Talk:2000 in British music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Millennia[edit]

See the "Longer periods" section of our Manual of Style:

  • "Centuries and millennia"
    • "There was no year 0. So for dates AD (or CE) the 1st century was 1–100, the 17th century was 1601–1700, and the second millennium was 1001–2000; for dates BC (or BCE) the 1st century was 100–1; the 17th century was 1700–1601, and the second millennium was 2000–1001."

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2000 in British music. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Charts section[edit]

The charts section of this article has been removed as of 2014.

This never should have happened. I cannot simply hit "undo" due to subsequent edits. To be inkeeping with the series of wikipedia entries to which this belongs, the charts section needs to be replaced. Crimsone (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crimsone, a decision was taken that for every year from 2000 onwards the charts section was moved to its own article, in this case 2000 in British music charts, because the parent article was becoming too long. Unfortunately, there are editors who feel the need to provide a detailed chart commentary on each week of the chart, so that even these spin-off articles are becoming insanely long. Richard3120 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hence the chart summary, as per articles right the way back from the 80's, should be present. Anything more detailed than what the number 1s for singles and albums were is probably overkill, but there's a pattern present in other articles that should be consistent across the subject. Crimsone (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you – I think you can have a section of a couple of paragraphs which gives an overview of the year and any major musical events that occurred that year (e.g. the introduction of downloads to the chart in 2004, or the Spice Girls phenomenon in 1996) but I look at the "summary" in 2014 in British music charts and think "what is the point?"... nobody cares who the highest climber in Week 37 that year was. It's probably something that needs a RfC to determine consensus. Richard3120 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]