Wikipedia

Talk:List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Featured listList of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 15, 2011Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

Biggest selling album of 2000

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, the picture caption says Robbie Williams and the chart has the Beatles highlighted for the same year, both cannot be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspar esq. (talk • contribs) 10:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Complete revamp

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd quite like to completely do this article over, and see if we can't get it more in line with its featured list singles counterpart. I was planning on starting right away, but it seems only courteous to check if anyone has any objections first. Thanks in advance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Chart dates

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per The Official Charts Company, the official date of each chart is the "week ending date", or the Saturday ***six days after*** the BBC Radio 1 Chart Show. (This is an ongoing issue with the singles charts.) Please use the Saturday week-ending date, NOT the Sunday chart-show date, to comply with the reference requirements of WP:CHARTS. --RBBrittain (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

As a featured list candidate, I personally think that it would have been a courtesy to discuss major changes to this article either here or on the FLC page before making them. I'm also not seeing where it says on WP:CHARTS that chart lists are required to use week-ending dates rather than issue dates. Finally, even if one removes Come On Over and Crazy Love (which I'm not sure I agree with), the total number of different albums that topped the chart during this decade is still 272. 886 – 617 = 269, but then there are three albums that had already topped the chart during the 90s (The Man Who, Reload and Gold: Greatest Hits). Hence, 269 + 3 = 272, therefore there were 272 different number one albums during the 2000s. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of number-one singles (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Certifications

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I updated the certifications but they were removed with the explanation "Those certifications were all awarded after the 2000s, and therefore fall outside the scope of this article."

The article shows the No. 1 albums of the 00s but some albums remained undercertified/uncertified until now when certs became automatic. Hence an album could've sold a lot in the 00s but we'd write "none" here although it's getting multi-platinum now (and this doesn't mean that it sold well in the 2010s as it could've sold all its copies in the 00s). --213.188.115.181 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. The main reason why I chose to include only certifications up to 1 January 2010 was maintainability – if we list the certifications to date for all the albums, they could easily become out of date very quickly. Any one of the 274 albums listed here could be awarded a new certification at any moment, so how often would we need to check them? Every month? Every week? Every day?
Also, I felt that listing the certifications that were awarded after the 2000s would fall outside the scope of this list, and would perhaps run the risk of being off-topic. This article is only about the 2000s, so it seems to me that anything that happened outside of that period is irrelevant. If, for some reason, we were listing albums by total number of weeks at #1, we presumably wouldn't list the three weeks that Sunny Side Up spent at #1 in 2010, or the three weeks that The Fame did. Why should certifications necessarily be any different?
I'm happy to discuss this issue further if you would like to, but, just for now, I have reverted to the earliest stable version of the article, per WP:BRD. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

For sure they could become out of date quickly, but I'm sure there's always someone that sees a new certification by choice and can add it (as I did). If certs were given exactly after an album was shipped exactly 100k times (=Gold), then your point would make sense, but it sometimes happens that albums are certified only years after their release even if having sold the majority of their copies in one year. It looks odd to see Michael Bublé's Crazy Love at only Platinum when it got 10x Platinum by now.

I understand your example with The Fame but if we ignore what happened after 2009, shouldn't we also ignore what happened before 2000? In this article we have Come On Over at 10x Platinum although most of its shipment happened in the 90s. I think it would help the most to add the newest certification, which is 11x in this case.

--213.188.116.66 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ideally, yes, I would prefer to list only the certifications that the albums achieved during the 2000s, and ignore the ones from the 1990s and before. So, for example, Come On Over was awarded platinum certification a further two times in the 2000s, so that's what we would list. Unfortunately, the problem with that is what we would list for albums that were, say, silver or gold in the 1990s, but were awarded platinum status in the 2000s. For example, Play by Moby was silver at the start of the decade and 5× platinum by the end, so what would we put in that case? "5× Platinum minus Silver"? That doesn't make much sense to me. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

But you still haven't answered my question how to deal with albums that were eligible for a certification but weren't certified until now when it became automatic. We'd write e.g. Gold and in fact it reached multi-platinum. That's why the current system doesn't make much sense. If every album receives Gold by the time it sells its 100,000th copy, I'd agree with you but some albums remained heavily undercertfied until recently and the current certification makes more sense.--213.157.26.2 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

We may have to agree to disagree on this issue. Like I've said, my main concern is how well this article can be maintained if we list the to-date certifications. I'm afraid that I don't share your optimism that someone will come along and update it every time a new certification for an old album is announced, especially when this page only gets about 1000 views a month. You updated the certifications for about 40 albums, which was perfectly fair enough, but what about the other 230-odd that this article lists? Were they also checked? I still feel that it would be best to list only the awards given up to the end of the decade, but, if you disagree, I would be happy for you to take it to WP:Third opinion if you wish to. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Third opionion

edit

Hi. I'm responding to the 3O request. Please allow a short amount of time while I read through the discussion and look at the article, and I will give my opinion soon.Formerip (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. Please note that third opinions are not binding. If either of you is unhappy with this answer, you can either continue your discussion or pursue another means of dispute resolution.
Opinion: It is acceptable to update the data in the certification column to reflect certification up to any date, provided the whole of the data is available (and verifiable) for that date and provided the update is done to the whole of the list and not just part of it.
Reasons:
  1. I believe the vast majority of readers will be more interested in the total sales certification (if available) for a CD rather than the certification up to a particular date.
  2. As has been pointed out, not including sales certification prior to 2000 would make no sense. This means that it is not possible to present data "for the decade". From that perspective, a 31/12/2009 cut-off serves no useful purpose I can see.
  3. I've taken into account the argument that a list with a cut-off would be easier to maintain. This is true in a way but, provided there is someone willing to update, it does not matter. And if there is not someone willing to update, the issue does not arise. Note that the consequence of not having an enforced cut-off date is not to require the list always to be up-to-date, only to allow it to be updated as and when someone takes on the task. When that happens, they can change the date in the column header. No problem.
  4. There should be consistency within the list and all data in the list should reflect the headers otherwise the data is simply wrong. This means it is necessary to to a full update the the column if any updating is to be done at all. I don't think that noting individual items as differently calculated from the rest would help. It would be not at all tidy and would be confusing to the reader.
Thanks. Formerip (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for taking the time to consider this issue, Formerip. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_UK_Albums_Chart_number_ones_of_the_2000s&oldid=1211239755"