Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Community reassessment: Jim and Mary McCartney

Jim and Mary McCartney, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trillfendi (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Paul is dead

A discussion about this article is underway at Talk:Paul is dead#Clues again. Any editors who are interested, please feel free to participate. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

New film

Hey, just wanted to give you guys a headsup on this new film: Yesterday (2019 film), so you can properly categorize it and link to it from relevant places (even if it may only be something like Template:The Beatles filmography and videography). It's not only about their songs, apparently Paul and Ringo also appear in the film in person, or at least that's what the credits are saying and what the trailer is suggesting. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox treatment for contemporary single releases (1962–1970) in countries other than UK and US

A discussion on this issue is underway at Talk:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da#Infobox single. Would be useful to have input from more editors, and perhaps formalise a consistent approach across the project. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Happiness Is a Warm Gun

"Happiness Is a Warm Gun" needs to be expanded. Not only is it one of the most notable songs on the White Album, but there's a ton of meaning behind it that doesn't exist on its page yet. It's also had a tag related to that since September. There's also almost no info on reception nor about its recording process, of which it had a longer one than most other White Album tracks. I just checked Beatles Bible and even that has more info on the song than here. There's also a huge difference between the stereo and mono versions of the song so that should be noted as well. I personally don't have access to many Beatles books so there's sadly not much I can do. JG66 any thoughts on this? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Amazing song, deserves to have an amazing article on this encyclopedia ... I can't say it's on my personal to-do list, though, if that's what you mean. I keep hoping to get Prudence, Gently Weeps, Back in the USSR finished and nominated for GA but get distracted with other articles.

There should be decent previews at Amazon and google for, say, Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians, Tim Riley's Tell Me Why, Jonathan Gould's Can't Me Love and Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head. David Quantick's book on the White Album, Revolution, isn't great but that would have more details. JG66 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! "Gently Weeps" honestly looks ready for GA at first glance, imo, but "USSR" and "Prudence" definitely still need some work. Many of the White Album song articles need improving, especially "Good Night" which has almost no references. I've been adding critical reviews to some Revolver tracks, which could also use expanding. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreleased songs

Should this unreleased song section on the Lennon–McCartney page be moved to List of songs recorded by the Beatles? Or at least the ones recorded by the Beatles and not the Quarrymen? Or both? I think their unreleased songs should be on their song page, especially "Carnival of Light", but I'd love to know others' opinions on it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jim and Mary McCartney

There is a discussion about redirecting Jim and Mary McCartney into Personal relationships of Paul McCartney at Talk:Jim and Mary McCartney#Merge discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The Beatles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The Beatles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Craig Cross

Craig Cross' book The Beatles: Day-by-Day, Song-by-Song, Record-by-Record is included on the project's "Books used for references". iUniverse, the publisher, describes itself as "iUniverse is a self-publishing company that makes it possible for writers to achieve their dream of becoming a published author."[1] To meet WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." A couple of quick google searches doesn't show that he has written anything else about the Beatles or is referenced in other works on the group. Should he be removed from the project reference list and articles that use his book and the related "Beatles-discography.com" as a source (about 40 articles, included the FAs "The Long and Winding Road" and "Hey Jude")? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi 'Rojo (long time no see). Yes, definitely remove both. It's funny you mention the Craig Cross book: I've recently been removing it as a source at More popular than Jesus, and took some delight in finally being able to ditch it there.

I've been doing some work on "Hey Jude" too, on and off for a couple of years, poor sources being just one of the problems. But I hadn't realised that Beatles-discography.com was used there, or maybe it's just still on the to-do list. I don't know if it's that site – it could be rarebeatles.com or something else – but whichever it is, Matt Hurwitz occasionally writes for them. He's an expert that Apple Records and Capitol have used for reissue campaigns – writing liner notes, credited "consultant", even writing promotional pieces in trade publications (eg for Let It Be ... Naked in Mix magazine). Some other examples: [2], [3]. Just thought I'd mention it because there are some cases where a writer's involvement should elevate the status of a publication, I believe. Cross is certainly not one, however. JG66 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha – that is a coincidence! I only became aware of Cross while doing research on some old r&r and R&B songs that they recorded and thought that he was out-of-step with other sources. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, there as well ... Unbelievable. There are so many good sources for the Beatles, I can't figure out why anyone would need to use something like Cross's book. Couldn't wait – I've removed it and one other from the project's sources list. JG66 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to remove him from Long Tall Sally (EP), Act Naturally, Anna (Go to Him), Sweet Georgia Brown, Count off, etc. Beatles articles watchers are in a better position to do the rest. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove. Clearly fails SELFPUBLISH. I just tried to access beatles-discography.com and couldn't - I don't know if that's temporary but it's not a good sign.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I found a couple other links to web archives, but nothing was there. To be complete, I'll leave notes of the FA and GA talk pages that link to this discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the self-published book policy but it makes sense to me. So does deleting the Cross book as a reference. Perhaps Cross is a fine fellow, but I do think we need to be fairly stringent on who we define as an expert. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Penny Lane sample needed

I've been expanding the Penny Lane article and it would be fantastic to include a sample of the song's piccolo trumpet solo in the section dedicated to the part, given how much coverage it gets. Is anyone capable and willing? More details at Talk:Penny Lane#Picc trumpet solo as music sample. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to Ohnothimagain, this is now sorted. Ohnothim – your name doesn't do you justice! JG66 (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. I thought these issues had been ironed out years ago! :/ --kingboyk (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles

Could I get some eyes on List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles? It seems to me have got somewhat out of control. History records that the Beatles were a unit of 4 from Ringo's arrival until the official split in 1970. None of the walkouts were "official"; Jimmie Nicol was just a stand-in; Billy Preston was a valued collaborator but not a member; and yet this article would have us believe there were multiple incarnations of the group. --kingboyk (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

verifying something

In Hey Bulldog, there's a quote from "Here, There and Everywhere". that's a good quote, but I would like it to be verified. I can't find any preview of the book online and I can't buy it because I live in a country with terrible postal service. Can anybody with a copy of the book find the said quote? Fr.dror (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a source for the quote, taken from pages I'm able to access in the Amazon preview for the book. JG66 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on a proposed article "List of museums and xxx dedicated to The Beatles"

Here in the Teahouse. Thanks! Pte. Salt (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes regarding singles chronologies and second infoboxes in song articles

I've recently removed Beatles singles chronologies from the infoboxes – or, more accurately, I've removed the second infoboxes when a song had a later single release – at Back in the U.S.S.R., Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song), With a Little Help from My Friends, A Day in the Life, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Julia (Beatles song) and Got to Get You into My Life. The inclusion of a second infobox for the same recording went against instructions at Template:Infobox song#type, specifically: If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, "Stairway to Heaven" was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but became best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album. In addition, under B-sides there, it says: Generally, later releases or in secondary markets, reissues, etc., should only be included in the body of the article. In the case of those songs, I don't think any subsequent single release (and in some cases it was only in some markets) matches the original LP track for notability.

Aside from this guidance for template usage, type=song in Infobox song doesn't allow for multiple singles chronologies: applying the Extra chronology option renders song titles in italics and without quote marks. (eg my original experiment at Sgt. Pepper (song).) Perhaps some editors here are concerned about the chronological chain for UK and US singles being broken. My response is that the information is provided in the singles navbox at the end of each article, and the singles in question are all from 1976 onwards and not part of the Beatles' career at all. (Compared to the Rolling Stones albums chronology, where some key, authorised LPs such as Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) and Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! are omitted – see albums chronologies at Aftermath and Let It Bleed – we seem to give EMI/Capitol's commercial strategy following the cessation of the Beatles' contract a reverence that very few would.)

This has all come about through years of working on the band's song articles, and some of it has been touched on in talk pages over that time. From the perspective of writing articles and thinking of them as a whole piece – ie, not just focusing on individual elements such as infoboxes, chronologies, personnel sections, charts, etc. – the double-infobox treatment was a continual scourge because it had the effect of extending the boxes down into the first sections of main-body text (when viewed in Desktop mode), thereby creating sandwiching issues with any quote boxes and images that are there to complement the narrative. This problem was heightened when editors include additional artwork in the infoboxes, which was an issue raised at Talk:The Beatles a year or two back. So, to my mind at least, it was a relief to learn that Template:Infobox song stipulates that only one infobox be used.

We still have several articles where two infoboxes appear for the same recording, but in such cases the second one is for a contemporaneous release, because UK acts typically had their product reconfigured for North America. Those articles include Eight Days a Week and Nowhere Man (song), which were album tracks originally but plucked for single releases in the US. I'll post more on that sometime soon; for now I just wanted to explain the recent changes and flag the wider problem. JG66 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have just consolidated the infoboxes at Nowhere Man (song) with this change, further to discussion at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)#Infoboxes II. I think this might be the way to go for those examples (Eight Days a Week being another) where a song's main release in the US was as a single. JG66 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Beatleswillneverdie has added |album=Yesterday and Today to Nowhere Man[4] and What Goes On.[5] However, both songs were originally released on the UK Rubber Soul, so wouldn't they be "from the album Rubber Soul (UK edition)" instead? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo Rubber Soul should be in the infobox idk why they'd ever think YaT deserves it more. – zmbro _(talk) 00:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

JG66 originally left album= blank. Maybe he could weigh in here. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I welcome some attention on this issue; as stated above, it's been a long time coming and I was worried it would just gather dust here and come to nothing ... I happened to touch on the "Nowhere Man" point in a message at Talk:Let It Be (Beatles album): In the case of "The Long and Winding Road", I can't see there's any grey area: it most definitely was a single issued to promote the album ... One might think that "Nowhere Man" should appear in the infobox at Rubber Soul and "Eight Days a Week" at Beatles for Sale, but although they were singles in the US (and many other countries, but not the UK), they weren't singles issued to promote those albums in the US – they didn't even appear on those albums in the US ...

So my feeling is that "Nowhere Man" was not a single "from" Rubber Soul, either in the UK or the US. My subsequent comments in that same discussion are relevant here, though: it's generally said that the only "major markets" were the UK and the US, and I believe that perspective governs our treatment of singles in this particular area. (It's certainly borne out in talk page discussions over the years, way outside of WP:Beatles; perhaps the approach needs to be formalised, if it's not already – we should all be clear about this and not operating individually.)

With regard to whether the infobox at "Nowhere Man" (and "What Goes On") should state "Single by the Beatles from the album Yesterday and Today", I can see a good reason for including it, as it was Capitol's policy to create an album on the back of these non-UK singles. (Just as, in the UK and US, "Ticket to Ride" is a single "from" the later-released Help! album.) I don't mind holding off on that issue if others feel strongly – all I'd say is, let's ensure we've got something that's sound and workable across the whole project. As I left it on 24 January, the infobox does list the UK album under Released= but the infobox focuses on the most notable release (per template documentation cited at start of the thread). To my mind, that's a satisfactory treatment – perhaps it needs "from the album Y & T", perhaps not. JG66 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The infobox guidance includes: "If the song was first released on an album, enter the name of the album and link", which seems the same as the first album it was released on (with a possible major market caveat). What you seem to be proposing is that, rather than the first album, the one released in the same market or by the same label as the single should be used, even if it was second or later (YAT was released four months after the single, so technically the singles were added to rather than from the album). I don't think that this interpretation is followed in articles and would unnecessarily complicate the guidance. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo: Well yes, I am proposing that the album Rubber Soul has got nothing to do with the particular release that we're deeming the most notable at Nowhere Man (song); the two messages – 1) that it was a US single, 2) that it was taken from (UK) Rubber Soul – don't seem to compute. The inclusion of Rubber Soul in the Released= parameter, though, covers that important item, because there's no way that Nowhere Man should be presented as only a single (and only a single from Y&T if that's to be mentioned). I thought this was in keeping with what we discussed last year at Talk:Matchbox (song)#Identification in infobox. Right now, the infobox for the Beatles' version of "Matchbox" defines it as an EP track, which I'd say is what it's best known as. Like all the songs on A Hard Day's Night (which was a United Artists release in the US), each track was issued on a US single by Capitol; I don't happen to think that makes it the song's most notable release, perhaps others disagree. But if we do define it as type=single, then surely it's a single from Something New (the Capitol LP released a month before the single). To say that it was a single from the Long Tall Sally EP would be to conflate two entirely separate release schedules. There was no single from Long Tall Sally; the four tracks from that EP were instead issued in the US on reconfigured releases.

I thought this idea of a single being tied to the parent work it was designed to promote was something you adhered to also, no? The infobox at Rubber Soul carries no mention of the Feb 1966 single "Nowhere Man" / "What Goes On" and Help! similarly omits "Yesterday" / "Act Naturally", because neither of those singles were "from" the album in the main market in question. So, back to the song articles, the type= choice regarding "Nowhere Man" would seem to be between "Song by the Beatles from the album Rubber Soul" and "Single by the Beatles". We've gone for the latter – recognising the US release as the most notable. JG66 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think most of these problems are the result of trying to find the least unsatisfactory way to fit in certain chronological information with other details about the song into the existing format. I agree that the most important chrono points are 1) it was first released on RS; 2) it was a well-known single. You threw me off with "I can see a good reason for including it [Y&T] ... perhaps it needs 'from the album Y & T', perhaps not". The earlier version that only included "released 3 December 1965 (UK Rubber Soul album)" is the approach that was arrived at during the Matchbox discussion. It's far better than adding "from the album Y&T". My main point was that, of the two, "from RS" is more accurate, since that's where it first appeared (I don't see a problem with a US single being pulled from a UK album or vice-a-versa that you seem to). If no one else comes up with a good reason, the recent changes should be reverted. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems I find with the Beatles is that their US releases (except MMT) are now all irrelevant in terms of their discography. This isn't the case with the Rolling Stones, whose US releases are still very well a part of their discography(I.e. the American version of Aftermath ranked on the 500 greatest albums of all time list by RS). However, the UK and the US were the Beatles two biggest markets, and it's definitely notable to mention that where applicable. I remember JG66 and I had a discussion at "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" when that still had the single template even though it wasn't a single in the UK or US. While "Nowhere Man" wasn't a single from Rubber Soul, it was for YaT so maybe it would be better to say "from the album YaT". But then again, YaT is no longer relevant and is only really remembered for the butcher cover, so making the point that its appearance on Rubber Soul to me is the more important way to go. – zmbro _(talk) 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, your comment about these problems being "the result of trying to find the least unsatisfactory way ... [within] the existing format" is spot on. I know I've said it before: I've never understood why it is we have song and single, along with EP and album. A song, EP and album each define the subject of an article, whereas a single is a song (or two, or more) so there's often going to be an overlap between the two concepts. The way I see it, the problem that arises in situations like Nowhere Man and Eight Days a Week is we have to define the infobox by the song's release format – we select type= based on release. So, the inbox is rendered yellow at Nowhere Man (song) to recognise that it was a US single; that's the principal identity we're giving the song, not just in a word but as a visual element.

I take your point, zmbro, about the Beatles' Capitol releases being superseded with the arrival of CDs (whereas ABKCO Records have ensured that the Stones' US/London catalogue lives on). Still, I can't see the logic in stating that "Nowhere Man" is a single from Rubber Soul when it didn't even appear on that album there; it would be more accurate to say it was issued as a single instead of, or at the expense of, being on Rubber Soul. Same with if we said "Single ... from the album Beatles for Sale" at Eight Days a Week. It's the type= application that gets us having to choose between most notable releases, and in this particular era for British acts, it ends up being a choice between two very different discographies based on industry practice.

As mentioned, I can see a good reason for including "from the album Y & T", based on infobox treatment at, say, "Ticket to Ride". ("Can't Buy Me Love" is another example where we say it's a single "from" an album that appeared four months later.) I'm not necessarily pushing for the Y&T addition at Nowhere Man, but it would be a whole lot more logical, imo, than having "Single ... from the album Rubber Soul" instead. (Sorry, I'm probably repeating myself no end with the logical/sense angle ...) JG66 (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

At some point, some WP music editors decided that an article could be generated from a single: it's production, release (various formats, including album), promotion, charts, videos, etc. It's existence as a piece of music was secondary or ignored altogether (look through the single/song merger discussions). Combine that with an overemphasis on navigation/linking and we're stuck with the existing approach. So ...

When Capitol was presented with Rubber Soul (UK), it chose to withhold NW and WGO from the American RS and release them on a single. Y&T only came months later; Capitol could not take take songs from an album that had not yet been released. You seem to see this from a market or label discography perspective – I suppose this is another point on which we differ. The WP RS article infobox does not identify MN and WGO as album singles, which is consistent with the infobox album guidance: their release is not tied to the release and marketing of RS. However, this shouldn't have a bearing on identifying the first appearance of the songs.

How about a nice bright line rule: |album= should not be used for any release that does not predate the song/single. It's a practical solution and is consistent with the existing guidance. For Beatles articles, if an earlier album release (regardless of where) is identified in |release=, then |album= should not be used, since the former is more precise and the latter would just be repetitious.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, with regard to Capitol's approach in late 1965, it's more accurate to say they had four songs (from Help!) yet to be issued on a US album, to which were now added the Day Tripper / We Can Work It Out single and 14 new tracks on Rubber Soul. Happy days for Dave Dexter Jr. What was most surprising about Capitol's selection for Rubber Soul (and in fact added to that album's identity as an artistic statement) was the way the company didn't include the band's latest single, Yesterday (b/w Act Naturally), which would have been the most obvious of the four old tracks to include and in keeping with how the company usually put together the band's US LPs. So, a Capitol LP built around that song was always on the cards, particularly as "Yesterday" had won the Beatles a new (adult/non-rock) audience in the US. What I'm saying is, where you're viewing it as Capitol receiving the Parlophone Rubber Soul and making a decision from there, that's oversimplifying the situation.

A bright line rule would indeed be nice. But are you saying that any song released as a lead single in advance of the album, even though it was clearly intended to foster interest in the upcoming album (eg, the promotional material, even the single's artwork, mentioned the album), should not carry "from the album ..."? In the 1970s, from what I understand, this pre-promotion strategy via a lead single became increasingly standard. For the Beatles' 1960s releases, this would seemingly mean that infoboxes at Can't Buy Me Love and Ticket to Ride shouldn't mention their (soundtrack) albums, even though the singles' face labels mentioned that the songs were from a forthcoming United Artists film. And even the Hard Day's Night and Help! singles were released shortly in advance of their respective albums.

To repeat from above, I'm approaching this whole issue from working on the song articles for years, and during that time I've seen editors changing these album= parameters – some favouring the idea that Nowhere Man, say, should be described as a single from Rubber Soul, others arguing that it wasn't a single from that album there. That's not to say input from someone who usually works outside of WP Beatles articles is not valid – it is valid, and very welcome. What do others think about this? – zmbro, Beatleswillneverdie, TheZapingNinja, Ohnothimagain? I'd throw in Yesterday (Beatles song) as another example that doesn't "make sense": it was a 1965 single in the US but not from Help! there; to my way of thinking, album= should be left blank in that infobox to give simply "Single by the Beatles". On the other hand, the likes of I Should Have Known Better, I'll Cry Instead, I'm Happy Just to Dance with You all seem to be correctly identified as singles from an album on which they did appear (US A Hard Day's Night). Whether the single release is the most notable one for those three songs, in line with Template:Infobox song#type, is perhaps a different matter. JG66 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Most Capitol singles were eventually added to albums, but that does not mean they are from that album. When it is clear that a song was previously released on another album (or EP), it is reasonable to conclude that it is from that album rather than a subsequent one (if one feels it's important to state this – your most recent edits to NM and WGO left the field blank). Otherwise, one could argue that "Day Tripper" is from Y&T, since Capitol had it in mind to include the single on a future album.

Special treatment for Beatles' articles could be part of the problem and leads to situations like multiple infoboxes or chronos for the same song recording, just because it was issued in a different format or date. It shouldn't take someone with highly specialized knowledge to edit Beatles' articles. Your suggestion that "album= should be left blank" has the same effect as my earlier one for these songs, so I've struck mine. I'd like to see what others come up with. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah this seems about right. -TheZapingNinja (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As seen with the ongoing tinkering of Beatles' infoboxes, there doesn't appear to be a consensus regarding a consistent approach. A long as there are empty parameters, some editors will insist on adding something, whether it is sensible or not. Meanwhile, maybe through a series of bold edits/reverts, something resembling a consensus may be established. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I was a bit alarmed to see "Yesterday" become a single "from Yesterday and Today" (Sept '65 single; June '66 album). Perhaps, if that sort of change is an extension of my point about Nowhere Man/Y&T, the best thing would be to leave these examples (non-UK singles) blank after all. I think it's unsatisfactory: we've still got the likes of "Ticket to Ride" and "Can't Buy Me Love" as singles "from" their respective later-released albums (which is correct, imo), yet not so for these US-only singles and the albums released a couple of months later. But just to see the multiple infoboxes and bountiful cover art culled is a real result, as far as I'm concerned ... Maybe it's an idea to let the dust settle. I'd certainly like to take a look at the "from the album" issue across the project, without the distraction of second infoboxes on each page. JG66 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And now it's from Help! (no edition specified).[6] There isn't any consistency from edit to edit: some use UK albums, some US, and others leave it blank. Some have the appearance of WP:Subtle vandalism, coupled with the fact that they do not give explanations nor discuss and otherwise to not contribute anything of value to the articles. Following this discussion, I've been removing the field altogether, along with reissue details and extra covers. Also, YouCanDoBetter has been adding tables to album articles for "non-album B-sides", with no explanatory text nor references. These appear to be off-topic and do not belong in the articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted the tables on Help! and Let It Be. You're right, they're totally unnecessary. Plus, like you said, no explanation or references. I suggest we do the same on every article they have done that for. – zmbro _(talk) 01:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree about the strange addition of tables listing non-album B-sides (and thanks to Zmbro for binning them).

Re this change at "Please Please Me", Ojorojo, I still struggle with the idea that a song released as a single a couple of months, or less, in advance of an album can not be described as being "from" that album. I've mentioned "Can't Buy Me Love" and "Ticket to Ride" already – singles, but also key songs from the films that led to their respective albums; in the case of "Please Please Me", it's the title track from the album (and not some cobbled-together Capitol LP, either). JG66 (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks Zmbro. Regarding PPM, I think you're referring to an earlier edit, when I removed both Please Please Me and Introducing... The Beatles.[7] To the casual reader/editor, if PPM is there, then so should ITB (and The Early Beatles?). I suppose from one perspective, all Beatles's singles may be considered "from albums", because the selfless patrons of the arts that issued them probably contemplated their eventual inclusion. ("Love Me Do" / "P.S. I Love You" was released five months before, so are they also "from the album"?) The problem is, when there is a convoluted release history, it is difficult to squeeze the facts into a one-size-fits-all format. Despite years of editing, the current approaches clearly don't work. The idea to leave the field blank while the other problems are being fixed is a good interim solution. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Co-founder checking in

Just leaving a note to say how amazing it is that the project now has 14 FAs and over 100 GAs, and to congratulate all involved (including those who have departed from Wikipedia or this mortal coil).

There's one small niggle: the assessment templates used on the categories such as Category:FA-Class The Beatles articles appear to inflate the numbers, e.g. it says 21 FAs. I went through the categories and counted 14 unique Featured Articles. I suppose the sub-categories are to blame, which probably makes it my fault. I wonder if there is any way to have that template ({{category class}}?) count each article only once? --kingboyk (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Time Out "50 Best Beatles songs"

At least nineteen Beatles song articles have a line saying something like "In 2018, the music staff of Time Out London ranked "Don't Bother Me" at number 47 on their list of the best Beatles songs.", citing this Time Out piece. For some articles it's the only element of critical reception that Wikipedia offers.

Is the Time Out piece regarded as a particularly strong summary of what noted critics thought fifty years on, or a mere website listicle? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't really say either way, but imo the issue is about ensuring the song article reflects the song's ranking in a few such lists. I usually (hopefully always) include the Rolling Stone and Mojo poll rankings, and occasionally those from Time Out London. The Mojo top 101 (from 2006) is especially good, imo, because it's credited to critics and other writers from the magazine along with well-known musicians and producers, whose commentary often adds to an understanding of the song's impact at the time and decades later. Although Vulture might be comparable as a publication to Time Out in terms of notability, their list is one I think we should avoid, because it's only the opinion of one critic (Bill Wyman) and we're hardly short of multi-contributor examples of critics seeking to rank the "best" Beatles songs. JG66 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. That looks like a pretty horrible source. Time Out is not a music paper per se, it's not even a national publication, and most of the authors are not notable. It's not in the same league as the NME polls of all their staff back in the days when the NME was essentially the UK's journal of record for pop music and the writers themselves were often notable, or a list from a world-renowned publication like Rolling Stone. I'd kill the references with fire, personally. --kingboyk (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly disagree. If the idea is that a source should be discounted because it's not devoted to music and not nationwide in its scope, then that would rule out no end of notable publications. The Village Voice comes to mind. As with the Voice (and Vulture), the credibility of Time Out lies in the fact that its focus is on the one of the world's main cultural capitals – one could say what is deemed significant or good/bad in London or New York matters. I agree with what you say about the NME's pre-eminence, but that was over the 1970s through the 1990s. The publication became a shadow of its former self, yet we still include mentions of its best-song and -album polls from the 2010s. Same with Melody Maker: it spluttered its way through to the end of the '90s, but (and I raised this point in a rather drawn-out RfC last year) we include mention of their 1998 worst-album-of-all-time poll. Time Out has an impressive foundation and legacy, which Time Out (magazine)#History only touches on. I'm not saying the magazine carries anything like the same influence in the 21st century, but neither did MM in the '90s, if not before, and neither has NME for a long time.

Time Out has had some major contributors for their music (and film) content – Geoffrey Cannon was one, way back, and Naseem Khan, and journalist/musician Giovanni Dadamo (whom I know as one of the critics polled in Paul Gambaccini's first Critic's Choice book) – and Time Out's spin-off books containing capsule reviews were outstanding, imho. The magazine's editors have included Richard Williams, formerly of Melody Maker, later a critic/columnist for The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Uncut, etc. More recently, their writers have included Garry Mulholland of Uncut, The Guardian/Observer, BBC Music and The Quietus, and author of books on music and film; as well as John Lewis of Uncut, the latter's Ultimate Music Guide series, and one of the reviewers in 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Of the Time Out music staff in that 2018 best-Beatles-songs piece, Amy Smith has also contributed to the NME, TES and The Austin Chronicle, apparently; Nick Levin has written for NME also, and his opinions on music seem to be of interest to Music Week. JG66 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Beatle people missing from Beatles template

Heads up about a discussion I have opened at Template talk:The Beatles following the reversion of my addition of Brian Epstein, George Martin and other people that I personally characterise as their "inner circle" to the Beatles template. All input welcome, for or against inclusion, on that talk page. If there's tumbleweed, I'll restore my changes in a few days time. --kingboyk (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The Beatles discography

The Beatles discography page is incredibly outdated and needs improvements. The most blatant thing that's wrong with it is the lead, which gives zero info regarding actual chart positions. This might have been ok back in 2009 but now in 2020, it needs updating. Almost every it talks about can be put over on their song page, although come to think of it, some of it IS actually on that page when I wrote it. References are also a problem. The lead has zero and aside from actual chart positions in the tables, the entire article is almost completely unsourced. There are only 50 total references when the article itself is 136k bytes (that doesn't add up). Also, some books are separated from refs themselves and others aren't. Since this page is viewed over 1 million times a year, to me it's important that readers aren't given outdated work.

I would personally really like to see this become an FL someday but in its current state that's not going to happen anytime soon. I also think the lead image should be changed, as the Fabs image is also on their main page, and there are now tons of photos of them. I've come to realize that many editors who became a part of this project have long since retired so these types of pages have decayed a lot. I've lately been greatly expanding The Beatles in film and improving List of the Beatles' live performances, which were much needed, but there's still a plethora of Beatles-related pages, including their discography, that are still outdated and needs improving. I'm not sure how we wanted to go about doing this, but if anyone has any suggestions or would like to assist in improving the page it would majorly help me out. – zmbro _(talk) 22:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zmbro: For chart positions, can't you just add a column containing the number "1"? (I jest; I know that not every release hit the top :)) --kingboyk (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

kingboyk I don't really see the benefit in doing that. I don't think the chart positions themselves are the problem. The main problem is the lead is not about chart positions at all, rather it contains completely unsourced info that more generalized than anything. Most of it I decided to put on their song page when making that featured so it's pointless here. Refs are also a general issue, as really only the charts themselves are sourced, almost nothing else is. – zmbro _(talk) 15:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I was joking, to be honest, by making the bogus claim that every Beatles record ever went to number 1 everywhere. I believe the term is "Whoosh!" :)

I'm afraid I personally won't have time to improve said article any time soon, but hopefully your message will get through and somebody who reads this will step up to the plate. Thanks again for your efforts. --kingboyk (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Project logo

I was looking to make a project barnstar. I discovered that in fact we already have one, but during my research I found a category full of Beatles logos on Commons.

I rather like the Beatles lettering superimposed onto an Apple, as it conveys the message that this project covers Apple Corps too (and the apple is beautiful):

I have tried this one out in the template sandbox (the sandbox might of course have been altered by the time you read this).

Now:

Sandbox:

Looks far better to me than the Abbey Road photograph, although the green with yellow background don't work together perfectly imho.

Another nice one is this, "Logo from Beatles Ludwig drumset":

Others are available. Check out the Commons cat.

Any thoughts on changing the project logo? --kingboyk (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday and Today release date

Greetings, projecteers. I've just opened a discussion regarding Y&T's release date at Talk:Yesterday and Today#Changed release date from 20 June to 15 June. Would welcome some input there. Ohnothimagain: this has got you written all over it (in the best possible way), if you're interested. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Top Ten Club article needs rewriting

The Top Ten Club article is a mess. The German version is much better. I am going to try to translate it. Also the section "Musicians who have played here" is extremely long and detailed, so I thinking to delete it. Any help will be appreciated.Alexcalamaro (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. OK, I have finished. "Other Bands" section maybe need a rewriting, cause I haven't deleted anything of the musicians who played there (tag "too long" in the section added). Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"Liverpool Beatles Museum" article created

Hi BeatlesWikiprojectists!

I have created a new article for the Liverpool Beatles Museum. If somebody has time, please take a look at it. I have used the project category that already has the The Beatles Story museum article, as it seems similar to me in extension and scope. Thank you people. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sample(s)

Is anyone able to upload a sample of the effects solo on "Yellow Submarine" (1:27–1:45)? I'm so ... well, cack, basically, I've never had any success in following the instructions for samples. If someone could upload it for the article, there's plenty I can add to the fair use rationale to justify inclusion.

On the same subject, if I could also ask for:

• a sample for the same song's infobox – something instantly recognisable to readers. I suggest: the second verse, leading into the first chorus (0:17 or 0:26 onwards), or maybe better: from 1:52 ["Sky of blue" and JL's manic Goon bit] and into the final chorus;
• a sample of the effects solo at Save the World (George Harrison song) – 2:25–2:55 (ie, till end of baby crying). Again, I've got commentary that can strengthen the case for inclusion.

The "Yellow Submarine" mid-song "solo" is the priority from my point of view. If anyone's able to upload that and/or the others, it would be fantastic (fab, even). Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer review page update

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It is proposed to merge Alfred Lennon into John Lennon and redirect. It is likely that Alfred Lennon does not meet WP:BIO and any information that is not already duplicated can be incorporated into the John Lennon article without any problems as far as the John Lennon article size is concerned. Consensus on merger and redirection would be preferable to nominating Alfred Lennon for deletion. Please discuss in Talk:John Lennon#Merger proposal. JeanPassepartout (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Linda McCartney

Anyone what to take a crack at fixing the quote spam over at Linda McCartney. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Linda McCartney

Anyone what to take a crack at fixing the quote spam over at Linda McCartney. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Linda McCartney

Anyone what to take a crack at fixing the quote spam over at Linda McCartney. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

how do i join

i am clueless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatdarkduck (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thatdarkduck. To join just visit Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles#Members and follow the instructions. But before you do, I would suggest getting to know what WP's guidelines are, as well as looking over WP's MOS, as on your recent edits to Parlophone, I had to do a few touch ups. Also make sure to sign your posts on talk pages. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 02:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Zmbro for helping me! Thank you for your tips, I am sometimes confused on some things for I am new to Wikipedia. And many many thanks for informing me on how to join. Many Thanks!, – Thatdarkduck — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool Beatles Museum History Paragraph

I've added a history paragraph but it is a little rough and a citation is needed for when the previous businesses closed to make way for the museum. So it would be nice if someone could talk a look at it. - Thatdarkduck (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2021

Thatdarkduck You need a source for everything you save, you can't expect someone to add it later. – zmbro _(talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thatdarkduck, further to zmbro's point, I'm afraid I've removed your additions at the Beatles Museum article. You used a user-generated source in one edit (eg, Tripadvisor is deprecated as a source on Wikipedia, so I understand), and then added the other point with a cite-needed tag. That's just not acceptable – not by me, but per Wikipedia policies. If a reliable source discusses the subject and goes into the sort of detail you want, then fine, but the details can't be added before the reliable source is found. JG66 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

JG66 To the users zmbro and JG66|JG66, I apologize. Thatdarkduck (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine orchestral film score stubs

All of the George Martin instrumentals from side two of Yellow Submarine which currently have articles (that is, all but one) have been tagged for notability for a while. They're all sourced only to a single unreliable source, The Beatles Bible. Even apart from the sourcing issue, it seems that there's just not enough to say about these songs to justify standalone articles and I can find no real indication that they individually pass WP:NSONG. This issue was brought up way back in 2006 apparently, but not resolved. Nothing seems to have changed in all these years, so I think at this point these articles should just be redirected to the album article. Any thoughts/objections? Lennart97 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I think it's about time. Most of what little detail there is on Martin's contributions in the album article, I added after it made GA; I didn't get the impression then that there was too much more to add in terms of coverage. Some critics have highlighted one or two of the pieces, and Kenneth Womack's recent Martin biographies might offer more on their creation. But overall, I'd say we should wait until someone really focuses on one of the tracks and makes it worthy of an article. A page at Beatles Bible certainly isn't enough. JG66 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. I say they can afford to be redirected. – zmbro _(talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've redirected these articles. Lennart97 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that I'm here anyway, I found that there are two more song articles within the scope of this project which are currently tagged for notability:

• How? - tagged very recently. Lennon's version doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Ozzy's cover version has gotten some attention (stuff like this) but not really in-depth or really specific to the song, I think.
• Thinking of Linking - tagged since 2010. The article makes some claims of notability and seems to have decent sources, which I can't access.

What would be the best solution for these two? Lennart97 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the article itself for "Thinking of Linking" says it, it's historically significant because it's one of the very earliest Lennon/McCartney songs. Supposedly (according to Hunter Davies) they had many such songs written down but forgot the music to them. This one was clearly memorable enough as it re-surfaced during the Get Back sessions and the Anthology project. There are three well-known books listed in the references - remember, sources don't have to be accessible online to be valid. As for "How?", every other song on Imagine has its own article, but an argument could be made that not every track on the album deserves it. They could all be summarized at the album article but that doesn't seem to be popular way of doing things.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that these articles need to be merged/redirected/deleted - just pointing out that they have been tagged with "unclear notability", and it would be nice to get rid of these tags one way or another. If there's an agreement here that "Thinking of Linking" is notable, then we should simply remove the tag.

As for "How?", it's just a matter of whether it passes WP:NSONG, I think. Many Beatle(s) songs do, but if this one doesn't, then merging what little information the article contains into Imagine would be a fine solution. Lennart97 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I expanded the "Thinking of Linking" page as much as I could. Not a lot of sources mention it and those that do usually only have a few sentences. It's a somewhat silly scenario because, like P-K3 says, the song is clearly historically significant, yet it is also only a few lines long. If this isn't enough I think another option is to collect all the early Lennon–McCartney compositions on a single page. Tkbrett (✉) 00:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is definitely enough, thanks for your work on the article! Do you have an opinion on How? ? Lennart97 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the literature around post-Beatles work yet so I don't have much to say. Tkbrett (✉) 00:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured topic nomination

Letting you all know that I've nominated The Beatles as a featured topic: it can be found here. The topic would include the article on the band and the articles on John, Paul, George, and Ringo, which editors here have done a phenomenal job of getting each to FA status. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

The Dirty Mac 5,089 169 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's Start class at least; I've re-assessed. P-K3 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Plea for FAC comments

I submitted John's first book, In His Own Write, as a Featured Article Candidate two weeks ago, but I haven't received any comments. I'm posting here in the hopes that someone is interested in providing input, but hadn't noticed it. I'd rather the submission fail outright than be archived due to a lack of attention. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 19:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett Have you reached out to any of the regular FAC commentators yet? I'd do that first. I could provide some feedback but I feel I wouldn't be much of a big help due to my unfamiliarity with articles centered on books. JG66 would you be able to assist? – zmbro _(talk) 17:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Zmbro, I looked at the Beatles WikiProject's FAs and saw that the users that originally submitted them have all since retired or gone inactive (Johnleemk, PL290, GabeMc and Evanh2008), so I thought I'd post here instead. I had some help from a prodigious editor during the GA review, but she did recommend that people more familiar with the band comment during the FAC since they'll be more familiar with the literature cited in the article. Tkbrett (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett That makes sense, but the main issue with that is that most Beatles editors have long since retired, like you said. I've noticed most being active around 2008–2010 (when their catalog was remastered), but since then, especially in recent years, I've only pinpointed JG66, myself, and now you as the editors who work on Beatles stuff the most (and myself I've primarily been doing Bowie for a couple years now). So that's probably why it'd be very beneficial to reach out to regular FAC commentators for more assistance. Even if they can't help with the Beatles-related bits, they should be able to help out in terms of MOS, grammar, content, etc. I'll look at it tonight but that's what I'd personally recommend. – zmbro _(talk) 18:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see if anyone else is willing to look it over. I'd appreciate that a lot! Thanks Zmbro, you've been a big help as of late. Tkbrett (✉) 21:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I might be able to take a look – it looks like a mammoth article, though, so I'm not sure I'll have the stamina. Wish that Evanh2008 was still around – effortlessly imaginative and collaborative, such a gent too. JG66 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, JG66, I always greatly appreciate your keen eye. This one definitely ballooned on me; I expected there would be little to say, since most fans I meet are unaware that John did any writing at all. Excluding zmbro, you're unfortunately now stuck with dunces who make edits like this (this one still keeps me up at night). Tkbrett (✉) 15:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yoko Ono

Yoko Ono, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Project clean-up

Hey all. I'm going to work on cleaning up the project page. A lot of it is incredibly outdated (i.e. most "Active participants" are long retired). I'm fully aware this project has clearly lost a lot of steam in the past 10 years, but it's still time to do some fixing. Just wanted to let everyone know. – zmbro _(talk) 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The_Palace_of_the_King_of_the_Birds

This article was created some time ago for an unreleased Beatles instrumental. However note that here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7PjLtnO_bE - mentions the "... title was made up by me for this video, just for fun. ... The title of the original track was The Castle of The King of Bird, but to be honest it could be a retcon from later, when Paul was writing music for Rupert the bear."

Should the article stay ? If so, what name should it have ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should definitely bin it. With just Beatles Bible and the YouTube clip, the sources are lousy. And given the depth of coverage given to the Let It Be tapes (books by Sulpy & Schweighardt, John Winn, Richie Unterberger, Bruce Spizer, etc), if the song's so significant, it would be covered there. Perhaps Madinger & Easter's book on the Beatles' solo careers might mention it because of the Rupert Bear thing, but even then, I can't see it merits an article on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll nominate it for deletion. – zmbro _(talk) 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

In discussing the Rupert the Bear soundtrack demo session, Madinger & Easter mention it only in passing: "Many of the musical themes heard here had been around for a while. ... 'The Palace of the King of the Birds' (as announced in Paul's narration) appeared as early as the January 1969 Get Back / Let It Be sessions." (Madinger & Easter 2018, p. 239) Despite this, Sulpy and Schweighardt don't mention it at all. I can't find anything else, so I agree that it ought to be Deleted. Tkbrett (✉) 14:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That claim by the YouTuber that he made up the title for the video is untrue, as the title appears in Richie Unterberger's book Unreleased Beatles, which was published in 2006, six years before the video was uploaded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

AfD nomination for Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease

Editors might wish to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Samples as part of lead infoboxes

I have recently placed some audio samples from their respective infoboxes to their respective related sections. I don't see how audio samples are suitable as part of lead sections, let alone top infoboxes. Furthermore, I think samples should be used in context to illustrate critical commentary, especially if deleting them would hamper such understandings. There may be many other articles using samples as part of infoboxes. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Madinger and Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You

During the FAC process for "Face", I found some info regarding Chip Madinger and Mark Easter's book, Eight Arms to Hold You. Since so many pages use it as a source, it seemed worth discussing here rather than at every specific page. Regarding its publisher, 44.1 Productions in 2000 and Open Your Books in 2018, I noticed that Madinger's LinkedIn states he was the owner of 44.1 Productions from 2000–2014 and has owned Open Your Books since 2015. Both publishers are based in Chesterfield, MO, which makes me think it was basically the same operation. From what I can tell, these publishers haven't published anything beyond Madinger & Easter's books (see 44.1 Productions on OpenLibrary, while Open Your Books doesn't have an entry), which I think makes both the 2000 and 2018 editions self-published sources. Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 13:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the details given here about the "remastered" second edition make it clear that it's self-published. WP:SELFPUB does say that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Has he ever had anything published elsewhere that we know of?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A WorldCat search shows Madinger wrote The 910's Guide to the Beatles' Outtakes with Doug Sulpy back in 1996, published by The 910 (Princeton Junction, NJ). On OpenLibrary, I can only find five books published by The 910, all of which are Sulpy books, which makes me nervous that it too is a self-publisher. I'm having a harder time finding info about Mark Easter on WorldCat since there seem to be a few people with the same name. Tkbrett (✉) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug Sulpy's website makes it clear that The 910 is his own brand, so I think we can say Madinger has never been published in a reliable, independent publisher. I haven't found anything indicating Easter has either. In the book's benefit, historian Erin Torkelson Weber cited it once in her book, The Beatles and the Historians, using it help count how many interviews McCartney gave in a given period (pp. 87, 227n112, 245). She doesn't critique it or provide an analysis on its value as a source though, so I'm not sure how much this really helps. Tkbrett (✉) 14:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Eight Arms to Hold You came up in a 2020 discussion about the sources used in the "Something" song article (Talk:Something (Beatles song)/Archive 1#Comments about sources - several are not quality enough for FA). I think it's a great book, packed full of important details about the Beatles' solo careers. It's one of the few SP Beatles sources that I'd hold up as vital; anything by Bruce Spizer would be another, same with Alan Pollack's "Notes on" pieces (although, in the case of the latter, I'm not sure if one would call them SP since they've been republished at Soundscapes?). Madinger and Easter definitely qualify as experts in their field, because one sees their work cited in so many other books, and often complimented by other authors. It got to the point, in about 2013, when I kept coming across mentions of Eight Arms to Hold You, I thought, "Right, I'd better buy this book." (That was long before I bought anything by Mark Lewisohn.)

Perhaps that's not good enough for some FAC reviewers. In which case I'd say there's a very good reason for keeping some articles away from the Featured Article process. Do we want to ensure that articles on the Beatles' solo careers are factually correct and include important information on recording, or are we just out to collect accolades? (I mean, that's what's it's about, isn't it ...) JG66 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about the FAC commenters – they're good editors and generally much smarter than me (not saying much, I know ...), and that process is more a matter of needing to justify things to a higher standard than other articles. In this case, I removed the book as a source on my own initiative after noticing it was self-published, and as it doesn't really have much information on "Face" anyway, I didn't feel like putting in the effort to keep it as a source. I bring it up here though since I know how important it is to the many solo years articles, and I'd prefer to establish its worth so we can avoid needing to ditch it as a source. I hope it wouldn't come down to whether "we want to ensure that articles ... are factually correct", since a lot of editors would argue that it isn't worth it (WP:TRUTH).

Now, can we more conclusively establish that Madinger & Easter are experts in their field? One difficulty from both WP:SELFPUB and WP:USINGSPS is that neither of them have been published by reliable, independent publications, something I was surprised to see. I know Robert Rodriguez has spoken quite favourably of their book, similarly describing it as "vital", but is that enough? Tkbrett (✉) 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User box not showing

Hello. When I try to add the userbox for this WikiProject to my user page, it doesn’t show the userbox, it just shows the text that was supposed to create it.Speatle (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Speatle: Hi there! When adding the template to your user page, don't use the <code>...</code> and <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. The code tag makes text appear like this and the nowiki tag allows us to display code such as templates without Wikipedia acting upon that code. I took the liberty of adding the template to your user page for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks. Speatle (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Journal of Beatles Studies

Liverpool University Press initiated a new Open Access journal, The Journal of Beatles Studies (ISSN 2754-7019). Per the August 2021 news release, the journal will publish original academic research two times a year. The first issue is due in September 2022. It will be co-edited by Holly Tessler (University of Liverpool) and Paul Long (Monash University). Further reading. Tkbrett (✉) 14:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Might be something to keep an eye on, although I have no idea what they’d have that hasn’t already been covered by hundreds of other Beatle books. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)