Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moving, uncontroversial. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

{{Requested move/dated|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}}

Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album) → Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band — Page was mistakenly moved, the article was already properly titled and the move needs to be undone. Piriczki (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, per the explanation by the nominator. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per nominator and GoodDay. Nothing more needs to be said as the move is justified.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• support Clearly primary. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This probably could have been done as an uncontroversial request, but in any case it is definitely a correct move. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

I'm a bit concerned over the title of this article and the insertion of the full stop (.) after "Sgt". Standard British spelling does not use full stops after abbreviated titles as American spelling does. See Mr Crowley. As the Beatles were an English group, I think this should be taken into account. Evanh2008 (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The article title should match the album title, which includes the full stop (.). Piriczki (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the packaging and you are indeed correct. Full stop it is.Evanh2008 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper's 40th anniversary tribute missing?

I recall a tribute including cover versions by Oasis, Travis, Jamie Cullum, Razorlight and others. See here for the BBC announcement http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6530959.stm and here for the complete tracklist http://music.freetodownload.info/sgt-pepper-lonely-hearts-club-band-40th-anniversary-tribute/ -- I am not sure wether this tribute was "only" aired on radio or also released in some form, but with regards to the pedigree of the covering artists and the engineering by Geoff Emerick it is surely noteworthy in this article's tribute section? --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Salt and Pepper

Paul has recently told the story that "sergeant pepper" originated from his mishearing "salt and pepper". Any suggestions on how to incorporate this into the article? Is it okay to cite an online video of an interview? — HipLibrarianship ^talk 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This information isn't really recent. He already mentioned it in Barry Miles's 1997 book Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now. --79.193.57.163 (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was Mal Evans mishearing Paul. At least that's the way I remember it in Miles's book. Haven't read it in ages. Source it, and add it. Because I can't be arsed to do it right now. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

TV special

Wasn't the promo film for the title song of Sgt. Pepper also finished? There's a stop-motion promo clip of it with puppets, where also the many cardboard cut-outs from the album cover are animated into swaying in time from side to side. --79.193.57.163 (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Conducted by John Lennon

Which songs? To my knowledge only McCartney and Martin conducted the orchestral sessions for A Day in the Life. All the other songs, as far as I know, with the exception of She's Leaving Home, would have been conducted by Martin alone. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Equally for "Arranged by John Lennon" and other new categories. These are not represented in the body of this article (and others) and so should not be applied. Uniplex (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The arrangement categories seem to be supported under the "session musicians" section of "Personnel". Some of the conducting credits (McCartney, Harrison [?], and Martin) are supported there as well. I'm unaware of official sourcing for those credits, though. I'm going to remove the "Conducted by John Lennon" category for lack of evidence in the article, unless anyone wants to object or provide justification for it before tomorrow evening. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we shouldn't categorize an album as being arranged/conducted by a person unless it's reliably sourced (and that is w.r.t. the album, not an individual track). And whilst the term ‘conductor’ is well understood, the term ‘(musical) arranger’ is less so, so I would suggest that denoting a person as arranger should also be consistent with WP's definition. From what I can see, Lennon, asking for some effects to be put on the brass section in "Good Morning, Good Morning" does not constitute arranging as described there. Uniplex (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "conducted by John Lennon" category from the article, because I know it to be inaccurate. I strongly suspect that most of the "arrangement" categories are innacurate as well, but they DO appear within the main text of the article. We need to find out if there is reliable sourcing for them to be within the article. If not, their mention in the article, as well as the categories, should be removed. I don't have much free time right now, but I'll try to double-check the arrangement credits sometime in the next few days. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Creator's two cents For what it's worth, I have no idea if the contributions of John Lennon actually constituted conducting on this album--I only added it because the personnel section claimed as much. Regardint Evanh2008's claim that albums should only be categorized by (e.g.) conductor if that person is responsible for the entire album, that would run contrary to the scheme at Category:Albums by producer where someone can produce a single track and have produced enough content on the album to warrant categorization (assuming that the producer himself is notable.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I'm fine with conductors being listed under categories and such. I'd just like to see it reliably backed up within the article, and those backed up with reliable sources. I propose we remove all the "Conducted by" and "Arranged by" categories (except for Martin, and perhaps McCartney's conducting credits) until we can definitively source these claims. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that a single track is not sufficient, and it seems from the talk page at Category:Albums by producer—"only those albums for which the producer has sole credit be included"—that others agree. And unlike classical music albums, arrangers and conductors are rarely defining attributes of pop/rock albums. In other words, I'd say the only producer/arranger/conductor category warranted by this album is 'produced by George Martin'. Uniplex (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the arranger and conductor categories as not 'defining characteristics' of the album (as is required). Were they defining, they would likely be in the info box—they're not. Uniplex (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Article has been tagged for original research issues for over a year. Please feel free to re-add this material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Cover Artwork

==Cover Artwork== Robert Fraser was a prominent London art dealer who ran his own gallery and sponsored exhibitions at the Indica Gallery, through which he had become a close friend of McCartney. It was at Fraser's strong urging that the group abandoned their original cover design, a psychedelic painting by The Fool. The Fool's design for the inner sleeve was, however, used for the first few pressings. Fraser was one of the leading champions of modern art in Britain in the 1960s and after. He argued strongly that the Fool artwork was not well-executed and that the design would soon be dated. He convinced McCartney to abandon it and offered to art-direct the cover. Fraser suggested using an established fine artist, and introduced the band to Peter Blake, who, in collaboration with his wife, created the famous cover collage, known as "People We Like". According to Blake, the original concept was to create a scene that showed the Sgt. Pepper's band performing in a park; this gradually evolved into its final form, which shows The Beatles, as the Sgt. Pepper band, surrounded by a large group of their heroes, rendered as life-sized cut-out figures. Also included were wax-work figures of The Beatles as they appeared in the early '60s, borrowed from Madame Tussauds. In keeping with the park concept, the foreground of the scene is a floral display incorporating the word "Beatles" spelt out in flowers. Also present are several affectations from the Beatles' homes including small statues belonging to Lennon and Harrison, a small portable TV set and a trophy. A young delivery boy who provided the flowers for the photo session was allowed to contribute a guitar made of yellow hyacinths. Although it has long been rumoured that some of the plants in the arrangement were cannabis plants, this is false. At the edge of the scene is a Shirley Temple doll wearing a sweater in homage to the Rolling Stones (who would return the tribute by having The Beatles hidden in the cover of their own Their Satanic Majesties Request LP later that year). The collage created legal worries for EMI's legal department, which had to contact the people who were still living to obtain their permission. Mae West initially refused, famously asking, "What would I be doing in a lonely hearts club?" but she relented after The Beatles sent her a personal letter. Actor Leo Gorcey requested payment for inclusion on the cover, so his image was removed. An image of Mohandas Gandhi was also removed at the request of EMI (it was airbrushed out), who had a branch in India and were fearful that it might cause offence there. Lennon had asked to include images of Jesus and Hitler, though neither was included through fear of causing offence. Nonetheless a cutout was made of Hitler and can be clearly seen leaning against the wall in pictures of the photographic session. Most of the suggestions for names to be included came from McCartney, Lennon and Harrison, with additional suggestions from Blake and Fraser (Starr demurred and let the others choose). Beatles' manager Brian Epstein had serious misgivings, stemming from the scandalous US Butcher Cover controversy the previous year, going so far as to give a note reading "Brown paper bags for Sgt. Pepper's" to Nat Weiss as his last wish. The collage was assembled by Blake and his wife during the last two weeks of March 1967 at the London studio of photographer Michael Cooper, who took the cover shots on 30 March 1967 in a three-hour evening session. The package was a "gatefold" album cover, that is, the album could be opened like a book to reveal a large picture of the Fab Four in costume against a yellow background. The reason for the gate fold was that The Beatles originally planned to fill two LPs for the release. The designs had already been approved and sent to be printed when they realised they would only have enough material for one LP. Originally, the group had wanted the album to include a package with badges, pencils and other small Sgt. Pepper's goodies but this proved far too costly to realise. Instead, the album came with a page of cardboard cut-outs carrying the description: SGT. PEPPER CUT-OUTS Moustache Picture Card Stripes Badges Stand Up The special inner sleeve, included in the early pressings of the LP, featured a psychedelic pattern designed by The Fool. The album was released in New Zealand in a single sleeve only. A possible reason for this given at the time was the war in the Middle East delayed the ship carrying the gatefold covers through the Suez Canal. The album was only released in stereo in New Zealand. All later pressings were in the single sleeve as well.

Track listing - Sgt. Pepper's (Reprise)

There has been a lot of back and forth over the vocals for this track and the latest version now contains errors in the notes meant to explain the content. First of all, as far as sources go, Calkin does not meet WP:RS and should be removed. Next, using MacDonald as a source is redundant since the relevant recording details in his book ultimately come from Lewisohn. That leaves Lewisohn as the best and most reliable source since no other authors have ever been afforded his unique access to the Beatles' session tapes and documentation. Here's where the problem lies. In Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions (1988) he states that all four Beatles recorded the "shared lead vocals." However, Lewisohn's liner notes accompanying the 2009 CD remaster states the vocals are by John, Paul and George. I suggest using the 2009 liner as they are more recent and a readily available source for many readers of this article, with a note explaining Lewisohn's previous contradictory account. Piriczki (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Goldstein's review

Earlier I removed a questionable statement in the reception section which claims Goldstein changed his negative opinion of Sgt. Pepper but was reverted. The passage in question is:

However, a few days after this review he changed his opinion, saying that the album was "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He also called it an "in-between experience" and a baroque work.

The source for this is a 2010 blog titled "Richard Goldstein Rethinks His 'Sgt. Pepper's' Slam, Sort Of" which contains an excerpt from a July 20, 1967 article in the Village Voice. In the article defending his New York Times review—published one month, not a few days later—Goldstein wrote "I find the album better than 80 per cent of the music around today" but qualified that with "it is the other 20 per cent (including the best of the Beatles' past performances) which worries me as a critic." He goes on to say "I still feel that if I had to write that review tonight, instead of this defense, it would sound a lot like its predecessor." The reference to Sgt. Pepper as "baroque" comes from this passage: "When the slicks and tricks of production on this album no longer seem unusual, and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, "Sergeant Pepper" will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement..." In this article Goldstein clearly reiterated his misgivings about the album and was not indicating any change of opinion. He further repeated his opinion of Sgt. Pepper as "fraudulent" in his review of Magical Mystery Tour (Goldstein, Richard. "Are They Waning?" New York Times December 31, 1967: 62). Piriczki (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you. And the "anti-pepper, pro-revolver" people will give you a prize for it. 177.19.103.160 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Review in reaction to the Goldstein review

• Phillips, Tom (22 June 1967). "'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'—Fraudulent, or Most Creative Album Ever?". Village Voice. Without attempting a point-by-point refutation of Goldstein, I must say that I think the Beatles have scored a genuine breakthrough with "Sgt. Pepper." {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Album "concept" explanation from same article:

[...] unlike all past long-playing records that I know of, this one has a metaphorical structure, very much like a work of fiction [...] Cuts two through 11 are widely disparate in mood and sound, but the significant thing is that the characters who appear form a gallery of Lonely Hearts, leading lives that range from quiet to raucous desperation. Among them are a solipsistic acid-head, an aging-only child running away from home, a troupe of circus exhibitionists, a silly man worrying about his old age, and a nutty kid in love with a meter maid. [...] "A Day in the Life," is a kind of epilogue. Here the whole substance of the work is turned inside out, and what has been an insane world taken as normal is now the normal world viewed as insane.

I suppose that qualifies as one listener's interpretation than anything authoritative. I've not found a Wikipedia article on a Tom Phillips who was "writer on the Broadcast Desk of the Times." / edg ☺ ☭ 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion of some behaviour here

Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement
Discussion regarding the behaviour of an editor here 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Of several editors, actually. Including yourself. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC) The discussion is now closed.--andreasegde (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement

Apparently, on this page, I am now being accused of being IP 99.251.125.65, by GabeMc (who else?): "...having a fake dialogue with the ip 99 to throw us off. Compare the writing styles, and its interesting that they are preparing us for extremely close ISP addys. Gothcha!... The ip in question and Andreas logged in within 10 minutes of each other tonight, to perform the fake dialogue. Take a look admins... They began a fake dialogue on andreas' talk page 18 minutes after I implicated andreas as a possible master... How did ip 99 know what continent Radio and Andreas live on within a week of editing?" I suppose I should complain, but I'm laughing too much. :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC) This thread was opened to improve this article... how?! Doc talk 11:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) You have to read the threads above. It's a long story.--andreasegde (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Don't be disingenuous. Take your socks and wash them, they stink. --Matt Westwood 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC) That's the good old Matt we have come to know and love; still full of the old spirit.--andreasegde (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012 @ the Beatles

FYI, there is a discussion and straw poll taking place at the Beatles talk page. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mellotron?

So, where's the Mellotron on this album? I think Mr Thompson of the excellent Planet Mellotron page successfully busted this myth, referring to Mr Emerick himself. http://www.planetmellotron.com/revbeatles.htm --217.232.45.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's on the single that was sadly torn from it in advance. Huw Powell (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Mellotron use until Abbey Road. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments (a)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we seem to have numerous "straw poll"s being conducted at the same time (eight at the last count). We do apologise for the interruption of the transmission of conversation, for the time being. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.--andreasegde (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That was our friend ip 99, a sock no doubt who will be found out soon. You're header is disprutive, please change it. How embarrasing Andreas. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You better be ready to remove, apologize or prove accusations. Your innuendos, insults, ad hominem comments have gone on too far, here and in other articles involving The Beatles, used as distraction to your plight and frustration. This are not appreciated and not productive. I think it is time for some admin attention to give the needed break from the intense editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been exhibiting with ad hominem attacks. Your WP:Collaboration hes been nonexistent more and more. Your poll is BS anda complete failure for any consensus. The article will stand untouched. Perhaps a lock-down also? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@ GabeMc: He wasn't my friend at all. How dare you make such an assumption, anyway? BTW, my name is spelt "Andreas". Please try harder.--andreasegde (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold on... "You're header is disprutive". Is this from an editor who insists on "proper grammar"?--andreasegde (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, one more personal attack and I am filing an ANI report. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do. Your inability to spell does not constitute a personal attack; I was merely pointing out a basic mistake. If you think you can scare people away by saying "I am filing an ANI report" (actually, it should be "I will file an ANI report") then I wish you the best. Have fun. BTW, have you tried spell checker? You might like it.--andreasegde (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

EIGHT ? are you fucking kidding me ? Am I reading this right ? Penyulap ☏ 20:54, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

more discussion

Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement

PLEASE IGNORE THE POLL. There is an ongoing poll HERE, which User:GabeMc is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on The Beatles' 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) 21:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC) My name here is Andreasegde, so please use it. I have added my own comments to the complaint. 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 on The Beatles talk page, 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) 12:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC) That has got nothing to do with improving this article. Please let things take their course there and stop adding fuel to the fire. Richerman (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC) If you look at [2], I think GabeMc just made a fatal mistake. A Wikipedian should NEVER criticise an administrator. Steelbeard1 (talk) Says who? If admins are beyond reproach for dropping the f-bomb and passing the buck, then what's all this about civility and 3RR anyway? The day you cannot criticise an admin in a civil manner is the day wikipedia loses the battle against Fascism, IMO. Jimbo would not agree with you Steelbeard1. And would you please stop using this talk page as your own personal billboard to try and trash my rep? You are out-of-line here, and these personal attacks in an inappropriate venue are below you. Please stop trying to make this about me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC) What Richerman said. If you absolutely need to foment drama, this is not the place. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC) AN/I report on this incident Interested editors should comment here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: The RfC at Sgt. Pepper's has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. Mediation must be respected, and not confused with further polls.--andreasegde (talk) 21:52, 15 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)} 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" Mediation Actual 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 your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing by User:GabeMc

Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement

User:GabeMc is currently involved in this page, which is "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles". Being in mediation and acting the way he is are not compatible.--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC) The mediation was suspended by User:Lord Roem, but User:GabeMc canvassed 16 (yes, sixteen) editors to join in the mediation. The proof is here. Outrageous conduct.--andreasegde (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC) 1) This is not the place to air your grievance. If you feel I have done something improper, then please do report it at the appropriate noticeboard. 2) Beware of WP:BOOMERANG however, because your diffs show evidence of a nearly identicle behaviour. See: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Beware of Wikipedia:Canvassing, which you seem to like.--andreasegde (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Give it a God Damned rest, Andrea. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC) My name here is Andreasegde. Please use it. BTW, I certainly would, User:Mythpage88, when you show any sign of being neutral. Your insults are very tiring.--andreasegde (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Canvassing? FFS! Yes, GabeMc invited me to comment here, presumably becasue he knows I have some interest in The Beatles. (There's my opinion, which I hardly think matters.) I don't see the problem. I don't think Gabe would have had any idea of my opinion on the matter, because I cannot recall ever expressing it here before. He's just a polite editor who like to encourage discussion. And that's something I can't say about many of the rabid fanatics involved in this discussion. (Oh, and sorry about the late response. I've been in a place with no Internet or mobile phone coverage for the past week. What a delight! And I won't apologise for not calling my phone a cell phone. It's not in prison.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC) a discussion to assist GabeMc has been suggested here on his talkpage Penyulap ☏ 00:10, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Focus on Article Content

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.

In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind. -- Avanu (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is wise advice indeed, and can head off most any problem. There are apparent issues of conduct on this talkpage, and I would be pleased if you would like to assist all of us in finding the appropriate venues for solving these problems. Penyulap ☏ 01:54, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Is the presentation of this poll too biased

I suggest that the poll is not presented in a sufficiently neutral wording Penyulap ☏ 03:51, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide even one example from a high-quality style guide that suggests different? Is it biased to agree with the wikipedia MoS and at least six others? Feel free to suggest style guides that prescribe an upper-case definite article mid-prose when mentioning a band name. Is the Encyclopaedia Britannica wrong? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased, yes, it is. A proposition should be objective, free from any argument as to its own merits. It is clearly not objective to phrase "options" so as to rhetorically invite editors to "oppose" en.WP's Manual of Style. The MOS is both intended to be authoritative and also broad enough to address any style questions that editors might encounter; it is a set of general rules to address a tremendous universe of possible cases, all subject to exceptions and subtleties that each should be considered legitimate in their own case. As the MOS is acknowledged to itself be subject to editing and refinement, the idea that one "opposes" it is inherently argumentative. Steveozone (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, I hear you. I'm curious, how would you phrase it? I don't mind improving the language. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with more experience would like to suggest a minimalist and balanced proposition Penyulap ☏ 05:33, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe we're having this conversation. The Bigletterists are investing so much effort into getting their own selfish way in this utterly footling issue that I'm beginning to wonder whether they're Creationists in training.

How's this then? "a bunch of tediously brainless wikilawyers , trolls, sockpuppets and childish spaggies want to use The Beatles when every fule kno that "the Beatles" is not only correct, but adheres to every sensible manual of style in the rational universe. Enter a vote of "Support" if you, like a normal rational human being, prefer to go along with the MoS "the Beatles", and a vote of "Oppose" if you're a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather who believes that Santa Claus is living in sin with the Tooth Fairy and think that The Beatles is the blasphemous Hell-bound option to select." Sorry, can't make it any more impartial than that. Anyone else care to have a go? --Matt Westwood 07:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, presentation was too biased; that was the first thing I noticed about it. That's what clues others into how invested the combatants are in this epic issue, and is something the mediators will no doubt pick up on when they wade through this morass. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bigletterists? - I like it. Was that a deliberate reference to the Big-endians and the Little-endians in Gulliver's travels? If so it's very apt. Richerman (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why yes it was, I hoped someone would pick up on it. I'm gratified. --Matt Westwood 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement

Epic win I personally am drawn to 'footling', it makes me want to reach for the dictionary, but then, which dictionary ? old English, Euro slang, or maybe it's commentarry on greammar, quite sophisticated wordsmithing there. Of course, after the EPIC FAIL at ANI to spot any of this, who cares ? I don't, it's their article now as far as I am concerned, they won it fair and square the wikipedia way. Penyulap ☏ 17:56, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC) Glad you like "footling", find it here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/footling While we're reaching for the dictionary, what are "spaggies"? — Mudwater (Talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC) A made-up deliberately insulting-sounding word in order to hammer home a point by means of irony. --Matt Westwood 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Ha ha, thanks for explaining. It sounds British to me. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) It is. I am. --Matt Westwood 23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I've reworded the poll as best I can, comments / improvements anyone ? ....wait, it's been reverted with support, no problem Penyulap ☏ 02:22, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC) I like the Mr-T kind of "every fule kno" it seems to give it a worldwide, rather than just British, perspective too, and I'm all for that approach. However, as for improved wording of the poll, it doesn't seem much of a difference to what we still have, so I'm wondering if it can be simplified, or a better wording to address the seriousness of the issue can be formulated. After all, these are capital T's were are, or are NOT talking about, so we do need to be zerious about this business. Penyulap ☏ 03:13, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Should the poll be strengthened

Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement

I have concerns that if the poll is not neutrally worded, it makes a some of editors upset with the outcome, which means re-polling sooner as they may have legitimate concerns that people have been unduly influenced and their !votes have been mis-appropriated. When a neutral wording is used, would these editors be happier with an outcome which is not in their favour, and therefore strengthen their oppositions position ? Penyulap ☏ 16:29, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC) Question 1 Would you be more content with an outcome which is against your wishes if the poll had neutral wording ? Question 2 Would you/editors in general, be more content with an outcome which is against your/their wishes if the poll was restarted with neutral wording ? Question 3 If you feel the poll is biased, does changing the wording after the poll has begun help fix the problem ? Question 4 Should the poll continue as it is, regardless of concerns raised about bias ? The poll is what it is: let it go its course. The outcome will be a foundation for future action, not a reason to start up another poll. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The poll is largely irrelevent at this point anyway. MedCom will be deciding this issue and I doubt this poll be carry much weight in that decision. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A lovely big flurry of editing is going on and I think it's wonderful, I do have two concerns however.

Unproductive, unrelated to article improvement

It is refreshing to see GabeMC's number of contribution edits to the article rocketing so steeply, I like this new approach and it is to be applauded. I only have two very minor concerns however, although, to be honest, that is because I only looked at two of the minor diffs that were being made by the soon to be largest contributor of the article if this great new approach works as well as I honestly hope it will. Here are the two small concerns I have, and I wonder if they might need reverting because they significantly or substantially change the meaning in such a way as it now misrepresents the sources. here it changes from George Harrison travelled to India to continue developing his sitar playing at the invitation of Ravi Shankar, returning with enhanced Indian cultural and musical influences. to George Harrison travelled to India to continue developing his sitar playing at the instruction of Ravi Shankar, returning with enhanced Indian cultural and musical influences. Moore, 1997, p.2, "Harrison ... flies to Bombay for sitar lessons with Ravi Shankar." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC) and here it changes from By late 1965, the Beatles had grown tired of performing live and they decided to retire from touring by the end of their 1966 tour. to By late 1965, the Beatles had grown tired of performing live and had decided to retire from the stage by the end of their 1966 tour. Do we have a reference for these new revelations ? Does anyone think it is helpful to have these recent flurry of changes explained one by one ? Penyulap ☏ 05:35, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC) I was trying to avoid the redundancy of "touring" which at the time was mentioned in three consecutive sentences. I think retiring from stage performance is an accurate way to describe what they did.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I seem to recall that Elvis used to take a break now and then from singing to do a bit of acting, but the Beatles were mostly sortof into singing. Or was it 1/3 movies and just like 2/3 music ? I dunno, I'm still open to persuasion on the issue, maybe instead of mentioning this monotonous fascination they seem to have with singing we can mention their more interesting hobbies. Penyulap ☏ 06:46, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC) Please don't harass me anymore Penyulap. I just want to be left to collaborate and improve articles. Please just leave me alone. I would love to AGF, I think this is obviously more of the same from you. Please, please, please stop wikistalking my every edit. I took you off my watchlist, and I ask you to please do the same for me. Will you please end the disruption now? We all want to move on. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Take you fake accusations of harassment to someone who cares I'm here to look at these new edits to the article, which I think are causing the overall quality to take something of a, well I wouldn't say nosedive, but it certainly is turbulent and not really in a wikidragon way. Penyulap ☏ 06:46, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC) There's no need for concern over either of those edits. They comport with the sources, and only the first one changes the meaning in any appreciable way (and again, in doing so it reflects what the source says). Non sequiturs involving Elvis are of no help. If you have any specific concerns beyond the two you already laid out, you should bring them forward. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Cool, that does make sense, I had been thinking that the stage had a more a Broadway or Shakespeare sort of flavour to it, and with the second one, travelling as a guest and absorbing the culture seems to have a more relaxed less structured feel to it, whereas being a student has a more disciplined approach. But you're saying they are pretty much the same then ? Penyulap ☏ 07:54, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC) Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or just to piss people off for shits and giggles? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Penyulap asked for a citation I was asking for a source, that's what people do on talkpages. Penyulap ☏ 08:24, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC) Let's get the chronology straight: You asked for a source, then it was clarified to you that the sources in the article supported the text added, then you said the article was getting worse, then I asked you why, then you defaced the talk page. Do you want to hat this nonsense voluntarily, or should I ask an uninvolved admin to do it? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC) "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I asked for a source, and you seem to think I am not allowed to do that on the talkpage. you gave your opinion on what is a fair summary of the said sources. I don't think that Ravi exactly qualifies as an alma mater for such a great musical legend. The difference here is, and this is where we seem to be going wrong, I don't think that the conversation ends as soon as Evanh2008 has given his decree. I think there are other people who may wish to comment, and I think that your word and opinion is not the finale of the discussion. As for your accusation that I'm defacing the page, that's your art critique, and once again, I don't see that as the final all encompassing decree on the matter. I happen to make images, I happen to speak in images, I did it a moment ago somewhere else I think there is some option in your browser to turn off images actually, maybe that would help. Otherwise, I suggest you do as the editor who said my art was a "Ridiculous photoshop message, not suitable for encyclopedia" and get slam dunked the same way, whatever. GabeMC here is a link to ANI for you. Please feel free to take your complaint, whatever it was (I only read the capital letters) to the appropriate venue, and please remember that the great GabeMC invited me here to this talkpage Read it and weep, or crash your browser, either one is good for me. I'm thinking maybe be more careful with the mass-mailings next time. I came for the vote, I stay for the editing. The chance for us to work together on this article has me all excited ! (and I'm not the only one ;) Penyulap ☏ 09:20, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC) Penyulap, this is a golden opportunity for you to step away. I'm not sure who buys the schtick but I don't. I don't have any tolerance for the cute little dance going on above. You can call me whatever you like, offer more passive aggressive comments at my expense, bring my conduct up to AN/I, but your best bet is to pack up whatever this is and take it someplace else. Protonk (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I'll give it a rest for a while, I've illustrated very well his purpose here, his attitude towards other editors, I'd say there is actually some progress as far as not mass mailing everyone's talkpage and every forum for every little thing. But there is still quite a long way to go before other editors who are not like me can edit the page and have their say without this rubbish, I guess he is getting a little better, so let's see how things go. Back much later. I would suggest everyone restrict themselves to 1RR, as 2RR (2Reference Requests at one time) is still a bit heated at the moment. Penyulap ☏ 12:40, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC) "But there is still quite a long way to go before other editors who are not like me can edit the page and have their say without this rubbish ..." You started it, you prick. --Matt Westwood 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Of course, my comment about you defacing the talk page was not in reference to the photo, but to the incoherent text you added in lieu of providing any rationale for your claim that the page was deteriorating. But I think you already knew that... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC) No no, I thought you meant the imagery, that was my only concern, really. If you don't mind that well I'm happy again. Sorry about the incoherent drivel I do tend to do that pretty much every time I open my big mouth, but that doesn't matter at all to me, because I just look at the other people a little upset over the wording of the poll being so biased and the we agree with the MoS and then the omg, the was it a few days ago now that the blank cheque here had the value written in, by someone editing the MoS. I mean come on, I know about swaying crowds, but this just gives me such a quiet chuckle. From the sidelines mind you ! I'm not even watching the ball, just the gameplay. I don't know if anyone was following me through all my endless drivel and blather elsewhere but I did let slip I have no idea at all if it is a capital T or a small t or who is after what. I have no interest in it. My only interest was in the process, to see it was fair. but like I said, I'm a quiet well behaved chuckler from the sidelines now. Or actually, I'd have to say it's a little louder at some points than just a chuckle. Cheerio ! Penyulap ☏ 18:46, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Back to the question posed, (and I hope it really was an actual question), has no one brought up the name of The Beatles' "White album", which they named The Beatles, not just Beatles on the cover? I'd have to agree with User:Andreasegde-- every single Beatles article and contribution would need to be re-evaluated, IMHO. It is this kind of dialouge that freaks me out, though. A couple of editors with many years and big flashy awards splattered across their own pages stooping to this-- both who I respect(ed?) ?? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about Beatles For Sale and the two EP's of the same name? Also, A Collection of Beatles Oldies, Beatles '65, The Early Beatles, Beatles VI. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The/the ... again.

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.

---

I would like to gauge the current consensus here for The/the usage. "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." ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is "gauge" (to determine the exact dimensions, capacity, quantity, or force of - measure - to appraise, estimate, or judge). It is not "gage".--andreasegde (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You got me andraes, wow, a spelling error. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're the one that insists on "proper grammar". BTW, it's Andreas, and not "andraes". Will you ever get it right?--andreasegde (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

Also, this raises the question, should we have a wikiproject-wide consensus established on this issue, or should consensus be established page by page, as the issue is pressed? Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There was an agreed consensus (after many, many years of argument), which GabeMc now thinks is redundant. Very sad, indeed.--andreasegde (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need a comma between "sad" and "indeed", that's called a comma splice I believe. Also, the sentence is incomplete, lacking both a subject and a verb, something often called a sentence fragment. Did you notice the S/V split there? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't think? Is this from the same person that very recently asked another editor if it should be "writes" or "wrote"? I think he advised you about comma splices, didn't he? FYI, the comma is placed in the correct place. You don't know your splice from your semi-colon, I'm afraid.--andreasegde (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this discussion being conducted on the talkpage of an article relating to an album by the band, rather than on the bands' article talkpage - where previous discussion can be quickly reviewed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The MoS states: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."

• FTR - When andreas instituted the Triangular diplomacy solution in March 2011, the previous straw poll was 13 supporting "the" and 10 supporting "The". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Another blatant lie. On this page, which was the poll, it was 17 for Support, and 4 for Oppose. GabeMc is not being honest, and the facts on the page prove it. Look for yourself.--andreasegde (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant the straw poll before the triangular diplomacy non-solution. Anyone can count and see that I am correct about this. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Before the solution"? Absolutely ridiculous, and you know it. How can one quote something that was "Before the solution"?--andreasegde (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think anyone who looks carefully enough at that discussion will see that the tide was turning against "The" when you hastily, and unilaterally, started the triangular diplomacy discussion which yes, was ultimately widely-supported at the time. I think you jumped the gun and you didn't let the poll runs its natural course because the tide was turning. As I said above, I think most anyone who looks at the discussion will come to a similar conclusion. You instituted your unilateral non-solution on 18 March 2012, however the last support for "the" came in on 19 March 2012. So really, that poll was not even completed properly. You should have waited for the poll to run its course. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"the tide was turning against "The""? Have you lost your marbles? It gets worse: "you hastily, and unilaterally, started the triangular diplomacy discussion". Do you have any marbles left? If anybody reads that section of the page they will immediately see that you are talking absolute, and utter rubbish. I worry about you.--andreasegde (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(More silliness... :)) GabeMc: "you didn't let the poll runs its natural course because the tide was turning"? (I posted it on 19 March 2011. The last comment was on 4 April 2011). Was that not long enough for you?--andreasegde (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a "the" support on 19 March, the same day you started the non-solution poll. You should have let the first poll run its course, but the tally was at 13 against "The" and 10 for "The", so I can understand why you panicked. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I "panicked"? After years of that bollards? Oh, ye of scarce knowledge, and the misunderstanding of common understanding. Are you hoping that I will insult you? I'll bet you are. Not today, young man. I know thrice more than thou in this cobweb of intrigue. Try harder.--andreasegde (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"[A]nd the misunderstanding of common understanding". Nice prose grammar expert! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you know about grammar? I seem to remember an editor chastising you about your woeful lack of experience in the matter, and I agreed with him.--andreasegde (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not claim to be a grammar expert, but I am working on it. Can we please stop talking about editors and start talking about the content issue at hand? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why do you have the absolute nerve to talk about "proper grammar", when you admit that you "do not claim to be a grammar expert"? I don't ask a street sweeper to repair my computer.--andreasegde (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think you can ask me: "Have you lost your marbles?", whilst I cannot ask you if you have an OCD issue with "The".? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you not know the difference between the two? Are you being serious? --andreasegde (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• For a related discussion see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Rebuttal to a blatant misdirection: The letter actually says, "This is to inform you of the fact that you are not authorized to act or to hold yourself out as the attorney or legal representative of "The Beatles" [sic] or of any companies which the Beatles [any of the individual Beatles] own or control". GabeMc has just shot himself in the foot. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but are you suggesting that everytime we write The Beatles we put it in quotes as the letter did? This is really discussion stuff that belongs in the above section for discussion. This extended badgering of all points opposed is bogging down and disrupting the poll IMO. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Badgering? Are you serious? You seem to be the one that is blaming all this on an ISP address. :))--andreasegde (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, I'll say it again. It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started-up this debate, look at the Beatles talk page and McCartney's talk page if you do not believe me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And you're trying to put it out, or do you have a gallon of petrol with you? Your lame excuse for bringing this awful debate up again is very, very weak.--andreasegde (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're non-solution isn't working, and we need a more firm consensus to avoid wasting time everyday switching "T"s to "t"s. This is actually holding up the improvement of Beatles articles IMO, and we need to find a proper solution so editors aren't being reverted daily for applying the MoS guidelines to articles. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be "holding up" your ideas of what grammar is, but you have completely ignored the consensus, which was agreed upon. One wouldn't like to stop your own personal train of change to suit yourself, but you forget that Wikipedia is not your playground.--andreasegde (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, talking about "It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started-up this debate on McCartney's talk page" is rather strange when you read this, no? I quote: "That's exactly what the "Big T" faction wants, to wear us down to the point of quitting the argument. We can win this one, once and for all. Not with weak personal rationales but with reasoned rationales. What do your MoSs say on the subject. Don't let them run you out of Beatles articles. That is how and why they win. You are an asset to the project, hold fast!" Amazing.--andreasegde (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Editor GabeMc has contributed 371 edits (#2 in the list of contributors), to Pink Floyd, which contains "The Tea Set, The Pink Floyd Sound, The Pink Floyd". The aforementioned editor has also contributed 2,391 edits (#1 contributor) to Roger Waters (an FA article), which contains The O2 Arena (London), The Bleeding Heart Band, and The Perse School. All of them are mid-sentence. One should not throw stones when one lives in a glass house.--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that using lower-case was not an option in a wikilink. I'll go fix them. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought you would do. Ridiculous.--andreasegde (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make this personal. This is about the Pepper article, nothing else. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Please stop trying to make this personal."??? I was making an observation about the articles to which you have contributed. The more you try to make this look like an attack on you (which is absolutely unwarranted), the more you make it look as if you are defending a hopeless position. Try harder, because the old tricks are not working.--andreasegde (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

After GabeMc saying "I'll go fix them", the Pink Floyd article still has "The Tea Set, The Pink Floyd Sound, The Pink Floyd" in the infobox. It also has, "They covered songs by The Searchers", as well as, " including The Meggadeaths, The (Screaming) Abdabs, Leonard's Lodgers, and The Spectrum Five before settling on The Tea Set". Any more, you ask? Yes: "the band were first referred to as "The Pink Floyd Sound"", "also called The Tea Set", "All Saints Hall and The Marquee", "coverage in The Financial Times and The Sunday Times", "Nevertheless, The Pink Floyd Sound were present", "invited to watch The Beatles record". Editor GabeMc has contributed 371 edits (#2 in the list of contributors), to Pink Floyd. One wonders where the logic is.--andreasegde (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The MoS states this as well: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--andreasegde (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. As read above: the Beatles talk page is actually called Talk:The Beatles‎. Notice the difference? Also listing the Beatles as a link is quite plainly against Wikipedia rules.--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Then how about these?
• Examples of the uppercase definitive article (The): On TV and radio:

The Office, The Apprentice, The Wire, The Archers, and The Likely Lads.

• Bands: of course, if you have a foreign name like Los Lobos (The Wolves) or Los Super Seven, it's OK. The Who,The Drifters, The Band, The Libertines, The The, The Cure, The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, The Dandy Warhols, The Jam, The Knack, The La's, The Undertones, The Shadows, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Dakotas (band), The Verve and The Beach Boys
• Newspapers: The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The Sun, The Scotsman, The Stage, The Spectator, The Sunday Times (UK) The Tablet, The Daily Telegraph, circulation equals The Sunday Telegraph, The Independent on Sunday, The Wire magazine, The Fortean Times, The Oldie, The London Evening Standard, and The Jewish News.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How do the reliable sources on those bands write their names in running prose? Ninety-percent or more of the Beatles sources use "the", and grammar itself dictates we use "the", or at least our MoS does. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How are reliable sources like The Independent and The Observer linked in Wikipedia articles?--andreasegde (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Will 'we' get an answer, or not?--andreasegde (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The MoS says to capitalise the names of newspapers not the names of bands. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So newspapers have special privileges, but groups of musicians don't? How interesting, but difficult to comprehend, no?.--andreasegde (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreas comments

Please read: "Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion".--andreasegde (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"The" or "the" Beatles

• Statement of position - From 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.

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".

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)} 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic uses "the" throughout, as does Rolling Stone. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica online uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 19 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)} 00:28, 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 this current wikipedia MoS guideline and instead prefer to use "The" mid-sentence. A third option is to maintain consistency with the previous consensus to avoid mid-sentence usage throughout, implemented at the Beatles article. Please include a detailed rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 14 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 consistency with the previous consensus implemented at the Beatles.

• Support - (please see my statement of position above this poll) 90% or more of the sources used to cite Beatles articles on wikipedia use "the"; I think we should as well. It reads more fluidly, and is proper grammar. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in "proper grammar", you should have put a semi-colon after "the", to read: "articles on wikipedia use "the"; I think we should as well." Is this a person that is talking about "proper grammar"?--andreasegde (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point andrea, but also a strawman IMO. Again you are trying to make this about me, versus about the content issue at hand. Please stop with the personal attacks; you're wikipedia reputation is on the line here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"you're wikipedia reputation". Hmmm... What should one make of this from an editor that threatens and insults? My "wikipedia [sic] reputation"? Do I have one?--andreasegde (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a wikipedia reputation. Up to this point, I think that rep was very positive. Please reconsider your tactics, this is childish of you IMO. Why are you not supporting the maintain option if your triangular non-solution is so ideal? Seems like you would support that here, if it is indeed such a great solution. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Up to this point, I think that rep was very positive." Wow, I'll sleep well on that thought, because I might get scared if you actually thought ill of me. (BTW, it should be "Up to this point, I thought that rep was very positive"). Do you really think you can scare anyone with that absolute rubbish? Dear boy, you are a renegade, and you think you control the majority, because you believe you are the majority. It's a thankless task, unless one has friends. Keep well, in all your endeavours.--andreasegde (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the reasons I gave here Richerman (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, but if "both are acceptable", then how are editors to agree? A consensus needs to be adopted at each page where there is contention in this regard. In other words, how can this article ever make FA, if its usage is inconsistent, and the subject of frequent edit wars? What do you suggest as a solution to this age-old question? ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be consistent now so it can stay as it is and any future edits should be changed, if necessary to fit with that. It's a simple matter of keeping each article internally consistent. Richerman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, but consensus can indeed change over time, as it should, sometimes anyway. Many of the editors who established this usage are not even editing here anymore, so who are we honoring? Also if consensus does change here, is there any reason why this article cannot enforce the current MoS guidelines, and revert to small case "the"s? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Would you advocate for the current consensus at the Beatles? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're in the middle of an FAC for McCartney and you bring this up? Friggin' unbelievable.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with the current McCartney FAC. This has to do with the current consensus here at this page. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"This page" is merely one of very many to do with The Beatles Wikipedia project. Are you proposing to poll every single page?--andreasegde (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - this has been discussed to death over the years and doesn't need to be discussed any more. The band name is a registered trademark; they are a British band, and in the UK, it is much less common to use a lower case 'The' than in the US, so WP:ENGVAR should be respected; in the billions of bits that have been expended in discussing this issue over the years, the net result has been that "The Beatles" is indeed acceptable in running prose in spite of the contradictory way the issue is addressed by the MoS. The only time the lower case 'T' would be unequivocally acceptable is within a direct quote, or in the title of a work within a citation, which is how American spellings within British articles are handled. The articles are reasonably stable for once, and any further edits should reflect new or improved content.

BTW, aren't you going to a ridiculous extreme in linking to the band article as "the Beatles"? Do you truly not understand the nature of this discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 00:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Radiopathy, I do understand actually, and I agree with Richerman, both uses are generally acceptable. Caps at the start of wikilinks are now optional, maybe you weren't aware of that. Also, consensus can change Radio, and sometimes, it does. Of the 42 printed books I used to source the McCartney article, only 3 or 4 use upper-case, so when 90% or more of the sources used to cite an article are in complete agreement, then perhaps a mistake was made here at wikipedia in this regard. At any rate, as Richerman said, as long as usage in the article is consistent, and in-line with current consensus, then either is acceptable. Although I predict an analysis of the top-ten highest quality Beatles secondary sources would prove nearly 100% small-case. We also have the third option, as currently implemented at the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And what is the point of all of this? Radiopathy •talk• 01:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To gauge the current consensus on this issue here, at this article. What is the point of your fighting it? Do you have any other argument than, "that's the way it's always been"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"What is the point of your fighting it?" The use of the word "fighting" is extremely provocative, and definitely not necessary. Baiting people is no way to communicate.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess resist would have been better, but really now, come on. You are getting silly. Is this an OCD for you or something, or is it just a power struggle to get your way? sorry, you have my full apologies Andreasegde ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"just a power struggle to get your way"? What do you think I was doing when I proposed "Triangular diplomacy", which resulted in a consensus? Asking, "Is this an OCD -Obsessive–compulsive disorder - for you or something" is as bad as it gets. How dare you? I find your comments extremely insulting, and I ask for an apology, or I will take this further.--andreasegde (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This, "you [sic] have my full apologies andrea" is NOT an apology, GabeMc, and you know it full well. You have personally attacked me in a way that contravenes every Wikipedia rule about decency towards other editors. I demand a FULL apology, and not something you slip in at the end of a comment.--andreasegde (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I thought that was enough, but I don't mind giving you a full apology. Andrea, I fully apologize for any and all uncivil comments I've made to you. I am sincerely sorry, please accept my full apologies. Can we now switch the focus back to the content issue at hand, and away from the editors? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"No worries, I thought that was enough"? Is that any way to apologise? I'm afraid that is not good enough. The comment, "Can we now switch the focus back", shows how insincere it was.--andreasegde (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Radiopathy. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support because I happen to like the MoS and have a strong aversion to !voter intimidation. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To "like the MoS" is a very weak argument.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support adhering to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t"). The Beatles are no different than any other group in the application of this guideline. Also, the claim that the upper case "T" is a British English variation needs a source to back it up. A quick search of the British newspapers The Times and The Guardian indicates use of the lower case "t". Piriczki (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The MoS states this as well: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--andreasegde (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Maintain consistency with the current consensus at the Beatles and work on more substantial improvement to Beatles-related articles than this Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#The_Beatles topic. GoingBatty (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, improving the article is the point, but until a clear consensus is established in this regard I have no interest in going back and forth over this issue. We need an established consensus here so that this issue is not ongoing, and disruptive to article improvement. Also, as far as maintaining the current consensus at the Beatles, I have to respectfully disagree. The consensus there is to avoid the issue, not to decide either way, a non-solution really, IMO. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This torturous "issue" has been ongoing for years, as you well know. A compromise was reached, but the whole messy business is being dragged back out of the the Black Lagoon of Lame, by you.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the mysterious/suspicious ip 99.251.125.65 dragged it up six days ago. Soon after they started the thread: Forcing capitalisation of Trademarks is nonsense. Indeed it is. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The mysterious 99.251.125.65 dragged it up"? And what are you doing right now? Blaming this on an ISP address?--andreasegde (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this whole issue should be dropped as nonsense or taken to a higher courtyard? User:GabeMc has repeatedly attempted used various methods to inflame contributors, similar to other discussions regarding this exact issue. User:GabeMc is the originator of this subject, again, here, and if civil and collaborating discussion cannot had the whole issue should be dropped and warnings issued to ceast and desist. It would appear a lack of sleep may be prevailing?. The statements I made regarding "Forcing capitalisation of trademarks is nonsense" still stands but "The Beatles" doesn't apply as there is no lowercase to force. Please stick to the issues and stop using issue distractions and/or blame. The mysterious/suspicious ip 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well said, the "mysterious/suspicious" contributor, whom GabeMc is trying to blame for his own crusade against an established consensus.--andreasegde (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that improving the article is the point, and I can understand why you want this issue to be resolved before proceeding. I'm concerned that we're not going to come to a consensus on "The" or "the", and I don't want to have a separate discussion of this same issue on each of the hundreds of Beatles-related articles. Therefore I'm suggesting that we consider that the consensus to avoid the issue on The Beatles be our own "Beatles MOS" and be used on every other Beatles-related article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Radiopathy's reasoning. The band is mainly known as "The Beatles", and not as the "Beatles". --Diego Grez (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not 100% accurate Diego. Of the 40-50 highest-quality reliable sources, maybe 4 or 5 use "The". Lewisohn, Spitz, Gould, Miles, Epstein's book, George Martin's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book, Emerick's book, and Derek Taylor's book all use "the". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "the/The" is not universally used is enough to declare this a no-brainer.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Gabe's rebuttal of Mr. Grez. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:MOSCAP and my belief that it looks better. --John (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose against my instincts, which are schooled in American typography. To form my answer, I did some "original research" and read a handful of LP spines. Keep in mind that these "credit" the "authors" of the work contained therein. It is "The Beatles", "The Who", and "The Rolling Stones", although usually in allcaps or all lower case. More importantly, it is not "The Queen" or "The Yes" or "The Led Zeppelin", although it certainly could have been. The "The" is part of the name of the band, in my opinion, and should be capitalized. "The The" is a special case, of course. Thanks GabeMc for inviting me to this interesting discussion. Huw Powell (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How do the high-quality WP:RSs write it in running prose? Pick a source or two out and check. Almost all of the highest-quality sources write "the Beatles" when mid-sentence. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But they do not determine our style. They determine theirs. Huw Powell (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's my point, our current MoS tells us to use the small-case "t", so why aren't we following our MoS. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC) "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." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The MoS states this as well: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--andreasegde (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice the guideline you posted says "capitalized "The" is optional ... when listing"? Are we discussing lists here? Why is this optional? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that is what is says in the MoS. The only problem is that you didn't read that far. Try harder.--andreasegde (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- "The Beatles" is the real name of the so-called "White Album." It should not be confused with the group's name. Anyway, John Lennon explained this in an interview that appeared in Mersey Beat (1961): 'Many people ask what are Beatles? Why Beatles? Ugh, Beatles, how did the name arrive? So we will tell you. It came in a vision--a man appeared in a flaming pie and said unto them "From this day on you are Beatles with an A." "Thank you, Mister Man," they said, thanking him.' -- Beatles with an A, not "The Beatles" with an A.Jburlinson (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support agrees with MoS and reads more fluently. --Muhandes (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's not worth fighting over. Just follow the MoS. We've got lots better things to argue about. Lfstevens (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The Beatles. The Who. The Rolling Stones. Law of threes, if you'd like. kencf0618 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - MoS, common sense. Jusdafax 06:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Mos is not common sense; it is a guide. It also says "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--andreasegde (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose To me, "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" have meant different things. Being a Beatle has its own quality distinct from being a member of the band as a unit. It is common to refer to Paul McCartney as a "former Beatle," but you would never call Denny Laine a "former Moody Blue." The Beatles was/were a band; the Beatles were its members. The spelling should reflect that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as Wikipedia works better when we follow general consensus and guidelines. It makes sense to find a compromise which keeps within guidelines and works to minimise potential offence, so I am in favour of all Beatles related articles following the consensus to keep the mid-sentence use of the band name minimal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a maintain !vote to me SilkTork. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I wonder if others who are saying "support" are also supporting the third option. Perhaps it would have been clearer if it had been set up as Option 1, 2, 3 rather than Oppose, Support, Maintain. If this is carried as "support", I wonder if people would have the stomach to go through a second poll to clarify if they wish to use the "triangular_diplomacy" of Talk:The Beatles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to prefer to maintain here, so maybe you should just change your !vote. Just a thought. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Eagles (band) for a case where there's not officially a "the" at all in the title, but one is more than commonly added because of the rules of the language. Doc talk 08:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Beatles own publicity material of the 1960s referred to "the Beatles". The band name was a contraction of the then widespread "<Named singer> and the <Band name> - for example, "Buddy Holly and the Crickets" - rarely written as "Buddy Holly and The Crickets". Apepper (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Radiopathy.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: "The" or "the" is not always a grammatically essentially part of the group's name. For instance, it would be grammatically silly to write that "the second "The Beatles" single was ..." Instead, we would write that "the second Beatles single was ..." The MoS on this issue is sensible. Afterwriting (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose--"The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. The consensus is to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence like I just did. Let's keep it that way. If the band's name has to be mentioned, it should consistently be as The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If we are really re-creating a trademark everytime we write the Beatles, then wouldn't we have to pay the Beatles every time someone wrote the Beatles on wikipedia? Non fair-use rationale I guess. Also, dosen't the actual tradmark contain a dropped-T that we couldn't recreate here anyway? File:Beatles logo.svg ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what Steelbeard1 wrote? "The consensus is to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence". It was agreed not to keep repeating the group's name. In the Paul McCartney article, it seems that someone is deliberately ignoring that.--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The consensus of which you speak was established at the Beatles not at Paul McCartney. Consensus does not bleed over into all related pages. It's time to move on now. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney is undeniably linked to WikiProject The Beatles. To say anything else is clearly untrue, and incorrect. The consensus agreed to end the very sorry saga of the/The, but you (on this page, instead of The Beatles' page), are dragging it back into the mud. 'We' moved on, but you still refuse to accept that.--andreasegde (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The white album is The Beatles by the Beatles. Very few publications use upper case for the 'the' that precedes/begins the name of many bands, meaning that the ones that do look decidedly amateurish. Rothorpe (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the Beatles with a lower case t just looks all wrong 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As per the WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks that states
  

"Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names."

and

"Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks, as proper nouns, are written with initial capital letters wherever they occur in a sentence. Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized:"

This edit style, for this article appears to be same nonsense as Paul McCartney and another attempt to use a majority arument by dividing and conquering instead of confronting this issue in a poper place and manner. (keeping it on ths sly and behind the scenes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- in an infamous dialogue between Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono, after Ono repeatedly suggested "Beatles should do this, Beatles should do that," an exasperated McCartney interrupts her with a curt, "It's The Beatles, luv!" Anyway, the name of the band is The Beatles not Beatles. There's a 70s group called Village People (not The Village People) in which case, when used in a sentence, it would be the small "T" because it's not part of their name. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So you can hear him using a cap "t"? Look at page 352 of the Beatles Anthology, you can see it written in Paul's hand using a lower-case "t". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"in Paul's hand"? In your innocence, you might not know that McCartney did not physically write that book. It was taken from interviews and then printed.--andreasegde (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I am aware that Macca "did not physically write that book", but having owned it for twelve years now, I know that on page 352 is an image of a hand-written letter by Macca from April 1970. Also, on page 351, is a copy of a letter written in John's hand (maybe George), dated March 1970 that mentions the Beatles twice, both times using a lower-case definite article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not about what the name is. Of course McCartney was right to correct Yoko Ono there. Just as he is right when he writes mid-sentence "the Beatles" (as someone noted somewhere on WP in the last few days). The case of the Village People is exactly the same. Rothorpe (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Radiopathy, Hotcop2 and the hundreds of times we've gone over this before. Trademark, etc. We have argued it and argued it and come to some equilibrium about it with the upper case T. Why would someone who knows this history well be bringing up this disruptive question again? Just wondering. Tvoz/talk 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz, for the record I wasn't the one who dragged this up. If you look at the Beatles and the McCartney talk pages you will see that 99.251.125.65 dragged this carcass out. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Raising this question yet again seems provocative - Arguing that previous decisions on one article regarding The Beatles, do not apply to other aspects of The Beatles, is absurd. Apple trademarked The Beatles, "the Beatles" could refer to something different, but in this case, and every other referring to a well known "beat-combo" from Liverpool, it is The Beatles. - Arjayay (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment MOS:TRADEMARK says to follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", which according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article), mid-sentence 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. Piriczki (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jprg1966, Radiopathy, and Diego Grez. "Eagles" sounds awkward enough as is. Mαuri^’96 “...over the Borderline” 20:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Mauri96, what do you mean by '"Eagles" sounds awkward enough as is'? This is about calling them "the Eagles", as we do at present (that article gets it right), or changing to "The Eagles". No one is suggesting just "Eagles". What are you opposing? Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Would you say Lennon was one of The Beatles? If so, How could there be four The Beatles? Try, Lennon was one of the Beatles, it's really not that bad. Per Rothrope above, the cap "T" looks amateurish. We cannot re-create their trademarked logo here anyway, since we cannot use the drop-"T". Please see: File:Beatles logo.svg. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

John Lennon was a Beatle and part of a band called "The Beatles"

Each of the Beatles formed his own band after The Beatles broke up.

Each member became known as a Beatle unlike many other bands like "Alice Cooper" or "Abba", where thisisn'tgrmmatically possible. This complicates the clarity of what the writer is referring to, the band (singular) or the four member (plural).

I would rather reword one of the confusing sentences with the following: Each Beatle formed his own band after The Beatles broke up. You can also use the phrase 'individual Beatle' to stop the the/The inconsistency. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, on the grounds that the Beatles themselves did not always use "The" when referring to themselves. For example, the "white" album was just called "Beatles". Now if they had consistently called themselves "The Beatles" then it would be reasonable to assume they themselves believed the "The" to be an intrinsic part of their name. But as they from-time-to-time dropped the "The", it is fair to suggest that they can be referred to as "the Beatles" as a shorthand for "the band called Beatles". I agree that just "Beatles" sounds awkward, so "the Beatles" is the best compromise. --Matt Westwood 23:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OTOH I've checked and I think I may have my facts wrong. I still support, but I have no strong feelings either way.

You are right. The White Album entry in Wikipedia says this: "The Beatles is the ninth official album by the English rock group The Beatles; a double album released in 1968. It is also commonly known as "The White Album". It was called "The Beatles", because the name was embossed on the cover.--andreasegde (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that the official name of the group is obviously now "The Beatles". Among the numerous examples is www.thebeatles.com maintained by Apple Corps and accessing it today I see self-references such as "By hand, frame by frame and without the use of automated software, The Beatles' 1968 Pop Art masterpiece Yellow Submarine has been digitally restored and re-released to huge acclaim." Tearaway (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but the same website you are referring to also says: "Greatly turned on by the Spirit of the Age and by the “tea-parties” of those times, the Beatles provided a sound-track for the plottings of the baby boomers – millions of them – whose enlightenment ... still provides a hedge against humankind’s grosser instincts." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• support with a lowercase s. I am happy to be a Beatles fan, without SHOUTING THAT I AM A Beatles fan. But don't ever take the capital B away, it's the Beatles, not the beatles. Nice to see Lots Of Beatles Fans and Lots Of Sentences about the Beatles don't need Capital Letters. Was John the Best Beatle do you think ? or was he the best the Beatle. It goes better in a french accent, he was the best Le Beatle, (cough) I mean he was Le best The Beatle. All jokes aside, the lowercase does it for me, I'm not going to cloud the issue by referring to the MOS, suffice to say that I have read and understand the MOS issues, and at the end of the day we make the MOS, and sources are not so good the more modern they get, because we become a source as well. Penyulap ☏ 23:54, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)

striking !vote in !solidarity with the banned socks. The blinding focus on the little letters has lost it's appeal to me now that people are taking process so darn seriously. Penyulap ☏ 19:01, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• oppose – the band being discussed was "The Beatles", no style guide or grammatical rules apply; so, "The Beatles" is fine whether mid-sentence or anywhere else, why is this even being discussed? And, why bring herrings into it? I'm not adherring to anything. :p Nortonius (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) [Now corrected to 'adhering']
• Comment Oppose The best solution I ever heard of was this one: When referring to the plural of persons as four individual "Beatles" the non-capitalised "the" would be appropriate usage in English grammar. e.g. "Each of the Beatles had different opinions." When referring to the singular group the proper trademark name of the group should be used including a capital on the article. e.g. "Ed Sullivan hosted two episodes featuring The Beatles." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Update - since in other places in these talk pages, the solution I like is advocated by andreasegde and argued against by GabeMc, I think my !vote needs to be registered as an 'oppose' here. That said, I'll happily abide by any decision the mediator comes up with, assuming I ever have the urge to work on a Beatles article again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - George Martin's book on Pepper, which was published in London, uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - FTR - When andreas instituted the Triangular diplomacy solution in March 2011, the previous straw poll was 13 supporting "the" and 10 supporting "The". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc (directly above). This post can be read in this thread and has been discussed at length. GabeMc is using this to sway the vote. It is not allowed.--andreasegde (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Here is a letter in Paul's hand that uses "the". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc. The link is not clear enough to see anything (even though GabeMc claims it is).--andreasegde (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of giving misinformation. You need to stop the personal attacks. You are making yourself look foolish. Anyone can save the file and enlarge it if they cannot see that Macca clearly uses the Beatles in running prose and The Beatles only once, and while not in running prose, as it stands alone. Just let people decide for themselves and stop trying to convince everyone. Also, look at page 352 of the Beatles Anthology, there you will see another instance of Macca writing the Beatles in running prose. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can both of you stop sniping each other here? I have no opinion on who is right or wrong, and I know neither of you enough to form such an opinion. Whatever your obviously longstanding issues with each other are, it's a bit distracting to the issue at hand here. Can we tone down the level of discussion a bit? Please? Doc talk 03:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% Doc. No more sniping from me. FTR, I have no long-standing issue with Andreas that I am aware of. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc seems to think he can accuse people of having psychological disorders, because they do not agree with him. That's not even in the same league as "sniping".--andreasegde (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm not taking anyone's side here. But I must say, Andreasegde, that "Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc" is just terrible decorum. Think Robert's Rules of Order. Doc talk 11:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is correct, as the information he is presenting is not the whole truth. He selects certain passages to suit his own viewpoint, and then presents them as gospel. It's called cheating.--andreasegde (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There is now only one instance of "The Beatles" in this article (in a quote), which makes this discussion redundant.--andreasegde (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand you're pisssed off, but "Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc", decorum issues aside, is poisonous to a discussion and should be stricken. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be stricken when the editor in question chose to present certain facts that were not the whole truth? I think not.--andreasegde (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Notice – since there is a reasonable amount of concern regarding the behaviour of Andreas, I have opened a discussion here in which everybody is asked to participate to determine a possible course of action for the future. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is great. I'm looking forward to detailing GabeMc's insults.--andreasegde (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Already added my input there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• "...Balls to you, Big Daddy - I ain't never coming back!" ("Brand New Cadillac" The Clash - London Calling) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose i really do not like the idea of it being called "the Beatles" I have a metal poster legit to the original one of when they played at the Cavern which says "The Beatles". Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

• Support MoS-preferred version, but since there seems to be some disagreement in both primary and secondary sources, I'd say internal consistency should be the prevailing guide. New Beatles-related articles should use lowercase, and existing ones should follow one or the other convention, as long as it's consistent. Accedie^{talk to me} 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support (on balance). Tricky one this, as there's no clear consensus, even on the main Beatles' web sites (or should that read "....on the main The Beatles' web sites"). On balance though, they do seem to favour the lower case option, and personally I think that does seem to flow a little better too.Obscurasky (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - In Derek Taylor's first liner notes for the band (Beatles For Sale), he uses "the" throughout, which brings me to the question, why is it Beatles For Sale and not The Beatles For Sale, if "The" is an indispensable part of their trademark? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's "MEET THE BEATLES," not "MEET BEATLES." Sadly, the album cover capitalizes all the letters in the title of that album, so we do not get definitive guidance from that source.Jburlinson (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Beatles For Sale" does not imply the band was for sale but rather each Beatle was for sale. There were four of them! People are confusing the issue with references to the Beatles personalities. The band should be referred to as "The Beatles" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks which still states:

"Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized."

99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting MOS:TM. The Beatles trademark is not rendered without any capitals so that guideline does not apply here. The relevant guideline is:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".

Standard text formatting and capitalization, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article), is that mid-sentence 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. Piriczki (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article)" also says: "According to BBC journalist Julie Glassman, "they can boast almost as many tribute bands as The Beatles". "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing. A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--andreasegde (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of "the" mid-sentence, which seems to be the issue. The above examples only apply to quoted printed sources, wikilinks and lists. Piriczki (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But what about "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing. A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds"? It's also in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article); just below the sentences that everybody quotes.--andreasegde (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It clearly specifies "in wikilinks" and "when listing." Piriczki (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. A certain editor (GabeMc) wants to link the fab four as the Beatles, as well as the Jimi Hendrix Experience, the Grateful Dead, and the Doors. Please look at Paul McCartney.--andreasegde (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's how Rolling Stone does it actually, though for the moment I can only find this example, which does not have "the" as part of the blue link: [3] Rothorpe (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have always believed that it is The Beatles when talking about the whole "act", but "the Beatle(s)" when writing about individual members. "As a group, The Beatles performed in the USA, but the Beatles who went to Paris on holiday were Lennon and McCartney". That sentence is entirely correct.--andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support following the MOS in this case (when writing about the Beatles, that is). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• FTR: I have discerned the source of andreasegde's antipathy towards "the Beatles": some way back (it's up there on 30th July 2009), on the user page for that user is: "After having worked on many articles related to The Beatles, this user will never contribute again if one is forced to write "the Beatles". It looks stupid, and makes me feel ill. Castigate my attitude if you will, but it is mine, after all." So, for whatever reason, any suggestion to use "the Beatles" instead of "The Beatles" is bound to upset him/her. Read from this what you will. --Matt Westwood 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You went back to 2009 through all of my talk page edits? I congratulate you on your diligence (it must have been awfully tedious). Yes, I do have an "antipathy" towards "the Beatles", which I have explained very often during the many torturous trials that this page is repeating. Am I to be castigated for my antipathy? Hmmm... Make of that what you will.--andreasegde (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just intrigued as to what makes you so angry when someone suggests to apply the MoS to the Beatless. It's such a trivial point and you come across so screamy about it, I was interested, from a purely scientific angle, as to what if anything was behind it. But it would not do to accuse you of being barking mad, or even mildly neurotic, so I won't. Ultimately, however, your "oppose" carries no more weight than my "support", however much you appear to insinuate that those whose grammar and spelling are not up to your standards should be allowed to influence the outcome of a poll on pages that you, personally, have had some part in editing. No matter - as I say, I can't understand why it's even remotely important, and I'd be interested to learn, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, as to why to some people it is so important. --Matt Westwood 20:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You were "intrigued"? So much that that you had to go through my talk page as far back as 2009?

1. I, "come across so screamy about it"? Really? Do you have speakers? Do I type in CAPITAL LETTERS all the time? No, I don't.
2. "But it would not do to accuse you of being barking mad, or even mildly neurotic, so I won't." That's a classic, and anybody reading that would know what you really meant. :))
3. Who wrote this on my talk page: "Stop being childish. And while you're at it, grow a pair and learn some manners." You did.

If a reasonable discussion was proposed, I would be all for it. I'm sure you might have read that on my talk pages. To insinuate and attack, as one editor (GabeMc) recently wrote: ""Andreasegde has been harrassing me and threatening edit-wars, and making multiple personal attacks", makes things difficult, no?--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Question - If "The" is proper, then why do so many books written by Brits, and printed in London use small-case? Epstein's book, Martin's book, Taylor's book, Emerick's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book, Cynthia's book, Pattie Boyd's book, etcetera? Did all these British publishing houses and their professional copyeditors get this wrong? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You have repeated that line of reasoning so often I'm sure everyone is well aware of it by now. I refer you back to your own link, which states it clearly. BTW, how are "The" corrections coming along on the Roger Waters and Pink Floyd pages?--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't own the Pink Floyd article, nor do you own the Beatles article, or pages related to the Beatles. This is a collaborative project. This strawman argument of yours is weak IMO. If there are any cap "The"s for band names at Roger Waters they were not added by me, and I am not responsible for every cap "The" at Pink Floyd, I've barely even edited there this year, end of story. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you say, "At the time I wrote that using lower-case was not an option in a wikilink. I'll go fix them"? You're contradicting yourself.--andreasegde (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - A case could be made for the name of the band being Beatles -- no "the" or "The". Mention was made earlier about a dispute between Yoko and Paul during which Paul reprimanded her for saying "Beatles" and not "the Beatles." Yet John Lennon repeatedly referred to the group as "Beatles", even singing in his song "God": "I don't believe in Beatles." He wasn't saying he didn't believe in each of the individual people in the group, he was referring to the collective. Basically, this straw poll takes us back to the early days of Fab Four fandom: either you're a John person or a Paul person. Paul people like "The", John people don't (or, at minimum, they're OK with "the", if forced into a corner.)Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just regarding "God", almost every name in the litany is two syllables, with accent strong on both and strongest right where the syllables meet (Bi-ble, Bud-dha, etc), and the couple of three-syllable ones (Kennedy and Zimmerman) are squeezed in with the third syllable unaccented. To put "The Beatles" in there wouldn't work; he had to sing hard on just "Beat-les" for it to have the desired effect (and oh what a great recording). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think not, because every photo of Ringo's bass drum would be wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ringo was late to join the group. It might be that, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the others, he had "The Beatles" printed on his drum, only to be met with scorn by Lennon. "It's all right, Ringo," Paul, ever Mr. Nice Guy, might have said: "E for effort." Thus was born the persona of Ringo the lovable loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburlinson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the others"? Nah, but I do applaud your imagination; it would make a great stage play. :))--andreasegde (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't be part of this anymore. This "the"/"The"/"tHe" debate has devolved from nonsense into sheer fucking insanity, so I'm going to go edit articles related to genre novelists, little-known science fiction films, and obscure Canadian criminals. I've removed every Beatles-related article from my watchlist, so I shall not be bothering any of you ever again. If anyone needs copyediting help in the future, let me know and I'll consider it. In the meantime, I'm out. Someone drop me a talk page notice when ArbCom decides to care about this issue. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - According to Hart's Rules "avoid beginning words with capitals as much as possible". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

so youre called gabemc, and I am andreasegde? lets go the whole hog and call the "band" the beatles. btw, im not sure who youre quoting from, but it sounds like an sms to me. teenagers like that style a lot. its the future of the english language, yknow. --andreasegde (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

this is really interesting, because the harts rules article doesnt mention "avoid", or "capitals" once. why not?--andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the quote is from Hart's Rules, not the wikipedia article on the work. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Associated Press Stylebook also says to "avoid unnecessary capitals". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The MLA Handbook also says not to capitalise "the". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago MoS states: "Chicago's preference is for sparing use of capitals—what is sometimes referred to as a "down" style." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, 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." Game, set, match? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Chicago MoS" does NOT apply to British articles about British subject matters. Comprende? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about Hart? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Which style guide does apply? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide#United_Kingdom}. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you name a specific UK style guide? Your link above is to a wikipage, not a RS, or a style guide. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Copied and pasted:

General Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Authors and Publishers Judith Butcher. 3rd ed. 1992 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-40074-0 Fowler's Modern English Usage. Ed. R. W. Burchfield. Rev. 3rd ed. London: Clarendon Press, 2004. ISBN 0-19-861021-1 (hardcover). Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage, by Henry Watson Fowler. The King's English, by Henry Watson Fowler and Francis George Fowler. New Hart's Rules (2005 ed.). The Complete Plain Words, by Sir Ernest Gowers. Usage and Abusage, by Eric Partridge. Journalism The BBC News Style Guide: by the British Broadcasting Corporation.[3] The Economist Style Guide: by The Economist (UK).[4] The Guardian Style Guide: by The Guardian (United Kingdom)[5] The Times Style and Usage Guide, by The Times.[6] The Associated Press Stylebook, by The Associated Press.[7] Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Also, though not a style guide, the book The Beatles: SGT. Pepper's Lonley Hearts Club Band, published by Cambridge University Press, uses lower-case "t" throughout, as do Bill Harry's books, published in London by Virgin. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC) 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 handwritten letter by McCartney who uses "the Beatles" in running prose and "The Beatles" when written on its own. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What do they say about trade marks???? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A trademark is a piece of intellectual property. This article is not about a trademark, its about a physical album by a physical band. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The same is true at the Beatles, which is an article about the band, not about the brand/trademark, which isn't even mentioned in the article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep it capitalized' see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Names_.28definite_article.29 (which itself is contradictory). Hot Stop 13:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Current tally - 19 supports, 19 opposes and 1 maintain. If the current non-solution consensus at the Beatles is such a great solution I would have expected more than one maintain !vote out of 39 total !votes thus far. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So this is why you started a new poll on The Beatles' talk page, and filed a complaint against me. How very sad. "Come Missa Tally man tally me Banana" I love that song.--andreasegde (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support adhering to the MOS. If it's good enough for Mr McCartney to write " the 'Beatles' ", then it's good enough for me. GFHandel ♬  23:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support lowercase "the". Per usage data cited below, while uppercase "The" is significantly more acceptable in BrE than in AmE, it is still only a minority usage even in BrE (in AmE it is decidedly marginal). I also do not agree that the trademark status should have any bearing on our practice here: people can get all sorts of claims protected by law, but what they can't change per law is the principles of English grammar. And observation of English grammar tells me, as a professional grammarian, that the capitalization simply has no basis in fact. The article in "the Beatles" has syntactically the exact same categorial status as the article in "the United States", "the Cotswolds" or "the Bahamas": it accompanies the name, but is not part of it. As long as native speakers of English can say "Those Beatles fans were listening to some Beatles songs", or: "I hate the fucking Beatles", and I've never heard anybody saying "Those The Beatles fans were listening to some The Beatles songs", or "I hate the fucking The Beatles", you'll have a hard time convincing me, as a linguist, that "the" is a part of the name, no matter what some trademark lawyers want it to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I suppose you'd agree with Doors, Rolling Stones, Who, Beach Boys, Drifters, and Cure? --andreasegde (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly simple (no brainer, in fact). If the band in question refer to themselves with a "The" in front of them consistently, then references to them need the The. If they don't, they don't. Anything else is superfluous. Now here's your teddy, if you throw it out again you may not get it back. --Matt Westwood 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For example "Many people ask what are Beatles? Why Beatles? Ugh, Beatles, how did the name arrive? So we will tell you. It came in a vision - a man appeared on a flaming pie and said to unto them, 'From this day on you are Beatles with an A.'" - John Lennon (Gould, 2007, page 78). ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How about "I hate The fucking Beatles"? ;-) szyslak (t) 23:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't read right. Has to be "I hate the Fucking Beatles". :-) --Matt Westwood 17:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support small "t", especially per Future Perfect at Sunrise. While big "T" is only borderline in terms of being a grammatical "error", small "t" is both far more acceptable and far more common, in both AmE and BrE. We should also remember that the name of the band is not a title. We must use the big "T" in a sentence like "'Lisa the Vegetarian' is my favorite episode of The Simpsons", but not necessarily in a sentence like "'Hey Jude' is my favorite song by the Beatles". When there is already an article or possessive in the clause, you omit "[t/T]he" in both cases: "...my favorite Simpsons episode", "...my favorite Beatles song". In addition, arguments that big "T" is legally necessary are unconvincing. Remember that (a) most of us are not lawyers, and even fewer of us are patent/trademark lawyers, and (b) the Foundation has a legal advisor who will inform us if small "t" puts us in legal danger. If any doubt remains, maybe we could ask the Foundation about this? szyslak (t) 23:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - After a thorough perusal of my UK Manuals of Style and my books on the band, I advocate for a small-case definite article when the group's name is used in running prose. A capitalised mid-sentence definite article looks amateurish and it gives the impression to readers that a mistake has been made. The Beatles were a band. The trademark "The Beatles" is an intellectual property, and not a group of human beings who were also the musicians most commonly known as the Beatles. Littledreamer78 (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Trivial—for better readability. - DVdm (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There is no reason to dump MOS for this one band. Sir George Martin in All You Need Is Ears uses the lower case 't': "So when the Beatles" and "comparative popularity of Jesus Christ and the Beatles". There's even a complete absence of 'the' at the beginning of a sentence: "Beatles ran in all directions..." Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - 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 suggest writers should NOT capitalize "the" mid-sentence. This is cut-and-dry. I've supported this proposal at the Beatles' article as well. TheManiacalMusicalMoron (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC) !vote by a sock puppet struck. --MuZemike 14:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Lower-case mid-sentence is best and correct. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - All the books I have on the Beatles use a lower-case "t", and my Chicago Manual of Style says to use a lower-case definite article when mentioning the group, so does Hart's. BeatlesGirl7 (talk) 02:06, 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) 01:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Some sources use "the", some use "The", and some use both interchangeably. I just don't see a compelling case to deviate from MOS in those circumstances. As for the person referring to trademark usage, that text applies to situations where a company uses its mark in lowercase, such as addidas. MOS says to use normal English usage for a proper noun, making it Addidas. Using that provision to support "The" not misapplies the rule, but ignores its spirit, which is to use normal usage despite the mark owner's usage. -Rrius (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Question can anyone fathom a way in which this poll could have be presented in a more biased manner ? I think the mention of the T is a little verbose myself, and the 'do you agree with the MoS' could use a little more iteration myself. Penyulap ☏ 03:48, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Even the standard references such as Groves Music Online are inconsistent in their use of "the Beatles" or "The Beatles", but it seems clear that a lower case "the" is the better option in running text, and more consistent with constructions such as "... a study of how a Beatles song came together". Capitalisation has a very strong implication that the "The" is a part of the name, yet "... a study of how a The Beatles song came together" is simply absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The lower-case "t" aligns with our local manual of style, and with common usage for this particular band. -- Dianna (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This one is easy, just follow the UK grammar guides! HellRaiser1974 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC) !vote by a sock puppet struck. --MuZemike 14:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - there is no guidance to be found in the source material, which is inconsistent. The solution is not to try to argue about what source material we should prefer, but rather to simply follow Wikipedia guidelines in the absence of clear contradictory guidance from the source material. Abhayakara (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: It should be "The," but why are there two separate straw polls on this? Please combine. Stlamanda (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Usage data

The following is from a small corpus test using one representative corpus of written British English (the BNC) and one of American English (COCA). Do with it what you will. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

BNC goes to a disambiguation page - I presume you meant British National Corpus. Richerman (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

context	British BNC		American COCA
use in nominal compounds1	63	10.3%	171	17.2%
other generic use without articles2	10	2.8%	17	1.7%
referring to individual band members3	3	0.9%	22	2.2%
orthographically neutralized4	32	9.2%	107	10.8%
other neutral contexts	4	1.1%	14	1.4%
Total neutral contexts|	112	32.1%	331	33.4%
Use without adjacent article5	8	2.3%	29	2.9%
Lowercase article	126	36.1%	564	57.0%
Uppercase article	103	29.5%	66	6.7%
Percentage uppercase vs. lowercase		45.9%		10.5%
Total	349		990
(1)e.g. "(the) Beatles songs", "(the) Beatles fans" (2)e.g. "this music is part Nirvana, part Zeppelin, part Beatles" (3)e.g. "Lennon and two other Beatles" (4)"The" at beginning of sentence, in completely capitalized titles etc. (5)e.g. "the future Beatles", "without Elvis there would have been no Beatles"

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.