Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.)/archive1

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 archived by SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [1].

List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.)[edit]

List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... it documents each and every US Dance Club Songs number-one single of 2014. The lead high lists artists who have achieved the most chart toppers throughout the year, as well as other chartings, records, and achievements. Illustrated with as many images as the length of the list/article will permit me to include. All references are formatted and linked to each week of the chart on the Billboard website.  — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 3b. While some FLs still exist on yearly lists, I don't see a reason not to merge such singles list by decade. Splitting them by year is not necessarily informative and does not attract interest from anybody asides its creators. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Links to yearly lists are placed on articles which have reached number-one though in the See also section. Having a decade lists would make an article far too long, and makes it harder for people to search.  — Calvin999 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As is, does not pass WP:NOTESAL: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are no 3rd party sources at all, not to mention that the topic in general (number-one dance songs) is not typically discussed as a group in independent reliable sources. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't get much better than Billboard.  — Calvin999 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Billboard publishes the chart; therefore, not independent of the information. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no one else publishes this. We use Billboard for all chart tables in articles, and it's not a problem at GAN or FAC, so I don't see how it's different here. Billboard is a reliable source and it's data collected by Nielsen BDS and Nielsen Soundscan. Billboard is the compiler. For the Billboard articles, they are writers who write for the magazine. I don't agree that this is a problem in any way. Billboard is the best and only way to reliably source U.S. charting.  — Calvin999 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're not understanding the point. The fact you state no one else publishes this is a problem. Billboard is the publisher of the chart, so of course it is going to publish the information, Is the chart mentioned in third-party news outlets? Is it notable outside of publication by Billboard? If it isn't then it fails 3b. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for your evaluation of my capability of understanding, but I think you're missing the point. All music articles use Billboard for everything US chart related. Weekly charts, year end charts, chart history, news reports, etc. Billboard the most reliable source you can get when it comes to US charting info. No one else publishes it because everyone trusts Billboard, that's not to say other media outlet won't comment on something extraordinary, like number-ones or new records. Are any of you even familiar with how music articles are researched and written?? I completely reject this nonsense. Billboard is welcomed at GAN and FAC, so I don't see how this is different.  — Calvin999 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not missing the point at all. The fact that Billboard is the sole publisher referenced is a massive problem. I understand music articles will use Billboard, that's not the point, the point is that they will have 3rd party sources discussing them as well. The fact that this list does not is an issue. As it infers that the content is not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. The fact that you can't offer one independent source documenting the list infers that this should not be a standalone list. It's not a question of what happens at GAN or FAC, it is simply measuring this list against the criteria, that is all. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, they don't. They use Billboard, because that's the sole provider. It's not a massive problem at all. You won't find many chart performance sections which use anything but Billboard for US charting info. It doesn't matter if you have a yearly list or a decade list as suggested above, the sources will be the same. Clearly, the criteria you speak of is useless and outdated. (You only use Masters and a few BBC out of less than 10 refs on List of Masters Tournament champions, notice it wasn't a problem there......)  — Calvin999 23:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it do you. The fact that the Masters has refs from more than ONE publisher is indicative that it is notable. The Masters is also discussed in multiple media outlets rendering the list notable. Is that the case with this list? That is the question, it's on you to prove that it is. Stop getting so defensive it's doing yourself any favours. NapHit (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you propose I source who was number one each week? I'm open to any of your suggestions, if you can produce any. I fail to see how I can source who was number-one and any records or achievements if I can't use Billboard. Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat.  — Calvin999 10:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've answered the question yourself here: "Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat" which suggests the chart isn't notable. I'm not saying you can't use Billboard, just that if you can't produce independent sources that mention the chart then it indicates it's not notable per our guidelines. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This chart is the main Dance chart in the United States, it's not a component. It's been going in various form since the tracking of club plays in the 1970s. That makes it notable. Madonna has 46 number-ones on this chart, more than any other artist on any other chart in US history. Not commenting on something major goes for all US charts, not just this one. Your earlier statements implied that I couldn't use Billboard, which is why I asked how you expected me to source who is number-one each week. Billboard is the only source for that with regard to the table itself.  — Calvin999 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added third party sources Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars  — Calvin999 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tried making contact with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars multiple times on his talk asking him to revisit, as I've done all he asked, but I've had no response despite his online activity.  — Calvin999 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 18:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Consider making the Song and Artist(s) columns sortable.
    • For this kind of table which is in date order, I don't think it's suitable.  — Calvin999
  • Ref. → {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • [[Kesha]] → [[Kesha|Ke$ha]] she changed her name subsequent to the tracks release.
  • "Never Say Never" is indicated as the best performing track of 2014, I'm confused. None of these tracks peaked at #1 for more than one week, "Never Say Never" didn't even enter the Hot 100, and with songs like "Fancy" and "Dark Horse" up there, how did this out perform them? It may also be worth noting your answer in the article, because I'm sure I'm not the only one a bit stumped.
    • Because not all songs get the same amount of plays. For example, if a song reaches number-one in five weeks, it's clearly had more plays than a song which reaches number-one in ten weeks.  — Calvin999 08:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This just requires a source which should be found in the year-end recap edition of Billboard. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't need to source why it is the best performing track. On the Hot 100, the number-one song of the year doesn't necessarily sell the most. Airplay comes into it as well.  — Calvin999 15:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did't say you need to source why, but you need to source where it says it is the best performing track of the year. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have, it's a link to the 2014 year-end chart.  — Calvin999 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "


Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the concerns raised about 3b, the list has no 3rd party sources verifying its notability. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive it then, don't waste my time.  — Calvin999 23:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the only non-opposing contributor, Calvin, don't take it so personally, but at the same time, don't act as if people here are "wasting your time", when all's people are doing is giving their opinion on an FLC you submitted. I would've supported had my comments been addressed, and I imagine other editors would have seeing as lists in similar condition to this one have also been promoted. Azealia911 talk 23:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps that one is a candidate for featured list removal. There are plenty of 3rd party sources that discuss number ones on the Hot 100, very rarely these smaller genre charts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Perhaps so, I guess I'll leave it up to you to decide to FLRC it or not. Azealia911 talk 01:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Azealia, I will get to your comments today.  — Calvin999 07:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste my time. Get a grip will you, do you expect everything you nominate to get passed without any criticism? It's the nature of the process, work is going to be criticised don't take it personally, because if you are then you are wasting your own time. On that list you mentioned @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, it actually has some refs from third party sources, which indicates notability. That was the issue here, so I think it would survive an FLRC, but that's just my opinion. NapHit (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So 4 out of 20 refs being non-Billboard indicates notability?? When they are in effect saying the same thing as Billboard anyway?  — Calvin999

Again you're not getting it. The chart is mentioned by sources independent of Billboard, yes that indicates notability. It's irrelevant that they say the same thing as Billboard, the fact the chart is mentioned in independent news outlet is what is important. If you can produce sources of that ilk for this list then I would have no problem striking my oppose, until then I stand by it. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added five non-Billboard published sources.  — Calvin999 11:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • We don't start lists with "This is a list of..." anymore so that needs to be addressed and the statement is false anyway as it doesn't list every number on the chart, just those for 2014
    • You've added that sentence which is good, but nowhere in that ref does it state that the chart is compiled by reporting DJs around the country. NapHit (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Click on "More" on the webpage.  — Calvin999 17:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remixed by Syn Cole and Manufactured Superstars, amongst others..." well who were the others? Why are they not important enough to mention, but the other two are?
  • I think a sentence on what the chart is would be helpful for a bit of context for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter
    • Dance club songs should be unbolded. MOS states to avoid bold links. NapHit (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The singer collected three more chart toppers..." not keen on the use of the word collected, or consistent use of chart-topper. Perhaps, Perry achieved a further three number one singles during the year.
    • Typo in this sentence now. NapHit (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Iggy Azalea and Dave Audé collected..." collected again, doesn't sound encyclopedic at all
  • "Remixes by Fedde Le Grand and Gregor Salto of Mariah Carey's "You're Mine (Eternal)" garnered the singer her seventeenth number-one song; "Someday" became her first in 1991." This sentence doesn't read well at all. Firstly is it remixes or remix? As the song is only listed once in the table. The bit at the end just seems to have been slapped on without any thought of how to integrate it into the sentence. Needs to be rewritten.
    • It's remixes, as its more than one. There are often up to 10 remixes of one song, of which all plays of all the remixes count toward the weekly tally. "Living for Love" for example had more than 10 remixes.  — Calvin999 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enrique Iglesias' song "Bailando" featuring Descemer Bueno and Gente de Zona became the singer's thirteenth number-one, making him the male artist with the most chart-toppers." I think this can be worded better, change to Enrique Iglesias became the most successful male artist in the chart's history, with his thirteenth number-one "Bailando", featuring Descemer Bueno and Gente de Zona.
    • Hmm but having the most number-ones doesn't necessarily make you the most successful, does it? I don't know if that's blurring the lines slightly.  — Calvin999 16:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that's what you are implying with this chart, does he or does he not have the most number one's as male artist? Anyway, the sentence reads better now, but you need to include that it was his thirteenth number one to qualify your statement. NapHit (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • He does have 13 and is the male with the most. But what I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily make him the most successful, as success isn't just measured by number-one's. I've added 13 now.  — Calvin999 17:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became the former's sixth and the latter's twenty-second number-ones in April, respectively..." you don't need respectively when you stated former and latter already
  • "Zhu's song "Faded" topped the chart on December 20." Is this a particular reason why this song has been singled out in the lead? Doesn't really seem to be any purpose for it in there, except to flesh it out.
    • I've added that the magazine thought it was surprising that it took three months to reach number-one.  — Calvin999 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Never Say Never" by Basement Jaxx became the best-performing track of the year, ranking atop the Dance Club Songs 2014 year-end chart." In what way was it the best-performing track of the year? Qualify the statement with evidence.
    • The first sentence now explains how the chart works, so I've amended this sentence to match that. Different charts rank differently according to which method the song is access. This is from DJs playing songs, airplay charts are from radio, digital charts are from downloads, mainstream charts are often a combination of airplay, sales and streaming.  — Calvin999 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason for the key to be 90% font size and not 100%
  • I think the table would benefit from being sortable as well, allowing users to sort by song and artist
  • What makes AXS and contactmusic.com reliable sources? also the link to AXS goes to a disambiguation page
    • AXS is run by Anschutz Entertainment Group which is owned by The Anschutz Corporation, a private company which owns multiple newspapers. Contactmusic.com is a partner of Channel 4 and owned by Amazon, and employs freelance writers.  — Calvin999 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Addressed all. NapHit  — Calvin999 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "PAINKILLR" by Erika Jayne" comma at the end
    • In this sentence: "PAINKILLR" by Erika Jayne became her seventh consecutive number-one on the chart. ? Why would you put a comma after Jayne here?  — Calvin999 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel a comma is defintely needed either after Painkiller or Jayne. NapHit (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading it out loud with a comma in either place just doesn't sound right. It's awkward. It's such a short sentence it doesn't need a clause.  — Calvin999 17:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still feel this needs a comma, as you are starting the sentence with an interruption, even an argument that one after painkiller and one after Jayne is needed. NapHit (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added two commas, just one is an unnecessary break in flow.  — Calvin999 22:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
  • "Perry achieved a further three number one singles during the year. – "Dark Horse" featuring Juicy J, "Birthday" and "This Is How We Do" – the latter becoming her record-extending fifteenth consecutive number-one" – a lot of things are wrong with this sentence, such as the full stop after "the year" and the sentence after the dash.
  • "Beyoncé was one of three acts to top the chart three times" – is Beyonce an act?
  • "beginning with "Blow", then "Partition" and "Pretty Hurts", the latter becoming her twenty-second in total" – "latter": second or last?
  • "Iggy Azalea and Dave Audé achieved three number-ones, the former with "Fancy" featuring Charli XCX, "Black Widow" featuring Rita Ora and "Booty", a collaboration with Jennifer Lopez" – use a semi-colon instead of comma (after "three number-ones").
  • "PAINKILLR", by Erika Jayne, became her seventh consecutive" – don't capitalize the song's title even if it's stylized this way.
  • "latter's twenty-second number-ones in April, placing Rihanna second only to Madonna for the most entries" → "latter's twenty-second number-ones in April, making Rihanna the second artist with the most entries after Madonna".
  • "ZHU's song "Faded" topped the chart on December 20" – the article's title is "Zhu", not "ZHU" regardless of stylization. Would suggest you do the same.
  • "A writer for Complex was surprised that the song" – what makes it so necessary to mention "a writer's" opinion.
    • Because I was told include third party opinion. See comments above.  — Calvin999 08:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Never Say Never" by Basement Jaxx became the most-played track of the year from" – is charting at number-one at year-end chart automatic indicator of being the most-played track or is it mentioned in a source?
    • This chart is based on DJ plays. It has nothing to do with sales, streams or radio airplay. It purely based on a national sample of DJs playing music in clubs. In order to be number-one each week, then you have to be the most played.  — Calvin999 08:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the alternative text for images, see [2] especially the Queen Elizabeth example.
    • Not following?  — Calvin999 09:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the image advises "Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"." For example the Katy Perry alt: instead of "A woman wearing a hooded cape standing in front of a microphone stand" it can be something like "Katy Perry standing in front of a microphone stand". BTW, mind leaving some comments in my nomination? -- Frankie talk 12:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the table is sortable, link all entries under artists, even if they are repeated.
  • Pitbull featuring Ke$ha – Ke$ha should be changed to Kesha.
FrB.TG but she dropped the dollar sign in her name months after the song was released? Azealia911 talk 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, but I think we should not write as it is "stylized", but what the wiki title is. Imagine if we write The Fame Monster as The Fame Mons†er; weird, no? -- Frankie talk 10:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names under the "Artists" column should be sorted by their last names.
  • Why in earth would you italicize Yahoo! in source 3.
  • The publisher for ref 17 does not need italicization.
  • I see MOS:DASH violation in reference 22.
  • A lot of redirect links according to this. Fix 'em. -- Frankie talk 17:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of your suggestions FrB.TG.  — Calvin999 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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_number-one_dance_singles_of_2014_(U.S.)/archive1&oldid=1138487137"