Jump to content

Template talk:The Beatles/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Alphabetization

Why? How can this be the "order they came together" if it's a band? How could John be a Beatle prior to Paul? That doesn't make any sense. Alphabetization is a non-arbitrary way of organization, so it is preferable if there is no outstanding reason to discard it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. John started it all. He was the chief Beatle. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? "Sacred order?" "Chief Beatle?" "Blasphemy?!" This is ludicrous. Again, if you want to be consistent, you could list the members in the order in which they joined, or you could use alphabetical order. You're using neither and appealing to a quasi-religious Beatles devotion, which is barely intelligible, let alone convincing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I AM using the order that the members joined the group. Read the message in your talk page. You are about to lose a war with the entire Beatle Wikipedia community, whom I've asked for assistance. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Alphabetical order is better. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Steelbeard1 is right. John is who started the Quarrymen, then came Paul, then George, and finally Ringo (though I wouldn't go as far as to say he's the "Chief Beatle"). Besides, that's the order you would normally see their names. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Ames

Who is Samuel Ames and why is he listed as a member of the Beatles? I can't find anything about this person.Eric (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Shotton

I would urge that Peter Shotton be added to the related persons section. I cannot do so as the page seems to be protected. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Studio albums

Why is there only one box with just the UK albums, shouldn't there be a separate box for the US albums? It is very difficult to navigate the US album articles without having them in the template. 68.37.78.9 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Other EP's

Hello all! I have noticed that some of the EP's that the band did are not in the Extended Play part of the template. Is there a reason for that? Just wondering. Thanks! CarpetCrawler (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the decision was taken to only include the two EPs which contained new material (all the rest contained tracks previously issued on singles or albums). This seems sensible to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this discussion before I made my recent edit - I still think it makes sense as it is now. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I made it clear in the template that the EPs listed have exclusive content not available on any other British Beatle LP issued while they were active as a band. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually think that unnecessary (and complicates the template) as anyone clicking through the link will see the explanation right away - and most will simply pass right over it. But I'll leave that to you (or others) to decide. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

noinclude

Looks like an extra </noinclude> was inserted and many pages with the template were auto sorted as Beatles, The (among other things). I think I have fixed it but the caching is keeping me from confirming completely. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

First Live Recordings

Would it be appropriate to add First Live Recordings to this template? Neelix (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Vaughan

I'd like to recommend adding Ivan Vaughan to the "Related Persons" section. He is responsible for introducing John Lennon to Paul McCartney for the first time. He may not have had the most significant effect on the Beatles' formation, but he certainly had the earliest, and for this, I believe he deserves to be added to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.225.220 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Filmography vs Videography

What is the difference between the filmography and the videography? What determines whether a film is placed in one category or the other? MCB in Boulder (2/21/2009)67.177.195.177 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure actually. Initially I assumed that the former were given a theatrical release and the latter debuted on TV, except that that doesn't apply to Magical Mystery Tour, which is as much of a TV production as the Anthology is. I guess the former are "artistic" works by the Beatles and the latter are merely documentaries?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but Let It Be is also a documentary! True, A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Yellow Submarine, and Let It Be had a theatrical release. If that is the criteria, then Magical Mystery Tour (which aired on television) does not belong in filmography. If the lack of a theatrical release does not exclude Magical Mystery Tour, why doesn't The Beatles at Shea Stadium (or even The Beatles Anthology) belong under filmography. (Perhaps The Beatles Anthology is excluded because it was created after the Beatles broke up.) What about other 'concert films' that are currently not listed under either category, such the film of one of the 1966 Tokyo concerts (this aired on Japanese TV in 1966), the 1964 Washington Coliseum concert (which was made available on closed-circuit tv in many US theaters in Feb. 1964), and the "Ready, Steady Go" TV footage that was released on video by Apple in the 1980s (I think the video release was called The Beatles Live)? And, of course, there are other documentaries that have been released on video with Apple's authorization, including The Beatles First U.S. Visit, The Making of "A Hard Day's Night," and A Day in the Life. I think we need to clarify what is a film and what is a video and then complete the category. (The more I think about this, the more I think filmography should be limited to the four theatrical releases, and all the others mentioned above should be included in videography. But, I am open to including Magical Mystery Tour and The Beatles at Shea Stadium under filmography.) MCB in Boudler 2/21/2009 67.177.195.177 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If the wiktionary article is correct, videography is analogous to photography and it isn't a term used for a collection of related movies as is filmography. This seems to imply on of two things: that all videos should be under filmography and that there shouldn't be a videography section or that videography should be used for video filmed or produced by the Beatles (probably why Magical Mystery Tour was originally there). —Ost (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
But see also Videography - "Videography also refers to the compiling of an artist's music videos or video releases (compare with "filmography" or "discography")." -- Beardo (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
So where does "The Beatles at Shea Stadium" belong? Like "Magical Mystery Tour," it did not have a theatrical release, and like "Let It Be" it was a documentary. MCB in Boulder 3/21/2009 67.177.195.177 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Albums Lists

Perhaps since the release of the remastered discography, it is certainly clear and official which albums are part of the "core" catalogue, so it would be easier if these were all in one 'core catalogue' list (in reference to Magical Mystery Tour and perhaps Past Masters), and the U.S. albums list could become 'other releases'. Just an idea, thanks. CityFeedback 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour and Past Masters should still be treated separately from the original Beatle albums. MMT is an American creation which became part of the official lineup in the CD era and PM fills the gaps. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed how there are so many 'related acts' for the Beatles (Quarrymen, Traveling Wilburys, Plastic Ono Band, etc.). Would it be wise to make a separate section for it? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there would be only four bands in such a section (Quarrymen is currently not in the template, but should be; plus the Traveling Wilburys, Plastic Ono Band, and Wings). A separate section would be good organizationally, but the template is already so long... Powers T 12:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What about Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, or thenewno2? Are they not associated acts as well? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Rory Storm, maybe, since Ringo was in his group. I don't see a strong connection with thenewno2. I was thinking just acts that John, Paul, George, and Ringo were in before and after The Beatles. Powers T 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Only if there is an article on The Hurricanes, as opposed to Rory Storm himself. The Rory Storm and the Hurricanes article redirects to the Rory Storm article currently. Rory Storm is a related person in this template. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

More EPs!

There's more EPs than they have listed, like The Beatles (No.1) and The Beatles' Hits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.92.68 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is only to include EPs with previously unreleased material.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour

Excuse me if I'm incorrect but isn't Magical Mystery Tour an official studio album, and not just a U.S. slbum?Jpmcruiser (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It did not become an official album until the CD era. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It was an official US album upon its release in the US in 1967. It became the official UK album upon its release in the UK in 1976. MPFC1969 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a "children & family section"?

Since all of the group have some notable offspring, as well as family members, perhaps we can add one more category -- "Children & Family" as per Varlaam's suggestion? Hotcop2 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a "Family" section. McLerristarr (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we add a history section?

I notice that there are several "history" articles missing, namely, The Beatles in Hamburg, Beatlemania in the United Kingdom, The Beatles' American releases, The Beatles in the United States, The Beatles in 1966, The Beatles' studio years, The Beatles reunions, The Beatles' line-ups and The Beatles timeline. I realise there is a separate Template:The Beatles history, but should we not include at least some of them in the main template in a "history" section, particularly as History of the Beatles now just redirects to The Beatles? The Quarry Men and The Beatles' breakup already appear in both templates: they're under "related articles" here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I see no problem in adding them...the Beatles template should have as much as possible to help readers navigate this vast topic. I for one have just read 2 of those articles that i had not seen before you mentioned them here,,, they may be linked in the main article and sub template, but i only noticed them now.(Just my option) !! ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Support I see no problem either. And I would think Death of John Lennon and More popular than Jesus would go under there too. Anyone else? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Support They're all pertinent articles that have a better chance of being read by their inclusion. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Support - good idea. The top infobox {{The Beatles history}} is good, but that's miles above if the reader's down here looking at this one, so it will be helpful to put the info here too. PL290 (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it. I think it looks good, but if anyone else thinks differently, speak up. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Post-breakup albums

Could someone please tell me the point of a "post-breakup albums" section? I would think the first two articles could be put in a "Live albums" section, the next three in the "Compilation albums" section, and the "Solo albums" link could go under "Discography". Anyone? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Length

I've seen a lot of comments about the length of this template on this talk page. Let me just bring your attention to the Rolling Stones template. It is even longer than this template. I hope to see the day that we have a template that long here. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones have been going for a lot longer than The Beatles did, therefore they have way more albums and other things. McLerristarr (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You have a good point. However, The Beatles were much more popular than The Stones, and therefore have more articles related to them. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Assassination?

I just want to bring up a discussion: should it be 'death' or 'assassination' of John Lennon, or should it be something different like 'murder'? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be whatever the article is called. If you want the article to be renamed, you should start a discussion on the article talk page. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah ha, someone else changed the name of the article. Last time I saw it, the name was 'Death of John Lennon', and it's been changed to 'Assassination'. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Voting time. Assassination. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Canon Albums

Concerning the debate of "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Past masters": Why don't we keep it separate boxes with US and UK albums, and MMT in the US box, but highlight it as a part of the Canon releases, e.g. bolden it? And let PM stand under Compilations but do the same? CentraCross (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you explained that in the template somehow for the novice user? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but where should that text be placed? I can't seem find a suitable location for it. Maybe if we made a superbox titled "Discography" and put it as a paranthese? CentraCross (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the superbox. I just want to see if there's any response to that. Anyone? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A bit over-complicated in my opinion, and I'm not sure it's necessary. Plus how do we define what's "official canon"? Are the Anthology albums, Let it Be...Naked and Love not also official, Beatle-approved releases?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The official canon is the 14 albums released in the 2009 remastered stereo box set. The original 12 albums plus Magical Mystery Tour which was adopted into the UK albums and Past Masters which contains their official releases not on one of the other albums. The other compilations like Anthology are just alternate versions of songs on the 14 canon albums. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't like the use of the phrase "official canon" in the template, because it strikes me as rather "fanboy" and it maybe confuse casual readers. Is this phrase actually used anywhere in the 2009 remasters, or in any other reliable source?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The term 'core catalogue' is coined on The Beatles' website, but I'm not sure it sounds that much better. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Another problem with "canon" is that it normally means something like, "genuinely part of an artist's work" and therefore it implies here that the officially sanctioned Anthology, Live at the BBC, Yellow Submarine Songtrack and so on are no more genuine than cynical EMI cash-ins like Love Songs and Reel Music that the Beatles had nothing to do with. If we are to have this highlighting (where is this "debate" that CentraCross mentions, by the way? Is there a specific discussion thread somewhere?) then I would rather we go with "core catalogue" (awkward though it is) as it's at least the term used by an official source, the Beatles website.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Previously there were threads concerning Past Masters and MMT on this page, but now after checking it seems that only a small section concerning MMT is still left. So maybe it's not much of a debate issue NOW, but anyway... CentraCross (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Compilations

That session is all messed up. I think the albums with nothing new (1962-1966, Beatles in Italy etc) should be separeted from the ones with new material (Anthology, Love etc). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RocketWobbuffet (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Anthology and Love are the only ones in there with new material, so it wouldn't be wise to put them in a separate section. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is the definition of a compilation album from the Wikipedia page: A compilation album is an album (music or spoken-word) featuring tracks from either a single or multiple recording artists, often culled from a variety of sources (such as studio albums, live albums, singles, demos, and outtakes). The Anthology albums contain demos, outtakes, singles, and live material, and so is a compilation. Love contains songs from previous studio albums by The Beatles (remixed), and so is a compilation. So they belong in the compilations section. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. Ok, then. RocketWobbuffet (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
But maybe we should make a difference of Original Compilations of New material, and Collective compilations of previously released material? CentraCross (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Your trying to make the same argument again. Only The Beatles' Christmas Album, Past Masters and The Beatles Anthology really fit the 'new material' criteria. It would be unnecessary to have an entire section for them. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree they belong to the Compilations section, I think there should be an explanation somewhere. When reading (for example) the Rock 'n' Roll Music (album) article, one may think that all the compilations are all about throwing some songs together. RocketWobbuffet (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles' Influence

I'm looking at the 'related articles' section and noticing how cluttered it is. Perhaps we could have a separate section for The Beatles' influence. These are the articles that I think could fit in there: Artists who have covered The Beatles, Beatlemania, British Invasion, Fifth Beatle, Influence on popular culture, Jeff Lynne and The Beatles, Recording technology, The Rutles. What think? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion to me. I don't like "related articles" as it's too vague to be of much help.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Places associated with The Beatles

While I'm at it, I think a separate section could be made for place associated with The Beatles. These are the articles that could fit there: Abbey Road Studios, Beatles-Platz, Kinfauns, Tittenhurst Park, Yellow Submarine sculpture. I'm sure that if we made such a section, it would be subject to expansion. What think? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, these articles are all about places, they could have their own section instead of staying with Fifth Beatle, Paul is Dead etc. RocketWobbuffet (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible groups and split

I have retained all the content but put them into two templates, and made both templates collapsible. This reduces the impact on the articles on which the template appears, and makes loading quicker and easier. It also means the material is less daunting to look at. Please let me know if anyone has any concerns about these edits. SilkTork *YES! 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Template group

The two Beatles templates can be placed in a template group as follows:

There is flexibility for creating more templates and also placing them in the group. A singles discography would be helpdul, for example. SilkTork *YES! 11:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a singles template for The Beatles. You can go ahead and add it if you want. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and do it while I'm here:
I had to move 'Template:The Beatles Albums' to 'Template:The Beatles albums' because the capitalization of 'albums' made the 'v' in the corner red. Just to let you know.
It is going to be a long and tedious process to get this template group into every Beatles-related article. I won't be able to help much for a while, as I'm going to be leaving on a long trip in a few days, but once I return I'll start helping.
Loved your idea, by the way. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What about Template:The Beatles compilations? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Compilations template looks really good. And about the Albums template, why are there only two EPs? RocketWobbuffet (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlier consensus was to have only the EPs with original material. I'm not sure that's necessary now, though. Let's wait for some people to yell back what they think. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not unless we do the same as with albums and specially highlight the two with original material. CentraCross (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
If we highlight the ones with new material, then people will confuse those with the core catalogue that is bolded. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well in one they were part of the core catalog. There are other ways of highlighting, but that would make it confusing. On my part I prefer just the 2. CentraCross (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What I mean by core catalogue is the albums that are in the recent rereleases, which are their 12 studio albums, the Magical Mystery Tour album (not the EP), and Past Masters. If we highlighted the two EPs, that would imply that they are part of the rereleases. Maybe if we underlined them instead...
Also, let's continue this discussion on Template talk:The Beatles albums. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of work seems to have gone into the template recently, so firstly, thanks to those contributing to its improvement. Regarding the use of {{Template group}}, having considered it for a while my impression is that the nested templates are ultimately not helpful to the reader. It would be more helpful to have the individual templates immediately visible at the page footer, so the reader can expand the desired detail straight away. PL290 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The template group has already been placed in nearly every single Beatles-related article on Wikipedia (the majority of them placed by yours truly). If you want to go through all those articles, that's fine, although I think we should wait for someone else to respond. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I know—sorry to come along and say that after you updated all those articles—though it seems from your reply that you don't feel too strongly about it yourself if it does change. Let's wait and see if there are further opinions from others who've seen it in action like this for a while. I need to go on thinking about it myself. For instance, Eric Clapton and suchlike do indeed benefit from having the entire Beatle-related content collapsed, alongside their similarly collapsed footers for other bands and so forth. It seems to me we may need two "master" templates, one for Beatles articles having only this footer, and one for articles that include a Beatles footer along with other footers. Any grouping can perhaps be defined within each of those two master templates. I need to look at it in more detail but anyway, if we do decide to change these relationships, I should be able to update the affected articles without too much problem using AWB. PL290 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and I've now created a tweaked version at {{The Beatles/sandbox}} which does as follows:
  • Incoporates the template group, meaning this is the only template we need to place in articles;
  • Removes the header from the main Beatles part, so that there's no duplication of that title and no need to expand that part
Please have a look at the template and see what you think. At the moment I think it may meet all needs. As it's all in one template, we can go on tweaking the overall structure without needing to update all the articles each time. If others are in agreement with this as a start, I'll update the articles using AWB. I have a regex prepared that will find and replace the template group in the articles. PL290 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I love it. It's a great idea. Maybe if we also created a separate template for the filmography and videography, then we could make the whole thing shorter and less cluttered. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've now incorporated the template group into {{The Beatles}} as I suggested above, and updated all the articles to remove the template group and just use {{The Beatles}}. PL290 (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to have it be placed automatically in every singles Beatles-related article. I'm sure I missed some. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry; all Beatles-related articles will for some time have had {{The Beatles}} in their footers. They will now automatically pick up the new version. PL290 (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I love your optimism, but I'm pretty sure that there have been Beatles-related articles that have never had {{The Beatles}} in their footers. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to drop the 3rd-levels /which I totally support) we have to reduce the length. Could it be possible to put the "Associated people" (and possibly places and companies) in a separate template? CentraCross (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that topic is noteworthy enough to warrant its own template. I support moving bak to the original format of putting all the people together without specifying what relation they had to The Beatles (e.g. personnel, businessmen, etc). It would save a lot of space and specification is not really necessary. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How about This?


I did a Couple of other changes as well, please comment all. CentraCross (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, the new Heading could be "The Beatles Associated Articles" instead, just for the sake of symmetry... CentraCross (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see what warrants putting articles into either 'The Beatles' or 'The Beatles Associated Articles'. It seems really unnecessary. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Simply the fact of making them smaller. However, it would suffice just to include the "People" Section. Maybe that's a better categorization. CentraCross (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not keen on "Associated Articles" either, since that's really what every single link in the group is about. Also I think it's getting quite a good balance already. I think our starting-point should be to present the main links straight away (i.e., band members and history), along with a small number of collapsed sections containing all the others. I think we can do better than presenting three separate collapsed Discography templates straight away like it is at present. How about enclosing those in a collapsed "Discography, filmography and videography" group or similar name? That group could also include the links for filmography and videography, which I think are the remaining things that are a bit out of place in the main Beatles group. PL290 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow. This project is becoming bigger than I thought it would.
PL290, your suggestion concerning 'discography, filmography, and videography' is basically putting a template group within a template group. That would basically be the same as having a third-level collapsable template, which was shot down earlier for its user-unfriendliness. I think it would be best to have all of the templates, no matter how many we come up with, all visible once the entire thing is opened by the user.
Your first suggestion was a valid suggestion, though. I think it would be great to have the main links presented straight away and have the others collapsed. I'm not sure what others would think of it, though, so I would wait for someone to shout back about that. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Having the Main template expanded by default is a great suggestion, not only is it much more convenient, but it also unifies it the Eponymous Supertemplate, avoiding confusion.
However, The idea of splitting the Templates further is not appealing. The Compilations, singles and Albums Templates are of suitable length and structure. The only Template that was a problem for those reasons was the Main Temp, but with the "People Associated..." that is fixed. (Or?) We shouldn't do any more copy-editing that isn't nessecary - However, If we have more room there might be removed content that ought to be readded. Know any such removed info? Checking content is what we should concentrate on now; as I see it we are going to get finished pretty soon.
I also take this moment to say, just in case there is any doubt:
Yes, There are supposed to be many doubles between Comps and Albums, as many titles could be considered both.
CentraCross (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I know there was a kick-back against the third-level collapsible templates. I still think it's worth considering for something as specific as three discography templates. But I'm easy about it; I think our objective, as I said, should be to present the main links straight away, plus a really quite small number of other (collapsed) categories. From an HCI perspective, I consider that the best thing to hit the user with when they first open the template group. I don't consider it a big deal that they would then find three further things to expand—albums, compilations and singles—within a discography wrapper. As long as we're not indiscriminate with more and more levels in an incoherent structure, it shouldn't be a problem. Anyway, if we do keep the discography as it is, how about simplifying the headings to just "Albums", "Singles" etc? PL290 (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The kids are MISSED

Yo! Did everybody just pack up and leave back in August??? <g>

So, to begin: I was cruisin' around and came across the Help! (song) article, and I enjoyed it thoroughly! At the end I started checking out the first navbox, The Beatles, and the first thing I noted was the nested The Beatles navbox, which I felt was redundant to the first The Beatles link in the "Template group" header. I eventually got down to the "People associated with The Beatles" navbox with yet another The Beatles link in the title. I see there was a brief conversation about this above, and yet apparently no final resolution but to leave it as is. IMHO, redundant links in nested navboxes = unprofessional = unencyclopedic. But that's not why I opened this section.

I opened this discussion because the very next thing I sensed seemed to me to be a gigantic Black hole in the {{People associated with The Beatles}} navbox. The question blazed through my mind: Where the heck are the kids??? There are people listed there I've never heard of, but no offspring? They were there at one time, as I first saw in the Template:The Beatles/sandbox, and then I pulled the history up to find that the children were rm'd with this edit. The editsummary said something about "they can go in the members' templates". Well, then, so can the wives – and the parents, the girlfriends, the guardians and a few others. If we're going to include those, then we have to include the kids, too. I tell you, it was a big, gaping hole in the template when I first saw it. The kids are MISSED. I was going to revert that edit, but I've worked some with templates before, and I know what a profound effect such editing can have on the software, especially if an edit war ensues. Now, I'm not saying that's what would happen, but rather than risk it, I thought it better to talk it over first. So if anybody's still around and kickin', there it is. But if nobody's interested in these profound templates anymore, I'll revert the edit and restore the kids in a few days. (And I'll do something about the link redundancy, too.) Thank you for listening!
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is that the Beatles templates are very large and some vaguely related articles are not listed or the templates would be huge. The Beatles' children are not relevant to The Beatles as a group, only to the individual Beatles. The children are listed in the individuals' templates. As for the multiple links to The Beatles, this template transcludes the other Beatles templates. If those templates were used by themselves, they would need the link to The Beatles. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Most of The Beatles' children were born after the group split up anyway. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
All very sound reasoning, Mclay, however the main Template Group title certainly doesn't need the link, does it? That link coupled with the first nested navbar link looks very unprofessional. I've installed many template groups, and I used the "Articles associated with The Beatles" type of title and never with any links. There's already too much over linking on Wikipedia, and I don't like to add to it. As for the kids, whatever the reasoning, I mainly just wanted you and the other involved editors to know that, when I read the Help! article, the missing kids were a HUGE gap. I think other readers would also expect to see the children in that template along with the other relatives and associates. Just my take – ya'll do as you like.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Third-level collapsible template

Do we Really need to have 3rd-level templates, it looked better having just the three 2nd-levels. I'm making this change, feel free to revert (if you have good arguments to do that) EDIT: I've done the changes and found it better to skip the "The Beatles" template- it became to long. CentraCross (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the compilations template looks too daunting to not have the collapsable sections. What think? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really agree, using collapsibles is a solution we should use very sparingly, almost exclusively for too long templates. It is very inconvenient to have small sub-templates in a Template that is of regular size already. it simply splinters the template so that the content it becomes very hard to grasp. Better have a little rough-lomming unit template. I'm reverting the change. CentraCross (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This new 3rd-level collapsible format might be the most absurd thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This template needs MAJOR condensing. At least half of the categories are completely superfluous (IMO, chiefly, 'Videography', 'Associated people', 'Associated places', and 'Associated companies'). The whole thing is starting to look like a pet project of obsessive compulsive Beatles fans who insist that all this useless information is actually indispensable. Father McKenzie (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The only reason the majority of the sections you mentioned are there were because a few of the pages in each of those categories were in a large 'related articles' section that desperately needed organizing, and then those sections were subject to expansion. I agree that some of the articles in this template are not necessary, but we'd need to think carefully about which articles to get rid of before going into a mass deletion of articles, which is what came across as your plan from the language you used in your comment.
Love your user name, by the way. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Here, I'll give an example: I think that the girlfriends/wives, parents/guardians, and children should be put in their corresponding member's template and be removed from here. Anyone else? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. Anything that is not relevant to The Beatles, only to a specific Beatle, should be deleted, especially if it is about post-Beatles stuff. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, since anything like that can be accessed via the article of the member in question. I agree with the general comments that the overall thing needs to shrink; it's daunting in size, and the collapsing, while intended to help it look less so, adds another layer of complexity. Better to avoid the need for collapsing by removing as much as we can that's inessential. PL290 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Filmography and Videography

I see that the Filmography and Videography sections have been combined. Maybe if we showed which ones were made by The Beatles themselves? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? All the films star The Beatles. People can find out more by clicking the links. McLerristarr / Mclay1 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems okay as it is; it's only a short list, so I don't think it needs collapsing or anything. And for overview info such as which ones they made themselves, the links on the left (Filmography and Videography) can be used. PL290 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody please add de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste The Beatles. Thank you.--Rock-Z (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Size of this navigational box

it seems that this navbox should be applied very sparingly, due to its extreme size. it transcludes a bunch of large navboxes, and we should try to apply the smaller ones directly where appropriate to increase the utility of the navboxes as navigation tools. comments? should I take this to TfD for more input? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There are 17 [Show] links in the current version. I agree this needs to be changed, in some way. Not sure how, or to what. –Quiddity (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I think all that needs to happen is delete the templates for the individual members; those are hardly necessary in this context. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Split to its components. One for albums, one for singles, etc,. etc. It's too large to be useful as it is, and if the applicable templates are transcluded on the contained articles (per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL), only the relevant templates will be shown at each article. That's how they're supposed to work after all. In short - this combined template should only be used on one article: The Beatles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I will do this shortly - may take a little while to work my way through all the links, even with the benefit of AWB. --NSH002 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've now completed this exercise, so that this huge template is no longer used in article space. I have replaced its transclusion in The Beatles by its contents. Now thinking of taking it to TfD, but am in two minds as to whether it should be deleted (which would have the advantage of removing the temptation to add it to any old article vaguely related to the Beatles) or redirect it to something (probably Template:The Beatles main) in order to preserve the edit history. Any thoughts? Anybody else looking at this page - feel free to take it to TfD while I make up my mind. --NSH002 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
awesome. I would suggest taking the pre-August 2011 history from this template and merging it with the history of Template:The Beatles main, then moving Template:The Beatles main here, which would simply delete the post-August 2011 history of this template (which isn't that significant). will need an admin to do the history merging, so perhaps TfD is the best way to achieve consensus for the history merger, and deletion of the current bloated form of this template. Frietjes (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've had a bit of practice. For a really big navbox, take a look at {{Murinae}}, its edit history and my notes on its talk page. That one is now transcluded on only one page in article space: Murinae; I think that's fine, since the template is serving as a reference, another variety of a list article. It can and should be linked to, but a template of that size should only be transcluded very sparingly. Another difference is that {{Murinae}} was never used on any article not linked to from the template. By contrast, {{The Beatles}} was transcluded on hundreds of articles not so linked, most of only marginal relevance to The Beatles. That makes the idea of deleting it—and thereby preventing it being plonked on any old article that has something to do with the Beatles—very attractive. On the other hand, it would look very odd not having a navbox for the most famous band in history. You're right that the post-August 2011 edit history is not very significant, so on balane I would support your history merge proposal. --NSH002 (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
okay, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 24. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Inner circle missing, notably Brian Epstein and George Martin

@ILIL: You reverted my changes which added the Beatles' inner circle with the summary "Associated people was tried before and removed". I'm aware of the former (and by implication the latter), but it's not an adequate summation of why I shouldn't put it back. Has there been discussion and if so where? Was there a problem with editors adding peripheral figures? Is it an issue of template size?

After your edit, Jeff Lynne is on the template and not Brian Epstein or George Martin. According to the version you restored, The Scotch of St. James (?!) is more important than the man without whom we would probably never heard of the Beatles and the man who produced their records and guided them through the recording process. Gosh, even the Apple scruffs are on there - they're more important than Mal Evans?! Epstein's book is on the template but Epstein isn't. There's a place for The Rutles but not for George Martin?!

At a minimum, Brian Epstein and George Martin need to be on this template, and I would argue strongly for the entire inner circle being there. If the concerns are size, we can remove Associated Places or some of the peripheral articles from "Related Articles". --kingboyk (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Epstein, Martin, Aspinall and Evans all belong in the template – it doesn't matter if someone's removed their names in the past. They were all key members of the Beatles' circle and their involvement is highly notable. JG66 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
My version was restored by the editor that originally reverted it [thank you]. --kingboyk (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Freda Kelly needs to be thrown into the template of related articles, and so does Tony Bramwell (into the inner circle), who actually doesn't have a page on Wiki but should.Hotcop2 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:The_Beatles/Archive_3&oldid=1140233965"