Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s/archive2

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s[edit]

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has improved a lot compared to its last FLC. A lot of work has been done on the lead and on the tables, solving a user's issues that remained unsolved last time. I believe the list is largely ready for FL status. Thank you in advance for comments! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa[edit]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. Is {{dynamic list}} really the right template? {{complete list}} seems more appropriate to me.
    It makes sense! Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. According to reports, radio and television broadcasting has gained popularity in Romania in recent years, resulting in increasing revenues for the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Company (SRR). – the attribution is vague and the text has MOS:RECENT issues. The relevance of this is also not immediately clear to me.
    I removed this from the lead. Since information on the chart's history/records etc is hard to find on the internet, I thought of expanding the lead with a fact about the overall airplay situation in Romania, but it was indeed a little too vague. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recent years – again, MOS:RECENT issues.
    Reworded for the better (I hope). Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    the label repeatedly had one of each year's most radio broadcasts with different songs from their catalogues is a bit confusing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it clearer now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better, but not entirely clear. If the point is that they have had at least one song each year, I'd write "the label has had songs reach number one every year." TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the sentence again, but your suggestion would be wrong, since what I want to say is not that their songs reached number one on the year-end charts, but rather that they were ranked (maybe) in the top 10 that year. Hope my correction does it now, otherwise I may get some help from another user. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would "Every year, the label has released songs that have gone on to be featured on the list." be correct? The current phrasing is a bit trivial. TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For 2012 and 2013, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website were taken into consideration. – I'd like you to explain this to me in more detail.
    Media Forest is the one who provides mesured airplay data to Kiss FM, who weekly publishes the chart. They also yearly publish a year-end chart, which however wasn't the case in 2012 and 2013. For these years, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website have been taken into consideration in this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. {{dagger}} is preferable to "+" because it allows for WP:ALT text. Similarly, the {{hash-tag}} at the bottom of the table should have "current number-one song" as alt text.
    Done... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There should not be column headers in the middle of tables, see MOS:DTT.
    Worked on the table in accordance to the table presented at MOS:DTT. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What is the purpose of the "No." column?
    It is useful for knowing how many number ones there have been in a chart's history. Also, it is listed by Wikipedia at MOS:DTT, so I think it should remain. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "re" in the "No." column is unexplained.
    I've added Abbr templates to all "re"s existing along with an explanation of the abbreviation. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Should the "Weeks" column not be called "Weeks at number one"?
    Yes, indeed it should... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The "Weeks" column does not sort two-digit numbers correctly.
    I do not really understand your point here. To me, they are sorting correctly... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem seems to have been with the mid-table column headers. Anyway, it works now. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The 19 February 2017 edition of the Airplay 100 was either not published or not archived. – was it not just preponed to 17 February?
    I really don't know, but I think it's the safest to say it was not published or archived. I can reword it if you want me to. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Why are some entries in the table followed by a reference and most are not?
    These are third-party sources from Unsitedemuzica.ro, a reliable source that reports about the chart almost weekly starting with October 2016. These have been encouraged in the past FLC of this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The default sorting of the "By artist" table is odd to me. It seems to be by number of Number ones, and then alphabetically. To me, weeks at number one is a more logical tie-breaker.
    The "By artist" table should remain a list of the artists with the most number ones (as used by several other record chart lists). The "Weeks at number one" was just some extra information on these five artists with the most number-ones, but it was somehow redundant, since they're not all part of the artists with the most weeks at number one. I would avoid, however, to do such a listing, since that could change weekly and could result into errors. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. There should be some text for the "By song" table which explains that it counts the total number of weeks at number one, unlike the first table which counts consecutive weeks at number one (because otherwise the reader is likely to think the table redundant).
    I've added a note on the subject matter. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that merging this list and Airplay 100 (Romania) should be considered, considering the latter is a stub. TompaDompa (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a national chart, the Airplay 100 is worth of having its own article, even if a stub, but we can discuss that with other users if you want to. I also think that this list is somehow big and should not be merged into the Airplay 100 article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support TompaDompa (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from A Thousand Doors[edit]

I really don't think that that Year column is an improvement. For one thing, it's entirely redundant – the Reached number one column already states the year. We tend not to have rowspans in sortable tables anyway, given how they break up unappealingly whenever the table is sorted, and then can only be remerged by refreshing the page. Adding an extra column bunches up the contents of other five (see how "Ain't Nobody (Loves Me Better)" and "Niciodată să nu spui niciodată" are now split over two lines, for example), and the visual separation between consecutive years is now considerably less clear (it's basically just one thin line in the Year column).

I know that this table is complying with the "good" example given in MOS:DTT, but that example was added by one user following very little discussion (in the fact, the discussion was between just two editors, one of whom was me). I'll bring up the issue on the talk page there, but, if there are no replies after a week or so (and there probably won't be, nobody's edited that page in over three years), then I'm just going to be bold and remove the "good" example, and suggest that we try to come up with an alternative solution for this article here. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors: Hi! I now removed the year column alltogether, as I realized it is superfluous since we have the dates each item reached number one. It would be a good idea to clarify the Manual of Style entry, since it could be helpful for editors wanting to improve other lists. Best regards! Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: Was a consensus reached in the subject matter? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's hasn't been any response. For this article, it may be best to omit the year-breaking rowspans from the table entirely until a solution has been reached that meets MOS:ACCESS. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z[edit]

Resolved comments from --Lirim
Comments
  1. Reached number one can be easily changed to Issue date. The charts are issued on sunday so e.x. 26 February 2012. Issue sounds more formal than reached.
  2. Weeks at number one I'm personally not a big fan of columns that are way too big. The current could easily fit 10 numbers, but the maximum ist two. I would recommend an abbreviation like Wks.. It looks better and the top of the table won't be unnecessary wide. --Lirim

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)
*Quick comment to kick things off and remind me to come back later: the images down the right hand side are huge and should not be that large. Use the "upright" parameter instead of a fixed image size -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now use the 'upright' parameter for images! Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider an image in the lead?
DONE! Is it okay like this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of its launch on 26 February 2012, the Airplay 100 is broadcast each Sunday" => "Since its launch on 26 February 2012, the Airplay 100 has been broadcast each Sunday"
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chart was preceded by the Romanian Top 100—which was also based on airplay data and had a similar compilation[4]—and replaced it after its cancellation in 2012" => "The chart replaced the Romanian Top 100, which was also based on airplay data and had a similar compilation, in 2012"
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 2010s, more than 70 singles reached the number-one position on the Airplay 100" => "During the 2010s, more than 70 singles have reached the number-one position on the Airplay 100 as of [whenever]"
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moldavian musical project Carla's Dreams with six number ones, followed by Romanian recording artist Andra and Smiley with four each" = > "Moldavian musical project Carla's Dreams with six number ones, followed by Romanian recording artists Andra and Smiley with four each"
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Are You With Me" by Lost Frequencies (pictured in 2016) was 2015's most plays on Romanian radio and television." => ""Are You With Me" by Lost Frequencies (pictured in 2016) was 2015's most played on Romanian radio and television."
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " For 2012 and 2013, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website were taken into consideration" - I don't really get this bit. Where did the data for other years come from if not from such lists?
Media Forest is the one who provides mesured airplay data to Kiss FM, who weekly publishes the chart. They also yearly publish a year-end chart, which however wasn't the case in 2012 and 2013. For these years, the year-end charts published on Media Forest's website have been taken into consideration in this article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you clarify this in the article, as otherwise people will be asking (as I did) where the information for 2014, 2015, etc came from......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I tried to clarify this. Is it understandable? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I have responded to your comments. Many thanks for your time! Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_Airplay_100_number_ones_of_the_2010s/archive2&oldid=859586966"