (within hours of each other) by 167.206.75.157, 63.3.22.1 and User:Billhits, some pages have been semi-protected for now. More protection may be needed if this continues. - eo (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we remove Be Black Hole Sun from the members list. The community won't be letting him back. If by some miracle error of judgment he is unblocked, he can always add his name back. — Realist2 18:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From my POV, I say yes.--TRUCO 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, will remove. — Realist2 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
