Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archives: April 2006 - July 2006

Music-related question

I was wondering if any of you know of any online resources that are free, and that give information on chart positions from at least the 1960s on a per-week basis, particularly for the UK, but also for other countries. --Mal 18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Woooo! Something that I can contribute to (damn my head is spinning from reading all of this!)

The BBC may well be a good source, since it is a public broadcasting service which has had a weekly singles rundown since before the formation of Radio 1. It has certainly been the "official" reference since that date. It may take some researching of the archives. I also know the Melody Maker singles charts have been a source in some publications, but I don't know if it is freely available.LessHeard vanU 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles

Does anyone know if the revision ID is stored anywhere of the Beatles' main article as it stood when it received FA status? I'd rather not trawl through months and years of vandal edits to find it, but I'd like to get a diff to see how the article stands compared with when it was 'promoted'. --kingboyk 19:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ping! Anyone? --kingboyk 00:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the easiest way to do it is to find out when it was a featured article (likely listed in one of the boxes on its talk page) and then scroll through the history to find that date. For example, for The Beatles, the feature date was June 18, 2004. The first edit on that date was here and the last edit on that date was here. (These might not be according to UTC, but to UTC-4 or UTC-5.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gordon. Gosh, just look at that! I'm tempted to revert back to the 2004 edition! :-) There's one glaring ommission though: no footnotes. In all seriousness, the article has changed a great deal since then - partly for the better, partly for the worse. I think this is evidence enough that featured article status should be annually renewable! --kingboyk 04:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter

In various talkings somewhere or another (I have to get better at not starting stuff on people's talk pages that really belongs here!), the idea of a newsletter has been mooted. I think it's a good idea. I happened to be at Phaedriel's talk page and saw this: User_talk:Phaedriel#Military_history_WikiProject_Newsletter.2C_Issue_I... nice. Food for thought! Something to ponder, it was delivered via subst. (the original is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Newsletter March 2006) Is that how we want to do things? Note also, they decided to have "coordinators". We've informally been operating that way but it's because it seems like Steve and I do most of the talking/planning... (NOT because we're trying to hog the fun!_ I for one would love to hear more voices. On the other hand I'm not opposed to formalising things a bit as long as I get to be "project toolsmith" in addition to whatever else makes sense. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this post at the time. We could a) write the newsletter in a sandbox somewhere, deliver it with subst and zap the page afterwards; or b) store the newsletter for posterity in a subpage and deliver by subst or inclusion. I don't like the idea of coordinators. Although it seems that by defacto I am one, I'd rather it remain on an informal basis. The current state of affairs is not at all how I want it to be, and I don't want to formalise it :-) We need more people to take part in discussions, and more "hands on deck". I fear that if either of us were to be hit by a bus tommorow (preferably a red AEC Routemaster of course :)) the Project would wither and die. Bottom line then: we assuredly do need to promote the project and encourage more involvement, but unless others insist on it I'd rather not be formally labelled as anything other than a project member and the fool who suggested it in the first place! --kingboyk 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Song Stubs

Can I just confirm that we are stubbing solo Beatles songs with {{beatles-song-stub}}. I thought we'd agreed that somewhere, although looking through the various talk pages I think it might have been something that didn't get much discussion because the answer was "of course we are"!

I think it would make an awful lot of sense to do it that way because a) it keeps all or most of the Project's song stubs in one place b) many of the other song stub cats are bursting to the seams.

I edited the category with the change (27 March 2006 Kingboyk (Change scope to include solo works)) but I've discovered that's there been some continuing confusion on the matter, so if I get one or two yays or nays I'll "toughen up" the wording on the template itself. Those which have already been changed could possibly be "rolled back" or we can fix em during the classification process so it's no big deal :-) --kingboyk 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the pros/cons? I confess to having no strong opinion either way but would want consistency, so would be happy with either outcome, if we then were to schedule everything for fixing. Apropos of that (and of finding past decisions) we may want to start capturing these things somewhere organised, and updating our list of things to look for/fix in an article when it gets a visit? ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Only con I can think of is that the category gets larger. We could create some more stub templates (and that might be preferable) but I wouldn't want to make Gruntness mad :-)

Yes indeed on the "things to look for when an article gets a visit", I'm gonna add a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#How_to_grade as soon as this issue in resolved. In the meantime I've just rewritten the intro to that article with a link from the intro to that list of "instructions". --kingboyk 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes a difference to me whether to include the solo songs or not, especially because there's a finite list of Beatles (group) songs and because it's not a full list of Beatles songs, only songs that have short articles. So yeah, I supposed we can include solo songs. Just make sure to change the contents of the template so that it conveys as such. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. We categorise the solo songs seperately and will continue to do so; this is solely about stub categorising. You make a good point. --kingboyk 11:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

<-- I've reworded the template. Please feel free to tweak the wording as whilst it gets the desired message across it does it in a rather verbose fashion. --kingboyk 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Souvenir of Their Visit to America makes DYK!

It happened again! The April 3 DYK mentioned that Souvenir of Their Visit to America was The Beatles first EP released in America, but did not chart! Steelbeard1 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WELL done! I added the previous one to the portal... Portal:The Beatles/Did you know want to add this one? I will if you don't get a chance.++Lar: t/c 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

re; your kind invitation to join The Beatles Project.

I am very tempted. I am also very frightened because I went and had a look at the talk pages re the project and realised that nearly all the tech speak was unfamiliar to me. I would be pleased to be able to help in editing text in pre-existing sections and adding suggestions and the like to talk pages (which is a lot of what I tend to do anyway). I'm just not sure if that deserves a plaque or whatever that box is called.

I would comment that I only started editing about the same time as you started the Beatles project, and much of the reason I was looking in the piece was because I've had a bit of a "block" on the article I had been working on; Steven Severin. I really want to finish that before I do anything else. If I find I can contribute to The Beatles in the future I will.

In any event, it really was an honour and a pleasure to be asked.LessHeard vanU 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's enough to pop your name on the list and optionally display the userbox, of course! Don't worry about the gobbledegook, everything is optional here and if you all want to do is edit articles and tweak things here and there that's more than enough and ultimately it's what we're actually here for! :) --kingboyk 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite. That Steve and I geek out about stuff is just our way of having fun. ANYONE's contributions are valid and useful, even if it's just prose put in somewhere on a talk page with a comment "can someone else work that in for me?" it's still helpful. Get involved however you feel comfy with, it's all good. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright - I'm in. Point me toward the sign up spot.LessHeard vanU 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Participants - Bank account details not needed. --kingboyk 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lennon-McCartney songs not performed by The Beatles

I just happened across a version It's For You by Cilla Black where John says that they wrote the song specifically for her. What are the plans for handling songs written by Lennon-McCartney, but not recorded by The Beatles (or those that were recorded as demos only)? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We haven't decided yet, but if it wasn't a big hit or important in some way it probably wouldn't get its own article. (And it was, it might! :-)). We'd mention it in Cilla's article or perhaps we'll have an article on "Other L/M" songs. All undecided at this stage until we've assessed our current songs articles. --kingboyk 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How about listing the songs written by Lennon/McCartney for other artists in a new section within the Lennon-McCartney article? --kingboyk 14:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I recall a various artists album called "The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away". You can Google that and see a good selection of songs. Steelbeard1 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the album in question at [1] Steelbeard1 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice sleeve, songs by the original artists, a piece of history - and did not chart! Oh well. You know if we mention the album we might just be able to get away with using that cover art in the Lennon-McCartney article? --kingboyk 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Personnel

I've noticed that none of the The Beatles album pages have personnel. Is there any particular reason for this? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

More pointedly, is there any reason why the album articles should list personnel? The Beatles retained the same lineup for their entire EMI recording career, and that info is one click away in The Beatles. To be honest, I never list personnel for any band which had a static lineup. It's only necessary imho for bands where the lineup has changed and the reader needs to be told who was on that particular album. --kingboyk 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not about the lineup. Personnel pages are for those who played on the album and what they played, and I believe it would be nice to know what was played on the album and who played it. Led Zeppelin and ZZ Top both have had static lineups and their albums have personnel sections. What makes The Beatles so special? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 02:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The best advice I can give is be bold and change one or two album articles and come back and tell us which ones so we can have a look. Maybe you're entirely right and we're wrong :-) I would say though that the standard lineup played on the vast majority of tracks and where an extra musician was brought in or an orchestra it ought already to mention that in the article text. --kingboyk 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What I think might be interesting is to discuss who OTHER than musicians was involved, if it's significant... engineers and that sort of thing. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another point. Many personnel sections include engineers and producers. But the point, again, isn't just to list the lineup. Not everyone might know whether Paul played bass only on one album or bass and guitar on another. And this information may be interesting and helpful. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Following Kingboyk's advice, I added it to Introducing... The Beatles and modeled it after Autobiography, arguably the best article with a personnel section. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sold! --kingboyk 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(The) Blue Album

I happened across The Blue Album, which was a disambiguation page. However, since the only album listed there that actually had that name (not just a nickname) was Blue Album (Orbital), I moved it to Blue Album. I then cleaned it up a bit and added Valensia's album to the list. (She has an album named The Blue Album, but it isn't linked from her article and I'm not sure how popular/famous she actuallly is.) Anyone think we should take this disambig page under our wing? (Remember, the Beatles had a Blue Album.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Orbital example justifies going against convention (The Black Album, incoming links, standard English usage), not least because the Orbital album has it's own article and this is just a dab page. Furthermore even Orbital's LP is referred to as "The Blue Album" when context necessitates (see e.g. [2]). With regards to your question, though, I'd say no, we don't want to be managing dab pages unless all or the vast majority of entries are Beatles related (Let It Be (disambiguation)). There isn't much to manage anyway. Just pop it onto your watchlist would be my advice :) --kingboyk 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that Orbital's album should ever be referred to as The Blue Album. It's fairly clear that the name of the album is Blue Album, as seen on its cover here on Wikipedia (see the spine). Also, what incoming links are you referring to? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's the name (although coincidentally it is AFAIK the only Orbital album I don't have!) The point is that all the other pages are "The Colour Album"; that Orbital's album is called Blue Album is totally irrelevant. It's not an Orbital article, it's a dab page. If you disagree take it to Talk:The Blue Album as this isn't the proper place. --kingboyk 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC) If you think it should never be called "The Blue Album" you might wanna fix Blue Album (Orbital), heh :). The dab page is fine as you've left it now imho. --kingboyk 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Julian Lennon

Today happens to be Julian Lennon's birthday, so I headed over to his article. I was surprised to find out that it's not under our project. Now, the question is, should it (and other Beatles children's articles) be? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's probably not been tagged yet (it's in the John Lennon category I trust?) Just chuck a {{TheBeatlesArticle}} onto the talk page. Same goes for any article which should be in the project but doesn't appear to be yet. --kingboyk 00:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Should this be done for Mike McGear (Macca's bro, just in case the link wasn't known) and/or The Scaffold (who are also Parlophone artists)?LessHeard vanU 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your call mate. I would think "probably" for McGear, and "possibly/possibly not" for The Scaffold :) --kingboyk 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done it for Mike McGear. As The Scaffold will presumably be on the Parlophone label listing, which will have one in its own right, I have decided not to.LessHeard vanU 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Parlophone categories won't be managed by our Project, however. Some of the articles within the categories will be, of course, but not the categories themselves. Apple is different because it was owned and operated by the Beatles (and initially with their own new business "vision") and a much smaller operation. --kingboyk 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is suitable to have a box for The Scaffold (or is that the Scaffold...? Ho ho!) since the link is Paul McCartneys brother, which is already mentioned in the text. Anyone that interested would click on the link(s) and find their way "here" anyway.LessHeard vanU 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonderwall (film)

In scope or out? I can see cases either way. One way of questioning it is this: should everything any Beatle touched be included? This movie featured music by George and the set design was by The Fool (collective) which are instrumental in (Apple etc.) history... Thoughts? I did not tag it because I'm not sure (although leaning toward in rather strongly). A general principle on how wide to cast the net might be helpful. (I just added the tag to Kinfauns as it was a house of George's)++Lar: t/c 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest splitting out the soundtrack material into a separate article. The soundtrack falls within our scope; the movie itself does not. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already seperate. --kingboyk 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Marginal indeed Lar, but I think given that the film's main claim to fame these days is probably George's soundtrack, we should include it. The article doesn't mention which studio funded the movie? (If it were Apple Films that would swing it to a definite 'keep'). --kingboyk 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDB seems mute on which studio funded it: [3]. I put the article into the category:George Harrison but did NOT end up adding the project box to talk, because I do agree it's marginal. I came down on the "include" side of the line but if I was sure, I wouldn't have asked. I won't be sussed at all if everyone else says no... As I say, maybe trying to write the criteria down may be a good thing to help crystallise thinking? ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mute? Take it back. IMDB says: Production Companies * Alan Clore Films (http://imdb.com/company/co0065041/) * Compton Films (http://imdb.com/company/co0103330/) . Presumably neither is Apple. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of "In scope or out?", what about John Lennon Park? Grutness...wha? 13:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lean toward "out" as there surely are a lot of things named after John Lennon? I suspect that every town named Lincoln is not in the Abraham Lincoln category (trivia note, all 50 US states have at least one)... I'm swayable though. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how many there are that have or could justify articles? If there was say 10 or more, a new category would be best. In the meantime I have no objection to articles like John Lennon Park being put into Category:John Lennon with the proviso that we might take them out again when we get round to stocktaking :) --kingboyk 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thought. Given that John Lennon Park is a sub-stub, merging any found into article such as Places named after John Lennon would be a possibility. --kingboyk 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Parlophone

Just a heads up to those whom it may concern, I've created the above category and have started populating it with articles and subcategories. The category will be outside project scope of course but many of our articles belong in subcategories of it. --kingboyk 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the Parlophone artists category to as many Parlophone artists as I can think of. Steelbeard1 13:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, you scoundrel! Gives me more work to do populating Category:Parlophone singles! (I am , of course, joking :-) - thanks for doing that.) --kingboyk 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of your new additions don't have many blue linked articles. There's one who does, of course, and that's a fella by the name of James Paul McCartney. How could I have forgotten him?! :-) --kingboyk 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Shortcuts

Good work, I think, I'm just concerned that we may be hogging a lot of the WP:* namespace with such short shortcuts... (always a danger with TLAs ) Since they weren't in use "we got here first", I guess... ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, first come first served it would seem. Couldn't find any policy saying not to. --kingboyk 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Is there a consensus with dealing with multiple infoboxes? For example, the Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da article has both the album infobox and the singles infobox. I think having both looks a bit ugly, so I think we should figure out a way to combine both boxes, or just include the more important one. Estrose 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That one is weird. It actually appears to have a "subst:'d" version of the album box although I can't be quite sure. If so, I'm not sure why it was subst'd in (didn't check the talk page though). I think a song should have only song/single (whichever is more appropriate) and not album... So I dunno about consensus but barring a good reason to keep the album (or its subst'ed descendant), I'd yank it. Those interested in the album can easily visit that article. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed this discussion earlier on and it got me thinking. You might be interested in a (rather bold) suggestion I've made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Infoboxes, which I'm hoping might resolve such infobox issues. Flowerparty? 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. It's a (probably amateurish) first draft, so please get stuck in! --kingboyk 19:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Beatles song stubs

I've proposed the above for renaming to Category:The Beatles song stubs in line with the other Beatles categories. The debate is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_13#Category:Beatles_song_stubs_to_Category:The_Beatles_song_stubs. --kingboyk 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... this was never proposed at WP:SFD, which is where stub categories deletions and renamings should be proposed! In future please remember that all stub categories and templates go through SFD (as it says at the top of WP:CFD!). Grutness...wha? 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Baroque Beatles Book

During an AWB run I found the above new article. A possible companion for the Beatle Barkers in a Beatles parodies (and possibly "miscellaneous") category? --kingboyk 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another new one in a similar vein (none of these are logged yet) - The Buggs. --kingboyk 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another new article

also not logged, because I've never heard of em! The Dissenters. --kingboyk 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Article count

All Beatles-related articles I know about (i.e. those in the categories, plus one or two strays, minus a few I considered outside project scope) are now tagged with {{TheBeatlesArticle}} and can be found in Category:WikiProject The Beatles articles. Article count (main space only): 546. Of those there are a large number of sub-stubs and very poor articles on songs. We have a long and winding road ahead of us I fear. --kingboyk 18:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Zappa covers

Great stuff; only thing I would add is Zappa's mutation of Norwegian Wood, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and Strawberry Fields Forever on his 1988 tour to ridicule the televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who'd just been caught "doing something pornographic" with a prostitute. Evidence here - http://lukpac.org/~handmade/patio/bootlegs/boxes.html#broadwaythehardwayinusa 195.58.94.172 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)rancidfish [nli]

Christmas Album, Wide Prairie

Well, I added most the info I could find and thought was appropriate to The Beatles' Christmas Album, if anybody has any more ideas on what to include I'd appreciate the input.

And I also added a lot of info to the article on Linda's Wide Prairie album, with a tracklist and info on each track. Perhaps I added too much info, I'd like input on that as well. Thanks. Danthemankhan 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I love what you've done with the Christmas article. As for Linda's album, it's absolutely not excessive. In fact, it would be better if you covered the songs in normal prose within a section of the article. A lot of album articles don't go into any detail about the songs within - or the more fancruftier projects split out horrible little stub articles on each song. The perfect album article (I think) will tell the reader about each song. Remember, many readers won't have heard the LP - I haven't for a kickoff. --kingboyk 07:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians has tried to claim our Project as managed by them. I've reverted stating that we'd prefer to be listed as an independent top-level project (or until they reword their Project page). I think other Project members will agree with me on this?

Rationale: It would have been nice if somebody had come over to our WikiProject and explained what was happening, rather than just changing our category membership and commandeering our Project as "maintained by WikiProject Musicians". We have a well-ordered infrastructure - which we put in place ourselves; we don't need an extra layer of bureacracy; and the Beatles are such a large part of Wikipedia (500+ articles) that it really needs a dedicated team to manage. --kingboyk 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless they can point to where they have contributed through their "management" (or by a member of their membership as a matter of policy) I think your response is entirely appropriate.LessHeard vanU 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should stay top level. If things change in future, revisit. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, you Beatle people are territorial! Presumably you're referring to this edit? The musicians project had nothing to do with that; it was rather part of Silence's work cleaning up Category:WikiProjects. I've recategorised you as a Music WikiProject. The musicians project, meanwhile, clearly needs some attention, if anyone's interested? Flowerparty☀ 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the value add in being a subproject of a project barely off the ground, and I like the scope of this project... big enough to be important and not so big as to be overwhelming. The Beatles are more than just music, you know. A top level project is where it belongs. Further, I don't think coming in and changing categorization without talking about it first is quite the way to achieve consensus, and I don't think accusing anyone of being "territorial" is a useful way to start a discussion. I've reverted the category change. Make the case that it should be categorised the way you say before changing it back, if you would be so kind. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was joking about the territorial thing, sorry if that didn't come across. I guess I need to use more of these :P things, or something. And just to clarify, I didn't quite change it back: it had been under Category:WikiProject Musicians, I put it under Category:Music WikiProjects (which also includes well-established projects like WP:ALBUM) - see further reasoning at Category talk:WikiProject The Beatles. Flowerparty☀ 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is territorial to an extent, but with reason (as Lar pointed out). My main worry when I saw it was that they will come along now with a set of guidelines and procedures, and potentially undo the structural and "policy" work we've already done. That's the biggie. I was also a bit pissed off that they seemed to be taking credit for the Project (the first of its kind I believe, and one which Lar and I and others have put an enormous amount of time into). Finally, I thought well that means the Project will be hidden away in a subcategory. I think this Project is important enough to not be hidden away... and we really need some new members so any advertising is good :) OK stream of consciousness over let's go check out the category talk... --kingboyk 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter (2)

It's way past time, we should ge our first newsletter out folks. We need to tell the less active members where we're at and what's happening. The most important part of this is to try and drum up some more participation as I think the Project is floundering now the initial "new Project euphoria" is over. We can create it here and then subst it onto user talk pages. There's plenty of examples knocking about to pilfer formatting ideas from :) --kingboyk 04:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It seems to me that there's so much information scattered around the various subpages that it could use a newsletter for those of us not "in the know". Danthemankhan 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody put a skeleton in place, you know just some nice formatting? I'm happy to then start adding some content. Good idea Danthemankhan... and while you're here mate, perhaps you'd look at a few of the threads above... I seem to have been talking to myself lately :) --kingboyk 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you want one ? Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue_001 ?? I should be doing other things but am on a heavy work avoidance string now, I'll set up a skelly for you if that suits. (001 gives us room for 999 newsletters before alpha is messed up... is that going to be enough? :) ) ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Skelly set up. if you don't like it, change it. It's a straight crib from WP:MILHIST I took the liberty as listing us as co editors but feel free to delete me I don't mind. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was after. Cheers! --kingboyk 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I presume that this is the talk page regarding the newsletter per the message in Mytalk? I have never done a newsletter before, so I am not certain what is required. I will gladly edit/spell check and stuff other peoples contributions. It seems all the catagorising, stubbing and other technical aspects have been done by other editors.LessHeard vanU 20:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: Just start editing that page I set up: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue_001 and when everyone that's involved in creating content is happy, we'll spam all the project member talk pages with it via AWB or whatever... one thing we ought to mention IN the newsletter is the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach where people can say "don't do that again" or "just leave me a link"... The newsletter's talk is where I'd talk about what should be in (key questions, what do we want to talk about? what we've done so far? stuff coming up? questions or concerns or issues?) or not in. But those are my ideas. This is Kingboyk's idea so he may have bigger/better/faster/cheaper/smaller ideas. I think it's great you're willing to smith it though! ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right on man. Let's get stuck in. I'm still busy with KLF articles but I can chip in a few things today and perhaps we can get it out tommorow or Monday. --kingboyk 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For chat about newsletter 1, head this way >>> (or better still, don't chat just edit :) )

Newsletter 1 is gone and done. it has been delivered and should not be modified any more, although feel free to talk about it, likes, dislikes, etc... For chat about newsletter 2, head this way >>> ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Navbox

Do we want one of these: Template:WPMILHIST Navigation? It would contain all or most of what is found here, presumably: [4] Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, yes please! As Dan said above, we do have a lot of pages scattered about. A nav bar like that would be cool. --kingboyk 06:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems good. How many articles are there in WPMILHIST, do you know? If that navbar holds links to all articles then we would have to look at grouping subjects since our article count is rather high - if (as I suspect) it just points to the major topics then it will probably serve us well.LessHeard vanU 20:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That navbox is for project nav not article.. it has all the pages that are important to the project itself in it (and none of the articles)... there are 5000+ articles covered by that project I think. maybe 50000 I can't recall. but loads. Wayyy too many for a nav box. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good-oh, then it seems perfect for us (if some kind soul with knowledge of this tech stuff, and an idea where all the project pages are, were to tackle it...) How about the todo list for the next newsletter? I know you and Kingboyk already have a list as long as the cliche!LessHeard vanU 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll bang one out (later tonite if I get a chance) with my best guess as to the needful links, no biggie (and others can add whatever I forget). The work-part is to go around to all the project pages and add it to the pages themselves. (hmm... a job for AWB maybe) ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK... give it a boo WP:WikiProject The Beatles/Navigation (it's on this page already and on the main project page. If that's basically good, anyone that wants to should hang it on every page that it lists off. Also what about the content? Did I get the right set of things included? Comments welcomed (here or in ITS talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Navigation

Has anyone...

Has anyone asked Taxman, who is currently undergoing an RfB, if he named himself after this song? ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 15:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, not that I can think of, and neither did you! But I'm not the most creative person, so it was at least partly inspired by that song, and actually having to admit that I find something geekily entertaining about digging into parts of the IRS code, regs, and letter rulings. Funny enough I only just saw this from clicking on what links here from the nom. - Taxman ^Talk 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

John Eastman

I was about to speedy-delete John Eastman, but saw the project tempate. Can anyone evidence of the notability of this person? The entire text of the article is:

• John Eastman was the son of Lee Eastman.

And that isn't enough. -Will Beback 21:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Paul McCartney's brother-in-law from his marriage to his first wife Linda? He was also an adviser who helped Paul and Linda develop MPL Communications. Steelbeard1 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a brother-in-law to someone notable doesn't make one notable. By following the links to the article I find that he managed a few bands, and was an entertainment lawyer. If all of that info is verifiable and add to the article then it might be worth keeping. -Will Beback 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it here. His article was until very recently a redirect, which I've now restored. I don't believe he justifies an article on his own. --kingboyk 07:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to resolve it. I came across it checking a link of another (even less notable) person of the same name. Also, there's still a "Lee Eastman" article. Frankly, Lee & John Eastman is not a good article title, unless that was the name of a partnership. They need to be merged and I suggest we simply redirect the John Eastman links to Lee Eastman, and mention in that article that his son, born___ (or whatever biographical details), was also in the business. There may be other "John Eastmans", so we may eventually appropriate the title for a disambiguation page, etc. But at the moment this "John Eastman" appears the most noteworthy so he can have the redirect. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That (the presence of a Lee Eastman article) will be because the same editor undid that redirect too :) If you want to move them around go for it. I chose the Lee & John name to try and resist the attempts for these guys to have seperate articles, but I accept it's unconventional... What I don't know is what name they practiced law under, which might be a suitable article name perhaps? --kingboyk 08:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If the article were about the practice, then it should be under the partnership's name. For example, "Apple Corps". But if it's 95% a bio of Lee Eastman, then we should just call it "Lee Eastman". The objection to Lee & John is rooted in the idea that no one would naturally type that into a search box, or link to it from an article. That's the heart of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I know nothing about the arcana of Beatles management, so I'm just giving you general principles. -Will Beback 08:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't John Eastman a photographer? And didn't he provide many sources (books and such) with otherwise unavailable photographs of Paul? I'm not sure if that makes him especially notable, but I wouldn't say he was necessarily unnotable, either. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea. If something like that comes up, the redirect can be reversed. In the meantime, we'll show we're a WikiProject that means business by merging flaky articles like that - agree? :) --kingboyk 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I was just popping in to add a factoid that I seem to remember. Makes no difference to me, either way. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support stuffing the whole lot of them into Linda's article, perhaps as sections, and leave the dab pages to point to the sections where there are dab pages (Pity redirects can't point into sections too...) ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they're a bit too notable for that. The Eastman saga was an important component in the driving of a wedge between Paul and the other Beatles. The Eastmans apparently also helped Macca build up MPL and his considerable wealth. I think they're best covered seperately from Linda. --kingboyk 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Portal

I think we ought to change the content of Portal:The Beatles every month or so? This time I'm gonna be bold and make an "executive decision" :) about the content, but maybe it should be a monthly job along with the newsletter?

Perhaps we should have a calendar on the project page? --kingboyk 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A monthly review seems a good thing to me. And no I'm not volunteering at the moment. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple Records artists

The red links for the minor artists on Apple remain, and I'm now wondering if they should be delinked. None of the artists were particularly notable except for their Apple connections as far as I know, and their failure to turn blue may suggest there is little to say about them. However, since they're listed in our newsletter and on our to-do list (albeit put there by me) I won't go through the what links here for them removing links until I've had some yays or nays from other editors. --kingboyk 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought they were pretty low priority; an artist whose only claim to fame was being on Apple. If the artist had any (other) merit they should get an article eventually - so perhaps delist and look at it another day? Again, no point in urgency re delisting...LessHeard vanU 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No harm in leaving them I say. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly no harm in leaving them. Maybe, in the future, there would be articles about them but currently they are non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean non-notable as in "would fail to meet notability at AFD" then we categorically shouldn't leave red links. Anyway... we seem to be split on this so I'll leave them in place for now. --kingboyk 10:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something to put in the newsletter, asking for comments from amongst those who would be turning the links blue? Even a lack of interest in responding should indicate the likely status.LessHeard vanU 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that if an artist is not notable, we should not keep a red link around, I'd also say that if an artist was released on Apple, which is a major label, they satisfy notability as suggested in WP:MUSIC, even if the release was just one single, without needing to pass any further tests. So to my view it comes down to this: will someone get around to doing articles sometime soon? If so, leave them because we'd just have to put them back, no? If not, does having redlinks hurt or help (that is, are they more of a detraction to things than an incentive to DO the articles?)... I think on balance they help, so I favour leaving them. The first major article I wrote from scratch (Poughkeepsie Bridge) was, after all, a redlink I found (it had 20 or so incoming links when I checked) so I think redlinks definitely motivate people to create articles. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I might think about an interrim solution of redirecting them to an "other Apple artists" article. The problem alas is that I know little (i.e. nothing) about these artists... --kingboyk 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If people (us) with an eclectic enough taste to have some knowledge of The Beatles (I can just about remember their last recordings and breakup, and I guess I'm older than Lar and Kingboyk) but don't know much about the various Apple artists, I would suggest it may be some time before we find an editor who does - or is willing to find out. My point is - keep them by all means, but I feel it may be a long time before the majority turn blue.LessHeard vanU 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about Lar, but I'm a 70s child. (If you're talking about me to any attractive young women, please change that to "80s" :) ). --kingboyk 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say...son! *grin*LessHeard vanU 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (1959!)

I was born in 1959 so I theoretically should remember more about The Beatles than I do. But I was rather an odd child and didn't really get into music till after they had broken up (I had a copy of the Apple "Turn Turn Turn" single before I had anything by our lads)... ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was born the night before Halloween, 1959 - you are likely a few months older than me - and I grew up accepting that The Beatles were as natural and commonplace as going to school. I don't particulary remember anything specific, just that it seemed "wrong" when they announced the split.LessHeard vanU 12:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Urgent alert

Apple Corps v. Apple Computer, a new article I forked out today, is on the front page. It's been vandalised twice in the last hour. I'll be watching closely of course, but please would all active Project members - especially admins - add it to their watchlists. It's likely to be a vandalism target whilst it remains on the front page and as a new article I'm probably the only person who has it on their watchlist. Cheers. --kingboyk 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

adding it... ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't guarantee it will stay there, as after waiting nearly 24 hours without approval or objection I placed it there myself. Within a few hours of the story breaking there was 700+ stories on Google News, so I think it's big enough to survive on the front page for a couple of days but we'll see... --kingboyk 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist - which usually means I get to see what you guys did...LessHeard vanU 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Going crazy at the moment. I actually had to delete it twice and restore only clean revisions, as someone posted what they claim is an admin's home phone number. Oh well, all part of the "fun" of being an admin I guess :) --kingboyk 20:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected, meaning new accounts and anons can't edit but anyone else can. If this inconveniences any of you or I forget to unprotect when it's off the front page, give me a buzz on my talk page. Isn't this exciting! :) --kingboyk 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What an odd vandal.... How would you get an admin's phone number? Why would bother posting it in an article on Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the Apple vs. Apple legal troubles? That deleting thing... does retain all history but what revision(s) need(s) to be deleted? OK, I think that's enough questions for the time being.... (Oh, yeah, and it's about time this subject got its own article. I've been waiting for that....) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a new trick. They post something dodgy in the edit summary, forcing an admin to have to delete the article and restore the "clean" revisions. For a new article it's an easy job, but if the article has thousands of edits well it's a dirty job and it can slow the servers. In this case, I actually left all vandalism and revert edits deleted - I'm not sure if I should have done that or not. In a way, vandalism should be publically viewable, on the other hand if I'm deleting and restoring anyway why restore crap? --kingboyk 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (PS I strongly suspect the phone number was fake, but I erred on the side of caution)

That vandal has been causing havoc on a large number of articles for some time, see WP:AN/I. Bit of a pain. Kingboyk's moving too fast for me, (which is goodness, I have no idea what I'm doing yet) ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It had a very good run, and it's now off the front page. --kingboyk 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion of Policies, Logs, etc.

It seems that the transclusions of the Policies, Logs, etc., pages are causing problems with the navigation because the headings are not recategorized. In otherwords, the headings that are supposed to be subheadings on the inclusion page are actually regular headings because that's what they are on the standalone page. (Let me know if that was confusing....) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It was, can you try again? But I'm not opposed to untranscluding as long as stuff can be found as needed. ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the headers, as marked by a number of equals signs. In this case, they roughly translate to <h2> vs. </h3>. (Incidently, single equals signs can be used to create <h1>s, but there's little use for this, as the title of the page is one.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's true, but is it a problem? (There might be a way round it, using includeonly and noincludeonly but it would be cumbersome). --kingboyk 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking maybe adding an extra <includeonly>=</includeonly> around each header. I agree that it's cumbersome, so maybe we should not transclude it, as Lar suggested? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think putting includeonly around headers is a good idea but maybe I am not following you, is this relating to category tables? we do have the problem there... other wise can you give a link? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No Lar, section headers. Gordon, I think untransclude if pages are too large otherwise leave it/try the cumbersome fix. We have too many pages for the casual reader to look at them all, if the important ones are transcluded they're far more likely to see them! :) --kingboyk 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but the distinction should be made about which pages the casual reader would actually want to read. There are plenty of pages that are only important if you're actually involved in the project. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the "casual Project member" :) Which pages specifically to you object to? --kingboyk 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking a look at it, the whole page seems cluttered. There's plenty of stuff there that should be reorganized and/or moved to subpages. I've already taken the liberty of removing some of the transclusions. I'm gonna take a look at the rest of the page, too. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't realize that most of this stuff was included by default in the subst'd template. I'm going to hold off on any more changes to allow for more discussion. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back for now. I'll have a look at trimming some later. --kingboyk 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Category "The Beatles" should not be in music group categories

Please see discussion and advice on categorisation at Category talk:The Beatles.

This is a nice idea...

shall we copy it? :) {{Queen WikiProject welcome}} --kingboyk 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Beatles Break-up

A contentious new article has popped up, Beatles Break-up. We need to decide what to do with it - keep, merge or propose deletion. Perhaps the editors who've been working on the History of the Beatles article would care to express their opinions? --kingboyk 22:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid encyclopaedia article, IMO. (Although the breakup should use a lowercase "b".) It would make sense to have it as a subarticle of History of The Beatles. Johnleemk | Talk 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any sources or references, but there is good detail. Perhaps a word with the editors, of which there seems to be two?LessHeard vanU 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Any artists here?

It would be nice if we had a Project barnstar. Anyone here able to design one? --kingboyk 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:69.120.179.150 and vandalism

We may have a vandal on our hands here, but I can't be sure. 69.120.179.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made many edits to various articles, including many Beatles albums, changing recording dates and making other edits without explanation. I've left a note on the talk page, but who knows what good it'll do. Other than that, I don't have any power to do anything about it, but I believe you guys do. The problem is, this user has made many changes that have still not been reverted, even with subsequent edits to the articles, and will need to be if they are found to be vandalism. Let me know what you think. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks a tad suspicious. Anyone have a Lewisohn or similar book handy they can check a date or two with? If no answer before the end of the day I'll rollback any changes where he's top of the edit list, better to be safe than sorry. kingboyk

I've reverted, but not using the admin rollback button as I have no idea if it's vandalism or not. --kingboyk 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how the user deleted my post to their talk page and continued to make unexplained changes, I'm now convinced that the user is, in fact, a malicious vandal who should be blocked. Also, there were other, similar edits that the user made that were not at the top of the edit list, but were not reverted, either. They should also be checked out. Thoughts? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can find any questionable changes that I missed, roll them back. Since it's an IP address I can't block as a form of punishment, nor can I block long term, so it's too late to be thinking about a block now. I can only block if he comes back and is vandalising, as a precautionary measure. So, what you need to do if he reappears is post it to WP:AIV for the immediate attention of an admin (or if I appear to be online and you'd rather deal with me, drop a note here or on my talk page). Revert any of his changes which appear to be sneaky vandalism. Assuming good faith can only go so far and I agree with you it looks like vandalism. --kingboyk 11:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

McCartney Template

Can I change the Paul McCartney Template, adding The Family Way, A Garland for Linda, Wings Over America, etc..???. Other question: I'm working now in The Paul McCartney Collection, but this week i don't have time to keep writing the article, can you give me a little help, please??? Thanks & Chao--Mr. Manu 18:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit templates, yes, as long as they're not protected. If other people don't like your changes they'll revert. That's how wiki works, so be bold :) That said, I think the McCartney template is not meant to include every album; for example all live albums are already omitted. So, I think the albums you mention are probably too obscure to list (apart from Wings Over America which is far from obscure but a live album... not sure about that one, as I feel it's a very important album... anyone else wanna comment?)

I don't know anything about The Paul McCartney Collection so I've listed your request on this talk page in the hope that someone else will help you out! Cheers Mr Manu! --kingboyk 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who trimmed it down last time! What a dumb ass I am! Anyway, I see Mr Manu has expanded it, and I have no problem with his changes. If others think its too bulky now they can trim it down, as I said before that's wiki. --kingboyk 11:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Singles template

A template to go on all the articles for each single would be nice. Since they couldn't all fit into this one without bloating it incredibly, perhaps a new template with just the singles on it, which would replace this one just on those articles (and both could appear on The Beatles main page)). Anyone else think this is a good idea? I'd be willing to try to make it if so. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 01:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Could be quite large and have internationalisation issues, but by all means give it a go is my opinion. I've found such a template useful for other bands. --kingboyk 09:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it, and one for b-sides as well. I had them together at first, but separated them so it wasn't so big. I'll be putting them in all the appropriate articles shortly. I based the list on the categories, so if there were any missing from those, they're not on the templates either. (I revised the cat.s some, as some songs were categorized incorrectly, such as being in both.) -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually quite a few songs were in the singles category, while the article does not say they are, or outright says they were from an album. I am removing all these from the singles cat., and the singles template - if I am wrong about any of them, please put them back in both. I am not an expert, I'm just using what info is already here. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree... the singles category should only contain released singles. Also, I can edit in Billboard Hot 100 data for these songs (at least those released in the US)... it'd be nice to have a short table for each single, showing how it fared on the various charts... -Brian.D 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the categories ought to be quite well organised, as I gave them a good fix a while back. I can't recall if I fixed articles already categorised or not - probably didn't - so your changes might have been good. And, if not, well we can fix them when we assess the articles so no harm done. So, anyway, where's this singles template? Doesn't appear to have popped up on any of my watchlisted articles yet. :) --kingboyk 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell a lie, the B-sides template has popped up on Revolution (song). I'd add the A-sides template too, as I think a reader who has found themselves at an article on a B-side is gonna be as or more interested in the A-sides. --kingboyk 11:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sub-thread about whether "Revolution" is a B-side or a double A moved to Talk:Revolution (song). (so it has a wider exposure/more chance of picking up a definitive answer). --kingboyk 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought about putting both (well, actually, started out as them both in a single template), but split them cause it was looking to get too big. If you think both should show up on a page where either does, go ahead and do it (I'm worn out after editing 50+ articles inserting them all, hehe), or maybe combine them back into one template. It turns out they were a lot smaller than I thought, once I removed duplicates and ones that didn't seem to belong. I also added the templates on the main project page, under the main template. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Per this discussion and the talk pages on the templates, I have merged them into the one at the singles. The other is now a redirect, so the pages should all still work without being edited, but if you happen to be editing a page with the {{The Beatles B-sides}} tag on it, please change it to {{The Beatles Singles}} to avoid the redirect. It's not worth doing unless you're otherwise already editing the page though. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Beatles" vs. "the Beatles"

Articles seem to use both "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" to refer to the group. Should the "the" always be capitalized? Cjosefy 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In short, "YES!" LessHeard vanU 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Hence, the link to the Policy page. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Billy Preston

I heard it on Wikipedia first, but Google News now seems to be confirming it. Billy Preston has passed away, aged 59. If you've never been touched by his performances I suggest you get the Concert for Bangla Desh DVD or - perhaps better still - the Concert for George. If you have them, tonight would be a good time to relive some memories and watch a soulful man who really loved music.

I'll add a line or two to the next newsletter. --kingboyk 18:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've listed Billy's article at the improvement drive. If you'd like to see the article improved - and would like to help - please vote at Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Billy_Preston_.281_vote.2C_stays_until_June_15.29. --kingboyk 16:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fifth Beatle

Thread moved to Talk:Fifth Beatle, where I won't have to look at it it can be debated more fully. --kingboyk 16:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am so glad that I have been made aware of this article... what sort of level Wikipedian do you have to be before you get an "ignore" option to pages? LessHeard vanU 19:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

New Abbey Road photo

A new creative commons Abbey Road picture has appeared : Image:Abbey Road Photo By Sander Lamme.jpg. --kingboyk 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, but the zig-zags, amongst other things spoil it. Not as good as the present one. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use images

Tree Biting Conspiracy really screwed us over with his removal of the fair use images in place like the portal, especially (s)he simply removed the image wikilink. That means places like our featured picture now don't even have a picture. And don't forget to read the message on the Portal talk page. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Help! (album) American version

There is a dispute involving the James Bond-ish instrumental intro to the song Help! on the American version. This intro which was clearly influenced by Monty Norman's James Bond Theme is not mentioned in the track listing. Because it is on the recording, it should be listed. The question is how should it be listed? Steelbeard1 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The earlier discussion can be found at Talk:Help! (album)#American release error Steelbeard1 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is: "Instrumental introduction" (composed by Ken Thorne). Rich 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Songs infoboxes

Hi there ,

Just wanted to say creating infoboxes for every song should be added to the "to-do" list ( or maybe it is already , I didn't look long enough ), it really gives cohesion to albums and song. I'm just finishing the creation of the infoboxes on every Sgt. Pepper song , but i'm missing a few infos such as song length and stuff like that , so if anybody could add these infos it would be cool.

For the infoboxes , juts use on this kind :

"Good Morning Good Morning"
200px
Song by The Beatles
From the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Album released	June 1 1967
Genre	Rock
Song Length	???
Record label	Apple Records
Producer	George Martin
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Album Listing
Lovely Rita (Track 9)	Good Morning Good Morning (Track 10)	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise) (Track 11)

I think the Let It Be album is missing these infoboxes , so it would be great if someone could do it ;)

Thanks MrGater 18:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason you're not using {{Song infobox}}? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:The Beatles/Featured article - HELP!

That article could really do with being replaced. I chose last time (Apple Records), so would someone else do the honours please? You can choose any Beatles related article that's of reasonable quality. --kingboyk 09:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

accessing quality and importance tables and writeups

The way the WP 1.0 project organises links to their stuff is a bit confusing. I can, after much sluffing around, find the Quality table and and writeups but not the importance table and writeups. I think the section WP:Beatles#Articles_by_quality_log (or something near it) should link to that stuff... thoughts? Note also that I put showhide around the raw log as it was a bit much! ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Family Way

I've created an article on the movie The Family Way, scored by Paul, which was on the WikiProject to-do list, only to find that it is not linked to by a single Beatles or Beatles-related article!!
I'm going to try to link to it from Paul McCartney.
Scolaire 17:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Beatle links point to The Family Way (soundtrack). The film is a bit peripheral for our WikiProject, but it's a nice addition nonetheless so don't worry! :) --kingboyk 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it anyway, but I've saved the link to the soundtrack.Scolaire 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

{{WPBeatles}}

A load of John Lennon albums didn't have the Project tag. Can other people please check other subcategories for missing Project tags? It's quite important now that every article has a tag, because the tag now contains some programming/logic to help create the tables at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality. --kingboyk 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Living in the Material World Reissue

Hi! I was just surfing Billboard.com and came across the info that Living in the Material World was going to be reissued (and presumably upgraded) on CD and a deluxe CD/DVD in September of this year. I typed this new info into the Living in the Material World Wikipedia page, but I didn't know exactly how to hyperlink-cite the source (the Billboard Bits section of Billboard.com). If anyone knows how to do this, it'd be great to have a simple hyperlink number next to the info rather than the sentence I wrote explaining where I got the info. Thanks!! By the way, as a Beatles fan, I am interested in helping with the Beatles Wikiproject. Mcgroth 23:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You can just paste in the URL (web address), should be enough. I'll try and find the article you wish to cite and do it for you.

If you'd like to help with the Project, great, please have a look around and see what you'd like to do. There's no formal membership requirements, just sign up and get involved :) --kingboyk 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thrillington

What on earth happened to the Thrillington article? --Lukobe 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? Good faith edits by a non-native English speaker :) Just needs some copyediting - which, I can see, is exactly how you've tagged it :) --kingboyk 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bootlegs

Do we want to allow articles on any old bootleg album, or just the very notable ones? (NB There are hundreds if not thousands of Beatlegs). I've nominated The Studio Collaboration for deletion using {{prod}}, if anyone disagrees with that all they need to do is remove the template. --kingboyk 09:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Love Me Do

Take a look at the picture sleeve - Ringo hasn't got a mop-top, it's slicked back at the sides! I wonder if Pete was really sacked for refusing to have one? Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. His hair is also a bit iffy on the cover of "Introducing The Beatles" as well Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Songs and singles category

Something which has bothered me a little in the past - whether to have seperate categories for songs and singles (which, in the case of most artists on Wikipedia, are usually wholly or mostly the same) - is up for discussion at Categories for Deletion. I'm posting a heads-up here as The Beatles are mentioned several times; with the thought being that they are one group for whom having both categories is reasonable. The discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Singles_by_artist_into_Songs_by_artist. --kingboyk 09:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I myself don't really see the value in separate articles for 45s... the categories seem harmless enough I guess. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think we really should have a separate page for singles. In most cases, I'd fully support deleting such a page, but in the case of The Beatles, there are many famous/noteworthy songs that were officially released only as singles. One of the more memorable Beatles songs is "Day Tripper", which as one can verify, is not on any of The Beatles' thirteen studio albums. In this case, there's a large number of songs that without a singles page, will only be accessible from the giant list of Beatles songs, where they are mixed with songs released on the albums. --RandomPrecision 23:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RandomPrecision. Singles releases by The Beatles were events, reported in the media of the time, as much as the albums - and many were notable for the sales and such (as when three consecutive releases made No.1 in the UK singles chart). All this info would properly be within an article for the relevant single. I will take a look at the discussion, if it hasn't closed.LessHeard vanU 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles categories were excluded this time but we might get targetted in a future nomination. The person doing the deletion nomination is aware of our Project and our concerns, and I've asked that we be consulted - I trust from the foregoing that we will be. --kingboyk 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you'll get consulted. Basically, only the Beach Boys and this group are so carefully organized. I'd like to propose the following: that we come up with a way to sort these songs in such a way that is Beatles (or Beach Boys)-specific, and doesn't encourage other users to make category:Britney Spears B-sides. What that is I'm not sure, but it's worth discussing.--Mike Selinker 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of a compromise: What if the B-sides and singles categories get merged, but at the top of category:Beatles songs is the infobox which shows all the singles and B-sides? It's not like the number of those is going to change, after all. So a user going to the songs category would be presented with all the singles and B-sides first, then have her choice of songs thereafter. Anyone like that idea?--Mike Selinker 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution, but if you're going to "allow" us to be an exception why not just let us keep both categories? :) (genuine question). --kingboyk 12:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember using the word "allow". Of course, it's entirely possible that both categories will be kept, because a number of users wanted us to consider making exceptions for a few categories. If so, though, only the Beatles and perhaps the Beach Boys will have this categorization scheme if the current nomination passes. Maybe okay, maybe not okay. In my opinion, it's better to come up with something very specific to the Beatles, or to use structures that all such categories have. But that's just my opinion.--Mike Selinker 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually a little surprised that the "B sides" category isn't unique to us :) Obviously there are other edits as anal as me! My point, though, was that if we were to be an exception and get to keep "The Beatles singles" category, I'd prefer it if we kept "The Beatles B-sides" too. (And perhaps "The Beatles album tracks"). Anyway, thanks for coming over here I hope we can continue the dialogue and that some other editors will chip in too. --kingboyk 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the heads-up on the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. All other groups except the Beach Boys have been merged to (X) songs. Nothing has been decided yet, so chime in there.--Mike Selinker 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On: tagging song articles about songs the Beatles covered...

...why?

Is "Please Mr. Postman" truly within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject for the sole reason that they recorded a (admittedly minor) version of it? That doesn't seem sensible to me. --FuriousFreddy 22:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's well within our Project scope I would have thought. However, it might be more in the scope of another Project. At some point probably "turf" for WikiProjects will have to be addressed, but right now many articles get claimed by more than one project. --kingboyk 09:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Radha Krshna Temple

>>Radha Krishna Temple (NB, I suspect this may be a blue link somewhere, i.e. an article on this organisation) (1 link)

I think the link you're looking for is International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

Scolaire 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Probable and plausible (ISKON of course George worked with; the article mention that Radha is Krishna's female counterpart), but something a bit more concrete would be great. If they're certainly one and the same, Radha Krishna Temple could be added to Category:Apple Records recording artists and redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. It would be great to get another red link crossed off, but I don't want to do that unless certain. (And if International Society for Krishna Consciousness is Apple's Radha Krishna Temple we'll need to get a mention into that article. Currently it doesn't even mention George). --kingboyk 08:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Doing some research on the web I've come up with what I believe is the answer. The Radha Krshna Temple (note spelling) at 7 Bury Place, London was the original headquarters of the ISKCON movement in the UK and was founded late 60's or 1970 (the movement only began in 1966). An Apple album (SAPCOR 18) Radha Krsna Temple by Radha Krsna Temple was released in 1970 see Apple Records discography. This press release details the album release. More details of the album are available here and. here. A detailed desciption on George's involvement in the 'movement' is available here. This may be sufficient info for an article on its own? simonthebold 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I'd say an article on the Radha Krsna Temple detailing the Apple releases and George's involvement with them would be wonderful. We have a picture of the album and some sources (but be careful with these sources as none of them are high quality). Citations can be added using <ref>, and a section added to the ISKCON article with {{main}}. If you'd like to start the article I'm happy to provide copy editing, categorisation and templating services! --kingboyk 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request for assistance and/or further info at Talk:International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Radha_Krsna_Temple_on_Apple_Records, and asked for replies here. --kingboyk 13:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea for an article. The Radha and Krishna deities from the original Bury place temple are now in the ISKCON temple on Soho Square in London. They are known as 'Radha-Londonishvara'. That's where the 'Radha Krsna Temple' name came from. I'll see what info I dig out for the main page. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Radha Krsna Temple. Apple Records collectors/experts please help by filling in the section on the Apple album. --kingboyk 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:John & Yoko albums

I don't like this (relatively new) category as it adds an extra navigational layer: somebody in Category:John Lennon will have to click through two categories to find, say, Two Virgins.

I'd like to either:

• Delete that new category and move all articles in it to Category:John Lennon albums and Category:Yoko Ono albums

or

• Retain the category but copy all articles to Category:John Lennon albums and Category:Yoko Ono albums

I prefer the former but before I go nominate it for deletion I'd like to know what others think. Perhaps it's a good category and I'm wrong, so speak up. --kingboyk 13:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Former. And nom the cat for deletion. ++Lar: t/c 11:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lar. I'll do that, although there's no guarantee of course that the folks at WP:CFD will agree :) --kingboyk 11:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_5#Category:John_.26_Yoko_albums_to_Category:John_Lennon_albums_and_Category:Yoko_Ono_albums --kingboyk 13:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted

We are migrating from the old article classification (and comment) system we used to use to the new WP 1.0 system of classification. The last thing to be migrated (the ratings and importances already are migrated) are the comments. We could use some help with this. If you have some time to pitch in please do. See Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification/Migratingfor instructions. Feedback on instructions welcomed! ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Thenewno2

I've fixed it now, but any idea why kingboyk's edit to that talk page (circa May 26, 2006) using AWB changed the wikicode from a template inclusion to a link when it changed the name? I checked the edits directly before and after it, and they didn't seem to have a problem with it. It's hardly relevant now, anyway, but while you're reading this, you may as well check out the band. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea. How strange. I hope that was a one off!

Your article doesn't have any categories. It also needs a stub template. --kingboyk 09:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my article, I just happened across it. It needs a lot of stuff. I'll see what I can do. Do we have a list of our categories somewhere? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't guarantee it's up to date: WP:TBC. --kingboyk 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across that afterwards, but it didn't look like anything applied. I've added Category:Dhani Harrison, but that doesn't actually exist. Any other suggestions? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything hugely suitable so the stub cat Category:United Kingdom rock musical group stubs will have to do for now. Dhani doesn't warrant a category yet, but of course if his band make an impact they'll get their own/he'll get his own category at a later date. Let it be, in other words :) --kingboyk 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be so keen on the archiving!

You archived a long thread of mine from June 22nd which hasn't got any answers yet. If a thread might reasonably be still active or, on a slow talk page as this now is, is recent and not been replied to please don't archive it! Thanks. --kingboyk 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a slow talk page. June 17 and June 22 are long past already. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And I was actually more worried about whether or not I should archive the "Love Me Do" thread, as it was only from June 29. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be archiving when threads are at least 2 months old, or the page is crowded, or the threads are "spent" (answered, finalised). But, hey, please forgive my grouchiness I don't want to discourage you from doing the job, I should be thanking you really :) --kingboyk 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kansas City

The article relevant to our purposes was moved a while ago from Kansas City (song) to Kansas City (R&B song). I just went through and disambiguated most of the pages that think there incorrectly. However, I'm not especially familiar the workings of our classification system and whatnot, so I don't know what to do about those links. I changed one of them somewhere, but that may have incorrect. I'll leave it in your hands to take care of the links in the classification area. Just keep in mind that our article is now Kansas City (R&B song) and that Kansas City (song) is now a disambig page for three different songs. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Song template

Can we include the following template in our templates section? Someone else made it, and I have been using it for Beatles songs.

"SONG NAME"
ALBUM NAME
Song by The Beatles
From the album ALBUM NAME
Album released	RELEASE DATE
Recorded	RECORDING DATES
Genre	Rock
Song Length	LENGTH
Record label	LABEL
Producer	PRODUCER
ALBUM NAME Album Listing
PREVIOUS SONG NAME (Track #)	SONG NAME (Track #)	NEXT SONG NAME (Track #)

Great. Do it. (You don't need permission, of course!)LessHeard vanU 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles trivia

It looks like the deletion discussion came to no consensus. That's a shame. That page looks nothing like the page it was created to be. It's now all jumbled up, with a bunch of little "mini-articles" providing the content of the page, essentially verbatim from the original article. In fact, someone recently deleted an entire section of Free as a Bird because it was "on the trivia page". Come on, we have to do something about this. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk to Andreasegde, it is pretty much his puppy.LessHeard vanU 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

:P It could certainly do with some trimming to remove less-trivial material well-covered elsewhere, or at least liberal use of the {{main}} template, but overall I think it's a really nice piece of work. It just shows that "trivia" can be collected together into a pleasant article.

The suggestion that a section of another article should be zapped because it's "on the trivia page" is just laughable and I hope you told the editor in question that! --kingboyk 07:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles under review

The Beatles is currently under featured article review. Punctured Bicycle 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for informing us. I'm writing a detailed reply now, but I'll summarise by saying that the article is certainly in a less than desirable state but that Wikipedia can't afford to delist such a crucial piece. Let's work together to make it definitive. --kingboyk 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)