Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Dabomb87 23:39, 20 August 2010 [1].

List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK) edit

List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in the series of lists following the recently promoted List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK). Here's some interesting snippets for your delictation:

  • Mistakenly, a 12" single that was too long to be eligible for the chart was placed at number-one for 2 weeks.
  • That Kylie was kept from the top spot because cassette sales were adjudged at the time as being too cheap to be eligible for the chart.

Thanks for your reviews in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Transcluded late, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: List itself is fine and well referenced throughout. However, in the opening the first paragraph discusses how the charts were compiled and not at all about any number ones. If I hadn't read the article title, I would have thought it was an article on the UK charts, which it's not. The second paragraph is fine and relevant but then the third (and final) paragraph goes on to talk about cassette singles for some reason - and mentions singles which didn't go anywhere near No.1. The brief mention of the Kylie single isn't particularly important either since it went on to be a No.1 anyway and is just a bit of trivia. The title of the article should be bolded at the top of the first paragraph (or near enough) and should JUST concentrate on what is detailed in the list - a history of chart compilation and cassette singles belongs elsewhere.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in descriptive pages, the title does not have to be bolded; see WP:MOSBOLD. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How the charts are compiled is, in effect, how the number-ones were compiled (and by whom). If you are scholarly in the subject, the method of compilation made huge differences. In the 60s and 70s it was done by music weekly magazines and was a bit of a guess (unreleable and disputed). Lots of different mags did it coming up with different number-ones. Gallup is when it really started to become how we know it today. The changing release date helps explain why in some other sources dates might differ. The automated part is important as it brings the real beginning of the Christmas number one (previously there was a break). I've trimmed the two irrelevent songs from the cassette paragraph, but formats are important as big labels blitzed the market through multi-formatting in the 1990s to get to number one. Additionally, 1 in 2 sales were cassette before it was made an eligible format (which is quite astounding). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments - what is the source for the biggest selling singles of each year and the decade? I can't see a citation for that. Also, I'd question the use of Everyhit.com (somebody's personal website} to cite the million-sellers. As the article itself points out, Everyhit claims that "Tainted Love" was a million-seller even though the BPI don't even list it as a platinum disc. So in essence the article is over-ruling data issued by an official body of the UK music industry (surely a reliable source) based on something claimed on a fansite, I'm not comfortable with this. Are there any reliable sources to support the claim that the BPI's own info is wrong...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second one point is sorted. I've added in the OCCs million sellers ref (I thought it was already in there). The decade isn't a problem as the lead has tons of records about it being the biggest seller until Diana 97, but I can't see the individualy years at a glance. I'll take a look (I haven't made them up, promise!). Thanks for taking a look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the OCC ref states that "Tainted Love" achieved its millionth sale in 1981, not 1991 as claimed by Everyhit.com...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the following stinks of WP:OR but I think the idea is valid (feel free to reject). If Tainted Love achieved 1m sales in 1981 there is no reason for it not to be listed by BPI (probably the most authorative source). However, OCC makes no distinction between "over-the-counter" and "to retail" (note BPI classifies o-t-c) but everyHit does. Is it not probable that it sold just under one million (not classified "platinum" - 1m to retail?). It then eventually sold 1m over-the-counter in 1991. As for why the BPI never classified it platinum, I think it is extremely likely it didn't sell 1m o-t-c in 1981 (hence no platinum). The platinum threshold was dropped (600k) in 1989 and so, with sales being over that, it was never classified. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best-seller of each year (and decade) is now referenced. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Gallup took over the chart in January 1983, one cassette single was being sold for every two LP records" - just checked the source and this isn't what it says at all, it says that one cassette album was being sold for every two LPs. Cassette singles hadn't even been introduced in 1983 (apart from the odd one-off). Per this, they were introduced in 1987 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for spotting that! When I read through that article it had just been talkin about singles charts and when I read "the singles chart has blossomed into a top one hundred...and, for the first time, the LP chart includes sales of cassettes" I assumed it was on the same thread and I didn't connect LP chart with album chart (too young for LPs!) Amended. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I on the other hand am old enough to remember going to Woolworths with my pocket money to buy singles in 1984 and I knew that they weren't selling bucketloads of cassingles then (or any at all in fact), hence why it jumped out at me....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


*Comment Another point: "...if sales from cassette singles were included but they were sold for £1.99 – cheaper than the chart regualtions allowed at the time. Following the debacle the British Phonographic Industry reduced the minimum price for cassette singles to become eligible towards sales figures " - This doesn't make any sense, they REDUCED the price? But it says they were already too cheap? Also £1.99 wasn't too cheap for chart eligibility in 1989 that's for sure. The ref provided has nothing to do with - it's an article from 7 years earlier. Even if "Hand on Your Heart" would have gained an extra week - it's largely hypothetical and didn't happen.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) OK, ref provided. It's fine. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is now fixed (I'd put the wrong one there) and quite explicit about the facts. Pre-1989 £1.99 was too cheap to be eligible. They reduced the minimum price to be eligible, so £1.99 (post-1989) was now above the minimum price and thus eligible. Make sense, and any suggestions about how to make this wording clearer? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided you fix the missing quote mark on the end of one of the song titles in the lead and the mis-spelling of "Reet Petite" in one of the notes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Usually we don't put the navboxes under the external links header. Do we?--Chanaka L (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the EL header as there are no external links. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • While the lead box isn't entirely part of this process, it should be updated so the titles are correct, i.e. UK singles chart -> UK Singles Chart, Official Charts Company -> The Official Charts Company. Done
  • Just to be clear, I'd spell out Compact Disk on the first occasion... Done
  • "For the chart week ending 3 May 1989, Kylie Minogue's song "Hand on Your Heart" reached number two. Minogue would have reached number one..." reads a little strained to me, mainly because after the first sentence I'm thinking "so what?" if you know what I mean. Any way of merging part of the second sentence into the first to make it obvious why you're talking about a number two? Done
  • Reached number 1/Weeks at number 1 - is it worth stating that this includes non-consecutive weeks at number 1 as well?
    • Huh? It doesn't include non-consecutive weeks at number one and, in fact, there were no number one re-entries in the 1980s[2]. If this is referring to the already FL 70s list then I'll get on it but, even for you, I'd have to say that is definately out of the scope of this FLC. ;) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amazing that there were no re-entries at number 1 for a whole decade. Sign of the times I guess! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frankie Goes To Hollywood had three consecutive..." To->to (for internal consistency). Done
  • Picky, I know, but a ref for Lennon's murder wouldn't go amiss in the caption. Done
  • Bucks Fizz caption needs a full stop. Done
  • "entertainer, Madonna, was" don't see a need for commas there at all. Done
  • "platinum record" in the title and "Platinum record/disc" in the paragraph. And for a UKEng we spell disc as disk.
    • Done. All record and all lower case (inc. gold/silver). And I call myself a Brit! :( Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Platinum disc was given to singles that sell over 1,000,000 units, Gold (500,000 units) and Silver (250,000 units)[23] " poor grammar -> "...units, a Gold disk for 500,000 unit sales and a Silver disk for 250,000.[23]" Done
  • "following the death of John Lennon" you could just say "following his death" and link death. Done
  • "reach number one" or "reach number-one"?
  • "classified platinum[31]" full stop? Done
  • Ref 3 -> p instead of pp Done
  • Ref 6 -> 45'S->45's. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your review. I believe I have addressed all those issues now and will try and fix any of those issues that are alos transferable to the already promoted 70s list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'll cap the comments shortly, once I've had a chance to re-check the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know nothing of the subject... about twenty years too late for my taste in British music, but I'm not finding anything to quibble about. Courcelles 23:22, 18 August 2010 (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_singles_from_the_1980s_(UK)/archive1&oldid=1089077061"