Jump to content

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Fifth Beatle

Is the concept of the fifth Beatle important enough to include in the intro?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It's definitely something to mention in the leads at the Brian Epstein and George Martin articles, of course, but imo it's not sufficiently notable in the context of this article. JG66 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sales

What, now they are down to 500 million? Who is responsible for this crap? The Guinness Book of Records put them over a billion in 1989, I believe. 2607:FEA8:9660:6D50:CD5C:4442:44D:6EBC (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

For years Guinness World Records have had the line "All-time sales have been estimated by EMI at over one billion discs and tapes" in each edition. How EMI estimated that, I don't know. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

I have added a modified version of timeline from the members page due to it being more detailed than the one that was added and having better readability. 80s Sam (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Add mention of the new Revolver super deluxe edition in this article

Should be added to the "2020s" section of the article. The Get Back project is no longer the most recent Beatles related project. 92.15.144.174 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support for terrorism

WP:DNFTT. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

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

The article should mention that The Beatles openly sided with IRA terrorism. Hiarat (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the Beatles did not. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lennon's family confirmed he funded the IRA, and McCartney recorded a pro-IRA song that was banned by the BBC.
Unless there is some kind of source to back this claim up then it would be unsuitable for the article. If there is a source for this claim then link to it here or edit the article directly with it.Dubarr18 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/john-lennons-family-hit-the-roof-when-funds-were-donated-to-ira-26125005.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiarat (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
It does not appear "The Beatles openly sided with IRA terrorism." First, it's only the two members that are discussed here - and it would appear to have happened after the band broke up? The John Lennon page discusses it. And its unclear how "open" the support was and how directly he supported terrorism. Perhaps something on the Paul McCartney page about the song would be appropriate. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personnel and timeline

I placed an unrefsec tag on the section, but I don't want to hastily start removing things. I understand that some of these may be sourced in the text of the article, but much of it (such as dates) is not. There's also the issue that we could cull through articles on members, songs, and albums and possibly find some support. But I really think citations belong in the Personnel section. I'm particularly concerned about the timeline. I would be OK for a while if citations are added to Personnel over time, but we can't chop up the timeline. I'll admit that I dislike timelines in most band articles because they tend to be unsourced. I really don't think a timeline adds much (if anything) to an article. If I want to see when John played harmonica, I can easily look immediately above the timeline and see it in words. I think most timelines are not added to provide information, but instead are added by people who like to make timelines. I'm asking for opinions about my dilemma. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Add other years in which the band was active?

Should "1995-1996" be added to the "years active" section in the articles info box to account for the Anthology project and the two reunion songs (Free as a Bird and Real Love) that came with it? CY223 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed in one form or another more than once in the past, never with a consensus to change anything. Anthology just used previously recorded material, so that isn't considered active in the sense of working together to create new material. None of the surviving Beatles considered Free as a Bird or Real Love new songs, nor do the major Beatles experts. Those songs were previously recorded by Lennon; the others embellished the songs. Referring to those songs as "Beatles" songs was mostly a marketing gimmick. I think at best we could call them John Lennon recordings that feature McCartney, Harrison, and Starr. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it would also be very confusing to the uninitiated.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent number of studio albums

The Discography section of this article lists 13 studio albums, including Magical Mystery Tour. However, the article The Beatles discography states that The Beatles released 12 studio albums, considering Magical Mystery Tour to be an LP in the UK (and a studio album only in the US).

The other article has reached a consensus that there are 12 studio albums, so I think this article should be changed to match that. Perhaps there should be a footnote explaining that some sources count 13 albums instead of 12. Vigilant Cosmic Penguin (talk | contribs) 🐧 18:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, MMT has been accepted as a studio album ever since the albums were re-issued on CD over 35 years ago. It's now part of the "core catalogue." Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Beatles catalogue

In this section, there is a claim that two songs credited to all four Beatles are Flying and Dig It. However, Carry That Weight from Abbey Road is also credited to all four Beatles. NoMoreNameOptions (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Dig It is not mentioned in that section. Ringo is mentioned as co-writer for two songs, but it's not an exhaustive list of his writing credits ("Starr received co-writing credit before 1968, such as 'What Goes On' and 'Flying'" [bold added]). It does not say that those are the only two. Ringo has several writing credits, but he did not co-write Carry That Weight. Sundayclose (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I am confused. On the Wikipedia page for Abbey Road under track listings, it is stated that all four Beatles wrote Carry That Weight. However, if you look at the Carry That Weight song information page, it states that the song is credited to Lennon-McCartney. This is contradictory. Both claims cannot be correct. Neither claim is cited. NoMoreNameOptions (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@NoMoreNameOptions: I think you might be looking at the lead vocalists column. It is laid out a bit confusingly, to be fair! Carry That Weight was a Lennon–McCartney. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, that explains it. You are correct. The four Beatles names are under lead vocals for Carry That Weight. That is where I was confused, but not now. Thanks. NoMoreNameOptions (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wings as a spinoff?

Should Wings be added as a spinoff like Plastic Ono Band is? I don’t see why not MCMax05 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say no. The difference is that Wings weren't formed until well after the Beatles split up, whereas the Plastic Ono Band were an actual spin-off during the group's lifetime, as John needed an outlet for material not suitable for the Beatles to record. (BTW didn't the infobox used to say "associated acts"? Haven't kept up with the changes.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

John Lennon lead guitar

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-john-lennon-played-lead-guitar-on-the-beatles-get-back/ in this article it states that during George Harrisons departure Lennon played lead guitar. 80s Sam (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well obviously, as he was the band's other guitarist. Why do we need to know though? I question whether we even need the timeline at all for a group that did not have a complicated lineup history.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need the timeline. In fact, I don't think that graphic band timelines in general serve a useful purpose. They're difficult to see and understand, and the same information can be more clearly seen and understood in a list. In fact, I propose that we remove the timeline in this article. The main reason we have timelines in band articles is that some editors like to create them; they see them in other articles and decide to create one in another article. Sundayclose (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I think you're right - there wasn't enough thought as to whether it would be suitable in this article. I support removal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Recovered Nagra Reels from 2003

In 2003, police recovered stolen reel-to-reel tapes of the Beatles apparently from the Let it Be era. I found a few news articles about this but nothing in depth of what the tapes contain. Anyway, I can't seem to find it mentioned in any of our Beatles articles. Just wondering if this deserves a mention somewhere?

Not reliable, but interesting source:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The name "Beatles"

It may be obvious and implicit to some that the name "Beatles" is partly a reference to the word "beat" as in "beat groups" / "beat boom" / "beatnik" or wherever the original slang or term came from. Still, it's not mentioned in this otherwise thorough article.

Later when discussing the name, Lennon even said, "It was beat and beetles and when you said it, people thought of crawly things, and when you read it, it was beat music"

https://americansongwriter.com/the-meaning-behind-the-band-name-the-beatles/

Anyway - I always thought it was obvious and it just jumps out at you (well, it does to me), but the article doesn't seem to acknowledge it. It's surely worth adding? Charliepenandink (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this should be covered in the article. I'm a bit surprised that it's not covered already. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a problem including it, but only within the context of John being obtuse and a punner. John never identified just one basis for the name. John's "flaming pie" story illustrates his humor about the name, and even became the name of a McCartney album. Sundayclose (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

I guess that the timeline now at List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles#Timeline was removed following discussion at #John Lennon lead guitar above.

I think that this article should at least link to such a timeline. Andrewa (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Beatles as a pun

Based on the comments on Reddit, it seems huge numbers of people (including me) never realized that "beatles" and "beetles" are spelled differently. It seems obvious once this it pointed out that it's a pun based on "beat". I added a mention of this to the article, but User:Sundayclose reverted with the edit summary "Unsourced and not necessary". I'm sure there are a dozen sources that make this connection we could track down, but there's no point doing that work if this note is going to be deleted anyway. Do other editors think this is worth mentioning? -- Beland (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. After you find a reliable source, get consensus here to make the edit. Also see Talk:The Beatles#The name "Beatles" above. Sundayclose (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I never said I wanted to cite Reddit as a source, and have no intention of doing so. It appears the above section already establishes consensus for a note about the spelling of the name, so I will do so. I'm surprised that after having participated in the previous discussion and agreed there should be a note about the spelling of the name, that you would then mark a similar addition as "unnecessary". -- Beland (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that two or three editors can create a consensus on an article with as much traffic as this one. But if you add it, note my caveat in the previous section about the fact that Lennon (in a style typical of him) was obtuse and never identified one and only one basis for the name. Don't present it as such. Sundayclose (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Image use policy

I have opened a discussion about an image used on this page over at the Image use policy talk page. Tkbrett (✉) 00:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Reorganizing the History section

I feel like the History section of the page needs some reorganization. I think that the major sub-sections "Touring years" and "Studio years" are too broad, and from what I've seen the main consensus among Beatles fans and music critics is that their recording career as a group had three eras, Beatlemania (Please Please Me - Help), Transitional (Rubber Soul - Magical Mystery Tour) and Apple (The Beatles - Let It Be). I could go on and on and on about why I think so, but to make things short I recently attempted to edit the history section based on the consenses I've heard, so you can check that edit out to get a better idea of how I think it should be organized. However my edit was quickly reverted and I was told to "get consensus" on this, so I'm wondering if my edit made more sense. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We need a lot more than "from what I've seen the main consensus among Beatles fans and music critics". Your claiming something about fans and critics doesn't make it true. The headers separated by years is much clearer and far superior to the changes you made. You need a clear consensus here to make such a major change to the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS that has been in the article for many years. Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
So putting Revolver and Please Please Me in the same section and implying that the former has more in common with the latter era-wise than it does with albums like Sgt. Pepper and MMT is "far superior"? I get that Sgt Pepper has a stronger legacy, but DSOTM despite being the Pink Floyd album with the strongest legacy, it isn't the first in its subsection of albums on the band's wiki page. Furthermore, I don't see making some minor reorganizations to the history section as a "major" change to the page like you suggested it was. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
It is a major change, and you have not used any sources to justify that change. Tkbrett (✉) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Spanish, Russian and German Wikipedia all list the Beatles' studio era as beginning with Revolver so I think the English page should follow suit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has no obligation to "follow suit". That's an insufficient justification. As Tkbrett has already explained, you have provided no sources to justify the change. Other Wikipedias (or any Wikipedia) are not reliable sources. You need consensus here to make the change. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
And it turns out that even that weak argument has no basis in reality. Those Wikipedias do not have a demarcation for "Studio years" that begins with Revolver. And it's quite obvious you didn't even look at the Russian Wikipedia. That article is a total of one paragraph made up of three sentences, none of which refers to any album. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@HawkNightingale175: When someone challenges an edit you make and reverts it, it is entirely inappropriate for you to restore your edit without consensus, as you did here. Stop edit warring and wait for consensus. If you need a warning about edit warring, consider this the warning and read WP:EW. Sundayclose (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove the album templates.

Look, there’s already twenty-five templates on here. We don’t need twelve additional ones that don’t link to this page. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please explain the harm in keeping the templates. The list is collapsible, so it's not a matter of how much scrolling is necessary to get to the bottom of the page. It's useful navigational information for readers. They have been in the article for years, and in my many years editing Beatles articles, I have never known of anyone except you to complain about them. So again, what is so harmful in keeping them that they must be removed? Sundayclose (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Isn’t there a style advice that states that a page shouldn’t have that many templates? Especially if they don’t link to the page they’re on? Also, is there a consensus to have them on here? First off, the page is semi-protected, so your average joe who is content with editing Wikipedia anonymously can’t edit this. Second, considering on how hostile you’ve been, I feel like anyone who want to get rid of them gives up lest they enter a stupid edit war with you over the removal of some templates. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes there is a consensus to have them on here. Read WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. There is no "style advice" that applies to all articles, except WP:MOS is a general guideline for all articles. It varies depending on the size of the article, the topic, the notability of the subject, and many other factors. In short, there is nothing that says templates that aid in navigation and have been in the article for years must be removed because of the number of templates. Disagreeing with someone and explaining that policies must be followed is not hostility. On the other hand, telling an editor "Are you incapable of saying anything that isn’t a prompt?" is pretty close to being a personal attack. This isn't about me or you. It's about doing what's best for the article, even if you personally have a preference for a different number of templates. So far I haven't seen any reasonable justification for such a major removal of templates. If enough editors support it here, it's worth discussing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Paul McCartney wrote I want to hold your Hand

Abbey Rosd studios have fond out with a statement that Paul McCartney wrote about 95 % of ” I want to hold your hand”. The song was Paul's love song to Jane Asher written in the Basement of the Asher house. When John came there the song was almost finished. And as it was written on a piano an instrument John could not play then he only made a few suggestions. Paul Said in Melody maker no 1 in 1964 ” I was told I had to get this song really going so I started banging out on the piano, first came the catch line, then followed the rest of the text” I wrote the text down and showed the song to the others and our producer the next day. We recorded it the next day. In Pauls songwriting lyrics to ” I Want to hold your hand” it says ” I wanna hold your hand” as Paul was going after the American market. The British publishing company changed the text to ” I want to hold your hand” as it was more British. The title came from Pauls song ” I wanna be your man” a variation of that song, and the Melody came from Pauls ” Hold me tight”. In his latest book he writes ” I was 21 year old when I wrote I want to hold your hand. There was an erotism behind the song, everything I did at that time was erotism being the driving force behind everything I did. I want to hold your hand, open brackets ( and probanly a lot more. You can hear when they recoord the song that it is very much McCartneys song. He Tells the Other exactly What each one should do and gets very angett when they dont get it wright. Among then ” drums come in in an attach, guitars follows, and the song is fast”. You can Also hear him get dissapointed at the others when they dont get it right. Screaming in dissapontment ” come on guys get it right” Something Paul only did with his oen songs. 217.213.122.219 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What's your point? Are you suggesting an edit to the article? If so, we need reliable sources to support the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"List of Beatles members" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Beatles members to the article List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 17 § List of Beatles members until a consensus is reached. Many other similar redirects to the same target, including The Beatles' line-ups, are also being discussed in the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Beatles Rock only band? Mrdt8910 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles were more than "just" a Rock band. I believe a more accurate estimation of what they achieved would be better stated that The Beatles were a Pop / Rock band and that should be included in this Wikipedia page and follow suit with other Beatles related pages. Mrdt8910 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation in band name

Shouldn't it be "...was a member of The Beatles." and not "...was a member of the Beatles." "The" is part of the band name so the "t" of "the" should be capitalised in the middle of a sentence right? BrightOrion (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC) BrightOrion

See MOS:THEBAND. Tkbrett (✉) 03:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok thanks! BrightOrion (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

File:The Beatles - All You Need Is Love & Baby, You're a Rich Man, 1967 (cropped).jpg

It looks like the last time the main image was talked about was in two brief discussions in 2018. I've never been a hige fan of the New York arrival collage. In particular, I don't think it does George a great service. However, I noticed this photo used on the main page for the "Now and Then" new item, which seems to have been uploaded and added to the page in April. To me, this is a much better image for the infobox. It's high quality, and is an actual group photo of the band. While I get the leaning toward a Beatle-mania era photo, I think a 1967 photo is also a great representation of what many see as the height of their output in the studio. Any thoughts on changing the main image? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Got to agree with this one. The existing infobox photo really doesn't flatter any of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I also agree. The 1967 photo is much better than that black and white collage of four mediocre photos. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Apart from the original infobox image being fine, I am also confident it is PD, something I do not think is as certain for the image you are proposing. Tkbrett (✉) 02:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, excellent point and good digging. My quick look at the description didn't catch that the PD status may not quite be there. And the actual Billboard scan is not quite of the quality we might want. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This certainly needs clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Quite so. But if the color photo can be established as in the public domain, I also support it as the main image, regardless of what I see as any minor quality issues. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

First and no 1

The article continually describes albums etc as the first that ever did something or no 1 in the charts etc or uses some other superlative. Reading through the article becomes monotonous. I think some of these descriptions could be left on the individual pages of albums etc. Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Status of Norman Chapman and Chas Newby, plus a Timeline request

Hello all,

I noticed that (fairly recently) someone moved Norman Chapman and Chas Newby to the touring members section. I disagree with this change and was hoping to find consensus here. Norman Chapman, according to his own Wiki page (I admit I'm not too familiar with his role in the early Beatles' story), intended to remain in the group; he wasn't meant to be a temporary substitute like Jimmie Nicol. Regarding the late Chas Newby, while he did fill in for a brief time for an absent Stuart Sutcliffe, John Lennon reportedly (as cited in the article here, I think) asked him to come to Hamburg with them, even though Stuart Sutcliffe remained in the group for several more months. Newby turned him down. Regarding the timeline, since the name "The Beatles" was created by John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe, why is Stuart listed as joining the band after John, Paul, and George? Technically the four started the band together.

Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi country

for is a great way for people who have to be a little bit nervous to be able and have Hi you have to do it again and the next time they get a little bit of the time I 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

the other two are not abad and the other is not a good relationship but I think they have 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Know the difference from the fact

have been a great job with a lot more of a great way to do it than he was with me in a way I was 🏝🏖🎇🎆 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Credited session musicians

What is "label billing"? I ask because the statement in the article "Preston received label billing on the "Get Back" single – the only musician ever to receive that acknowledgment on an official Beatles release" may be false. You'll find that Alan Civil got credit for his horn playing on Revolver, and the article on Civil says there was a total of five such, presumably he, Preston and three others. 71.245.188.249 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it means that Preston's name is actually on the label of the single. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
[1]. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as John and WWGB have pointed out, it's that he is credited as the main artist or one of the main artists. To use your Revolver example, Alan Civil would have received label billing if the Revolver cover (and the label on the vinyl record itself) credited it to "The Beatles with Alan Civil." You are correct that very few outside musicians received credits on Beatles releases, but the albums or singles were always billed as "The Beatles," with the exception of My Bonnie b/w The Saints ("The Beatles with Tony Sheridan") and Get Back b/w Don't Let Me Down ("The Beatles with Billy Preston"). (I don't think I forgot any, but who knows?) Hope this helps, EPBeatles (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Makes me realize many might never have seen a real record label! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles Breakup

I found while doing reasearch of what happened in 1971, an article talking about their breakup, now I would love to edit the page and add these details myself, but unfortunetely I can't since my account is new. This is the article I'm referring to. If you are here you probably want to edit something already yourself, so please consider doing this extra work. Brekslo (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it covered in the Break-up of the Beatles article already? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

The Beatles are the best selling band of all time with sales over 500 million. 58.107.140.44 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The article says "The Beatles are the best-selling music act of all time, with estimated sales of 600 million units worldwide." with two reliable sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Dee Millar

other act touring with the Beatles 68.69.80.181 (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Does not seem to have been a notable musician. Do you have any source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming biopics

It may be noteworthy that BAFTA and Academy Award winner Sam Mendes is slated to direct four biopics of The Beatles, one for each member, all due to be released in 2027. Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia seem to have greenlighted the deal already. Sources: Guardian, Variety, BBC. --2003:DA:CF4E:6314:B881:443:2A4E:E651 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_35&oldid=1243086210"