 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
If charts from Denmark, Ireland and New Zealand are notable, then the U.S. is entitled to have up to 50 charts listed, as each of those nations are smaller than metro Chicago and most U.S. states. America has one-third of a billion people, so it is not over the top to have four or five charts listed.- JGabbard ( talk) 16:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I guess you're referring to the Radio & Records thing. This is probably worth a wider discussion. If the basis for inclusion is purely charts per capita, then yes, it's silly that Belgium gets two (both Flemish, even) and the U.S. gets limited to three. Having said that, I don't think that Radio & Records is as notable as the other three. Yes, it was used on Casey Kasem's show but that's because Westwood One owned R&R, not because R&R was independently awesome. But in the end, I really don't see the encyclopedic value of having multiple charts per country in the first place; what deep insight am I to gain from learning that this got up to 9 on R&R but got to 11 on Cash Box? I wish that there were just one per country, because what I really want to know is how popular a song was in a given country without having to involve myself in the vagaries of each publication's ranking criteria. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 19:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- OSS, You forgot Rick Dees Weekly Top 40 also used Radio & Records! Then, Billboard (magazine) began posting that pop chart R&R tabulated as their Mainstream Top 40 chart when the publication folded in 2008 so this data is now owned by them.-- TrekkiELO ( talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, OSS. I agree that R&R is a less noteworthy chart than Cash Box or even Record World. I also agree that one "official" chart per country is ideal because it is most practical for comparison purposes. If a rule were to be made, one chart for (up to) 100 million residents would be reasonable. Therefore, the U.S. would have four and Japan and Brazil could have two if two existed, but other nations having two charts would be limited to just one. And with most articles that is the status quo.- JGabbard ( talk) 22:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks JG, I agree with almost everything you just said! What's the harm adding only one more line under Weekly Chart Performance, this is an online encyclopedia isn't it, inclusive, not exclusive, as long as there are reliable referenced sources right?-- TrekkiELO ( talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I invite TrekkiELO and Synthwave.94 to this discussion. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 15:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Radio & Records charts are non notable in any way and the Billboard, Cash Box and Record World charts (which were all published by notable/official music magazines) are enough to show this song (as well as other Electric Light Orchestra songs) were successful in the US. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 20:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd argue that at the very least the "
Shine a Little Love" references should stay for historical reasons as it was
Electric Light Orchestra's first and only #1 hit on July 6th, 1979 from 1972–present on any of the 4 major or minor US singles charts with
Radio & Records (R&R) which measures just radio airplay over sales et cetera, this is why some songs have higher peak positions because ELO sold more albums than singles depending on the album and single release, so radio airplay would then make a difference in those instances.--
TrekkiELO (
talk) 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even if radio airplay may be more important by the time ELO's singles were released, it still doesn't prove it's a notable chart.
Synthwave.94 (
talk) 22:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Billboard (magazine) began posting that pop chart
Radio & Records tabulated as their Mainstream Top 40 chart when the R&R publication folded in 2008 so the data is now owned by them! Where's your proof it's an unofficial/non-notable chart? At least I have references it is, your one-liners or sentences like "no", "unofficial/non notable chart", "Three US record charts is definitly enough anyway" prove and add absolutely nothing to our "consensus" conversation.--
TrekkiELO (
talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's nothing but a standard trade magazine, which was only used by Billboard for 3 years (2006 to 2009), long after ELO's singles charted on the Billboard Hot 100.
Synthwave.94 (
talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Another one-liner type sentence that's your opinion "It's nothing but a standard trade magazine", no facts like my references, here are more
Solid Gold,
Casey's Top 40,
Rick Dees Weekly Top 40 and
American Top 40 with both
Casey Kasem and
Ryan Seacrest all used
Radio & Records, so it's not what you say it is.--
TrekkiELO (
talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with
TrekkiELO. Additionally, other charts of interest exist within chart boxes such as the
American Top 40 year-end chart. Since Billboard tabulated their rankings from November through October, having a January to December year-end ranking is helpful because 10 to 15% of songs' chart runs straddle the new year. Radio & Records is closely associated with
American Top 40, during Casey Kasem's second tenure. Any national U.S. chart revealing a song's performance should be admissible, especially since some songs will even include a notable ranking from a larger regional radio market such as Chicago or New York. --
JGabbard (
talk) 00:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Radio and countdown programs are not music magazines like Billboard, Cash Box or Record World. R&R charts were not taken into account by any music magazine by the time ELO was popular. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with
TrekkiELO. Additionally, other charts of interest exist within chart boxes such as the
American Top 40 year-end chart. Since Billboard tabulated their rankings from November through October, having a January to December year-end ranking is helpful because 10 to 15% of songs' chart runs straddle the new year. Radio & Records is closely associated with
American Top 40, during Casey Kasem's second tenure. Any national U.S. chart revealing a song's performance should be admissible, especially since some songs will even include a notable ranking from a larger regional radio market such as Chicago or New York. --
JGabbard (
talk) 00:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Another one-liner type sentence that's your opinion "It's nothing but a standard trade magazine", no facts like my references, here are more
Solid Gold,
Casey's Top 40,
Rick Dees Weekly Top 40 and
American Top 40 with both
Casey Kasem and
Ryan Seacrest all used
Radio & Records, so it's not what you say it is.--
TrekkiELO (
talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's nothing but a standard trade magazine, which was only used by Billboard for 3 years (2006 to 2009), long after ELO's singles charted on the Billboard Hot 100.
Synthwave.94 (
talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Billboard (magazine) began posting that pop chart
Radio & Records tabulated as their Mainstream Top 40 chart when the R&R publication folded in 2008 so the data is now owned by them! Where's your proof it's an unofficial/non-notable chart? At least I have references it is, your one-liners or sentences like "no", "unofficial/non notable chart", "Three US record charts is definitly enough anyway" prove and add absolutely nothing to our "consensus" conversation.--
TrekkiELO (
talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even if radio airplay may be more important by the time ELO's singles were released, it still doesn't prove it's a notable chart.
Synthwave.94 (
talk) 22:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to start with pre-existing guidelines in discussions like these. The issue could have already been discussed and agreed by many others; See WP:CHART in this case. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)