Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.)/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 promoted by Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I feel it now meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good. Well done! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Knowles' "Irreplaceable" is the longest-running single of 2006...."Irreplaceable" became...." - why the jump in tense? "Bad Day" is also referred to in the present tense - is it really appropriate to state that something "is" the most successful thing of the year when the year was three years ago? Maybe it's variant American usage, but to my British eyes it reads very oddly. It would be like saying "Otho is the shortest-reigning Roman emperor of AD 69"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its really odd English in music articles. I am using "is" because the single remains the longest-running single of 2006. It does not change. That's how I understand grammar, unless I missed some. --Efe (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're saying, but it still reads strangely to me. I've noticed similar usage in other US articles, though, so I guess it must be an ENGVAR issue and therefore acceptable. So I guess I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.