This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Charts, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Record charts. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Record ChartsWikipedia:WikiProject Record ChartsTemplate:WikiProject Record ChartsRecord Charts articles
@EN-Jungwon While this situation is indeed abnormal, I stand by my reasoning. The legend for † required clarification, especially since ‡ is based on counting and explicitly defined (i.e. "of the year") which avoided any form of confusion. I find it inconsistent to have different rules for † and ‡. Additionally, that are no indications that † is based on RSes instead of counting, particularly when ‡ clearly relies on counting. By simply scanning through the list, any reader can discern that both † and ‡ are based on counting until today. I also don't see how this is acceptable for promoting to FL status as was the plan. I am proposing five solutions:
Option 1: Indicates a Triple Crown [based on reliable source]
Option 2: Indicates a Triple Crown [based on reliable source unless stated otherwise]
Option 3: Indicates a Triple Crown[{{Efn-ua|Based on counting unless stated otherwise.}}]
Option 4: Add in {{Efn-ua|Based on reliable source.[Reference here]}} for listing that isn't per counting, for example "Drama" †{{Efn-ua|Based on reliable source.[Reference here]}}
The dagger is used for songs that achieve a triple crown. Not "songs that achieved a triple crown in 20XX". Why does the rules for † and ‡ need to be consistent with each other? They both represent two different things. If you are counting the number of wins for "Drama" then it has been number one for three weeks so it has achieved a triple crown.But you are saying that it didn't achieve a triple crown because it didn't rank number one for three weeks in the same year. That's not how it works. I oppose the changes that you suggested above. -- EN-Jungwon14:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EN-Jungwon Kindly read again. I'm not saying to remove † completely nor is this discussion on removing † from "Drama" entry, what I'm saying is to have clearer clarification on how †/Triple Crown is being handled currently, if I'm a random reader then I would certainly be confused on where is the first/second crown for "Drama", I don't think we are writing the article so that only maintainer is able to understand the concept behind it, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be written in neutral form? —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)14:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you made here removing † from "Drama" looked to me like you wanted to remove the dagger from Drama because it didn't rank number one for three weeks in 2024. where is the first/second crown for "Drama"; This can be mentioned in the lead. Something like ""Drama" went on to rank number one for two more weeks the following year helping the single achieve a triple crown" would help. isn't Wikipedia supposed to be written in neutral form; what part of the article is not written in neutral form? -- EN-Jungwon15:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EN-Jungwon I think you're confused, I didn't start this discussion to revert nor remove † as clearly stated in bold above, hence I like you to forgot that portion as it is 50% relevant not fully to this discussion and its goal. Pertaining to not written in neutral form, what I'm trying to interpret here is we shouldn't be writing the article with the thoughts of "yes, everyone should understand how this table is supposed to read/work". As I have stated earlier, if I'm some random reader interested in this topic, I would certainly be confused on the † at "Drama" entry, and we shouldn't also have this mindset of "yes, if some random reader is reading this article then yes, they are 100% sure of this topic and they are 100% aware that "Drama" has charted 3 times" which is the wrong mindset hence the meaning of writing in neutral form.
Hence, why I suggested that we either modify the legend or we just add a {{Efn}} note beside the † for "Drama" entry exclusively that clarify why it's indicated as Triple Clown, of course also sourcing it with the same source included in the 2024 listing. Yes, we can mention in the lead however it is always better to be included on both place, as we shouldn't assume nor have the mindset that everyone reads the lengthy lead. Basically, the best of both world solution. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)16:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a note next to the symbol is a good idea. It could say something like ""Drama" ranked number one on November 26, 2023, January 7, 2024, and January 14, 2024." or something along those lines. Also, would it be better to change "Indicates a Triple Crown" to "Indicates a single that achieved a Triple Crown" in the key since the dagger is there to "indicate that the single achieved a triple crown"? -- EN-Jungwon16:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
