Talk:The Beatles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Discography

I hope I am following the proper discussion procedure. I just thought since the discography supplied was a little lacking I would supply a reference for anyone who edits this page. Feel free to fix my post if I did it incorrectly. Here it is:

[Text commented out to save space --Nick R^Talk 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)]

Hope that helps. As you can see it supplies the years released and all the tracks on each. Also allowing for a list of every song they made. Hope this improves the pages quality. For some reason it shows up weird in the actual page. Just go into edit and it will be all nicely formatted though. Sorry for the inconvenience, maybe someone can fix it?

I've commented the text out because that doesn't need to be displayed on the talk page. It doesn't need to be included in the main Beatles article because the information is available on The Beatles discography article (apart from the tracklistings for the post-Let It Be albums, which are available on those albums' individual articles).

To get it to appear correctly, you would need to either insert <pre></pre> tags around the text (which would make everything appear in a monospaced font with no wiki formatting) or insert <br> tags at the end of each line. But the preferred method would be to replace the track numbers with a proper numbered list using the # character at the start of each line. --Nick R^Talk 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

hey i have the lyrics to all their songs can sum1 tell me where to put them??? Bijun 07:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)bijun

The Silver "Beatles"

They were The Silver "Beetles", NEVER The Silver "Beatles", I suspect this has come from a BBC site which is inaccurate. I have informed them of this several times, but it has not been changed. Lion King 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's your source? I'm pretty sure you're right (I think I remember it from Lennon), but we need to be sure if we're going to change it. —simpatico ^hi 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can verify this, and I'm sure there are a some reputable websites out there (namely beatles-discography.com, run by Craig Cross, who has authored a number of Beatles books) that will back this up. Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, originally, it was the Silver Beetles. Kingturtle 10:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Silver "Beatles" appears in "The Beatles in one minute" at, bbc.co.uk/music/profiles/beatles.shtml. It's inaccurate, I have informed them yet again but to no avail, as of yet, it still has not been changed! Lion King 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"The" vs. "the"

Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy#.27.22The.22_vs._.22the.22.27_thread_moved_from_Talk:The_Beatles. --kingboyk 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A Hard Day's Night

Paul wrote half the song. it is a collaboration song. it should not be listed under John's photo. Kingturtle 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the quintisentially Lennonesque Walrus.John (Jwy) 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some small article issues

It was one of the first cellar clubs in Liverpool to present rock 'n' roll groups exclusively, as opposed to the strict policy of jazz for venues such as The Cavern and the Cat A Coombs. The Cavern was one of the more well-known spots where the band performed during their independent years.

This doesn't makes sense, if The Cavern was strictly jazz how were the Beatles able to play there? This needs to be clarified in the article. In fact, that whole paragraph (The Beatles#History, "The first regular gigs for the group...") is rather muddled.

Also, why is there no mention of the release of 1 in the History? It was such a huge success, the top album of that year if I remember correctly, and it shows how hugely popular the Beatles remain even 30 years later. And what about Paul's meddling with Let it Be? I also think we should at least mention the Hard Day's Night and Help! films, even though they are discussed in-depth in a later section. There seems to be so much time spent explaining what went on at record labels and radio stations when the Beatles came to America, yet after 1964 their history is rushed through. I would rather the other stuff be trimmed out, seeing as it's already in the main History of the Beatles article.

Also, I changed this (from here):

Due to the adverse (and frankly racist and sexist) reporting of this situation in later years, Ono came to be (quite unfairly) singled out as "the woman who "broke up the Beatles".

to this

Due to the adverse reporting of this situation in later years, Ono came to be singled out as "the woman who broke up the Beatles".

due to the clearly POV language, but I think it should be noted that most no longer think this and if I recall correctly the Beatles themselves have debunked the theory. Also, I don't think it's fair to mention Ono and not mention Linda McCartney - she and her family had their own part to play in the break-up (IIRC Paul tried to convince the other Beatles to make her father and/or brother the manager, which didn't sit well at all with them).

Also, is the caption for this image correct?

At the highly publicised London premiere of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

I believe this is actually at the premiere of Yellow Submarine, since it's next to that paragraph and albums don't have such premieres. I've changed it, but it can be changed back if I'm wrong.

ETA some more issues:

After "Come Together" was released, music publisher Morris Levy sued John Lennon for copyright infringement of his song "You Can't Catch Me", ultimately resulting in the recording of his solo album Rock 'n' Roll.

Bzuh? Kind of a non-sequitor there. Is it saying that the copyvio suit inspired Lennon to write Rock 'n' Roll? And if so, in what way was this inspiring? Please explain?

Also, who is Tommy Conroy? He was listed in the infobox as an early Beatles member, but I've never heard of him. I've taken it out.

P.S. I didn't change the mid-sentence thes since we haven't yet reached a consensus about that. But I think we should inform whoever is in charge of the style guide about our discussion and the need to have guidelines for this. I have no idea how to go about that though. —simpatico ^hi 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 3

I support the changes you've made, and I can explain the copyright infringement problem. Lennon eventually settled with Levy over the case by promising to record cover versions of songs Levy owned, which would result in royalties for Levy. I can't name a specific source for this at this particular moment, though. (I'm pretty sure one can be easily found through Google, though.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add that in. :) —simpatico ^hi 06:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced images

Many of the images in the article have been tagged as unsourced — which means they'll be deleted in a few days. Does anyone have source information on these, so we can keep them in the article? This needs to be dealt with soon. —simpatico ^hi 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

ETA Too late. :( —simpatico ^hi 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles highest selling act.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has just published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever. IFPI has finally come up with a list of the top-selling acts in History. Its about time.

The top 10 is as follows:

01. The Beatles 40 400,000,000 UK 60s (1962-1970) Rock/Pop Guinness/EMI

02. Michael Jackson 14 350,000,000 US 70s-00s (1979-) Pop/R&B

03. Elvis Presley 150 300,000,000 US 50s-70s (1956-1977) Country/Rock

04. Madonna 16 275,000,000 US 80s-00s (1984-) Pop

05. Nana Mouskouri 450 250,000,000 Greece 60s-00s (1959-) Pop

06. Cliff Richard 60 250,000,000 UK 50s-00s (1959-1969,1977-1979,1986-1999) Rock/Pop

07.The Rolling Stones 54 ~250,000,000 UK 60s-00s (1964-1981) Rock

08. Mariah Carey 14 230,000,000 US 90s-00s (1990-) Pop/R&B

09. Elton John 43 ~220,000,000 UK 70s-00s (1972-1976,1989-1991,1997-) Pop

10.Celine Dion 21 220,000,000 Canada 80s-00s (1990-) Pop Music/Pop

Source: IFPI http://mjtkop.com/home/ http://www.madonna.com/

The fact that Celine Dion is in this list completely negates any correlation that this list has with quality or musical achievement.

Can someone explain the list please. It appears that Elvis at No 3 outsold The Beatles and Michael Jackson at No 1 and No 2, Nana Mouskouri at No 4 seems to have outsold everyone in the list. —This unsigned comment was added by 194.193.10.114 (talk • contribs) .

Nah, it's bad formatting. The Beatles sold 400,000,000 and are top. I suspect the number 40 next to it is the number of different singles (or records) released. It's absolutely not a measure of quality, but sales are a good indicator of another interesting phenomenon - popularity. --kingboyk 15:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro Too Long?

Does anyone think that the introduction for this article is too long? Could some of the material from it be put into already existing subheadings or new subheadings if necesary?

Satchfan 08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyright violation

This article borrows text (or had had text borrowed from it) by this website http://www.liverpoolcityportal.co.uk/beatles/beatles_history.html

Mirroring Wikipedia is rather common; that site appears to illegally mirror our content because it has not attributed the article to us. Johnleemk | Talk 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Article may be too long

This article is currently 64KB and the style guide recommneds article sizes be between 30KB and 50KB. The 64KB figure includes items are not included in the 30-50 suggestion (tables, list-like sections and markup), but I suspect this article is close to the upper bound. Has anyone considered a good strategy for either paring down this article of splitting it into multiple articles? – ApolloCreed 11:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I got it down to 55kb. Johnleemk | Talk 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

History

I really wish we could do something about the History of the Beatles article. We have a very long History section here, and then a slightly longer, rather unloved 'main article'. The obvious solutions would be to trim the History section here mercilessly, or to merge. That would have size issues of course.

Regarding the History section:

"George Harrison allegedly began to seriously date Miss Jenny Johnson (who ironically already knew Richard Starkey) , who may have been the inspiration for some of their earlier songs. However, these allegations are not specified in any leading Beatles documents. They apparently broke up after other members began to fall in love with her. This is yet to be proven."

Sloppy.

• Who alleges that George was dating this girl?
• Why is it ironic that she knew Ringo? Coincidental, maybe; ironic, no.
• "who may have been the inspiration for some of their earlier songs". Which songs and who says?
• "these allegations are not specified in any leading Beatles documents." What are they doing in a Featured article then?!
• "This is yet to be proven." I rest my case.

--kingboyk 12:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The "History of The Beatles" article is very poorly written, IMO, and has a (usually unsubstantiated) POV - but one that seems to roam considerably. Perhaps if there is any good info missing from the "History" section in the main article it could be added there and this entire piece deleted? Otherwise the merged article could be moved there and only the pre recording History be retained in the main article, and a precis of one or two paragraphs?LessHeard vanU 20:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Those are the two solutions I favour also (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#H and Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#The_big_ones). It's possible we could actually merge multiple articles as there's a lot of cruft knocking about (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#The_big_ones and Talk:The_Beatles#Cruft).

I think your suggested approach is pretty much spot on. Here's how I see it: 1) Remove cruft and rubbish from the History section in this article 2) Salvage anything usable from History of the Beatles and merge it here (or into a sandbox article). 3a) If the resulting History section is too long, move the new version back out to History of the Beatles and leave a brief summary here OR 3b) Replace The Beatles history with a redirect. It's a mighty job - if you're wo/man enough to do it then go right ahead; or you'll have to wait for the WikiProject to get round to it which will be a while yet. (Of course, with jobs like this if someone makes a start others usually can't resist chipping in :-))

If you're not going to make an immediate start, I'd suggest moving this thread and any others on the same topic to WT:Beatles. (I'll do it, just let me know). --kingboyk 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to links as below.LessHeard vanU 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history. --kingboyk 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, come on vandal spotters. A vandal just hit the page, and I check his edit history - and not only does he like to add nonsense to articles but the contribution was his. I've deleted all of it. Special:Contributions/Jennis --kingboyk 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The amusing origin of the Beatles

It's been requested that the following text needs a citation:

The Quarrymen went through a progression of names: Johnny and The Moondogs, The Silver Beetles, and eventually arriving at The Beatles. The origin of the name "The Beatles" with its unusual spelling is usually credited to John Lennon, who said,

"Many people ask what are the 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 unto them 'From this day on you are Beatles with an A'. 'Thankyou, Mister Man,' they said, thanking him..."‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

More of the text appears in The Beatles Anthology book, and in full in Hunter Davies' biography of the group. It definitely wasn't said in an interview, as the article previously stated (I've removed that bit). I'll need to check exactly where it was written, but when I have, I'll put in a full reference. --Nick R^Talk 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I (the person who requested a citation) know that the Beatles' name did come down in a Flaming Pie, but maybe our readers don't. Certainly a fellow editor doesn't, as he reverted the edit as vandalism - hence the request :-) --kingboyk 19:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's attributed to an article written by John Lennon in a 1961 issue of Mersey Beat. I found a web site with this article at http://www.beatletour.com/d_mersey_beat.htm Steelbeard1 19:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it was in Mersey Beat. Should've known. :) But a published book would make a better reference than that webpage. I think we should add a specific footnote for it in the "Notes" section, even if the source is already listed in the more general "References" section, just to prove that we have used a reference for that particular statement. --Nick R^Talk 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Mersey Beat, July, 1961. Just needs to be checked and confirmed with another source. What's better than citing the original publication (well, a book that people can get in the library as an additional source maybe). --kingboyk 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and threw that link in there, after restoring the quote when an anon deleted it w/out explanation. Someone who knows about footnotes can probably improve it, but I thought it good to have something rather than nothing, in the meanwhile. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahst Az Sön (Copy from "Articles for creation/March 1"

A Beatles bootleg album. Maybe important due to this debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzy_Parker_%28Beatles_Song%29

Sources

http://www.bootlegzone.com/album.php?name=2950&section=0 ("....we gain access to several Let It Be tapes.")

195.93.60.81 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Decline. In general we do not have articles for to bootleg albums, and the inclusion of this one outtake, "Suzy Parker", doesn't seem to make it notable enough to make an exception. In any case, you haven't provided enough content to create an article, or to judge whether it deserves an article. Feel free to resubmit. ×Meegs 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think, this guy from the bootlegzone (last lines) has gathered some good reasons for an article describing this historic double album :......1972, I ordered it from a London Dealer who got bust. After reading about it in the NME I gave up. Six months later out of the blue it arrived. I was amazed then and continue to love this stuff. The raw rock 'n roll energy of a band still playing and laughing together continues to confound the idea that the apple was rotten at the core. The original seemed great quality but has been improved on by susequent issues. However nothing can replace the thrill of getting that sudden brown paper surprise in '72; the start of a long and winding (expensive) road. All hail TAKRL. (must be an interesting bootlegger label - I don´t know).

Greetings 195.93.60.81 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Today#Hahst_Az_S.C3.B6n"

Anyone here who knows this album and want to create an article about it?

Greetings 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I should declare an 'interest' in that I'm the deletion nominator (but a Beatles nut). I've never heard of that bootleg. There are hundreds if not thousands of 'Beatlegs', and we should only have articles on those who are truly significant (a mere handful). --kingboyk 01:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk, sorry, I think you are NOT the right guy to create this article :-), because you are no encyclopedian.

If I read in wikipedia I want to read new stuff - not only that stuff I´ve already have heard of.You should be a little more curious,ha? :-)

According to wp.de (de:Bootleg#Bekannte_Beispiele Bootlegs.Famous editions) especially the Let it be-sessions are truly significant bootleg editions. And this 1972 album was the first one.

Btw.:Hahst Az Sön is Liverpool slang or? What does this phrase mean?

More: Found the meaning of Takrl:

T A K R L (USA) = The Amazing Korniphone Record Label

T A K R L (Germany) = The Amazing Korniphone Rebirth Label

Greetings 10:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.78 (talk • contribs) .

You're getting a little close to personal attack there, but since you litter it with smilies I'll let it pass :-) First of all, I am curious and open to learning, and I did of course Google the album - which took me to the ever reliable Bootlegzone. I'd also suggest that I may be just the person to write it. I've done a lot of work on Beatles related topics, and I challenge you to check my edit history and tell me I haven't done a good job :-) However, Encyclopedias don't collate endless knowledge - they provide an overview. Wikipedia's goal is not, for example, to have an article on every song, every album, every bootleg. Our goal is to have high quality articles on the most important ones.

Looking at how the German site does it, perhaps a new section such as ==Early Beatles bootlegs== in "Beatles bootlegs" would be a good idea? That page is is need of improvement and cleaning (kinda illustrating my point) if you want something to do :-)

I'm certainly open to the suggestion that this is an important milestone release in Beatles history that I have overlooked because, as it happens, I was born in 1972 - and I didn't do much record shopping for a good 10 or 12 years after that :-)

Cheers! --kingboyk 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk, I´ve just started introducing de:Suzy Parker to the Germans. Maybe someone there gets inspired to start a Suzy Parker song article or even a Hahst Az Sön article. Let´s wait and see what happens :-). And yes, I had a look on your edit history: I´m impressed (no smiley).

c u (with smiley) :-)

@ all: I want to repeat my question: Hahst Az Sön is Liverpool slang, or ? What does this phrase mean? Greetings 18:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.78 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks (I think) :) I hope someone else can answer, but I'm surprised at your question - is Hahst Az Sön not German?! It's certainly not English (nor Scouse as far as I know).

Please sign your talk messages (~~~~) and hey if yer gonna stick around, get yourself a Wikipedia en account! :P --kingboyk 18:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

emm, maybe you are right....because, according to the fact, that the Fab Four have spent some months in Hamburg and have learned some German words, Hahst Az Sön might be a very very wrong German phrase - but that´s my fantasy now . It might mean: (Du) hast es schön (correct:Du hast es gut) and in other words due to this bootleg, which was complicate to get: You are a lucky man, because you could buy this copy. (ö is pronounced like the u in Eric Burdon). Second theory: One of the Beatles says this German like phrase during the Get back-sessions and it´s an insider-joke, which only the Beatles or the listener of this session can understand.

...get yourself a Wikipedia en account! At the first view this looks like a good idea, but...... if you click here, you will understand a little more:[1] Caution: If you click, you will get deep in the heart of a cultural struggle between Old Europe and the new (or even older) USA. I would name it: That´s Rock 'n Roll 2006. :-) Greetings from Berlin 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.78 (talk • contribs) .

lol, ok. I like you, you're funny! I didn't understand that link in the slightest but never mind! Old Europe, now that's a good phrase. My favourite for the Eastern European countries was "the kidnapped West". Like a true Brit I don't speak any other languages (apart from a little French) so I'll take your word on the translation.

Yes, the Beatles spent a very notable period in Hamburg. It was crucial in their development as I'm sure you know. Klaus Voorman (what a legend) has maintained his Beatles link to this day. --kingboyk 20:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

History (2)

Reposting to hopefully stimulate debate:

I really wish we could do something about the History of the Beatles article. We have a very long History section here, and then a slightly longer, rather unloved 'main article'. The obvious solutions would be to trim the History section here mercilessly, or to merge. That would have size issues of course. --kingboyk 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well sure, it's a good idea. A lot of work though. Hottest fish to fry on our worklist? Dunno. As to which alternative, I'd rather not merge, but rather trim this one way way back and point people there. (or is history so intertwined that you can't tell the Beatles' story without delving into history all along the way?) ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the big one. I say leave all options open - including a major razor job. We could consider merging history in, and splitting other stuff out. Just one of many options and not a statement of opinion just yet :-) --kingboyk 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In many ways The Beatles is all history. Two out of the four (and three of six) are dead and their major influence was to a past era. Most people using Wikipedia as a source will be so young as to not have been born before the bands demise (older readers will likely just be reading to check up on the "accuracy" of the article). In these circumstances the article is in itself historical. I think that is why the two History articles/sections are so large, as every other aspect of the article serves the historical function.

I am not in favour, but perhaps it should be considered editing the main article as a history with an introduction - using subheadings to signpost the more important developments and events - and link to every other relevant article?LessHeard vanU 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history. --kingboyk 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing Larry Williams

Hi folks, while adding some Spanish covers of Bony Moronie/Popotitos to the Larry Williams article, I´ve noticed that he is currently no longer mentioned in the Beatles article. But he´s one of their most important roots - again and again covered by John and Paul as old men. Greetings. A girl from Hungary  :-) 09:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.78 (talk • contribs) .

Now I know you're a girl from Hungary I might have to start being nicer to you! ;) Now what was that bootleg album article you wanted again? :P --kingboyk 01:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the issue you actually asked about. Influences on the Beatles is another section that's messy I think, but if he's still missing be bold and add him back in. --kingboyk 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

UK/US spelling

Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy#.22UK.2FUS_spelling.22_thread_moved_from_Talk:The_Beatles. --kingboyk 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Commentary from a fan

comment I just removed:

J.P.F. <Comment> Throughout many decades starting from the early 1960's, vast of articles or books have been written about them. What else can all of us say about the magnificent "Fab Four?" They were just magic that God produce to make everybody satisy with their own lives. It was a ten years of joy that the world ever experienced and that would continue forever and ever. It was also a ten years of "loving" and "peace" that they gave to us. The Beatles may be gone forever, but the strong, powerful memories will continue to flow in our bloods. This will lead to find new listeners that will pass on for generations and generations. Like John Lennon had said in his Playboy Press Interview, "The Beatles Are Over, But John, Paul, George, Ringo go on." That's good things about the Beatles, they are guaranteed classical musicians. Their time seems to be never end. Still, new listeners every seconds, minutes, hours, enjoying and reminiscing the Beatles Classics. Their time is always brand new for us and their music will live on until by the time Sun explodes its hydrogen. One thing all of us (fans) should do is to thank them and make sure that they never escape in our hearts.

++Lar: t/c 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Given that this is supposedly a featured article, and given that it's vandalised by anon IPs pretty much every day without fail, is now the time to consider semi protection? --kingboyk 03:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not getting vandalised any MORE than it did previous to us on the scene I don't think. As I understood it Wikipedia:Semiprotection is supposed to be used only in dire cases of near constant vandalism where there is no other way to address the issue... many other articles get hit as much as this one and don't get SP. I'm not saying I agree, only that I understand policy to be that way, and predict that we would run into some opposition if it were done. (in particular see m:Protected pages considered harmful) ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I guess it will need to be part of a wider debate re blocking of anons etc., which coincidentally Mal has recently kicked off: Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Proposal_for_policy_change_on_shared_IPs. In this case I think the policy might be wrong. It's just a waste of everyone's time to keep reverting nonsense day after day, and anon edits rarely contribute much to the article (sometimes they do but not often). Mandatory edit summaries might help too, but again here's not the venue. --kingboyk 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected pages may well be considered harmful, but I consider multiple vandalism hits every day - and an edit history of revert after revert - pretty harmful too. How much vandalism are we supposed to tolerate? When was the last time this article was edited in any helpful, substantial way by an anon IP (or anybody for that matter)? I'm sorry to rant, but just look at that edit history - it's gruesome! --kingboyk 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya, it's pretty arsed, innit? (How was that for UK slang?) I am coming around to your desire but think we need some advice from older/wiser types before we do it. Lets perhaps ask a few selected people we trust who have been around a long time (I'd suggest user:Mindspillage, she has a very level head about this sort of thing and can see pros and cons... ) ?? OTOH, you being a godlike admin and all, could just do the semiprotect thing and see who squawks... ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually read and contribute to talk pages any more? :) I was hoping we might get some fresh voices... let's see. To be continued... --kingboyk 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's definitely time to try semiprotection, I think. Just way too much silly vandalism. No one spoke out against it or for it so... oh well. Do it, man! Pull the trigger. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links

We were just hit by 2 spammers in a matter of minutes, which inspired me to take a hard look at what external links had sneaked in in the past. I've trimmed down the list and would ask that others with this article on their watchlist be vigilant in ensuring that spam and links to low-grade/non-authoratitive sites doesn't creep back in. Wikipedia is not a link repository! --kingboyk 19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

day by day

this just added...

• The Beatle Timeline Day by day account of their career

normally I'd say pull someone's home page but wow, that's amazingly detailed. If it's not kept in the article, maybe keep it here or on the project page under resources?? ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave this link Every town and city The Beatles ever played because I just don't see us actually wanting to go to that level of detail ON the 'pedia, (just as we don't want to document day by day either) but people might want the info. I'd rather discuss first before putting it back... ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of, say, an article on each tour with a list of dates and venues. I think it would be encyclopedic (it's The Beatles) although it might set a bad precedent with regards to less notable (i.e. all other) performers... (Let's not be coy, the Beatles have a level of notability - whether you like them or not - that can be challenged in their field by only Elvis Presley). If however other people think it would be cruft, I'll demur (if that's the right word). --kingboyk 13:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In other languages...

I wonder what the record for most other languages for an article is. I bet this one is within 10 langs of that! ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's occured to me before too. Sure is a long interwiki list! I think somewhere there's a list of fundamental "encyclopedic topics" and The Beatles are on it. Presumably they'll get an article in most if not all wikis... --kingboyk 07:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It made me wonder. Was John right when he said "We're more popular than Jesus now". Beatles = 46, Jesus = 65, God = 49 :) --rogerd 08:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol! I think he was technically correct (in terms of popularity not importance) at the time (but a bit unwise to say so publically), which I guess is why his comments didn't get much attention over here. However, maybe we shouldn't reopen that debate? :) --kingboyk 08:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Well I like them better than Jesus anyway. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ska

"The Beatles' canon included songs flavoured with folk, country, rockabilly, blues, soul, doo-wop, ska and many other musical genres." What songs of their's were Ska? TommyBoy76 03:19, 28 March 2006

I don't know. Mr. Moonlight? Carlo 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, the long lost Beatles in Jamaica sessions were pretty full-on ska :) Honestly, I don't know. Ob-la-di was very slightly reggae tinged but I can't think of much else. Be bold and remove the reference I'd say. --kingboyk 09:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Moonlight? No way. Isn't that more Rock n Roll? Well whatever is it, it ain't Ska. Removed. TommyBoy76 03:19, 28 March 2006

Instrumentation

An anon editor added an instrumentation section, and just now a block of plain text has been added to which I've plonked on a {{wikify}} template. There's two issues here though. The most important one is that plain text raises a warning flag to me about copyvios. The second point is, do we want such detail in the main article? (I'm not saying we don't). If we don't, do we want a new article (or indeed does anybody know of an existing article on the Beatles instruments?). --kingboyk 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section anyway since it does appear to be a copyright violation. The text was taken from http://www.thecanteen.com/. - Akamad 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm not surprised. --kingboyk 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's back, so far in a non copyvio form, and the editor now has an account which makes correspondence easier. Previous question still stands. I personally think it could be quite interesting to have a note about what instruments they used, but it's a big enough topic it could maybe occupy a whole article. --kingboyk 12:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Was it removed again? I don't see it there now. Anyway, I think the article was very informative, interesting and relevant, and (if legal) should certainly be included, if it doesn't occupy a separate article. In fact, when it was first removed, I was thinking of using it as a template for a non-copyvio rewrite (are you allowed to do that?)

An by the way, "The Beatles was" sounds hideous in American English, too. Carlo 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why you couldn't rewrite it in your words, no. Or start with a list; a plain list which doesn't have a creative element isn't copyrightable AFAIK (e.g. a list of instruments used by the Beatles versus a list of "best" albums as compiled by experts). --kingboyk 17:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They used every instrument in the book, so what is the hold-up here? TommyBoy76 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Introductions, Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best

I concur with everybody that comments that the introduction is too long and unfocused. The amount of space given to the names of members of John Lennons skiffle groups beggars belief when Sutcliffe and Best are only found in a "other members" section. Since every editor who has chanced upon this article seems to have had a go I am going to abstain from rewriting it, but I would like to make a point for anyone considering having a go; Sutcliffe and Best were Beatles - their names appear on contracts and other legal documents as members of the group.

Also, both of these individuals made major contributions in the very early days. As mentioned in the article Pete Bests mother turned the cellar in the family home into a club where the Beatles played - not mentioned is that the band rehearsed there also most days. While Lennon and McCartney wrote songs in each others homes, it was at Pete Bests house where the band learned to play them. Stu Sutcliffe, especially for a non-musician who didn't write anything, was possibly more influential. His art college background appeared to have cultivated a "cooler" image than the rocker inclined other band members. Whilst Epstein put the Beatles into suits, they had already discarded the leather jackets and quiffs at Sutcliffes instigation. It was also Sutcliffes German girlfriend who performed the "Beatles Haircut" which became their first iconic image (Pete Best deferred, which was another reason why he became estranged from the group). Lastly and most importantly, as already discussed elsewhere, it was the need for McCartney to switch to bass after already developing as a melodic guitar player when Sutcliffe left that had the greatest effect. McCartney used the bass as part of the overall instrumentation, rather than just providing a rythmic background. His mastery of the somewhat simpler parts required also allowed him to concentrate on his vocal harmonising in the live performances.

The problem with the introduction is obvious, in just discussing what may be included in it rather than what is has created an amount of text which should be somewhere near the amount that the intro should be. It is possible is what is needed is a short introduction of something like "The Beatles were a hugely popular and influential group of the 1960's, comprising....etc." with a table of contents whose first section is "An introduction....". Whatever. Just please include Sutcliffe or Best in the main part, and not as footnotes. I thank you.LessHeard vanU 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A beautifully written summary like that deserves an instant "come and help us" template on the user's talk page! Consider it done :) --kingboyk 21:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done as I suggested, and chopped the intro into one short paragraph. The remainder is now in its own section. I am not overly happy with the title "Preamble" and if the layout is not reverted then perhaps someone can suggest something more suitable. ps. I will not be chopping everything into chunks like this, but I think the larger sections like "History" could be divided up by sub-headings. I will proceed (later) if there is agreement.LessHeard vanU 21:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Beatles FBI File

From my talk page:

Hello,

I noticed you took off my addition to the Beatles page about their FBI file. This is a rarely known fact, and I followed the rules when I posted? Why was it removed?

Please let me know, I am very interested on why.

--Blackvault 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because this is a featured article and I felt this wasn't an addition of high enough quality or relevance. We have some 300 or so articles on the Beatles, and this is the flagship article. It should provide a solid overview of their career and their importance without resort to excessive trivia. I felt the information was just that - trivial; it didn't flow with the article as it stood and (if you'll forgive me for being bold) wasn't well written; and it included an improperly formatted URL within the article text. I'd suggest finding a more suitable article which it could go into, e.g. History of the Beatles, and try to work it into the existing text rather than just paste in a context-free new section. Just my 2c, if others disagreed they would have been free to revert my changes (nobody did, but they still could).

The text:

The Beatles, a "British Pop Musical group," received an extortion threat as they were appearing in Denver, CO on August 26, 1964. They were told to cancel their appearance in Denver or they would throw grenades at them. John Lennon, a member of the group, was the subject of an immigration appeal. There are various cross references to them in this file as well.

The Beatles Entire FBI File

--kingboyk 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. And another thing. Spam. bvalphaserver.com = blackvault. Contribs consist of adding short paras to various articles all with a link to said website. I need say no more. --kingboyk 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos available

File:Beatles.JPG

File:BeatlesRS.JPG

File:Beatles2.JPG

I'm not sure how to incorporate these into the article, but they're uploaded and ready.

--bbsrock

Thanks very much. We can't use the Rolling Stone cover, because of copyright issues. The other 2 pics are nice indeed, but could somebody check the copyright status before we try and slot one/other/both in? I removed the current tag from them as I'm not convinced they are promo photos as tagged (although they might be). Whatever we do, let's not lose the uninterrupted John Paul George Ringo sequence of solo photos. Here's an idea, perhaps they could go into History of The Beatles? --kingboyk 12:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Steve above. If we can get sources for the non magazine cover photos they are nice indeed and would be awesome somewhere. But I do agree with not losing the four solo photose, those add a lot to the flow of the article. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that magazine covers were alright to use? --bbsrock

Sadly not. If you click on the Rolling Stone picture and look at the copyright notice it says it can be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". So, if we're talking about that issue of Rolling Stone we can use it, otherwise we can't. It's copyright law and not Wikipedia or me being anal :) --kingboyk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cruft

Another problem we have here is that new editors think that every single bit of trivia, rumour, gossip and innuendo about anything remotely connected to The Beatles should go into this article. I wish we had some way of alerting these people that we have some 300 or more Beatles articles and that in the vast majority of cases info missing from this article is missing for a reason - that it belongs elsewhere, or doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. </rant> --kingboyk 17:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is top-heavy with cruft. I'd hate to see it be de-featured, but we really need to get it up to par where the FA standards are concerned. To me, the article is spending way too much time on the Beatles' musical influences and the like, when all that should be going to its own subarticle. We are overloading the reader with information. The song catalogue is out of place. The references should list each webpage (not website) cited, and give the dat it was retrieved so future fact-checkers can find exactly what was cited as a source. (This would also be a good first step towards the conversion towards footnoting.) This article isn't exactly up to featured standard, I'd say. Johnleemk | Talk 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history. --kingboyk 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvis

User:164.83.99.83 posted the following commentary within the article, I'm moving it here:

Note: While it is undisputed that Elvis inspired a love of music in The Beatles, there is a debate as to how much he influenced their style of music. They have songs spanning every genre except country, and none of their music approaches the hokey-ness that shines through most of Elvis' catalogue. It can be argued they were clearly rock, and in their later years, pioneers or psychadelia, while Elvis, when he played rock, played beach party clam bake style rock. On the other hand, Elvis was, at the time of The Beatles' formation, the only rock artist on the charts.

I mostly agree with him, but it might have been better to tone down or qualify what's written rather than add a long commentary :-) --kingboyk 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say The Beatles never touched on any country-think about Rocky Raccoon or What Goes On. Triphook 18:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC) As a "passing stanger", I think that this would also include "I've Just Seen A Face" - it's pure Bluegrass. Thank you. J.

On the basis that Elvis defined a group or individuals motivation in pursuing a career in music, he would have to be included in articles every pop / rock band of the 60's, 70's and most of the '80's and 90's. With regard to The Beatles, however, I would suggest that Lonnie Donagen is more important, since it was he who instigated the "skiffle" craze. The Quarrymen were first and foremost a skiffle band, and it was McCartneys knowledge of skiffle songs words (and guitar chords) that drew Lennons attention to him. In short, Elvis was too all-encompassing a phenomena to cite as a peculiarly Beatles influence (and he was Rock when The Beatles were forming).LessHeard vanU 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles or the Beatles?

Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy#.22The_Beatles_or_the_Beatles.3F.22_thread_moved_from_Talk:The_Beatles. --kingboyk 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Avant Garde" Paul McCartney.

More a POV rant than a discussion, but that assertion by Macca that he was more involved in the Avant Garde scene than Lennon is another example of his (Macca's) attempts to rewrite The Beatles history since the demise of Lennon and Harrison. If attendance at the openings of art exhibitions and partying with members of the "underground" is the criteria then he has a point - but that makes me a better artist than Jackson Pollock, Turner and Van Gogh since I have been to their exhibitions, despite the little technical hinderance of not being able to paint! Lennon did things in the latter days of The Beatles which were pioneering, and he constructed recordings on that basis. McCartney used new methods and techniques in his more traditional songwriting style. George Harrison introduced both Indian music styles and instruments into Beatles recordings AND released a record of electronic music whilst still a Beatle. I'm sorry, but Macca's assertion that it was he who was the prime member with an interest in the new and innovationary does not stand up (imo!). I am so tempted to preceed that paragraph with "Since the deaths of Lennon and Harrison...", but I fear that it would be too POV. ps. I really do like Macca's music both with and immediatly post Beatles, I just am not keen on his self serving comments of the last couple of decades. Okay, rant over!LessHeard vanU 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Macca's rewriting of The Beatles history is becoming sinister. I feel that "since the deaths of Lennon and Harrision", would not be out of place, or something similar. Give him another couple of months and he'll be claiming "While My Guitar Gently Weeps!" Lion King 12:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. The popcorn was Butterkissed!

No, in another couple of months, he'll be claiming that John and George were session men and that Ringo was miming to HIS drumming! Vera, Chuck and Dave.

Which Abbey Road image to use?

See Talk:The Beatles' London. I'd appreciate folks chiming in. Perhaps I'm all wet? ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

covers

Their ballad "Yesterday" — written and sung by Paul McCartney (though always officially credited as a band recording written by Lennon-McCartney) — is the most-covered song in the history of recorded music (about 2,000 versions of it exist).

Someone just bumped that to 3k. Half a mind to blindly revert but wait a sec, do we have a cite for the 2K??? Michael Jackson wasn't taking my calls... ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDB states it has been covered 3000 times: [2]. Likewise with this BBC article: [3]. - Akamad 02:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well cool, let's get those into the article as cites, maybe? (2 min) OK done. Man that article needs more section headings!... ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I chuckle a bit: BBC "The Beatles - The Facts". "Source: Wikipedia". Maybe it would be best if somebody got out a copy of the Guinness Book records and we quoted that eh? :P --kingboyk 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's turtles all the way down, I guess. But as to them sourcing 3k from WP??? how did they souurce 3k if it was just changed today?... as for the hasty change, sorry! I was playing with a new toy. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. A previous version? Another article? (Has anyone checked Yesterday (song)?) --kingboyk 03:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. I didn't notice that on the BBC page, perhaps Wikipedia is becoming too big for its own good. Anyway, I did a search on the Guinness Book of Records website, and found this page: [4]. According to which, 1600 versions were recorded between 1965 and January 1, 1986. Which would mean that 2000 is a much more likely number than 3000. The Yesterday article also states 3000, but the reference given is the same page that I linked to above (the Guinness one). So perhaps the guinness site used to say 3000, but now have changed it to 1600 between those given dates. - Akamad 04:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy of the 2006 Book. That would be best. (3000 is plausible: 1600 in the first ~20 years, and another 1400 in the 20 years from 1986 to date.) --kingboyk 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

The Wikipedia:Lead section is supposed to be the intro. Creating a separate intro section effectively makes the lead redundant. Also, while the lead is theoretically supposed to be only two or three paragraphs long, that requirement dates back to the days when we actually tried to keep pages below 32kb. The lead sections are what will probably be used (instead of the full article) for any print version of Wikipedia, and are meant to be a summary of the article content as a whole. Creating a separate "intro" section defeats this purpose. I removed the intro header but was reverted. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement is quite valid. Just looking quickly at other FA and GA music articles, many of them do seem to go with the 2-3 paragraph opening format. They usually follow the pattern: beginnings-key achievements/accolades-legacy. This article, and this is my own POV, would look better if it had that same sort of "flow". I am not a regular editor of this bio. I simply noted the quick turn-around of edits and checked in to see if any vandalism had taken place...which there wasn't. I am not going to get involved with any rv wars. Hopefully it'll all get settled in here as opposed to "out on the main floor" Cheers! Anger22 15:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem here. This question was discussed at length in an archived talk (see 'Archive_3#Introductions.2C_Stu_Sutcliffe_and_Pete_Best' {perhaps someone could do a proper link?}). The introduction was originally overlong and complex, and it was suggested that it could be considerabley abbreviated to one or two paragraphs and the remainder form part of an overview to the rest of the article. This was done, but the sub-heading of "Introduction" was possibly a mistake. My point was that changing the article heading, rather than merging the two pieces thus recreating the original problem, may have been a reasonable solution. Checking out this Talk page would have helped too. However, as long as people care enough to contribute then I am happy.LessHeard vanU 15:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Talk Pages are one of the few places where democracy still works :) . It's great when 5-10 editors build/maintain an FA article based on the contributions of 20-30 other editors using just the talk pages. Too bad they all couldn't work that way, eh! Cheers and Take Care! Anger22 16:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! I just wanted to put my oar in that I do think the article is overlong, it could stand more sections (and we already know that there is a movement afoot to use some of this material to revise and expand and improve History of The Beatles). I would support revising and expanding the lead as User:Johnleemk tried to. I'm just not the guy to do it. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: History of The Beatles. You're quite correct. What isn't decided though is whether the expanded/improved version would remain as a seperate article or come back home into this one. It all depends on size and readability I think. There are other sections which are perhaps less important than their History which could be spun out instead. --kingboyk 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Our happy "problem" with creating a captivating and informative introduction is that The Beatles did so much, invented and innovated so many things, had so much influence then and now and were generally so HUGE a phenomana that giving room to all their achievements causes its own problems in readability and size; what do you leave out, and what stays in? I'm all for expanding the introduction, but that seems to be the reason why it grew so unwieldy in the first place - it just keeps being added to. ps. I am unhappy with "Legacy" as a title also, since it sounds archaic. Is there a better header someone could suggest?LessHeard vanU 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC) I simply removed the name of the title, but kept the header format. This way the index remains toward the top of the page.LessHeard vanU 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just you wait until Lar has the list of articles ready and we start the task of classifying the songs articles and some of the other rather more peripheral cruft. It won't be such a happy problem then! (rolls eyes). You're right though, it seems that if we could source an article on what the Beatles ate for breakast people would be interested in it! :) For me, their amazing story is a large part of their appeal. It was reading a biography of them that really turned me onto the band. --kingboyk 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(rolls eyes...) Always happy to be the bloke that everyone pins everything on! The holdup is that merging into existing tables is a bit thornier than I thought it was going to be, and instead of tackling it I've been flitting around like a wiki-butterfly working on this and that (well, not totally valueless work, I got my DYK string up to 10 for 10 with Stamp mill and Ashfork-Bainbridge Steel Dam... ) This weekend I really do mean to get it sorted. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You get the mistaken impression that it's a task I'm looking forward to! :) Please, take your time! It's gonna be a horrendous slog I fear. --kingboyk 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Nick Lowe, "Bash it down now and tart it up later!" You lot bash (as and when), and I'll be there for the tarting!LessHeard vanU 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the "short" intro is not finding favour, and it keeps getting reverted to the longer. If there is to be no revert war I suppose we will have to start looking to see if the larger format can be more efficiently precised. If so, do we wait until Lar has done his list of articles?LessHeard vanU 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't have to wait on that I don't think. Hopefully, improving articles and rejiggering them doesn't have to wait for overall classification rating scheme tables to be generated. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

File:Beatles retouched.jpg

Earlier on I swapped the image that's currently displayed in the lead - a fair use promo shot from 1969 - for the one that's displayed on the right, a freely available Beatlemania shot from commons. This was swiftly reverted, however, with the edit summary "Rv. Its best to have the most recent photo of them for the main image." I rather feel that an image from earlier on in their career is more relevant, and that we should be using the freely available image wherever possible, per WP:FU. What do other people think? Flowerparty☀ 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way. The main problem is that The Beatles went through two phases: the Beatlemania phase (pictured here) and the more avant garde phase as represented by the picture currently used. I honestly don't feel strongly either way, but I lean in favour of using the free image because I don't feel it has a major detrimental impact on the article. Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree (I think) with Johnleemk. Also, as it stands now, there are no images reflecting the earlier period. I think the White Album images adequately represent the long-hair-and-beards era, and agree that the Beatlemania era needs visual representation and is best for the lead image since it is representative of their greatest historical impact. Having said that, I'm not a huge fan of this particular image but unless there is a better free image from this era I think it should stay. Jgm 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we need a picture that can show what their time was like as a band, their experiences, and something that really speaks out to people when they ask "Who were The Beatles?" I think something in their later years, because that is when they branched off into psychedelia (and not just Rock n Roll, when Elvis had done it) and changed their styles a little but more. Late 60's, early 70's, in my opinion. The Beatle Mania picture shown to the right doesn't say anything. TommyBoy76 17:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I prefer an image from the later period, not the mania period. Is there a free one anywhere to be had that is of good enough quality to be lead. My feeling on lead images is that they need to be very high quality and need to draw in the reader. (hence my beef with the lead image for The Beatles' London as it stands now). The problem is that fair use is trumped by free, to a certain extent, even when the free one isn't as high quality, or as apropos, as the fair use, because that's policy here (which I support, at least theoretically!!!) The free image of them arriving is frankly, (IMHO!!!!) just not very good. It is way too busy and has way too many other people in it. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, I actually quite like the commons pic, but I guess it doesn't scale particularly well to 250px. If we are to use a fair use image, however, I'm sure we can do better than the one we've got at the moment - they just look dead bedraggled and grumpy, and like they want to kill each other. A transition-period Rubber Soul/Revolver photo would be my personal choice. Flowerparty☀ 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like that. The 1966 period is kind of the "median" year of their activity, so it's a good compromise. Johnleemk | Talk 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The mania period is when they "conquered the world" and their legend began. I can't see any philosophical reasons why an image of either era is "right". (Except, perhaps, those who favour the later look might also be in the camp which downplays their status as a pop group! Why is making Sgt. Pepper any more important than being the band who made the pop goodness that is "She Loves You" or "Love Me Do"?). --kingboyk 18:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Because Sgt. Pepper, like all their later stuff, in the long run is the more influential work? The pop years got them the fame and cash and connections to do the important work such as white album. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that mid 60s/Revolver is the most influental. Revolver regularly tops "best ever album" polls (by professional reviewers) over here and remember we've just come out of the Britpop decade too. I think psychedelic bands are more likely to be influenced by the 13th Floor Elevators, Love, Pink Floyd et al than by Sgt. Pepper? To be fair, The White Album sounds a lot like much of the New Wave and indie rock of the late 70s onwards (and as discussed recently, "Dear Prudence" got covered by Siouxsie & the Banshees)). Anyrode, as per Johnleemk, I think circa 1966 would be a reasonable mid-career compromise. --kingboyk 21:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops I didn't know there was a discussion on this, maybe I was a bit hasty with the revert. I just thought a most recent photo of them would be best, but the 1966 photo sounds like a good compromise to me--Count Chocula 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think an early photo would be best because, as someone pointed out, there ARE no early photos in the article. Shouldn't there be one?

What would be wrong with the cover of "Meet The Beatles" (or With The Beatles, if you prefer)? Not only is it a great and familiar early picture, it's an extremely influential album cover. Carlo 02:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Robert Freeman photo may still be copyrighted and can only be used as part of an album cover such as two above ones mentioned as well as the Canadian LP "Beatlemania with The Beatles." Steelbeard1 03:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the Beatlemania picture up and to the right ain't to shabby, as I look at it once more. I like how everyone is kind of "doing their own thing" ya know? Waves and smiles and hats off. And I also agree with a free picture. As everyone has already stated, Rubber Soul would be pretty shibby. TommyBoy76 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Ok, so 1966 would seem to suit everyone, now we just need to find an image! I don't have one in mind. Anyone know of one suitable? I still feel the commons pic would be a good addition somewhere in the article, but the current setup seems to involve little relation between the images and their placement within the text, so I'm not sure where it would go. Flowerparty☀ 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the commons pic deserves a place somewhere in the article. The history section possibly?-Count Chocula 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That picture is claimed to be in the public domain, which I feel is rather unlikely. Agreed that it's actually not a bad picture at higher res but it doesn't scale down too well. --kingboyk 06:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a cleaned up version of commons:Image:Beatles.jpg from the Library of Congress, which seems genuine. Flowerparty☀ 07:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Does that make it automatically public domain? The caption to that one says "United Press International". Beatle photos are worth money and press agencies aren't usually in the habit of giving them away. If it is legit, I think the cleaned up version should have it's tag expanded to include this info. --kingboyk 08:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. I don't think you can assume anything in the LOC is PD just by being there, you have to check the license, and this one said something about UPI... UPI is still around and may not have intended their piccie to be PD. Most of the images I've taken from there, coming from HAER where I get most of them, are, because they were taken by government employees in the course of their jobs, but you have to check. I've not taken some where it said "copyright uncertain". It's sort of spongy at the edge, IMHO... the ones that say "no KNOWN restrictions on copying" are OK to take in my personal calculus... So maybe this image (which has been bandied about here AND in the project discussion page, we used it for a while there for something) isn't quite as usable as we think. If so, we're back to using fair use again, and if that's the case, may as well use a good one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) .

Eh? How 'bout good old fashion Google? http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/beatles_1966.jpg TommyBoy76 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Why not just use one of their early album covers? Album covers are considered fair use for an article like this. --rogerd 15:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No they're not. Taken straight from the album cover fair use template: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of album or single covers solely to illustrate the album or single in question ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." (emphasis mine) Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I would like to see something that is more in the moment because that is when they didn't have to act like the photographer wanted them to. That way, they would be: The Beatles. Kind of like that link I posted above somewhere. Just out of curiosity, what does anyone else think about pose v. not? TommyBoy76 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

"the Beatles Celebration" dvd

I just got given - by "the wife" - up a copy of the above, and the blurb reads; "Here at last is the ultimate visual and cultural history of the Beatles. Packed with dozens of never before seen film clips, ultra rare photographs and exclusive interviews, John, Paul, George and Ringo come alive in this intelligent..." etc., plus "...lending their exclusive insights are former Beatle Pete Best, The Maharishi and Eric Clapton."

"Also included is, BEATLEMANIA!, a rare newsreel documenting the Beatles arrival in London after their triumphant U.S. tour..."

If there is any usable information from this source, how should it be credited? It is a 1999 production which does not appear to be still available from the publisher. Would a reference to the title be sufficient? ps. I am not holding out too much hope for anything that isn't already available, but you never know!LessHeard vanU 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to watch it first and find out if there's anything interesting to use! :-) Third party el-cheapo documentaries probably aren't the best things to be citing (although they're better than nothing). However, if it's quotes from the Beatles and/or their associates you want to use, we might be able to identify the original source material and quote that. Otherwise, you'll have to quote the documentary name, year and studio (and preferably the name of the director/producer). --kingboyk 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I need to look before I link (ho! ho!) but another thought does occur to me; can we do a multilingual request for information on Wiki? The Beatles toured the world, and there might be some regional media that contains info which may not have made its way back to Mother England. Other nations news services may be an underused resource... yeah, I know - stick it in the "todo" file!LessHeard vanU 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

re; recent vandalism

Two points; Firstly, there are obviously a number of villages missing their idiots - perhaps a town or two, too. Secondly, in the Beauty article there is a template at the beginning of the "edit this page" addressed to would be vandals. Whilst the type of vandalism here is different, does anybody think putting some sort of "It isn't big, it isn't clever and it isn't even that funny" template might discourage a small percentage of vandals?LessHeard vanU 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

HTML comment at the beginning of the Beauty article:

 NOTICE:
 Please don't vandalize this page by putting your 
 sweetheart's name into it. Some points that may change 
 your mind if this is what you intend:
 1. It truly is unoriginal - half the vandalizations are 
 people doing exactly this.
 2. It's extremely easy to the point of being 
 superficial and trite - perhaps not the best way to honor
 the object of your truest affections.
 3. Staining the good work of others is probably a bad way
 to go about making a compliment.

Not a bad idea! We have nothing to lose by trying such a thing. --kingboyk 21:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There would obviously need to be a rewording, as the "Beauty" template is targetting a particular type of vandal(ism), but if it stops only one in twenty then it serves its purpose. However, if it antagonises a vandal it may need removing. I would suggest something on the lines of;

• If you are intending to vandalise this page, here are a few points which may change your mind;
• 1. This page is watched by many people, and vandalism gets reverted very quickly.
• 2. You are not the first, and are unlikely to be the last. It is very unoriginal.
• 3. Nor is it "Big", "Clever" or "Dangerous". It is not even funny.

I think that the tone is important, so any other points should be polite and non-antagonistic.LessHeard vanU 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion;

• 4. Why not add something positive? It may even be kept!

LessHeard vanU 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This might not be that good an idea unless we come up with something really really creative, like the editors of beauty have done. "Vandalism isn't nice!" usually isn't enough, and might even encourage vandalism. Johnleemk | Talk 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is something I have considered, although I think it might just provoke a would be one time vandal to returning again rather than turning a genuine contributor into a potential vandal. We could trial it for a brief time to see what effect it has (if any).

On the intorduction there is the words di hall monitor, die hall monitor, i suggest someone remove these to make this page more..... acceptable Phytos

Klaatu

I recall that in the late 1970's there was a lot of interest generated by the publicity for the arrival of a new band called "Klaatu". The tag line was something like "At Last There Is Hope", which managed to convince sections of the (chiefly US) music industry that The Beatles were making a comeback under a new name (must have been a really bad batch of Peruvian Nose Candy or something). My point is, is this sufficient to be noted in any part of The Beatles project? I have had a look at the link and The Beatles supposed link is well documented and finally debunked.LessHeard vanU 22:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Was it a deliberate scam to have people think they might be The Beatles? Did the idea really stick or was it a "flash in the pan"? Perhaps their article could go into the Beatles parodies category I've mentioned before (we have 3 contenders already) - category name up for discussion, could be modified to more easily include this group. (As for a mention, I'm sure it could be squeezed into one of the subsidiary articles but I know not which). --kingboyk 22:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I think it is pretty juicy. I didn't know that myself. Stated after their break-up was explained, mayhap? TommyBoy76 22:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I don't think so. It's trivia at the end of the day, and this article has way too much cruft and trivia already. I'd suggest putting a reference into Beatlesque. --kingboyk 22:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just a band whose members remained anonymous for some time. The sound was "Beatlesque" (so perhaps that is the ideal place for it) rather than the "Rawk" of Kiss and the general weirdness of The Residents, two other bands of the time whose members names were not known. It doesn't seem the band or their management had anything to do with some industry wishful thinking.LessHeard vanU 23:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh see, I misread. I thought that Klaatu was The Beatles. Eh. Now my answer: three thumbs down. TommyBoy76 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I seem to recall hearing about this as well. (The name is also tied in to an old SF movie The Day the Earth Stood Still, the hero's name is Klaatu). If someone can find a cite for how this relates to The Beatles I would support it being in Beatlesesque or in the parodies category but I agree, not the mail article... ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for the "confusion" is pretty well explained in the Klaatu article. As it is covered in the article then where-ever in The Beatles it does turn up, all it needs is a brief note and a link.LessHeard vanU 11:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Let It Be guitar solos

I am completely confused on the guitar solos of the Let It Be song. I have no idea which one came first, which one was approved or disapproved by the producers. One thing I do know is that this version of Harrison's guitar solo is the best of all that I've heard. It simply flows with the song perfectly yet I can't find it on any of the albums! I know for a fact it wasn't on Let It Be Album or Past Masters II--Secret Agent Man 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My best guess is that since it is a music video (and I am going out on a limb here) it could have been played differently. Like with most jam bands, (even though The Beatles were not) the studio recording could be different than a concert version. Phish for instance had never played the same song twice exactly the same. Maybe this is the case for The Beatles. TommyBoy76 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I think the guitar solos on the officially released version (4 of em!) are now covered in an understandable fashion at Let It Be (song). I was confused about it too. I haven't checked the link you provided yet, but for my money of the legally available versions it has to be the album version. Awesome bit of neo-heavy metal guitar. The single sounds like a rubber band to me, twang twang :) --kingboyk 05:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just watched it - very nice, got me wishing for the movie now! I agree with you, that's a lovely bit of work from George and it's nice to be able to see him playing it. John looks a bit distant, doesn't he?! --kingboyk 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Beat

Hi collectors, hi authors, according to this current vfd, this very early compilation is the only one, released only in Germany in April 1964, no later CD. Sounds expensive. Greetings. Mungo Jerry 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Beat ist eine Zusammenstellung von damals bereits veröffentlichten Beatles Hits. Es erschien im April 1964 bei Odeon unter der Nummer O 83 962.

1. She Loves You
2. Thank You Girl
3. From Me To You
4. I'll get you
5. I Want To Hold Your Hand
6. Hold Me Tight
7. Can't Buy Me Love
8. You Can't Do That
9. Roll Over Beethoven
10. Till There Was You
11. Money
12. Please Mr. Postman

de:Kategorie:Album (Rock)