Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archives: July 2012 – present

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

FYI, there is a discussion and straw poll taking place at the Beatles talk page. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Albums quality

hello,

I noted that some of their album articles are pretty low in quality. Why not start clean up those? You might want to start a project to get the articles to at least GA status. With The Beatles, for example, is nearly a stub; isn't it embarrassing? I am pretty sure there are 10 times more information which can be found in all the numerous Beatles books. There is not a single Beatles album which is not at least a GA. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I intend to get to some of those as soon as the recent disruption has ended. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

10 years later, it’s started again! Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Beatles "The/the" Issue Mediation Input Request

Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned elsewhere. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles

At List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles, several of the awards and nominations listed were not given to the Beatles, but to others for work associated with the Beatles.

The following table shows the entries that should be removed from the Grammy Awards list because they were not won by the group.

Year	Work	Category	Result	Actual honoree
1967	Revolver	Best Album Cover/Package, Graphic Arts	Won	Klaus Voormann
	"Michelle"	Song of the Year	Won	John Lennon & Paul McCartney (songwriter's award)
1968	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band	Best Album Cover/Package, Graphic Arts	Won	Peter Blake & Jann Haworth
	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band	Best Engineered Recording, Non-Classical	Won	Geoff Emerick
1969	"Hey Jude"	Song of the Year	Nominated	John Lennon & Paul McCartney
2008	Love	Best Compilation Soundtrack Album for Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media	Won	George Martin & Giles Martin, producers; Paul Hicks, engineer

In other words, the Beatles won 5 fewer Grammys and had 6 fewer total nominations than the existing chart implies. Shouldn't the ones listed above be removed? (As an aside, the Grammy for Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture or TV Special won by Let It Be was awarded to Harrison, Lennon, McCartney & Starr individually, not in the name of the Beatles, but that's more of a technicality.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=Beatles&title=&year=All&genre=All and http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?title=Sgt.+Pepper - I would tend to agree with you. GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=McCartney shows McCartney won a Grammy in 1966 for Best Contemporary (R&R) Solo Vocal Performance - Male Or Female for "Eleanor Rigby", which is not included in List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles. GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with that. Sure, the awards may not have been won by John, Paul, George, and Ringo, but they were won for the work done around them or in association with them. Where else would you list awards for covers of albums by The Beatles? And you wouldn't have the Lennon/McCartney songwriting awards on that page? Where else would you put them? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles templates

On many of the song articles, there is both a navbox and a track list template with the purpose of each to navigate between the other songs on the album. So, for example, on You Like Me Too Much there is both {{Help! (album)}} and {{Help! tracks}}. Since the navbox contains links to related articles and other albums, isn't the track list template simply redundant and unnecessary? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably makes more sense to have the song infobox have links to only the previous and next songs, with the track listing in the box at the bottom of the page. Only the album page itself should have the full track listing in the infobox, I think. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

George Harrison discograph FLC

Hello,

just wanted to let you know that George Harrison's discography was nominated on WP:FLC. Any comments are appreciated. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:21, 9 September 2012 (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 the band related to this wikiproject 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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest WP:TB be reassigned for WP:Talkback

I suggest WP:TB be reassigned for WP:Talkback. I checked the unlink tool, and the shortcut is only linked to this page and the Project page. The talkback template is used and search for much more often than WikiProject The Beatles. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Radical changes to the organisation of the current Beatles discography

I'm summarising a proposal here that I've made more extensively on the talk page for The Beatles Discography:

There are a range of discussions ongoing (and somewhat in an impasse) which I suggest might be served usefully by a redesignation of categories within the discography, primarily:

A new designation within the discography of 'Primary Releases' which would list the canonical set of studio albums followed by 'Live at the BBC', 'Anthology 1-3', 'Let It Be Naked', 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack' and 'Love' as albums which contain ORIGINAL and previously unreleased material, sanctioned and developed by The Beatles and Apple Corps.

This would imply that Capitol albums and other international albums be designated 'Secondary' and that 'Compilations' be defined strictly as containing previously issued items not, as currently, containing previously issued titles.

This would resolve complexities concerning remixed items ('Let It Be..Naked' and 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack' and 'Love') which are nevertheless, original and unreleased items developed and approved by The Beatles', their producers and Apple, and outtakes which cannot be said, in any sense, to be identical to previously issued items bearing the same title.

It is the current containing of such material within the category of 'Compilation Albums' which does not appropriately serve an understanding of these releases.

Michaelk xsx (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Michaelk xsx (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Traveling Wilburys

There is a discussion currently at Talk:Traveling Wilburys, involing what order the band memebers should be listed in. Any comments and/or opinions are welcome. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

List of The Beatles songs

There is a discussion going on over at at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Songs about how to name lists of songs; in particular, they are shying away from "X songs" in favor of "songs written by Z" and "songs recorded by X". Right now, our List of The Beatles songs contains a hodgepodge of songs involving The Beatles, including some written but not recorded by them or vice versa. I propose we split the article in two: List of songs written by The Beatles and List of songs recorded by The Beatles. The former list might conflict or need to be merged with List of songs written by Lennon/McCartney, List of songs written by John Lennon, List of songs written by Paul McCartney, List of songs written by George Harrison, List of songs written by Richard Starkey/Ringo Starr, etc. The latter list is the likely target for where the existing list might move to. If the splitting of this list is deemed too duplicative, we should at least move the existing page to List of songs by The Beatles, I think, and then split the songs they wrote but didn't record into a separate section. Thoughts? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The decision has been made to move List of The Beatles songs to List of songs recorded by the Beatles. That means we should go about separating out the information about who wrote the songs. Note also the existence of List of songs covered by the Beatles. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

beatlesbible.com

Just so you know this non-credible fan website is being used on 213 Beatles/Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starr related pages and needs to be deleted as a non credible source. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Heather McCartney up for deletion

Just so you all know, Heather McCartney is up for deletion. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have resigned

I hearby resign from The Beatles project and will no longer contribute to any article regarding The Beatles in Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. You are always welcome back in the future! Farewell. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I get a quick 2nd opinion by a long-term contributor

Please see List of songs recorded by the Beatles. There has been an edit war to add/remove info that looks to me like it is just plain false (and is called false by Gabe). I know Gabe knows his stuff, but... I'd still like a quick 2nd opinion (not by an SPA, but a long-term contributor) on whether this could, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, be considered "inappropriate but not false", or if it is intentionally adding false info. At stake is the type and duration of the block on the SPA's and IP's, how I handle page protection, and whether I have some apologies to make or not. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's unsourced, but yes, I can confirm a few of those songs were recorded (though never released) by the Beatles ("All I Want is You" was a precursor to "Dig a Pony", "Can You Take Me Back" exists as a full three-minute piece, "Circles" was recorded as a demo at Kinfauns, "Six'o'clock" makes a brief appearance on the "Fly on the Wall" segment of Let It Be... Naked, etc.). Regardless, it is highly inappropriate to add those without reliable sources, and I am not aware of the existence of many of the songs ("Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying" and "Everybody's Got Sorrows", to name two) as Beatles recordings. They could very well be fictitious, but I cannot say definitively. Either way, I am inclined to believe that this is part of a larger pattern of Beatles-related trolls. I recommend an indef block for all SPAs and an extremely long block for all IPs. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I just mentioned on the list's talk page, and as alluded to by Evan above, it becomes diminishingly difficult to differentiate between obscure (but authentic) bootleg recordings and forged or mislabeled recordings. That's why I suggested criteria for inclusion on the list, to explicitly avoid having to deal with sorting out the difference (which would likely be original research). Meanwhile, this particular edit war, as Evan says, seems to be drive-by vandalism by sockpuppets, not good-faith edits by new users. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, both of you. I've semi'd the article for 3 months. Let me know if the disruption continues elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

George Harrison FAC

For those who may have missed it, George Harrison is currently a Featured Article candidate here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Russian Beatlemania seeks help (international solidarity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=531639643&oldid=531635152#State_Holiday_in_Honor_of_The_Beatles_.28we_ask_of_help.29 (was rollback: topic is not relevant there). Not spam (state websites - not spam). Solidarity of fans only exists. Please help with voting ! - 78.106.213.37 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

Cleanup listing for WikiProject The Beatles

Thanks to User:Svick, we now have a Cleanup listing for WikiProject The Beatles. Of the 2777 articles in this project 692 or 24.9 % are marked for cleanup, with 1130 issues in total.

Could we come up with a fun way to do this cleanup, such as creating a Beatles barnstar for those who do the most cleanup? GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New film categories

Hi. I noticed categories for Dylan and Elvis in Category:Biographical films about musicians and so thought it was time to give Category:Films associated with the Beatles some more structure with subcats Category:Films about the Beatles and Category:Documentary films about the Beatles. I don't know where to place such fanciful works as Help! and Magical Mystery Tour -- I suppose they can be said to be "about" the Beatles. And for biographical films, fiction or non-fiction, about a Beatles member, I'll work on the assumption that one is so defined (at least in part) all of one's life, whether a member of the group or not. Anyway, please feel free to make any adjustments you feel necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthology 2 cover

It seems that TheBeatles.com uses a different version of the Anthology 2 album cover than what appears on Wikipedia, both separately and as part of the Anthology collage. (Though I note that this is the site for the film, rather than the albums; the Wikipedia article on the film doesn't have a cover.)

Both versions show portions of the album covers for With the Beatles and Rubber Soul, with the former portion showing George and Ringo in both versions. The version on Wikipedia (which also appears in many places on the Web) shows George in the latter portion, as well. The version on TheBeatles.com, however, shows John in the latter portion.

Compare:

• Collage with John
• Collage with George
• Anthology 2 with John
• Anthology 2 with George

I don't know which version is newer or more canonical, nor do I know where we could get a high/encyclopedia-quality image of the version on TheBeatles.com, but I haven't seen the difference mentioned anywhere else, so I thought I'd put it here for consideration. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Count off

It seems Beatles are big fans of the count off. We might want to keep an eye on that article. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Rolling Stone reviews from Beatles album articles

Recently user:Dan56 removed the Rolling Stone magazine reviews from the articles The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road, see here and here. The reason for removal isn't clear but appears to have something to do with the fact that Rolling Stone did not use a star rating prior to 1981. By that logic, the Rolling Stone reviews for all albums released during that era (1967–1980) would be removed from Wikipedia. The purpose of the album ratings template is to provide a summary of notable professional reviews and omitting Rolling Stone, a leading U.S. music magazines whose reviews carry considerable weight, from the summary would be a glaring omission affecting both historical accuracy and neutrality by its absence. If others would like to comment, perhaps a consensus can be reached on whether or not to include Rolling Stone reviews in the album ratings template in Beatles album articles. Piriczki (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Piriczki. I don't know if Dan56 had other reasons for removing them maybe, but I'm all for seeing pre-1981 RS reviews appearing. But as long as they are genuine reviews – I'm not clear whether he deleted a proper review rating or just a listing containing a "score". (For instance, looking at Band on the Run#Release and reception, that Rolling Stone Album Guide rating should be removed, imo – it just links to this list of albums, with a star rating beside each entry.)

With bona fide album articles, It's hard enough as it is to track down contemporaneous album reviews (which I think add something essential to album articles, particularly from the 1960s and '70s); the last thing we should do, surely, is rule out those that didn't adopt a star rating. Template:Album ratings is clear on this point: "If no rating is given in the review you should use one of the words "favorable" or "unfavorable" to describe the review, possibly allowing for "ambivalent", "mixed", "extremely favorable" and more, but keep it short and simple." What I do think we should give thought to removing are those so-called reviews from a Rolling Stone online artist page or album guide – or similar – ie, where star ratings are given beside a list of the artist's releases, but there's no dedicated review of each album to speak of. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mind Games release date.

Me and User:JG66 have been having a discussion over the US release date for Lennon's Mind Games. So far this is what we've gathered as possible release dates:

• 29 October (Blaney, Madinger & Easter)
• 31 October (Spizer)
• 2 November (Badman, Castleman & Podrazik, Hill & Clayton)
• non-specific date in November (A Legend, Buskin, Schaffner)

Sources:

• Blaney, John Lennon: Listen to This Book
• Madinger & Easter, Eight Arms to Hold You
• Spizer, The Beatles on Apple Records
• Badman, Beatles Diary Volume 2
• Castleman & Podrazik, All Together Now
• Hill & Clayton, The Beatles: A Photographical Journey of the Fab Four
• A Legend has no writer or author credit.
• Buskin, John Lennon: His Life and Legend
• Schaffner, The Beatles Forever

Does anyone have any other source(s) for the US release date? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguators

It appears that articles in this project are often disambiguated with "(The Beatles song)" and "(The Beatles album)", where it would seem to me (and to others at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Revolution (The Beatles song) and Revolver (The Beatles album)) that "(Beatles song)" and "(Beatles album)" would be better. Is there any objection to going that way? Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of starting another long, drawn out discussion, I would say titles are different from running text. That's why this page is Wikiproject The Beatles and not Wikiproject the Beatles. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, with regard to capitalisation of parenthetical disambiguators, I have to say that I (not to sound flip or anything) emphatically do not care. If we're just discussing the general principle of disambiguating by "Beatles" rather than "The/the Beatles", I don't object to that, and it kind of makes sense. When was the last time you called Sgt. Pepper a "the Beatles album", or "Paperback Writer" a "the Beatles single", anyway? Maybe WP:COMMONNAME applies even to disambiguations? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Dicklyon, Evan and HotStop make some strong points here. Dicklyon's suggestion that we adopt a more simple approach to parenthetical disambiguators would seem quite reasonable, as simpler is almost always better IMO. On the other hand, as Hotstop stated, title case does not follow the same rules as running text, but then if we remove the the altogether, then this isn't an issue per se. Further, as Evan points out, Beatles album is far more common than a "the Beatles album" (look at the front cover of MMT or the back cover of Abbey Road; even the Beatles would sometimes disgard "the" on their releases). On my Sirius XM radio they simply put "Beatles", "Moody Blues" or "Kinks", choosing to simplify the reference as Dicklyon's above suggestion. Having said that, I don't in anyway object to Dicklyon's proposal, which I don't see as an issue with title case since we would be omitting the the altogether, so its really not a matter of whether or not to cap the definite article, since it wouldn't be there to worry about. I also think that the vast majority of reliable sources treat the term as Dicklyon suggests we do here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping 'the' too. This should probably be taken to a larger venue first, however, because they all follow use an uppercase The. See Category:The Rolling Stones songs or Category:The Who songs, for example. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point HotStop, but I don't see any trend towards Wikiproject consistency, i.e. nobody (TMK) has gone to any other music project demanding consistency with the Beatles' project, but in actuality, the MoS is/was already quite clear on the "t/T" issue, so that the recent debate regarding the Beatles is largely unconnected to other band pages, IMO. If anything, the community as a whole seems to reject the idea that what is applied in one area must be mandated to all others that are related. Perhaps Dicklyon will weigh-in again here soon with some clarification regarding your concern. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of capitalization; this is an issue of including the article the. And it seems quite clear to me that it doesn't belong. I see the parenthetical disambiguator as a phrase that could precede the ambiguous name. In other words, you wouldn't say "the best-selling The Beatles album Abbey Road"; you would say "the best-selling Beatles album Abbey Road". So, "Beatles album", not "The Beatles album", would be the disambiguator. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well stated Tariqabjotu! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that we have general agreement that "The" doesn't belong in the parenthetical disambiguators. The next question is whether anyone has energy to work on fixing... Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, we thought that you were going to do it! I would be glad to help if you can give me some direction. Is it just a matter of moving "Hey Jude (The Beatles song") to "Hey Jude (Beatles song)"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Archivals

Yeepsi (talk · contribs) has been archiving Beatles related talk pages to archive pages, but he hasn't linked anything, so the archives are effectively disappearing, unless you examine his edit history to find out where they went. There's no edit summary link to the archival location, nor is there a {{archivebox}} link. The entire talk pages contents are removed, unlike bots, which usually leave behind 3 threads, so it looks like blanking, unless you examine his edit history.

Can someone go along a fix all the talk pages, so that they include a back link {{archivebox}} to the archival locations? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, gimme some time. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I may have missed one or two, though. :P Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

John Lennon Statue in Cuba.png

image:John Lennon Statue in Cuba.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Police artist image of murder of John Lennon.jpg

Hi, folks. Can someone tell me the authoritative source of this image? I didn't find it. Only it, but it isn't enough. Suddenly, it isn't the image of police artist? And if it's done by them, then why is it not in the public domain? After all, he did it in the performance of the service. Or not? --Morganvolter (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

… and a suggested deletion

On the other hand, I think a title that should be removed from any list of recommended sources is Elliot Huntley's 2004 Harrison bio, Mystical One. I've read one reviewer saying of this book that the author is "desperately in need of an editor"; the more I read of Mystical One, the more I think he might need a lawyer as well. The instances of Huntley directly taking text from previously published works and passing it off as his own are numerous. Nicholas Schaffner's Beatles Forever (1977), Bob Woffinden's Beatles Apart (1981), Joseph Self's law journal essay on the My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine case, George Starostin's online album reviews, and those of Rolling Stone are all among the works that readily spring to mind.

Anyone who's got Mystical One – or here's a google preview that works for me – might like to confirm the following examples:

Huntley on "This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)" vs Starostin's Extra Texture album review

• Starostin (written during the 1990s, it seems – GH's 2001 death is only mentioned in an italicised "PS:" at the top of the page): "Critics have derided 'This Guitar (Can't Keep From Crying)' for being a lame sequel to 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', and they're probably right. But it's not the fault of the song itself – Harrison made a fatal mistake in making it look like a sequel. It's actually a good, tolerable, moving song, with excellent lead guitar work from the master, but the title, lyrics, and general structure and atmosphere can't help but draw comparisons with the far superior Beatles number …"
• Huntley p. 124: "Critics derided 'This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)' for being a lame sequel to 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps.' Though that doesn't make it a bad song, Harrison made a fatal mistake in making it sound like a sequel. 'This Guitar (Can't Keep From Crying)' is a good song in its own right, with excellent lead guitar work from the master, but the title, atmosphere and general structure can't help but draw comparisons with the far superior Beatles number."

Huntley on the My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine copyright infringement suit vs Joseph C. Self's 1993 piece for The 910 magazine From a quarter of the way down the page in Self's article, the para beginning "Very soon after the suit against Harrison was filed, Allen Klein …", it's apparent that the whole structure of Huntley's discussion (p. 131 onwards) comes from this 1993 essay with numerous instances of direct overlaps in phrasing. (Even down to repeating errors of punctuation: "a few week's …") Tedious reading, I'm afraid, but here are some of the more obvious "lifts":

• Self: "After Bright's affairs were put in order so as to enable it to continue the case, settlement negotiations between Bright and Harrison resumed."

Huntley p. 131: "After the affairs of Bright Tunes had been put in order to enable them to continue the case, settlement negotiations between Bright and Harrison resumed."

• Self: "The trial on the issue of liability was conducted on February 23–25, 1976. At that trial, the judge was called upon to make an analysis of the music of both HSF and MSL. Both sides called expert witnesses to support their contentions, and Harrison himself testified about the process that occurred in writing MSL. After hearing the testimony and considering the evidence, the judge found MSL did indeed infringe upon HSF's copyright."

Huntley p. 132: "The trial on the issue of liability was conducted from February 23 to 25, 1976, and Judge Richard Owen was called upon to make an analysis of the music of both 'He's So Fine' and 'My Sweet Lord.' Both sides called expert witnesses to support their contentions. Though George himself himself testified about the process involved in writing 'My Sweet Lord,' Judge Owen nonetheless found that 'My Sweet Lord' did indeed infringe upon the copyright of 'He's So Fine.'"

• Self: "However, the judge found that while there may have been modest alterations to accommodate different words with a different number of syllables, the essential musical piece was not changed significantly."

Huntley p. 132: "The judge found that while there may have been modest alterations to accommodate different words and syllables, the essential musical piece was not significantly changed."

• Self: "The judge found that the introductory musical passage (the "hook") was a minimal factor in the popularity of this song, and pointed out that this unique melody had already demonstrated its appeal …"

Huntley p. 135: "The Judge even went on record to state that the intro was a minimal factor in the popularity of this song, and pointed out that the unique melody of 'He's So Fine' had already demonstrated its appeal."

• Self: "The court also found that Klein acted improperly in giving financial information about MSL to Bright prior to the decision on the question of liability. The court held that it would not reward Klein for his breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Harrison, a duty that continued even after the principal-agent relationship ended. However, rather than just have Klein hand over his ill-gotten gains, the judge ordered that Klein hold the rights to HSF in trust for Harrison, and those interests would be transferred to Harrison upon payment of $587,000, plus interest, thus allowing Klein to 'break even' on his purchase. This decision was upheld on appeal."

Huntley pp. 136–37: "The court found that Klein had acted improperly in giving financial information about 'My Sweet Lord' to Bright Tunes prior to the decision on the question of liability … Consequently, Owen held that the court would not reward Klein for his breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Harrison, a duty that continued even after the principal-agent relationship ended. However, rather than just have Klein hand over his ill-gotten gains, the judge ordered that Klein hold the rights to 'He's So Fine' in trust for Harrison, and those interests would be transferred to Harrison upon payment of $587,000, plus interest, thus allowing Klein to 'break even' on his purchase. This decision was upheld on appeal."

I hasten to add, I don't think we should ban the book or anything (it does provide some useful details, I've found). Just a case of removing it from what appears to be a list of recommended sources for use in Beatles-related articles.

That's enough from me. Any thoughts, anyone? JG66 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

additions to Book References list ...

Just a quick note to say I've added a couple of books to this list, both of which I've long thought deserved a place, especially given some of the titles that do appear. The new entries are Peter Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money and Simon Leng's Harrison bio While My Guitar Gently Weeps. I'd like to think that neither of these titles needs much in the way of introduction here – they've each provided huge strides in discussion of their respective subjects. And they happen to be key sources in at least 30 WP Beatles GAs that I know of. Best, JG66 (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963

I created a stub for The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963, which will be released via iTunes next week. Particularly interesting is the album's relation to copyright laws in Europe. I have not yet come across a complete track listing. Once released, this should be an easy to get to Good article status, as it would just need release details, background information and a reception section. Please feel free to help with this article's expansion! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Harrison discog/template query regarding "studio" albums

Hi. I've started a discussion over at Talk:George – all are welcome. It really boils down to whether we should say at the start of a Harrison album article that Living in the Material World (for example) was Harrison's "second studio album" (because Wonderwall Music is classed as a "soundtrack album" and Electronic Sound an "experimental album", so removing them from the ranks of his "studio albums"); or whether we avoid what is a potentially confusing situation for readers, imo, and refer to Material World as Harrison's "fourth solo album", disregarding the categories that are applied in a discography or template. See you there … JG66 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your wording seems to presuppose that soundtrack and experimental albums are not also studio albums, but why would Wonderwall Music and Electronic Sound not be considered studio albums? Were they recorded somewhere other than a studio? I say that Wonderwall was Harrison's first studio album, followed by ES and ATMP. What is the compelling argument against that position? What about a band that recorded only experimental music? Would you really say that they never recorded a studio album?GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc, I totally agree with you. That's my point – it's confusing to have to read otherwise in those Harrison album articles. But currently LITMW is his second "solo studio album", apparently. That's come directly from the GH discog and template, where, because Wonderwall is classified as a soundtrack album and Elec Sound as an experimental (or "other") album, his first "studio album" becomes ATMP. As mentioned, I'm not sure about the validity of "experimental album", but someone's adopted the category for Template:John Lennon.

It might be applicable to categorise as "studio", "soundtrack", "experimental" (again, asterisk attached to the latter term) in a discography or template. What I'm suggesting is, in an individual album article, we should abandon those categories when it comes to the ordinal applied to the album relevant to Harrison's release chronology. Wonderwall Music is Harrison's "first solo album" (it just happens to be a soundtrack); Electronic Sound is his second (happens to be an experimental work); LITMW is his fourth – to me, those are the ordinals that would be most helpful to readers of the album articles. JG66 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Then we seem to be in agreement. I again suggest that you should try to not compare everything Harrison to everything Lennon or McCartney. If you insist on repeating whatever treatment others have given Lennon or Macca, then you run the risk of making the same mistakes. Treat Harrison topics as Harrison topics, and please stop trying to establish absolute parity with Lennon. It does not matter what others did at the Lennon template or the Lennon bio. Strive for internal consistency in Harrison articles, not project-wide consistency with Lennon and Macca articles. This issue was the subject of recent RfC where an enormous amount of input indicated that an article need not follow the format of others if it has internal consistency. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, if the point of the discussion is to determine how to write the Harrison discography, then that discussion should take place at Talk:George Harrison discography, not the Harrison biography page. You should really move the discussion there, and provide a link at the bio talk page. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Night That Changed America: A Grammy Salute to The Beatles"

I created an article for "The Night That Changed America: A Grammy Salute to The Beatles", given the amount of press the special has received and the number of well-known performers. There is plenty of info already out there for article expansion, but I am sure more details will emerge between now and February 9, when the program will air. I am not certain about the order of performances, but this can be verified soon. Your assistance is welcome with improving this article. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

GAR - Linda McCartney

Just a head's up, I have nominated Linda McCartney for a Good Article Reassessment as I believe it doesn't meet the Good Article Criteria and it would be too much work to quickly fix it so it is. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Linda McCartney/1 for more information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Album articles

Having been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd and having got a few album articles up to GA status, I was surprised to see that (AFAIK) none of the Beatles' classic albums were at GA, let alone FA. Abbey Road is a good article nominee at the moment, if anyone who hasn't had a hand in it wants to take a look, and I think I'll tackle Revolver next (might as well do my two favourite albums). I don't have a lot of the print sources, but personally I feel that Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head is just about the best source going for albums, and I should hopefully be able to ferret out a few other books I have. Watch this space..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

An image that might interest you all

Greetings, Beatlesists! In my work on minor figures of the extreme right in the US I came across a little gem from the FBI files on Billy James Hargis, which is the book Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles. It's hosted at the archive but I uploaded the cover for Hargis and David Noebel. It occured to me that perhaps someone here has a use for it: File:Communism.hypnotism.and.the.beatles.cover.jpg. The whole pamphlet is in the FBI file starting here. It's quite informative. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion on The Beatles (album)

I've opened a move discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move 31 March 2014 to change the article name to The White Album. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for input: Good Golly Miss Molly

Should anyone have any information on The Beatles and "Good Golly Miss Molly", your input would be appreciated at the following reference desk question: Entertainment desk: "is there a Beatle connexion?" Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 09:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday move request

There is an ongoing move request at talk:Yesterday. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 05:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:With the Beatles#Proposed merge with Beatlemania! With the Beatles

I’m going to have this discussion closed soon, but I felt it would be a wiser option to advertise it more widely in the meantime. It’s been going on for several months now but I imagine I didn’t broadcast its existence as I needed to; any more input is greatly appreciated. If you have anything to add, please put it there, not here. Thank you. LazyBastardGuy 03:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:WP Albums

There is currently a discussion and proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?, about how to order personnel sections of album articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). JG66 (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject The Beatles articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• The Beatles: Rock Band

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject The Beatles' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song)

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) where we are deciding where to move/keep the article on the Beatles song "Yesterday." As a synopsis: In 2012 the article was moved from "Yesterday (song)" to simply "Yesterday". In June 2014 it was moved from "Yesterday" to "Yesterday (Beatles song)". A new move request has been made to move it back to "Yesterday". Good arguments on both sides of the aisle with compromise plans also suggested. Please join in no matter your opinion so we can better see where consensus stands. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Good article review

Some Beatles experts needed to respond to Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)/GA1 to get up to GA status. I'll do what I can but most seem to need somebody with books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Plastic Ono Band re-assessment

I recently did a major rewrite of Plastic Ono Band. Could someone with a little time please reassess its quality? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 7, 2015

A summary of Ringo Starr will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out that you guys would like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 08:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Help! (album) cover

  Maybe it has been noted before,  but George's arms are much closer to straight out instead of at 45 degrees,  so this would be an "R" instead of an "N" as stated in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carfebles (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 

Concerns regarding FA quality

I've just tidied up The Long and Winding Road a little, and removed some unsourced trivia. The article doesn't appear to me as either FA or GA quality in terms of coverage, prose, and MoS requirements - it was promoted in 2004, and reviewed again in 2006, and hasn't been well maintained. I will not have the time to tidy up the article or take my concerns further, however it seems appropriate to raise those concerns rather than merely pass on by, so, per the stage one process at Wikipedia:Featured article review I have left a note on the article talkpage, and am notifying relevant Projects. It is unlikely I will be getting involved further. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to hear that, given the vintage of the FA. I started rewriting two other song FAs, Hey Jude and Something, that were pretty shocking as well – swathes of quotes etc: [1], [2]. I'll try to take a look sometime. JG66 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Album track templates in infoboxes

There's a discussion underway regarding Template:Dark Horse tracks to which editors may wish to contribute. Thought I'd raise it here because the issue would seem to be relevant to several similar track templates under WP The Beatles. JG66 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert The Bear

Please see related Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert The Bear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Who wrote what

An editor has placed a "clarification needed" tag in the opening sentence of the article "Come Together" regarding the authorship of the song. I agree that a reader unfamiliar with the workings of the Lennon–McCartney songwriting partnership would find the sentence confusing or contradictory. I would have attempted to clarify that sentence but thought, should there be standard wording for the opening sentence across all Lennon–McCartney song articles regarding authorship? Personally I think the issue of exactly who wrote what can seldom be addressed in a single sentence, let alone the opening sentence of the article, and should be covered in the body of the article. Piriczki (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to clarify more without bloating the lede. Its a somewhat unusual state of affairs, but someone interested in a deeper understanding can click through to the L-M page. That said, I don't represent a Beatles novice coming to the page - and we shouldn't just ignore a good-faith editor who thinks it unclear. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've written to the editor to ask more precisely what needed clarification. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That was my point that it's too much to explain in the lede. I think the average reader would recognize most Beatles songs as Lennon–McCartney songs so perhaps they should be identified as such first, followed by a qualifier "although primarily written by ..." or just leave any such clarification to the body of the article if it can't be summarized succinctly with just a few words. Piriczki (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think its fine as it is and plan to remove the tag if we don't hear back from the editor in a week or so. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor HAD responded. From my knowledge, there were two issues: the page number of the existing citation was beyond the back cover of the book and the citation was a primary resource (a Lennon interview). A second, non-primary citation has been added. I've suggested the editor pop in here. Another editor has suggested clarification is still necessary but hasn't pointed out what yet, so the tag remains. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 8, 2016

Sir Paul will be on the Main Page soon. The FAC nominator has been gone for a while, so eyeballs on the article would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Minor planets named for members of The Beatles has been nominated for discussion

Category:Minor planets named for members of The Beatles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Backmasking

I have nominated Backmasking for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 8 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Beatles in 1966

The article The Beatles in 1966 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Overlap of content with several Beatles album, tour and topical articles, and inconsistency with regard to a single year in the Beatles' history being afforded a separate article. (Proposal follows related discussion at the Beatles project talk page.)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

1966 World? Tour

I wrote an article not so long ago on the Beatles' 1965 UK tour and am thinking of doing the same for the series of concerts they did in (West) Germany, Japan and the Philippines over June–July 1966. Plenty of drama for the band in all three of those nations that year. I've seen sources refer to the first of the German concerts as the start of the band's "world tour", but it's not clear whether the latter includes their North American tour in August '66, for which we already have an article, or whether it's just the shows before then. I get the impression authors are grouping the three far-flung destinations under a convenient term, "world", without distracting from the Beatles' annual summer trek across the States, but I can't be sure. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd like to call the new article The Beatles' 1966 world tour, but I guess it wouldn't be a problem to go with The Beatles' 1966 tour of West Germany, Japan and the Philippines. JG66 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe an article The Beatles' 1966 world tour including the U.S., Germany, Japan, Manila since there was a common theme of chaotic events throughout. Or just an expansion of the Beatles in 1966 since there is already a lot of duplication there. Piriczki (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm thinking that we have separate articles for the Beatles' previous US (why aren't they "North American"?) tours, and the 1966 trek was every bit as significant/infamous as the '64 and '65 tours were triumphant. It was actually the terminology I'd been wondering about – but I've since seen the '66 Germany, Japan, Manila and US visits all grouped under the term "world tour" after all.

I'd not come across that "Beatles in 1966" article before, and I'm slightly confused about its purpose. Seems to me, there's always going to be huge overlap if we have an article dedicated to one year in the band's history. I'd favour replacing that article with one on the German, Japanese and Manila concerts. Anything else currently in The Beatles in 1966 is or can be covered in Revolver (Beatles album), The Beatles' 1966 US tour, More popular than Jesus, The Beatles' studio years and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. JG66 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Even in A Collection of Beatles Oldies also. JG66 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

After the new article is done there won't be any need for the Beatles in 1966 article so it could be deleted. Piriczki (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking but I'd be happy to see what people make of it once the article's done. I'm coming across some interesting details about British diplomatic correspondence concerning the Beatles' visits to Japan and the Philippines, because of the sensitive social and political situation in each of those countries – which adds to my feeling that they could and should be handled separately from the US. Anyway, it ain't gonna be the work of a moment … JG66 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Update. I'm finally getting there with the new article – in my sandbox. It's enormous, but I will be cutting some of the detail before sending it live. (For instance, the text does get bogged down in the Philippines section, probably because I paid too much attention to the various [contradictory] accounts from Peter Brown, Tony Barrow, and the Beatles Anthology book. And I'll probably cut the Background section right down.) So it's far from final. But if anyone's got any objection to having an article dedicated to the first leg of the world tour and deleting The Beatles in 1966, it would be good to discuss it now. I've left a notification on that article's talk page. JG66 (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(As a courtesy to the editor who created The Beatles in 1966, I left a message on Steelbeard1's talk page also.) JG66 (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, delete in favor of the well-developed articles on specific topics. Piriczki (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I stopped editing articles related to The Beatles several years ago. Feel free to do as you please. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, it's up there at last: The Beatles' 1966 tour of Germany, Japan and the Philippines. I didn't end up cutting as much as I wanted after all. (Probably a case of needing to clear my head of all things Budokan and Manila, and then coming back to the article sometime …) JG66 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering if instead of deleting The Beatles in 1966 it might be easier to replace it with a redirect to The Beatles' 1966 tour of Germany, Japan and the Philippines (for now). To complete the job the former would need to be removed from templates and then any residual links attended to. I'd be happy to do the honours if needed. kingboyk (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think it makes sense to do it that way, then sure. I confess I have no experience in proposing articles for deletion, apart from this one. The only issue I might have is that anyone wanting and expecting to read about "the Beatles in 1966" instead gets "the Beatles in 23 June to 8 July 1966"(!) JG66 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose deletion is cleaner... Let's see what happens. We can use a redirect as a fallback plan if need be. kingboyk (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Krerowicz

Aaron Krerowicz promotes himself as a "Professional Beatles scholar".[3] He notes that he has been quoted by a number of newspapers, but appears self-published. A Google book search doesn't show that he is referenced in any books about the Beatles.[4] It doesn't look like he meets WP:RS or WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Anyone think differently? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ojorojo, I agree his book, The Beatles & The Avant-Garde, appears to be self-published – CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, according to the listing at Amazon. I came across the book quite recently and thought it might be useful, but haven't given it any thought beyond that. With regard to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I think it's probably too early for Beatles authors to have picked up on Krerowicz, if first publication occurred in November 2014. Having said that, the only major book I can think of that's come out in the two or more years since then is Steve Turner's Beatles '66 – and Krerowicz's The Beatles & The Avant-Garde is indeed listed as a source (and it's among some pretty decent company). The publication information there gives AK as the publisher; I'm wondering if that's AK Press, although Turner also gives the place of publication as Kenosha, WI rather than any of the locations that appear in our AK Press article. Is there a particular article or scenario you were thinking the Krerowicz title was relevant to? JG66 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A newish editor added him as a ref for "The Ballad of John and Yoko" being based on a 12-bar blues progression.[5] AK actually says "stretches the 12 bar blues into a 16 bar blues by doubling the first four measures" (The 12 Bar Blues in Beatles Music, Part 2: Analyses – near bottom), so I removed it (12≠16, they have separate articles). It might come up again, so I thought I'd bring it up. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is in the form of Sixteen-bar blues. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth adding to the BoJ&Y article? A quick search didn't turn up a RS (maybe someone has a licensed sheet music or guitar tab book). I think AK overstates "it's missing an A before the final E". He also says that "Birthday" has "the 10th chord (which is E when it 'should' be D)". Many older blues use this kind of turnaround and are not locked into a prescribed formula. Commentary that a chord is missing or should be something else is, well, not professional or scholarly. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Appearance of "the" in album chronology

Life of Tau, just wanted to say great job with fixing the non-capitalisation issue in the album infoboxes, e.g. at Pepper. I'd seen you do a couple of u-turns and self-reverts along the way(!), and was going to suggest trying the Extra chronology option, because it worked a treat with the North American-only releases (e.g. Yesterday and Today). I thought it might be good to cover this point across the project, so it's on the record, so to speak – which is why I'm flagging it here.

Just an idea, but if you wanted to apply the same Extra-chron treatment to all the Beatles' singles, that would be very welcome. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@JG66: Thank you, it's a good idea to have it on record on the project page. I'll certainly consider adding the template on the single pages now that I've finished doing it for every box set and compilation album in the band's back catalogue. LifeofTau 08:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject The Beatles, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to join in

Hello,

As a new Wikipedian and a Beatles fanatic this seems like an obvious place for me to raise my voice.

I'm a freelance writer and editor by trade so have pretty good writing skills. I'm learning my way around the Wikipedia CMS, but am by no means even comfortable on it as yet. I'll get there.

I've just put a note on Mark Lewisohn's Talk Page wondering if the All These Years project might be worthy of its own page. I think the Mark Lewisohn page could do with clearing up, but I don't feel that I have the skills to do that yet.

I wish you all well with the project!

SkagwayEntropy (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Lennon Remembers"

I could've sworn we had an article on Jann Wenner's 1971 book Lennon Remembers, which compiled the two parts of Lennon's infamous December 1970 Rolling Stone interview. But I can't seem to find it at all now. Maybe it's under a different title (or maybe I'm just imagining there was one). Anyone know about this? JG66 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There's The Rolling Stone Interview but it's not much more than a list. I don't recall a Lennon Remembers article. Might be enough for an article. William F. Buckley Jr. wrote a pretty scathing critique of the interview. Might be an interesting counterpoint to an interview that generally escaped criticism. Piriczki (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Piriczki: Thanks. Yep, there's definitely enough for an article, from what I've gathered together over the last day or so. The original publication afforded Lennon a sort of hallowed status in most rock journalists' minds during the '70s, so I understand, but at the same time made him ripe for parody (e.g. by National Lampoon). Do you have a link to the Buckley piece, by any chance? I agree it would be a welcome inclusion – along with mention of reaction from McCartney, George Martin, Derek Taylor, Hunter Davies and others who, to varying degrees, were in Lennon's line of fire. JG66 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't find any free online sources. It was in the National Review and syndicated in various American newspapers in March 1971. Here's a couple excerpts that pretty much conveys the gist of it:

"What was Lennon's point in granting the interview? He had a minor and major point to make, respectively to promote an upcoming album, and to talk about himself. Several times, with his complete approval, he refers to himself as an egomaniac, a frailty a great many people have: but not all of those who have it, have the complementary failing of supposing that that part of the world (always a majority) that fails to interrupt all other activity in order to give itself over to the veneration of you is a) phillistine, b) ungrateful, c) is wasting its time."

"It is remarkable to achieve in combination what Mr. Lennon manages to do here, namely a) to demonstrate how he laid waste his life during the 1960's, and b) to proclaim so apodictically on how others should govern their lives: (recipe: adore Lennon, and (favorite verb) your neighbor)."

"Favorite verb" refers to an earlier mention of Lennon's frequent use of the f-word. (Buckley, William. "John Lennon's Almanac" National Review April 6, 1971) Piriczki (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. I was about to overstay my welcome and ask for a page number, but I found it easier enough by searching with the ref details you provided. Thanks again. JG66 (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The perpetual genre problem

I searched the archives for discussions around genre and while there was some discussion about the topic it's not clear that anything was ever resolved. I realize the simple solution is simple: only sourced genres and since sources in infoboxes are frowned on, a discussion of genre in the text with sources is preferred. However, it's never that simple. I don't edit much on Beatle articles these days other than reverting obvious vandalism (and genre silliness) on the handful of songs I've watchlisted. It does, however, appear that the battles continue, new accounts and IPs continue to add their pet genres (which are often very funny). As well, there are unsourced genres listed on many songs, and dubious sourced genres that appear to be editor interpretation of an author's vague descriptive wording that turns (for example) "country influenced" into country or country rock. My gut instinct is to scrap genres all together and come up with firm guidelines about writing text, rather than lists, decide what good sources are, how to determine what those sources are saying (i.e. a critic discussing the Beatles' influence on power pop doesn't mean we necessarily call the Beatles power pop). Likewise, guidelines about the more ridiculous notions (I've seen jazz listed as a genre for the Beatles, for example). This way all concerned editors could be starting on the same page. As it stands, these articles attract genre warriors like moths to flame and although we can easily revert it does become tiresome and on occasion editors find themselves in sticky situations (such as warning an editor about adding unsourced genres when the article already has unsourced genres). And of course there's the issue about things that don't need sourcing because they're basic everyday knowledge: the Beatles were primarily a rock band, early on being described as a beat group (of course this also brings up the issue of rock vs. rock 'n' roll -- is the latter a specific historical term for 1950s music or is it the main term on par with jazz or rhythm and blues, with myriad sub-genres). I don't have a firm answer myself other than the suggestions above. If there was a previous discussion with a consensus decision I apologize for bringing this up again, but then again, if there was a consensus decision made, why are we not following it? There are too many unsourced genres floating around Beatle song and album articles to indicate that there are any sort of guidelines that everyone is expected to follow. Please also note, I'm only speaking of Beatle articles as life is too short to deal with genre battles in other music articles. freshacconci (✉) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Carr & Tyler's "poisonous tome" ...

Does any one happen to have a copy, preferably 1978 edition, of Carr & Tyler's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record? I tracked down an ancient copy but it's got pictures cut out, even whole pages (containing album covers) missing. I'm after page 59, specifically – the author's no-doubt-withering(?) review of A Collection of Beatles Oldies. I've checked with someone I know who owns the book, and they write that Carr & Tyler say something along the lines of what an EMI rip-off the compilation was (a theme throughout the book, in light of all the regular EP releases), and how it offered little of interest to fans, seeing as the relevant singles, EPs and albums had all sold so well.

Is anyone able to confirm this? Or, better still: would someone mind writing here what is it exactly that the pair say about the comp, in total? From what's left of my cut-up page 59, it looks as though, all up, the review amounts to no more than five lines … Many thanks. Pinging Garagepunk66 because I got the impression from a recent edit that you might have the book. JG66 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Once again, it was Christmas... Larry Williams' Bad Boy." If you have that much that's the whole thing. Just as people bash Capitol for releasing album tracks as singles, they bash EMI for doing the same thing—only with EPs. Piriczki (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. (But seriously – that's it?! Wow.)

In fact, surprisingly, there's little comment about all the UK compilation/spin-off EPs in most Beatles books, I find, as if they're entirely forgotten. Twist and Shout, Long Tall Sally, MMT, perhaps All My Loving, aside, of course – but one hardly sees any mention of the two Hard Day's Night EPs, the two for Beatles for Sale, Nowhere Man, etc. I'm talking about band biographies, not books dedicated to their discography. JG66 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Did the group themselves have much (or any) input into these EP releases, or was it just entirely up to EMI?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In its entirety for those without the book:

Once again, it was Christmas — and the Beatles had no new product to give to EMI for their Santa sack! As a last resort, a predictable collection of oldies was hastily assembled and crammed into an inferior Carnaby-Street-style carrier-bag sleeve.

The only all-new track — which had been released in the USA in June 1965 on 'Beatles VI' — was Larry Williams' 'Bad Boy'.

Throughout the book the authors show great disdain for anything containing previously-issued tracks. I don't think the Beatles had much say in what EMI or Capitol did until their 1967 recording contract was signed, and then didn't have any say after it expired. Interestingly, the 1969 Capitol contract negotiated by Allen Klein promised delivery of seven compilation albums though 1975. Piriczki (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have copy on the 1978 edition. In fact I once had a copy of the original 1974 edition (it fell apart)--they are both identical right down to the page #s and layout, the only difference is that the 1978 edition adds some extra material about the individual Beatles' post-1974 solo alums up 'til '78. It's not a poisonous tome at all. Since it is a critical biography, it tends to assess each album, EP, and single as if in a record review, but though there are opinions expressed in there I don't agree with, I'd say as a whole it is pretty much on the mark most of the time.

• Carr, I think, is correct in championing With the Beatles as one of the Beatles' truly great early records—it never seems to get enough respect today, but I think it surpasses Please Please Me (during Please Pleae Me the Beatles had not quite yet achieved their world-breaking sound—WTB is where they got it!), and if WTB is not quite as perfect as its successor A Hard Day's Night, it is probably the Beatles' best rock & roll album (along with their Long Tall Sally EP, which Carr also loves).
• Though Carr gives Sgt. Pepper lengthy discussion and generally likes most of it, he is not overly deferential to it the way people in the States are (I think he is correct)—he clearly considers Revolver superior, Amen. Wasn't Sgt. Pepper just a little too contrived and over-wrought? I'd take the pure raw brilliance of WTB any day over self-indulgent SgtP.
• As for Oldies but Goldies, who cares? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

<Edit conflict>Ah, thanks. I thought you literally meant that "Once again, it was Christmas … Larry Williams' 'Bad Boy'" was it.

Yes, "great disdain" just about covers it (which is why I assumed they'd be pretty withering in their assessment of the Beatles Oldies LP). Pawnkingthree, I don't get the impression the Beatles had any input in these EPs at all. Carr & Tyler lay the "blame" squarely at EMI's feet, and I've never read a comment from a member of the band about the EPs. I have read recently that when the Beatles re-signed with EMI in January 1967, they stipulated that the company could no longer create releases in the mould of Beatles Oldies and, one assumes, the spin-off EPs (because there were no more of these spin-offs in the UK after Nowhere Man). I'm not sure how true that is, though – I've not read any mention in reliable sources, and usually all one hears about on this issue is the stipulations imposed on Capitol. JG66 (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Counting the American albums

Hello, folks. I'm posting here to alert you to changes being made to the Yesterday and Today article. The changes involve counting the number of American releases and how many of them were Capitol releases. I had a discussion with the new editor on the article's talk page, during which I advised that the numbers be left unchanged so that the article's regular editors could consider the issues. But, alas, that hasn't happened.

The editor's original reason for changing is unclear (it seems they were assuming that Hard Day's Night was a Capitol release), but the issue ultimately came down to whether Story should count as a Beatles album (and, by the way, if it does, then why not Vee-Jay's Tells All?) and whether Early Beatles is really a different album than Vee-Jay's Introducing.

I truly don't care which way these questions are resolved. But it does seem to me that consistency amongst the various album articles would be a good thing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Beatles in fiction

I'd like to suggest a new The Beatles in fiction article, probably mainly in list form. I don't mean stuff like regular biopics, more stuff like Stephen King's 11/22/63, where in an alternative history where Kennedy wasn't assassinated, The Beatles reform in 1980 for a reunion concert which is attacked by terrorists due to which John doesn't die but Paul goes blind. There's another recent alternate history novel (forgot the title, duh!) dealing with Kennedy having started a short nuclear war with the Soviet Union in 1963 and the book deals with the aftermath in the 1970s or 80s, and it's mentioned in passing that The Beatles never went to devastated America, but their song catalogue seems largely the same when at a UK dinner party, Penny Lane is being played over the house stereo. In the beginning of Robert Harris's Fatherland taking place in 1964, it is mentioned that young German students start to grow their hair out and listen to "a Liverpool band that had played in Hamburg just a few years ago". Or there's this one sci-fi short story Broken Stairways, Walls of Time[6] by Lee Killough, where Paul is still alive in a future where they have holographic 3D television and holographic AI house servants, and he is mentioned as having written the lyrics to a musical song by the first-person narrator.

Any thoughts on this, guys? --2003:71:4E03:6440:50F3:8E2D:CF1C:6F5F (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea for an article. But I predict that it will soon become inundated with books/films/stories/television episodes where the Beatles are mentioned only briefly. You might want to give some thought as to the criteria for inclusion in the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another, more substantial find: With a Little Help From Her Friends by Michael Bishop. It's a sci-fi story first published in 1984 that takes place in 2013 and is about a TV reporter interviewing an old lady named Eleanor Riggins that has survived a South-American torture camp only by the power of songs by The Beatles that gave her and her other inmates hope. In response to her touching story, the TV station and a newspaper offer her to pay for a re-union concert of The "Threetles" just for her ("one of them is living in Britain, one alternatively lives in Scotland and on the US west coast, and one of them resides in a villa in Mare Imbrium on the moon. The low gravity remedies his ill health and frailty.").

Ringo is the Beatle on the moon and he's the first to arrive for preparative talks. When he and Paul meet in California while George is pretty much "skyping" in from London, Ringo is all for it in the name of peace & love, but Paul hates the idea because the people "definitely don't wanna see desperate old farts on a stage" and that John would've hated it too. George doesn't say much, what little he does say is mostly deep and cryptic, but he says that John "is most likely beyond caring at this point". For the concert, John's place is taken by a "digitally aged" hologram, and their setlist is partially broken down as "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Yesterday", "All you need is love", (then they joke they can't play "When I'm 64" because they're too old for that), "Love Me Do" (where Ms. Riggins is invited up on the stage to play the harmonica part), "Eleanor Rigby" (where Paul has changed the lyrics to tell about Ms. Riggins and her shining example), and "Happy Xmas (War is over)".

Oh, and there's also Sergeant Pepper Variations by Howard Roller and Parke Godwin, concerning a psychic who witnesses jam sessions of dead musicians in the afterlife, where John Lennon has found a rather fruitful writing partnership with Johann Sebastian Bach. After the psychic has clumsily tried to play Bach's variations of songs from the Pepper album on a piano, she tells the last remaining reporter that didn't run away at the obnoxious-sounding premise right away that she can hardly play it, because her hands are hardly as big as Bach's when he's playing on the afterlife harmonium, where this little-known fact of Bach's huge pranks already during his lifetime convinces him that she's telling the truth. --2003:EF:13C1:CE85:B8FC:3669:A57D:3378 (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Beatles' museums on the List of music museums

Hi there, I have introduced the List of music museums. There remain three Beatles' museums unwritten, that meanwhile have an article in another language:

• Buenos Aires, Argentina: Museo Beatle
• Halle, Germany: Beatles-Museum Halle
• Alkmaar, Netherlands: Beatles Museum Alkmaar
• Eger, Hungary: Egri Road Beatles Múzeum, has been written today by me for this project.

Are there people interested in writing one or all of these unwritten museums in English? It would help your project as well as the List of music museums a lot! I hope so Ymnes (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Specifying song by member singing.

So I spent hours creating the category The Beatles songs sung by...…….. and I indicated member on mic and all my edits were deleted. Seems like a common sense idea to have a category like that. If you wanted to know how many were sung by a particular member, you can find out with ease. But you people like to screw me so the edits were wiped out.--68.192.236.111 (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you will find it was not personal. I would suggest taking time to discuss large efforts like that before under-taking them. What may appear common sense to you may not make sense to everyone. Categories serve certain purposes and this may not be appropriate. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reversions were done by anybody who loiters here, but this seems a reasonable place to discuss creating such categories. I quite like the idea as I think it would be of use to some - possibly many - readers, but I'm not sure if they would be justifiable under current categorisation guidelines, which I am not up to speed with. --kingboyk (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Beatles project

User:Moxy has amended the Beatles project banner to remove all the albums and song from related projects. His rationale for this change is Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination, which would actually say there cannot be co-ordination between projects. FWIW, It means every Beatle album and song (and any album or song or related category remotely connected to the Beatles have now been removed from those projects. A discussion has already been started by me at User_talk:Moxy#Template:WikiProject_The_Beatles:_Difference_between_revisions. Anybody else have an opinion? This will also be posted at song and album projects --Richhoncho (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

*Note Moxy has now undone his edit which caused all the problems, but the conversation should continue in case others are now of the same view as Moxy. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Link to the discussion. Link to the banner. --kingboyk (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)