• "achieved 7 number ones; 2 solo and 5 with the Shadows. The Shadows had a total of 10 number ones; 5 solo and 5 with Cliff Richard." would expect all these numbers to be spelled out.
  • Done. Wasn't sure if comparable quantities should apply between table and prose. I agree it probably doesn't in retrospective. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps worth clarifying that Disc is a magazine?
  • I'm not sure it is. This front cover describes itself as a "pop paper" and looks like a newspaper to me. Dave McAleer's site also calls it a "paper"[2]. I haven't changed Disc (magazine) as I can't find a reliable I think the line between mag/paper was fine back then. For a time it was published by Go Magazine according to the British Library. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "selling a million copies." "over" a million copies? Done
• "Million-selling and gold records" section, Year of millionth sale col doesn't sort correctly for me, it'll be the N/A forcing it all to sort as text, so use ((sort)) to fix it.
  • Huh. I checked in the main three browsers and it works fine. By deliberately not using N/A it sorts in 4 ways (not 2) leaving N/A at the bottom ascend and descend and then at the top ascend and descend. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. So you're happy to have that col sort four ways? Seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think it is better to sort ascend/descend with N/A at the bottom for bother, after all it is non-applicable. On the general concept of 4-way sorting I think this other list is greatly advantaged by 4 way sorting. So if your opposition remains can you let me know if it is on 4 way sorting in general or just in this case. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting again. I think I would have noted that odd sorting if I'd been alert enough! I'm not comfortable with four-way sorting in a column, and it may set a precedent that we'd need to all be happy with. I can't recall using any other mainstream software where sorting up and down results in more than exactly two results. But is it a problem if it does? I'm not sure, other than I wouldn't expect it to happen that way... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a real need for the Gold record (Disc) col if they're all Yes? Or is this in keeping with other similar lists where, perhaps, the answer is mixed?
  • It is, it also explains those erroneously awarded a disc. Additionally a 1960s record could have become a million-seller recently and wouldn't of been awarded an award then. Sources on this are very slim. The BBC suggests The Archies may have gone to actually sell over a million anyway (but that might be a mix up due to the awarding of a gold Disc). I discovered List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK recently, it is supposedly based on the BBC show but is sketchly sourced. I can remove the column if you wish. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if you can replace the column with relevant prose preceding the table then I'd do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've replied to or addressed each of the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]