Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)/archive2
- 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [1].
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)[edit]
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Efe
- Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because, as another former featured list, it appeared really straight-forward to fix. It was demoted after nobody paid much attention when it was nominated for delisting. Having looked at four further WP:FLRCs identical in nature, it was clear this could be easily fixed. And it was... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I may be incorrect and I haven't reviewed for a while, but isn't this list just essentially nine items. My memory may mislead me, but I thought we went over to number-ones by decade not individual year. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I haven't opposed this as I realise I may be out of the loop). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, there have been list for decades, but I can't recall us stating it was the only way to do it... I guess it isn't our unwritten "ten items" but that's kind of unusual for a chart to have only 9 number ones in 52 weeks, so I'm wondering if this confers some notability which may supersede the minimum number of items issue. It was only delisted a month or two ago, based simply on the lack of references, hence my re-nomination... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did some digging. The only precedent I could quicky find is a for a smaller single year list here which failed FLC, then these were merged into 3 year groups and promoted here but after that a merge discussion gave consensus to make decade lists and the groups of three year lists were delisted. Have there been single year promotions since this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet Dabomb will know the answer to that. Incidentally, that list had just five distinct items so wasn't even a borderline case for FLC... I think groups of three years were an easy (and arbitrary) get-out. Most, if not all of the other Hot 100 lists meet the unwritten rule easily, it would seem a little odd if this one couldn't be at least thought about.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree and I've messaged Dabomb, the Latins were much shorter and definitely arbitrary in their threes. I just happened to know that the UK number one FLs are by decade and was wondering why and if it's worth trying to make all formats consistent (which is always asking for trouble). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely worth the discussion. The merge Latin list had a total of 36 items for 10 years, at a quick stab, it looks like a similar Hot 100 decade (2000 to 2009) would have something like 130 items and could easily hit over 500 references.... perhaps a decade is a little too much for this chart? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that 500 refs would take way to long to load up but, playing devil's advocate, could this be used to reference generally like Guinness hit singles is for the UK lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be more useful if it had been published later than 2003....! But something like that (if it were up to date) would be more useful, and may reduce references down to a more manageable 130+... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, good spot. On a similar vain this Billboard source categorises by decade (to 2008) which might be useful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, good link. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, good spot. On a similar vain this Billboard source categorises by decade (to 2008) which might be useful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be more useful if it had been published later than 2003....! But something like that (if it were up to date) would be more useful, and may reduce references down to a more manageable 130+... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that 500 refs would take way to long to load up but, playing devil's advocate, could this be used to reference generally like Guinness hit singles is for the UK lists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely worth the discussion. The merge Latin list had a total of 36 items for 10 years, at a quick stab, it looks like a similar Hot 100 decade (2000 to 2009) would have something like 130 items and could easily hit over 500 references.... perhaps a decade is a little too much for this chart? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree and I've messaged Dabomb, the Latins were much shorter and definitely arbitrary in their threes. I just happened to know that the UK number one FLs are by decade and was wondering why and if it's worth trying to make all formats consistent (which is always asking for trouble). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet Dabomb will know the answer to that. Incidentally, that list had just five distinct items so wasn't even a borderline case for FLC... I think groups of three years were an easy (and arbitrary) get-out. Most, if not all of the other Hot 100 lists meet the unwritten rule easily, it would seem a little odd if this one couldn't be at least thought about.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did some digging. The only precedent I could quicky find is a for a smaller single year list here which failed FLC, then these were merged into 3 year groups and promoted here but after that a merge discussion gave consensus to make decade lists and the groups of three year lists were delisted. Have there been single year promotions since this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Rambo's Revenge is right. In fact, since that 1990s list was promoted, we have not had any record chart lists promoted, let alone a single-year chart. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, RR may be right that no list has been promoted, but I'm not sure we all agreed that "decades lists" were the only possible solution here. If we did, can someone point me to that specific discussion. While this list may just drop below the unwritten ten-item requirement, there are several other Billboard FLs for a single year with plenty more than 10 entries. How could they possibly fail the FL criteria right now? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an opinion either way. I'll look into the pros and cons of years vs decades when I do my next batch of reviews, which will probably be at the weekend. But can I suggest that the success/failure of this be tied to the current FLRCs? It seems odd to me that those ones could be kept by default, yet this one not promoted by default. As I say, I'm reserving judgement for a few days, but at a glance they're all of similar quality. WFCforLife (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm keeping those FLRCs open for this reason; hopefully enough editors pitch in so that consensus forms before I have to close them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One problem I have with all this is that at least two of those FLRCs don't currently fail any criteria (objectively and since they contain more than the mythical "ten items") so preventing them from being kept wouldn't make any sense. If we need to add a criterion that says "7. No single-year chart FLs are allowed" then that's a different discussion, but right now those FLRCs with ten items or more can't really be removed as a result of failing any of our current criteria. Just because a bunch of smaller lists were merged, it didn't set a precedent suggesting no more single-year chart lists could be promoted, did it? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi everybody. I am the "latin guy". I've been checking this nomination and since I been through several revisions and opinions about the record chart lists (1 year, 3 years, decade), I was wondering if we can have a 'consensus' to work with this lists, as I'm writing articles for each song included Top Latin Songs lists and arranging them on decade-long lists in order to nominate them, (as I did with the list below). What should I do?. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One problem I have with all this is that at least two of those FLRCs don't currently fail any criteria (objectively and since they contain more than the mythical "ten items") so preventing them from being kept wouldn't make any sense. If we need to add a criterion that says "7. No single-year chart FLs are allowed" then that's a different discussion, but right now those FLRCs with ten items or more can't really be removed as a result of failing any of our current criteria. Just because a bunch of smaller lists were merged, it didn't set a precedent suggesting no more single-year chart lists could be promoted, did it? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm keeping those FLRCs open for this reason; hopefully enough editors pitch in so that consensus forms before I have to close them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an opinion either way. I'll look into the pros and cons of years vs decades when I do my next batch of reviews, which will probably be at the weekend. But can I suggest that the success/failure of this be tied to the current FLRCs? It seems odd to me that those ones could be kept by default, yet this one not promoted by default. As I say, I'm reserving judgement for a few days, but at a glance they're all of similar quality. WFCforLife (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a wider proposal. This meets all the other criteria, 3b is disputed. In disputes with the content of an individual article or list, the normal procedure is to restore the status quo, temporarily cease action, and start a wider discussion. Given that we're unlikely to acheive consensus between The Rambling Man and a small number of reviewers (some supporting, some opposing), I see no reason not to do the same here. The status quo is that these were Featured Lists. I therefore propose that this is promoted, the related FLRCs are closed as keeps with no prejudice to re-nomination in future, and we simultaneously start an RfC. I see no harm in us taking our time to get this right. I also think that an RfC would be less of a drain on the FL process than bringing special attention to this FLC in the closure log, while also having four identical FLRCs open. WFCforLife (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably will close the FLRCs tomorrow unless someone comments there between now and then. However, I don't feel that it's necessary to circumvent the FLC process and "speedy-promote"; we might have fresh reviewers find issues on this list that nobody else had noticed. If this list meets the FL criteria, it will eventually accumulate the support needed to promote. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note Even though this FLC garnered a support, I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of this. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 3 or 4 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 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.