Talk:The J. Geils Band discography

Chart positions

According to Billboard magazine, the single "Did You No Wrong" peaked at No. 104 on the Billboard Bubbling Under the Hot 100 chart (see chart). Also, according to Billboard, the single "Givin' It All Up" peaked at No. 106 (see chart). Piriczki (talk) 00:10, 26 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  09:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fred Bronson also uses version 1 numbering [1] Piriczki (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Good find - to me it's just totally reasonable to go by the sources.  gongshow  talk  03:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The J. Geils Band discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160716030424/http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.4980b&URLjpg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2Fobj%2F028020%2Ff4%2Fnlc008388.4980b.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.4980b to http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/films-videos-sound-recordings/rpm/Pages/image.aspx?Image=nlc008388.4980b&URLjpg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2Fobj%2F028020%2Ff4%2Fnlc008388.4980b.gif&Ecopy=nlc008388.4980b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)