Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK)/archive1

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 Giants2008 20:26, 2 April 2011 [1].

---

List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK)

List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK)/archive1

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at writing a FL, so please forgive me if I am making loads of elementary mistakes. I am nominating this for featured list because I have checked it against the criteria and one or two other FLs on similar subjects, and I believe that it currently meets them. The UK Indie Chart receives far less commentary than the singles and albums charts, so there isn't quite as much to say about it, but I have tried to make the lead as informative and engaging as possible. I have also tried to use as many online refs as I can find, but quite a lot of the number ones are cited using back issues of the the magazine ChartsPlus as offline refs. I hope that this is okay. A Thousand Doors (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments firstly, welcome to FLC, nice to see you here. Concerned over the list title. This is, to be precise, "List of UK Indie Chart number-ones (2009)" or something, rather than the very non-specific title you have! Hmm... Looking at the titles of some featured lists, it would look like "List of UK Indie Chart number-one singles of 2009" would best follow the current format... Official Charts Company needs a "The" as part of the correct title for it. Fixed. " for qualification on the indie chart" is it better to say "qualification for the indie chart"? Changed. "fifty per cent " -> "50%". I'm more than willing to change that, but my understanding of MOS:PERCENT is that "per cent" should be spelled out in full in the main body of the article. Am I misreading that? "and the new chart went live on 29 June 2009." so what precise criteria were applied for all those number ones for before that date? Hmm, that's a good question... I'll look it up. Found, added and cited. A Thousand Doors (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) "having obtained silver certification" with which certification body? Added. Holiday is overlinked. Fixed. "also include a" included. 2009 is in the past. Changed. "While going through a divorce..." not relevant, but if it stays, it must be referenced. Removed. You're right, it's really not relevant. Notes aren't notes, they're mainly references, so that needs to be renamed. Fixed. I've changed the section header to something that I hope is more appropriate. Check titles of references for hyphens - we use WP:DASH (part of the WP:MOS) so spaced hyphens should be spaced en-dashes. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much for your advice! A Thousand Doors (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments – I'm not familiar with how the record charts are published, but are they actual magazines with articles and such? If so, aren't page numbers needed for the respective magazines? As ChrisTheDude has said below, ChartsPlus doesn't really contain any articles as such – it's really more of a collection of each week's UK record charts in a PDF file. Throughout 2009, the UK Indie Chart was listed on page fifteen of ChartsPlus. I thought that it might be a little superfluous to put "p. 15" or similar in every single shortened footnote, so I just added the page parameter to the general ref at the top of the References section. If you think it would be clearer to the reader to put the page number in the shortened footnotes as well, I'll happily add them. A Thousand Doors (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC) "per cent" should be one word. My understanding of MOS:PERCENT is that, since this article is written in British English, "per cent" needs to be spelled out as two words. But, if I'm wrong about this, I'll change it. A Thousand Doors (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC) "of" missing from "making it the longest-running indie number one the year". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Dunno how I missed that... Thank you very much for your feedback! A Thousand Doors (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC) ChartsPlus is not a magazine as such, rather it's a PDF emailed out each week to subscribers containing all the OCC's charts and basically nothing else...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose CFORK. The list has no other information than dates, name and artist. Being such a bare list, I see no reason not to merge it into List of number-one indie hits of 2000s (UK). The product would have somewhere between 100 and 200 entries, without any extra details => completely manageable. Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but why is that not also true for, say, Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.), Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003 or Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)? To be honest, I actually think that combining all the charts into one huge chart could conceivably work well, but I've got no information about what singles were number one 2000–2005, so the list could be largely incomplete. A Thousand Doors (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I will go ahead and nominate those for FLRC. If there are no reliable sources for 2000-2005, then simply get an article for 2006-2010 or something like that, and say that no sources are available before then. Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.