244:- As a formatting issue, the yellow is a little loud and too me a bit excessive. The color coding is one of the things I find annoying on the UK number one lists, even though I know many have passed FL. Maybe just the dagger or just highlight the cell for the song not the entire row? The only other thing, which I am quite unsure of on acceptability, is that the only source is the chart itself. At least, the Hot 100 charts reference an article which indicates coverage of actually being a number-one song beyond the chart itself (even though the source comes from the same publication). Just referencing the chart would indicate to me that you can just as well make similar lists on number twos and number threes, thus bordering on
361:
Yeah, but the same can also be said for the Hot 100 archive, as you can only view the top ten each week. You can only view the top 100 for the current week. I still don't see what you point is to be honest. Only number one's are documented like this as people only care about number one's. That's why
336:
Yes, number ones are the most documented type of charting songs, but for principal charts like the Hot 100 or the UK Singles Chart, where one can find other coverage. From this list, I don't see that number-one AC songs are documented any more than the #2s or #3s, etc, since the only references are
273:
The yellow/dagger are for people who may have difficulty determining things. I don't know how to make it so only the Song column is highlighted, it just automatically does the entire row. Yeah the Hot 100 gets extensive coverage, but this is the A/C chart, which doesn't get that kind of commentary,
290:
My point is that I could create an identical list in similar fashion using the same identical sources showing a list of number twos for this chart and it would meet the same criteria for FL that this one does. Being number one in airplay on adult contemporary radio stations just does not have the
117:
175:
I am nominating this for featured list because... I completely revamped the entire list and I think it's a really good example of definition of what a list of number ones on a chart should look like. It took a long time to re-format the table, format the references and go though each of the
632:
I have to agree. There's clearly inconsistency. But unless there's an agreement that by year articles should not exist, and decade ones should, there's really no leg to stand on. Just because some articles are some way, doesn't mean all have to be the same, without an agreement, of course.
274:
so we only have the archives (there's nothing wrong with that by the way, still says who is number one!). Number one songs are more important/recognised/acknowledged, so that's why this is important. At the end of the day, no one really cares about #2s or #3s do they lol.
466:
So? What's your point? There is still a fully documented year for each number one's week. It's irrelevant that 8 artists topped the chart. The list is still the same length, regardless if 52 artists top the chart or 8. I'm sorry but that point isn't valid in my opinion.
611:
If the precedent has been set, then why do none of the US R&B, Adult
Contemporary or Dance number ones lists follow it? Just because it works for the UK number one singles, doesn't mean it does here. I personally think that a decade in one list looks very messy.
248:. I'm a chart fanatic, but to be a featured list, I'd want to know what makes it important that these songs reached number one on this particular chart. Please just take these as my personal comments and not outright suggestions. Thanks and good luck. --
88:
83:
92:
75:
592:
I'm afraid the precedent has been set that these kind of album lists should encapsulate a decade (see the list that
Nergaal above has linked you to). Just because the list doesn't exist, it doesn't make it a poor reason to oppose.
571:
Except such a list doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. Would be far too long and difficult to navigate around as it would look messy. Your reason isn't good enough to oppose because you are asking to do something which doesn't exist.
860:
I don't think any of it should be sortable, as it then defeats the point of a song being replaced/continued for each week. What would a benefit be of Katy Perry's "Firework" being anywhere else rather than where it should be?
418:
The interest is who reached number one on this chart and any given point throughout 2011. (The fact that Adele is on the list with two songs creates a lot of interest, because of how much interest there is surrounding her).
319:
Yeah but that would be irrelevant. People are only interested in number ones, and number ones are the most documented type of song. To be honest I don't really see the point in any of your points. I don't mean that rudely.
133:
79:
71:
64:
891:
848:
831:
783:
747:
669:
641:
623:
602:
583:
562:
545:
510:
494:
478:
461:
430:
413:
373:
356:
331:
314:
285:
267:
233:
217:
191:
167:
722:
It summarises who was number one in chronological order according to the table. I don't know about dates, and I have already listed some lengths (hence the sourcing in the lead...)
291:
same meaning or impact that being number one on an all-encompassing chart covering both sales and airplay on all formats does; at least, if it does, it is not expressed here or in
883:
overall a well-organised and formatted list. However if possible, some more sourcing in the lead would be nice. Not a fan of decade lists as they're bulky and cumbersone to read.
719:
How about adding some dates or lengths in which a song was number one atop the chart? It seems a bit too short at its current state, and I think that would do the trick.
201:
138:
200:- The lead should be rewriten, FL can no longer start with "this is a list of". Use other number-one hits as an example on what to do in this case. Good example :
483:
386:
becoming number one on the Hot 100, thus indirectly confirming that "people care about number one's" on that chart; yet I find nothing significant on "
40:
527:
362:
99% of people know Mariah Carey has had 18 Hot 100 number one's, but 99% of people don't know she has had 3 number two's on the Hot 100.
204:. Another thing is that I would move the dagger to after the song name rather than the month date. as it follow the color table aswell.
30:
17:
775:
Because it makes the table looked too stretched. Besides that, I'm pretty sure the size of the font is too small per guidelines.
695:
The
Billboard Adult Contemporary chart is a chart that ranks the best-performing singles in that category in the United States.
554:
I'm not sure why exactly a 2011 list would be included in a 2000 decade list. Besides the fact, that isn't reasonable.
598:
292:
823:
I would prefer to see the whole table sortable, but I know that's not entirely possible when you use rowspans.
757:
Year-End most popular soft rock/adult pop songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by
Nielsen BDS.
394:
reaching number one on the AC chart. What verifiable interest is there about number-one songs on this chart? --
212:
594:
870:
819:
797:
771:
731:
713:
662:
621:
581:
538:
508:
476:
428:
371:
329:
283:
231:
189:
165:
526:. The material in this article could "reasonably be included as part of a related article" (3b):
737:"Rolling in the Deep" stayed atop the chart for 19 consecutive weeks, from July 2 to November 5.
180:
URLs correctly and do the lead, so hopefully it will be recognised as an FL! I really hope so.
490:
457:
208:
118:
Featured list candidates/List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)/archive1
387:
245:
862:
811:
789:
763:
723:
705:
657:
651:
613:
573:
533:
500:
468:
420:
379:
363:
321:
275:
223:
181:
157:
762:
How? It's better to state it where it is. It's more organised to keep it where it is.
841:
824:
776:
740:
634:
555:
756:
698:
694:
486:
453:
391:
109:
736:
53:
378:
The difference is I can find plenty of coverage in independent sources about "
884:
383:
759:
would work much better as a footnote, instead of directly in the prose.
222:
I have changed the opening sentence and moved the dagger to the song.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
788:
It's just the small template to make it smaller, so not really.
739:
It gives the readers a better understanding of the timeline.
72:
List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)
65:
List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)
143:
105:
101:
97:
57:
528:
697:
This feels a bit too repetitive to me, specifically
899:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
202:List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
905:No further edits should be made to this page.
337:to the top ten lists of each week's chart. --
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
484:List_of_2010s_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones
122:
125:
115:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured list candidates
807:What about making the table sortable?
7:
452:per 3.b. This list has 8 entries.
24:
18:Knowledge:Featured list candidates
735:By lengths I mean, for example,
849:16:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
832:17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
784:17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
748:17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
650:The only "leg" we need is the
642:17:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
624:16:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
603:16:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
584:16:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
563:16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
546:15:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
499:Still don't see your point.
892:15:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
670:00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
511:10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
495:02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
479:10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
462:00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
431:10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
414:18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
374:17:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
357:16:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
332:10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
315:06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
286:00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
268:00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
234:12:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
218:20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
192:16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
168:16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
922:
293:Adult Contemporary (chart)
902:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
31:featured list nomination
56:21:40, 1 October 2012
171:
151:
150:
913:
904:
867:
846:
829:
816:
794:
781:
768:
758:
745:
738:
728:
710:
700:
699:chart is a chart
696:
668:
665:
660:
639:
618:
595:The Rambling Man
578:
560:
544:
541:
536:
505:
473:
425:
412:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
368:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
326:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
280:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
251:
228:
186:
162:
154:
123:
113:
95:
38:
921:
920:
916:
915:
914:
912:
911:
910:
909:
900:
863:
842:
825:
812:
790:
777:
764:
741:
724:
706:
663:
658:
655:
635:
614:
574:
556:
539:
534:
531:
501:
469:
421:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
364:
353:
350:
347:
344:
341:
338:
322:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
276:
264:
261:
258:
255:
252:
249:
224:
182:
158:
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
919:
917:
908:
907:
895:
894:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
810:What column??
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
717:
716:
715:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
645:
644:
627:
626:
606:
605:
587:
586:
566:
565:
549:
548:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
239:
238:
237:
236:
205:
173:
172:
156:Nominator(s):
149:
148:
147:
146:
144:External links
141:
136:
128:
127:
121:
120:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
918:
906:
903:
897:
896:
893:
890:
889:
888:
882:
879:
871:
868:
866:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
845:
833:
830:
828:
822:
821:
820:
817:
815:
809:
808:
806:
798:
795:
793:
787:
786:
785:
782:
780:
774:
773:
772:
769:
767:
761:
760:
755:
749:
746:
744:
734:
733:
732:
729:
727:
721:
720:
718:
714:
711:
709:
703:
702:
693:
692:
691:
689:
671:
667:
666:
661:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
640:
638:
631:
630:
629:
628:
625:
622:
619:
617:
610:
609:
608:
607:
604:
600:
596:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
582:
579:
577:
570:
569:
568:
567:
564:
561:
559:
553:
552:
551:
550:
547:
543:
542:
537:
529:
525:
522:
521:
512:
509:
506:
504:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
485:
482:
481:
480:
477:
474:
472:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
447:
432:
429:
426:
424:
417:
416:
415:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
372:
369:
367:
360:
359:
358:
335:
334:
333:
330:
327:
325:
318:
317:
316:
294:
289:
288:
287:
284:
281:
279:
272:
271:
270:
269:
247:
243:
235:
232:
229:
227:
221:
220:
219:
216:
214:
210:
203:
199:
196:
195:
194:
193:
190:
187:
185:
179:
170:
169:
166:
163:
161:
153:
152:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
48:The list was
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
901:
898:
886:
885:
880:
864:
843:
840:
826:
813:
791:
778:
765:
742:
725:
707:
687:
686:
656:
636:
615:
575:
557:
532:
523:
502:
470:
449:
422:
365:
323:
277:
241:
240:
225:
209:HonorTheKing
207:
197:
183:
177:
174:
159:
155:
139:Citation bot
69:
50:not promoted
49:
47:
35:
28:
704:Removed.
178:Billboard
881:Support—
688:Comments
388:Drive By
384:Flo Rida
246:WP:IINFO
134:Analysis
487:Nergaal
454:Nergaal
380:Whistle
242:Comment
198:Comment
126:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
524:Oppose
503:Aaron
471:Aaron
450:Oppose
423:Aaron
399:cheers
366:Aaron
342:cheers
324:Aaron
300:cheers
278:Aaron
253:cheers
226:Aaron
184:Aaron
160:Aaron
93:delete
54:NapHit
865:AARON
814:AARON
792:AARON
766:AARON
726:AARON
708:AARON
664:raise
616:AARON
576:AARON
540:raise
402:peaks
392:Train
390:" by
382:" by
345:peaks
303:peaks
256:peaks
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
887:Till
659:Good
652:FLCR
599:talk
535:Good
491:talk
458:talk
411:wars
408:lost
405:news
396:Star
354:wars
351:lost
348:news
339:Star
312:wars
309:lost
306:news
297:Star
295:. --
265:wars
262:lost
259:news
250:Star
213:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
844:Zac
827:Zac
779:Zac
743:Zac
637:Zac
558:Zac
52:by
869:•
818:•
796:•
770:•
730:•
712:•
701:.
690::
654:.
620:•
601:)
580:•
530:.
507:•
493:)
475:•
460:)
427:•
370:•
328:•
282:•
230:•
206:–
188:•
164:•
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
597:(
489:(
456:(
215:)
211:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.