Talk:Abbey Road/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Text from 2004

I toned down the praise of George Harrison. While "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" were wonderful songs (as was the earlier "While my Guitar Gently Weeps"), and worthy of sitting next to Lennon and McCartney's work, on sheer quantity of outstanding work you'd still have to rate Lennon-McCartney way ahead (and I think this is a fairly uncontroversial opinion). --Robert Merkel 02:18, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the following, as it is talk about the article, and not encyclopedic information. That stated, I disagree with the suggested move for the reasons stated -- Abbey Road is much more likely to be the referrent for someone doing a search than the road in London, or Abbey Road Studios. Tuf-Kat 03:04, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Suggest adding article on Abbey Road, London and moving the current article to "Abbey Road (Album)" since the album is named after Abbey Road Studios which is named after the street

On the other hand, the fame of the album has eclipsed that of its elder namesakes, and I'd wager that when most people say "Abbey Road" they mean the album.

---

Is Abbey Road really "psychedelic rock"? Isn't it more just regular rock? Adam Bishop 17:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Commentary

"penultimately" is way too pretentious of a word. Changed it to "next-to-last" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.168.253.157 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 12 February 2005.

According to Ian MacDonald it was John Curlander who was told to cut out "Her Majesty" from the medley, changed the text to that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 03:50, 23 May 2005 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 May 2005.

Recording Dates

The album info box has recently been edited to show that the Beatles started recording Abbey Road on February 22 (on which they recorded I Want You (She's So Heavy)) - trouble is, that session occured at Trident Studios, in London. The info box currently reads Abbey Road (studio) Feb 22 - whenever, but they didn't start recording *at* Abbey Road until later. What shall we do?

Personnel?

Why don't any of the The Beatles album pages have personnel sections? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's added them? I'm not sure that every album needs the info but if someone knows it, and properly sources it, I'm not opposed to it being added. This might be a good topic to bring up on the Beatles project discussion page, let's discuss it there! ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Guitars revisited

Um, so it looks like the only person who thinks George did them all himself is 24.218.222.161, and I certainly invite him to bring sources. In the mean-time, here's a quote from John Lennon's Rolling Stone interview, which I'm taking from www.beatles-discography.com

"There's a nice little bit I played on Abbey Road... Paul gave us each a piece, a little break where Paul plays, George plays, and I play. It stops, on 'Carry That Weight', then suddenly it goes boom-boom-boom on the drums and we all take it in turns to play. I'm the third one on it."

As an aside, this line was in the original version of this article, written by Dunks58 on 09:34, 24 August 2004.

"The song 'The End' features the only Ringo Starr drum solo to make it to tape, as well as alternating blistering lead guitar solos from Lennon, McCartney and Harrison."

As far as I can tell, the line's pretty much been left alone since, and I honestly don't think it violates POV. The article should make some attempt to describe the work, yes? And 'blistering' seems a perfectly apt word to me. Any thoughts? MBlume 07:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Any flowery-poetic adjectives can be taken as POV unless it's cited.(additional reading, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:AWW, WP:APT and WP:OR) "Blistering lead guitar solos" is a pretty good example of a couple of those. However, something like: In the 19XX edition of ABC MUSIC magazine, veteran music critic Johnny Critic described the ending guitar solos as blistering ...and then included a link to the article or a harvard reference to the book/page to back it up...then it passes the Wiki test. Uncited POV remarks tend to get turfed after a while as they make the article look less like an encyclopedia...and more like a junior high school book report. Anger22 16:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which....

Speaking of "Covers", how were they ordered? TommyBoy76 13:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Covers

Am I the only person who's thinking the covers section is getting a bit out of hand?. There's no way we can list every cover of every song from this album ever covered. But we don't want to dissuade fans. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is necassary. We may not find all covers and who did them and all that jazz. But it doesn't hurt anything. People could see it as: "Whoa, all of those people appreciate it so much, that all of those covers were made because of it." Dissuade fans? Sounds like POV to me. TommyBoy76 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

"Dissuade fans" means not dissuading beatles fans from wanting to contribute because some of us are anti list... adding bits and pieces here and there is often how future strong contributors get drawn in to being wikiaddicts. Hope that helps clear it up, sorry if I wasn't clear before. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just merge the information into the relevant song articles? That would seem more appropriate. Flowerparty☀ 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, Lar, I see now. And ya know I kind of agree. I still think we should keep it, but I also think that it could be cleaned up a little bit. In regards to merging the information, if we only have bits and pieces of covers and songs, there would be no reason, in my opinion. Cheers, TommyBoy76 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Classification

I hated to do it, but I had to rate this other-wise great article B-Class solely because it lacked references. I I gave it a Top importance because it is considered by many one of the greatest albums of all time.Vint 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the?! ;) -MBlume 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A few procedural notes: The parameter 1 doesn't use the word "class". So, the correct usage is {{WikiProject The Beatles|B|Top}}. You can tell if you have the correct parameters simply by looking at the categories at the bottom, or indeed at the new colour boxes which should appear in the template.

Comments on why you rated a particular way go into a sub page. Click on the "leave comments here" link to open the page. --kingboyk 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics Links

The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 04:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted Speculations

Is there much of a point in throwing in this kind of speculation?

"The two album sides are quite different in character, designed to accommodate the differing wishes of McCartney and John Lennon. Side one (to please Lennon) is a collection of single tracks, while side two (to please McCartney) consists of a long suite of compositions, many of them being relatively short and segued together. Some might argue that this is essentially McCartney's album."

...What this paragraph says nicely supports the idea that Abbey Road is a compromise between L and M. At the very least, then, this "some might argue" business doesn't sit very easily with the foregoing statements. And what does it really mean to say it's "essentially" one member's album? We all say that kind of thing in everyday talk, but you'd think an encyclopedia would stick to facts, which can include reports of well-documented, relevant opinions. Figureground 02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Accolades

Don't know where to point this out, but I've corrected the VH1 list on three or four pages. Someone keeps referencing the list as having aired in 2003, but it aired in 2001. Also, the Rolling Stone list came out in November 2003, but it is dated December 11, so I put December 2003 for that. I don't like to edit, so I just wanted to correct it and point it out for future reference if anyone sees these errors somewhere else. Onresume December 13, 2006

VW

Was the VW really sold for $23,000 U.S.? I can't find any evidence of it. On the contrary, I find what purports to be a primary source saying he sold the number plates for £2300 [1], which is a far cry from the figure that wikipedia cites and that countless places mirror. Koyaanis Qatsi 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Airbrushed Cigarette

Apparently some US poster groups airbrushed the cigarette out of Paul's hand, might be worth including somewhere. reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2681219.stm http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003030798,00.html dreamcatcher23 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Abbeyroadback.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 13:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's Funny? I've wonderd for years, - what made Paul laugh in the middle of "Maxwell's Siver Hammer"? It's just as he sings "Writing fifty times ... " Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.241.228 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the silliness of the song. That and weed, anyway.

Sorry

I Accidentally removed ref #12 and now I can't get i backThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road as best-selling Beatles album

The article presently states that Abbey Road is the Beatles' best-selling album of all time. This statement is unsourced. I wonder if it may have been true in the year following its release. However, I don't think it is presently the case. Most lists of the best-selling albums of all time (see, for example, [2], [3]) place the White Album much higher than Abbey Road, with the former usually placing in the top ten amongst all artists' albums, and the latter only placing in the top 50. (The Red Album and Blue Album compilations come in between.) Robert K S (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I note that the lists I provided were based on RIAA figures and may only indicate U.S. sales. Robert K S (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can provide a source for AR as best selling album in the US. White album sales need to be divided in half. The only reputable source is the RIAA, which reflects American sales only. The rest of the world is conjecture.

Vytal (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Booster6.jpg

Image:Booster6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off Imitations of the cover and Cover versions

Both of these subsections are far, far too big, so I think that new pages should be created. Additionally, these lists could do with some serious trimming as there's some very un-notable information contained within.Dancarney 15:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with splitting to new article. Many of the song cover entries should be moved to the song in question and don't need to be mentioned here. For imitations of the cover, I'd summarize it and mention a couple notable examples. John Cardinal 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems a better idea; I'll make a start. Dancarney 09:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I made some changes that I think improve the flow, but the content is basically what you wrote. I think the end result is an improvement and better than dropping the section entirely. — John Cardinal 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a television parody of the cover in an episode of the Young Ones, as I recall. The ep where they walk to a pub, and meet Vyvyan's mum. But I won't add it, just mentioning it here in case anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. Huw Powell (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection

For about a week now, an anon IP user has been gong through Beatles' albums removing the Scaruffi reviews from the infoboxes without leaving an edit summary explaining why. I have asked for an explanation but since it's a floating IP, don't really expect to get one. This is unacceptable and I have now had to semi-protect this article for a week in the hope that whoever it is gets the message that these edits are unacceptable. If you want to alter the article in this time and can't, please leave suggestions below. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Legnth

Is it really 47:23 long? --Fpmfpm (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

In the first paragraph, the link for the Let It Be album actually links to the Let It Be song page. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Aren't Beatles articles supposed to use British English? This one includes 'color' and similar - which should it be?...... Densock .. Talk^{(Dendodge on a public network)} 08:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I vote for "colour"; otherwise other changes will be necessary, such as changing the archaic 'compleat' to the more modern 'complete', as in "The Complete Beatles" :) --Jelsova (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ENGVAR but "compleat" is not a synonym for "complete"; it means "proficient or highly skilled". Having said that, the template reference to The Compleat Beatles is literally correct even if the video borrows its title from The Compleat Angler and maybe doesn't say what was intended. --Rodhullandemu 15:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The 17th-century reference was lost on me, obviously, not least because it's such a far-fetched literary allusion for a documentary about a rock band. Anyway, both my Oxford Concise and Merriam-Webster Collegiate say that 'compleat' is a synomym, or variant, of 'complete'. Even Wikipedia re-directs from 'compleat' to 'complete'. Not that it's really relevant to the Abbey Road article, since 'The Compleat Beatles' is what it is... --Jelsova (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road is a contrived album of a virtually non-existing band. That it still works, is because even at this stage, the Beatles didn't lose their sense of experiment ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapspace (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Professional" Reviews

I'm not sure why Scaruffi's or any other reviews should be linked to the article at all. I'm not the one removing the link to Scaruffi's review of The Beatles and don't agree with their removal without whoever's doing it providing an explanation, but I don't see the point of these reviews, either. Maybe there is a debate already somewhere on Wikipedia about the merits of including links to reviews, which I am not aware of, so sorry if I am coming in with a tired discussion point. I'll just say that the reviews on the Abbey Road page are not referenced in the article and thus don't add to the encyclopedic content. They are interesting to read, I guess, but Scaruffi's, for example, is almost deliberately trying to be controversial with what I would say is a pointless act of arguing against the popularity of the Beatles. Linking to it does no service to the historical record, in my opinion. Any review is an opinion and immediately activates the subjective processes of the reader's brain and an unwinnable war of words becomes the result, exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to be about. Calling the reviews "Professional" doesn't change this element of subjective interference. In fact, the Rolling Stone link contains no "professional" review at all that I could find, only reader contributions, which are the opposite of "professional"! Unless there is a review available that provides a strong enough counter-argument to Scaruffi, which would maintain a balance of (very strong) opinion, I would not link to reviews of the Abbey Road album but would try to incorporate the controversy of its cultural/musical relevance into the article, properly citing Scaruffi and/or whoever else would be used as a reference. I may do this myself but I won't mind if someone beats me to it! --Jelsova (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you would have the decency to actually read Scaruffi's review of Abbey Road in the first place, not just the first twenty-odd lines of the whole passage, you'd see he finds in favour of it. I think "masterpiece of production" is quite positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.123.235 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you were offended but I did read Scarrufi's whole review, so I guess I have achieved your standard of "decency". Now try re-reading what I wrote and discover that I wasn't arguing that Scaruffi didn't like Abbey Road -- I don't care if he liked it or not -- but that his review represents a boldly insistent singular view. Since anyone can argue that an era's popular representation is flawed and should have included values more in line with one's own, by claiming that other cultural elements (particular bands, albums, etc.) were actually more relevant to their era -- or should have been -- than those that are popularly cited, I suggested that links to other strong opinions about the era and its music be included in the Review box. Including a link to Scarrufi's reviews without a counterbalance from an equally strong opinion about the place of the Beatles' Abbey Road in musical and cultural history makes the article's handling of the Review box lopsided. What I wrote has nothing to do with whether Scarrufi is right or "positive" about Abbey Road. I am interested in there being a balance of opinion when opinion is unavoidable in the encyclopedia.--Jelsova (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

he's no longer on the professional list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, so we can kick his review out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.43 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Although your removal of Scaruffi reviews may be done in good faith, please note two important points about your rationale for deleting them. First, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums is a project page, not a policy page. Secondly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Review sites is not an exhaustive list of acceptable review sites. In fact, the introductory sentence to the section states: "The following is a list of some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes" (emphasis added). It does not prohibit any review site (except those listed as Non-professional or Non-English). I'm not arguing for or against the quality of Scaruffi's reviews, just that your rationale is not policy, only your opinion. So you need to discuss on the articles' talk pages and wait for consensus before removing Scaruffi reviews, or come up with a much better rationale. Scaruffi reviews are linked on a lot of pages, so I think you will encounter some problems by unilaterally deciding to remove them without consensus. Thank you.

Link Edit War

What's up with the Piero Scaruffi link being deleted and re-added over and over? Personally, I am wondering why a link is being included to a self-published author's web page. Is this link notable enough? Is the author notable enough to be included? I'm sure a handful of more notable sites could be linked to. KieferFL (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Albums Wikiproject thinks he's an acceptable source. It is no good deleting his reviews just because you disapprove of him, you'd have to change consensus at the project level. Best of luck. --Rodhullandemu 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I disapprove of him or his opinions (hey, everyone's got them!), but I do disapprove of the use of what is basically a self-published author as a review source. (According to his WP page, he's a "cultural historian", not a music specialist of any kind.) A search through Wikipedia shows that there are dozens of discussions on talk pages from people that also feel this way. There's even currently talk on the WikiProject Albums talk page in two places, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Review sites and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#scaruffi as good critic, about Scaruffi being a poor choice for reviewer. I guess I will put a motion up on the talk page for consensus about deletion. KieferFL (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, one way or another, these discussion have a habit of either petering out through lack of interest, or no consensus being reached. At least, that's the history of the last two years or so. I have no interest in debating this in numerous places, so a discussion on WP:ALBUM would seem to be the place, since it is his album reviews that people seem to have an issue with. --Rodhullandemu 16:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

well he's out of the list of professional reviewers, so the talk about including his reviews can begin from anew. —Preceding

Talk, yes. Unilaterally deciding on your own, no. You need consensus to do that. Basic Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Things have moved on; there is current consensus at WP:ALBUM not to include him as a "preferred" reviewer; that means separate consensus has to be negotiated on each article where it's in issue, and I have no intention, or will, of living that long. --Rodhullandemu 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

8-Track?

The notes indicate this is the first album the Beatles recorded mainly with 8-track, whereas the entry on the White Album says basically the same thing. Which is it? Roygbiv666 (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob & Tom Tributes

This is the second of two B&T compilations to be named after or parody Beatles albums (the other being their first release, The White Album.) Both albums are out-of-print.

Not true. I lived in Indianapolis in the late '80s and early '90s and had all of the albums Bob & Tom released for a while there. I specifically recall a Sgt. Pepper's parody called, I believe, With a Little Help from Our Friends. Can anybody confirm and update accordingly? -- JCaesar (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cover

I was just thinking that the cover represents the band's history. The first Beatle represents the scruffiness of the Quarrymen and the Beat Men. The second represents the early Beatles. The third represents their early return to scruffiness and the last represents the late Beatles.

And you made that up all by yourself--NewChampion (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Album by Immediate Music

I hope my addition of Immediate Music's album Abbey Road is appreciated and written in correct English since I'm Dutch. Great music by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.139.167 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Guitars?

There's some contradictory information here - can we get to the bottom of it?

From the The End article:

Additionally, there are three extended guitar solos performed in turn by Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and John Lennon, although it is not positively known when each one begins and finishes. Each had a distinctive style which McCartney felt reflected their personalities.

From the Abbey Road article:

as well as a blistering lead guitar solo from Harrison using several distinct guitar tones to create the effect of multiple guitarists playing.

What gives? MBlume 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you found some inconsistency. I certainly have no idea... If sources cannot conclusively resolve it, "teach the controversy" by citing the sources for both viewpoints, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's the Abbey Road article that's wrong. I've seen Paul McCartney play this in concert (as he does in nearly every concert) and he and the other two up front (forgive me for forgetting their names) were all playing guitar, switching the lead parts between each other. I think Paul would want to make the song as consistent to the recording session as he could. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You are responding to a comment that is about 3 years old. The article is now correct, as is the article for "The End". The recorded version of the song has a rotating sequence of solos in this sequence: McCartney, Harrison, Lennon. There are good sources that support that information. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles: Rock Band commercial

Right now the article states "(whose faces are digitally superimposed from archival footage from 1969 and melded onto computer generated bodies)." Is there any source for this? The source for the paragraph is just a YouTube video so that's probably going to be changed/removed anyway, but I've yet to find a basis for that sidenote specifically.76.182.10.100 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

... and that sort of stuff--when sourced properly--belongs in an article about the game. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Something in the Way she Moves

The sentence

Originally written during the White Album sessions, the first line is based on the James Taylor song "Something in the Way She Moves" (Taylor was signed to Apple at the time).

has been removed from the "Something" section pending citation. Radiopathy •talk• 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This has now been reinstated with a cite. PL290 (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Imitations and parodies

Would the quality of the article be immediately improved by removing this section? PL290 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a stunned silence I hear, or the silence of indifference? At any rate, perhaps I could have put it better than I did, so I'll try again. The legendary cover of this classic album, "one of the most famous and most imitated album covers in recording history", clearly, clearly needs to at least be mentioned in the article. At the other extreme, it would be possible for there to be a build-up of trivia, resulting in an indiscriminate collection of information. At some mid-point perhaps, there would be a discriminating collection of cited information. Most of what's there makes for an entertaining read, so it's a bit difficult to judge, but for an encyclopedia, how well do editors feel the section is currently positioned between the two extremes mentioned, and what (if any) action would improve this aspect of the article? PL290 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose removing it completely, but I think it needs a serious trimming. The cover is iconic and has been imitated and parodied and so we ought to say something about that. We certainly don't have to list every example. If we can include a quote or two that basically says what I said above—I assume we can find reliable sources who say it better or more accurately, but you know what I mean—then we don't need a long list of examples. — 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cardinal (talk • contribs) 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre(s)

Do we really need 5 genres of music under which to categorize this album? It's pretentious. It's a rock album. "Art rock", "blues rock".... Proedit21 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ProEdit21Proedit21 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sub-genres need not be specified otherwise we'd be overloading the infobox. Imagine if we did that for The White Album! Rodhullandemu 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, now we are up to seven. That's too many, and I don't think the cited source supports the ones that are listed. The editor who added them says it does; he's using the list of styles from the Allmusic review, and he says that Allmusic styles equate to WP genres. In any case, they are mostly (if not all) sub-genres at best and we should trim the list dramatically. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix on Guitars

I thought Jimi Hendrix contributed to She's So Heavy. No mention? He played rhythm, I think, which was recorded and dubbed on later. Unless I dreamt it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.62.212.69 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

You dreamt it...65.120.75.6 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Tim

the only guitar players who ever played on beatles records were george harrison on most songs (lead), john on most (rythm) paul on some (mostly lead WHEN he did play it, well and bass guitar on almost every track) and well Eric Clapton on While my Guitar gently Weeps (lead), that#s it, sorry dude but the guitar mastery on the song comes from harrison and lennon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.254.227 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Now there's an incorrect assertion if I've ever heard one. Have you actually spent much time studying this band? Prenigmamann (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Prenigmamann

Here Comes the Sun

While the term "sagging off" may well be Liverpool slang, what is the rationale for utilizing it in an article? Should we be using slang in other areas of the article as well? I believe that the initial edit had merit. Thank you. Proedit21 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Proedit21

Reception?

Why isn't there anything here about the critical reception of this album? "Reception" seems to be discussed in most other wiki entries for Beatles albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.42 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please sign posts in future. More to the point, what is this doing in the intro: "Rolling Stone magazine named it the 14th greatest album of all time,[3] even though the magazine initially gave the album a mixed reception: its 15 November 1969 issue features two very different reviews—a strongly negative one from Ed Ward, who particularly criticised its overproduction, and a rave review from John Mendelsohn." What Rolling Stone thinks of an album is not notable enough to put in the intro to an article about that album. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the critical reception section. Lexo (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Two sections called "Track listing"

The article has two sections titled Track listing. This goes against the MoS and is probably unintentional. After consideration, I propose we do one of two things:

• 1. Rename the detailed Track listing section Composition and recording, and head up that section with the content of the existing Genesis section; or,
• 2. Rename the detailed Track listing section Tracks or somesuch, and keep the existing Genesis section as it is.

If there are no opinions about this, I'll probably do option 1. PL290 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"moved" crossing

I edited the page to remove the fallacy that the Abbey Road crossing has been moved. See my webpage at http://www.grundoon.com/Abbey_Road.html for photographic proof. And it's worth noting that according to the History page, the edits about the moving of the crossing were made on April Fools' Day, 2008. Galenfott (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no evidence to support that the crossing has been moved, and plenty to suggest it hasn't. If anyone wants to add this in, I think it needs a clear and unambiguous citation. (I just reverted one such edit) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, fair do's the ref quoted is a direct quote on the BBC website saying it was moved several meters for traffic management reasons. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is a circular ref, i.e. the BBC reporter has got the info from wikipedia in the first place, as the wording is identical (It also wasn't on the first version of that article). But that is pure speculation on my part so I think the cite has to stand. Since the wording of the edit has been toned down, I think it reasonable to leave it as is for the moment.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I emailed the BBC asking them to remove that from the article, and sending them a link to my webpage. It's ridiculous; if the crossing has been moved, it can only have been moved CLOSER to the intersection, which of course would make it much less safe! -- Galenfott (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I mailed them as well asking for their source. I have a feeling it was this article!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the BBC has updated the article again.

A spokesman for Westminster City Council said: "The detail of exactly when and why the crossing was moved from its original location have been lost in the annuls of time.

"But by comparing photographs with the Ordnance Survey maps, we believe that the crossing might have been further north nearer 3 Abbey Road, which was the front house of the EMI Studios, because the steps of Neville Court appear to the right of the crossing in original photographs of the crossing, whereas the present crossing is near the junction of Abbey Road and Grove End Road."

I have to say I still find your evidence pretty compelling, but as it stands I can't see how the article can reflect that as this is a pretty definite source for the moved argument. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They "believe" that the crossing "might have been" further north? Doesn't sound very "definite" to me! I'm going to study all available photographs from the shoot, and try to contact the Westminster City Council as well. I'm convinced it's total rubbish that it's ever been moved.

A question: At what point can a "controversy" like this actually become part of the article? "While the Westminster City Council states it has been moved, photographic evidence suggests otherwise." Something like that? -- Galenfott (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. But for the purposes of wikipedia the BBC quoting the council, who are in turn citing ordinance survey maps, is a pretty strong cite. Certainly stronger (with all due respect) than a personal web page. I think you would need to find better sources for the 'non move' perspective and also the debate in general in order to put the controversy in wikipedia. Has there been much discussion about this other than on these pages? Anyway, I wish you well in getting to the truth of the matter!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". A reliable source is all that is needed to include something: but if consensus is against the material or the sources themselves in an article, that's a separate issue. Please: continue this discussion :> Doc talk 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, lazy phrasing! I think as it stands the cites point towards the move, although I'm personally unconvinced (I find it hard to beleive there would be no record of it having moved). So I think right now we have a verified statement, but not necesarily a true one! --ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to start digging! It's best done while the "iron's hot". That mentality forced me to prove several things on the Lennon/McCartney article that weren't there before: and they're all 100% referenced. Cheers :> Doc talk 08:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted the City Council by web and email, sending them my link and asking for a response. I also heard from the studio employee I've been in touch with. (He's who you hear back from at info@abbeyroad.com). They also have written to the BBC to point out the error. Now to start examining photos! -- Galenfott (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated my page, including the addition of perhaps the best photographic proof yet. It's really absolutely inarguable that it's not been moved since 1969, despite the hedging statement by the Westminster City Council. We have photographic verifiability AND truth. Let's take the plunge and cut the "almost"! -- Galenfott (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

are there any pictures from the time showing the beetles with the 'left' hand side of the crossing behind them? Similar to the shot you already have if Lenon, but on the other side of the crossing? In the modern footage (e.g the recent BBC video) there is a large tree in the adjacent garden which is directly in line with the crossing and is probably old enough to have been there then. A contemporary shot from that angle showing a matching tree would I think be game, set and match. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is one I found which I believe does show the same trees, but I didn't include it for two reasons. The photo has been "assembled" by the poster, apparently from different quality jpegs of the same shot he's gathered over time, and thus looks tampered with. Also, even though the Beatles are lined up as if to cross the street, it doesn't actually show the crossing, so they could be anywhere. I've photographically linked both sides of the street, and the pavement under the crossing itself, from 1969 to 2010; I don't know how much more proof there can be. -- Galenfott (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a photo here of them at the left side; the positions relative to the crossing of both the pedestrian entrance to Abbey House and the (probably) GPO telephones access cover on the pavement (seen between Paul & Ringo) seem to support the ‘not moved’ theory. This is, of course, WP:OR but fun nevertheless. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a BBC News article dated 7 August 2009 that refers to "the rumour that the famous crossing you now see isn't actually the original and has been moved for safety reasons." Can that be considered verification from a reliable source that this is just a rumour? Piriczki (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The current BBC article contains words that are stronger than just ‘rumour’; however, it is also contradictory, first giving a supposed reason for the move, then quoting the council spokesman as not knowing the reason. For our article, I’d quote or closely follow the council’s words “... we believe that the crossing might have been ...”. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This 2009 article reports the Westminster Council was considering a proposal to move the Abbey Road crossing for safety reasons. Why would the crossing need to be moved for safety reasons if it had already been moved for safety reasons? Piriczki (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The only way to make any sense out of the WCC's statement is if the crossing had indeed been moved, but prior to 1969. In which case...who cares? I truly hope I hear back from them. It doesn't serve them to be circulating myths that make their landmark seem less important than it is. -- Galenfott (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The passage in question ("the crossing remains in almost exactly the same spot on Abbey Road") is still unsatisfactory. Not only does the oxymoron "almost exactly" have to go, the statement is ambiguous and appears to be a half-baked compromise between the source, which says the crossing "was moved several metres", and the truth, which is that it has not been moved since the Beatles' photo was taken. The location of the crossing is clearly visible in any number of photos taken since 1969 and it is plainly obvious that it is in the same place. The wikipedia policy of "verifiability, not truth" does not mean false information can be included as long as it was published by a reliable source, it means that truth alone is not sufficient and that information must be verifiable as well as true.

In the BBC News article, the spokesman for the Westminster City Council said the original crossing "might have been further north nearer 3 Abbey Road, which was the front house of the EMI Studios, because the steps of Neville Court appear to the right of the crossing in original photographs of the crossing," but that does not describe the location where the Beatles were photographed. In the Beatles photo, 3 Abbey Road and the steps to Neville Court are in the background, north of where they are crossing. The Beatles were photographed crossing near the junction of Abbey Road and Grove End Road which is the location of the present crossing. In the Linda McCartney photo they are standing near the corner of Abbey and Grove End and south corner of the Neville Court building is behind them. The only conclusion that can be reached is that if the crossing was moved, it was moved prior to August 1969 in which case the move is irrelevant to this article.

I suggest the sentence should simply read: "The crossing is a popular destination for Beatles fans." The article need not mention something that didn't happen, unless the article directly addresses the misconception or rumour that the crossing has been moved since the photo was taken. However, that topic would require its own verification by reliable sources (i.e. that the rumor exists and has achieved a certain level of notability). Perhaps the article could mention the traffic nuisance caused by tourists and the proposal to move the crossing in 2009 for safety reasons in relation to the crossing's attraction to Beatles fans. Piriczki (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the rumor has certainly achieved enough notability to be mentioned in the article. It was printed as a fact by the BBC, and at least a couple of other presumably reputable news sources. Both the Westminster City Council and English Heritage have released hedging statements that it "might" have been moved. I vote for tackling the matter head on: for acknowledging the rumor in the article, and then dispelling it. What better service could this article provide than to spell it out for the readers? Galenfott (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, can someone verify a source for the other photos taken at the time of the album photo, the ones I've included on my webpage http://www.grundoon.com/Abbey_Road.html ? I'm specifically wondering if they are from the book "Linda McCartney's Sixties: Portrait of an Era". Galenfott (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Got a nice email back from Roger Bowdler at English Heritage, who was quoted in this article. He found the evidence on my webpage "really convincing" and said "it's the water main access cover that does it for me". Galenfott (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, while there are now lots of citations about the move, none of them really support it being a 'rumour', they mostly state pretty explicitly that it was moved, probably based on the original BBC article which is pretty definite about it. I know the council uses some weasel words, but for someone with no background to this, the various articles clearly support the view that the crossing was moved and don't really provide any evidence that this is a 'rumour'. I still agree that it wasn't moved, based on those pictures, but for the purposes of wikipedia your work, good though it is, is pretty much the definition of original research. What you need is for someone else (i.e. the council or a decent sized new organisation) to publish your work and make a definitive statement. Without that I think over time consensus is going to inevitably fall to the move being quoted as fact since it is so clealy citable at the moment. The letter from the heritage guy is a good start though, if he does something with the info, e.g. make a press release or even just publish it on the English Heritage website, that could sort it out once and for all.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, "verifiability, not truth" does not mean false information should be included in an article just because it can be cited. I also disagree that any of these sources definitively verify as fact that the crossing was moved, they only mention it in passing without any attribution or details. In fact, the only details offered in the BBC News and Daily Mail articles seem to cast doubt on the claim that the crossing was moved. Piriczki (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are no usable cites to show that it is false information, and in any other case a BBC news article quoting a local council who are saying that ordanence survey maps show it moved would be considered a pretty strong citation. Personally I'm with you, it wasn't moved and I think the article should refelt that. But right now it can't say that as the cites don't support it, neither do the cites support saying its a rumour or that there is controversey, as that mostly seems to exist on this talk page. I think the optimum current situation is to just leave out all mention, so as to avoid putting in false cited info, but I suspect that lots of random passing editors will keep adding it back in, not unreasonably given the citations. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And thus, I think, the whole thing merits mention in the article itself. It should be acknowledged and tackled head on. "The Westminster City Council and English Heritage have issued statements speculating that the crossing might have been moved in the intervening years, but a photographic comparison seems to show it's in exactly the same place as it was in 1969." Something like that. The WCC and EH citations are easy to find. I'd be delighted to have my webpage cited, though I guess I understand about it being "original research". But a question: If there were an agenda-less webpage, i.e. just showing the album cover, the Linda McCartney photos, and modern shots of the crossing, would it meet Wiki standards if people were more or less invited to just study the photos and draw their own conclusions? Galenfott (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an almost textbook example of WP:OR. To quote directly from the policy, If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. Which directly addresses this situation, i.e. you have a strong theory that it hasn't moved, but this has not been published anywhere. I am convinced, I think anyone who looks at it would be convinced, but your website is not an acceptable source, which makes this a clear cut case of OR. In a similar vein, the only place I have seen significant discussion or controversey about this is on this this talk page, so to put it in you would have to cite wikipedia, which is obviously not a runner. As I said, the best current outcome would be to just remove all mention of this, but I suspect this will turn into a frequent edit war as random editors come by and add it back in with refs. A new place publishing your work is exactly what is required, but it's usabillity is nothing to do with its agenda, but rather whether it is an acceptable source. Your best bet would likely be english heritage publishing something official, or mabye a good sized news outlet. Trouble is, I doubt either care enough to make the effort now the story is off the headlines again.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone just edited it, and I think the change is terrible. We've gone from "almost exactly", to someone choosing a specific direction in which it was supposedly moved. It's a step away from the truth, which is what I'm interested in. I appreciate the feedback here and the support for my viewpoint, and I respect the rules of the Wikipedia, but it seems like there ought to be some way to acknowledge the claims of it having been moved while throwing legitimate doubt on those claims, without ever citing my page. I feel like it's now "verifiability instead of truth". But I'm not going to get into an editing war about it, I've done everything I can to try to make this page reflect the truth of the matter. Thanks. Galenfott (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I share your frustration, it's a particularly odd situation and a quirk of wikipedia. Of course verifiabillity not truth is the first sentance of WP:V, which is one of the core policies of wikipedia, so what we are currently seeing is the 'correct' wiki outcome, bizare though it is. I think the recent edit shows the problem though, we could take out all mention, which would be the most 'honest' way to deal with it in absense of cites, but its only going to get repeatedly added back in. Still, you have now recruited me to the 'cause', and probably a few others as well, so should I see any news articles talking about the crossing I'll be sure to check them for some mention of this. Sooner or later someone will publish the truth and I'll be in here editing like a shot! --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing all mention. News organizations commonly make reporting errors but it is not for wikipedia to resolve these errors for them. While future edits claiming the crossing was moved may be a continuing problem, I don't see any established editors making a case for its inclusion (i.e. the statement that it was moved). And to avoid the implication of original research, perhaps we should not point solely to Galenfott's analysis, excellent though it is, when demonstrating the crossing hasn't been moved since 1969. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of photos of the crossing from different angles showing various landmarks that verify the crossing is in the same place. By the way, looking at some photos from the 1970s it appears the curb cuts were installed in the mid-1970s. I wonder if this somehow led anyone to think the crossing had been moved. Piriczki (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The story so far:

• 1st April 2008: an IP adds that the crossing has been moved to Wikipedia (uncited).
• 8th September 2008: an IP replaces the ‘moved’ statement with a debunking statement (similar to Galenfott’s above); this is immediately removed as OR, thus leaving no statement regarding moving in the article.
• 5th November 2010: User:Liuzhou re-adds the move to WP (again uncited and marks it as a minor edit).
• 1st December 2010: Galenfott removes the move statement.
• (Presume) December 2010: A Westminster council spokesman tells a BBC reporter they do not have details of why or when the crossing was moved but that it might have been “further north”.
• 22 December 2010: the BBC publishes the council’s statement together with the un-sourced statement “The original zebra crossing ... was moved several metres for traffic management reasons more than 30 years ago”.
• 22 December 2010 onwards: the Guardian (28th Dec) and others paraphrase the BBC article.

Whilst it needs to be taken in context, the following quote from Jimbo should be considered: “Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information”. Also consider the following from WP:RS: “Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing”. The council’s statement does not directly support the statement that the crossing was moved (only that they were asked to provide details of a supposed move). Given the fame of the Beatles and the crossing, it is reasonable to assume that were it the case that the crossing had been moved, it would be common knowledge; fans would know; sources would be available and some would have been published in books decades ago. I would say that there is sufficient doubt in the reliability of the sourcing to leave the ‘fact’ out of the article (and replace it with an editor’s note to prevent re-occurrence). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the BBC got the 'fact' from here, then asked the council about it. Who basicaly said 'I dunno, might have gone that way', probably because they assumed the BBC knew what they were talking about rather than actually having looked into it. In any event, I agree with taking out all referenc to a move and see if we can make it stick by directing editors to this conversation.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone do it then! I'm not gonna. BTW, Wrapped in Grey's excellent timeline does leave out the statements from English Heritage, although it was only more of the "dunno, might have gone that way...or maybe that way" variety. And as I say, Roger Bowdler at EH seems convinced by my webpage. BTW, I've updated it here with a bit more perspective, and hopefully made the evidence clearer. Galenfott (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Doc who commented earlier here to comment back; if he agrees, I'd say we have consensus to remove it. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. We would have better and more evidence if it were moved, I would think. Doc talk 12:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Album art

What happened to the section about the album art? AmericanLeMans (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're referring to? Looks like it's still there to me. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Medley

The bulk of side two is conventionally called a medley, singular. It has been suggested that it is in fact two medleys and calling it one is unsourced. However, the editor who made this suggestion has not provided a source for this change, making that edit WP:OR. On page 353 of Revolution in the Head, Ian MacDonald calls the grouping of songs the Long Medley. There should be other sources as well, but I think this one should cover the use of "medley" singular. freshacconci talktalk 03:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted similar edits as OR earlier as well. I can't recall specific sources off the top of my head, but I've rarely seen them cited as two distinct medleys, even though it's my opinion that they are basically two distinct musical "chunks". They are tied together, though, in numerous ways. You Never Give Me Your Money is reprised in Carry That Weight, for example. Regardless, no source, no cigar. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In Lewisohn's The Beatles: Recording Sessions it is shown that from the early mixing stage this was treated as one medley from "You Never Give Me Your Money" to "The End" and that it was referred to as "The Long One"/"Huge Melody" (sic) by the Beatles and the production staff. Piriczki (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)