Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs

Featured list candidates/List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs/archive1

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each time the Rock Songs chart is mentioned in an article, it's always linked to this page. Given how heavily linked this article is, I figured it should look nice. This was originally meant to be just a quick cleanup, but I figured might as well go all the way with this list.

This is my first FLC, and first Featured nominee on Wikipedia. Hopefully I didn't miss out on anything necessary for FL's, but if I did, I'll gladly input it into the list. BTW, this list was HEAVILY reliant on the List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s article. Like, seriously reliant, just look at the two articles. If this is a problem, I'll try and work to make them different. Finally, since this is a list that will most likely go on forever, I do plan on maintaining this list for as long as I'm on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking your time to look at this list! Famous Hobo (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any independent sources that discuss the topic of number-one songs on this chart in any detail, just Billboard itself. The only third-party source referenced gives some background on what the chart is but otherwise only mentions a songs that made this chart but did not go to number one. So in that sense, it doesn't seem to meet the requirements for stand-alone lists, thus failing 3b of the featured list criteria. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. But what about List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2000s or List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006? They rely solely on Billboard for references. Technically, since this is about a specific type of chart, I don't see why using that same source as a reference. I guess I could find individual sources from other websites for each week, but that seems a little absurd since they'll say the same thing. Don't get me wrong, if I need to do that, I'll do it (it'll just take forever). Famous Hobo (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the Christian Songs list falls under ths same parameters and probably should not be a featured list (at least as is), but Hot 100 charting is covered in different books and reaching number one is often noted and referred to in other publications as well. I'm not saying you need to use 3rd party references to cite each number one but to be a featured list, the topic of reaching number one or what's number one on the chart should be discussed elsewhere besides the main source. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. Honestly, I didn't spend too much time with this list (just a bit of cleanup, all the refs were there to begin with), so if it does fail the criteria, then I won't be too disappointed. I would like to get other peoples opinions though.

Comments from Wrestlinglover

Lead
- Inconsistency on number usage. Some are spelled out, some are just written out. Use a format and stick to it.
List of number-one songs
- Looks fine to me.
Statistics
- Looks fine to me.
By artist
- Looks fine to me
Songs by total number of weeks at number one
- Looks fine to me
Notes
- Looks fine to me
References
- May want to move the templates to an external links section and include some website links, like Billboard.--WillC 09:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlinglover Both issues have been addressed. I stuck with fully written out numbers as they look more professional in my opinion. For the external links section, the only website I could think of linking was Billboard, since they run the chart. BTW, would you mind chipping into the discussion of whether this list fits the criteria of stand-alone lists that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and I were talking about? Famous Hobo (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I never questioned whether it could be a stand alone list. It seems notable and fine with me. It could use some third party references to help curve the notability issue though.--WillC 20:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Calvin999

I agree that this is viable as a standalone list, as everything about the Hot Rock Songs chart records and statistics are here, however I cannot support this nomination based on following comments.

I think the title of this article should be Hot Rock Songs. I disagree that I am redirected to the current title which searching or clicking Hot Rock Songs, as it's not in keeping with the other articles for Billboard charts. That said, I would keep the list in the article under the new title.
June 20, 2009 through → Comma after 2009
Beginning with the chart dated October 20, 2012, → However, since the chart dated October 20, 2012,
the Rock Songs chart → Rock Songs or Hot Rock Songs?
reached the number one position on → reached number-one on
Since its introduction, thirty-nine singles have reached the number one position on the Rock Songs chart. → Source?
Foo Fighters and Linkin Park have been the most successful groups, with each having three singles to top the chart. → Source?
The whole second paragraph needs sourcing, as this is the only prose there is.
Out of the thirty-nine singles that hit the number-one position, ten singles spent two separate runs atop the chart. → Why is this relevant?
The most recent number-one single is Twenty One Pilots's "Stressed Out". → The current number-one song on the Dance Club Songs chart for the issue dated January 30, 2016, is "Stressed Out" by Twenty One Pilots.
Return of a single to number one → Hyphenate number-one
2009; 2010; 2012; what songs were the year end number-one?
Seven artists have achieved two or more number-one singles. → Not needed, can see that from the table
Six artists have spent 20 or more weeks atop the chart. → Not needed, can see that from the table
Thirteen songs have spent at least eleven weeks atop the chart. → Not needed, can see that from the table/You haven't included 11 to 18 anyway.
Not sure on Blabbermouth.net's reliability.
Every source bar that one is Billboard. You will have to find sources from other sites so that everything is not solely published by Billboard. There needs to be other coverage available.

I can tell you've been time and energy in to this list, but there are too many issues for me, some very big, that result in my Oppose. — Calvin999 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999 So I began working on fixing the issues, but the one that really worries me is the last issue, the one that all three editors brought up. I tried looking through google to find other coverage, but almost every single mention of rock songs is by Billboard. I got lucky with a couple of mentions by Fuse, but other than that there's really no coverage of the Hot Rock Songs Chart (There's more coverage for the Active and Mainstream Rock Charts, so that's kind of annoying). And even if I were able to find more coverage, the refs would still be heavily dominated by Billboard. So yeah, I don't think I'm going to be able to fix that issue. Since that's been an issue with all three editors, I think it's best if I rescind this nomination. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely appreciate what you're saying as I've had similar problems before. Some from Fuse is better than nothing. As long as you can show that you can find other sources then that is fine. — Calvin999 20:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the issue myself, just to say I was supporting the nomination to become an FL. I had forgot to include that. I think you should give it some time and try to do something. There may still be hope.--WillC 21:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for two months without any supports, I'm going to have to close it to keep the FLC queue moving. Not opposition to renomination, though I must admit that as widespread as the Billboard charts are I'm surprised that you can't find any sources talking about the Rock charts. Seems like if you can solve that problem then another nomination would be an easy pass though. --Pres N 04:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.