Talk:Anthology 3

Sessions

The Let it Be sessions were earlier than the Abbey Road sessions, Abbey Road was released before the production on Let it Be was complete. I've changed the wording to reflect this.Ozzykhan 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Disc 2 Track Notations

Where are all the track notations (Mono, Take 1, etc.) on disc two? Can someone who knows them add them? I would, but I am several hundred miles from my copies of the CD's

I was under the impression that I had added the track notations. I'm on it. IAmAgentMunky 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was keep.

---

The article for the song A Beginning gives no indication of why it is notable. I see no reason there should be a seperate article for it. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose — It's certainly less notable than most other Beatle-related music, but it's part of an Oscar-winning soundtrack and included on a popular CD. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Which Oscar-winning soundtrack is it part of? Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I got that wrong. it's part of the soundtrack of an Oscar-winning movie. — John Cardinal (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it wrong twice. <sigh> The soundtrack was nominated for an Oscar, but didn't win. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, found it, it was nominated for a Grammy.

I don't see how being included on a soundtrack and an album makes an individual song notable. Even with a Grammy nomination for the soundtrack. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Enough secondary literature available, therefore enough potential to get it to C or B status. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is this secondary literature, did you know of this secondary literature before you suggested that this article should be deleted. Why haven't you improved the article instead of suggesting it's deletion? Still trying to make a point? Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Very funny indeed. You may repeat it as often as you wish, but still I never suggested anything for deletion. I just don't know where you get this from. It may be your wish, your fetish or whatever, but that can't be my problem... BTT: For secondary literature I made a brief look at books.google.com and the results were overwhelming. There's enough 3rd party coverage to even write an A class article. And this does not include dozens of magazine articles and interviews. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose : Enough with the minimalism already. WP is becoming more of a source for things we already know rather than new info. --Kaizer13 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthology 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thebeatles/albums/album/230766/review/18878021/the_beatles_anthology_3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107224423/http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Which date is it?

One says October 28th the other says October 29th, which one is it? Thanks. AdamTheMusicFan (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)