Talk:List of Billboard Mainstream Rock number-one songs of the 2020s

Does this need to exist yet?

@Sergecross73: I know this won't be surprising to you, but I don't find your creation of this necessary yet, and it is inconsistent with the previous list (List of Billboard Mainstream Rock number-one songs of the 2010s), as that list only starts with the first actual new number one achieved in the 2010s. Osbourne's "Under the Graveyard" is still number one from the end of the 2010s. I was going to make this an article when we had the first new number one in the 2020s decade, so I don't know what you thought, but it was not going to remain a redirect on my part. I think it should be redirected until we actually have the first new number one of this decade. Otherwise, we're basically just repeating information but deducting the one week it spent atop the chart at the end of the 2010s. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: What are your thoughts, since you created the 2010s list in 2013? Ss112 20:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is “having a new number one” the standard though? It seems fine to exist as long as there is any song topping it in 2020, whether it’s the first or 100th week at the top. Regardless of whether or not it’s reign started in 2019, it’s still fundamentally a song that topped the chart in 2020. This feels like an arbitrary standard, not particularly tied to any sort of policy or guideline, and a waste of time to debate when the article is going to exist either way relatively soon anyways. There are bigger fish to fry and better things to worry about. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because there are "bigger fish to fry" to you does not mean it should not be raised. Either this list or the 2010s list should be made consistent, because having two different ways of doing things may confuse readers, leading them to believe Ozzy Osbourne only began at number one in the January 4 issue when this is not the case. The same editor may then look back at the start of the 2010s list to find the first issue listed is from February 2010 and wonder where all the issues from January are on that list when the 2020s list includes the weeks of January 2020. I don't think it's "arbitrary" if the lists are inconsistent depending on which one a reader looks at. One flows into the other, and both link to each other. Lists for the same chart should have the same standards applied to them, not differ according to the whims of who made each one, and there is no legitimate reason you should think they shouldn't. Perhaps you and @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: need to work which way it needs to go, considering you both created each list. If neither of you can be bothered because "there are better things to worry about", I guess I'll be WP:BOLD and decide myself since it's so frivolous to you. Ss112 00:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a minor overlapping issue that occurs once every decade. You’re making a big deal out of a minor thing that rarely happens. (And I won’t speak on behalf of Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, but they’ve edited the article and talk page on multiple occasions now without comment on this, so I somehow doubt they’re as upset as you are about this.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Starcheers has not edited the article since I have opened this discussion. It doesn't matter how "rarely" it happens, and you can dismiss me raising an issue as apparently being "upset" if you wish, but it's still an issue that should be made consistent. I repeat, if neither of you are willing to make either one of the articles consistent, I will be WP:BOLD and do so. If you foresee yourself having an issue with it and reverting me when I do it, then perhaps you should sort out which way it should be now. I don't personally care which article is changed, but one of them should be. Ss112 01:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m talking about this article. Not sure why you keep threatening bold edits here. I clearly oppose, and will revert, if your decision is to redirect this article, and then we’re going to be right back here discussing again. I don’t care if you adjust the other article’s overlapping points, I only care about redirecting articles over something as trivial as this. This article factually and correctly documents the song that have topped this chart this year. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no. Redirecting was my first idea/proposition. It's not what I have decided on doing. I'm adding a note at the top of the "weeks at number one" column on the lists to indicate that it only indicates weeks spent at number one in that particular decade, to clear up any confusion, because otherwise readers may assume the column refers to how many weeks it's spent at number one overall and keep changing it. Ss112 02:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Good solution. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys. I see there's been a lot of discussion on the topic here since I was initially pinged, which I didn't respond to immediately and haven't checked since. When I first put together the lists for this chart, the idea behind it was to present the entire list of the songs which reached number one, split by decades. Each list is just a continuation of the preceding, so that was my reasoning to just start with the first new song of the next decade, treating a song no differently than any other which had a run at the top into the following year. The only thing important about these lists are what the songs are. Everything else is just the trivia around it (when it hit number one, how many weeks, etc.), so when I look at a list like this, I would want to know how long the song was number one, not in one decade or another but overall like what every other song will show. That's the consistency I would hope for. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, my compromise would be to simply duplicate the info from the last song from the previous decade to the first line of the next decade's list. I don't think anyone would care if, for example, a song was number one for 3 weeks in 2019 and 4 weeks in 2020, but knowing that it spent 7 weeks at number one would be of interest. Having the song appear in both lists indicates topping the chart in both decades but retains the more complete info in both that people would probably want to know. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And another thing ;) ... to harp on the point of listing a song only once (even though I didn't set these lists up in this way), the idea should be to just identify the songs that reached number one so listing songs multiple times simply because they dropped and returned to number one is superfluous because all you need is when a song first hit number one and for how long it was at number one regardless of whether it was consecutive or not. If anything, just add a note that indicates a non-consecutive run. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I don’t really care how we handle it, I just didn’t want to redirect the article over something like this. I like following these sorts of articles, but rarely edit them myself, because others generally do it. I only made it because it didn’t exist, and my only strong stance here is that the article should exist now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)