Talk:List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The singles chart is the easy part. Let's do List of Number 1 albums from the 2000s (UK), and List of Number 1 albums (UK) [[User:Dmn|Dmn/ Դմն ]] 17:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If we're going to go forward with the 2004 in music (UK) articles is it worth making these new ones? violet/riga (t) 21:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to have a page with a list of number 1s and nothing else, whereas the 'year in music' pages fulfil a different purpose. BUT I think that the table format of the US charts should used, as you suggested at one time. David 5000 23:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Remove this list now? or not?
There are now articles for each year (2000 in music (UK), 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) which contain all the information in this article and more (a summary and the album charts) - this will be continued over all the other years over time. For now it would create an inconsistency in how the year details are shown but is that such a problem? On one hand I'm trying to avoid duplication, but on the other I can see the merits of having all of the years in the decade together in one list. Further, the nature of the content is such that the duplication would remain synchronous. Opinions? violet/riga (t) 21:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As I said above, I think that a simple list of number 1s of the 2000s is still a useful page, for ease of reference. I understand your concerns about duplication, but navigating through many 'year in music pages', if you are unsure of the specific year of a number 1, is too cumbersome. David 5000 23:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah I see your point - how does the new template look to you? violet/riga (t) 23:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wow that's fantastic, I hadn't thought of that at all! I think you've solved the problem now, well done. David 5000 11:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah I see your point - how does the new template look to you? violet/riga (t) 23:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
