| Revision as of 22:45, 2 April 2006 editAKMask (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,957 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:46, 2 April 2006 edit undoOsbus (talk | contribs)1,830 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ****An example of whom the graph is useful to is myself, and it shouldn't be denied to those who it would provide informative. Displaying Misplaced Pages's best is summarizing facts; if we were to write the chart trajectories out such as "Dropped to number six before ascending to number one and falling to number six again", we'd have issues based on the waste of space. When the graph is featured, the information is summarized and the image takes up a lot less space than it would should it have been written. —] | ] 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | ****An example of whom the graph is useful to is myself, and it shouldn't be denied to those who it would provide informative. Displaying Misplaced Pages's best is summarizing facts; if we were to write the chart trajectories out such as "Dropped to number six before ascending to number one and falling to number six again", we'd have issues based on the waste of space. When the graph is featured, the information is summarized and the image takes up a lot less space than it would should it have been written. —] | ] 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *****I don't need to know where it was every given week. It's peak and the weeks it was there are fine. Total number of units sold should be included. The charts too much. Also, it looks like for a while there it was in '''<nowiki>#</nowiki>1.4''' and I'm sure you were never saying that at one point it was ranked '''15.9''' - Perfect example of what I mean when I say un exact. If anything it should be a scatterplot. There is not a smooth progression through the weeks and posistions. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | *****I don't need to know where it was every given week. It's peak and the weeks it was there are fine. Total number of units sold should be included. The charts too much. Also, it looks like for a while there it was in '''<nowiki>#</nowiki>1.4''' and I'm sure you were never saying that at one point it was ranked '''15.9''' - Perfect example of what I mean when I say un exact. If anything it should be a scatterplot. There is not a smooth progression through the weeks and posistions. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *****I really like the graph. It gave me a better understanding of the song's chart standings than just reading the text.Although I do admit the graph is kind of "not smooth" -] 22:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:46, 2 April 2006
We Belong Together
The last two nominations had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a featured article, something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~)! Thanks! Let's begin this lengthy process. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Weaksupport: categories aren't in alphabetical order. (Also, I think that the sample should be in "Music and structure", and that there are too many chart positions in the infobox.) -- getcrunkjuice 16:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed vote -- getcrunkjuice 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)- Comment Just put the cat's in alphabetical order. --lightdarkness 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. AndyZ t 17:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just put the cat's in alphabetical order. --lightdarkness 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at several other featured articles on music-singles, many of the samples have its own individual section so that it is easier to locate. Yes, there are many charts, however, Misplaced Pages is here to summarize the facts and not exlcude any that are collected. Although I'm positive three charts had been removed from the list earlier this month. Thanks for your vote. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose While im glad to see the fair use images were cut down, my complaint about the chart graph from last nom remains. It's not exact, it clutters the page, and it is unneccesary. It adds a few kilobytes to the page that are unneeded, and handled better by the table to it's left. It's a simple fix. Drop the graph and I'll change to support. -M
19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I still believe that the graph is useful for fans and projectors. In addition, Everyking requested it during the last nomination and to avoid his standing objection, it was included. Also, it's a free image, so why not? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's unnecessary. FA should be the best. That means saying what they need to say and not filled up with crap that doesn't need to be there. -M 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- An example of whom the graph is useful to is myself, and it shouldn't be denied to those who it would provide informative. Displaying Misplaced Pages's best is summarizing facts; if we were to write the chart trajectories out such as "Dropped to number six before ascending to number one and falling to number six again", we'd have issues based on the waste of space. When the graph is featured, the information is summarized and the image takes up a lot less space than it would should it have been written. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't need to know where it was every given week. It's peak and the weeks it was there are fine. Total number of units sold should be included. The charts too much. Also, it looks like for a while there it was in #1.4 and I'm sure you were never saying that at one point it was ranked 15.9 - Perfect example of what I mean when I say un exact. If anything it should be a scatterplot. There is not a smooth progression through the weeks and posistions. -M 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I really like the graph. It gave me a better understanding of the song's chart standings than just reading the text.Although I do admit the graph is kind of "not smooth" -Osbus 22:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't need to know where it was every given week. It's peak and the weeks it was there are fine. Total number of units sold should be included. The charts too much. Also, it looks like for a while there it was in #1.4 and I'm sure you were never saying that at one point it was ranked 15.9 - Perfect example of what I mean when I say un exact. If anything it should be a scatterplot. There is not a smooth progression through the weeks and posistions. -M
- An example of whom the graph is useful to is myself, and it shouldn't be denied to those who it would provide informative. Displaying Misplaced Pages's best is summarizing facts; if we were to write the chart trajectories out such as "Dropped to number six before ascending to number one and falling to number six again", we'd have issues based on the waste of space. When the graph is featured, the information is summarized and the image takes up a lot less space than it would should it have been written. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's unnecessary. FA should be the best. That means saying what they need to say and not filled up with crap that doesn't need to be there. -M
- I still believe that the graph is useful for fans and projectors. In addition, Everyking requested it during the last nomination and to avoid his standing objection, it was included. Also, it's a free image, so why not? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
