This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This list includes all of the information on the decade-specific lists; the decade-specific lists are entirely redundant. As such, the decade-specific titles should redirect here. Neelix (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could say this list is entirely redundant to those. As the 2010s list will only continue to increase is size, I discourage such a merge. What should be done is to delete the entire lot since nowhere does anyone cover what the number-one comedy albums are beyond the primary source (and that's only the chart itself). An earlier nomination of such failed to gather any interest. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you do not want any of these lists to exist at all, I am surprised that you would oppose merging them all into one. Surely a barely notable subject should be hosted on a single article rather than spread out over multiple articles. At present, the combined list is a very reasonable size, and some featured lists have as many as 270 entries; we aren't likely to be reaching 270 entries on this list in the near future. Neelix (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not multiple articles, it's only 2. One of which, as currently presented, is only going to continue to grow. A single list of the same content begins to sprawl. To me, it seems like a reasonable break. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me00:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]