Talk:Triple J Hottest 100, 2005

message: I'm mostly new to this, so I'm doing my best. Is there a way to do a reverse count like the # bit?
Kaotac 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no.  And to be honest, I question the usefulness of this article, especially given that the final list is not yet known.  Wouldn't it be much easier to wait until the entire list is revealed and update the article then?   Powers 00:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I took a look and the previous years' countdowns all have articles.  That's fine.  I strongly recommend following their format closely -- include the Triple J infobox (and update it to include the 2005 article), add some information on when the list was released and how the list was determined.  Also, note that the previous years' articles count up from 1 to 100 to take advantage of the auto-numbering HTML/wiki provides.  Powers 00:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done most of that, and I'll add the the total number of votes counted when someone mentions it on the station. I also updated and added the Infobox.
Kaotac 00:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good question. Only by hand I think :( I had a quick look at the wiki markup syntax and didn't spot anything. -- Longhair 00:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You should maybe put a spoiler warning for those in other states who haven't heard that part of the list yet.
:Good idea. I should have thought of that sooner. Thanks! Kaotac 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler warning

message: I was just thinking that the timezone listed should probably be AEDST, shouldn't it? AEST would mean Brisbane right now. --Kaotac 05:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they advertised it as AEST, so it should probably stay as that. I think since there was the a hour delay for Brisbane, it was 10am AEST where ever you were located on the east coast. Had it been aired at 9am in Brisbane however, it would have to have been advertised as 10am AEDST - not 9am AEST. --Scuba 03:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timezone

message: So, what did people vote for? - Tredanse 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes (causal discussion)

message: Man, that was alot lower on the list than I expected. Was anyone else surprised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.82.192 (talk • contribs) 
I thought it'd be top 20. - Tredanse 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[America, Fuck Yeah]]

message: What's everyone's thoughts on #1? I think it'll be Gold Digger by Kanye West, Wolfmother, Foo Fighters or Flaming Lips --Kaotac 04:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions (casual)

message: I'm surprised at the total lack of Mars Volta or Nine Inch Nails, I was expecting either one at least once but I can't see Mars Volta being higher than 15. And NIN probably won't get it, it's possible though.
I wasn't aware that either of them bought out new albums last year.. And you should sign your thingies. --Kaotac 06:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mars Volta's album Frances the Mute was released on March 1, 2005. Though it was leaked on the internet in December of 2004. I voted for the Widow, and was quite shocked that it didn't make it in - especially since it debuted at number four on US charts. --Scuba 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh! And Hot Hot Heat! :\ - Tredanse 06:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are they now?

message: I noticed some of the links to bands (where the band was listed twice or more) were missing, and proceeded to add the links in. It wasn't until after the submit that i saw Chuq had edited the page this way as to only show the links once. This may be the usual Wikipedia thing to do, that is only one internal link to a specific page per  article, but wouldn't it be easier for casual readers scanning the chart to simply click the band's name next to a song, rather than havig to search the list for a link? -- Scuba 04:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context  it says not to link "Words that have been linked earlier in the article. This advice follows the standard practice of defining or explaining a term, or spelling out an acronym, on its first occurrence in a text and not subsequently."  However, in this case I personally would prefer to have each band linked, because as you say, it's just easier when your scrolling through a list, Brendanfox 06:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in things like lists, it's okay to have an exception. Go ahead and link to all the instances of the band names, in the list. - Tredanse 08:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do this, can you also do it for the countdowns for the previous twelve years as well?  -- Chuq 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band Links

message: Um, hello? The album's available now. And so is the DVD. Isn't somebody going to put it up? - Ndrly 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album 

message: Substituted at 09:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment