Talk:List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999 is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts articles
Is there anyone you know that may oppose? I'd like to know, so that I could notify them about this discussion.--Crzycheetah 03:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see you notified User:Jaespinoza. I notified other users who have written these types of featured lists. I don't know any who are definite opposers, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for including me on this chat, since I spent months taking all those lists to FL status. I think is a good idea, but, what about the FL status?... You want me to merge them? If a merge them... they will be FL?... 1993, 1994 and 1995 is one list, 1996, 1997 and 1998 is another and.. 1999 is the last one. Three diferent FL lists, I do not want to lose my rank. I was thinking to merge the lists for the Hot Latin Tracks, since I have been working on article for every single (as I did for every album featured on the lists for the Top Latin Albums). Jaespinoza (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we have no opposition in the next 5-7 days, then we can start merging these lists. As for the FL status, all three will lose their bronze stars, since they will not exist anymore. The newly created page will have to be nominated again at WP:FLC, but I don't think there'll be a problem for it to pass. As for your ranking, I'd say quality is better than quantity, don't you think?--Crzycheetah 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nice to see you again Jaespinoza! The truth: yes, you will lose featured lists this way. However, to be brutally honest, I think it is more important to have the information be more accessible to readers than for you to preserve your "rank" (no offense intended). You will get one FL for the 1990s—when the articles are merged, you deserve to be a nominator for all your trouble taken to find the information and organize it. I also think this should be done for the 2000s articles, but we're in no hurry. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are right... but this is very sudden!!! Let me do the hard work, please!. Let me tell you why. The lists for 1993-1995 and 1996-1999 are not arranged by date, and I have the original lists (week by week), since we are following the fine example of the UK list (which I am following for the Hot Latin Tracks lists). Very nice to talk to you both.Jaespinoza (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry at all. I for one would like to see a draft of the merged article before making one decision or another. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I did the vast majority of work on the List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) article. I am not opposed to keeping all three of the articles, particularly with the hard work that has been put into them, but equally I feel the way I edited the UK page allows for better organisation of the information. Feel free to copy the format from my FL if you decided to go ahead with a merge.
Do you think we should have a single page for each decade for all notable charts?03md 09:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of precedence and the page 1993-1995 and 1996-1998 seem random. Perhaps 5 chart years in each page would be fine if one decade is too much. --Efe (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a merged list would be beneficial to readers, and believe that factor to be what is important. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 10:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on a draft for the merge. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been over a week already, I just made a rough draft in my sandbox (link). You can make any changes you want. It just shows how the table looks.--Crzycheetah 18:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been busy with other project. I read your draft, and it is not acurate. If you allow me, I will work on your draft to make it right. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! It's just a draft anyway --Crzycheetah 06:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys!. This is the draft for the merge, I think is ready, but I want your feedback before I send it to FLC. I hope you like it, it is located on my sandbox: User:Jaespinoza/Sandbox. The name of the list will be "List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s." Jaespinoza (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me! Before nominating that list, we need to go through WP:FLRC for the other lists. I'll start nominating the smaller lists for featured status removal, if you don't mind.--Crzycheetah 05:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support But why is the letter "a" from "Albums" capitalised? I think it shouldn't be, but anyway, I support the merge. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think there is any need to merge. The by-year format makes a lot more sense and I think a 10-year span is just too large for an article. The List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK) and the above-mentioned "late 90s Latin albums" (horrible article title, by the way) are the only "number-ones" lists I've seen formatted this way — all others, for albums, singles, different countries and genres, etc. — are by-year, and many of them are featured lists. Why change this one set of number-one albums to conform to the UK article? The by-year formatting (to me) makes more sense anyway as it presents the information for each week in a much more organized way and there is a fixed length of time for each article (52 weeks) which won't lead to articles that bunch together 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 years based on the whim of whomever is creating the article. Leave well enough alone. - eo (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be too late though—two of the lists have been delisted already, and the merged version is at FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, that's a shame. Merging a perfectly-fine, properly-sourced set of articles makes zero sense in this case. - eo (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the "by-year" lists would violate 3b. They're organized, chronological, and sourced. Work has been underway for leads to be written into many of them (particularly the Hot 100 ones), as well as placing the info into tables instead of the older formatting... I think that's a better way to improve them, rather than grouping together entire decades, which actually look more confusing and cluttered to me. - eo (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
