Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Archives: May 2010 – July 2012

Tips

Hello guys..Moxy here the guy that does the portals...We have made a Tip/guidelines section to help navigate Wikis vast rules!! Pls if y0u like add this to your project page if it apply to you guys here!!..Moxy (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

? Use common sense. Ultimately, assume good faith on the part of others, be bold in editing because perfection is not required.
See Wikipedia:Editing policy for more information.

Before starting a new article! - Notability is a concern that must be adhered to. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information.
Need help starting a new article? See Wikipedia:Article wizard it will help you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.

I. Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include a ==References== section listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you used to write the article. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:References for more information.
II. Use proper spelling and grammar. This is a very important aspect of an article. There is helpful guidelines in regards to styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) for more information.
III. Use footnotes. Take advantage of the footnote ability Wikipedia has, instead of including html links inside the context include them as footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use them.
IV. Write a good lead. Be sure to write a lead that concisely summarizes the entire article into one or two paragraphs, which make sense to someone who may know nothing about the subjects in question. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more information.
V. Stay on topic. Many articles are criticized for length; sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this. See Wikipedia:The perfect article for more information.
VI. Keep it simple. Remember that the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition. Although you should use a broad vocabulary of regular, non-technical terms, do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary.
VII. Use images if possible. Images enhance articles greatly, but only use them when they are necessary, and ensure that their copyright status has been specified and we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Images

Categorization of singles

Please investigate I added subcategories of Category:Singles by record label to Beatles singles and found that several--e.g. I Don't Want to Spoil the Party--were not in subcategories of Category:Singles by year or Category:Songs by year. Someone may want to look into this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Maharishi and The Beatles

The Beatles has about 200 words devoted to the relationship between the group and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. the Maharishi's article has about 400 words on the topic. The McCartney article has a 160-word section. Lennon has a few lines adding up to about 75 words. Harrison has an 18-word sentence. No mention at all on the Starr article. My impression is that, with each of these articles, more could be said but the coverage is limited by weight considerations. If there was a standalone article it could be more like 500-1000 words. It's a fairly discrete topic and well-covered in sources, so it could be suitable for an article. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The first question is, are you religious?--andreasegde (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
What does personal belief have to do with anything

Zobango (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the article is now humming along at The Beatles at Rishikesh.   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Should I say it? Yes, I will. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Stop counting words, and start reading content. --andreasegde (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I know I'm not an official member of this WikiProject, but I have been editing many of The Beatles' articles here for a while now. I just wanted to bring attention to something about the navboxes: There has been a template split and the albums have their own discography page. What is happening now is that the goal is to get the following template group into every Beatles-related article:

If a member of this WikiProject could get that onto this page, that would be grand. Also, how can I join this WikiProject? Thanks! Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Paul McCartney classical albums

I've nominated this category for upmerging into both Category:Paul McCartney albums and Category:Classical albums at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_13#Classical_albums_by_artist. There is no categorization scheme for "albums by artist by genre." Opinions would be welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Zapple Records

Talk:Zapple Records contains a project banner of this project and for some reason, someone has nominated the talk page containing the banner (not the actual redirect) for deletion. Comments invited. –xenotalk 13:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of album article

A proposal has been made to move Rarities (The Beatles American album) to Rarities (The Beatles US album). Please see Talk:Rarities (The Beatles American album)#Requested move for the discussion. --JD554 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry D Cox

There is an ongoing AfD discussion regarding a recently created article about Perry D Cox. Comments are invited.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

George Harrison articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the George Harrison articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

George Martin articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the George Martin articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the John Lennon articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul McCartney articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Paul McCartney articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ringo Starr articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Ringo Starr articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the The Beatles articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

GAR Let It Be (song)

The article, Let It Be (song), has been nominated for good article reassessment. Please take time to add your review and/or improve the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The The Beatles

Let's not start this crap again. It's The Beatles.--andreasegde (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

PL290 has stirred the embers of something we all hoped had died. Please read here: [1] for the details.--andreasegde (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with bringing something back up for discussion; please assume good faith. I feel this should be brought forward for wider discussion since the consensus for or against seems to be in dispute. The Manual of Style guidelines seem to be a good starting point, if you are uncomfortable with how they are worded I invite you to open a discussion there as well. riffic (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if you look up the old discussions, PL290 is dragging it up yet again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
And there's nothing WRONG with that. I for one invite this discussion. riffic (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
In the past this point was discussed, argued and shouted about for months (and I'm not joking). It split the project in two, and was as distressing as could be to all involved. If you can read through all this ([2]) this ([3]) and then this ([4]) without getting a headache, I salute you.--andreasegde (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest bringing this discussion over to WP:MOS if a per-case exception to the guidelines should be followed. Conflict between guidelines are best resolved through discussion, and the guidelines updated as appropriate. riffic (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
MoS is only a guideline. I remember the ABN AMRO debacle in which the MoS Taliban kept trying to make the name of the financial institution "ABN Amro" despite consensus. I think that article's talk page is still longer than the article itself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The RfC I linked to is from wp talk:Consensus, which is a policy page. I strongly suggest we follow the course of raising discussion and codifying any consensual outcomes so any confusion is eliminated from here on. riffic (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I never thought that MoS would agree with this project, but it does.

Incorrect  (title):    J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings.
Correct (title): J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings.
Incorrect (exception): There are two seaside resorts in the Hague.
Correct (exception): There are two seaside resorts in The Hague.

When used as parts of a title begin such words with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama), as in The Beatles. John Lennon was a Beatle, but JPGR were in The Beatles.--andreasegde (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest we take this discussion here so this can be changed. riffic (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you should Be Bold, and do it. It has been already decided what it should be here.--andreasegde (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Being bold is good if everyone else agrees to the edit. I think the term is "edit, revert, discuss" in that order. In other words, if there is an objection the the edit, then it is reverted to the previous edit and there should be a discussion in the article's talk page afterwards. Revert wars are not tolerated in Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me, Steelbeard1. I think the point you made about it being a trademark [5] is the strongest. I also think Riffic is on the right path, because the problem will always come back if the MoS isn't modified to the include The Fabs. --andreasegde (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[6] The trademark document that was sold, which says. "signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S., and is attached and bound along with a title page and sworn statement from the notary public who witnessed the signing. The document reads (in part): "1. We carry on business jointly as entertainers under the group name of 'The Beatles'. "--andreasegde (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another, all I'm saying is we should strive to remove ambiguity in the guidelines. If the consensus is determined to be solid, codify it. riffic (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Then at some point I (or anybody) should put the trademark ref on the talk page of MoS, and see what happens.--andreasegde (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done it, and added this little gem: [7] The Beatles' trademark document, which says. "signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S., and is attached and bound along with a title page and sworn statement from the notary public who witnessed the signing. The document reads (in part): "1. We carry on business jointly as entertainers under the group name of 'The Beatles'. " Therefore, the use of 'The' must be used as it is part of a trademark. End of. --andreasegde (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in the US the term "The Beatles" is still a registered trade mark owned by Apple Corps Ltd based on this link [8] Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's astonishing how much effort has been expended here to save a capital T. The MOS:TM says to format trademarks in an existing style "that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." KISS becomes Kiss and adidas becomes Adidas. "United Airlines" and "American Airlines" may be the official trademarked names of the companies, but, if the context is clear, there's nothing wrong with starting a sentence "Airlines such as American and United ..." without repeating their official names. (By the way, if you look closely at the actual photograph of the 1964 trademark document linked above, the name is typewritten as "THE BEATLES".) So the question becomes an issue of "standard English". Highly respected sources using or advocating "the Beatles" in running prose include The Times,[9] The New York Times,[10] The Guardian,[11] the Encyclopædia Britannica,[12] The Chicago Manual of Style,[13] the online Oxford University dictionary,[14] and at least the website of the Oxford English Dictionary.[15] (Note that The Times and others in the preceding sentence are capitalized because they are titles in italics.) Interestingly, The Daily Telegraph uses "The Beatles" in some articles[16] and "the Beatles" in others,[17] as if it doesn't matter all that much, which may be the most sensible position of all. –Mainstream Nerd (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Mainstream Nerd, I invite you to take this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(music), as per the WP:Consensus RfC outcome I noted prior. It seems most of us are unclear as to current consensus of preferred capitalization, and my ultimate goal is to have it codified in a clearly stated guideline, whatever the result may be. Thank you, riffic (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The direct link for discussion is here: [18]--andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe

The Beatles' influence on popular culture, The Beatles' Second Album, The Beatles' break-up, and The Beatles' recording technology. The apostrophe is there (correctly) but is has been put forward that "Beatles album" is using the first noun as an adjective, and needs no apostrophe.

Using this line of thinking contradicts 'vegetable garden', 'pickle jar', and 'junkyard dog', etc., which are only used when the first noun is singular, and not plural. Try this: [19]--andreasegde (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would use apostrophes the same way as above if I was writing about Stevie Nicks: "Stevie Nicks' contributions to Fleetwood Mac" or "Stevie Nicks' second album", but write "My friend was listening to a Stevie Nicks album" (or Billy Joel album, or whomever). Guess that's because I consider "The Beatles" to be a singular band. But since consensus is to use "The Beatles were...", then I can see why you might have an issue. GoingBatty (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Anyone else? It's a consensus, after all. --andreasegde (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I wrote a little bit about this on my talk page in reply to your query there, but after further thought let me approach it slightly differently here. "The Beatles" refers to one band, though plural in form, with "Beatle" being a derivative word (perhaps the term "back-formation" applies here—I'm not sure). Thus, "Beatles" not "Beatle" becomes the word used as the attributive noun. "A Beatles album" could mean something different than "a Beatle album" (if unsure, listen to Electronic Sound :) ). One way to decide if a possessive apostrophe is warranted is if proper grammar and sense are maintained when the word "Beatles" is replaced by "group's", without altering any other words. So the article titles you initially cited are all correct: the group's influence on popular culture, the group's second album, the group's break-up, etc. So, an apostrophe is fine in "The Beatles' album was delayed ..." (the group's album was delayed ...), but not in "He produced almost every Beatles album" (he produced almost every group's album??). –Mainstream Nerd (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It is, ""He produced almost every Beatles' album", meaning an album by The Beatles. It's possessive (which Apple will take you to court about).
I have read the comments about using a noun as an adjective, but it is never used in the plural, as in 'vegetables garden'. 'The Beatles' is plural, so that is not valid. You can use 'Statistics Centre', and there may be lots of other examples, but it is a title or a name of something. Ask any history teacher, football team, or head master/headmaster. There is no album called "Beatles Album" (or beatles album), or film, or anything else. --andreasegde (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"The Beatles" is a name of something. After your example, I have to side with the camp that doesn't want the apostrophe; the example makes it sound like he produced every album for every Beatle, not every album for The Beatles. If anything, it seems it should be "Beatles's album" because The Beatles is a name and not a plural; it's like writing about the Jones's dog. I'm not sure what Apple or technical English rules—let alone a football team(?)—but I do think there is room for conflation if "Beatles'"—especially without a preceding "The"—is supposed to refer to the group as a whole. I also think that, at least in America, plural group names are used as adjectives in these cases. —Ost (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and I apologise. It should have been, "He produced almost every one of The Beatles' albums". The single apostrophe after the 's' makes it easier to read, as the MoS and other sources say.--andreasegde (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You wouldn't write "He produced almost every Aerosmith's album" - you would write "He produced almost every Aerosmith album". GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"He produced almost every one of Aerosmith's albums".
"laying the groundwork for Aerosmith's signature blues-rock sound"? "Aerosmith's next album was 1976's Rocks". "continued to reap the benefits of Aerosmith's comeback". "also signified Aerosmith's true comeback." "because of Aerosmith's new struggle". "Aerosmith's next album". "In addition to Aerosmith's grueling 18 month world tour". "Aerosmith's long-promised blues album". "The album was intended to fulfill Aerosmith's contract". All taken from the Aerosmith article. --andreasegde (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It depends if the band name is being used as an adjective; "Aerosmith's next album" is also said as "the next Aerosmith album" or even "the next of Aerosmith's albums." So while it may be that "he produced the Beatles's every album", there's an expectation that the band name is used as an adjective because it follows the other adjective. —Ost (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hold on; "he produced the Beatles's every album"...?
Anyway; bugger it. The problem here is that there is no album by Aerosmith that is actually called "Aerosmith album". That's the top and bottom of it.--andreasegde (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, though not common, I'm quite sure that "every" can be used as an adjective as I did above to keep with the example used. Regardless, to illustrate the point, "every" can be switched switch it to "next", "first", or any number of other adjectives. While I understand your argument that there is no "Aerosmith Album", you're essentially sticking to the "vegetable garden" argument. That's not the way that people talk about names groups and albums; a noun can be used as an adjective, so an Aerosmith album still makes sense. —Ost (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sick of reading threads that ruin my eyesight because they keep moving to the right, I'll start here:

  1. Using a noun as an adjective means creating something that is a title, or a name for something that everybody recognises. "head master" (meaning a teacher that is the boss), "statistics centre" (meaning a centre that gathers statistics), or a mountain bike. They are all one thing, but use two nouns.
  2. There was no album called "Beatles Album", or "Aerosmith Album", or anything else.
  3. The use of the apostrophe means possession, as in "The Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein", or "The Beatles's manager, Brian Epstein", if you want.
  4. It can not be ""The Beatles manager", because that would mean an album/film/project called "The Beatles Manager". It doesn't work. Take a deep breath, and think about it.--andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand your argument from a purely syntactic point of view, but I don't agree that that is how the language operates in practice, especially for cases of albums and artists. I agree with point 3, but that's about it. If I were going to the store to buy cds, I would say that "I am buying "the new Beatles album, new Aerosmith album, and new Katy Perry album", which is understand to be similar to saying "I'm buying The Beatles's new album, Aerosmith's new album, and Katy Perry's new album". Perhaps it's informal usage, but that's how I hear the language being used. Tangentially, I think that this discussion should be at a broader venue such as WP:ALBUM or WP:Grammar, since this question shouldn't be unique to The Beatles. —Ost (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe I can recognize if a particular bike is a mountain bike, and I believe I can recognize if a particular album is a Beatles album. —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Modern English (and it's changing all the time) is slowly eradicating the apostrophe. Until then—and it's being debated on a daily basis somewhere—it's here as a rule. I think Ost is right that we should take this to WP:Grammar, or here [20]. Believe me, there are lots of differing opinions there. Thanks for contributing here, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As a footnote for future reference, you might want to look at these pages, The Rage Over Apostrophes, and The Long Campaign to Abolish the Apostrophe.--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Apple Corps and Apple Records articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Apple Corps and Apple Records articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The previous announcement was delayed, and I apologize for missing it the first time. The other announcements, higher above, were delivered as intended. Thanks again, — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Track listing of Please Please Me

I figure I should have posted here first before editing the article (a very silly move), but I was just wondering why Please Please Me is the only album in The Beatles core catalogue which has its track listing in a list format and not a table format? I edited the article to correct this however it was quickly undone with the reason being "Per WP:ALBUM (subpage), the list format is preferred." Can somebody please explain to me why this album is being singled out, because surely it would be better if all The Beatles albums pages were in the same style. Thanks. Ste900R (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the user who reverted you wasn't aware of the fact that the table format is used in the other articles. Have you asked them about it? I agree with you we should be consistent. The table format looks fine to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Should this have articles ???

Anyone think this are notable enough to have there own articles?? Should this not be redirects?? Moxy (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Here Today" I think is notable as it was McCartney's tribute to Lennon, and "Thinking of Linking" also as it was one of the earliest Lennon/McCartney songs. I can't see any reason to have an article on "Song of Love", however. While we're on the subject, I stumbled across "Call Me Back Again" earlier today - an album-only Wings track that doesn't seem notable at all.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Get Back (different film)...

While I've been Beatles searching, across the net & I've come across something that struck me as odd. Apperently, there's going to be a new Get Back film, but, it's completely different form Let It Be, this film, will be about if the The Beatles never broke up (u may insert swearing at Yoko here), apperently, which includes if John never met Yoko, judge for yourself, personally, I think it's a joke. Found, here & here talking about this film, dated today. *Peace* Yeepsi 21:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Your second article says the source is Variety, and links to this article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
So, anyone else have any thoughts on this? *Peace* Yeepsi 19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
If Klein had consulted McCartney about the strings and female choir Spector put on The Long and Winding Road, The Beatles would have stayed together. That was the reason, not Yoko.--andreasegde (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
& that has something to do with the film, because? *Peace* Yeepsi (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course it has, but it will be ignored. Everybody wants to put the blame on Yoko and Linda, but when The Beatles (and only all four) agreed or disagreed, then that was the law. Klein fucked it up, and he knew he was doing it. Allen Klein broke up The Beatles. That's the truth.--andreasegde (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I know, Yoko, didn't brake up the band. Gawd, came down. :P Yeepsi 16:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Was there any productive point to this conversation? Was it to ask whether we should have an article for this movie to come? If so, then I will say personally that we should wait until the movie materializes before we make an article on it. If this was just posted as a joke, then I'd like to remind you all that this is not a chat room. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, moving on... it does seem to be genuine. There is a news report on IMDB here which mentions that there's a script (it's a comedy/fantasy kind of a thing) and Mark Waters is in talks to direct the film, but the key phrase is "in talks." It's way too early for an article, as Democraticmacguitarist says, we should wait until there's something concrete.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Aren't the source's, I found good enough? :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not according to the notability guideline for future films, which states that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Past Masters

Just a heads up, a bunch of editors are arguing over on the Past Master talk. I thought I should tell head office (here). :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is a couple of rogue editors insist on deleting the double LP track listing of Past Masters which was the original release of the now prevailing version of Past Masters since the 2009 remasters as a double CD set. You may know that the 1 (The Beatles album) compilation also includes a track listing of the limited edition double LP version of that album. When the Past Masters double LP was issued, the LP was still a widely available format in 1988 and was not a limited edition. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand; I have a complete collection of The Beatles on vinyl myself. Tell he/she/them tht the LP track listings have been there, since the article's creation & there's no point in changing it to CD track listing's at all.... Or something along those lines --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 22:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Steelbeard, by "a couple of rogue editors" I assume you mean Memphisto and myself. I strongly object to you referring to me in this way. I have in fact have not edited the article at all - I have merely given my opinion on the talk page. The only people who are edit-warring are Memphisto and yourself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Help! I need somebody... on a mildly Related Article

The members of The Beatles are listed here in this article List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners but I'm at a loss as to how to describe them in a succinct way. Is it enough to describe them as a member of The Beatles or should we mention that they are musicians, actors, authors, artists etc per their Wikipedia article leads? If you have a moment to stop by the article and give some comment on the talk page that would be great. Also there is a sub category on the page called Beatles entourage". Any thoughts you have on that sub category, are also welcome. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

John, Paul, George, and Ringo are best known as musicians who were in The Beatles. In my opinion, there's no need to list that they were also actors, writers, painters, etc. GoingBatty (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Beatles navbox discussion

Please be aware of the discussion at Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Template image of abbey road

I brought this issue up at the template talk page, but i just now realized this is the more active talk page to discuss the matter. The current image has had zebra stripes photoshopped out, and a vw bug (poorly) put in, to get it closer to the original iconic image. WM commons has other free use images, one of which, the first, shows the "abbey" sign, while the sixth (and ninth, near identical image) shows what is probably beatles related graffiti. I feel like a 'shopped foto is not an ideal image here, id rather see one which is untouched, even if its not as "abbey roadish". I feel showing its present status helps, by saying: "this is real, you can visit it". Does anyone else care much about this?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Album release

Hi, I have a Beatles interview LP, titled "The Beatle Interview", published by Everest Records and made in France. Does anyone know when this LP was released? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone answer my question, it's nearly been a month. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 09:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this the LP? It appears it was released in 1982.  Gongshow Talk 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Um.. I don't mean to sound picky, but do u have a source for tht? :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, here's what I found for the LP over at Google Books: [21][22].  Gongshow Talk 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

With?

I see the article for the band's second album is titled With The Beatles, but as The Beatles is the artist name, isn't the album really just called With? Should the article perhaps be moved to With (album)?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And Beatles for Sale can be called just For Sale (and Meet the Beatles would be Meet, whileThe Beatles would be, um...). No, With the Beatles would be the full title. Having the band name within the title isn't unusual. Properly put, you would say With the Beatles by the Beatles in a sentence. freshacconci talktalk 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. It actually clears up a matter I had with an entirely different album, and I suspected what the answer would be. (I was going to use For Sale as an example as well!)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Category to populate

Please assist I made Category:Albums arranged by George Martin and I know that there has to be some Beatles content I missed (certainly compilation albums), so please add to it if you can. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrangement deals with existing (usually published) music. George Martin arranged one song on a Beatles album (the last track on "Yellow Submarine"), and he arranged a Beatles covers album "Off The Beatle Track"—he did not arrange any Beatles album. Uniplex (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Die genres, die

Let's just remove them, from all song articles at least. They don't serve any useful purpose: they just cause arguments, sap time, and disenchant both readers and editors. MacDonald doesn't try to condense every song into a single-word description, neither does Lewisohn nor Pollack, so why do we? Maybe it makes sense for some catalogues (of sheet music perhaps) to do so, but we're not a catalogue, we're an encyclopedia—we can quote (or paraphrase) Pollack's "Mixolydian dialect of stylised blues" and MacDonald's "allusion to doo-wop in bars 23 to 28" as much as we like in the article body. Uniplex (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Uniplex - You may want to bring up your suggestion at Template talk:Infobox song and Template talk:Infobox single. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of doing so: our sources (MacDonald etc.) have no influence over song articles in general, only those of Beatles songs. Uniplex (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
In fact, it seems that the Template:Infobox song and Template:Infobox single folks have run into the same genre-churn problems and advise that the infobox fields are “the music genre(s) that the single is from. These must not be original research, and should be stated and referenced in a 'Composition' section of the article”. This seems a reasonable compromise to work to here. Uniplex (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Template bloat

Do we really need the new templates such as template:Magical Mystery Tour? Seems this is just duplicating stuff already in other templates (such as template:Magical Mystery Tour tracks, template:The Beatles, template:The Beatles albums, etc.). Uniplex (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow. That template is wholly is unnecessary. Who even thought of it? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
These newer templates are not duplications. They are navigational boxes to allow more swift navigation from one article to related articles, and they include the entire contents of each album rather than just the preceding and next tracks. So I do not see how these templates are "wholly unnecessary". They are already created and do not create any problems of note.Hoops gza (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you are confused: template:Magical Mystery Tour tracks (and similar long-established templates) includes the entire contents of the album, not just preceding and next tracks as you suggest. Duplication is always a problem; it creates problems of confusion (which template should I use?), inconsistency for readers where different ones are used, and doubles maintenance overhead. Unless there's been a consensus to move to a new template scheme, we should stick with the long-established ones. Uniplex (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did misspeak when I said that the other templates only had preceding and next tracks. However, these new templates also include links to all of the related articles, rather than merely the track listing. You saying that there is a problem of confusion is more a matter of perception. It's only a problem if you wish to view it that way. I do not see how a template that provides clarification can really create much confusion, anyhow.Hoops gza (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hoops, the problem is in template:Magical Mystery Tour. We all realize that template:Magical Mystery Tour tracks is necessary, but the other is wholly unnecessary. So is template:A Hard Day's Night and template:Yellow Submarine: they only serve to break up template:The Beatles albums into a less desirable format. Hence the term "template bloat". Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hoops, “all of the related articles” (not just the few you've picked for the new templates) are already in the Beatles template which will always be present on Beatles-related pages. It's not that duplication isn't manageable, it's that duplication is unnecessary and has a cost. Of course, we should always look at new ideas for improvements that we can make, but a change of this scope should ideally have consensus before implementing it. We can give it a few more days to get other input. Uniplex (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's been a week, with no support for the new templates, but it would be nice to get a couple more views before removing them... Uniplex (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we can start unlinking them from articles and see how it goes. Uniplex (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Should we delete those templates altogether? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney

Lately the song writing credits in The Beatles' articles are being changed from "Lennon/McCartney" to "Lennon–McCartney" (here, and here, etc.), with no explanation. This would be a major change to have all articles consistently use "Lennon–McCartney", as most currently use "Lennon/McCartney". The change may have started here by renaming the Lennon/McCartney article to Lennon–McCartney on May 25, 2011 with the edit summary This is the way it is always written on LP sleeves etc. and in reliable sources such as Revolution in the Head (en-dash not hyphen).

IMHO there was nothing wrong with using the slash, as its Wikipedia article states The most common use of the slash is to replace the hyphen or en dash to make a clear, strong joint between words or phrases, such as "the Hemingway/Faulkner generation". Seems appropriate for a "Lennon/McCartney" composition. And is consistent with the use of Jagger/Richards in Rolling Stones articles.

I hate to start a long-winded discussion such as we had for "the Beatles" vs. "The Beatles", but I also like to see articles use a consistent style. I looked for a discussion or consensus on the "Lennon–McCartney" change, but found none. Since this change would require a large amount of work (with no benefit in my opinion), I suggest we have a consensus before continuing with this change. CuriousEric 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's true that "Lennon–McCartney" rather than "Lennon/McCartney" was used by the (The?) Beatles themselves, and it appears to be so, it's what it should probably be here. I read the headline up there and before I read another word, I thought, "Whatever way it look on album credits is how it should be." It's minor enough, though, that unless someone wants to create a bot to do it, it isn't worth a ton of work. CityOfSilver 00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking through the 2009 re-master sleeve notes you will find that every album through Revolver used an en-dash or hyphen. Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, The White Album and Let it Be use a slash. The Past Master sleeve notes use a comma. The Yellow Submarine and Magical Mystery Tour sleeve notes use dashes/hyphens. So really, based on what the Beatles' album sleeve notes use, it could go either way, and both are correct, depending on the album. Though one can also find both "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" used variously in the same said sleeve notes, so there are inconsistencies throughout. It appears that the majority of their sleeves notes use "Lennon-McCartney", particularly the early albums, as I said, each one through Revolver. — GabeMc (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
My "pre-remaster" Parlaphone CDs of Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver all clearly use Lennon/McCartney on the credits on the back, while the credits on the inside list who sang lead on each song (by first names only on Help! & Rubber Soul and full names on Revolver). I'm with Eric and Steelbeard in that the "/" is my preference, but there are certainly several different "correct" ways that the record company used. So which is the actual most correct way? Hard to say. Doc talk 10:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference is Lennon/McCartney, but would not make a big issue about it myself.. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep WP:SLASH discourages the use of slashes in article titles, so if Lennon–McCartney can possibly be justified, it seems worth it... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep. Same thought. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, all the original records use a dash as separator, even Let it Be. Sheet music (another primary source) however, uses "and". Widely-used secondary sources MacDonald, Lewisohn, use a dash. I can't see anything in WP:TITLE (or daughter pages) which suggests a preference between dash and slash; whilst discouraging their use in prose, WP:SLASH does not mention titles. One thing that might be relevant is from WP:TITLE: “Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles?”. Here are two similar articles: Rodgers and Hammerstein & Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. As for Jagger/Richards, I can't comment much on whether the slash is appropriate there: I did one search only and found it not being used here. In summary, I can't see any great incentive to change from Lennon–McCartney; bots already exist that can do search-and-replace on any remaining slashes (e.g. User:CmdrObot). Uniplex (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lennon–McCartney, as per labels, and loads of books. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 10:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the article includes the following:

Lennon–McCartney vs McCartney–Lennon

In October 1962, the Beatles released their first single in the UK, "Love Me Do", credited to "Lennon–McCartney". However, on their next three releases—the single "Please Please Me", the Please Please Me LP, and the single From Me To You—the credit was given as "McCartney–Lennon".[1] With the "She Loves You" single, released in August 1963, the credit reverted to "Lennon–McCartney", and all subsequent official Beatles singles and albums list "Lennon–McCartney" (UK) or "J.Lennon/P.McCartney" (US) as the author of songs written by the two.

Which, as I believe it purports to be historically accurate, seems to supports “Lennon–McCartney”; however I also notice that Britannica uses “Lennon and McCartney”. Uniplex (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lennon–McCartney, but I do like Lennon/McCartney a little bit.--andreasegde (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep as is - which is mainly Lennon/McCartney (reverting any changes). There is no consistency in usage or sources outside of Wikipedia, so there is no real justification for change. The change is minor, yet we could have protracted discussions with no clear consensus from now until the end of time; and whatever is decided now, somebody could change later on. It is better to stay firm on current, long-standing Wikipedia usage, and only make changes if justified. If the person who made this change was in any way aware of "the/The Beatles" fiasco, they should be given a solid trout slap. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You say that “there is no consistency”, yet every single original album, EP, and single, and MacDonald, and Lewisohn (two of the most respected and widely used secondary sources used in WP:TB) use the dash—is this not consistent? Consistency appears to be the rationale for the change to the root article, which was made four months ago; in this context, as you can see above in other comments, "keep" means to keep the dash. Uniplex (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep dash. If memory serves, American records generally used the slash, but in Britain, the Decca group used commas, while other releases, including Parlophone, had dashes. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to add a little note: here at least, when I hear a song by these two authors introduced as such on the radio, the separator is usually silent i.e. two words are spoken: "Lennon" followed by "McCartney". This seems similar in treatment to that of a 'double-barrelled' surname, and dissimilar to the treatment of constructs using '/', such as "and/or" which is often voiced as "and stroke or". Uniplex (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That is about as "original research" as you can possibly get. I mean... seriously! Is there an echo in here? Doc talk 04:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems you misunderstand: WP:OR is about presenting facts within articles; this discussion relates to WP:TITLE, where “Recognizability” and “Naturalness” are key requirements. It seems you also missed the importance apportioned to the preceding comment by its introductory phrase. Uniplex (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the change to Lennon–McCartney. In addition to being the way that it is written on the LP sleeves and in reliable sources, most of the books I have on The Beatles use Lennon–McCartney rather than Lennon/McCartney, so it would appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME. --John of Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Another vote for the award winning team of Lennon–McCartney. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clearly in favor of the "dash vs. the slash": so who's going to make a bot to do some significant changes? Because if it's going to be done it needs to be done right, and someone who is willing to back up the change who can make a good bot should step up. Doc talk 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, reliable search-and-replace bots already exist; I can organise that being done. However, I think we should wait to hear from the OP, or wait the customary 7 days, before concluding. Uniplex (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep slash. CityOfSilver had a link showing a Meet The Beatles label with "John Lennon-Paul McCartney" (dash, not en-dash), not a convincing argument since we are discussing last names only. Also, the song titles on the label are all uppercase, if we followed the label as gospel we'd have to change all song titles to uppercase (I'm not suggesting that). Wikipedia has a naming convention (WP:NCM) which says Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art. I consider the use of slash, dash, and en-dash (and uppercase song titles) on labels stylized, and we need not follow them verbatim. Doc mentioned that some Parlaphone CDs use "Lennon/McCartney", so there is not a consistent usage. Without an absolute consistency outside Wikipedia, Wikipedia need only be consistent within itself. The Wikipedia article on slash is totally supportive of using "Lennon/McCartney" (strong joint between words or phrases, such as "the Hemingway/Faulkner generation").
Since most articles use "Lennon/McCartney" I suggest we leave it as is to avoid the effort of changing it. The average reader will not care one way or the other (sounds kind of like the "the Beatles"/"The Beatles" debate). If we go with "Lennon–McCartney" the bot will need to fix non-Beatles Wikipedia articles which currently use "Lennon/McCartney" as well. Perhaps we should have a clear vote following this post, where editors list Keep slash or Keep dash. Thanks for all your input. CuriousEric 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the bot is an issue—they cost nothing and quite happily trawl the entire article space. We're currently in a halfway-house situation; the bot can give us consistency whichever we choose. I'm afraid WP doesn't do votes: either we achieve consensus, or agree to differ and leave things as they are. Uniplex (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, a note on your comment on WP's slash article: unfortunately, it's not the correct reference; the correct reference is the WP:MOS, which has “an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span” and “The en dash ... joins components”, “the slash ... separates alternatives”. Uniplex (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
MOS:SLASH mentions several uses for slash, but none regarding its use with names, so it is not an appropriate reference. Slash (punctuation) specifically refers to names and is appropriate. Your extracts from WP:MOS do not recommend against using a slash with names. The "separates alternatives" quote is only one of many uses for the slash such as "male/female", joining names is another use (books do use "Lennon/McCartney", see my examples below). CuriousEric 04:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I know from my personal preference for the slash (besides the Parlophone CDs having them, and thanks for reiterating that Eric :>) is the aesthetic of having the names even closer together visually, actually further illustrating the inseparable songwriting partnership in the credit. Maybe I'm getting too abstract (and quite possibly "unencyclopedic"), but I believe this to be a minor part of wanting to keep it "slashed" besides the fact that it's provably shown to be illustrated that way. I've thought up uploading a composite image of my CDs for this debate: but I assume that it's not necessary. Sure, they're American reissues, but they are credited as "Lennon/McCartney" and not "Lennon-McCartney" on many, many millions of CDs. Doc talk 06:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not a matter of personal preference: we have WP:AT & WP:MOS to guide us. You say "the slash ... illustrating the inseparable"; the MoS says the opposite. Uniplex (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson! You know a lot for an editor with such a short editing history. I know... you've edited as an IP for years but didn't want to sign in, yadda yadda yadda. So, anyhoo: the OP objects, we'll wait it out, and everyone will continue to be shiny and happy! Cheers... Doc talk 07:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep dash. A few comments up, John of Lancaster says, in supporting use of an en dash or a hyphen, that it is "...the way that it is written on the LP sleeves and in reliable sources." A few comments later, Doc9871 says, in supporting use of a slash, "they are credited as "Lennon/McCartney" and not "Lennon-McCartney" on many, many millions of CDs." My original take was, "However the band had it on the album credits." Since there doesn't seem to be one way they mostly did it, that slashes were used and so were hyphens, there ought to be some other deciding factor. Why not MOS, which says dashes are preferred? CityOfSilver 18:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep dash. That's the way it is on the original UK albums (didn't the original US albums use the slash, though? -- either way, that point's irrelevant). We seem to use 1960s UK standards for much of the Beatles info here (i.e., not listing Magical Mystery Tour as an official LP), and there doesn't seem to be any genuine need to replace it with the slash, so I say let's stick with the dash. I just noticed that the remastered CDs (at least the pressings I have) use Lennon-McCartney for the earliest albums, up until Rubber Soul, which doesn't use either, for the most part. The use of the slash starts with Sgt. Pepper and continues from there. I understand that current consensus seems to want to steer clear of recentism, though, so I say let's go with the dash (assuming that that was indeed the original way it was formatted) for this article. For all individual album articles, let's format it like it was on the first UK pressings of that album. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
A google book search for "Lennon/McCartney" shows both "Lennon/McCartney" and "Lennon-McCartney" are used (and both have been used on albums as mentioned above), so there is no consistency outside Wikipedia. "The Beatles anthology" by The Beatles (page 94) shows a quote from Paul: Crediting the songs jointly to Lennon and McCartney was a decision we made very early on, ... I wanted it to be 'McCartney/Lennon', but John had the stronger personality and I think he fixed things with Brian before I got there. ... I remember going to a meeting and being told: 'We think you should credit the songs to "Lennon/McCartney".' I said, 'No, it can't be Lennon first, how about "McCartney/Lennon"?' They all said, "Lennon/McCartney" sounds better, it has a better ring.' I said, 'No, "McCartney/Lennon" sounds better, it has a better ring.'
And "The Complete Guide" by Paul McCartney (page 610) shows credits as "John/Lennon/Paul McCartney". Page 879 has a section named "Lennon/McCartney".
And "Mystical one: George Harrison : after the break-up of the Beatles" by Elliot J. Huntley (page 48) shows a quote by Harrison, Because there was a point in my life where I realised anybody can be Lennon/McCartney, you know. 'Cause being part of Lennon/McCartney really I could see ... I could appreciate them - how good they actually are. ... If Lennon/McCartney are special, then Harrison and Starkey are special too...
My point is there's no external consistency of using dash over slash, good examples can be found for either. Past consensus at Wikipedia over the years has been for "Lennon/McCartney", and IMHO there doesn't seem to be a good reason to change it. My last 0.02. CuriousEric 04:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems all the arguments for and against have now been put forward: there's no clear winner from the sources, so we defer to the MoS, with which the extant title accords; the bot can mop up any remaining inconsistencies. Uniplex (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article but haven't bothered changing the credits in the song and album articles. The LPs I have use hyphens but en-dashes are more correct. Ian MacDonald uses en-dashes. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Per my previous comment, I sense a (perhaps begrudging) consensus for the dash. If there are no objections after a further two days, I'll organise the bot to make things consistent (which is of course the main thing). Uniplex (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Earlier Uniplex states there's no clear winner from the sources, so we defer to the MoS, with which the extant title accords. If we accept this, all arguments about various sources can be ignored and we're left with the MOS.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where the MOS disallows use of the slash, even in article titles. WP:SLASH says avoid joining two words by a slash, but we are discussing two names, which it does not address. It lists some examples where an unspaced slash may be used, but does not state that these are the only examples. The article on slash isn't part of the MOS, but doesn't disagree with it either, and the article shows names joined by a slash as an example. It states the slash is used to replace the hyphen or en dash to make a clear, strong joint between words or phrases, and we surely want a strong join between Lennon and McCartney when referring to their partnership. Perhaps the MOS should be changed to clearly support "Lennon/McCartney" (and agree with the article on slash), the MOS is not etched in stone.
WP:AT lists characters which cannot be used, but they don't include the slash; the article doesn't even mention the word 'slash'. It does state some characters should still be avoided, listing Characters not on a standard keyboard, which include the en-dash (a reason for using Lennon/McCartney). And we shouldn't use the hyphen (found on the keyboard), as "Lennon-McCartney" is not a single hyphenated name.
The article named "Lennon–McCartney" only existed since 25 May 2011, as renamed by Mclay1. The previous article "Lennon/McCartney" existed as such since creation on 11 October 2004, along with many other articles using "Lennon/McCartney", apparently without dispute for over 6 years. The change for consistency should be made to use "Lennon/McCartney", since that is the more common use within Wikipedia, and does not violate the MOS.
Earlier Uniplex states WP doesn't do votes, so the number of editors preferring one form over the other doesn't matter, correct? And only the MOS matters in this case. But the MOS doesn't disallow the slash as far as I can tell.
Sorry to continue this discussion, but I don't see the valid reason to change "Lennon/McCartney" to "Lennon–McCartney", and only see reasons to keep "Lennon/McCartney". CuriousEric 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem continuing it CuriousEric: there's really no rush at all on this issue. I feel bad for suggesting we end this early: but I only did because the rapidly evolving consensus seemed to be almost a "snow" situation in favor of the dash. I retract my call to end this discussion early, encourage further discussion from all of us, and must remind all of us that this can be taken to a larger audience so as not to make a decision that might differ from one based on a larger community consensus. Doc talk 04:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

@CuriousEric: Your interpretation of the MoS: that it "doesn't disallow the slash" and so, apparently, can be ignored, seems a little disingenuous given that, in fact, the MoS advises on how best, both characters should be used: the slash to separate alternatives and the dash to join related terms. Also, w.r.t. your argument about a previous consensus, please see WP:CCC. Uniplex (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... "disingenuous"? That could mean "insincere or calculating". I think you need to choose your words more carefully. Doc talk 05:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

@Uniplex: No offense intended by quoting you so often, I'm just stating the conclusions I draw from them so we can reach consensus (or reject my conclusions). Such as, can we ignore all arguments about sources and rely only on the MOS? I'm not sure anyone else agrees. I never said we should ignore the MOS. It just seems that the MOS is lacking or contradictory (IMHO) in it's application to our debate of joining two names, whereas the article Slash (punctuation) is more thorough and does apply. I'm interested if anyone else sees it that way. The MOS could be improved if need arises. I didn't intend my comment about previous consensus to imply that it could not be changed, only that if there is not a strong reason to change it, "Lennon/McCartney" should be kept as it is more consistent and widely used within Wikipedia than "Lennon–McCartney". CuriousEric 07:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"British English particularly makes use of the slash instead of the hyphen in forming abbreviations." Interesting. Doc talk 07:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

@CuriousEric, we haven't made a formal evaluation of the sources' use of dash and slash (which would need a weighting scheme to be agreed first—eek!) but it seems reasonable to say that the results are inconclusive: no clear winner. The MoS has had more discussion that probably any other page in WP, so whilst not impossible, it seems unlikely that this case would precipitate a change in it. The LM article has been stable with the dash for four months, so stating what the current or previous consensus is, is a grey area. As mentioned before, the bot will easily remove the current inconsistency, whatever we decide. Uniplex (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify the standing of the slash article in this discussion, as I understand it, it does not carry any weight here: that article documents general usage in various situations in various countries, whilst the MoS documents the specific usage that has been decided for within WP. Also, whilst regional language variations apply to regional topics, the consensus is that regional punctuation variations, do not. In other words, the MoS is a strong guideline here, not without exception, but strong nonetheless. Uniplex (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion time (again): if there are no further comments, in a few days time, I'll organise the bot to make things consistent per the current title. Note that this is a trivial operation; should a change be agreed in the future, it would again be trivial to do so. Uniplex (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus at this time on the "Lennon/McCartney" to "Lennon–McCartney" change, articles should continue to use "Lennon/McCartney" (and the main article changed back to "Lennon/McCartney"). The sources show no clear winner according to earlier comments. WP:NC-SLASH does state article names can contain slashes if appropriate – there is no need for such titles to be fixed. CuriousEric 03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The Lennon–McCartney article has been stable for some time, and there is no apparent consensus to change it now—but you're free to call in a higher order to make the judgement call if you like. Consensus for consistency goes without saying: folks have been slowly making references consistent with the article for some months, the bot will just speed things up a bit. Uniplex (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The article named "Lennon–McCartney" has only been stable since 25 May 2011, and it was renamed without discussion or consensus. On those grounds, it should be renamed back. The article named "Lennon/McCartney" has been stable since its creation on 11 October 2004, apparently without a consensus to change it for over 6 years. That is the stable title for the article. The change for consistency should be made to use "Lennon/McCartney", since that is the more common use within Wikipedia. Please review WP:HEAR which states Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted. We do not have consensus to change "Lennon/McCartney" to "Lennon–McCartney". CuriousEric 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

*Keep - in spite of the non-consensus change, I agree with the others who have pointed out that 'Lennon-McCartney' is how the credit appears on The Beatles records and should appear on Wikipedia as well. Radiopathy •talk• 22:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Reaction to Double Fantasy

Both the articles John Lennon and Double Fantasy say that the initial reaction to Double Fantasy was negative.

Released jointly with Ono, Double Fantasy was not well received, drawing comments such as Melody Maker's "indulgent sterility ... a godawful yawn".

Unimpressed with its cosy domesticity, critical reaction to the album was largely scathing—"a self-obsessed disaster" according to one reviewer.

But of the reviews of the album published before John's death that are available online, which admittedly are few due to lack of full text on the net, include some clearly favorable. See Montreal Gazette and Reading Eagle. Billboard's critic said Lennon's material was "powerful" but would have preferred more John and less Yoko. Knight Newspaper Service said that it was a "good" but "not hardly a great" album.

I think if we present the initial reaction to Double Fantasy′ as "largely scathing", we're not representing the full spectrum of critical opinion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike for albums where we show representative reviews and perhaps leave it up to the reader to decide what the overall critical view is, for this album, it is documented in secondary sources that the overall critical view was poor. However, with bad reviews then being withdrawn upon Lennon's murder, it's a somewhat unusual situation, best covered in an encyclopaedic way by drawing on sources (i.e. probably books, since written) that take an overall, objective view of how (and why) the album was received this way. Uniplex (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Judy in Disguise (With Glasses)

Articles such as this, are being added to WP:TB but does this fall inside our WP:TB#Scope—does connection to the title of a Beatles song, constitute a connection to the group? Uniplex (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they're of any interest to this project and they certainly shouldn't be given the WP:TB tag.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, there's bound to be a gray area at the edge our interest, but I agree that this falls outside it: the notability of this record is primarily that it was a hit record, not that it is connected to the Beatles. I see that another editor also agrees as the tag has now been removed. Uniplex (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category for their singles

I think Category:Singles by The Beatles would be logical and useful. We dont have any categories for singles by artist. Back in 2006, Category:Singles by artist was deleted and contents merged, but i dont know the details. We have loads of bands with notable singles, with The Beatles being possibly the most notable. If created, it would have as a parent category Category:Works by artist, which also has Category:Albums by artist, Category:Album covers by author (nested one down), Category:Music videos by director, etc. I suppose, paralleling David Cross's Category:Works by David Cross, we could have Category:Works by The Beatles. Any thoughts on this? I will likely also take this up at wherever music singles are discussed. maybe someone can research the rationale for its prior deletion. (too many new categories?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

More eyes needed please

George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello to the members of this project. There has always been some dispute over Harrison's birth date. Previous discussion on the talk page reached a consensus but editing on his page has hotted up again in the last few days. There has been done without new discussion on the talk page. Let me state that I am not adverse to changing the date if new info has come to light but it would be much appreciated if any of you who have the time could take a look at the situation and add your thoughts to the discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 16:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I think it would be useful too keep the previous discussion on the Hari talk page (Birthaday section) , because now doesn't appear the consensus reached.Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties

hello,

someone please give me the page for "See also the Otis Redding connection in [64] Drive My Car and [65] Day Tripper, the alleged Miracles' influence on [67] In My Life, the blues-tinged first version of [70] I'm looking Through You (Anthology 2), the Booker T-style". Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That quote is on page 179 of the Vintage Books 2nd Revised edition, in the footnote for the section on "The Word". --Nick RTalk 00:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"At the Speed of Sound" or "Wings at the Speed of Sound"?

Every unofficial source I find says the album is registered as Artist: Wings Title: "At the Speed of Sound," yet the Wikipedia article on the album and every reference to the album in every other Wikipedia article list the title as "Wings at the Speed of Sound." Has there been discussion of this topic before? Could someone check it out? It appears to me that a misreading of the album cover has become the standardly used but incorrect reference name. Storcke (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The majority of the sources I can find cite the full title as "Wings at the Speed of Sound". I suppose to determine the original "official" title, we'd have to check with the earliest catalogue listings of the album. I'm not sure it would matter, though. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we would probably decide to stick with the most commonly-used title, which appears to be the full-form one I mentioned above. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and any feedback from interested editors would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

An addition I added to the piece written about the song Let Me Roll It.

I am new at this. How will I know if this addition makes it on the article or not? I added some info on the article about Paul's song which reads: "Lennon must of had some affinity for the song because he later copied the exact riff from Let Me Roll It and put it in his own song Beef Jerky on the Wall and Bridges album that came out in '74." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studlydorightmuffin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First, do you have a WP:RS for this claim? Second, be sure to sign your comments with four tildes, ala: ~~~~ — GabeMc (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hoax?

Is Beatlemanga a WP:HOAX? The article doesn't seem at all credible, and I can find no mention of what would be a majorly big deal, if all the claimed participants were, well, participating. Shawn in Montreal (talk)

Paul McCartney FAC

Paul McCartney is currently a Featured article candidate, any input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Copyeditors - The McCartney article is close to passing FAC content wise IMO, but it could really use some "expert" work on it's prose and punctuation asap. Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
After giving it a once over, I submitted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. GoingBatty (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks GoingBatty! ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

George Harrison discography

There has been some talk here and there about this recently, but I feel like there needs to be a centralized discussion on it so that we can come to a consensus. Basically, question is whether Electronic Sound or All Things Must Pass should be considered George Harrison's first studio album for the purposes of numbering in the various articles on his albums.

As it stands now, all the articles currently treat Electronic Sound as the first studio album by George, making All Things Must Pass his second solo output of studio-produced material. Wonderwall Music is treated differently, as it is a soundtrack album. This reflects the current ordering at George Harrison discography. As there has been some disagreement over this system, though, I think it needs to be discussed. Certainly it can't be denied that Electronic Sound is a studio release; it was formerly classified as an "Experimental album" at the discography article, but I don't believe that's an accepted definition or categorization per the MoS, as the distinction between a studio album and an "experimental" album could end up being quite arbitrary.

All thoughts and suggestions are welcome. Let's talk this out. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye open when I can "come up for air" at the McCartney FAC, but just to weigh in briefly, I would describe Electronic Sound as his first solo studio album and Wonderwall Music as his first solo project. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always thought ES to be an experimental album (I have an original sealed copy, however, I have heard it on YouTube). So, I'd say it goes: Wonderwall (soundtrack), ES (experimental), ATMP (studio). yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Studio. Experimental is the genre. Radiopathy •talk• 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Radiopathy. Are not "experimental" albums also studio albums, when recorded in a professional studio? Is side two of Floyd's Meddle an experimental side whereas side one is a studio side? ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Evanh. As discussed, I'm for ATMP being the first − seeing Yeepsi's text above, I'm thinking: spot on. Elec Sound is such an oddity in the Harrison canon. It seems unfortunate to have to adhere to a wiki-wide policy on this when it means distorting the picture that (I believe) most GH fans have, and I mean those that are aware of Electronic Sound. (I don't think the Meddle comparison is valid, for instance, seeing as Pink Floyd embraced experimental music early in their career.) I was just looking at John & Yoko's Some Time in New York City and Double Fantasy to see if they were introduced as the couple's fourth and fifth studio album, but they're not the most thorough of articles, nothing's offered in the lead-ins at least. (Brief aside: Fantasy's rated as a B − can that be right? Start maybe?!) Anyway, I'd just worry that to readers − non-contributors − it comes across as a mistake in some way, All Things Must Pass being named as George's second studio album. It ticks all the wiki consistency and MoS boxes, okay, but big deal if it's crap to (knowledgeable) non wiki contributors. Having only been a contrib myself since January or February, I remember that feeling! Anyway, let's see how it goes ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
JG66, is your point here that if an album is of the experimental genre, that it cannot also be considered a studio album? ES is certainly a solo work, in that he recorded the LP outside the confines of Beatledom. For perspective, what about Macca's Thrillington, Strawberries Oceans Ships Forest, Rushes, Liverpool Sound Collage, Twin Freaks, and Electric Arguments? Are any of these "studio albums" in your opinion? Solo albums? If you don't like the Meddle example, then how about A Saucerful of Secrets? It is certainly experimental enough, so would you argue that it should not be counted in Floyd's studio album tally? ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Er, GabeMc, with respect − read what I wrote. I never made any distinction between a "studio" album and a "solo" album; of course, ES is a "solo work". I'm not making any point other than to say that to stay true to how George's discography seems to be viewed outside of wikipedia, in my experience, Electronic Sound should be treated as the oddity it is. An "experimental album" field would seem to be required. That wouldn't apply to the likes of Pink Floyd or Paul McCartney, both of whom have embraced experimental music in their body of work. So I was pointing out the folly of trying to be consistent for consistency's sake. Honestly, I don't think that could've been clearer. JG66 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
JG66 per your above comment, "I'd just worry that to readers ... it comes across as a mistake in some way, All Things Must Pass being named as George's second studio album." And , "I'm for ATMP being the first", these comments would seem to imply that you were advising against calling ES a studio album, not? So how can ES be a studio album, a Harrison solo work, yet ATMP still be accurately described as Harrison's first solo studio album? ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Tabla and pakavaj, GabeMc!! "An "experimental album" field would seem to be required", I said above; and in comment above that, I'd said: "seeing Yeepsi's text [ie, Wonderwall (soundtrack), ES (experimental), ATMP (studio)], I'm thinking: spot on." I also provided a possible perspective from a non wiki contributor, and lest we forget, the majority of readers are non contribs. How is any of this not clear? Is your question, how would I reconcile this with the MoS issue that Evanh mentioned? Well, I'd think it goes without saying I'm more concerned about giving an accurate picture of George Harrison's solo career. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What do the reliable sources say? GoingBatty (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That's hard to peg down, as far as I can tell. Electronic Sound isn't an album that gets a lot of content-heavy write-ups in even the most exhaustive accounts of the Beatles' careers. Everything I've looked at so far only mentions it in brief and calls it either a "solo album" or simply an "album". Spitz's mention of it amounts to exactly ten words: "George recorded a solo album, Electronic Sounds, [sic] at his home[.]" Davies doesn't mention it, and neither does Lewisohn. Peter Doggett's recent book, which I would have expected to have something on it, doesn't even acknowledge the album's existence. Simon Leng calls it an "album, and certainly one of the worst records of all time". Getting into more obscure territory, Geoffrey Giuliano in his book Dark Horse calls Electronic Sound "George's experimental Zapple album", but doesn't classify it any differently from any of Harrison's other releases in the back matter. Do with all that what you will. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all that info! I guess I should have asked whether the reliable sources call ATMP Harrison's first or second album. GoingBatty (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Now why didn't I think of that? I have a couple things to take care of right now, but I shall break the books out again shortly and check on that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: Lewisohn is still of no help. Spitz and Doggett are both silent on the subject as well, but Simon Leng calls All Things Must Pass Harrison's "first solo album", refers to Wonderwall Music as "his first solo project" (emphasis mine), and still thinks Electronic Sounds is "execrable", among other fascinating adjectives. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That it does not seem notable to RSs would seem to suggest a lack of notability in general, but notability is not really a factor in a discography. How critics describe the content of the album is not relevant. Look at how I addressed The Family Way, in the McCartney article's discography. It might prove helpful, as perhaps ES and WW should be grouped together in a similar fashion. Just a thought. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Gabe. I will take a look and hopefully will be able to look this whole thing over with a fresh eye tomorrow. Basically, the point I was trying to make by quoting Leng is that it's as silly to expect us to classify Electronic Sound as an "experimental album" because a lot of people look at it that way, as it would be to say that we should classify it as an "execrable album" because Leng calls it that, and because many others would presumably agree. Just a note, also, that any consensus attained here may also be relevant to the classification of John Lennon's first two albums with Yoko, Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins and Unfinished Music No.2: Life with the Lions. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That does open a can of worms. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Lewisohn (1988), pp. 23, 32
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Archive_7&oldid=1190143118"