Talk:With the Beatles

Proposed merge with Beatlemania! With the Beatles

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

The result was to merge. This discussion has been open for almost a year and I think we've had all the input we're going to get from anyone on it. LazyBastardGuy 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If the only difference is the title and artwork, there is no reason Beatlemania can’t be mentioned on this article (with, of course, appropriate information such as catalog numbers and areas & dates of release and so forth). It practically doesn't count as a separate album. LazyBastardGuy 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Beatlemania! With The Beatles was released to an entirely different market; it is notable as a Beatles album released outside the UK before the Beatles became international stars. As a practical matter, we can't clutter this article with mentions of other variations of With The Beatles throughout the world. Radiopathy •talk•

From what I can see, though, there's not much to even use. Location, date, name, artwork difference and catalog information is really all I can see. Other than that, there's nothing that can be said about it that can't be said here and, therefore, no need for a separate article. LazyBastardGuy 02:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Another thought...there are two other Canada-only titles: Twist and Shout (album) and The Beatles' Long Tall Sally; we can't justify merging one of the albums and having separate articles about the other two. Radiopathy •talk• 16:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could merge those into their own article, e.g. Beatles albums issued by Capitol Records or something, just to denote that it's a series of albums whose only differences from their core discography counterparts are reorganized content and cover art (since redescribing the songs on that page or their respective pages would be a waste of time if they either have their own articles and/or are described on the article for the album from which they originally come). They certainly seem significant enough, but again there does not appear to be an entire article that can be written about each of them, at least not in most cases. Good catch, by the way. LazyBastardGuy 16:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think so. I think both of those albums stand enough on their own, while Beatlemania! With the Beatles is just a slightly adjusted version of With the Beatles. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I have to agree. It's basically the same album, just slightly adjusted to fit in a different market. The track listing and certification can easily be merged with this article. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we'd have to merge all of the albums that were "slightly adjusted" for their markets into the UK Beatles album articles - not very practical. Radiopathy •talk• 23:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A merge need not mean reiterating track listings; it can also just mean a small sentence stating such a release occurred. Which, in my opinion, is really all they need. LazyBastardGuy 01:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bad idea overall and smacks of censorship, or nationalism, or something not quite right. Just leave it. Radiopathy •talk• 12:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How, if I may ask, does this promote censorship and/or nationalism? I am not speaking from any such point of view. For reference, I looked at the contents of the box set, The U.S. Albums; granted, some of these have some good long info, but several are again reconstituted versions of albums already released in the UK. Several of them are in fact "slightly adjusted" editions of their British albums and are already given their own sections, the most they would need, in the articles for the core catalog editions, which is exactly what I'm proposing we do for Beatlemania. Other articles do not appear to have any reasonable prospect for expansion and are often little more than repackaging of songs given greater depth on the core catalog items' articles; they may again be significant by themselves but there is no practical reason to have separate articles for them, as they clearly are not of the same significance as their core catalog counterparts, so they can easily be merged into one. Leaving these as they are or trying to expand them to include information from the original album articles is an unnecessary WP:CFORK, where WP:RELAR does not apply. LazyBastardGuy 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Once again - hopefully more to the point this time: This is not the same album that was released in the UK. The title is not the same, and neither is the cover artwork. They may be similar to one another, but they are clearly not the same album.
  

This album is notable for having been the first Beatles album released outside the UK; it pre-dates the release of Introducing... The Beatles in the US by nearly two months.

You are grasping at straws to try to push your deletionist agenda here; notability and historical significance still trump your arguments. Time to drop the stick. Radiopathy •talk• 16:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, settle down there, partner. There is no reason to accuse anyone of any kind of agenda. My viewpoint is not to eliminate any mention of the album on Wikipedia; indeed, if we merged it we could leave a redirect where its dedicated article used to be. With all due respect, I have quoted and referenced policy and not only are you not doing likewise, you also are not using the policies I quote to illustrate how they do not support my arguments as I think they do. That, I thought, was the whole point of a discussion. The only other editor to chime in here supported my initial proposal at the very least, even if not my suggestion to merge the rest into a list article (I can't really tell from their response to that suggestion of mine but since that is not the point of this RFC I will not press it further). WP:STICK only applies to editors who are constantly trying to go against consensus that has already been established; it is not for someone continuing a discussion where that someone and another editor support what is being proposed and a third does not. I am sorry you don't like what I'm proposing here, but that's not reason enough to shoot me down. If the albums really are so worthy of their own articles, tell me how we can expand them to justify keeping them separate OR give me good, policy-based reasons (and no, "It's notable" is not good enough). LazyBastardGuy 16:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I should point out, no one is disputing that it's notable. That is emphatically not the point here. The question I am asking is, does it serve readers or benefit the encyclopedia at all to have a separate article on the subject when this one is mostly based on another? There are many reasons to keep and many reasons to delete (and, just to avoid the "deletionist agenda" comment, I note I am not trying to delete anything), but if the reasons for not keeping, whether in quantity or quality, outweigh those for keeping it, guess what's gonna happen? LazyBastardGuy 17:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You also didn't answer my question - what about this proposal implies nationalism or censorship? I'd like to know. LazyBastardGuy 17:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. Actually, I don't even know if there is really something worth merging. The cover art? It may be different, but according to Template:Infobox album, we wouldn't even be able to have it on the target page: "Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included." The track listing? Exactly the same, but for a matter of one or two seconds in the lengths, nothing that a {{Track listing| collapsed = yes}} can't handle, if really needed. Information on the Canadian certifications can easily be added to the certifications section of this article. By the way, LazyBastardGuy said he's not disputing notability, but I'm willing to question it per WP:NALBUMS. We have only two sources in Beatlemania! With the Beatles, and one of them is a review of the UK edition, already listed here. Notability was not asserted here. Nor is it inherited. If Beatlemania! With the Beatles is notable for being the first non-UK Beatles, then let this be proved with sources. You see, the article itself justifies its own merging by claiming things like "The recording is exactly the same as [...] With The Beatles, except for additional text being applied to the album's cover and the fact that this release was only available in monaural." Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on that, we could easily start with this sentence: "It was the first Beatles album to be released outside of the UK; it was released in Canada in mono as Beatlemania! With the Beatles." We could add more, of course, but this would be a good place to start, in my opinion. LazyBastardGuy 17:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose the merger of the Canadian and UK albums. 142.204.141.222 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Care to tell us why? Remember that discussions aren't votes; we're not counting people up, we're examining their arguments. LazyBastardGuy 16:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Although the track listing is the same as With the Beatles, the album is not the same in title and release area. It is also one of the few Canadian only Beatles albums Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Beatleswhobeachboys: Does that mean it was intended as a separate album altogether, or could they be essentially considered one and the same? That's one of the things we need to address. My question is, how much unique content can either article have? Would it clutter this article to also include whatever unique content could go in the other one? Would it serve a purpose to have two separate articles on what may be essentially the same topic, or would it just be a waste of time? LazyBastardGuy 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose. I wanted to support a merge, if it's the same record give or take a few seconds, but that would mean losing the cover art (according to Victão Lopes, above), a nice period variation and to me the main point of interest. Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rothorpe: The cover art would not necessarily need to go. In some form or another we could include it; we may need further discussion on that point if what Victão Lopes cited is true (personally I think it would qualify since the title was also modified for such a release). We finally have a response that does not robotically bring up the album's significance without qualification as to why it would prevent the merge, so I would like to applaud you for that :D LazyBastardGuy 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Merge, retaining the cover, then. Rothorpe (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that I wouldn't oppose merging the Canadian cover art, I just think it may not pass Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 05:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not a problem at all, like I said we can discuss it if necessary. LazyBastardGuy 06:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Beatlemania! With the Beatles is the first North American Beatles album. Its notability and historical significance is therefore irrefutable. Merging it into the UK description would serve no purpose other than muting its status as first past the post on this side of the pond. The suggested merger box should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeophile (talk • contribs) 11:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Burkeophile: ...so? How does this imply there is unique information pertaining exclusively to Beatlemania! and not to the album on which it is based? The significance argument has been beaten into the ground, and we need to focus more on whether, for Wikipedia's own purposes (not Beatles historians'), it would do any good to have a separate article or collate the two as much as we can. LazyBastardGuy 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose You're entirely correct, LazyBastardGuy, it "implies"' nothing; rather the album IS essentially, irrefutably and notably the first Beatles album in North America. Were it to be amalgamated into the With the Beatles article, that historical fact would be muted. That's why some people above have their knickers in a twist. The butchered U.S. albums are just as equally not really separate albums as this renamed and re-serialed and re-artworked album. It would equally be a mistake to amalgamate those albums into their related albums descriptions. The simple fact is that the three initial Canadian Beatles albums were part of The Beatles reception historically. Go ahead and keep moving the goalposts, LazyBastardGuy, but reality will not change at my or your whim. Peace. [comment made by Burkeophile (talk · contribs)

(edit conflict) My, are we taking things personally. We must consider this in the context of Wikipedia, not anything else. I don't know what goalpost moving you accuse me of, I've been pretty consistent with my arguments throughout this discussion, but the accusation was unnecessary. At any rate, you've done nothing to prove that the separate article is actually needed; you've simply rehashed the circular logic we've seen so far. It may be significant as you describe, but that does nothing in and of itself to explain why a separate article is necessary. I've seen no evidence so far that this is different from other albums retitled slightly and issued with other bare minimal modifications. Sliver: The Best of the Box was released in Japan as Sliver: The Best of Nirvana +3, but that doesn't make the retitled Japanese release a separate album. Various singles get released with different tracklistings and cover art yet they don't receive separate articles no matter how notable they are in their various parts of the world; rather, they're all contained in one single article. It should go without saying, but I will nevertheless state it for the sake of those who may be tempted to respond in kind here: Baseless accusations and personal stakes in a particular subject hold no weight in discussions. So if you would like, please try again and tell me why the Canadian album is so different it's not just a modified release but its own album. While you're at it, would you mind filling out that article with more material that cannot and should not be included in this one?

I would also like to point out that your example is absolutely backwards - that the Capitol US albums are indeed individual albums, not mere reworkings of existing ones (even if they brought nothing new to the table). It seems I am not the one moving the goalposts here; you singlehandedly attempted to change what the criteria for a unique album release even are by decreeing that the Capitol US Beatles albums do not qualify as their own standalone albums. Just because I look out the window of a moving car and see a tree pass by does not mean the tree was the one moving. LazyBastardGuy 06:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

...based on your last edit, are you @Burkeophile:? Did you put in two votes under different user accounts? If so, that qualifies as sockpuppetry. If you are two separate people, then Burkeophile should probably read WP:REFACTOR. LazyBastardGuy 06:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose You are assuming far too much and appear to be making a personal attack in an attempt to silence the irrefutable truth I have spoken. The diversions you are now trying to lure me into appear to be a further attempt to mute objective fact. I also fear that you have falsely accused me of making baseless personal attacks while accusing me of trying to "vote" twice. (In case you are unaware, this is not a vote, LazyBastardGuy). I had simply forgotten to sign in and fixed that after I had realised. LazyBastardGuy, Please Please Me was not released in Canada. An album that was only in monaural form, Beatlemania! With the Beatles was. It was followed by the LPs Twist and Shout and The Beatles Long Tall Sally. Unlike the later, butchered U.S. LP, Meet the Beatles, Beatlemania! With the Beatles did not remove any tracks from the record it was derived from. Nevertheless, it is, by virtue of its changed name, cover art and label, a unique release by the same standards that Meet the Beatles was. If Beatlemania! With the Beatles is to be amalgamated, then all out-of-UK releases need to be amalgamated with their parent albums, an unwieldy and pointless exercise. Through most of the 1980s, Beatlemania! With the Beatles remained in print (I bought it in its much later stereophonic release). It was never repackaged as plain-old With the Beatles. Canadians could not buy the EMI With the Beatles except as an expensive import (yes, it was available that way despite the presence of a domestic record with the same tracks). We also had the less-expensive option of buying the domestic Beatlemania! With the Beatles, but we then would have the Canadian, not British, record. Canada did not see the release of With the Beatles until the late 80s and then only on CD. Furthermore, this CD release was then only monaural. This collection of songs was not on an official digital stereo release until 2009. Beatlemania! With the Beatles was the first Beatles album in North America. Like it or not, it is part of The Beatles' reception history, as is the butchered Meet the Beatles, as are the Mexican MusArt LPs, which someone should add in their own entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeophile (talk • contribs) 23:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it's part of any history. I'm disputing whether it needs its own article (and by the way, if it's not a vote, you can and probably should use indentations under previous posts and not keep putting Oppose at the beginning of your posts). That's all some nice history there, but is there any reason none of it can be included on this article and not the other? I apologize for suspecting sockpuppetry, and I should note I'm not trying to obfuscate any kind of fact - I'm wondering whether any of it can't be included on THIS article, and must go exclusively on the other. I am also wondering whether there would be enough such material that we could not simply include a section devoted to the release, and I argue that for several reasons:

1. Its audio content is identical to that of With the Beatles and would therefore have the same history as the audio content of With the Beatles
2. Its name is very similar to that of its parent (we could also include why the name was modified for overseas release)
3. And so is its artwork. The artwork could easily be included on the same page with perhaps some description of what makes it different.

Also, I did not accuse you of anything. I asked if you had intended to vote twice and make it appear as two separate people, in which case it WOULD be sockpuppetry. You may want to be careful in the future as you may run into trouble if you do it again. Please don't misquote me or put words in my mouth; that's not wikikosher.

I should also note that this discussion does not concern other Beatles articles; if I see it necessary I will open discussions for them along similar lines, but this one in particular struck me as waiting to happen. Other albums are dissimilar enough the best merger I could conceive of at this point would be all their own article, not merged with the articles for the albums to which they bear the closest resemblance (although again I do maintain that the differences could easily be explained in their own articles until such time as I see proof that a full unique article devoted to such a subject is necessary).

I maintain that you made a personal attack because you accused me of moving goalposts. Making false accusations is a personal attack; see WP:PERSONAL. If you want to say I'm moving the goalposts it's on you to prove how I did.

I also maintain that absolutely nothing you said has changed my opinion that Beatlemania! With the Beatles was little more than a repackaging of an existing album and should be treated as such, no matter how historically significant this repackaging was. I see no evidence that a wholly separate article is necessary. Anything you said that would be useful could be put on this article and would take up very little space. LazyBastardGuy 03:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree to disagree You clearly are more deeply embedded in Wikipedia culture than I am. That, I must concede. The only goalposts I believe you were moving were those pertaining to notability, which I believe is the gold standard of Wikipedia articles, and, given that the other two Canadian LPs were also unique to Canada, it seems silly to deny article status to one while keeping it for the other two. Meet the Beatles is also only a repackaging. Yes, it adds "I Saw Her Standing There", cuts some tracks and adds some dreadful tinniness to the audio, but it is a repackaging also with a very similar name (arguably more similar than Beatlemania! With the Beatles). Indeed, there's a slippery slope you will slide down if you claim that adding/subtracting tracks makes Meet the Beatlesunique and Beatlemania! With the Beatles simply a repackaging (I think you're aware of this or you would have emphasized that). LazyBastardGuy, this has all been in good faith, and if you feel you have been personally attacked, I'm sorry for the way you feel. I did not attack you and have no feeling of animosity towards you. Peace.

Arbitrary break

I've responded to pretty much everyone since I opened this discussion, which I understand is bad form generally. I've posted in a few places to advertise this discussion more widely, so hopefully more people will chime in, particularly people with more to add than the circular arguments I'm seeing so far. Especially if you have any other reasons the articles should not be merged, the floor is yours... LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no policy/guideline-based reasons given by anyone who opposes the merge, whereas most of the supporters have given policy/guideline-based reasons which support a merge of these two articles. Based on the quality of arguments from both sides (or rather lack of quality of arguments from the opposing side), I would say these articles should be merged as proposed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. As to why, that has already been covered very well. The naysayers mainly claim that the Canadian album is "not the same album" -- which is blatantly false; it IS the same album: same 14 songs, same order! Is that just a "remarkable coincidence"? All "historical" points, the variant cover image, may all be included in the merged article. Go for it already! 67.186.19.151 (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rock and Pop

Though they are sourced, Rock and Pop seem kind of redundant here, as the already listed Rock'N'Roll covers Rock, and Merseybeat covers both Pop and Rock. I think Rock'N'Roll and Merseybeat alone would cover the album's style perfectly without flooding the infobox. Poppermost2014 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on With the Beatles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150711134045/http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2955 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2955

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sold a million in the UK?

Is this WP:RS? In the UK in the 60s, people bought singles. Many record-players were only for 7" records that played at 45rpm. Famous "Album Awards" that occurred in the early 60's were to Victor Silvester, who was awarded a specially-made Silver Record for selling '250 000 albums in 25 years. Russ Conway was known in the UK as The King of the LPs, because his first SIX albums had total combined worldwide sales of 250 000 copies. Conway was also awarded with a specially-made Silver Record, and appeared on the front cover of Entertainment magazines, newspapers etc. for this extraordinary achievement...in 1961.

The Hit Parade at the time was NOT a "Singles Chart". It was for ALL Music releases. Only, it was almost always entirely singles, because even the best-selling albums couldn't reach the lowest levels of the Record Chart. Up to the release of the first Beatles LP only three albums had ever made it into the charts at all... Songs For Swingin Lovers by Frank Sinatra which peaked at Number 12, and 2 Elvis Presley albums.. Elvis Is Back, and G.I. Blues, which each only reached the very lowest levels of the chart.

Even Cliff Richard, who had singles sell over a million copies, knew that his best-selling albums wouldn't sell even sell 50,000 UK copies.People bought SINGLES, NOT ALBUMS.

It was therefore a shock when, in February 1962, Elvis was awarded a specially-made Silver Record for 250 000 UK sales of G.I Blues. The first album to ever sell a quarter of a million copies in the UK alone. It was claimed that G.I. Blues went on to sell 300 000 copies in the UK alone, making it the biggest-selling album in the UK...EVER.

But then in 1963, The Beatles were awarded TWO Silver Records. Because apparently both Please Please Me and With The Beatles had achieved UK sales of at least 250 000 copies. With The Beatles went much better than even that, soon being awarded a Gold Record for UK sales of one million copies! This is intriguing, as Please Please Me never entered the Charts at all, whereas With The Beatles reached an album high of Number 11. Only it was quickly in-and-out of the charts, spending only a small fraction of Songs For Swingin' Lovers' duration.

But... the UK publication DISC awarded Silver Records for any record that had sold 250 000 in the UK. But, to be presented with such an award, the record label had to first provide DISC with properly audited sales data and paperwork. NONE of G.I. Blues, Please Please me or With The Beatles were ever given DISC Silver Records, because none of those three records' audited sales data was ever presented to DISC. Meanwhile 17 Elvis and 26 Beatles SINGLES releases were able to be properly audited, and achieve DISC Silver Record presentations.

The BPI started out presenting Silver, Gold and Platinum Record Awards the same way...they needed properly audited sales data before presenting Record Awards. But, in 2013..all data was automatically fed into the database, and thus precise sales figures are there. In the UK, of course, Silver is 60 000 copies, Gold is 100 000 copies, Platinum is 300 000 copies, and Multi-Platinum follows logically where Double Platinum is 600 000 copies, Triple Platinum is 900 000 copies etc.. Therefore it is some reading...

• [bpi.co.uk/award/10774-3265-2] Frank Sinatra's Songs For Swingin Lovers was GOLD as of 2013. At least 100 000 sold, but under 300 000. This is perfectly consistent with Reality. And is still at that level.

• [1]. Another claimed "million seller", the South Pacific Soundtrack is PLATINUM. Meaning at least 300 000, but under 600 000.

• [2]. Please Please Me was Gold. Meaning, FIFTY YEARS after it was released, it had sold at least 100 000, but under 300 000. While this is technically consistent with the Silver Record award of 1963, it's extremely improbable. Please Please Me did receive its PLATINUM award in 2020, reaching 300 000 thanks to sales-equivalent streaming.

• [3]. With The Beatles' was GOLD" as of 2013. Meaning that fifty years after it was released, it had sold at least 100 000 copies, but under 300 000 copies. And, even with an extra decade-plus of sales and sales-equivalent streaming...it has not reached 300 000 combined sales and sales-equivalent streams. Fifty years after it received a special Gold Record for one million alleged sales, it has still failed to actually sell 30% of that figure.

• [4]. In 2013 G.I. Blueswas ineligible for even the lowest Sales Award. But in 2024, a mere 52 years after it received a specially-made record for 250 000 alleged UK sales, it did indeed get its SILVER Record Award, finally achieving actual UK sales of 60 000 copies. Less than 1/4 of its supposed achievements by February 1962.

And, NO, these aren't just the re-releases. These are sales figures in total. Vinyl, Audiotape, Compact Discs, Laser Discs, Downloads, Sales-Equivalent Streams...and More.

And other alleged "million-selling albums", such as A Nod Is As Good As A Wink... To A Blind Horse by The Faces, haven't even reached 60 000 actual UK sales(Silver Record Award) as of 10 May 2024!

So, did With The Beatles sell a million copies in the UK within its first 12 months? Absolutely not. 197.87.135.139 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)