|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by MiszaBot.
Dispute on Bubbling Under peaks
@Piriczki: is saying that the footnote on J. Geils Band discography should say "104 on the Bubbling Under" because the actual chart said so, even though WP:USCHARTS says not to use 1xx for Bubbling Under peaks. Even though the chart he linked here says "104" for the Bubbling Under peak, this is patently wrong because there is no such position. "104" means "4 on Bubbling Under". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I did some work more than a year ago on the discography in question, so I thought I'd chime in. My edits at the time complied with WP:USCHARTS, but I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some things I find problematic with the guideline.
- First, it's worth noting that the Bubbling Under chart has used two different numbering systems (more or less) since 1961. From 1961 to 1985, Bubbling Under chart positions started with number 101. Going forward, I'll refer to this system as "Version 1". There was no Bubbling Under chart from 1985 to 1992. When it returned in 1992, and in the years since, the Bubbling Under chart positions began with number 1. I'll call this system "Version 2".
- Now for the issues, as I see them:
- WP:USCHARTS states that using "number 1xx on the Bubbling Under" would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source. This logic holds up very well for Version 2 songs. For example, Billboard writes that Paula Abdul's 1996 single "Ain't Never Gonna Give You Up" peaked at number 12 on the Bubbling Under. Lindsay Lohan's 2005 single "Over" peaked at number 1 on the Bubbling Under, according to Billboard.
- In contrast to Version 2 songs, it turns out that violating WP:SYNTH is precisely what we do when we use the 1-25 numbering for Version 1 songs. For example, The Beatles' "From Me to You" (1963), according to the original Billboard magazine, peaked at number 116 on the Bubbling Under. Billboard has consistently used 116, not 16, to reference the song's peak position, even in recent years (2004, 2013, 2014, 2014, 2014), almost 25 years after the arrival of the Version 2 system. I can find no instances of Billboard (or any other reliable sources, for what it's worth) ever using a peak of 16, so why should we? Doing so would be, to quote WP:USCHARTS, "creating information not directly supported by the source"(s).
- "From Me to You" is a handy example because of the frequent references over the years, and it seems Billboard's adherence to the Version 1 numbering system applies to other Version 1 songs. For example, a 2006 article says that Lesley Gore's 1968 single "He Gives Me Love (La La La)" peaked at number 119. Madonna's 1983 single "Everybody" peaked at number 107, according to a 2012 Billboard write-up. In a 2015 story, Billboard notes that the 1968 release of "What a Wonderful World" peaked at number 116. Billboard is consistent with Version 1 songs, and no reliable sources appear to dispute these peak positions.
- The notion that using Version 1 numbering violates WP:SYNTH further conflicts with WP:USCHARTS in that the latter guideline states: "Any of the books by Joel Whitburn may also be used to verify chart positions." Spoiler alert: Whitburn uses Version 1 numbering. WP:USCHARTS is a tremendously valuable guideline, but it is not without inconsistencies.
- I don't know that I have an ideal solution, or one that will be agreeable for everyone. For my part, I do think sticking to what the Billboard sources say is closer to optimal than lumping all songs in either the Version 1 or Version 2 basket. With this in mind, I propose something like the following for the notes section of The J. Geils Band's discography:
- "Did You No Wrong" peaked at number 104 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart, which until 1985 listed singles ranked below the top 100 positions."
- And for Lindsay Lohan's discography:
- "Over" peaked at number 1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart, which since 1992 has ranked the top 25 singles below the Hot 100."
- Finally, if I wasn't already familiar with WP:USCHARTS, I would frankly be confused if I saw a number 4 peak for "Did You No Wrong", clicked on the source, and saw a 104 peak. If I were a reader and/or inexperienced editor, my initial reaction would certainly not be, "Oh, Wikipedia simply subtracts 100 to come up with these Bubbling Under peaks". Rather, I would assume a typo and think I was helping out by changing the 4 to 104. Ultimately, I support following what Billboard uses.
- I went on for a lot longer than I intended so I'll leave it there for now. Thanks for your time. gongshow talk 09:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Gongshow: Thank you for stepping in and elucidating. I would also suggest offering a wording change at WP:USCHARTS to indicate that even Billboard formerly used the 1xx system for Bubbling Unders. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: I agree, the guideline wording should be tweaked so there is less potential for confusion in the future. gongshow talk 03:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. I started Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HIStory/Ghosts/1, a GA reassessment on HIStory/Ghosts. Feel free to improve the article and/or comment at the community GAR. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion about retaining the entry of Prodigy's death is occurring at Talk:2017#Prodigy, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
RfC tag is inserted at Talk:2017#.5BReady.5D Prodigy. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I've made a request for comment on the The Life of Pablo article relating to the lead sentence of articles about albums released by an otherwise solo artist after a one-off collaborative album. The question is: "Should the lead sentence describe the album as Kanye's 'seventh solo album and eighth studio album'?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Life_of_Pablo#Request_for_comment Cjhard (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Could someone who knows more about the European music scene look at Kento Masuda? This is a page that seems to have become bloated with self-congratulatory puffery, and has likely been edited by a series of users related to the individual. Most problematic is a series of claims that he has been knighted and made a baron by various European orders--so much so that the last edits tried to claim he is now a nobleman of Europe. I just don't know these European orders or the music awards he claims have received well enough to judge the reliability of these claims. Note that some of the same users have created the article Hiroko Tsuji (musician) who is also related to Masuda. Michitaro (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Eminem discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Do DAWs qualify as a musical instrument?
So me and this other editor on Martin Garrix's page are having a discussion on if a digital audio workstation, better known as a DAW, classifies as a musical instrument on the same level as a piano or guitar. I think this is silly, since a DAW is simply a tool used in the creation of music, and is nothing without the use of an instrument (emulated like VST or real like a Yamaha keyboard) as the interface. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)