Talk:The Beatles (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Blue White Album stuff

I just removed a couple of paras in the album history section, which were about a one off pressing of the album done in blue vinyl, and recently released to the Beatles museum. The text was mostly copied from a news story, and if it belongs anywhere (which I don't personally think it does) it belongs in the 'The Sleeve' section - where it talks about pressings of the album. Neil 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Double LP????

I didnt think RIAA counted it as 2 seperate sales unless the total time was over 100 minutes??(RIAA Certification) I think this album doesn't count as a double cd.--Fayettehelle,NC 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The current RIAA Certification article states that recordings that were originally released as double vinyl (pre-CD era) are excused from 100 minute criteria. This confusing grandfathering clause allows the white album, Pink Floyd's The Wall, Billy Joel's Gr. Hits I & II, Led Zep's Physical Graffiti, Bee Gee's Sat. Night Fever s/t, and the Beatles' 'red'('63-'66) and 'blue'('67-'70) to seemingly rank much higher amongst the best selling recordings of all time than actual copies sold. For instance, looking at RIAA Certification's list of "Diamond Certified" [10 million+ ] albums, #4 on the list is Floyd's Wall, at "23 million". So that actually indicates it has sold 11.5 million copies, which drops it from the fourth best seller of all time to #53, just below Abbey Road! From this perspective, the white album, certified at 19 million, has actually sold 9.5 million copies, dropping it from the misleading position of ninth best seller ever to below #104! More significantly, 9.5 million copies would be half a million shy of being certifiably "Diamond"! I'll be swinging by yoko's, paul's, olivia's and ringo's places later today to get back those framed diamond lp awards...

But the importance here lies in the reassessment of relative popularity of Beatles albums as viewed by copies sold (as more culturally meaningful than number of individual disks). If you slice the RIAA certification numbers in half for the white, blue and red albums, instead of those 3 being the biggest selling Beatle albums, Abbey Rd is the biggest seller at 12 million! Followed by Sgt Pepper at 11 million! Third best seller is "1" (snore) at 10 million. The white [9.5 million], blue [8], and red [7.5] double albums are rightfully 4th, 5th and 6th, not the top 3, as the RIAA would have us believe. Fp cassini (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the album sold as anything BUT 2 cds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cassette Track Listing Slightly Different

I have a cassette version of the White Album, and the track listing is slightly different. Does this interest anyone?

yes Wonderwallmusic (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It did have a different track listing on the original cassette version. The re-released version in the late 80's reinstated the original LP track listing. St1cks AU (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Preceeding album

I believe, if I am not mistaken, that "Magical Mystery Tour" was release between "Sgt. Pepper" and the White Album. While it is true that one side of "Magical Mystery Tour" was just a collection of singles, the other side was new material. If some further clarification of what constitutes a "followup album" is needed, perhaps it would make sense to change the text back to refering "Sgt. Pepper".

Also, I don't have time to research this at this moment, but I think there should be some discussion about how this album showed the growing individualism of the members of the group, and the dissension of the group members that presaged the breakup of the album (I think that some tracks were recorded with only a couple of the members present, for example, but the details are fuzzy on this and I would need to research it). Also, why did Eric Clapton play the guitar on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"? My memory tells me (and maybe this is wrong) that George, having played the sitar more than the guitar, was rusty on his guitar playing. But perhaps I am wrong on this.

I think this article gives a lot of praise to the album, but I always felt this album was a little more mixed in its quality than the earlier ones were.

You are wrong about the Eric Clapton bit. George had Clapton play guitar because the tension was high in the group and the other three were not taking his song seriously; he invited Clapton to solo because they'd have to be professional with an outsider around (Clapton did the same thing for "Badge" when Cream was falling apart). --KQ

Yeah, I'm probably not the one to add better balance here--if you ask me what the greatest artistic achievements of humankind are, I'd probably say Michaelangelo's Sistene Chapel ceiling, the white album, and GCC. --LDC

---

The question of whether "Magical Mystery Tour" was an album released between "The Beatles" and "Sgt. Pepper" depends on which country's discography we are talking about. In the United Kingdom, "Magical Mystery Tour" was a rather elaborate double EP package: two 7" extended-play singles containing six songs, released in a gatefold sleeve with booklet. The Beatles' American label, Capitol, felt that EPs did not sell in the US, so they cobbled together a full size 12" LP, with the six songs from the British double EP on the front and the remainder of the Beatles' 1967 non-Pepper output on the back, and called the whole thing "Magical Mystery Tour". Thus in the UK there was no true LP release between "Sgt. Pepper" and the White Album, while US fans got another LP for Christmas. Just to confuse things further, the 11 song Capitol package was released elsewhere in the world, and eventually in Britan in the early 70's (as an actual EMI release, not an import), and ultimately formed the basis for the current CD package. --WaveformDelta

I agree that "Magical Mystery Tour" should be listed as the album between "Sgt." and "White." Regardless of it not being released in certain countries (even if one is their home country), it was still an album conceived, recorded and released by The Beatles. Following that, the statement "The album was the first album The Beatles undertook following the death of their manager Brian Epstein" is not true. Even if you don't want to count it as "a release," MMT is still the project the group first "undertook" -- in late fall 1967 -- following Epstein's death five months earlier. It's a fact well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos and copyright

Do we have the legal right to include the set of four photos? An entire artwork probably doesn't fall under "fair use"? Vicki Rosenzweig

This one's a tricky case, but I think these small images can be seen as references to the originals, not as reproductions (like a small photo of a painting in a museum), and "educational use" gets you a lot of leeway. Also, one could argue that the album is the entire work, and we're just noting that these photographs came with it. I was emboldened by the uploads of our resident lawyer, Isis, and I think she's pretty up to date on this stuff.

It was pointed out to me by a lawyer here that in 1968, the law required specific notice of copyright, unlike today, where things are automatically copyrighted unless specifically disclaimed. My copy of the white album shows a copyright notice on the recordings, and another on the lyrics, but no such notice for the pictures. This makes any claim of copyright on them unlikely to hold water. Indeed, the album itself doesn't even mention wo took them--I had to look that up elsewhere. --LDC

---

Tape versions of the album did not feature a white cover. Instead, cassette, reel-to-reel, and 8-track versions (first issued on two cartridges in early 1969) contained cover artwork that featured a black and white (with no grey) version of the four Kelly photographs.[20] In both the cassette and 8-track versions of the album, the two tapes were sold in a black slip-cover box that bore the title, "The BEATLES" in gold lettering along the front.[21]

This is confusing to visualize w/o pictures- especially the "black slip-cover box... w/ gold lettering along the front" that would seem to bear little or no stylistic continuity w/ the LP/CD cover design. If this is noteworthy enough to be included in the article [I believe it is], than it deserves corresponding pictures, use of which easily falls w/in the Fair Use criteria as delineated by Wkpdia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp cassini (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

---

From the main article:

Along with such standard rockers as the opening "Back in the USSR", it

contains classic ballads like "I Will" and "Julia" (the latter written by John--one of his few),

"one of John's few" what? ballads? songs on the album? --KQ 10:45 Aug 24, 2002 (PDT)

Sorry--I meant one of the few ballads written by John; normally Paul writes the ballads. --LDC

---

As well as the photos, are we absolutely certain about the legal status of those sound clips? I know they ought to fall under fair use, but sadly, ought to doesn't always mean does. There have been a number of cases brought recently where people have been sued for using uncleared samples shorter than these - I know that the fact these samples were on profit making record labels, and that the plaintiffs could therefore expect a hefty dollop of cash if they won may have made them more willing to bring an action, but the RIAA and similar organisations have been bringing (or threatening) the strangest cases lately, and I wouldn't put anything past them. Certainly there have been cases brought against people who were never going to make any money at all from their allegedly illegal activities.

I'm sorry to even bring this up, but it seems to me that the wikipedia is eager to appear whiter than white on copyright issues (I'm thinking of the message on recent changes), and these samples seem to represent a risk that isn't worth taking. --Camembert

I should probably add: I wrote this before I'd noticed the response to Vicki's concerns about the pictures. I'm not a legal expert, and am more than happy to defer to somebody who is and is sure we're in the clear. It's just that I worry... Camembert

I worry too, but Lee usually has his ducks in a row. Still, I don't know if I'd be so bold.  :-) --KQ

---

Yeah, the pictures are a bit bold; if Mr. Kelley complains, I'll certainly remove them. Or even if someone gives me a good legal argument. But the sound clips are really no problem. Yes, the RIAA is a bit insane these days, but I doubt even they would go after samples that small and low-quality and in this context. Given the mood of the courts recently, such a suit would not only lose, it would likely get them sanctioned. I will also admit that pushing the envelope here a bit with the pictures should encourage Jimbo to work on the non-profit foundation, because if we get that settled, we'll really be in the clear on fair use. I also reduced the images a bit; the don't interfere with the article as much that way, and it's even clearer that we aren't trying to reproduce them. --LDC

---

For the record, *this* is a helter-skelter

Well, cool. At least I had a better idea than Manson. It sounds like you go on it over and over.

When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide

Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride

Get to the bottom and I see you again

The OED says the original name was "helter skelter lighthouse" and you slid down on a mat.

You still do (or at least you did 15-20 years ago, when I last went on one -- User:GWO

The first use of the phrase was Thomas Nashe, followed closely by Shakespeare in Henry IV. This is almost an article now. Ortolan88

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is almost always referred to as The White Album. Shouldn't it be moved? Tokerboy

Just my 2 cents.. everyone knows it as "the white album", but the correct title is "The Beatles". I don't personally really care one way or the other, but it seems more appropriate to me for the article to be named after the actual title, with a redirect from the White album. -Jazz77

Throughout the article, the album with a white cover is referred to as The White Album as if it’s the official title. In light of the above, shouldn’t the article refer to it by its actual title (The Beatles) or its description (“the white album”, as opposed to The White Album)? —Frungi 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The original vinyl albums had "The Beatles" on the front cover in raised lettering (no ink), something which wasn't preserved on the CD releases. Also, they had a serial number stamped on the front, which eventually went over a million, I believe, before later pressings dropped it. I've heard that the first presses of the CD also had the serial number, although I've never seen one. Mordomo 00:32, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My (well, my parents' :)) copy of the White Album LP doesn't have a serial number, although my CD copy does (it is the 30th anniversary version though, a scale replica of the original LP case with smaller pictures inside and all that, which is irritating because it doesn't fit in a CD slot...but I digress). Also, my parents' copy of the Sgt. Pepper LP doesn't have that bizarre repeating stuff at the very end of the groove, although a bit of it is on my CD version. Adam Bishop 00:37, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have an original CD with the serial number... but for some reason the number is 72961.... Is that just of numbered CD's or numbered CD's and Vinyls?? Maybe someone knows?--Fayettehelle,NC 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the first 5000 pressing of the Sgt Pepper vinyl had the repeating stuff at the end.BauerPower 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure where this goes, but "Honey Pie" is not Sinatraesque. It's in the same, early-twentieth century jazzy, vaudevillian style like "When I'm Sixty-four" from Sgt. Pepper's is. Sinatraesque is way off the mark.

Actually, the track "Honey Pie" is in the tradition of the British music halls which remained popular into the Beatles early lives. British Vaudeville, if you will... Mark Sublette 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

George

Can anyone explain why the photo of George Harrisson from the White Album sleeve has been omitted? It even says under the photos that Harrison's photo is there but is clearly not. Pepperstool 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

reply to problem with LPs and CDs/length of White Album

To the person that said that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club didn't have the bizarre noise on the LP, you're getting taught.

On the US copies of Sgt. Pepper's, the bizarre noise (Paul is a comic book character?) isn't on there. It just ends with the crashing chord of "A Day In The Life". On the CDs, released in 1987 by Parlophone/Apple in the US and UK, have the bizarre noise. Your parents, talking about the White Album, don't have the serial number copy. You do, because it's a remastered version.

Talking about the length:

The length of the White Album is about 94 minutes long. Up! by Shania Twain is almost 100 minutes long. Why in the world do they have Up! on 1 CD, but not the White Album? I know why:

In 1987, the average length of a CD was 45 minutes. Nowadays, it's 101 minutes. So, if Capitol rereleases the "White Album", it would be on 1 CD, not 2, but they would put it on 2 CDs because it would be really hard to find "Birthday", "Helter Skelter" or "Revolution 9", so there.

74 minutes is the maximum recommended playing time for a CD - anything longer is non-standard. While it's physically possible to master CDs of up to 99 minutes in length, an awful lot of CD players (especially older models) would have severe problems playing them; I doubt whether any CD player manufactured in 1987 would be able to play a 94 minute CD. AdorableRuffian 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Helter Skelter and Charles Manson

The mention of Charles Manson's connection to the song Helter Skelter was not accurate based on the info contained in the Wikipedia articles about the song itself and on Charles Manson, as well as other stuff I've read about Manson.. While it may be true the Susan Atkins saw prophecy in the song, that idea originated from Charles Manson. The whole bit about her spreading false publicity about Manson seemed to somehow suggest the whole Helter Skelter equals race war prophecy was a solely product of her mind. I change the reference to reflect the similar mentions of the connection in other Wikipedia articles. --Cab88 14:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Rejected tracks

Please don't include rehashed hearsay in this encyclopedia. A bootleg of a song with varient lyrics doesn't constitute a rejected recording!

F**k a duck" for example was a one off rant by Lennon at the Maharishi during the recording of 'Sexy Sadie'.

Including a list of every twang The Beatles committed to tape with made up song titles doesn't make for a good article and won't remain on the page for long. Most of Abbey Road and Get Back/Let It Be was floating around in early forms not yet ready for recording during these sessions. This kind of obsessive inclusionism is pointless and is misleading for those who are interested in facts.

If you want to add further alledged "rejected tracks" then please include a verifyable reference.

simonthebold 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lady Madonna was not a rejected track! It was not even done during the same sessions as the rest of the album. It was done before the beatles went to Rishikesh for the Maharishi camp; the single was released during thier absence. Same applies for The Inner Light and Hey Bulldog (passed up for the single by Lady Madonna). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesfan1234567890 (talk • contribs)

It's no good including tracks without specific references. For example just because Across the Universe was recorded and unreleased doesn't mean it was considered for the white album. If you are going to make this kind of statement then state your source and include page numbers etc. so the information can be verified! If not be prepared to see your entries swiftly removed!!!!

simonthebold 07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, previous [day/week/month/year] might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 10:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

When did Abbey Road get eight-track?

The article for the "White Album" makes the following statement (emphasis mine):

"While the Abbey Road studios had yet to install an 8-track machine that had supposedly been sitting in a storage room unpacked for months (evidently because EMI could not afford its power cord), the Beatles decided to out-source to the more updated Trident Studios.[1]"

What basis is there for the assertion that Abbey Road had no power cord for their 8-track machine? The footnote references Mark Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions", but Lewisohn never makes any such claim. On the contrary, his entry for Wednesday 31 July (pg. 146) discusses the state of Abbey Road's first 8-track machine in some detail; by his account the delay in installation had to do with dissatisfaction with its operation by the staff (he mentions problems with its overdub facility and vari-speed control), which implies that they were quite capable of powering the machine up. He also mentions they were waiting for construction of an 8-track mixing console to accompany the recorder. --WaveformDelta

Move

Why was the page moved? The correct title is "The Beatles (album)" even if the name of the band is capitalized. Please someone revert it. --69.79.196.112 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

VH1 List

I've corrected the VH1 list on six pages. Someone keeps referencing the list as having aired in 2003, but it aired in 2001. Here's a BBC article on this list dated 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1101986.stm) and this website also says compiled in 2001 (http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/2001/vh1albums.htm). Were people thinking of the book that came out, or the album cover list that came out in 2003? I just wanted to correct it and point it out for future reference if anyone sees these errors somewhere else. Onresume December 13, 2006

Misplaced info

The information on the different pressings is possibly misplaced. While it does make sense as a continuation to the sleeve's different edition, a reader searching for such information will most probably not find it since it is under "The Sleeve" subtitle. My suggestion is putting together information on the mono releases, the pressings, the sleeves, and possibly any needle-drops (such as the two Dr. Ebbetts releases, which are not the best btw) into one big section with subheadings. In addition, (I think) the article wrongly states that the mono version was only released in the UK since there is also a release on double vynl taken from TOSHIBA EMI safety tapes in Japan, catalogue numbers: PMC 7067 and PMC 7068. I won't touch anything though since I am no The Beatles expert! _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Manson

I'm just curious as to why there is no mention of Charles Manson being influenced by this album at all in this article? Luciferian56 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

White Album Cover

When I bought The White Album at age 11 in 1968, the widespread rumor was that the original British cover had a nude photo of John and Yoko holding hands, and that the white jacket was added later after U.S. distributors decided it was too scandalous for the American audience. It was considered very racy, and my friends and I spent hours trying to peel the white cover off. Yet I Googled this story recently and found absolutely no reference to the old rumor. I assume it was false, but it's surprising that I can find no mention of it in searching the Internet. Any information about this topic would be appreciated.--Don 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, stating the obvious perhaps but aren't we getting confused with Two Virgins...? Cheers, Ian Rose 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I did the same thing and was telling my DD about it and looked here to see what I could find out. How sad it doesn't appear to be true, it was SO scandalous for the times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.38.139 (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing Changes

I reverted some track listing changes made today (4 Sep 2007) because the edits didn't foloow the established guidelines where the song's author is included in parens after the song title unless covered by an "all songs by..." disclaimer at the top of the list. John Cardinal 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical response section is missing!

Seems to me we're missing a summary of critical assessments of the album, yes? By this I mean not just its placement listings in the various "top 100" articles, but reasoned critical responses at the time of the album's release and in the years since... BYT 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has undergone some fairly extensive copyediting from two different users recently but I don't think either removed such a section - methinks it was never there. It certainly should be included as this is an album that's inspired pretty significant critical reassessment from the time of its release, if memory servers (not a big Beatles fan, I'm afraid). A 'Critical reception' section focusing on reaction at the time of its release, coupled with later assessments to the present day in the 'Legacy' section, would be the way. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume this refers to the citation needed at the end of the first paragraph? There is this from the latest issue of MOJO Magazine, especially devoted to The White Album (Issue 178, September 2008, p.80 paragraph 3), by John Harris :

"First then, let us pause for thought, and simply salute their achievement. In a semi-legendary review in The Observer .... the film-maker and critic Tony Palmer said that The White Album placed its authors on 'shores of the imagination others have not yet sighted'. .... The record, he said, confirmed Lennon and McCartney as the 'greatest songwriters since Schubert'; by the end, all he could do was 'stand and applaud'. "

I would love to add this to the article, but I'm afraid the syntax of citations scares the pants off me. 88.105.186.79 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The White Album.jpg

Image:The White Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BYT here. The fair use rationale has since been added, and it looks like there are no problems with this image. Reviewing the image has, however, led me to ponder ...

...a question about the album cover

Would it be possible to use an image at the top of the article that features a real deal, 1968-era LP cover, with the title in embossed letters and with a unique serial number? The embossed title and the individualized serial number were integral design components of the original cover art. I always feel like several generations of fans have been missing the "point" of this cover, because they never got to see the real thing, which was quite striking. (Nowadays, they also see only miniaturized versions of a fake "White Album" cover, but that's another discussion.)

Here's the real thing -- notice that I consider "real" that with which I am most familiar. Anyway, compare this to the tiny, and wimpy, contemporary CD cover, which not only omits the serial number, but also ignores the choice to have the band's embossed, not printed, name tilted at a weird, seemingly random angle. The contemporary (corporate) version is grey and completely horizontal. I picture Lennon spinning in his grave.

Does anyone here have a vintage 1968 or 1969 White Album that he or she would be willing to photograph and then release into the public domain, so we could use it at the top of the article? (Sure wish I did...) BYT (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okee dokee, then. Two months later, I reply to myself -- just added this image. BYT (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

did any of the pressings have the text slanted at a negative angle? and by the way it is very easy to make a "fake" cover for Wikipedia, i mean just make a white square in photoshop and emboss the slightly slanted text... in case you guys did not know... Wonderwallmusic (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this picture on their official homepage? As opposed to this picture? Which one is "more real"? I have never seen the LP, just the CD. ☺ Spiby ☻ 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a vinyl White Album which I purchased in the USA in 1968 or 1969. The cover has the embossed text at a slight negative angle, but I can find no trace of a serial number, nor can I remember ever seeing one. The jacket opens at the sides. Did all such albums have a serial number? Was it printed on the cellophane wrapper around the album? – Wdfarmer (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Album sequencing

Re: The first paragraph of the "Album sequencing" section (which begins "The arrangement of the songs on The Beatles follows patterns and establishes symmetries that have been much analyzed over the years.") Is this, like, a real thing, or just something a few people obsess over? Personally, I haven't heard of it (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). But I do know some folks who find (and never stop talking about) numerological significance in every Beatles, Pink Floyd and Rush album. I was wondering if that paragraph was original research and added by such a person, or if it's a significant idea among Beatleologists. If it isn't, it should be removed. Carlo (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Who is John McCartney? (Personnel)--andreasegde (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose John Lennon and Paul McCartney wished to expand their relationship a bit more? :) Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Total US sales are estimated at over 19 million copies. It's incorrect, this is a duoble album, 19xPlatinum/2=9,5 million copies sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.181.18 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is correct, according to the Wkpdia article on RIAA certification. So, seeing how no one's responded to yr comment in a year and a half, I will now change the article to read 9.5 million copies. Fp cassini (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Individual Compositions

I'd like to give kudos to the author of the Individual Compositions section -- it is a superb piece of writing. --Beijing goalie (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Personnel

The personnel section is a little bit confusing (with all the numbers) and is not totally accurate. The credits for the members group should be separated from the credits for the producing team and those from the session musicians and those from the friends and wifes contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.25.16 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody said anything, I just changed this section, according to Lewisohn. Still needs some work in order to complete the session musicians information, but I´m gonna do that later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beatles-singles-heyjude-uk.jpg

The image Image:Beatles-singles-heyjude-uk.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Experimental nature of the album.

I keep adding experimental rock to the genres list, but for some reason it is removed every time. Any rationale? the album is clearly experimental. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

== The section on "== Album sequencing, editing concerns, and release

== =="

Whoever wrote this makes the claim that 14 is a prime number. It is not. That's basic math. I corrected it this morning, but someone reversed my change an hour later. Come on. This isn't controversial or questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Revolution 9

The Beatles was the last Beatles album to be released with a unique, alternate mono mix, albeit one issued only in the UK. Twenty-nine of the album's thirty tracks ("Revolution 9" being the only exception) exist in official alternate mono mixes.

I don't quite understand this; does it mean that mono pressings of the album simply omitted Revolution 9? BTLizard (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. All the tracks were mixed from multi-track to mono in an event separate from the stereo mixes. Number Nine, because of it's unique character, could not possibly have been mixed a second time and still sound the same as the first, so the stereo version was just panned into mono. Radiopathy •talk• 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Puddings

""Honey Pie" and "Savoy Truffle" (both referring to types of desserts)"

Are you sure about this? Can you produce recipes that pre-date the album? BTLizard (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Move

This article was recently moved from "The Beatles (album)" to "The Beatles (White Album)" by User:Redd_Baron1 who claimed (per iTunes) that The White Album was the official name. I have moved it back. The official album name is The Beatles despite fans calling it The White Album since shortly after its release. iTunes evidently caters to those fans at the expense of accuracy which is fine for a music store but not so good for an encyclopedia. Absent a consensus, the page should not be moved back to the name favored by Redd Baron1. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For one, you can't dictate what it can and can't be moved to. It's simply true that the name of the albums is always rendered "The Beatles (White Album)" on computers, because everyone, including The Beatles, Apple, and EMI refer to the album as such. The title is a bit more than semi-official and it's obvious it was never meant to be referred to as simply "The Beatles". If consensus is to move this back to the digital title (selected by Apple/EMI) than so be it. --MichiganCharms (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't dictate anything. He boldly moved it, I boldly moved it back. He said that "The White Album" was the official name, but that's not supported by any reliable evidence. There is evidence that the article is correct as is: Lewisohn's official discography says the title is "The Beatles".

You've joined in, but given no specific evidence, and your point that the album title is "always rendered 'The Beatles (White Album)' on computers" is not true and isn't relevant even if it was. If the name on my birth certificate is "Robert Smith" but I am always called "Bob Smith" by everyone, including myself, that doesn't change my legal name. According to Wikipedia conventions, the article title should be the official title of the album, the equivalent of the birth certificate name.

Regarding your "always rendered" comment, there are many variations. Amazon has it as "The Beatles (The White Album)", which does not match what you wrote. Beatles.com has it (in one place, at least) as "The Beatles" with "[White Album]" on a separate line beneath the official title, and that's not what you wrote. There are many other variations, but they don't matter: while "The White Album" or one of those other variations is how someone might refer to it now, that doesn't change it's birth name. Meanwhile, the lead paragraph has "The White Album" in bold text, and there are various redirect pages that help people find it if they search for one of the "White Album" variations. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Are you sure you want to throw your support behind Redd_Baron1? See this edit of his. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In my Collier's Yearbook 1969, Covering the Year 1968, it says: "...the Beatles released a two-record album whose only imprint was the words 'The Beatles' engraved on the cover and stamped on the spine of an all-white record jacket... The Beatles[in italics, implying the album name] ran the gamut of popular music styles from the 1920's-style 'Honey Pie' to the electronic collage 'Revolution No. 9." I'm not saying this is the be all end all of answers, but I'm just throwing it out there. I think that as an encyclopedia, we should keep the name The Beatles, but make sure it's clear where it's mentioned and through redirects that it is commonly known as the White Album. Which basically means, leave everything the way it is now. Belasted (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right John. the album is officially called "The Beatles" and unofficially referred to as The White Album.--124.40.63.122 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Manson Link

While it is certainly valid to have a heavy sense of distaste for someone reviled by the general bulk of society, it seems to make little sense to include such randomly opinionated terms describing his link to this album. As such I have removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.160.157 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed rating to C class

I've changed the rating of this article to C class as it clearly doesn't meet the first criterion of B class i.e. that the article is suitably referenced. Large swathes of the article are completely unreferenced and the "Songs" section in particular is full of unsupported POV statements. Richerman (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Nothing like shooting from the hip.--andreasegde (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ringo on Bungalow Bill

Is Ringo a prominent vocalist on Bungalow Bill as a recent edit has it? Yoko gets a solo line, and I've seen mention that Maureen Starkey was a backing vocalist, but I'm not sure that Ringo is any more prominent than Paul or George. Carlo (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Starr's a backing vocalist only, listed as such on the song article, with a citation. I undid the recent edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's what Lewisohn says then So Be It (I couldn't find better info in my sources) but FWIW Starr sounds to me to be the main vocalist at the start of the song (chorus) and in every subsequent chorus ("Hey, Bungalow Bill..."). Lennon is only evident on the verses. The chorus has a melange of voices, Starr's clearly leading. But perhaps it's just my ears. Anyway, unless someone has a source to support this, it should stay as is. PL290 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Self-reflection and change" and "Influences, parodies, and tributes"

Might we not upgrade the quality of the article by simply deleting these sections? BYT (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a point. I haven't looked at this article much and at first I thought the suggestion was somewhat over the top as a reaction to the unsourced material with consequent {{Original research}} and {{Unreferenced section}} tags. But having just read through those two sections, I have to say I agree. PL290 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take them out. BYT (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

new genres

we should add Heavy Metal, or Proto Metal.

allmusicguide:

and the proto-metal roar of "Helter Skelter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.231.39 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Proto" means preceding the proper beginning of something so AllMusic is saying that this song precedes the genre. I vote we leave out heavy metal and proto-metal and other metallurgy. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --andreasegde (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does metal begin, anyroad? Some say The Kinks' "You Really Got Me" is the beginning, which was three years before "Helter Skelter". I also !vote to leave "heavy metal" out of the article; "hard rock" covers it well. Radiopathy •talk• 00:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does any genre begin? Presumably, artists make music that is significantly different from other existing music and then someone decides that its different enough to deserve a name. If so, then all first examples of a new genre precede the new genre itself. That doesn't change my opinion of the genre for this 'Helter Skelter", however. I think the first songs to be truly in a genre come from bands whose music was predominantly in the new style; they were deliberate about what they were doing, and eventually that style was recognized and inspired the genre appellation. That didn't happen with "Helter Skelter". The big problem here is that there's too much OR-based opinion about genres--including my statements above--and thus we end up with genre wars and no really good way to resolve them. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all that except "no really good way to resolve": this is my cue to jump on my hobby-horse! I say we should source them like any other statement. If a WP:RS says it's "rock", then we say it's rock, and give an inline citation to the source. Otherwise, we say nothing because it is simply WP:OR. PL290 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RS review from its Top 500 site

A couple of interesting quotes in here... BYT (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Individual compositions

This section is tagged {{Original research}}. I've just tried to provide citations for a number of its statements but they simply don't seem to be quite the factual statements I would make or can find support for. Although its prose is far better than in the two recently removed, it reads more like a review than an encyclopedia. Reactions to removing this section? PL290 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. BYT (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Back In The USSR/Twist & Shout Single

was actually taken from/released for the "Rock N Roll Music" compilation, not the White Album.

In addition to the record label denoting "Taken from the Lp "Rock N Roll Music" - here's the picture sleeve, which is also the cover of the Rock N Roll Music album: http://www.dmbeatles.com/disk.php?disk=123 Hotcop2 (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the A sides are both from this album. Deserted Cities 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Helter Skelter was the B-side. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Either way, in my opinion since both were from this album, they should be here. Maybe if they were different versions of the song, it would be different. Deserted Cities 13:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like, "Let It Be" and "Get Back" which are different from the album versions ;-)Hotcop2 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! It is from "Rock n Roll Music" - read the label: [1] Radiopathy •talk• 23:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hotcop2 achieves another home run. ("When will they ever learn?...)--andreasegde (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

rename to The White Album ?

I thought that there is this wiki thing that a article should have the name which is most comonly used in english language. Even persons and cities suffer from that politics. So why is this than called The Beatles?--Stone (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what "wiki thing" you mean, and I am not aware of any rule or convention that says album articles should be named based on the name fans or other web sites use for an album. Album articles reflect the actual name of the album, and this article is called "The Beatles" because that is the name that the band gave the album when they released it. It's also the name that appears on the original vinyl LP, on the 1980s-version CD, and the name by which it appears in official discographies such as the one that appears on page 200 of Mark Lewisohn's Recording Sessions book. The White Album and other variants are adequately covered by redirect pages and that's exactly how it should be. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Led Zeppelin IV was untitled, but it's not at Untitled Led Zeppelin album. This album is virtually universally called 'The White Album', and it has always struck me odd that this article is not at The White Album. Zazaban (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I just received the new stereo box set and there's a CD in it it with the title The Beatles. It doesn't say The White Album anywhere on it. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to be quite so so sarky:) Is it not possible to take the opinion that all that is on the cover is the name of the band, and the album doesn't actually have an official title, as with Led Zeppelin IV? I presume the "wiki thing" User:Stone refers to is WP:COMMONNAME. The album is (almost) universally referred to as the White Album - when was the last time you heard anyone refer to it as "The Beatles"? Probably most sources call it the White Album too. I don't think it's that ludicrous to suggest that it could be located at the most common name. I'd be interested to hear other opinions.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK here's my opinion. The album is officially called "The Beatles" - "The White Album" is a descriptive name for it. If you type in "The White Album" you are redirected to this article. There is a disambiguation page required for The White Album as there are are a number of albums called by that name so using it for this article would add to the confusion. If you look at any list of Beatles albums it's called "The Beatles (The White Album)" or something similar. Either "The Beatles (album)" or "The Beatles (The White Album) is the correct title for this article but not "The White Album". Richerman (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Christus Almightius, it's called "The Beatles (album)", so why not go the whole hog and call it "The Beatles (The White Album)"? A definite article and an adjective are not going to set anyone's pants on fire, are they?--andreasegde (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Section about the lyrics of the album, in particular "Revolution 1" and "Revolution"

"At the time of the album's release — which followed, chronologically, the up-tempo single version of the song, "Revolution," in which Lennon definitely wanted to be counted "out" — that single word "in" was taken by many on the radical left as Lennon's acknowledgment, after considered thought, that violence in the pursuit of political aims was indeed justified in some cases."

While the single was indeed released before the album, the album version was recorded first. Paul McCartney told John Lennon he ought to re-record it because the album version was "too slow" (although his actual motivation was most likely the explicit lyrics indeed). It's not unlikely that John subtracted the "in" from "you can count me out... in" - which by the way isn't spoken, but sung - because Paul asked him to. (Source: Ian MacDonald's "Revolution in the Head".)

I'm not saying that it should be taken out what many on the radical left thought (if they really did), I'm just saying that it should be mentioned that they were wrong because John wrote "Revolution 1" first. 84.157.252.208 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point IMO - added. I've copied the beatlesbible.com cite from the Revolution (song) article but someone may want to use the "Revolution in the Head" cite etc. PL290 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Singles released outside of UK and US

If we start to include all singles released worldwide, like Australia, Canada, etc., the infobox will be longer than the articles. Thoughts? Hotcop2 (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

UK singles only. Radiopathy •talk• 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• UK and US singles only - The two major markets for The Beatles were the UK and the US. We document the US album releases because of the importance of the US market during The Beatles heyday and that's appropriate for their singles, too. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; should we consider what to do with releases for other countries, ie, should they have their own articles, or infoboxes on the same page as US and UK releases, et cetera? Radiopathy •talk• 16:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with John Cardinal. Non US/UK singles can be mentioned on their pages. Deserted Cities (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is: should the singles for the other markets have their own separate articles, or have their infoboxes included in the articles below the UK and US infoboxes, or just vanish in the haze? I'm not seeing an answer to that in John's comments. Radiopathy •talk• 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the songs already have articles, I'd say they don't need separate ones for the single. As for the infoboxes, I'd say no. Deserted Cities (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Official title?

How do we know that "The Beatles" is the official title of the album, instead of "The Beatles" simply referring to the artist, while the album is actually untitled? Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From The Beatles themselves at [2], the official title of the album is The Beatles and popularly known as "The White Album." Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The four photos inside

Anyone know about these? Quite a departure from earlier publicity photos. Are these one of the earlier examples of media superstars shedding their polished images and revealing a "real person." If that's what was intended it works well with the musical content of the album. 76.215.156.83 (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre(s)

We all agree that this album has an incredibly diverse set of songs and styles, but first and foremost, it is a rock album. In fact, it is largely recognized as the Beatles return to their rock roots. Let's classify this as rock. Do we really need a genre for each song? Proedit21 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Proedit21Proedit21 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's call it "Rawk 'n Rolling" and be done with it.--andreasegde (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling it only Rock sort of diminishes what the Beatles were doing on this album. I notice the Velvet Underground and Hendrix get like three to five sub-genres but the Beatles get called rock. I think you are decieving people who don't know the Beatles that well that they might be only one type of music. Rock music was just one of many elements in the Beatles music.

--RigbyEleanor (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

I agree with Rigby Eleanor it should be "Rock, Hard Rock, Folk, Pop" as Pop is covering songs like Martha My Dear, Honey Pie, I Will, Don't Pass Me By and etc. Folk is covering Bungallow Bill, Rocky Racoon, Mother Nature's Son, Blackbird, I Will and etc. Rock is covering songs like Dear Prudence, Glass Onion, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Savoy Truffle and etc. Hard Rock is for Back in the USSR, Birthday, Helter Skelter, Everybody's got something to hide and etc. And there you go, covering almost every single song, and I didn't even mention some songs that fit like I'm So Tired to rock, Yer Blues to hard rock, Sexy Sadie to rock, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da to pop, Piggies to pop, Why Don't We Do It In the Road to rock, Julia to folk, and etc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Proedit21. Just about every song on the album is classified as either rock or a subgenre of rock, such as hard rock, blues-rock, folk rock, ect., so rock would cover almost every song. We shouldn't list the subgenres, especially when many of them only cover one or two songs. The songs that aren't classified as either rock or a rock subgenre aren't numerous enough to have their genres included in the infobox. For example, only two songs, Blackbird and Mother Nature's Son, are classified as folk, so to include folk in the infobox would be just silly. I don't think anyone is going to be like "gee, I thought the White Album was folk, but Wikipedia says it's just rock. What's going on here?" --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Revolution 9 time

Under the track listings I think the time for revolution 9 is wrong. It says 8:13 but I think it is 8:22 can some one confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.220.211 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

According to my iTunes import of the remastered CD, it is 8:22. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

8:22 according to the 30th anniversary re-issue I'm playing right now, and the article states this too. I'll be bold and change it. Lugnuts (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page Style

Is anyone else getting a weird style problem on the main page? this is the only entry I am getting what looks like the CSS is broken. the last change to the page was 3 days ago and it was a revert of something. I dont know enough about wikipedia to go changing anything, or maybe it is just my machine, but I looked at it through IE and FF. --Billy Nair (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mclay1!

--Billy Nair (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually thanking me or is that sarcastic? I'm not getting any weird problems with Safari. I didn't break it nor did I fix it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

no sarcasm, what ever you did or didnt do fixed my CSS or whatever was wrong.--Billy Nair (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour

Someone keeps on writing that Magical Mystery Tour is the album prior to The Beatles (White Album). This is not true The Beatles (White Album) is the 9th album by the Beatles and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the 8th. Magical Mystery Tour is an unofficial album please stop writing it is the album prior to The Beatles (White Album). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.81.124 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That was true. But since the CD era, Magical Mystery Tour in the album format became an original Beatles album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

These are two categories colliding. Albums as the band saw it is one. Works of the band is another. Beethoven's symphonies / works are two categories and the symphonies are in both. As a further complication, my understanding is that MMT was released as an album in the U.S. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to have a separate chronology field for non-UK release. For this album, the non-UK chronology would be MMT|White|YS. For the UK chronology, leave it SP|White|YS. MMT and SP would then add fields for non-UK releases with the complementary info. The guideline for album infoboxes suggests separate chronologies for studio or live albums, and perhaps this is a place where the idea could be useful. Any agreement with that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The individual EMI units around the world repackaged Beatle albums so that would be too complicated. Let's concentrate on the canon albums and MMT along with the globally released post-breakup album titles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure but then what about the equivocal status of MMT? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

About beatles1 (all there is legal !)

Re: (cur | prev) 10:13, 11 July 2011 Mclay1 (talk | contribs) (55,908 bytes) (reverting edits by 2 IPs - The Beach Boys are not a genre; just because a site says it uses a CC licence doesn't mean it does - it is illegal).

All there is legal: using of licensing and attribution of works of art, fair use, the content directory of Creative Commons. This is all on the same basis that makes Youtube, Vimeo and other sites. You think that they violate copyright? All the same pattern (even better), so I ask you to delete your roll back. Confirmation of the rule of law is non-interference Copyright Office of the United States (link to their website is at beatles1). This is the most reliable guarantor. Absolutelly no problem. Be an honest man ! A copy of messages on the discussion page (Mclay1) . Important: the site has a mirror - http://beatles80.narod2.ru . ----93.81.188.69 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Before this degenerates into a completely uninformed and irrelevant debate about copyright law, be aware this external link simply doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion regardless of any claims of fair use. Read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided and find some other way to drive traffic to your web site. Piriczki (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No consensus.

I see strong arguments on both sides. Those in favor of renaming are correct that the name most frequently used in reliable sources should be the name used in this article. The proponents for renaming have an impossible burden to demonstrate, that the proposed name is the most common in reliable sources (not everyday speech or casual writing). However, it is apparent that there is no consensus among reliable sources. Many refer to the album by its official title, and others don't appear to agree whether to call it "White Album" or "THE White Album". It is only natural that if reliable sources don't show a consensus, no consensus will be evident among Wikipedia editors either. In such an event, the standard practice on Wikipedia is to maintain the status quo (even if I may personally disagree with it in this instance). ~Amatulić (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The Beatles (album) → The White Album – It looks like this has been discussed a few times but never formally proposed. In most cases, works will have the same WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. This is one of the rare cases where it is not. The White Album is far more commonly used by fans, music observers, and even members of the band and I see no reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME here. It also eliminates the parenthetical disambiguation, which some people find unsightly. The White Album already redirects here so that is not a problem. I am open to other suggestions as well. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As the nom said, this album is by far most well-known as "The White Album". The other point, about disambiguation, is also a good one. Why disambiguate when there is a natural, accurate, better-known alternative? Dohn joe (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - we've had this discussion before. The official name in 'The Beatles'. What ever it's known as informally is irrelevant; this is an encyclopedia article about the album. The White Album already redirects here, so finding the article is no problem. Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and the policy of this encyclopedia is generally to use a topic's common name, which is not necessarily its official name. "The White Album" follows the policies of this encyclopedia. (Note: while specific conventions can sometimes trump the common-name policy, in this case, the music convention does not address whether to use common or official names.) Dohn joe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support There has been no discussion, so I reserve my rights, but the Wikipedia policy is not ambiguous and it says that the common name should be used. This encyclopedia has a style guide that should be followed by its editors. There is a guide for how to handle this kind of situation and there's nothing about it that is difficult or misleading. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Common usage is not a reliable source. Just because I refer to it as 'The White Album' has no bearing on what its title in an encyclopedia should be. The Beatles meant for it to be titled a certain way; we defer to their judgement. Radiopathy •talk• 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Much RS (including Amazon.com and the members of the band) refer to it as The White Album. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Amazon is NOT a reliable source! Neither are The Beatles since they generally don't give interviews in an academic style of writing. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So you want to rely on what the band meant just so long as you can reject what the band says? Brilliant!! (Two exclams wins.) Obviously, it doesn't work both ways. Of the two, it's easier to know what the band said than what they meant. Secondly, academic style is not the bedrock of reliability in sources. Nice try!!! Bottom line, the policy is unambiguous: the common name is called for, not the official name. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The policy is actually not unambiguous. No policy is (see my long comment below). But if we are taking the Beatles' word on it, then we go with The Beatles since that's what they titled it, not The White Album. And the members of the band are actually not reliable sources unless they officially change the title of the album. In the end, this is what is being called for, to change the title of the album. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not true, of course. What's being called for is a change to the title of an article about an album, in order to make that title more natural and recognizable to readers. Wikipedia has no power to change the actual title of the album. Dohn joe (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

But we are in effect telling readers that that is the title. People are missing the bigger picture by rigidly adhering to WP:COMMONNAME. Those not familiar with the album will think the title is The White Album. freshacconci talktalk 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, people are telling *us* that this is the title. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and it's usage. We are not an authority. We follow the sources. The sources call it "The White Album". *Everyone* calls it the white album. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support; "The White Album" is far more recognizable to the reader and thus better satisfies the criteria at WP:AT. Powers ^T 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support, clearly the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – The "White Album" is just a nickname for The Beatles. It seems much more appropriate for an encyclopaedia to use an official name if the official name is commonly used, which is the case here. WP:COMMONNAME does not say "Always use the most common name"; the policy mostly applies the things with uncommon official names. WP:COMMONNAME says to use the common name used in reliable sources, not everyday speech. Reliable sources about The Beatles, such as Mark Lewisohn's books and Revolution in the Head, refer to it as The Beatles. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think the policy actually does say "Always use the most common name." More precisely, it says, Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The policy doesn't say, "ignore when you feel like it." It says, in essence, this is our style.

Except it we do have the WP:IGNORE policy. We can ignore a rule if it gets in the way of common sense. freshacconci talktalk 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as I think this reflects the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. Led Zeppelin IV is also not the "official name" of that album, but it is one that is commonly used. I don't think deferring to the band's judgment has anything to do with this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The fourth Led Zeppelin album has no title at all. In this instance, yes, WP:COMMONNAME should apply for the convenience of the reader; however, the 'White Album does have a title, and that title is The Beatles. The Beatles (the members of the band of that name), BTW, are not reliable sources. Radiopathy •talk• 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The Beatles (the members of the band of that name), BTW, are not reliable sources." That's why I said "I don't think deferring to the band's judgment has anything to do with this." Someone else (i.e., you) said above: "The Beatles meant for it to be titled a certain way; we defer to their judgement." and my comment was a comment regarding this suggestion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per McLerristarr. WP:COMMONNAME does not trump WP:RS. The official title and the most reliable sources favour The Beatles. This should be a non-starter. We can't alter the official name of an entity. We redirect White Album to The Beatles (album) and make mention of the common nickname for the album in the second sentence. This is appropriate per both WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME per McLerristarr's reasoning above. Bottom line: by retitling this as The White Album we are actually telling the uninformed reader that that is the title of the album. It's not and it never has been. freshacconci talktalk 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In the book The Beatles Anthology all four Beatles refer to it as the 'White' album. Piriczki (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Because that is the accepted nickname for the LP. No one is disputing that. Have the Beatles or Apple officially changed the title of the album? I'm referring to RSs that deal with the album as an album not anecdotally, Lewisohn and MacDonald. The Anthology was based on conversations. We're not trying to erase The White Album as an alternative title. We're sticking to the fact that it is officially titled The Beatles and the RSs and the official discography back that up. Even our own discography of the Beatles lists it as The Beatles. freshacconci talktalk 13:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, because that's the title. But our article naming guidelines explicitly prefer that we use a common name if it's more recognizable than the official name. Powers ^T 13:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      • If the RSs back it up. Reliable sources when discussing it as an album tend to defer to the proper title and using The White Album only casually, if at all. Revolution in the Head for instance explicitly uses The Beatles. Changing the article title is basically changing the album title. This is not a case of Ringo Starr being preferred to Richard Starkey. We will be basically telling readers that The White Album is the title, which would then contradict our own Beatles discography. Having the redirect and using the alternate title in the lede is appropriate for this instance. In the case of official titles we must follow RSs and use the proper name. We're not changing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to Sgt. Peppers because that is the more common name (and I'd wager it is). The same principle applies here. freshacconci talktalk 13:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Where the common name is merely an abbreviation or modification of the official name, yes, we do tend to prefer the full version (but not always! See Rhode Island). But that's exactly what makes Sgt. Pepper different from The White Album. Powers ^T 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I also want to say (as a final thought before moving on) that we shouldn't be using any policy as a club. In other words "because WP:COMMONNAME says so" should not be the default argument. There needs to be nuance in the reading of that policy and all policies have exceptions, thus WP:IGNORE. The purpose and use of WP:COMMONNAME is to provide us with a backup when facing a pedantic editor insisting that since Ringo was born Richard Starkey, the latter should be the article title. His stage name is clear and all sources support that. It's pretty straight-forward and WP:COMMONNAME is a great tool to use to counter such arguments. However, I feel this is an excellent example of when we should not so much ignore the rule of common names but understand the nuances actually provided. I don't have time to do a thorough search, but I am certain most encyclopedias use The Beatles as the title and WP:COMMONNAME suggests we consult other encyclopedias when considering what an article title should be. Likewise, we must consult other reliable sources. Yes, there is a mixed bag of usages out there but my feeling is that those sources that deal with the album in a critical manner, such as Lewisohn and Revolution in the Head should be given more weight on this issue as the other sources are often anecdotal (such as the Anthology which is based on interviews). When dealing with a work of art, WP:COMMONNAME should usually apply (pre-20th century book titles come to mind here; The Origin of the Species is obviously preferable to its official title). However there are always exceptions and we can't forget we are here to provide tertiary information. We have to imagine that our reader is someone who has never heard of this album. Going to an article titled The White Album is telling that reader that this is the official title and we are therefore failing in our efforts. Redirecting The White Album and explaining in the lede that The White Album is the common nickname of the article (and we can move that even closer per Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by placing The White Album in parenthesis) is providing the reader with accurate information, which is our job. Anyway, I'm done. Apologies in advance for going on and on about it. freshacconci talktalk 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Talk to anyone except the most hardened The Beatles fan about The Beatles, and they will immediately think of the band. With more context that it's an album, you're likely to get a blank look, followed by the question "which one". Say 'The White Album", and people will light up immediately. OTOH, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is probably more commonly referred to as simply 'Sgt. Pepper'--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the point. We are not writing for the most hardened fan who knows what the real title is. We are writing, as I said, for the uninformed reader. Calling the article The White Album is telling the reader that this is the title of the album. The simpler and more neutral option is to keep it as is. We clearly state that The White Album is the common nickname and provide a redirect for those searching for The White Album. We are supposed to provide information here. freshacconci talktalk 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It works exactly the other way around. We are writing for the uninformed reader. The uninformed reader already knows about this album by the name "The White Album", and that should therefore be the title as per WP:COMMONNAME. The lead will them them that it's official name is called "The Beatles". --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose even Allmusic put "White Album" in brackets. White Album is not the official album, a nickname, explained above. White Album is also used when you are referring to exactly this album; if you go and say you want to buy The Beatles album, the person would say: Which? If you have the album (or click here if not), look at the back cover: THE BEATLES (generally known as "The White Album" because of its cover). Generally...--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 18:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Generally = commonly = WP:COMMONNAME. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • What I meant is that it is generally known as "The White Album" because of its cover -> "The White Album" = informal, unofficial nickname for The Beatles--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support The title should be the form of the name that is most useful to the reader. The versions of the album that are currently for sale and are all titled as some variation on "The White Album": [http://www.amazon.com/White-Album-Remastered-Beatles/dp/B0025KVLU6/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1313870118&sr=1-1 The White Album (Remastered)], [http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-White-Album/dp/B000002UAX/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1313870118&sr=1-2 The Beatles (The White Album)], and The Beatles : (white album). Kauffner (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

None of those are WP:RSs. freshacconci talktalk 20:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We can leave some blank space on top of the article to honor the original non-title. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider these reliable sources:

• Brog, Michael A., The phenomena of Pine's "four psychologies": Their contrast and interplay as exhibited in the Beatles' "White Album." The American Journal of Psychotherapy.
• Roessner, Jeffrey., [http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Beatles-Cultural-Literary-Criticism/dp/0791467163#reader_0791467163 We All Want to Change the World: Postmodern Politics and the Beatles' White Album]. from Reading the Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, And the Fab Four.
• Whitley, Ed. The Postmodern White Album, from The Beatles, popular music and society: a thousand voices. Ian Inglis, ed.
• Quantick, David. [http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Making-Beatles-White-Frontier/dp/1903318556/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313771782&sr=1-1 Revolution: the Making of the Beatles' White Album]. M Q Publications.

Dohn joe (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

All of them call it "White Album" and not "The White Album". The noun is used as an adjective. That means it is a nickname for this album, by fans for example.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If the official name was a bit clearer, there might be some doubt but, since Wikipedia doesn't do official names, the common name should be the title. User:Dohn joe settles the reliable sources issue above. —  AjaxSmack  22:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, except that there are plenty of reliable sources that support retaining the actual title. It's hardly settled at this point. Those listed above are reliable sources but I don't see at this time how they "overrule" other reliable sources (especially since the examples here are titles of books where the colloquial nickname makes a great deal of sense -- [[Joan Didion's White Album being an interesting example, although it's not really about the Beatles or The Beatles). freshacconci talktalk 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Then, to clarify: User:Dohn joe establishes that there are reliable sources that use the name "White Album". Therefore, a debate based on the merits of the common name and ambiguity can be had. —  AjaxSmack  22:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't a case where the official name is in dispute, doesn't exist or has some other problem. The album is clearly called "The Beatles" so that's the title we should use. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  But it does have at least two problems: it's less recognizable than "The White Album", and it's ambiguous with the name of the band. Wouldn't you agree that those are problems? Dohn joe (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• In a word: no. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  Why not? Dohn joe (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  Obviously they are problems. Of course, there might be an argument that those obvious problems should be overlooked, but they are problems. The strange thing here is that this is just about the clearest example we will see where the common name policy comes into play. We all know the official name is The Beatles and we all know that reliable sources and the public at large call it The White Album. So, what does policy advise? Well, we all know what it says: use the common name. It doesn't suggest it, it says that's what Wikipedia editors do. I am sympathetic to the view that official names should be used and would be fine with that if Wikipedia went with that style. But that is not the case. A different decision was made, and there's no violation of common sense involved. It's just one of those issues of style that a good editor maintains because that is what a good editor does. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:COMMONNAME again. "It doesn't suggest it, it says that's what Wikipedia editors do." Not true. We must follow what reliable sources say. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states this. We all know everyone uses The White Album? Too bad. We don't edit by what we all know. We edit uses sources. This is a debate around sources: "we all know that reliable sources ... call it The White Album." Again, not accurate. Most sources properly call it The Beatles. WP:COMMONNAME is not that straightforward. And this is a question of common sense as this is a good example of an exception to the rule. freshacconci talktalk 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

First, the sources that refer to it as The White Album are more numerous. What the album was sold as is not probative. Secondly, you claim this policy is not unambiguous (even going so far as to claim incredibly that "no policy is") but you haven't mentioned what is ambiguous about it. You seem to be aware that the common name should be used, but you want to claim that The Beatles is the common name. That's not an ambiguity in the policy. In this brief clip, Paul says "it's the bloody Beatles' White Album -- shut up." --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"First, the sources that refer to it as The White Album are more numerous." Really? You know that for a fact? "What the album was sold as is not probative." I mention that because it was claimed erroneously that it was sold as The White Album. The policy is malleable per WP:IGNORE, which is also policy, but explicitly because we should only go by what the sources say, not by what "everyone" says. My argument is that the sources available, the best and most reliable ones, call it The Beatles. Unless Apple officially changes the title, what Paul says in an interview carries as much weight as anyone else with an opinion.freshacconci talktalk 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know it for a fact. The reason that no one refers to it as 'The Beatles' is that it doesn't refer to the album, it refers to the band. (2) It's incredible that you want to ignore the band's own words. But what else can you do? When the christening of the album was done by the band, if they don't agree with you, that puts a black hole in your argument. There is no more reliable source than the band. I'm sorry. Your wish to rely on official actions is not Wikipedia policy. Explicitly, you are trying to overrule the policy, but that can't be done on this page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How can I argue with someone who says "Yes, I know it for a fact"?!? Seriously, you're going to stand by that opinion? It is not a fact and no one would or should ever make that claim. As for the band's own words, no they are not a reliable source in and of themselves, any more than Paul McCartney editing his own article would be. We go by sources, not someone's word. What we can rely on is the Beatles' original intention and Apple's official discography which is to call the album The Beatles. And I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim I am trying to change official policy. Where, exactly? I am going by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:IGNORE here. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly tells us that we must rely on reliable sources. We can't just go by "The reason that no one refers to it as 'The Beatles' is that it doesn't refer to the album, it refers to the band". That's an opinion, not a fact. The phrase "The Beatles" in fact refers to both the band and the album. And many, many sources, some of which we rely on to fact-check articles (Lewisohn, Revolution in the Head, allmusic.com) use The Beatles as the album's title. Because that's what it is. We disambiguate this page with (album) to make the distinction. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use the most common name when the sources back it up. This is why there is an article called Jennifer Lopez and not J.Lo. We have to make this call based on the sources. Likewise, it is Ringo Starr not Richard Starkey. These two examples show the interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME that is required using sources. There are sources that use The White Album. I have never disputed that. I am saying the sources for The Beatles are stronger and more authoritative. This is what this debate is about, which sources to follow. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to counter my argument. The easiest counter would be to offer the examples of the members of the band (the christeners) referring to the White Album as 'The Beatles'. But no one does that, because 'The Beatles' refers to the band, not the album. (2) You are trying to change policy by ignoring it: you claim that Apple can change the name of the album, but that would only be the case if we followed "official naming" instead of common naming. However, we don't. We follow common names. If you want to change that policy, go to the page where the policy is made. It's really pretty incredible at this point in the discussion to have you claim that Apple can change the name for our purposes. Apple has no authority in this matter. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? My only point about Apple is that Apple's official title is and always has been The Beatles. I made no claim that the official name trumps all. In fact, elsewhere I point out examples of pre-20th books that have insanely long titles that we shorten for article titles. I have no objection to this. Likewise, I point out the Beatles' own choice of The Beatles to show that this is the proper title. I am not calling for changing any policy and you have yet to show me where I have done so. I am pointing out that WP:COMMONNAME calls for sources. I have not suggested we change that nor that WP:COMMONNAME should be official titles only. You are putting words into my mouth and then arguing against what you claim I am saying. Likewise: "It's really pretty incredible at this point in the discussion to have you claim that Apple can change the name for our purposes." Where exactly did I say this? We follow common names per WP:COMMONNAME when the sources back this up. Sources at this point show usage of both The Beatles and The White Album. My argument is that the official title counts as a source as it is backed up essentially by Apple, as one of many sources. It is not exclusive, it does not trump all other sources. I am not making that claim and do not suggest otherwise. It is a dishonest way to debate. My argument is: we should follow the source which I feel favour those that use The Beatles. No policy is to be changed and there is no suggestion of changing policy. Do not suggest otherwise. freshacconci talktalk 14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about what you said. And, while you want to deny it now, you said that we should rely on "Apple's official discography". But official names are not what we follow. So, I said nothing dishonest. Rather, I countered your erroneous claim, off the which you are now backing. Good. I agree we don't follow Apple's official anything. In that case, we return to your claim that the band is not a reliable source on the name of their own album, which I think has very little traction. Perhaps you can offer other examples of artists where their reference to their own works is ignored in the pages of Wikipedia? That would be a good point of comparison. The first case that comes to mind is Prince, from the period where his name was that symbol. His wishes were honored. It seems that ordinarily the band's words are highly probative for these purposes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You again are putting words into my mouth and then arguing against what you are claiming I said. That is a dishonest way of debating. I have officially had it with you and will move on since you have no intention of discussing things without distortions. I clearly state that the official title is one source amongst many. Don't twist things around. That's all I will say to you on this thread. freshacconci talktalk 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So when you can't answer a criticism you make accusations and refuse to talk any more? Where I come from that's called surrender. I have answered your claims and explained why I think you're wrong. If you don't want to do that, I think that's an admission that you can't support your argument. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• What's so official about this title anyway? This album has been sold under various names, but never as The Beatles (album). This dispute arises because the album was originally released without a title, but I assume that we will put something or other on top of the article. In so many RMs, there seems to be a group of editors who look down on the common name precisely because it is so common. Kauffner (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let's try some WP:AGF: "there seems to be a group of editors who look down on the common name precisely because it is so common." Nothing could be further from the truth. I refer to it is the White Album all the time. Secondly, what's official about this name is that it is the official name. It has always been called The Beatles. It was never untitled. It has never been sold under any other name until Amazon came along. All sources confirm this. Many sources use The White Album as well in casual reference to the album, but let's keep the facts straight here. The Beatles' first choice for a title was A Doll's House but another band already used that, so they went with a self-titled album. It was always called The Beatles. Putting (album) after the title is a Wikipedia disambiguation and of course is standard here. freshacconci talktalk 11:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Your trivia about 'A Doll's House' is not germane and you should strike it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested that the album was original untitled. I pointed out in fact that this is not true. Mentioning the original idea for a title is part of that discussion. Who the hell are you to tell me what to strike? I think I've had enough of you. pal. freshacconci talktalk 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. The pre-release history of the album's title is not germane to this discussion. Since it's not germane, it should go somewhere else. That is why I suggested that you take it out. If you think that it is germane, of course keep it in, but it is outside our scope here and I'd think that you would want to keep the focus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Mine differs. freshacconci talktalk 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose the discussion in favour of one at a wider scope, at least WP:TB, perhaps WP:WPMU. Uniplex (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as The Beatles is the official title of the Album. "The White Album" is the popular name for it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. @Freshacconci: I'd like to present the argument from a different angle and see what you think. You said earlier that "Sources at this point show usage of both The Beatles and The White Album." If you look at the WP:NAMING policy, it tells us that "[g]enerally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles". Those five principles are 1) recognizability; 2) naturalness; 3) precision; 4) conciseness; and 5) consistency.

  Applying the policy here, I think we agree that reliable sources are split on what they call the subject, which means we should move to weighing the five principles. To me, the two titles are equally precise and concise. Consistency is probably the best argument for leaving the title as is, although it cuts both ways. You can say that all the other articles on Beatles albums are at their official names, so this one should be, too. However, since for the other albums official name=common name, you could just as easily say that since the other articles are at their common names, this one should be, too.

  Even allowing that point, it's outweighed in my opinion by the fact that "The White Album" is by far more 1) recognizable and 2) natural. The policy asks what readers would expect to look for when searching for a topic. Isn't that "The White Album", hands down?

  Anyhow, that's how I weigh the principles - how do you (or anyone else) see them? Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, "The White Album" is NOT the official title of the album. The official title of the album is The Beatles. 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just about everyone (including me) agrees with that. But again, Wikipedia does not always use official names to title articles. Please read WP:OFFICIAL for one explanation why. Dohn joe (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Then what does the album cover say is the title of the album? It does not say "The White Album" anywhere on the cover or the record/CD labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The policy on the use of common names says that Wikipedia prefers common names to official names. That is actually the policy. In this brief clip, Paul says "it's the bloody Beatles' White Album -- shut up." --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone uses the popular name for this album, so Paul's quote is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the record label shows at [3]. Case closed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. Read the policy. Wikipedia prefers common names to official names. That is the policy. It's not the policy you said, it's something else. The common mane trumps the official name, not the other way around. So if a good editor is choosing between the common name and the official name, Wikipedia style guide says choose the common name. We don't choose the official name. We choose the common name. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason to change away from an the official title of an artistic work. If you make an exception for The Beatles, you ought to change any other eponymous album by a band which also has a nickname. examples: Weezer (1994 album), aka "Blue Album"; Weezer (2001 album) aka "Green Album"; Weezer (2008 album) aka "Red Album"; Metallica (album) aka "Black Album"; 311 (album), aka "Blue album"; The Beatles' own 1962–1966 and 1967–1970 ("red" and "blue" colloquially); Grand Funk (album) aka "Red Album", Zebrahead (album), aka "Yellow"; the Band's second album (Brown Album) ... plus it would create confusion with other albums actually named The White Album. Redirect pages exist to help get readers to the correct page when they type in a "commonly used" name or other misconception, switching is pointless. - Salamurai (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It took me a bit to re-find this. I think WP:POVTITLE applies in this case, not WP:COMMONNAME or WP:OFFICIALNAME. - Salamurai (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. How do you see using The White Album as violating the neutral point of view policy? What about it is non-neutral? Dohn joe (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name include the following:...2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." Further, "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to."

The actual, official title trumps the colloquialism; the redirect takes care of "first guesses". Sorted. Radiopathy •talk• 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But that's only when the colloquialism violates the neutral point of view policy. That's why those provisions are in the "Non-neutral but common names" section - they're describing an exception to the general rule at WP:COMMONNAME, which prefers the common over the official name when they are different. Dohn joe (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the wrong policy. (There are a lot of policies and I don't know them all.) The part I was thinking of was "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." So the redirect already anticipates The White Album and takes the reader to the correct article, and nothing else need be done. (I also didn't read every single comment here before, I see there are other policies in play and maybe I should shut my fool mouth.) - Salamurai (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The official title is the neutral solution; the redirect brings readers who are using the colloquialism to the article. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a problem with this arrangement, except in one case of a consensus-flouting editor who is now banned. Dragging out a page move discussion for far longer than is necessary, on the other hand, especially when consensus is clear and no problem exists with the title of the article, could be construed as POV pushing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Radiopathy •talk• 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think this new consensus-flouting editor will be banned, Radiopathy? I looked up his talk page and he has been suspended from editing more than once. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Which one? CWenger? Ring Cinema? Dohn joe? Please explain yourself. Radiopathy •talk• 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe Ring Cinema is the most disruptive. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They're not edit warring here; I don't think that should have come up. Radiopathy •talk• 14:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This attempt to short circuit the discussion is disruptive, presumptuous, question-begging, and inaccurate. I don't think a call for a simplistic discussion encourages the best decisions. To me, that kind of superficiality is an endemic problem on the site. It's true that there has been POV pushing by the opponents of this proposal, but it's clear that all views need to be aired. I'm sure there would be no problem with the title either way, so that's a red herring. The question is about following Wikipedia style. Why other editors want to disrupt that with arguments that openly advocate flouting policy is a question they will have to answer. The neutral solution clearly is the one that follows the policy and that would entail adopting the proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are exceptions to the policy; they have been pointed out to you, and they apply here. The neutral solution is to use the actual, real, official, honest-to-God, Beatle-approved title and not to use Wikipedia policy to create an alternative reality. Radiopathy •talk• 14:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not know of a legitimate reason to make this an exception to the policy, and my mind is open to that. As you say, you want to use the official title. I agree, that's what you want to use. Unfortunately, that is not Wikipedia policy. But you claim that this is an exception, which it could be. Since the Beatles themselves refer to the album as the White Album, I am on very solid ground, as they are the same christeners that you want to invoke on your side. I don't see how that's a winner for you. Still, my mind is open. Please explain why this case is a legitimate exception. Clearly that needs to be discussed. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I had already stated that the White Album is the popular name for the 1968 album The Beatles which is used by everyone. It is still not the official name as the White Album name never appeared on record or CD labels. The redirect and hatnotes which are the already in place is the aforementioned solution to this issue. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Until you read the policy and explain how you are following it, Steel, I will stick with your admission below that you are not following it. However, Radiopathy is arguing from within the policy so I am interested in what he has to say. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A problematic case of conflicting WP:TITLE principles, but I think the far greater recognisability of the proposed title tips things in its favour. Noetica^Tea? 06:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. - Classic case of where the common name trumps the official name. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose move The current title is precise, concise, and consistent. The proposed title is recognizable, natural, and concise. Therefore, there is no reason to move to a different title which only meets the same number of naming criteria that the current title does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I've always respected your contributions, Sarek. But let me ask you: wouldn't both titles be equally precise? Both "The Beatles (album)" and "The White Album" refer to exactly the same album. (And indeed, "The White Album" is more precise than just "The Beatles", which is why we have to add the qualifier "(album)".) Which leads to my other question. Given that this "The White Album" is the primary topic for that term, how much does removing a disambiguator from the title matter in your thinking? Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  While this article is the primary topic for "The White Album", The White Album (disambiguation) shows that this isn't the only topic for the title. I don't know of any other album called "The Beatles", so I would consider "The Beatles (album)" to be more precise than "The While Album".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I think I understand your point there (although I disagree). But how about removing a disambiguator from the title? If two competing titles are otherwise equal on naming criteria, shouldn't the scales tip towards the non-disambiguated one? Dohn joe (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Well, as I said above, they're not quite equal on precision, so it's weighted differently. I'm just not sure _how_ differently. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry. I meant that the titles were equal since you considered that each title met three of the naming critieria. Given that kind of equality, how does removing a disambiguator fit in your calculus? Dohn joe (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sarek proposes that we choose based on a five point checklist. That could be an excellent method to decide between common names and official names, but I don't think that's what the policy calls for. It seems that common names are preferred as the default style in the relevant policy, while the five points are called for when choosing within the domain of common names. Cf. Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton) or the Venus de Milo (not Aphrodite of Milos), where the common name is used instead of the official name as given at its christening. This case seems to be the same. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  No, those are the WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, period. Not for choosing within common names.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  They are, as long as you prefer common names over official names. By analogy, if we must eat fruits, there can be five criteria for choosing the particular fruit but we can't choose broccoli even though it's edible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with Sarek. WP:COMMONNAME is a section within WP:NAMING, and it comes right after WP:CRITERIA. They should be read together. The common name(s) will quite often best satisfy the criteria, but not always. Dohn joe (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  They should be read together, but it's clear that common names are preferred to official names. If that were not the case, the section on common names would be superfluous and the policy would simply consist in applying the five criteria. Or perhaps the bit about common names would be the sixth criterion. However, that is not the policy and common names are preferred. From that, one can see that common names are preferred, but if there is more to consider than simply the issue of common/official names, then the five criteria come into play. So of course the five criteria are very important, but in those cases where editors choose between the official name and the common name, the policy is clear that the common name carries the day. The stronger argument for the opposition in the case we are discussing is to hold that the official name is also the common name, as, for example, Freshacconci has argued above. Then the five criteria come into play. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  But if you ask people "What is the name of the Beatles album released in 1968" how big a percentage do you think would say "The Beatles" compared to those who answer "The White Album"? Honestly, I think everyone would say "The White Album" except for a small percentage of music nerds who would say "The album is officially called 'The Beatles', as it has no title, but it is generally known as 'The White Album'". Everyone calls it "The White Album". It is as such recognizable, natural and concise, as you say. But it is also precise and consistent. When you say "The White Album" with no further specification, people will assume you mean this album. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But if you look at TheBeatles.com listing for this album, the title is The Beatles as shown at [4] which mentions the better known nickname "The White album" but it still gives the album title as The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the liner notes of the Yellow Submarine album gives a review of this album and the review titles the album The Beatles and there is no mention of the White Album. One URL which reproduces the liner notes is at [5]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with Radiopathy on this one. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• But Dohn Joe is in support. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just like we don't change 1962-1966 → The Red Album and 1967-1970 → The Blue Album. GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  Those are not in any way generally recognizable names in the same vein of "The White Album". If you asked people what they though about Beatles Blue Album, few would have an idea of what you meant. See also [6] --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support So a review of The Beatles written prior to its release failed to predict the album would become better known the White Album? Doesn't seem relevant to Wikipedia policy. Piriczki (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the criteria at WP:TITLE and SarekOfVulcan: "The current title is ‘precise’, ‘concise’, and ‘consistent’"; it's also ‘recognizable’ as that used by most WP:RSs who deal with the subject in a scholarly manner. Whilst of course there other scenarios, it would also be ‘natural’ to seek further info about an album you have in your hands based on what's written on the album. Uniplex (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  First of all, few people that has it in their hands would not know what it was, and secondly, if you seek further info based on what is written on it, you end up at The Beatles. There you would go to "Discography", and quickly see "The Beatles (aka The White Album)" and you would have found it. And that is how you will find it based on what is written no matter what this article is called.

  The fact that it doesn't matter has been pointed out many times already and if anything, supports the status quo. Uniplex (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  Secondly, recognizable means recognizable to readers. See WP:AT. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  What else could it mean? Readers of the album sleeve/label, readers of the reliable sources, and readers of our article will recognize the title. Uniplex (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is what the current redirect does. Those who type "The White Album" automatically gets the desired article. The hatnote and intro clearly explain the official title of The Beatles and the popular name "The White Album." So why are you pushing the change? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the purpose of redirects. You don't type the full URL in your address bar like that. I'm pushing that change because the common name of the album is "The White Album", just with the examples in WP:COMMONNAME. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

None of those examples is directly comparable, i.e. is an artistic work actively marketed by the artist. We are instructed to follow, where available, scholarly reliable sources and quality encyclopaedias; Lewisohn, MacDonald, Britannica, all use the current title. Uniplex (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Britannica calls it "The Beatles" in one place and "The Beatles [White Album]" in another. We can't actually use the name "The Beatles" anyway since this isn't primary topic. Kauffner (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the policy, i.e. Wikipedia prefers common names to official names where they differ. The bit about scholarly or encyclopedic is not the policy. It is really hard to explain why we should refer to it as 'The Beatles' (ambiguous with the band) when the band refers to it as the 'White Album' (clear reference). So if the original christeners have changed their minds, why haven't we? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles haven't "changed their minds"; if they had, they would have re-released the album under the title 'The White Album', but they haven't - it's still titled "The Beatles". Just because they refer to it in the vernacular doesn't imply a title change nor does it qualify as a reliable source. Radiopathy •talk• 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the title of the album has changed; we're talking about the title of this article. Powers ^T 16:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the title of the album has not changed, neither should the name of this article be changed as the title is still The Beatles (album) with the mention in the article that the popular nickname is "The White Album." Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? I keep seeing that asserted, but without explanation as to why our article title absolutely positively must match the official name of the album. You do know we don't always use official names, right? Powers ^T 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Because we keep coming round to the same place: "it should be titled 'The White Album' because The Beatles call it that, and besides, we don't always use official names on Wikipedia". Why don't you tell us why a small group of editors are being so insistent about such a ridiculous notion, and why this is such an importanat issue to you to try to create a reality that is not only not encyclopedic but also divorced from the real world? Radiopathy •talk• 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides, when someone types in "The White Album", it automatically redirects the reader to this article. So why change it? It goes to the official title of the album and is still the official title of the album as the 2009 remastered CDs are still titled The Beatles and not "The White Album." Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We title articles what a user is most likely to expect the article to be titled, so that the user is immediately reassured he/she is in the right place (or alerted that he/she is not), so that the user knows as clearly and as quickly as possible what the article is about, so that the article can be easily and intuitively linked from other articles, and so that a user searching for the article is taken to it in as few steps as possible. Leaving "The White Album" as a redirect assists only the last of those criteria. Powers ^T 19:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In the 2009 remaster of this album, the historical notes give the title The Beatles in italics, but gives the alternate name 'The White Album' only in single quotes. The upshot is that The Beatles is still the official title as far as Apple and EMI are concerned. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are proving that the sky is blue? It is well known what the official title is. Everyone knows. The question here is which title is the common name, because we are supposed to use the common name, not the official name. At least, that's what a good editor does. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is just one album which is titled The Beatles. On the other hand, there are several articles which use the name "The White Album" as can be found at The White Album (disambiguation). Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And? Common name is preferred. Everyone calls this "The White Album", including a majority of reliable sources. When somebody talks about "The White Album" people will think of this album. This is an open and shut case as it comes to Wikipedia policy. But yet again, Wikipedia policy is broken by a !vote of people who doesn't know or care about the policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone calls the band Creedence Clearwater Revival "CCR" but is their article titled CCR? No. It it titled Creedence Clearwater Revival. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No they don't. I've never heard that before. There is no way you can interpret policy to support a rename to CCR, that's just silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There are way too many examples of reliable sources you can easily Google which backs up the use of the name "CCR" in regards to that band. A recent news story is one example at [7]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So find those sources and request a renaming. Two wrongs does not make a right. However, I note that in your source, the band is clearly called "Creedence Clearwater Revival". It's only called CCR as an abbreviation. A common abbreviation is NOT the same as a common name, which the policy actually is quite clear about.

Article title format "Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser)."

You apparently claim Creedence Clearwater revival is almost exclusively known as CCR. I don't believe you, but I also don't care. Policy is clear on these issue, this article should be called "The White Album". --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Using your logic, I believe you want to rename the Led Zeppelin IV album to "Zoso". :Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard that Album called anything else than Led Zeppelin IV, so again I simply don't believe you. But I don't "want" anything. I don't care. If you claim that album is commonly known as "Zoso", go ahead and suggest a renaming, The policy is clear, if if it commonly known as "Zoso" that is what the article should be called. Full stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the policy is not clear; it is not black and white. It is up to our judgement. The policy does not say to use the most common name, it says to use the name most commonly used by reliable sources. What people call it in speech is irrelevant. It is unlikely that anyone writing about the White Album would not refer to it first as The Beatles, whereas Led Zeppelin IV is the de facto name of that album. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What I mean with "common name" is self-evidently "the name most commonly used by reliable sources", but it's a bit long to write every time, but OK, I'll do that then. "It is unlikely that anyone writing about the White Album would not refer to it first as The Beatles", no that is not unlikely at all. And it's not "most commonly used first", it's "most commonly used". Most sources about use 'The White Album' as the main name for the album. "'Led Zeppelin IV' is the de facto name of that album." I agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, McLay, the policy is clear. The common name is preferred. There might be an argument about which name is the common name, but if you want to claim that policy calls for the use of the official name when it is not the common name, I question where you find the okay for that in the text of the policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, do you want to rename the 1950s TV series The Phil Silvers Show to "Sergeant Bilko" which was the popular name? Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between "popular name" and "common name". If written sources actually called the show Sgt. Bilko in preference to The Phil Silvers Show, to the point where calling it the latter would have caused momentary confusion in the average reader, then perhaps it should be moved. Powers ^T 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you misrepresent the policy, which has: "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". However, clearly, there is no consensus for this change and the discussion is now just going round in circles, so I'll leave you to it. Uniplex (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

The White Album

Irrelevant to the move discussion, how should we display the name "The White Album" in the article? Should it be italicised? Should it be in quotation marks? Should the italics or quotes include the "The"? Should "The" be capitalised? At the moment, in the lead, it is in quotes and italicised, with a capital "The" included in both (i.e. "The White Album"). Since it is not actually a title, just a nickname, do we really need italics? As a nickname, I'd say we do need the quotes. I'd also say that "The" should not be included in the quotes or capitalised (i.e. the "White Album"). A similar situation would be referring to the fictitious John Smith as the "Lion-man", rather than "The Lion-man". Both are acceptable but which is better? McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly for me, its an informal name, so ought to be "The White Album". Like saying 'so-called something'. It should not be italicised. I have no view on whether the 'the' should be included.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(Unreferenced opinion follows) The album title should be capitalised but not italicised. It is the name of a work but not a title. A bit like (as some might appreciate) the Bible. —  AjaxSmack  22:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "The White Album" is not the official title so it should be mentioned in the article exactly as shown here with no italics and/or boldface. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the first time "The White Album" appears in the article, it should be bolded, as it's a synonym, and more importantly, it's the common name by which most people know the album. See Wikipedia:Lead#Opening_paragraph. As to italicization or quotes, I have no opinion, although I should think it ought to be one or the other - not both. Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Digression not directly relevant to the question posed at the beginning of the section

Once again, "The White Album" is NOT the official title of this album. The official title is The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Please explain your interpretation of the policy. It seems to me that you haven't read the policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The policy is irrelevant here. Look at the record labels. Such as the MFSL/Capitol audiophile label at [8], an Italian Apple pressing at [9], A Parlophone UK pressing at [10], the purple Capitol label at [11], an American Apple pressing at [12] and a French Apple pressing at [13] to give examples. Nowhere on these labels do you see "The White Album" mentioned. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC) The policy is irrelevant? What on earth are you talking about? We are discussing how to apply the policies of Wikipedia. Although I don't agree with Freshacconci above, I endorse completely that he argues on the basis of policy. If you think only the label's opinion matters, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, but it's just that simple. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Tell me, Ring Cinema. What does the record label say? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Your argument, I believe, is that we can ignore Wikipedia policy and just read the label discography. Can you accurately give my argument? I don't think you can. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The prevailing consensus is the official title of the album is the title of the article. You are the one who is pushing it. Consensus trumps policy in this case. Also, you did not answer my question. What is the title on the record labels? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Steelbeard1: From [[14]]:

If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance.

Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye and caustic soda, is ...

The text "The White Album" is such an additional name. Policy is dead clear on this, I have no idea what you are on about. Nobody is claiming that "The White Album" is the official name. OK?

Ring Cinema: When somebody has misunderstood something, try to figure out what the misunderstanding is, instead of trying to misrepresent what they say. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Digression not directly relevant to the question posed at the beginning of the section

I understand that Steelbeard above claims that "consensus trumps policy". I will accept that as a concession that he agrees with me that I am following policy and he is not. Sounds good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Do I need to refer to the Talk:ABN AMRO debacle of a few years back? The official name of the financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, but some editors insisted on "ABN Amro" as the name of the article, leading to quite an edit war. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Have you heard of WP:IAR? Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Which rules do you think you're ignoring? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC) "Reliable sources" which use an erroneous name as the actual name (e.g. "ABN Amro") rather than the official legal name ABN AMRO for the financial institution in question. In this context, the official name of the album is The Beatles and not the popular alternate name "The White Album." Nowhere on the record or CD label of any configuration of this album is it identified as "The White Album." ¿Comprende? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC) You don't make any sense, and this also has nothing to do with the issue discussed in this section. Collapsing this as well.--OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus trumps policy?

Speaking as someone uninvolved in this dispute but merely observing how it plays out, the statement "consensus trumps policy" is an interesting argument. Where does the Wikipedia:Consensus policy suggest that? All I see is that consensus should be grounded in policy, because Wikipedia policy is the prevailing consensus. See in particular WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. A possible exception would be when policy contradicts common sense, but I don't see that as the real issue here.

If you want policy changed, the place to do that is over at Wikipedia:Village pump.

And by the way, for the purpose of closing the debate (which I came here prepared to do, but decided to wait a bit) I see no consensus emerging in the discussion above, unless some of the supporters have changed their mind without striking their comments. The participants are almost evenly split. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't "voting"; consensus is achieved by persuasively arguing for or against a particular change. It is not about tallying up the number of "Support"s and "Oppose"s and declaring a "winner" from the majority. If you have the ability to close a discussion such as this one, you should already know that. Radiopathy •talk• 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, but that's beside the main point regarding the notion than consensus trumps policy. I see nobody being persuaded, except for one vocal participant who agreed to accept that consensus may be against him. That isn't grounds for closure. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who is that participant? I took a brief scan back through the discussion, and didn't see it. Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See comment by Ring Cinema above this section. But on second look I guess I am misinterpreting the comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you guys arguing about? The official name of the album is absolutely irrelevant. Even if the article changes name, the lead paragraph doesn't need changing. The first mention of "The White Album" should of course be bolded as all alternative names (official or unofficial) always are. These are not part of the discussion. Can somebody please actually comment on the original question. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Opening 'graph

I must say that the stuff about A Doll's House seems an extremely trivial issue to put in the opening paragraph. Shouldn't the focus be on the music? Kauffner (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this should be pushed down in to the article body. However, it's not clear where to put it at the moment; it seems the article is somewhat in need of an overhaul—perhaps the efforts spent arguing above might be better spent trying to get this article to GA status? Uniplex (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The White Album to listen online (permission)

Here is the resolution: Permission to use materials related to The Beatles. Please, spare me from vandals. ID of the owner: beatles80@yandex.com - 95.31.124.213 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

First, please do not accuse other editors of vandalism when they are legitimate edits. Reverting what appears to be spam is not vandalism. Secondly, unless I am mistaken, obtaining your permission to link the site is not the issue. You cannot possibly have permission to stream Beatles music. How many years did it take iTunes to get permission to sell Beatles music, never mind streaming it for free. Anyone else? freshacconci talktalk 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The copyrights of most, if not all, of the audio, video and images found on the aforementioned web site are owned by EMI Records Ltd. and Apple Corps Ltd. and therefore violates WP:ELNEVER. This external link also violates WP:ELNO #4 and #11. Piriczki (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Album cover artist credit

I have added the album cover artist to the caption for the cover image. Per a current discussion at Template talk:Infobox album, this is being suggested as a way to credit the cover artist in the infobox, without having to add a new field to the infobox. one editor has reported having this information edited out when he attempts it. If anyone feels this usage of the caption field is inappropriate, and edits it out, i wont revert, but would appreciate them adding to the discussion, either here or at the template. likewise, if anyone feels this is an effective way to document cover artists, commenting here or there would help. I just want to be sure that there is a fairly standard, acceptable way to document album cover artists, just as there is for book jacket artists.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Singles

This section claims that the song "Hey Jude" was recorded at the White Album sessions. It wasn't. It was recorded prior, and moreover at a different studio. The White Album was recorded at EMI (Abbey Road), whereas "Hey Jude" was recorded at Trident Studios. This can all be confirmed by related wiki articles on the White Album and Hey Jude as well as off site references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.110.58 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Beatles "The/the" Issue Mediation Input Requirements

Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sales tallies for double albums

could someone out there clarify something for me regarding double albums? I believe each copy sold according to the RIAA for a double album that is less than 100 minutes in length is counted only once not twice. someone on the Physical Grafitti page keeps claiming that the album has sold half of what the tally is on the RIAA due to it being a double album.

I can confirm the RIAA count double albums as two sales. Look at the RIAA's all-time top platinum awards, and the top 3 Beatles certifications are all for double albums: this one, and the "red" and "blue" greatest hits double CD's. It is on its face absurd to even suspect the White album would have sold 19 million in the States compared to 12 million for Abbey Road or 11 million for Sgt. Pepper. But sales of 9.5 million for the White album make more sense. The reference to this album having sold 30 million worldwide is unsourced and specious at best.Rockgolf (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles & Apple Records

Is not this album the very first release from the band for their Apple Records label in 1968? The Budzone guy 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

You are correct! This is noted in the first sentence of the Background section of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Manson

Is there anything else we can add in regards to the Charles Manson obsession over the album and the role it likely played in their crimes? I see one line about it, but surely there must be something else we can add to talk about this. It did play a pretty big factor in all that stuff. For years now (my entire life) I have heard of the connections between the two. Just a thought.Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction between related articles

In this article, it says, "According to some reports, Lennon left Rishikesh because he felt personally betrayed by rumours that Maharishi had made sexual advances toward *Mia Farrow's sister Prudence*, who had accompanied The Beatles on their trip.". However, in the article "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", it says, "During their stay, the Beatles heard that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards *Mia Farrow*.". Which is it, Prudence or Mia? Is it supposed to be both? I might just be reading it wrong somehow... Patientbomb (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It was neither. The rumor about Maharishi, started by Magic Alex, and likely untrue, was that he had made sexual advances toward a female follower, a nurse from California. Piriczki (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pop

This album has been listed as a pop album, even though only about 2 or 3 of the songs on this 30 track album are listed as pop on their separate Wikipedia pages, so that doesn't make the whole album "pop", and the source given to back up this genre addition calls the album a "state of the art rendition of the current pop, rock, and folk rock sounds". In the 60s, most popular modern music was described as pop, so is this source really that reliable? The album has always been said to be made when the Beatles had left pop and evolved into a more experimental/rock band; this has always been called the most experimental Beatles album. Y45ed (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How many of those song articles aren't poorly referenced? (WP:Other stuff) Where are you getting your information from for the last two things you said? Dan56 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Pop music" has an extremely broad definition. I've been listening to this album for almost 40 years and I've never regarded it as anything but a pop album, for what that's worth. All the elements are here: short-to-medium length songs, written in a basic verse-chorus structure, the common employment of repeated choruses, melodic tunes, and catchy hooks. How is this not a pop album? ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Heavily distorted hard rock songs, use of non-traditional rock/pop instruments, unusual time signatures, musical experimentation, frequent genre changes (almost every song), and complex musicianship and song structures all are valid reasons that suggest this is not a pop album. Y45ed (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

All I'm hearing is a lot of your personal opinion. We don't deal in opinions here, we deal in verifiable facts. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Y45ed: - The genre parameter currently lists "Rock, pop, folk rock, rock and roll". Is there a notable fifth genre that should be added? GoingBatty (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

^^Mr. Anonymous: I feel "Hard Rock" should be added as several of the songs such as Back in the U.S.S.R, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Birthday, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and my Monkey and of course Helter Skelter. Also, to whoever said "how is this not a pop album?" is that not your opinion also? The Beatles play rock music, I think that is the general consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.33.59 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that classifies this album as a hard rock album? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous: Well alot of the Wiki articles for the songs themselves classify them as "hard rock", so why shouldn't the album itself have "hard rock" as a subgenre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.33.59 (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a hard album to classify, since it contains songs of many different genres. Could you please provide a reliable source that considers this album a hard rock album? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

David N Howard's book "Sonic Alchemy: Visionary Music Producers and Their Maverick Recordings" says "[The White Album] contained a panoply of wondrous songs that included acoustic numbers, idiosyncratic pop, heavy-duty hard rock, and flat-out experimentalism". This source is reliable and supports the addition of both hard rock and experimental to the infobox. 86.154.171.217 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I get "hard rock", but how do you know the writer is referring to "experimental music"? Dan56 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Release Date

As of 2014-02-14, the release date in the text specifies just November 1968. Adding the actual Day-Of-The-Month (22), to the text.Richard416282 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done by another editor. GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Withdrawn.

The Beatles (album) → The Beatles (White Album) – The new title would include both the official name of the album as well as the ubiquitous nickname, thus following natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation per WP:NCDAB. This would align with the album's current listing in The Beatles lead section and on Template:The Beatles albums. Most reliable sources add some variant of 'White Album' to the album's name: Allmusic and iTunes are two examples. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This may suit iTunes or Allmusic, but not our naming conventions. Reminds me of Football (soccer), which has been rightly rejected. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

How does the proposed title not satisfy Wiki conventions? WP:Commonname implies that the most used name (White Album) be included, and there is no strict requirement that self-titled albums follow the Band name (album) convention. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support From my recollections, its been called the White Album many times and is commonly known as that as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose if we strictly apply the WP:NCDAB guidelines. In a parenthetical disambiguation title, the disambiguating word or phrase in parentheses should either be the generic class, the subject or context to which the topic applies, or an adjective describing the topic. An alternative name or a proper noun should be avoided, like "Football (soccer)", as much as possible. In addition, I still favor "The Beatles (album)" as a sort of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC like title since there seems to be no other separate self-titled Beatles album article. I also have no objection to move the article across the The White Album redirect so we have a natural disambiguation title instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See my response to Radiopathy. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is misinterpretation of "natural disambiguation" here. Natural disambiguation is using another term or more complete name as the title, not appending the alternative name in parentheses to the end of the title which result in a longer, less concise, more clunky construction than the parenthetical disambiguation. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll concede the move request. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Beatles is the official title of the album. Any one searching "The White Album" is redirected to this article. It is clearly covered in the article that White Album is a colloquialism. The reason for the parenthetical "album" is to distinguish this album from the band of the same name. This has been discussed exhaustively before. Radiopathy •talk• 04:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the previous discussion but noted that it failed as it suggested moving to merely the nickname, and was voted down by proponents of the official name. I thought my suggestion would be a suitable compromise; I find The Beatles (album) to be a very clunky construction like most parenthetical disambiguation; at least including 'The White Album' in the parentheses adds the natural disambiguation appended to the album to disambiguate it from the band itself. As WP:NCDAB points out, natural disambiguation is preferable to simple parenthetical disambiguation, and my take on that is that The Beatles (White Album) is thus a more preferable construct to The Beatles (album). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Move / change of name

The album title is 'The BEATLES'. The capitalisation is significant and a deliberate feature, (indicated by the fact that the word 'The' isn't written in capitals). Shouldn't the page title be capitilised in the same way? Obscurasky (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We would consider this more of a feature of packaging, not the intended writing of the title. It's just written this way on the sleeve; it's not actually meant to indicate how the title should be written elsewhere (i.e. it's a feature of the cover art only). Even if it were, however, we shouldn't cater to this one instance of extraordinary capitalization. LazyBastardGuy 03:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation. Obscurasky (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help in any way I can ;) LazyBastardGuy 01:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)