Talk:List of number-one singles in 2008 (New Zealand)

	New Zealand portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
	This redirect is supported by the New Zealand music task force.

Record Charts

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

Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of number-one singles in 2008 (New Zealand) was copied or moved into List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Album Photos[edit]

Are the album Photos necessary because i find they take up to much space and are just really annoying anyway please comment on why/why not this should be kept/not kept. Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table format[edit]

Which table format would the article be better of with?. The one currently being used in the article, or the table which User:Laydan Mortensen has created to be used in the article? JayJ47 (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note: Most of the other lists of the number-ones for New Zealand are listed in this format. This format is also much easier to read. JayJ47 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the recent edits made to the table format because a concencus has not yet been reached. I am asking for other editors to come here and discuss which table format would be more appropiate. SJPH (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the newer version is easier to read now I have made some changes. The only change I am planning to make is to merge together multiple cells, and emphasise New Zealand Songs in the charts. At the moment it looks messy with consecutive cells containing the same data.

If we agree, the first few rows of the table will look like this:-

Week	Artist	Title	Album
6 January	Leona Lewis	"Bleeding Love"	Spirit
14 January
21 January
28 January	Flo Rida featuring T-Pain	"Low"	Mail on Sunday
4 February
11 February
18 February	Chris Brown	"With You"	Exclusive

Leave any messages for me on my talk page please.

Thanks, Laydan Mortensen (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about we use this format instead as shown below:

Week	Artist	Title	Album
January 6	Leona Lewis	Bleeding Love	Spirit
January 14	Leona Lewis	Bleeding Love	Spirit
January 21	Leona Lewis	Bleeding Love	Spirit

and so on. What do you guys think????? JayJ47 (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me - maybe not so wide, and with a contrasting title bar. I would also like to be able to differentiate between international songs and New Zealand songs, maybe by highlighting the New Zealand songs (not that here are any at the moment).

How about this :-

Week beginning	Artist	Title	Album
January 6	Leona Lewis	Bleeding Love	Spirit
January 14	Leona Lewis	Bleeding Love	Spirit
January 21	Leona Lewis	Bleeding Love	Spirit
28 January	Flo Rida featuring T-Pain	Low	Mail on Sunday

Laydan Mortensen (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...... I think the album is a bit too close to the song. However I do agree with you, on the table i suggested. The columns are too far apart but i'm not sure how to fix this. How about you try and fix it? JayJ47 (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JayJ47, I know what the problem was. All you have to do was reduce the width down from 100% to a percentage like 60%. Laydan Mortensen (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you guys think we should do?. I think its best that we choose one of the tables you guys have suggested. Both look fine to me, but i'd like us all to come to the same conclusion. SJPH (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think i'll leave it up to you, Laydan. I'll be happy with whatever you choose. What do you think SJPH? JayJ47 (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with the latest table - at least it is cleaner than the one we had. I'll convert it over now. Laydan Mortensen (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new table looks great. Good job. JayJ47 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply guys!! I've been busy with school work. Yea up to you laydan. Good job with the new table!! SJPH (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]