Talk:The Beatles/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

McCartney's drumming while Ringo was on "holiday"

The article currently reads: "Starr quit for two weeks, leaving McCartney to play drums on a couple of tracks.[200]"

  • The trouble is this, the two tracks Macca drummed on during these two weeks were "BITUSSR", and "Dear Prudence", but since John and George also drummed on "BTIUSSR", wasn't Macca's solo drumming limited to just "Dear Prudence"? Otherwise, why are we not giving due credit to John and George's drum contributions during this period on "BITUSSR"? Would seem a
    WP:UNDUE issue here, to indicate Macca played drums on a couple songs, when really, solo, it's just the one during this specific period. The article should read: "Starr quit for two weeks, leaving McCartney to play drums with Lennon and Harrison on "BITUSSR", and by himself on "Dear Prudence", or something to that effect. — GabeMc (talk
    ) 05:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
While many sources ignore Harrison and Lennon's contributions to the drumming on "Back in the U.S.S.R.", they are on there and this does facilitate bringing in an excellent source, volume 2 of Winn's Recorded Legacy session breakdowns. The edit is designed to indicate that Macca was the primary drummer on USSR. DocKino (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Are we talking about drumming here, or playing percussion? Get your facts right.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
According to MacDonald, 2005, pp.309-310, Lennon, Harrison and McCartney all played drums and percussion on "BITUSSR", but the basic drum track was played by Macca, writes MacDonald anyway. Lewisohn agrees that the basic drum part was played by Macca, but that two other drum overdubs were completed, which he ascribes to Lennon and Harrison.(Lewisohn, 1992, p.295) To call Macca the primary drummer on the track is a bit
WP:SYNTH, depending on what details Winn uses in his book. ~ GabeMc (talk)
23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. There is not the slightest
WP:SYNTH issue here at all. As you gain in editorial experience here, you'll come to understand that. DocKino (talk
) 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold on... As they were still using four tracks at the time, overdubs were a very definite luxury.--andreasegde (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

According to engineer Ken Scott, who was there at the "USSR" session, they used "a composite drum track of bits and pieces ... the other three playing drums".(Lewisohn, Recording Sessions, 1988, p.151) With four tracks you can bounce four to one, then feed it back in to another four-track as it's own track, ad infinitum. Also, according to Lewisohn, they were recording on 8-track machines by The Beatles (1968) ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Using four tracks to bounce down to one for the drums alone? Hmmm... Before going further with this, it would be pertinent to list what actual percussion instruments were played on the track. I don't have time to listen to it right now, but I will later. Anybody else want to check it out?--andreasegde (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Per Lewisohn's Recording Sessions, the basic rhythm track, recorded on a four track machine, consisted of drums (Paul), lead guitar (George) and bass (John). This was bounced down to another four track tape onto which two more drum parts, two more bass parts and two more lead guitar parts were overdubbed. Lewisohn indicates Paul played one of the bass parts and one of guitar parts so presumably someone else was playing drums while Paul was playing other instruments. Piriczki (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Why is it considered undue weight to mention that McCartney played drums in Starr's absence in the Beatles article while the Paul McCartney article says "it was a poorly kept secret among Beatle intimates that after Ringo left the studio Paul would often dub in the drum tracks himself." Seems there is an inconsistency here in the facts as well as tone. Piriczki (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I just mean, J,P,&G all played drums on "USSR", so why do we give Paul sole credit when we know this is not accurate? ~ GabeMc (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Because "playing drums" means sitting down and using both hands and feet. It's not just hitting a snare or a tom-tom, as that would be classified as percussion. They people that play a snare or timpani in an orchestra are percussionists, not drummers.--andreasegde (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Paul plays the “basic drum track”, which I take to mean he sits down at Ringo’s kit, which is miked up and ready to go minus Ringo, and does the drummer’s job; just as he had to do on Band on the Run. Other percussion was added later by the others, because when you bounce and mix together using only four tracks (reducing existing tracks and at the same time adding in a live feed) you try and add as much as you can, as each time you do this you also add unwanted tape hiss – so definitely not ad infinitum. It’s a case of all hands on deck, which is why John and George got involved. It’s unfortunate that they get a “drum” credit in the various books though, as that is a little misleading. Neither Lennon nor Harrison could play the drums to a recordable standard, although they could hit a drum. The sources explain that, I think, but perhaps the article could mention the drum overdubs on USSR if that is a problem.--Patthedog (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Patthedog makes a good point here. I think we can all agree that the basic drum track was Macca, John and George were overdubbed "banging" on Ringo's drum kit (to avoid calling it drumming). For perspective I'll ask a question, who played lead guitar on "USSR"? (I know, and the answer's applicability might surprise you). ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This thread is not about guitar solos; it's about who played drums.--andreasegde (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Procedural comments

PLEASE IGNORE THIS POLL - IT IS A DISTRACTION TO AVOID THE REAL POLL

There is an ongoing poll here, (Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), which User:GabeMc is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a request on a mediation page (which User:GabeMc started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished. Check it out.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The result of the mediation page was: "Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", Lord Roem (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)]

Because User:GabeMc is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion here. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.--andreasegde (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, your recent edits here constitue an attempt to disrupt this discussion. I have filed an ANI report on this incident here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. My name here is Andreasegde, so please use it.
  2. I have added my own comments to the complaint.
  3. My comments were along the lines of this: you are trying to subvert the the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by adding a new one here, and your conduct is destructive to any kind of process.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an edit warring complaint by GabeMc at [1] which is not going GabeMc's way and, the way things are going, it seems the complainer may himself get punished by the admins. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - In my opinion, it makes sense to have only one straw poll, and to have it where it will be visible by the most editors interested in the band. I agree with having the poll here; however, there should be a process to move the !votes from the existing poll at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to here. GoingBatty (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should have been here (which was asked more than once), but it seems User:GabeMc's strategy is to fire on all fronts; Sgt. Pepper's, and now McCartney's and here. If a politician knocks on enough doors he's bound to get someone to vote for him--andreasegde (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC).
  • Maintain'(dupe !vote). Since several years of debate on "the" vs. "The" has not led to a consensus either way, I don't think further discussion will lead to consensus. It seems that we're just fighting and driving editors away, instead of focusing on edits that will improve the encyclopedia for our readers. GoingBatty (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree; many torturous years of in-fighting.--andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Me too; time to move on.
Time for a chat?
) 16:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Roger that.--Patthedog (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Time to move on. You lost, GabeMc. Deal with it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The Pepper poll will conclude soon I predict, then we can finish this one, then we will go to mediation if no clear consensus is reached. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Need I point out that running the same straw poll at the same time, in what, is this some kind of effort to pick and choose the results ? WhoTF is going to fall for this crap ? Blatant canvassing, canvassing trying to get support at ANI when you're 'getting your ass kicked' (your words not mine) this is just anti-social. Generally it speaks for itself, but hey, I'll point it out because some editors think this is OK unless people say or even vote that it's not. So here is me saying the bleeding obvious, this is disruptive, and when I say 'disruptive' I don't mean 'I'm a whiny grumpy editor that you don't agree with on some little content dispute and so I see your opinion not matching mine as disruptive' no, I mean by the definition of continuously deliberately subverting the processes by which decisions are made on wiki. This is disruption. Penyulap ☏ 20:50, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I wish there were just one poll. However, I seriously doubt the multiple polls were started with ill intent.
WP:AGF applies here. Also, arguing over which one is the "real" poll is more disruptive than it's worth. szyslak (t
) 08:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with Penyulap. If the original poll had been conducted in a polite and proper manner, then maybe, but it wasn't because of outrageous, slanderous and insulting conduct by some of the participants. On such occasions it is necessary to start again and hope that this time it's done right. --Matt Westwood 08:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The current consensus is valid, IMO, and was not “improperly implemented” as has been suggested at the top of this discussion. Looks to me like certain editors have a hidden agenda here, and are abusing the polling system. --Patthedog (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation notice 16 July 2012

There is an open mediation taking place here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012

At the talk page of "The Beatles" mediation case there was a clear consensus to initiate a new poll regarding the "The/the" issue. This new poll will supersede this discussion, thus there is no definitive closure needed. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current "consensus" here was improperly implemented by User:Andreasegde. The poll that preceded the "triangular diplomacy" implementation was never concluded, as !votes were still coming in when Andreasegde prematurely began a new poll. We need to establish what the current consensus here is by allowing the below straw poll and discussion to run its natural course. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge and Oxford use lower-case. So does Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on Lennon. Sources that use lower-case: Lewisohn, Harry, Spitz, Gould, Norman, Davies, Everett and others. In fact of my 50+ books on the Beatles, with perhaps one or two exceptions, only those published by Omnibus use upper-case.

The Associated Press Stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals". The MLA Handbook says not to capitalise "the". The Chicago MoS states: "Chicago's preference is for sparing use of capitals—what is sometimes referred to as a "down" style." On page 416 of the sixteenth edition of the Chicago MoS, the work specifically mentions the Beatles, and the MoS states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." The Cambridge Handbook by Butcher, page 241 says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". See Fowler's Modern English Usage page 293, they specifically use "the Beatles". The AP stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals", so does Hart's Rules. Also, The Times and The Guardian both use lower-case "t". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the" and here is a hand-written letter by McCartney who uses "the Beatles" in running prose and "The Beatles" when written on its own. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic uses "the" throughout, as does Rolling Stone. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica online uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From The World Book Encyclopedia: "Berry was a major influence on later rock performers, including the Beatles and the Rolling Stones." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

From www.thebeatles.com: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale, the White Album and Yellow Submarine. That's six of their twelve UK studio LPs. Yes, I admit, you can find instances of "The" at the same site, in other album pages, but at most of those album pages you will also find instances of "the". In fact several of the album pages use both, with apparently little logic behind it. The context argument is far too complex IMO. It's metaphysical, and even if there is some truth to it, that solution will lead to uncounted discussions per occurrence exponentially exacerbating the problem. Or we could have a simple Beatles project-wide consensus, or even an article page by article page consensus, either of which would be infinitely easier IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


Straw poll

From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music: Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.

Please indicate below whether you support adhering to this current wikipedia MoS guideline by implementing a consensus here, that prefers "the" over "The" in running prose. Or, please indicate that you oppose adhering to the current wikipedia MoS guideline and instead prefer to use "The" mid-sentence. A third option is to maintain the current consensus here to avoid mid-sentence usage of the band's name. Please include a detailed rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Options

  1. Support adhering to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t" in continuous prose)
  2. Oppose adhering to the current MoS guidelines (upper-case "T" in continuous prose)
  3. Maintain the previous consensus implemented here to avoid mid-sentence usage throughout. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Support - Per my statement of position above this poll. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per Gabe's logic. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per andreasegde's comments below: in order for mediation to move forward, the RfC at the Sgt Pepper talk page needs to be concluded, per one of the mediators. Any new or additional comments should be made there in order to at least try to come to some sort of resolution. Radiopathy •talk• 03:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and please read my statement below. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Overwhelming majority of printed sources blah blah blah... Rothorpe (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Maintain. Since several years of debate on "the" vs. "The" has not led to a consensus either way, I don't think further discussion will lead to consensus. It seems that we're just fighting and driving editors away, instead of focusing on edits that will improve the encyclopedia for our readers. GoingBatty (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Wise words – best thing I've ever read on wikipedia. More below ... JG66 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase "the", per my analysis and investigation of usage here [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support small "t". My arguments at the Sgt. Pepper straw poll apply here as well. szyslak (t) 04:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Research needed. If it can be confirmed that this band used the name "The Beatles" on the records they made consistently throughout their existence (whatever Lennon may or may not have said - I trust not his gnomic utterances) then oppose. If it can be demonstrated that at least once during the course of their existence they themselves released a record under the name Beatles, then support.--Matt Westwood 09:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
How about
Beatles For Sale and the two EP's of the same name? The original LP liner notes written by Derek Taylor use "the Beatles" thoughout. It was "Beatlemania" not "the Beatlesmania". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 10:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Also, A Collection of Beatles Oldies, Beatles '65, The Early Beatles, Beatles VI. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Per our MoS: "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence: an article about the United Kingdom (not about The United Kingdom)." This seems like a good example. Few proper English speakers would say they lived in UK, or they flew to UK, or their wallet was made in UK. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs
) 10:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case: Support.--Matt Westwood 16:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I see absolutely no logical reason to not be following the MOS. It's a sorry state that Wikipedia gets itself into when it can't even follow it's own logical writing rules. The word "the" is not capitalized, unless beginning a sentence. May as well call the baseball team. "The New York Yankees". The same rules apply here as well.--JOJ Hutton 10:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. No reason to depart from our longstanding MoS guidance. Also support adding this to
    WP:LAME if people are still arguing passionately, or especially edit-warring about this ten days from now. --John (talk
    ) 11:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Already stated oppose and it's already a lame edit war at [3] Don't forget that "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment. About a band, not a brand. Red herring. Rothorpe (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
I completely agree with Rothorpe. The Beatles article (written about a band not a brand) does not even mention that the name was trademarked. Also, isn't
MOS:TM: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Further, our MoS also states: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Ibid. So it would seem that the context/trademark argument implies that "The Beatles" is the brand and as such would require a ™ symbol, and "the Beatles" is a generic alternative, which all my MoS guides advise using whenever possible, in lieu of a trademark. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs
) 23:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, I wonder if the "trademark" argument isn't actually supporting the case for "the". According to the Intellectual Property Office of the UK: "If you want to use other people’s trade marks, you usually need permission. If you use registered trade marks without permission, you are infringing the trade mark and the owner can take legal action against you and claim damages." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Further down the page, it says "If you use an identical or similar and confusable trade mark for identical or similar goods or services to a trade mark already in use - you are likely to be infringing the earlier mark." So as long as we don't all come together and form a band with the same name, I think we'll be OK. GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I hear you GoingBatty. But does the second statement really negate the first? If so how? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That logic would seem to imply that I could market and sell a candy bar called "The Beatles". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer (and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but there has to be a difference between selling "goods or services" with a similar name and writing an encyclopedia article (or a book) about a subject. We use trademarked names in thousands of articles (e.g. TiVo, Kleenex, Superman, YouTube, Super Bowl). And if you market your candy bar as "The Beatles" or "Candy of the Beatles" or "Beatleicious", I'm sure you'll be hearing from the fine folks at Apple. GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
From the British library:

Title:The Cambridge companion to the Beatles / edited by Kenneth Womack Contributor:Kenneth Womack Other Titles: Variant Title: Beatles Subjects:Beatles ; Rock musicians -- England ; Rock music -- History and criticism ; Dewey: 782.421660922 Publication Details: Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Title:Sgt Pepper and the Beatles : it was forty years ago today / edited by Olivier Julien Contributor:Olivier Julien 1969- Subjects:Beatles. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ; Rock music -- England -- History and criticism ; Dewey: 782.421660922 Publication Details: Aldershot : Ashgate, 2008.

Title: Bigger than the Beatles / by Bill Harry Author:Bill Harry Contributor:Trinity Mirror North West & North Wales Ltd. Subjects:Popular music -- England -- Liverpool -- History and criticism ; Rock music -- England -- Liverpool -- History and criticism ; Dewey: 782.421660942753 Publication Details: Liverpool : Trinity Mirror NW2, c2009.

There are many, many more where that came from. Take a look for yourself: ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi GabeMc! This source also contains titles such as:
  • "Various short interviews with The Beatles"
  • "She loves you : transcribed note-for-note from the original recording by The Beatles scored for vocals and every instrument in guitar tablature and standard notation / words & music by John Lennon & Paul McCartney"
  • "Revolution : the making of The Beatles' White Album / David Quantick"
  • "Here come The Beatles : stories of a generation / edited by Enzo Gentile and Umberto Buttafava = Llegan los Beatles : historias de una generacion / por Umberto Buttafava y Enzo Gentile"
I thought the point of this poll was to determine how to format running prose, not titles. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Right you are GoingBatty. How about Fowler's page 293, Hart's page 92, Butcher's page 241, The Oxford Style Manual page 633 or The Cambridge Guide to English Usage page 536? Just click on the links and search the Beatles, and/or definite article, or "the". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc! It appears that Fowler's pages 479 & 655 uses "The Beatles" (and "Beatlefest" is now called "The Fest for Beatles Fans". Please note that I'm not advocating the use of either "The" or "the", and hope you're able to guide this discussion to an amicable conclusion. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica online uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
From The World Book Encyclopedia: "Berry was a major influence on later rock performers, including the Beatles and the Rolling Stones." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support adhering to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t") Piriczki (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The RfC at Sgt. Pepper's has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. Please read the comments by the mediation committee spokesperson. Mediation must followed, and not confused with further polls.--andreasegde (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - lower-case 't' is the way to go. Jusdafax 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support adhering to the MOS. As I said at the other poll: if it's good enough for Mr McCartney to write " the 'Beatles' ", then it's good enough for me. GFHandel ♬  00:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no reason to dump the manual of style for any band, not even the Beatles. Sir George Martin in his book All You Need Is Ears uses the lower case "t" in mid-sentence, and even declines to use the word "the" at certain moments, leaving "Beatles" all by itself. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and/or Maintain. GabeMc, I wonder if you're not being slightly economical with the truth. Aside from what I admit appears to be overwhelming evidence from reference works on correct usage of the English language, you list only the specific Beatles sources that do go with lower-case "the", none that opt for "The". Your comment "only those published by Omnibus use upper-case" rather hides the inconvenient fact that Omnibus Press, since the 1970s, have published a heck of a lot of books about The Beatles. The dozen or so words you use doesn't exactly do the situation justice. Not only that, but your claim that "The" only appears in works from that publisher is absolute rubbish. There was a rather large Chronicle book called Anthology around 2000 that goes for "The", which I think we can all agree was "authorised" by the band; as does a work that I thought was familiar to you: Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head. Also, all four Beatles biographies by Alan Clayson (reprinted in box set by Sanctuary); Miles' The Beatles Diary Volume 1 and Badham's Diary Volume 2 (yes, you mentioned the Omnibus approach, but it would be fair to actually list these well-known titles); Olivia's George Harrison: Living in the Material World (Chronicle), they all opt for "The" – and that's just from what I could be bothered to look at over the last ten minutes, by no means conclusive. Aside from the issue of precedence, I think there's an argument for having "The Beatles" as in the act, the band, the identity; but "the Beatles", as in the four guys walked in the room and said "Fab ..." That's the rationale I always use. (Similar difference with ampersand issue in the likes of "Delaney & Bonnie": "Delaney & Bonnie" for the act, but "Delaney and Bonnie [the couple] turned up at Olympic just in time to guest on Doris Troy's song 'So Far'.") But way more important, big-picture stuff, because GoingBatty makes an excellent point, above here – It seems that we're just fighting and driving editors away, instead of focusing on edits that will improve the encyclopedia for our readers. So true, and I've felt like walking away, personally, and it's this same sort of thing each time. If publishers and authors can't agree on the/The Beatles, and wikipedia contributors can't either, over a period of years, apparently, why are you bothering with this again? You're obviously a McCartney fan, so why don't you bring the Mac album articles up to scratch instead? (They're shockingly poor quality right now.) This is just wasting everyone's time – the important thing is to make each and every article better. JG66 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
I wasn't implying that only Omnibus uses Big T, I'm sure dozens of publishers do. What I said was of the 50+ books on the Beatles that I own, only those published by Omnibus use Big T, which is no doubt linked to an agreement with Apple Corps. I agree that many articles need improving, I just brought Paul McCartney through FAC (with massive, massive help from dozens of editors). I would like nothing more than to move on to another Beatles article and improve it. My point on this issue it this: Why would I, or anyone for that matter, spend hundreds of hours improving an article when everyday is a new contention based on this issue. I know I'll take the heat on this, and I have been wrongly blamed for dragging this up, which I didn't, timestamps prove this. I did not drag this up, I took the initiative to encourage the community to find a solution after others dragged this up. Again, I took Macca to FAC and four days before it was promoted I had people reverting all the "t"s to "T"s. I did not create this problem. This should have been handled/dealt with years ago IMO. I want it to end as much as anyone. Question: What would you do if I came on to an article you had been working on for several months and I told you you needed to change the caps on the subject, without any rationale other than "that's the way it is" or "we decided this for you at another page 18 months ago"? Would you change the caps on command, or would you make an argument that forcing that choice on all Beatles related articles and every editor who edits them is improper without discussion and/or due process. That's all this is, due process. This only helps to solve the problem long-term, for that I make no apologies. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that MacDonald uses an upper-case definite article, you are correct, he does, however, the 3rd edition of his book was published in Chicago, and I have been told that US opinions on this matter are irrelevant, since the subject is British. Maybe you have an earlier edition published in the UK. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Also, Chicago Review press published Lewisohn's book in 2010 using all small-case "the". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Really? Why would wikipedia capitalize "The"? This is silly, it's obviously incorrect and I fully support this poll. I looked through my manuals of style, Hart, Butcher, Fowler, they all agree to NOT capitalize "the". This is cut-and-dry.
    sock puppet struck. --MuZemike
    14:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - In a sentence, lower-case is best. As a reader, I find that it flows better somehow. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support use of small 't' in mid sentence per MOS. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm a long-time Beatles fan (could you tell) and I'm not sure I have ever seen "The" written in caps mid-sentence, except for maybe in a handful of books. Hart's says to not cap the definite article in running prose, so does Butcher. BeatlesGirl7 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - In an unclear case go with the more common option, otherwise it is editorializing. In this case, the correct version is definitely unclear to the wikipedia community, so go with the more common lowercase 't'. —siroχo 01:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - No good reason not to stick to the manual of style. --Lukobe (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fix the MoS, and then oppose as per the MoS: Confusingly,
    MOS:MUSIC#Names_.28definite_article.29 currently uses the The John, Paul, George, and Ringo as examples of why the "t" should be both lowercase ("Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles") and uppercase ("'The' must be capitalized mid-sentence ... if it is capitalized in a quoted printed source: According to BBC journalist Julie Glassman, 'they can boast almost as many tribute bands as The Beatles'"). The printed-source rule could, of course, create inconsistency within an article when printed sources are in conflict, but in this case the band, itself, uses the capital "T" consistently on its official website, even when quoting printed sources of its own (see the Wired comment on Yellow Submarine). It's the band's choice, really, and the deliberateness with which a band engages with the grammatical article can vary spectrally: (The) Carpenters optionally avoided it; The Who semantically require it (e.g., "Who", on its own, conveys insufficient information as compared to, say, "Rolling Stone"--where "stone" has standard singular and plural forms); and as for "Beatles"? John (along with Stu, apparently) invented the word. Of course, neither John nor Stu is around to ask directly, but if Paul and Ringo (or Apple Corps, at least) prefer big "T" over little "t", then so (IMHO) should we. Cosmic Latte (talk
    ) 03:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
From www.thebeatles.com: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale, the White Album and Yellow Submarine. That's the official summary of six of their twelve UK studio LPs, all use small "t". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Correction, GabeMc. On the White Album link at [4] they give the informal title of the double LP officialy titled The Beatles as "The White Album". Yes, I used the lower case t in this instance because it is not the official title. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
From the same page: "Following the recording of their single “Lady Madonna” in February, the Beatles flew to Rishikesh, India". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actual Beatles Mediation Input Requirements

Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as you input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

Johnny and the Hurricanes, a 1959, instrumental rock band from Toledo, Ohio, was listed on this Beatles poster. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.289109337821422&type=1 Toledo turtle 47 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Discography section

Per

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section, the discography section should contain a simple list of the artist's major works and other information such as sales certifications should go in a separate discography article. Also, I can't think of a more incongruous pairing of information than a list of "original UK LPs" and US record awards. Piriczki (talk
) 13:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Piriczki, the discography was fine as it was and the sales info (unsourced) should be removed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
While I can understand the MOS argument I don't think that one can easily dismiss the info as "unsourced", especially for Beatles albums, given that their sales records have been well established over decades and sources are not hard to find. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but no
WP:RS was provided for the sales info, thus it was unsourced, even if likely verifiable. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs
) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine, "unsourced" but very likely "sourceable". However MOS non-compliance renders this discussion moot. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Labels in the infobox

Why doesn't the Labels part of the infobox have EMI? Sorry if I'm being clueless, I just thought that George Martin was an EMI producer and the Beatles' greatest albums were EMI albums? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Parlophone is a subsidiary of EMI. Cresix (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Faster web page loading

Is there any way to increase the speed of the Beatles wiki page without compromising the content? I've noticed that it's cumbersome to edit; I think improving the loading time would make it friendlier for Wikipedians and casual viewers. Thanks for any suggestions! Littledreamer78 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Rarities

Why does every rarity and b-side the Beatles ever had have an article? Surely you don't think those songs are notable. If You got Trouble's article may just be one of the most bland and unnecessary articles I've seen on wikipedia. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A potential gold mine of photos

According to this page, the entire gahetNA in het Nationaal Archief archive from The Netherlands has images available under the Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 3.0 Nederland (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. I bring this up because there are 239 Beatles images available, some of which would be invaluable additions to the article. Could someone a little better at navigating through non-English websites confirm this for me? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

An image from this archive did not pass the review in July, during the Paul McCartney FAC. While the archive seems to be public domain, there is no indication of who owns the copyrights to the individual images; thus, their usage here is not clearly free. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You must be thinking of a different archive, because no Beatles/Paul McCartney images from this archive were ever in the Paul McCartney article during the FAC process. I recommend you read the "open data" page that explains the terms of use for the archive. Roughly translated from Dutch:
Open data
The National Archives sets over 140,000 photographs from the archives of photo agency Anefo available as open culture data under a CC-BY-SA license, the metadata is available under a CC0 license.
The set Anefo
The set contains a section of the Dutch political, social and cultural life between 1959 and 1989. All the big and small news from the sixties, seventies and eighties by photographers are recorded. Everything is there, from big news as royal weddings, political crises and European championships to very small news as tilted trucks on the highway, crowded beaches during the first heat wave of the year and the fire that a cat from a burning house gets.
Anefo was a private, commercial photo agency where demand exceeds supply certain. Major themes in the set are politics, sports and the monarchy. In 140000 pictures you see Netherlands slowly change from a reconstruction-oriented society through deep generational conflicts to a society that hopes to run against the cuts imposed during the economic crisis in the eighties. The photo collection Anefo has its inclusiveness great historical value for the postwar Dutch (image) history.
History Anefo
The General Dutch Photo Agency derives from the photographic department established in 1943 within the Office Military Authorities. Founded by the Dutch government in exile in London, had Anefo primarily to educational materials to make and distribute to the position of the Netherlands under the spotlight and keep the memory of the legitimate government and the royal family to keep alive among the population in occupied Netherlands. In 1948 it was sold and grew alongside the ANP gradually becoming one of the major Dutch, commercial photo agencies. Anefo remained there until 1989. In that year, the last director all the photos transferred to the Government Information. Finally, the extensive collection in 1996 through the RVD managed by the National Archives.
Anefo culture as open data
The copyright of the photos taken by photographers working for Anefo is transferred to the RVD and RVD through the National Archives. The descriptions of the Anefo photos are not always complete. The National Archives is dependent on the information provided in the past by Anefo in the photos is recorded. The organization has consistently chronologically. The material came to date within which various daily reports may be available. To ensure that all rights of the initial terms of over 150,000 pictures copyright by the National Archives are located, have safe side on the set an extra place selections. Images whose 'creator unknown' or in which a 'contract' are made are filtered out.
Please read and tell me what you think. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this image from the same archives: File:Paul, George & John.png? It did not pass the image review during the McCartney FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No, that image is from here. Regarding the archive I posted about above, don't you think the copyright situation is made clear in their history/open data page? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay I see now. Well, what kind of CC-BY-SA, 2.0 or 3.0, makes a big difference. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Their open data page links to Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 3.0 Nederland (CC BY-SA 3.0). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me then, though I do not claim to be an expert in this regard. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I've not come across this site before, but there are already thousands of images from this site uploaded onto Commons. Presumably, they were all photographs owned by this agency, who then chose to release them; this is absolutely fantastic for us, of course! I'd be inclined to say that they were absolutely usable- great find! J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2012

Where it says "From 1966 on, they produced what many critics consider their finest material, including the innovative and widely influential albums Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles (1968), and Abbey Road (1969)" it should say "From 1965 on" and include the 1965 album "Rubber Soul". Rubber Soul is considered by many critics to be among the 10 best albums of all time and it's odd that it's left out of this statement. Rolling Stone magazine listed it as the 5th greatest album in music history. 66.215.100.114 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I tend to agree with you—Rubber Soul gets quite a lot of space in the body of the article, so it probably should be mentioned in the lede. I'm tempted to make the change. However, the content of the paragraph in question seems to flow chronologically, and your proposed change would disrupt that. Perhaps one of the regular editors of the article would care to comment (hint hint). Rivertorch (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the chronology would be broken if we included Rubber Soul. FTR, I supported its inclusion for the same reasons you gave above, but others did not. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, no one has spoken up against it now. How do you see solving the problem of chronology (if you see it as a problem at all)? Rivertorch (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I've made an edit to this effect, adding Rubber Soul and removing the text string about their last concert to preserve the chrono. Let me know if this resolves the issue. Thanks for the input! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. I think the mention of the last concert probably doesn't need to be in the lede anyway. Marking request closed. Rivertorch (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP-based users cannot participate? 66.87.0.213 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The poll was protected after repeated vandalism and sock puppetry, sorry. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

request grammar edit in introduction

The following sentence could use grammatical repair:

"Moulded into a professional act by manager Brian Epstein, the creativity of producer George Martin enhanced their musical potential."

The initial modifier must be immediately followed by the noun it modifies - specifically, "the Beatles," not "the creativity of..."

68.52.189.176 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch! I think this issue is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Related Artists

Billy Preston and the Plastic Ono band were removed. I do not see why. The late Billy Preston was the only artist to have been credited for playing Beatles record (Get Back & Don't Let Me Down - The Beatles & Billy Preston). The Beatles appear in Preston's related artists. Why has his credit been removed? And to add to that, the Plastic Ono band featured not one, not two, but THREE former Beatles: Lennon, Starr and Harrison. Surely this qualifies as a related artist? I know WINGS do not appear under related artists due to Wiki Policy, because only Paul being a member; however the Plastic Ono band at one point contained 3/4 of the Beatles. Please can we try and add these back.

I also think it's stupid that Wing's aren't under related artists, but I am not going to argue with Wiki Policy. 86.183.165.50 (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I've added them back. Nice catch, thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Broken references

The Sources section has three broken references with only author-names—"Gould (2004)", "Lewisohn" and "Lewisohn (1991)". Does anybody know how to fix this?—indopug (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Casbah Club?

Does this deserve a mention? See: [5] Apparently The Beatles played there before they played at The Cavern. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Released in March 1963, the album initiated a run during which eleven of their twelve studio albums released in the United Kingdom through 1970 reached number one.[54] "

This statement is anachronistic and should be removed. Apparently something else significant relating contemporaneously to the March 1963 release of their first album (probably a measure of public reception), is meant to be placed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.54.130 (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify your position? Are you asserting that PPM wasn't a UK number 1? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi GabeMc. Why twelve studio albums? Eleven yes, but Why twelve? --Roujan (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Roujan, the 12 include PPM, WTB, AHDN, BFS, Help!, RS, Revolver, Pepper, White Album', YS, AR and LiB. That's 12 UK studio albums, 1963-1970, all but Yellow Submarine were UK number 1s. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi GabeMc. Thank you for the answer. For me,"Yellow Submarine" was not a real album.(and it's for this reason that "The Beatles are the only act of history with all their original albums which reached number one and the only act of history with the first eleven albums that reaches the first place". (About your sentence "but Yellow Submarine were UK number 1s": single yes, but not 'album'#3) --Roujan (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant of their 12 UK studio albums, Yellow Submarine was the only one that did not reach number 1 in the UK. I agree with you in principle that YS is not really an album, but nonetheless, it is counted in their official canon. I would ditch YS for MMT any day, but that's not what Apple thinks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Add descriptions to the titles of sub-sections under "After the Break-up"?

I was thinking we should liven up the rather dull and repetitive "1970s, 1980s..." sub-section headers...—indopug (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My two cents. I personally don't like such descriptors. The dates are unambiguous and brief, good qualities for section headers. Sometimes editors get too creative, making cute comments, and it's difficult to summarize a decade of Beatles' history in a couple of words; either something is overemphasized or the headers are too long. But I certainly would encourage you to make your suggested changes here for others to comment. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Gould

Do we really need that kind of nonsense here?

woven with motifs of circularity, reversal, and inversion
No, not IMO. I've tried over the last year or so to tone-down the Gould-based fancruft in the article, at times to great opposition. When I get a chance, I intend to run through the article again removing/replacing this kind of fanboy nonsense with encyclopedic writing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I've now removed that specific piece of Gould fancruft. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops!

My last revert to this page was completely unintended, and is one of many reasons I shouldn't edit from smartphones. Apologies! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits: alteration of quoted material

In these recent edits made in light of the t/The decision, several quotes have been modified.—indopug (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If a quote contains a mild spelling error then we silently correct it. If a quote uses non-MOS punctuation then we bring it silently to match the article style. Capitalization is not so different from those cases. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The decision in the case indicated we should use the capitalization of the original in quotes - and also indicated that avoiding mid-sentence use could be encouraged. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 08:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Jwy. Binksternet,
MOS:QUOTE#Minimal_change disagrees with you.—indopug (talk
) 10:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Per the Wikipedia MoS:
    "This practice of conforming typographical styling to a publication's own 'house style' is universal". Notice it says styling, and not just error? For an example of this type of styling alteration, see The Beatles Anthology, where every Lennon quote is taken from other publishers, mostly from Rolling Stone, which uses a lowercase definite article throughout. In the Anthology book, every single instance of a lowercase "t" in every single Lennon quote was uppercased, without [sic] or comment, in an effort to conform to an internal consistency, so that quotes from Lennon don't use lowercase while quotes from Macca use upper. Minimal change does indeed allow for styling changes so a publisher can maintain internal consistency, and since no alteration of meaning is created with a change from "T" to "t" this would seem to be exactly the kind of situation where this can, and should be be applied. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs
    ) 23:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The capitalization in quotes item is explicitly called out in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles#Closure, which makes it appear the closer's opinion is the opposite. It would seem prudent to follow its suggestions. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Brad's non-binding RfC closure does not overrule all known style guides on all points; he was not even asked to comment on this specific point, nor was it discussed at any length during mediation. According to the CMOS (16th edition), this type of change is acceptable. The point of "minimal change" is to retain the wording, not the syntax or typography. According to the CMOS: "Although in a direct quotation the wording should be reproduced exactly ... changes are generally permissable to make a passage fit into the syntax and typography of the surrounding text." (p.621), "the initial letter can be changed to a capital or a lowercase letter" (p.622), "words in full capitals can be set in lowercase, if that is the preferred style for the surrounding text" (p.622). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"Brad's non-binding RfC closure" – it's unfortunate that you interpret that excellent judgement in this way just because there are a couple of points you disagree with.—indopug (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I just meant that Brad's closure does not contravene the entire Wikipedia MoS, which states in Typographical conformity: "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting ... Allowable typographical alterations include: "Changing capitalization so that sentences ... do not have unnecessary capitals in the middle." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. - Grab any Beatles source at random and check to see if the "t"s in the quoted material match the "t"s in the surrounding prose. They will. I researched over 250 books during the mediation and not one of them had a mixed usage. So, either publishers alter the capitalisation in quotes to fit their "house style", or they only quote sources that agree with their capitalisation method. Which brings me to this, from the
    WP:MOS: "Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article", but how could we maintain consistency within an article while not altering quotes unless we ban the use of quotes from Big "T" sources that also contain the band name mid-sentence? Now do you see my point? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs
    ) 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles albums footer

Could someone who knows how please change in "The Beatles albums footer" "With The Beatles" to "With the Beatles"? I am referring to the footer which appears at the bottom of the individual album navboxes. Thank you.

talk
) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done in this edit by Koavf. GoingBatty (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding "Influences" and "Influenced" sections to the infobox

No, this is not the dreaded "past/current members" argument. I propose that we add sections to the musical artist infobox for who influenced the artist and who the artist influenced, just like the writer infobox has. Of course only the most notable artists would have this information in their infobox, and only a handful of artists would go in each section.

talk
) 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I smell some huge and very lengthy arguments, gnashing of teeth, and edit wars on the horizon. It probably can be sourced that they were influenced by at least 20 or 30 artists and that they influenced hundreds of very notable artists. I would have my favorite nine or ten among that group, and dozens of other frequent editors here would have a different list of favorites. The "past/current" battle would pale in comparison. My vote is a big no. No offense; I'm sure your intentions are very good here. Cresix (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect punctuation

There are numerous punctuation errors in this article (and many others throughout the Wiki), the most of which concern the use of periods and commas with quotation marks. The rule is as follows: Periods and commas should be placed INSIDE the quotation marks. The only exception is if there is a reference to a source, e.g., The author states: "Time alone reveals the just" (p.471).[The period follows the reference to the source of the direct quotation.]

Colons and semicolons are placed OUTSIDE the quotation marks, e.g., She spoke of "the protagonists"; yet I remembered only one in "The Tell-Tale Heart": the mad murderer.

Dashes, question marks, and exclamation points are placed INSIDE the quotation marks when they apply ONLY to the quoted material; place them OUTSIDE when they apply to the whole sentence. Some examples: Pilate asked, "What is truth?" [The question mark applies only to the quoted material.] What is the meaning of the term "half truth"? [The question mark applies to the while sentence.] Grammargirl66 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are different writing styles, and no single one is considered the ultimate authority that applies in every circumstance. You are identifying "errors" that may be identified in the style that you learned (as did I in high school and college), but that doesn't make it the sole style that supersedes all others. Wikipedia has its own rules about punctuation, and your rules apply only partially. More specifically, please read
MOS:LQ about punctuation: "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Note that this includes periods and commas. Neither your style nor Wikipedia's style is wrong; they're just standards that apply to different circumstances, just as there are different ways to spell some words depending on the version of English that you use. Cresix (talk
) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Link to the Beatles wiki?

I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to add to the end of the infobox, below the website link, a link to the Beatles wiki which is here? I've decided to ask on the talk page, instead of logging-in to make the change myself, in case it might not be appropriate; after all, although a resource of Beatle information, the wiki (like most Wikia wikis with only a few exceptions) is in effect a fan site. — 188.28.20.4 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #12.—indopug (talk
) 18:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Little Richard

Please see this revert for context on this discussion. A bit of info on the band performing in Hamburg with

B and R. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs
) 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As I've explained here, the text is irrelevant to this article and added by a user whose sole contribution to Wikipedia has been adding info about LR's influence to various articles. Besides, the burden of starting a discussion should fall on the person adding controversial info to a Featured Article. Are we expected to start a new thread every time a drive-by adds substantial amounts of text to an already-complete and well-written article?—indopug (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Your assessment of irrelevance is a matter of opinion, of course, and I disagree with it. Information about the mating habits of the California Condor would be irrelevant. Whether or not it belongs in the article is another issue altogether, but information about the Beatles doing things related to their career as the Beatles is relevant by definition. All I ask is that, given the recent insanity we have witnessed surrounding these articles, we all make an effort to discuss these things rather than reverting them with little comment, particularly when
dealing with new and anonymous editors who can spell and use half-decent sources. As a certain French philosopher might say, now is no time to go around making enemies. I am not innocent of this myself, so don't take it personally. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs
) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there should be discussion in case of reverting. But where we disagree is about who needs to initiate that discussion. I say that the change-maker should, because he is the one who wants to alter an established article.—indopug (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Then when you were the "change-maker" in reverting the information already in the article, why did you not discuss, even after being asked to do so? Cresix (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you being serious? I restored the status quo; that's not changing the article.—indopug (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the material in question, though there might be a place for some of it, it does place undue emphasis on Little Richard's involvement in the history of the Beatles. For example, weren't Chuck Berry and Gene Vincent also doing well in the UK at that time? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with WesleyDodds here, also, it would appear that Smoovedogg's main objective on Wikipedia is making sure that Richard gets as much credit as possible, even for Hendrix's fashion sense, the source: Little Richard via White. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone placed them nr. 1 artist of all time. I don't see it being mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.81.204 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reference for that? (e.g. which issue) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Costello, Elvis (2011). "The Beatles". In Brackett, Nathan (ed.). Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. Rolling Stone. p. 8. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks GabeMC! So is this noteworthy enough to include in the article? If so, where? Legacy? Awards and achievements? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! I tend to think it would be most appropriate in the Legacy section. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Being an encyclopedia with a worldwide viewership, why does this article not have any reference to The Beatles being British as opposed to English, or at least added to their origin? (eg. Liverpool, England, United Kingdom - Anyone who says it is obvious that being English is the same as being British is just as bad as any American for instance who assume that they are both the same thing. They were/are a citizen of the UK first and foremost, not England, so I strongly believe this should be reflected in their article. To make another point this wording excludes every other British citizen in in the United Kingdom from having a rightful connection to them if he is being listed as solely English, which is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.49.179 (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

beatlesbible.com

I see this website being referenced on a lot of Beatles and John Lennon related articles and I looks like a fan site rather than a reliable citation. Can you enlighten me on why this is a good source? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not a
WP:RS. Avoid it at all costs. GabeMc (talk|contribs
) 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The "About" page says that it is run by a guy named Joe who lives in the UK. No last name given, so it's hard to call it "reliable". Joe lists some good references but they are not placed inline such that facts can be tracked to the source.
When I searched online for comments about the validity or authority of beatlesbible.com I found nothing reliable, just blogs, wikis and mirrors.
When I searched for "Beatles Bible" (two words), I got the same unreliable bits plus this Los Angeles Times article ("Official Beatles Bible to Set Helter-Skelter Record Straight") referring to the Beatles Anthology book of 2000 as the "Beatles Bible" which is, of course, not the website. I think the website must be purged as a reference and external link in Wikpedia articles. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The scope we are talking about is 213 articles that use the website in some fashion. I can imagine a case in which the Wikipedia article talks about somebody notable referring to an article on beatlesbible.com; in that case we would keep it. If it is being used for a straight link or a straight reference, it should go. Any worrisome 'facts' that are orphaned in the process should be tagged. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should put a notice at the Beatles Project page that editors should avoid using this source. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Notes" section

Since there are only two "notes" in this article, I think the corresponding section needs only two rows, not four (30em). Plant's Strider (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lord Woodbine

Should there be some reference to this calypsonian? He was an early musical influence in Liverpool, played in the same clubs (and managed some of them) and drove the van to Hamburg in 1960. He is briefly mentioned in The Beatles in Hamburg but had a much larger role. -- Ferma (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Teenagers

There really isn't much about how the teenagers feel now. There was a study in: Womack, Kenneth (2009). The Cambridge Companion to The Beatles. University of Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. that showed that 34% of 3000 adults hid there past from their 60's childhood to keep respect from friends and family because of the influences of the Beatles. Mousehead50 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Mousehead50

Not quite clear what the study says. Your phrasing is a bit odd. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup listing for WikiProject The Beatles

I posted this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, but didn't receive any response there, so I'm also posting here.

Thanks to User:Svick, we now have a Cleanup listing for WikiProject The Beatles. As of 22 January, of the 2781 articles in this project 677 or 24.3% are marked for cleanup, with 1096 issues in total.

Could we come up with a fun way to do this cleanup, such as creating a Beatles barnstar for those editors who do the most cleanup? GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Magazine

The Beatles was ranked as nr. 1 artist of all time in their 100 Greatest Artists list. Could this be mentioned in the article, as the rankings of other artists are very often mentioned in their own articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.81.204 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Blatant opinion in lede

"They became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music."

What is the completely dependable measuring tool for definitively establishing the level of critical acclaim for all popular music artists in history, by analysing in detail every single review published about each? This claim amounts to mere opinion, since you absolutely cannot prove that an act is the most critically acclaimed in history. Yeah, The Beatles made some great music and took the world by storm, but I can't believe that this kind of hyperbole has made the lede of a so-called "featured article". أنا أحبك (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What matters is whether a
original research). That said, I can’t seem to find anything in the cited source that makes either claim in that sentence, so I’ve removed the sentence. Besides, it was an FA nine years ago, so that line may not have been in there at the time. —Frungi (talk
) 07:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I can understand the Wikipedia rules that say that claim should be removed, but we now have a lead paragraph that takes until the fourth sentence to suggest that they were any more than your average rock band of the 1960s, and even then it's pretty bland. أنا أحبك may not think they were the greatest, but they were great. That surely has to be in the lead paragraph. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Frungi, I've reverted your edit for now, in the spirit of
WP:BRD
.
I think the relevant text in the source is "To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did." Note that the article also passed a rigourous FAC four years ago, when standards were much-improved since nine years ago.—indopug (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, OP is a banned sockpuppet.—indopug (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That still doesn’t back up such a (admittedly hyperbolic) claim. That would be fine if the article said “…in the rock era” (edit: so now it does —23:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)), but it’s much more sweeping than that. Or did I miss something in the source? —Frungi (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Frungi. That's much better. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reunions

The Beatles had reunions in 1973 (on album), 1974, 1979, 1981, and 2000 (on album). Is it okay if I add these to the "years active" part of the infobox??? — Preceding

talk • contribs
) 01:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There were no recordings featuring all four Beatles released in any of those years (the closest was Ringo in '73, but they were on separate songs). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that one fourth of The Beatles were dead in 1981 and 2000. Cresix (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I don’t think that makes the surviving members any less “active”. But it’s a question of definition: Is a defunct band “active” when it plays a reunion concert? —Frungi (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There were no Beatles reunion concerts. GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Or albums, or songs, or whatever, you get my point. The reunions
User:Pollack man34
was talking about. And did they play under the band name?
Also, please answer the question you replied to: When is a band considered “active”? Or if it’s been addressed elsewhere on Wikipedia, please point that out. —Frungi (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The definition of "active" has been the subject of long and interminable discussion on this talk page (check the archives) and, to a lesser extent, at
Real Love" constituted a reunion for the purposes of the infobox, but consensus came down against it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs
) 23:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Was there any consensus on what makes a band active? —Frungi (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Not that I can recall, though you can try reading through these and see what you think: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Since "consensus on what makes a band active" is a larger question than just the Beatles, should it be addressed elsewhere, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians? GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking if there was a consensus on that question here, it’d be useful elsewhere on Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
If consensus is made only in regard to one band, it's likely to be challenged, ignored, or passed off as a local decision only by the rest of the community. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles won 10 Grammy

The Beatles won 10 Grammy, no 7, as written in the introduction of the article. Review the list of awards, thanks, bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.43.220 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Cresix (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfixed: The Grammy.com search only lists seven, and the sentence citing it says seven, not ten. —Frungi (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And I asked on there about it. That article uses the same source and comes up with different numbers, doesn't make sense to me. —Frungi (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the unfix Frungi. I removed the incorrect items on the awards article. It looks to me like someone added awards won by individual members as songwriters that should not have been added for the entire group. Cresix (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Beatles

I think the beatles are not only the most succesful band they are the most succesful act in history of all time . Their claims reach 1,8 billion sometimes .So we should mention that MJ1982 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "Their claims reach 1,8 billion sometimes". Are you basing "most succesful act in history of all time" on amount of money earned, number of recording sales, or something else? "History of all time" is a very broad statement and a very sticky issue if you go beyond the rock music era; are we including composers such as Beethoven in this comparison? On the one hand, Beethoven wrote his music before recording was possible. On the other hand Beethoven has had a few centuries head start on The Beatles to accumulate sales. You will have to be more specific; very specific. And if please provide us reliable sources for any of your claims. Cresix (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What genre should we use?

In my opinion, we should have a long list of genres on the "genre" section in the infobox instead of just "rock, pop." The Beatles musical style has encompassed many genres including Merseybeat, rock and roll, skiffle, pop rock, hard rock, soft rock, folk rock, baroque pop, psychedelic rock, raga rock, experimental, avant-garde, progressive rock, classical, folk, soul, country rock, surf rock, art rock, blues rock, and gospel, and I think that at least some of these should be represented in the "genres" section. I'd change it myself, but there is a comment in the code saying "Please discuss on talk page before changing." CondenserCoil 01:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes normally list 1–4 genres, any more and we risk crowding the infobox, thereby defeating its primary purpose of providing quick, vital information at a glance. Also, having a long, subjective list like yours leads to endless edit wars and arguments among editors.—indopug (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to underline the point, the guidance states that this field should "Aim for generality". It is also a common error to mistake influences and styles for the genre of a band.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the above very important points, this issue has been discussed several times on this talk page (check the archives) with a solid consensus to limit genres to rock and pop. Those two are very general and inclusive of most, if not all, of The Beatles' music. Cresix (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


Boy band

I think it's plainly dishonest that the term "boy band" is not mentioned once in the whole article. They were as constructed and artificial as any of the boy bands today, and as unpleasant as this might sound to many (including myself), they clearly were the real initiators of the boy band phenomenon. Understanding the past can go a long way in curing the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.120.10 (talk • contribs)

That comment is utterly absurd and reflects a profound ignorance of the history of The Beatles. Just because they were "boys" did not make them a "boy band". "Boy bands" such as Backstreet Boys and NSync were manufactured, selected by music producers before the members had even met each other. They were formed, groomed, and marketed by music producers at the very outset of their existence. The members of The Beatles developed their relationships with each with no outside help. They selected their own bandmates, changed lineups, and performed in local venues for years to hone their skills and develop their reputations, all before a single music professional became involved with them. The Beatles didn't just suddenly come into existence at the time of their breakthrough into superstardom. If there is an "intitiator" of the boy band phenomenon, it's The Monkees, who were handpicked by music producers. The Beatles only served as the template which The Monkees (at first) tried to emulate. Cresix (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't have thought of the Beatles as a boy band since "most boy band members do not play musical instruments", see Boy band#1960s: The Osmonds, The Jackson 5, The Beatles, and The Monkees. GoingBatty (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
If we include The Beatles in the same category as manufactured bands who don't play their instruments, the term "boy band" completely loses its meaning. That would mean that every group whose lineup is all boys or young men would be a boy band. Note that Boy band is largely unsourced, and the section that mentions The Beatles is entirely unsourced. That makes it someone's personal essay about boy bands. If I had time to fight the inevitable battle that would follow, I would remove The Beatles from the article. Cresix (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Upon rereading the boy band article, I changed the text from "Although not a manufactured band, The Beatles set a precedent for boy bands to follow..." to "Although not a boy band, The Beatles set a precedent for boy bands to follow...", which is a more reasonable statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
In my original comment I didn't say they were manufactured: I said that they were artificial, which they clearly were in many ways, as the article on boy bands seems to confirm. Since the discussion seems to have established that the Beatles set a precedent for Boy Bands to follow, and given the magnitude of the phenomenon in our day, I believe that the same point should be *mentioned* in the Beatles article. That was my original point, and I still hold it would be a desirable modification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.153.60 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
representative of the mainstream assessment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
00:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The foregoing discussion has shown that my observation has already been made in the article "Boy band": if the observation satisfies wikipedia rules in that article, it's hard to see why it wouldn't satisfy them in the present article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.63.144 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles were not a boy band. Boy band makes that clear when it says "Although not a boy band, The Beatles...". This is complicated by the fact that, using proper English, the Beatles were a band made up of boys, while most Boy bands aren't actually bands. (Why does the music industry mutilate the language so much?) HiLo48 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
in addtion 1)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source 2) while to a brick, its being in the Wall of China is an important fact about the brick; for the Wall of China; that particular brick is probably not that important. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
03:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
1) I am not saying that wikipedia is a reliable source: I am saying that if the observation in the Boy Band article is well founded, it also applies to this article. This information may interest readers, and people competent to improve the article might want to consider that: I am not conversant with wikipedia policies, so that's as far as my contribution goes. 2) The brick analogy is fallacious: no single brick ever set a precedent which lead to the origination of the Wall of China. On the other hand, not including the influence on the origination of boy bands because the Beatles themselves weren't a boy band is very much akin to not including any mention of Christianity in the article on Jesus Christ based on the fact that he himself was a Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.21.116 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we have established here that The Beatles themselves were not a boy band. As for the influence on later boy bands, there were multiple influences on the boy band phenomenon, including some before The Beatles became a success. I'm not sure that this deserves to be mentioned in every article for every group that had an influence, and if it is mentioned, certainly no more than a few words. But, anon 92.41.21.116, here is a point that has been mentioned repeatedly. Nothing will ever be added to this article (permanently, that is) until there are reliable sources to back it up, and there don't seem to be many editors here willing to find those sources for you. So let me suggest that you first find the sources verifying The Beatles' influence of the boy band phenomenon before pushing this any more. You've made your point, but all of us need to see reliable sources before we decide what goes or doesn't go in the article. For help in finding reliable sources, see

WP:V
. 15:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

...and you could add those same references to the Boy band article, too. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Emporio and other sub-standard Beatles releases into this article

The discussion relative to this article's content appears to have fizzled long ago. Archiving per
WP:NOTFORUM. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
00:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just giving some advance warning of edits I intend to do to this article. I'm currently trying to get two releases on the Emporio and Laserlight labels removed from the discography for Desmond Dekker. An editor has refused this on the basis that they are releases associated with the artist. I then disputed that criteria and used this Beatles article to prove that we shouldn't include everything especially budget releases. They are still adamant that its a POV I'm expressing. I feel as though I have no option now but to prove that is not the case and that there is a consensus (tacitly understood) to not include "such" releases. I intend to add these releases to the Legacy section of this Beatles article:

  • A Reggae Tribute To The Beatles CD (Emporio)
  • Hooked On The Beatles
  • The London Symphony Orchestra Plays the Music of The Beatles
  • Pinky and Perky - cover of Yellow Submarine

The above are just a small example of acts associated with The Beatles legacy and I will be digging around for a more extensive list to include. If its fine for an article on a reggae artist to have "rubbish" included then it should be ok to include "rubbish" here.

Here's the link to the discussion page of the editor who disputes my removals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michig#Emporio_and_Laserlight_Releases

I'll be searching around the net for actual "budget" Beatles releases (not covers by other groups) so that I can create here the exact conditions as they exist in the Desmond Dekker article. Personally I'd rather not have to do this but since it is the only way to prove my point to Michig I feel as though I have no option. Please except my apology in advance for adding the Pinky and Perky track to the Legacy section.

Sluffs (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"to prove that is not the case": Isn't that a bit
Talk tonight
) 22:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it is a violation of
WP:POINT almost certainly will be reverted, and you are unlikely to get any support here in your content dispute by taking such action; and if you persist after your are reverted here, of course, there will be admin involvement with your above comments serving as evidence of policy/guideline violation. Cresix (talk
) 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid that you have proved my point. Just the mere suggestion of adding these releases under the rules imposed upon my edits has led to accusations of "pointy" editing. What a load of rubbish. All that's going on here is that I've made a legitimate editing decision based on an admin imposed rule on my edits to the Desmond Dekker article which I hold to be applicable to this article. I'll be reviewing whether its worth doing anymore reggae article or any articles period. Cheers.

Sluffs (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You may consider
WP:POINTy editing "a load of rubbish", but bear in mind that The Beatles is watched by a large number of editors, and a number of consensuses have developed. I urge you to read the archives thoroughly before making unilateral decisions about what should be added to the article. Cresix (talk
) 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well actually I've made the decision to stop editing on Wikipedia completely. I cannot justify my role as an editor here because there is no equality in the application of the rules. Its a sad reality that this Beatles article is protected from the inclusion of sub-standard CD releases (ie. Pickwick, Emporio, Laserlight) by editors that will resort to the rules or an over-powering majority consensus to stop these being included and yet I am not allowed to extend the same quality control to the Dekker article. Why is that so? I'm not too sure but I imagine its a "perception issue" with The Beatles article considered of higher importance than the Dekker article and thus has a more quality driven editing team. I mainly work alone on the reggae articles (some have not received "real" edits ie. not bots or auto-fixes in a long time) and I made the decision to remove the Emporio and Laserlight releases (ironically to stop caucasians getting ripped off since reggae fans know which sub-standard releases to avoid which I imagine is exactly why The Beatles editors don't want me to include sub-standard Beatles related releases here). We all want visitors to this site to be pointed to the best versions of the material but Michig (admin) has said that the two albums I removed from the Dekker article are not sub-standard. All that did was show me that Michig doesn't know his "reggae" releases and labels. I imagine if I mentioned Yvonne's Specials he wouldn't have a clue what I was on about though any rasta or sound-system operator would be able to tell you immediately what I was on about. I can't be bothered to fight my corner on this issue and it actually makes my editing position untenable due to the irony that I'm using The Beatles article as a "quality" template in my attempts to bring up reggae and R&B articles to the same quality. If you go to the articles on The Clovers, Ernest Ranglin and Prince Buster (all articles I've turned around from bad to at least passable) and use the history to compare versions you can actually see that I'm using the Beatles article as a quality guide. The Clovers article was a "copy and paste" job from a commercial site. I just spent three week researching and rewriting the whole thing to bring it up to the standard found on The Beatles article. The Clovers article had three or four refs when I started it now has over 40. So sub-standard and "cash-in" releases are not to be included here but its fine for Dekker. If the Emporio or Laserlight releases were essential to the Dekker article to help clarify some point in his career then they should be included but they are not - they are garage forecourt rip-off CDs. Pinky and Perky's superb version of Yellow Submarine is part of The Beatles legacy and should be included here. I know its not and so do most Beatles fans but a 12 year old in Nigeria doesn't. Thats why in nearly a decade of the existence of The Beatles article that every editor has made the POV non-neutral decision to not include Pinky and Perky, Cilla Black (friend of the Beatles that they wrote songs for), Scaffold (Mike McCartney), Hooked on the Beatles (classical versions of Beatles tracks that will be of a very high quality) as examples of the Beatles Legacy to popular culture. When The Beatles article gets the "quality" treatment but I'm not allowed to extend the same consideration to the Dekker article it makes my position here as an editor untenable.

Sluffs (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You might meet less resistance at
WP:POINT there, and everything is properly sourced. Most of the legacy information is there anyway. Cresix (talk
) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Another option is including the cover versions in the
List of cover versions of the Beatles songs (or remove unsourced versions altogether), if you're interested. There are plenty of places on Wikipedia that you can make a huge difference! GoingBatty (talk
) 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

lol. Oh the live wires are here. I'm on about budget releases on two labels in particular: Emporio and Laserlight. What happened was it widened out and you read far more into it than there is. This is basically a question of fair treatment on all articles. Everyone presumes that Dekker's discography is less important than the holy grail that is The Beatles discography. The Dekker article is his main namespace here on Wikipedia as is The Beatles - this goes out to the world - BBC Music, Google Sidebar, and countless minor wikis and commercial sites link back to these articles. Who the hell are any of you to decide that I as an editor cannot present the Dekker discography in its best light using the original releases (with the exclusion of rubbish budget crap). What makes his article any different from this article. So cut the "we're a clever pair" bull and give me a straight answer to why I have to include budget releases in the Dekker article but its excluded from this article. Whats was that terrible Pickwick Beatles album - the one with the illustration style cover. Stop being smart asses and just be smart. Whats your answer guys.

Sluffs (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll never get anywhere on Wikipedia (and certainly not on this article) by making demands and personal attacks. If that is your approach to editing here, maybe your idea of not editing is a good one. And of course there's no doubt that you'll come back with another vitriolic response, so this is my last comment in this section. Cresix (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sluffs, the top of this page states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the
civil
, especially when you are requesting assistance.
I know nothing about
Desmond Dekker discography
page.
I suggest you continue your discussion at Talk:Desmond Dekker#The inclusion of Laserlight and Emporio releases. If that doesn't go well, you could also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style or Wikipedia:WikiProject Reggae instead. I wish you all the best in your efforts to improve Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hold on. Look at the thread title "You Got To Be Batty To Think You Have The Right To Call Others Batty" - sorry wrong title - it says the inclusion of budget releases into The Beatles article. Michig admin has set down a criteria for virtual authority by reverting my removal of the budget releases in the Dekker article under a POV remit. Michig has by his action stated virtual authority (I presume you're not too batty to understand virtual authority) can include budget releases into the main namespace article. Dekker is contemporary with The Beatles and both opened "floodgates" (as nicely stated in the Beatles legacy section): they for singer-songwriter bands and Dekker for Bob Marley and any reggae artist that wished to sing in patois. This is a case of all articles are equal but some more than others. Yeah you're right take it up Michig - he set the criteria. I don't think I will edit this article. I would like to give the Dekker article virtual authority but I'm not going bother with it if its going to include budget releases. Knee jerk reaction coming here but I still hold that your username GoingBatty is a outward directed insult and cowardly directed at other editors that don't fit into your comfort zone and is actually a true representation of how you view others. How does it feel to think you're the only sane person in the world? cheers

Sluffs (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Dekker article already has virtual authority and is linked across the web with the budget releases included. Oh well another example of a poorly represented chapter of African history and the diaspora through slavery. Well he was the descendant of a slave so why present him as anything more than a budget release. Well done Michig. Only a causcasian could justify that.

Sluffs (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Sluffs, no one has ever incorrectly interpreted my username as an insult to other editors before! My
civilly discuss the Dekker article in an appropriate forum if you want, but "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article." I even started you off by posting a response to Michig at Talk:Desmond Dekker#The inclusion of Laserlight and Emporio releases. Thank you for stating that you changed your mind about editing The Beatles article. GoingBatty (talk
) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This thread should really be removed. As it states right at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article." Most of the stuff here has little to do with this article; it seems to be about problems an editor had at another article.—indopug (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you should have been more careful in choosing your username if you wanted to avoid other adults misinterpreting your username as "annoying prat". Indopug wants to know why I'm drawing comparisons between an article that has featured status and one that doesn't that Indopug considers unrelated. I'll have to remember that next time I try to remove "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" from the Reggae article (check edit history) only to have an editor revert my edit saying at the same time in all seriousness that it is an example of a reggae influenced song. Yes quite often you find rastamen at sound-systems discussing the profound influence that "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" had on their lives.

Sluffs (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_30&oldid=1137228144"