Talk:The Beatles/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

"Greatest rock band in the world" is not for Wikipedia to qualify.

I do not have sufficient permissions to improve this article. The first sentence reads like an advertisement. This qualification is outside the scope of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaineglover (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of hyphens

@Obscurasky: Thank you for raising this issue at my talk page, but I think it might be best to discuss it here, and ensure everyone gets to weigh in. Personally, I still can't see any reason for the removal of hyphens you've done since my revert.

Your point about "numbers are not normally hyphenated" – I'm sorry, but I believe that is totally incorrect. Numbers are hyphenated after twenty; in fact, that's the reason why editorial style in writing often dictates that numerals should be used, if not from 10 (to mark the change to double figures), then from 21 onwards. That is: to avoid any need for hyphenated numbers, because invariably, once there are instances of something like "a 21-year gap", there would be a situation whereby the number itself is hyphenated, but so too is the compound adjective/adjectival phrase in which it appears. And, contrary to another change you've just made, I think the hyphen in a long phrase such as "a local record-store owner and music columnist" would be very useful, to avoid the reader tripping over any item in that description. If we were saying "a local shopkeeper and music columnist" then there'd be no chance of that, but the pertinent point is he's the owner of a record store – a multi-word description – plus, "local" provides an additional concept, quite removed from the "record-store" modifier.

Anyone one else, btw, please weigh in … JG66 (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus for change is certainly necessary for a Featured Article. MOS:HYPHEN seems to back up your revert as it says to use a hyphen where the unit is given as a whole word.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading the article, I was struck by the sheer number of hyphens it contains. It would be good to remove any unnecessary ones, but feel free to revert my edits if you disagree with them. Obscurasky (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an issue that needs discussing. It's basic grammar that those hyphens are necessary. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hardly any hyphens are "necessary". The rules of grammar are not as cut and dried as a lot of people seem to think. And you know whether a thing needs discussing when people discuss it (or not). Britmax (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. English is mostly defined by how people use it, and formal/academic English is defined by how people use it in a formal/academic context. In that context, the traditional rules of grammar usually apply. Hyphens are most certainly necessary in many cases as removing them can change the meaning. Regardless of how anyone wishes hyphens were used, the rules of English on Wikipedia align with whatever is standard practice. In this case, it's use hyphens. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Freda Kelly

Just throwin' it out there, either Freda Kelly (officially employed at Brian's NEMS and later Apple) or the original The Beatles Fan Club she ran as The Beatles's secretary may be relevant enough for their own article, to be included in the People associated with the Beatles box at the bottom or in the Related articles section. I've just seen this 86-minute 2013 documentary[19] about her and with her, focussing on her work for the lads from 1961-1972. The film even includes a few kind recent words spoken by none other than Mr. Richard Starkey in appreciative tribute to her, so I suppose at least the latter may establish her relevance within the Beatleverse. --2003:71:4E6A:B463:E461:79B2:5C3B:DF32 (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I find it very surprising that there is no article on the The Beatles' Fan Club. We have one on The Beatles' Christmas records which were made especially for the fan club members, after all. Not sure if Freda Kelly herself would be notable enough: she could just be a redirect to a fan club article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

An article for Freda Kelly was created on November 14. I have added her to the "People associated with The Beatles" template.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Song catalogue after Jackson's death

The section is unclear as to what actually happened after Michael Jackson's death regarding the rights to the Beatles song catalogue. It's always been a bit hazy after the 1995 ATV/Sony merger which of the songs were owned by Jackson and which by Sony, and our article for Sony/ATV Music Publishing doesn't say anything about The Beatles rights after Jackson's death, not even in relation to Sony's recent acquirement of EMI. Are the Beatles songs back in the same hands as the Abbey Road studios now, etc.? Those are the things still missing from the Song catalogue section here. --2003:71:4E6A:B456:2089:80C7:3624:FCC4 (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Should Tony Sheridan be listed in associated acts? They backed him as the Beat Brothers, which seems as associated as Billy Preston, who is listed because he backed them. Also, why is Plastic Ono Band listed, but not Wings, or The All-Starr Band, or Traveling Wilburys?68.9.148.17 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I can answer your second question - the guidelines at Template:Infobox musical artist say that "Association of groups with members' solo careers" should be avoided. Plastic Ono Band is listed because it was a side group for John while he was still in the band. Tony Sheridan would perhaps appear to have more of a case. I have searched the archive for previous discussions of the Associated Acts field (of which there have been many, of course) but I couldn't find a specific mention of Sheridan. I think generally he's excluded as being too minor a figure in the overall picture - there is a consensus to keep the list as short as possible. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Plastic Ono Band's far more straightforward than the other examples you mention: aside from Lennon, both Harrison and Starr were "members" of POB. So that's another clear, strong association with the Beatles, per the guidelines on Associated Acts. JG66 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Thank you both for clarifying. I asked about Tony Sheridan because of that "The Early Tapes"/"The Beatles' First" album where they played together. They functioned as his backing band, so that seemed like a strong case for an association (they'd certainly be an associated act for him). I wasn't advocating for including the other bands so much as I was thinking of Plastic Ono as being more of a solo thing, but I take the point that John was still in the band at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.148.17 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Tony Sheridan was an important part of the Beatles story as it was “My Bonnie” that alerted Brian Epstein of their existence. I think he definitely merits being listed. Patthedog (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Dubious sales claim

In the section The Beatles#Awards and achievements it says the Beatles' sales are 600 million to over one billion units worldwide. The claim of one billion discs and tapes comes from the Guinness Book of World Records and dates to 1985. Although Guinness says this figure is according to EMI, it still appears dubious. Guinness had previously said Beatles sales by the end of 1978 were estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums. As of 1985, the Beatles U.S. album sales totaled 74,786,835 not counting two albums distributed by United Artists. Add those in and the total is about 80 million. Since U.S. sales accounted for about half of worldwide sales, a reasonable estimate of worldwide album sales as of 1985 would be about 160 million. In 1972 EMI estimated worldwide sales at 85 million albums and 120 million singles and EPs for a total of 205 million, boosted slightly by counting EPs as two units. This would make a total of about 280 million (160 + 120) worldwide as of 1985, assuming singles sales probably wouldn't have been that significant after 1972. As of 2004, Apple claims the Beatles have sold "more than 600 million records, tapes and CDs." The figure of one billion is completely out of line with EMI's 1972 totals, Guinness' 1978 totals, Capitol's 1985 totals, and Apple's most recent total. Piriczki (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal: Psychedelic music

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is "Revolver" included in the 1966-1970 section, rather than 1963-66?

Revolver was the last Beatles album to be released while they were still touring, the last to be released before John met Yoko, the last to be released where Harrison gave it his full interest (we see him lose interest on Sgt. Pepper), and the last before they began growing mustaches and took on a more psychedelic, "hippie" look beginning with the Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane single.

Not to mention, on The Red Album and The Blue Album compilations, it's filed under the "Red"(1962-66) section. And George Harrison has said in interviews that he always thought of Rubber Soul(considered in this article to be an "early" Beatles release) and Revolver as a twofer. So, I don't see why Revolver is lumped into the 1966-70 section, when it really belongs more with the "touring era" albums like Rubber Soul, rather than Sgt. Pepper and beyond.--73.79.233.45 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see your point to some extent, and Lennon and Starr both paired Rubber Soul and Revolver together in the same way. (Although, I'd disagree that Harrison wasn't fully interested in, say, the White Album or Abbey Road – one just has to bear in mind that any Beatle's "full interest" from '68 onwards was tempered by the fractious situation in the band.)

Rather than necessarily adhering to the 1963–66 timeframe, I wonder if the article's subsections under History might be better organised as: 1963–65, covering the major Beatlemania years, the two films, appointment as MBEs; 1965–66, covering the band's arrival as studio artists with Rubber Soul and Revolver, their weariness with touring, and the various controversies during '66; then 1966–68, for the Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour period, meditation, and group visit to India (the last time the Beatles ever enjoyed a non-musical/professional activity as a group); and finally, 1968–70, covering the fragmentation and inevitable break-up.

As a lot of commentators and biographers say, 1966 was the watershed year in the Beatles' career – which is possibly why it's difficult to place adequately in this "History" context, where years are bundled together. There is currently an article dedicated to that one year (The Beatles in 1966), which appears in the History of the Beatles box/template early in this article, although a couple of us have been discussing deleting that 1966 piece. I've been working on a (now colossal!) new article on the first leg of the Beatles' 1966 world tour, so the thinking is that the new piece will partly cover the loss of The Beatles in 1966. JG66 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I like your proposal to split the history up into four sections rather than just two, I think you should go ahead with it.--2601:540:109:6E9C:9834:670C:BED5:399C (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Hey Jude" as an answer song

I hear a song on 101.6 IBC FM which has "Rock After Midnight" every day at midnight. When I listen to the song, it sounds like an answer song in which its duration and its hook were similar to "Hey Jude". I don't know for the title song that I hear on the radio station which was inactive and later replaced by the university radio station that very not popular. Because I will know, can you search songs where its music structure were similar to "Hey Jude"? Wisnu Aji (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Saint Paul" by Terry Knight maybe? Piriczki (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

The Beatles actually had started in the 1950s, with John Lennon and some of his friends. You also need to inform about Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best. 207.244.138.38 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This proposed change will need sourcing. Britmax (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The band's origins in the 1950s is discussed right at the start of "1957–1962: Formation, Hamburg, and UK popularity". Mention of Sutcliffe and Best is there also. JG66 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for removed introduction to discography section

See this book, page 233-235 contains an explanation of how the CD releases were intended to harmonize the Beatles catalog into a simplified canon. For people who objected to the paragraph on sourcing grounds, does this suffice, or do we need more sources? --Jayron32 02:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This book, page 25, has a concise explanation as well, especially of the importance of the 1987 CD releases as establishing the canon. --Jayron32 02:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The first source, Cambridge Companion to the Beatles, is good, or (from memory) the last pages in Lewisohn cover the point – MacDonald, Hertsgaard, they all do. My objection before was about whether we're agreed that this "official canon" line is the way to approach the discography section. Usually, we'd just list an artist's studio albums, and no more. Of course, the point is made in the article (The Beatles#1980s) that the 1987 CD releases standardised the catalogue. JG66 (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is here, which states "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums." Our question is, whether MMT and Past Masters are part of the Beatles' major works. I think the way the section is currently is good, as it includes a mention of MMT and PM, while clearly separating them from the UK studio albums Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Earliest moving footage found

It seems the earliest known moving footage of John, Paul, and George together has been found: [20], [21], [22] It dates to 1958 and shows them in the background of a Liverpool police training film during a police sporting event. The house of the McCartneys stood right next to the training ground and the three of them'd always stand on top of the concrete outhouse in the McCartney backyard to skip buying tickets for the show as Paul has related in Barry Miles's So many years from now. Theirs was the only house in that row to have such a concrete outhouse, and you can clearly see three or four teenage figures standing on that outhouse in the background. Paul's brother Mike has seen the footage and confirmed that it's their house and that it's definitely him, Paul, and George, and that most likely, John was also there with them. Any place for this within this article or any of the sub-articles? I sure hope they'll find the original negative of the film because it'd have a lot more resolution than this worn-out print that's not even telecined too well! So they could zoom in much more on the original neg to show them better. --2003:71:4E19:1889:A48E:8EFC:A6ED:DBAF (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Record labels in infobox, part 2

I brought this up before at Talk:The Beatles/Archive 32#Record labels in infobox but it didn't result in much discussion beyond a suggestion to limit it to companies with which they had recording contracts. The Beatles were signed to several recording contracts over the years. Those were with Polydor Records (through Bert Kampfert Productions) 1961–62, Parlophone (assigned to EMI) 1962–66, EMI (1967–76), Apple Records (actually a distribution agreement and not a recording contract with Apple as they were still under contract to EMI), Capitol Records (also a distribution agreement) 1969–1976. All other labels that have been listed in the infobox at various times were subsidiaries or licensees. Piriczki (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your link to the past discussion took me to Talk:The, which is odd. I don't think we should start with Polydor as "Love Me Do" on Parlophone was the real beginning; before that as a recording act they were Sheridan's backing group, and the Polydors that don't mention him came later (I can only remember My Bonnie in the UK, and that credited Sheridan). And I think 'labels' should be taken literally; the Beatles were never as far as I know issued on EMI Records. So, minus the Tollies and Odeons, that leaves Parlophone and Apple in the UK plus Capitol for the US. Rothorpe (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

But that doesn't negate the fact that they were signed to Polydor first, before Parlophone. I mostly agree with Piriczki, with a few additions: First, didn't Klein work out a separate deal with Capitol in 1969, or was that for Apple and not the Beatles?; secondly, the Beatles' new releases are currently issued through UMe and Capitol - and they have an active working relationship with them, it's not the case of a label simply reissuing their old works - so UMe should be listed as well. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I want to be true to the period I lived through. For most people, the beginning was with Parlophone; the Polydor era was a piece of history, and came with the rather cumbersome attachment of Mr Sheridan. (My Bonnie was their 4th British hit, and a very minor one.) And the Parlophone music was of course in a different class. Rothorpe (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but that is not necessarily an accurate way to portray the band's history. For most people, the beginning was with Ringo - that doesn't mean we ignore Pete Best. The Beatles' contract with Polydor/BKP was independent of Sheridan's agreement with Polydor/BKP. That all of their recording work for Polydor ended up either being with Sheridan or for a Sheridan project (excepting "Ain't She Sweet" and "Cry for a Shadow") does not negate the fact that the band had a contract with Polydor and recorded for them under that contract. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but Pete Best isn't in the infobox. Rothorpe (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry, this dropped off my radar. Didn't mean to leave so much time between responses) That's where consensus went on that one, partly because there was another section of the page devoted to listing member information, so the infobox could be a summary, with a note leading to further information. There's no such section for label information, so excluding it from the infobox excludes it from the page. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing what you're trying to say, but in the article body it says "As part of the sessions, the Beatles were signed to Polydor for one year." They never released any "solo" records for Polydor, so it seems that mention gives it the historical footnote on the page that it deserves. It would make more sense to list "Swan Records" as they actually appear in their own right on that label, but I believe that's been resolved. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2017

Zigui and the Spiders (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ringo wasn't a Beatle in 1960, put when he joined please (1962)

I have added the year he joined to the second paragraph of the lede, which I presume is where you meant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Beatles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401100034/http://www.emimusic.com/news/2009/the-beatles-entire-original-recorded-catalogue-remastered-by-apple-corps-ltd-and-emi-music-for-worldwide-release-on-september-9-2009-9-9-09/ to http://www.emimusic.com/news/2009/the-beatles-entire-original-recorded-catalogue-remastered-by-apple-corps-ltd-and-emi-music-for-worldwide-release-on-september-9-2009-9-9-09/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-beatles8-2009apr08%2C0%2C242705.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711195722/http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblArtTal to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblArtTal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725044833/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblDiamond to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblDiamond

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacy section / Tribute acts

I added one sentence to the Legacy section, mentioning there are over a dozen tribute bands to the Beatles, linking to Category:The Beatles tribute bands, and it gets reverted on account of insufficient sourcing. A bit peculiar considering there are indeed well over a dozen WP articles about Beatles tribute bands in this WP category. The evidence is there in plain sight. So why contend that further sourcing is required ? GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You need third party source to support your statement, also we do not link categories in prose. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 13:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If this subject is to be addressed it should be a fully developed paragraph at least, not just a little factoid with a "see Category" link. There have probably been hundreds, not dozens, of Beatles tribute bands since the early 1980s. Current tribute bands might be less notable anyway since they're peddling a pretty worn out idea by now. Piriczki (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that a band that was active half a century ago still inspires tribute bands to this day, as well as your assertion that there may have been hundreds of tribute bands, only serves to illustrate the magnitude of The Beatles' legacy. Never mind if the idea lacks originality in your opinion. Would you criticize classical musicians playing Bach or Beethoven for being unoriginal ? GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@GeeTeeBee: No we I wouldn't, we I would just object to including them in an Encyclopedia. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 15:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@GeeTeeBee: You asked, Would you criticize classical musicians playing Bach or Beethoven for being unoriginal ? and I replied. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 15:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

They're already included in WP — check the aforementioned category at your own leasure. And I am equally not arguing that they should all be mentioned in the Beatles' article page — just the mere fact that The Beatles have inspired, and still inspire so many tribute acts, is noteworthy I think. GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 7, 2017

The Beatles has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the main page text; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I've started reading through the article and I was struck that the album sales figure of 600 million doesn't seem to have changed for years and I can't see a citation. Apepper (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The citation is in the "Awards and Achivements" section, number 372.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently Apple has been giving a figure of 800 million since 2013. I updated the estimate with a new reference. Piriczki (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it just coincidence that it's featured on Ringo Starr's birthday? Or was that intentional? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Pic sizes

Is there any way we can reduce the size of those recently added images of Lennon and McCartney under 1970s? They look bloody enormous. JG66 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

I suggest a change in the timeline to reflect the breif time in which George was absent from the band during the Get Back Sessions.

Timeline

I think George should be credited with late-era keyboard playing - his work on Abbey Road with synthesizers was innovative and influential. The organ also became his main chordal instrument for awhile when he was working with the sitar, and he played organ/keyboards on a number of tracks including While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Blue Jay Way, and Old Brown Shoe.

In addition, McCartney and Lennon also played keyboards regularly and McCartney took over for Ringo on drums for the short period that Ringo had quit the band. Lennon also played harmonica regularly during the group's early years.

Those are my proposed changes to the timeline, adding those instruments. I made the changes, but my edits were reverted due to a lack of consensus. Zabboo (talk), 17:44, 9 July 2017, (UTC)

Genre

The beatles recorded many rock and roll songs, pop rock songs, folk rock songs, and psychedelic rock songs. So i added genre rock and roll, pop rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock in this page. LSM1204 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You ignored the internal comment IMMEDIATELY BESIDE YOUR EDIT: "Current consensus is to list ONLY Rock and pop. Please do not add other genres or sub-genres without first reaching consensus with other editors on the talk page". Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Further Reading

Added a book. --Daveler16 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Beatles Tours

I’m considering creating a page listing every gig the Beatles performed on tour, i.e. Town Hall, Alloa, Scotland 20th May 1960 backing Johnny Gentle through to Candlestick Park, San Francisco, USA 30th August 1966. There are already some tour pages but they are listed under specific information such as The Beatles' 1965 US Tour or Roy Orbison / The Beatles' Tour etc, so you’d need to know what to look for. This would be a straight list taken from Bill Harry’s Beatles Encyclopedia, which is very comprehensive, and would put all that data under one roof. Do others think it would be worth the trouble, or does something like it already exist somewhere on the site? Thanks, Patthedog (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're talking about List of the Beatles' live performances? That page needs some work – as the page history shows, a year or two ago (I believe), an editor removed mention of any concerts that are covered in one of the tour articles, so that info should come back into the list, of course. JG66 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe that's what I could do instead; have a go at cleaning that up. Patthedog (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Dezo Hoffman

What about adding Dezo Hoffmann to the "People associated with the Beatles" template? He's shot most of the 1963 footage with the lads seen in the Anthology music video for It won't be long. There once was a 5-10 minutes TV interview with him on YouTube where he talks about how he's stayed with them for about two weeks and where he goes into details on how they've shot those home movies with his camera (claiming that it was an "auto-focus camera" when in 1963, it was rather most likely a fixed focus camera), but I can't find it anymore. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

His article is almost entirely void of sources. We need reliable sources in that article that backs up what you say. If it is added to the template, it would be at Template:People associated with The Beatles, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Beatles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329194411/http://www.beatlescartoon.com/animators/animators.html to https://www.beatlescartoon.com/animators/animators.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904001513/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1492446.stm to https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1492446.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208144029/http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/universal-plans-to-launch-capitol-uk/ to https://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/universal-plans-to-launch-capitol-uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530202935/http://mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_naked_truth_beatles/ to https://mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_naked_truth_beatles/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904070136/http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/07/technology/personaltech/beatles/index.htm to https://money.cnn.com/2005/09/07/technology/personaltech/beatles/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208143637/http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/27/entertainment/la-et-ms-beatles-vinyl-album-catalog-reissue-20120927 to https://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/27/entertainment/la-et-ms-beatles-vinyl-album-catalog-reissue-20120927
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091106052411/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/11/meet-the-beatles-usb-drive-emi-files-suit-against-bluebeat-for-selling-beatles-downloads.html to https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/11/meet-the-beatles-usb-drive-emi-files-suit-against-bluebeat-for-selling-beatles-downloads.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628104956/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/george-harrisons-death-certificate to https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/george-harrisons-death-certificate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Beatles active years 1956-1969, 1994.

1956: John Lennon's first band, The Quarrymen was founded in 1956. Later Paul joined, then George, then Pete Best but was replaced by Ringo. Technically, it was the same band, founded in 1969. Then they changed their name a few times. Johnny and the Moondogs, The Beat Brothers (with Tony Sheridan), The Silver Beatles and then The Beatles. But it was the same group. Well, it was more members in The Quarrymen, (Colin Hanton, John Duff Lowe, Rod Davis, Len Garry, etc.) but they later left the band. So I would say The Beatles technically is the same band as The Quarrymen, The Moon Dogs and Silver Beatles.

1969: The Beatles recorded both of their last CDs in 1969, but Let It Be was just released in 1970, but they had already broken up. The Beatles broke up in 1969, right?

1994: Paul, George and Ringo teamed up one last time for the Anthology series in 1994 and remixed "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love".

That's why I changed the page to 1956-1969, 1994. But I it was wrong for me to do that? What do you guys think?

--NRKfan (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please Please Me

Article states "Released in March 1963, the album initiated a run during which eleven of their twelve studio albums released in the United Kingdom through 1970 reached number one.[56]" but the article Beatles Discography lists 11 from 13 total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makewa (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The "twelve studio albums released in the United Kingdom" doesn't include the compilation Collection of Beatles Oldies or the import Magical Mystery Tour LP. Piriczki (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Genres

I believe the genres "pop" and "rock" are very broad and do not describe The Beatles well to a reader. Many songs can be put in place of Pop and Rock, and for a new reader this could be unclear. An addition of Psychedelic Pop and Psychedelic Rock seems necessary, or any other specific genre/sub-genre. Boötes (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The Beatles composed diverse music where individual songs touched many genres. I could likewise argue that they wrote raga rock and bubblegum music. As a group, The Beatles were at their core a pop-rock band. I don't think it is helpful to list a wide range of genres to encompass individual songs. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Although slightly true, psychedelic rock/pop made up a solid chunk of their music. Boötes (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Category: Articles containing English-language text

This appears to be an "empty" Cat which has 24 articles in it? Where has this come from, what purpose does it serve and how can it be removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unsourced content

There is a sentence in the lead that says that the Beatles “came to be perceived as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the counterculture of the 1960s." The phrase has no citation, and it is not repeated in the article, so it can’t be verified, and I suspect that it may have been invented by an editor, and as such it would be an instance of what Wikipedia calls “original research”. It has other problems, because it is an incredibly broad generality, and also vague as can be: The “counter culture” could mean a large number of things, and the “ideals” of that large and various group, could also mean a large number of various ideas -- the possibilities have been compounded. And to suggest that the Beatles were seen to “embody” all that vague stuff seems unlikely — because embody is a strong word, as it suggests that that a role is taken on in a very complete manner. So, I deleted the phrase. Then my deletion was reverted by an editor, Bencherlite, who said (in the edit summary) the content is “Sourced in the body of the article, discuss on talk if you still disagree.” The question is then: If it’s sourced in the body of the article, where would it be sourced? This article has over four hundred citations, and, the phrase I deleted is not repeated anywhere in the article. So, @Bencherlite:, if you would like to say where you think it’s sourced (in order to discuss it, as you suggested), please do. Thanks. Ciceronianclausula (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section says, "As icons of the 1960s counterculture, Gould continues, they became a catalyst for bohemianism and activism in various social and political arenas, fuelling movements such as women's liberation, gay liberation and environmentalism." This is sourced to Jonathan Gould's Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America, which is used throughout the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's different than what the lead says. However, I seem to recall a page in Gould's book where he characterizes the Beatles as a "lightning rod" for the '60s counterculture.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The Beatles vs. the White Album

Getrobbed has been editing the article to change references to "the White album" to The Beatles. I believe the consensus is to use The Beatles for first mention, explain that the album is commonly referred to as the White Album, and thereafter refer to the album as the White Album. Besides conforming to common usage in secondary sources this also helps to minimize confusion between the Beatles as a band and the album titled The Beatles. Any proposed changes contrary to this consensus should be discussed here on the talk page rather than being made in the article. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

But the album isn’t called “The White Album”. The official name is “The Beatles”, not “The White Album”. The Beatles never relesed an album called “The White Album”, so I think we should refer it to “The Beatles”. Getrobbed (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Strawberry4Ever, who addresses all of Getrobbed’s concerns succinctly in their opening statement. I also took the liberty of moving Getrobbed’s reply to here for continuity. Patthedog (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Strawberry4Ever for the same reasons. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - The White Album is preferable to avoid confusion. It may not be official but it is certainly widely used by reliable sources.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:UCN is clear on this: The preference at Wikipedia is to use the most common name, not the official one. --Jayron32 19:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Also agree that The White Album is preferable after an initial mention of the title. Jusdafax (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

First para

I have modified the lead sentence that was attributed to an unreliable source "allmusic" (see WP:RSN discussions[23]) and I could not find any sources for such claim, I have changed it slightly similar to what the FA passed[24] version had said. The sources refer the Beatles as "one of the most influential".[25] [26] Excelse (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And I've reverted, I'm afraid – the RSN discussion you link to is not binding at all. You and two others there don't consider it to be a reliable source; fine, but it has long been listed as an RS at WP:ALBUMS, and it's the first I've heard of AllMusic being challenged in this way (there was no RfC, or even a notification that the site was under scrutiny as a reliable source).

Having said that, I do share some of the concerns expressed at WP:RSN. I try to avoid AllMusic in most instances, and I think the reliance here on the site's online articles is unnecessary and almost embarrassing (see respective entries for Erlewine and Unterberger under Sources), given how much literature there is on the Beatles. But Richie Unterberger, the author of this particular AM piece, is well established as an author and critic, way outside of AllMusic. His writings on folk rock and psychedelic rock, for instance, are used throughout this encyclopaedia and seem to be taken as authoritative. (Again: I'm no fan, and often find myself surprised at what he states as fact.) So is AllMusic a reliable source or not? It seems to be. And it's not as if the statement in question is so out of left field (is it?) – it's the message I get all the time about the Beatles, from reading about 1960s music and the counterculture. JG66 (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Unterberger is not wrong in this case. I'm against removing "widely regarded as the foremost [...]" because it's more profound and notable than "one of the most influential and acclaimed". Everyone already knows that the Beatles are one of the biggest bands ever. What makes them different is how consistently they rank at number one.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

JG66 and Ilovetopaint, you don't need a specific RFC or need to notify dozens of editors when discussing RSN. Was there any discussion about changing the lead? Can you find multiple reliable sources other than the unreliable source for this same claim? Anyone can write on AllMusic, by suggesting the changes or creating the account by themselves (I had last logged in there in 2011) so having an allmusic source on lead for such a big claim is not good, and not for an FA, it cannot be even attributed. Excelse (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, but don't expect other editors to play a blind bit of attention to a discussion held at RSN, when the source has been accepted as RS for years and appears in countless FAs and GAs. Because, when this article made FA in November 2009, AllMusic articles appeared throughout the citations ("Notes").

From Rolling Stone Press' Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (2001; an update of the 1995 edition, which I have):

The impact of the Beatles – not only on rock & roll but on all of Western culture – is simply incalculable. As musicians they proved that rock & roll could embrace a limitless variety of harmonies, structures, and sounds; virtually every rock experiment has some precedent on Beatles records … One of the first rock groups to write most of its own material, they inaugurated the era of self-contained bands and forever centralized pop. And as personalities, they defined and incarnated '60s style: smart, idealistic, playful, irreverent, eclectic. Their music, from the not-so-simple love songs they started with to their later perfectionist studio extravaganzas, set new standards for both commercial and artistic success in pop. Although many of their sales and attendance records have since been surpassed, no group has so radically transformed the sound and significance of rock & roll.

From Colin Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music (2006; 2011 reprint):

The acrimonious dissolution of the Beatles, like that of no other group before or since, symbolized the end of an era that they had dominated and helped to create. It is inconceivable that any group in the future can shape and influence a generation in the same way as these four individuals.

… JG66 (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention entire books focusing on the Beatles' transformation of Western culture: Steven D. Stark, Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World, Martin W. Sandler, How the Beatles Changed the World, Candy Leonard, Beatleness: How the Beatles and Their Fans Remade the World.

From Scott Schinder & Andy Schwartz's Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever (2008) – not a book I know well, but it appears to cover the issue of the Beatles' influence and status well beyond the simple points made in this article's lead section:

It's nearly impossible to overstate the magnitude of the Beatles' influence – not just on music, but upon virtually every aspect of popular culture in the years since the band's worldwide breakthrough in 1964 … Their initial impact would have been enough to establish the Beatles as one of the era's most influential cultural forces, but they didn't stop there … In 1964, the Beatles captured the world's imagination, and carried their public along on a six-year adventure whose artistic developments paralleled the social and cultural changes of those tumultuous years. The group managed to simultaneously be their era's pre-eminent musical innovators as well as the most popular recording act of their time, and their status remains unchallenged to this day. Their adventurous experimentalism established the Beatles as pied pipers of the Aquarian age, shepherding rock's maturation from blues-based forms to a more eclectic and self-consciously serious approach. The band members' interest in political and spiritual consciousness influenced many of their listeners to explore those areas, cementing the Beatles' status at the center of the social revolutions of the 1960s … Beyond their musical achievements and their influence in such areas as hair length and fashion sense, the Beatles' runaway commercial success played a pivotal role in the music business's growth into a multimillion-dollar industry.

JG66 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"inconceivable that any group", it marginalizes them as a group, but the article is calling them "act" which includes solo artists as well. "Beatles as one of the era's most influential cultural forces", that is all I see which can be construed as relevant, and that is what the lead should say instead of directly calling them the most influential act in rock music. Excelse (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Aside from statements made in the other quoted portions above, in that Schinder & Schwartz book, the author(s) follow mention of the band's status after that initial impact in 1964 ("the Beatles as one of the era's most influential cultural forces") with: "but they didn't stop there … The group managed to simultaneously be their era's pre-eminent musical innovators as well as the most popular recording act of their time, and their status remains unchallenged to this day." I read the word "act" there. JG66 (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Excelse: The lead doesn't call them "the most influential act", but that they are "widely regarded as the most influential act".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Still violating WP:WEASEL. Excelse (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@JG66: my apologies for not reading the whole reply of yours. However, the point remains that Beatles are one contender for this "most influential act". For example, Elvis Presley,[27] Bob Dylan[28][29], and others are also described as such by sources . There are other Wikipedia articles such as Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, that calls them "regarded by many as the greatest professional wrestler of all time" or "Widely regarded as the greatest professional wrestler of all time", that maybe still NPOV, but here we have only one article that calls one music act the most influential. We have only two options, either this sentence should changed or we will have to put the same sentence on other articles (Presley, Dylan), although I would still hope that we will go for the first option. Excelse (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

And there's a third option: you could go find something else to do ... The article's fine as it is. Every source and every statement has its limitations/issues. The Elvis one you link to, for instance, could easily refer only to the rock 'n' roll era (which is the term used there) – the late 1950s – and Presley, it has to be said, was utterly irrelevant from 1964 onwards. Here at the Beatles, at least, it's a message that's consistent with the viewpoint held by the majority of sources on the subject (as I've tried to explain). Behind that message is the point that the Beatles have continued to exert a wide influence on music and popular culture, due to their repeated commercial successes each time they repackage a recording catalogue spanning just 7 or 8 years, and the way they succeed in capturing millions of fans with each new generation. JG66 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Article maybe fine for you because it supports your POV pushing but third option is that we should stick to FA version rather than the violation of WP:WEASEL. There is nothing called "rock era", it makes no sense. By pointing to a single source that called Beatles the "most popular recording act of their time" your are only showing the lack of support for your claims. There is no evidence that "majority of sources" agree with Beatles being the most influential music act instead they heavily regard Elvis [30][31] or Bob Dylan[32][33] to be the most influential, and one source states "Bob Dylan has been most influential in the world of music. For instance, while a few can doubt that the Bealtes changed the world of music, some of their own changes can be credited to Dylan".[34] You are misrepresenting the definition of 'Rock and Roll' as well, it doesn't means 1950s music, if someone plays the Rock and Roll today, it would be classified as Rock music. Many heavy metal or death metal bands also describe their music as "Rock and Roll" and in fact Beatles are often described as a "rock and roll band".[35][36] Excelse (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Good points re: "rock era" and Presley/Dylan as "most influential acts". Maybe change the wording to "most influential music group"? Or we could add this sentence, which would render truth to "widely regarded as most influential act":

In 2017, a study of AllMusic's catalog indicated the Beatles as the most frequently cited artist influence in its database.

I know it seems like we're running in circles back to "AllMusic is not reliable", but that's besides the point of the study. Remember - "widely regarded".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

References

"most influential music band" or "most influential music group" indeed sounds better. Excelse (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I do not think "rock era" is appropriate, especially considering the prominent positioning. They were pop/crossover R&B - or vice versa, depending on viewpoint. Rock era implies 10 or so years later - prog rock, folk rock, kraut rock, etc before very metal.-Semperito (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends on how you define the "rock era". Although the term "rock music" itself (used in place of the term "rock and roll") was not commonplace until the mid to late 1960s (and then subsequently begat its sub-genres "progressive rock", "folk rock", etc. into the 1970s) , the "rock era" is widely regarded as starting from the cultural explosion of "rock and roll" in the mid-1950s (though examples of proto-rock and roll records can of course be found earlier than that). The Beatles themselves were the key group in the transition from "rock and roll" and (in the UK) "beat music" into the more eclectic realm called "rock music". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Inevitably there is always and necessarily going to be crossover-boundaries (as if any 'boundaries' were necessary!). The Beatles were Rythym and Blues influenced, whereas the Stones were more Rythym and Blues, both with tinges of Rock 'n' Roll. The tendency here is for WP to over-categorise, to over wikilink, then to war over it. I saw someone relate to "genre wars in heavy metal", so it could affect all music types. I know a classical musician who will not listen to the music of others as rumour has it he is renowned for being 'pitch-perfect' and hears mistakes! I must add that when I knew P.P. Arnold#Singles was guesting on Small Faces I never 'heard' it in the same way after, drowning-out the magnificent Steve Marriot(?) - can't even remember which one - funny what one remembers, spontaneously - I'll dig the 45s out! (although youtube would be quicker).-Semperito (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have now updated the lead, per discussion here. It is fair to call them the most influential music band, because I can't think of any other band that has been called most influential except the Beatles. Excelse (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of genre

I think "folk rock" and "psychedelic" should be added to the list of genres in the infobox - both represent vitally important periods in the Beatles' career that aren't apparent with "rock" and "pop" as the only listed genres.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabboo (talk • contribs)

Yeah, someone proposed the addition of psychedelic rock and/or pop back in November. I'm not sure about folk rock, although the Beatles had a big hand in creating the style, according to some sources. Since November I've warmed to the idea of psychedelic, because a) the Beatles' work was so influential in that genre at the time, and b) their best-known music, arguably, or at least the period that's widely viewed as the band's creative peak – Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour – was either fully psychedelic or, in the case of Rubber Soul, served as the green light for mainstream pop/rock to go psychedelic. (Per Robert Christgau, Greil Marcus, Mark Ellen and others.)

I'd favour using the term "psychedelia". That's what appears currently in the infobox at Sgt. Pepper, and when working on the Revolver article, and since then (on song articles), I've noticed that most sources, particularly older ones, refer to the Beatles' 1966–67 work as psychedelia, or perhaps psychedelic music. (I left it alone at Revolver but I always meant to suggest we change it there.) JG66 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree on the use of "psychedelia." If "folk rock" isn't agreed on that's fine, but I do think albums like "Rubber Soul" and "Help!" are influential enough in the genre that they could be listed. Also, full-on Beatles folk songs like "Blackbird" and "Julia" would be represented. Zabboo (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If psychedelia is recognized for their post-1966 period, then so should Merseybeat for everything that came before. I'm against adding "folk" because the Beatles could never be referred to as a "folk band". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Merseybeat is a subgenre recognized by the inclusion of "pop" and "rock" as primary genres. Zabboo talk 01:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Zabboo: Hang on, I think that's a bit premature. Pinging Boötes (who made a similar point as me re "a solid chunk of their music", although, imo, "psychedelia" is the more appropriate term) and WWGB, both from the November discussion. JG66 (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have no strong objection to the inclusion of "psychedelic" genre. It is known that John and Paul's songwriting was influenced by their intake of marijuana and LSD. The term is mentioned many times in the article. I do not want to see numerous other genres added to dilute the infobox. WWGB (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the addition of "psychedelia" is spot on, and it should end there. "Folk rock"? No. Sure, they dabbled. And even their dabbling produced some of the best ever work in whatever field they deigned to dabble in. But they did not move folk rock the way they did rock, pop, or psychedelia.DocKino (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Psychedelia is fine; the article on Psychedelic music is well cited on the Beatles deep involvement in the movement. Also agree that folk rock should not be included. The Beatles only dedicated a small portion of their catalogue to anything on the fringes of folk rock; since we can't exhaustively include every genre they dabbled in, the three currently listed (rock, pop, psychedelia) are sufficient to cover it. --Jayron32 13:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, Beatles performed various rock music genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

But you see, the reason why we don't include those genres is because too much variety. They are all superclassed by the "rock" genre, so that is why we list the genre as rock, and not everything that is derived from rock. For instance, if we listed one of the Beatles' genres as "Heavy Metal" because of their song, Helter Skelter, that would obviously be incorrect, because they are not a heavy metal band. Same thing with the rock band Kiss. They released a disco track titled I Was Made for Lovin' You. Kiss obviously isn't a disco group, so we wouldn't put that on their main page because of one song.Boötes (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Beatles performed various genres such like Merseybeat, Folk rock, Pop rock, Blues rock, Art rock, Baroque pop and Psychedelia, But it's only loosely labeled as "Rock" and "Pop".

You might want to investigate some of the links in the Welcome message on your talk page, regarding signing your posts, and indenting comments so that other editors can follow the thread here. Also, this is a Featured Article, and it's really not helpful you deleting the term each time. As mentioned above, the original addition was premature, perhaps, but we're discussing the issue here. If it's decided that "psychedelia" belongs, then we keep it; if it's not, then we don't.

No one's saying that the Beatles didn't embrace a variety of genres, and the infobox field is not intended to be an exhaustive list. It's about the styles/genres that best reflect an artist's music. The case for psychedelia above all others (including raga rock, musique concrete and no end of other labels) is the extent to which they helped create, and popularised, and came to define the genre – as well as the extent to which the band continues to be defined by the psychedelic era, because their most influential albums remain Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. But it's also about the utopian ideology behind psychedelia, as much as the music, that makes it such an important style for the Beatles. JG66 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The Beatles#A Hard Day's Night

Regarding some recent changes made in this subsection, by Garagepunk66 and then myself. In short, because the paragraph begins with mention of the United Artists film deal, and especially the potentially lucrative soundtrack album(s), it made sense to me, after GP had made some additions there, to comment on the UA Hard Day's Night soundtrack album, just to acknowledge its existence, before focusing on the UK/rest-of-world album.

Personally, I think it's straightforward – and by the time we get to the Erlewine quote, we know he's referring to the HDN album as the Beatles intended it, not the UA soundtrack release. This being an FA, I figured we should discuss it here. Any thoughts, anyone? I suppose the relevant thing is how the issue was handled previously, before GP's changes. With my subsequent edits, I've taken things back to how they were pre-20 Feb, for the most part, but I also added something on the UA vs EMI albums. JG66 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

JG66, I went back and took a look, and I think your latest edits in the HDN section look really good. I may have been looking at a preliminary edit a while ago before we had that earlier conversation (I've been having some technical issues with my computer). I like what I see there right now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

I want to give out an AllMusic source of the Beatles please. 24.247.218.39 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Spintendo      20:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit reversion

@Jjamesryan: Hello - You reverted my edit. "Beatle" and "beatles" both redirect here and are common misspellings of beetle/s, so I added to the hatnote whilst condensing it to make it shorter. I thought I used the 5 basic rules of WP:HATNOTEs. Can you explain your reversion please. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud:, I didn't consider whether they were misspellings of "beetle," I just checked the page and noticed that it doesn't redirect here. The implication of the hatnote you added, I believe, is that Beetle (disambiguation) redirects here — which it does not. On second thoughts, a separate hat using Distinguish would probably be better. Sorry. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I meant to give an explanation in the edit summary, but I accidentally selected "Rollback (vandal)" rather than "undo," so couldn't include a summary. Sorry! Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 22:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jjamesryan: OK, I've tried a customised hatnote because 3 would be too clunky. Cheers, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Yeah, that's better — just a couple of things. Shouldn't it link to Beetle instead of Beetle (disambiguation), as the former has been determined to be the primary topic? Also, it's strange that it links directly to the White Album, and then separately to The Beatles (disambiguation), on which it is listed. Normal procedure would see just the disambiguation page linked. What do you think? It would also bring it down to two hatnotes again. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jjamesryan: Beetle (disambiguation) lists the primary topic right at the top. I followed the example at WP:INTDAB. I guess a misspelling user would get there in the end! As for the White Album, I agree the hatnote could be further reduced so I've done that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

Hello! I want to ask your help. Please, put the important information into article The Beatles (in some relevant section). I can not do it personally, because I am - simple IP (I see "view source"). If you wish, you can make the text better. Thank you! I am waiting. This information:

The World Beatles Day is celebrated on January 16. This holiday was approved by UNESCO in 2001. The list of UNESCO does not contain such date, because the members of The Beatles are alive. The event is not very known in a result. - 2.94.186.117 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Added published Beatles of interest history

• In 1976 Alan Amron created The international committee to reunite the Beatlespartnering with world famous sports legend Muhammad Ali asking everyone in the world for a dollar.The notion of a Beatles reunion under Ali’s sponsorship came from Alan Amron and Joel Sacher, two Long Island, New York businessmen who formed the International Committee to Reunite the Beatles last year “They were the catalysts,” said Spiros Anthony.

Ivetsaksone (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks a bit like WP:FRINGE? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure this guy is really worth mentioning, when Sid Bernstein, who was much more high-profile in his attempts to re-unite the group, is not included anywhere in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting historical Wikipedia worthy fact. Muhammad Ali is not just some guy, and Sid Bernstien was just one of many concert promoters at the time. Response to posting Muhammad Alis' attempt at reuniting the Beatles fact. Ivetsaksone (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

How very quaint that "everyone in the world" could give a dollar. I was never asked, regrettably. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would only include this if it were part of discussion of all the various attempts by outsiders to reunite the Beatles during the 1970s (Bill Sargent, Sid Bernstein, Project Interspeak). It should also be mentioned that none of these got beyond the initial announcement stage and that the Beatles took a very dim view of these proposals, even those for charity. Piriczki (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say that. Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, Robert Rodriguez's Fab Four FAQ 2.0 (especially) and Peter Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money are all sources that cover the various reunion rumours and campaigns during the 1970s – along with the growth in fanzines and fan conventions, and the Beatles-related stage shows, feature films, tributes/parodies, and TV documentaries. It's enough to warrant a separate article. But, as far as I can tell, Sargent and Bernstein's counter-offers for a one-off concert were far more noteworthy than the Ali campaign. JG66 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that Pandora's Box seems to have been opened here, a separate article might be a good way to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a redirect from The Beatles reunions to Collaborations between ex-Beatles. Perhaps a new section in that article? --Jayron32 16:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Cultural impact of the Beatles would be the place, but there's quite a bit missing from there already. For example: nothing on their role in popularising spirituality and alternative religious thinking in the West, or in defining Britain's war-baby, post-National Service generation, and its effect on the UK class system ... (There are whole books written on those two issues, as well!) JG66 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We as Wikipedia editors, I thought was not to judge the published reliable sourced facts, but to vet and post them. I’m not qualified to speak about those others you mentioned, but with this post others will follow. As far as the Beatles interest in this reunion, Muhammad Ali spoke directly to them about it, and they were favorable to doing it with him. In fact Paul McCartney, when asked in the news about it, said he was a big fan of Ali and would consider doing it. That part I can’t confirm or include, unless someone finds a credible published source for it. This post could be the catalyst for other Wikipedia editors to expand on it. It’s part of Beatles 70’s history, maybe title it “Beatles reunion attempts”. Wikipedia should cover it. Ivetsaksone (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on our discussions here, I propose the following all inclusive posting. '''Alan Amron''' Beatles reunion total 712 reliable sources published matches found - '''Sid Bernstein''' Beatles reunion 432 matches found - '''Bill Sargent''' 404 Beatles reunion matches found.

Beatles reunion facts history

In early 1976 '''Alan Amron''' created The international committee to reunite the Beatlespartnering with world famous sports legend Muhammad Ali asking everyone in the world for a dollar.The notion of a Beatles reunion under Ali’s sponsorship came from Alan Amron and Joel Sacher, two Long Island, New York businessmen who formed the International Committee to Reunite the Beatles last year “They were the catalysts,” said Spiros Anthony.The New York Daily News front page news story "Ali to the Beatles: "Come Together."

'''Sid Berstein''' a known music concert promoter, ran a $28.000 dollar ad in a 1976 Sunday edition of the New York Times newspaper, to enduce a Beatles reunion. Comparing Sid Bernstien and other Beatles reunion efforts:Beatle Ringo Starr dismissing promoter Sid Bernstein's $230 Million proposal for a Beatles reunion. saying "It's too long to read." "... Amron's scheme is also the only current one that holds even a hint of promise for bringing the Beatles back together." Beatle George Harrison said, "Will it happen? I suppose so".Amron's International Committee to reunite the Beatles was first before Bernstein.

'''Bill Sargent''' a concert promotor, also tried to get the Beatles to do a reunion concert, his efforts notably failed. Ivetsaksone (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding as suggested Project Interspeak Beatles reunion found 49 published credible source matches.

Years later '''Project Interspeak''' had also run a full page ad, in the calendar section of the Los Angeles Times, to reunite the Beatles. The ad simply said to "Stay Tuned to this Page", nothing ever happened.Beatles Paul McCartney called it "a rumor" and said "I'm happy to do a concert for the whales. I think they shouldn't be hunted to extinction, but frankly I just can't see a Beatles reunion in it." Ivetsaksone (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a minor edit correction to this Wikipedia editors wonderful writings on this Beatles reunion efforts history. It ends with this sentence: "Although the various offers generated much publicity, none were given serious consideration by the Beatles." I feel this is the opinion of the Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source conclusion. I found, in reading the references cited, that at one time or another all four of the Beatles have seriously considered one or more of these reunion offers. Therefore, changing the end of that sentence to this: "Although the various offers generated much publicity, none ever got to happen." Enoska13 (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Associated Acts for The Beatles (band)

Under the associated acts section for The Beatles, why isn't "Wings" listed, but Plastic Ono Band is? Plastic Ono Band was a band fronted by John Lennon after the Beatles and Wings was a band fronted by Paul McCarntey after the Beatles. I think if Plastic Ono Band is listed under "Associated Acts", then Wings should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getrobbed (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

So, Traveling Wilburys also, and Fireman, Ringo's All-Starr Band, etc? The answer is no, because there has to be at least two members of the main act involved with the associated act. Plastic Ono Band's only there because it included Harrison and Starr, along with Lennon, although never at the same time. Whereas Wings, like the Wilburys and others, only contained one former member of the Beatles. JG66 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

New icon, first image

Hi people. This is my design, recently performed using no-copyrighted sets, available on wikimedia. If you think it's great, we can use it. If not, we can work it. Regards Διεγο Απόλλων Άρης (Alejandro) (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 21:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

File:BEATLES 1966-1970.jpg

Infobox image

Why is a collage image used, rather than a normal image where the Fab Four are together? I cannot find a permalink to any consensus to use the current image. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right – from memory, the collage was added in the last couple of years without any discussion up-front. I don't mind it, personally. And given that the band continues to be so well known, and the "Fab Four" moniker endures to this day, I'd say that an image that clearly shows the faces of all four is welcome. JG66 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

By "normal image", I mean one that isn't composited/spliced from other images, but one which was originally shot with the Fab Four present. Something like this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. As shown in the link you provided above, the four faces are taken from the same image …? JG66 (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Associated Acts for The Beatles (band)

Should we add "Wings" for associated acts for the Beatles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getrobbed (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Name some sources that included them as associated act. Excelse (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is that we don’t include post break-up acts.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

Folks, the pictures of the band in the article's infobox are terrible. I'm well aware that there are very few public domain photos of the Beatles, but I believe I've found a better alternative. I've uploaded a photo of the Beatles performing in Belfast in 1964 called The Beatles Belfast.jpg that I think would be a suitable replacement. It's a bit wide, but I think it's a far better representation of the group than the terrible profiles in the current article, with George's tongue sticking out etc. Zabboo talk 06:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's too wide. At least with the current image you can see their faces clearly.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the suggested replacement, it's far too wide. And I don't see anything "terrible" about the four we have here (eg I think Harrison looks pretty cool – if anything, his expression shows a more measured response to the adulation, which is quite fitting for him).

But as someone who works on a lot of WP Beatles song and album articles, I'm grateful for your effort, Zabboo, in searching out more free images of the Beatles. If you felt like continuing the search, perhaps for images through to the end of their touring years in 1966, that would be fantastic. JG66 (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:People associated with The Beatles, gone!

With the death of Geoff Emerick I went to see if he was on the template 'People associated with the Beatles, and found the template had been recently deleted after a deletion "discussion" by five editors! This is a good template, full of information, and now, if you look at George Martin's article, there is no template linking him to the Beatles. Did the "regulars" here know about this, and can it be brought back for another go? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think WP:BEATLES was notified. Didn’t they used to be listed in the main Beatles template? I assume it was spun out because that template was getting too large. Maybe they could be put back in? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That might work if there is limited criteria, good idea (although a good template silently being removed without notifying this talk page seems unfair and reversible). I can't recall who all was on that template, but George Martin, Geoff Emerick, Brian Epstein, and maybe a dozen others would fit comfortably into a section on the main Beatles template. A specific editor may try to revert that because of 'production', but Martin, Emerick, Epstein and others were much more than production support. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The deleters were complaining about undefined selection criteria, but I think most of us can agree on the most important members of their inner circle. Neil Aspinall and Derek Taylor were on there too I believe. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that Template:People associated with the Beach Boys survives. Did The Beatles template look like that? Could it be revived in a similar fashion? WWGB (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Another good option. As for how it looked I just recall it was informative. Probably an admin could resurrect it to a subpage to view, edit, or use as a shorter merge to the main Beatles template. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty disappointing that the relevant project wasn't informed, and that there was barely a "discussion" there. (I haven't found that regulars at TfD are actually too interested in what the wider community thinks.)

We certainly need the template. I'd add the likes of Neil Aspinall, Derek Taylor, Mal Evans, Peter Brown, Alexis Mardas to Randy's list – they're all synonymous with the Beatles and the names are very well known as a result. And I don't believe one could say that about some of the names in the Beach Boys template. JG66 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel we should add more people like Eric CLapton. Nirvanaisbae (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC

Unaccessible Reference

Hi there! I noticed under "Sources" that there are two books by John C. Winn included. However, the links to these books take readers to a website where there is only partial access to the book. In the spirit of Wikipedia and open access, I recommend using sources that allow readers full access to content.--Halostock97 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You can find the sources where access to whole book if freely available and until then we can continue using the links that provide partial access. Excelse (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to add Wings to "Associated Acts" section

Curiously, Wings has been left out of the "Associated Acts" section of the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.188.76 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You can name some reliable sources that consider Wings to be an important associated act with Beatles. Excelse (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Just saw that there is consensus not to include post break-up acts. Excelse (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Collapsible articles section should be condensed

I think the collapsible articles section should be condensed into a more manageable format personally, to include every subcategory into one main box, rather than separate ones (for albums, films, etc). I notice that editors of The Rolling Stones page have done this as well, but it's just unnecessarily confusing and presents their history in an uneven manner. Look at the pages for Bob Dylan or the Grateful Dead, both are presented in much easier, comprehensive formats. I think one large section is better than multiple small ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.188.76 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion and should note that Bob Dylan article is also an FA. Excelse (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• No way in hell. At best we should integrate the main five films and the "core catalog" into Template:The Beatles main. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-UK/US and mock-up single covers in song articles (Beatleswillneverdie)

Beatleswillneverdie has been adding an abundance of song "cover art" images they've found from Google without bothering to check if they're actually real or official (see File:Revolution_9.jpg). At best, some of these images are of weird foreign pressings of songs that were never issued as singles in the US or UK (see File:Honey dont.jpg). I don't believe the vast majority of their uploads should be used since they're misleading and cannot be verified (every fair use rationale says that they're "the original cover" which is vague BS). Unfortunately it's much too tedious for me to revert all their edits, and I'm not sure how to go about removing these images, so hopefully someone else can sort this out... Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In the case of File:When I get home.jpg, that one's for real, although I imagine BWND didn't bother to source it correctly. It's a Sonora Musikförlag sheet music cover, licensed from Northern Songs. Examples can be found here, for instance. JG66 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That image at Honey Don't, of an EP that happened to contain the song, should never be used, as I understand it. As with an LP side label or album cover (which the user has also been adding to song articles), it doesn't identify the song to readers, which is the whole purpose of including a non-free image in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, just realised: this discussion probably belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, not here. JG66 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Change 7 grammy awards to 25 grammy awards. Keepser (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Roadguy2 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The band were vs the band was

WWGB – a bit surprised by your edit. I appreciate the source is less than ideal but please see this overview. The situation explained there is the way I understand it in British English, anyway; for example: "If a collective noun is seen as a whole, sole, impersonal unit, then singular verbs are more common" vs "If it is seen as a collection of people doing personal things, then plural verbs are more common ..." Not only that but we have, in the same lead here, "the group were integral to the evolution of pop music". JG66 (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve reverted WWGB, it seems quite clear to me that “were” is Brit Eng. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe my changes come under the descriptor "If a collective noun is seen as a whole, sole, impersonal unit, then singular verbs are more common", and not "a collection of people doing personal things". WWGB (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a general problem with all English bands. I just checked The Rolling Stones and they have similar expressions. I think this discussion needs to be centralised, because it affects all British bands. In the meantime, this should be reverted to the stable version, until and if a new consensus emerges. Dr. K. 02:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The stable version, which has been there for years, uses singular verbs ("The group was inducted"). Plural verbs only introduced yesterday. Check the edit history. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. Because, as mentioned above, we've long had the statement (I believe it's "long" – certainly for a while before an editor partially rewrote the lead a day or two ago) that "Rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, the group were integral to pop music's evolution into an art form and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s." I'd argue that, given we're talking about the lead section of an article dedicated to the four-man band, their history and their achievements, the reader never views them as "a whole, sole, impersonal unit", but as "a collection of people" throughout. I admit, though, that when it comes to legacy-related points, the description does introduce some narrative distance; I guess I'm influenced by wanting to avoid the jarring aspect of having "the band/group were" in some instances, and "... was" in others. JG66 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I found this The band had nearly exhausted their backlog... from a version in 2015, establishing the British English form from an early stage. This is earlier than "group was" which was added in violation of the usual British English form as used in other Brit band articles. Dr. K. 05:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Also from the same 2015 version: The band's stylistic range expanded in another direction with their 1966 B-side "Rain",... and began work assembling an album, given "free rein" as the band "all but washed their hands of the entire project".[230], The band expanded their use of vocal overdubs on Help! and incorporated classical instruments..., First aired on Boxing Day, the Magical Mystery Tour film, largely directed by McCartney, brought the group their first major negative UK press.. Dr. K. 05:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"A Hard Day's Night" not a "mockumentary"

Can't log it, so I'll post here on a small matter of non-urgency.

"A Hard Day's Night" is mistakenly described as a "mockumentary." It's a film with a script that can be better described as a "fictional account." "This Is Spinal Tap" is a true "mockumentary," where actors who are musicians are interviewed and the audience is aware of the camera, with the film entirely improvised and fictional - based on the actors' whims and a loosely-based premise.

Someone ought to make the change when they get around to it. Carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8001:CD0:D55:2A5C:111C:D487 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You’re quite right - it’s a fictionalized version of their life but not a mock documentary. I don’t have the source book (Gould’s Can’t Buy Me Love) so I can’t check precisely how he describes it, but that’s inaccurate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I've updated the text to say "musical comedy" instead, as per the film's WP article. (Was tempted to add something about it being 'a day in the life', but thought it a bit too cheeky.) Key of Now (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote/distinguish for “beetle”

Hi everyone, I think it would be best to have a hatnote or distinguish template at the top of the article for “beetle”. Currently, the word “beatle” redirects to this page, and I think it would be fair to serve those who misspell it, some people may not even know that those two spellings mean two completely different things. Any thoughts? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I must admit I removed the distinguish template you'd added, when I was addressing issues in the lead paragraphs. It seemed an odd and unnecessary addition to me. I'd rather it didn't appear, but at the same time I appreciate that that's hardly a sufficient rationale. If it helps readers navigate the encyclopedia then I guess that's paramount. JG66 (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@JG66: Many readers are new to written English or are otherwise bad at spelling. “beatle” and “beetle” are phonetically pronounced the same, and the word “beatle” redirects to this article “The Beatles”. Because a search for “beatle” redirects here, it seems right to include “beetle” as a distinguish template. Yes it may seem odd and unnecessary to us, but not everyone is as good at spelling and English as you and I are. Plus some people may be looking for “beetle” and may never have heard of “The Beatles” and may get confused. Overall, it would be helpful in aiding readers to navigate the encyclopedia. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mrbeastmodeallday rational for adding the template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. As I said, "If it helps readers navigate the encyclopedia ..." JG66 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 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 this MfD discussion page 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we please credit Lennon or McCartney songs that only one of them actually wrote to their proper author instead of Lennon-McCartney

Yes, I know that for legal reasons, sheet music has to have both names on it, even when only one was involved.

But can we just credit, for example "Yesterday" to "Paul McCartney" as a songwriter, since he's the one who actually wrote it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesWhiteAlbum (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Indie Rock

I just had a thought. Do you think the Beatles should be classified as Indie Rock? After all, I read numerous articles that seem to give defiant proof of them being the originators of that genre. If not, maybe a small reference that indicates their influence?Voicebox64 (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Indie rock started in the 1970s and our article does not mention The Beatles, so ..... WWGB (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It says to discuss on talk page before adding associated acts so

I was gonna add Wings, the Traveling Wilburys, and the All-Star Band Dbspencr (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

They are in breach of Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. WWGB (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Record sales

800 million records is a inflation. They have sold 600 million according to many sources including Apple Music. List_of_best-selling_music_artists#250_million_or_more_records 8eatle (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The figure of 800 is sourced within the article to their record company. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, Michael Jackson's manager and record companies have stated he sold in between 750 million records to 1 billion. However, Wikipedia users have called this "unreliable". 8eatle (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your scepticism. But who can claim to know better about how many records have been sold than the record company itself? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Associated acts

Who deleted the associated acts and why? Dbspencr (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts, The following uses of this field should be avoided: For groups: the solo careers of its members. It's also been discussed on this page many times; check the archives.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Then why is Plastic Ono Band an associated act? That’s Johns solo band Dbspencr (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

First, you're engaging in a edit war. You attempted to add something and other editors disagreed. The onus is on you to justify the edit, not continuously re-add the information. And do not accuse other editors of vandalism when it clearly was not (it was restoring the consensus version of the article). You were asked to read the archives to see why Wings is not included. Please do so and stop edit warring. freshacconci (✉) 13:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I justified why Wings belongs here in my edit. “Paul McCartney was a member of the Beatles. After the Beatles broke up, he started a band named “Wings.” Often at Paul’s concerts, he will play a mix of Beatles songs and Wings songs. In fact, if you go on the Wikipedia page for Wings, in the list of associated acts, there is only one: The Beatles. So the Beatles and Wings share a member, their songs are often paired together, and Wikipedia even states that they are associated with each other in one article. Therefore, Paul McCartney and Wings are an associated act with the Beatles.” Now the justification for not including Wings was that the members solo acts weren’t associated acts. That’s fine with me, but if that’s the case, Plastic Ono Band does not belong here either. I get that John is your favorite Beatle and you dislike Paul, but that doesn’t justify your repeated vandalism of this article. And it is vandalism: “The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.“ Stop vandalizing the page. Either allow Wings as an associated act, or delete Plastic Ono Band Dbspencr (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who you are addressing your comment to, but please focus on editing, not on the editors. It's not enough to explain why you want to add Wings. You need to reach consensus here on the talk page. A number of editors disagree with you, so you clearly do not have consensus to make this change. Further, rather than discuss the issue, you have engaged in an edit war, made bad-faith accusations against other editors, and disruptively edited to make a point. Simply giving a reason is not enough to add or delete whatever you want. freshacconci (✉) 13:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I can’t really reach consensus if I can’t give a reason it should be included, can I, Einstein? Wings is a separate band that shares one member with then Beatles, Plastic Ono Band is also a separate band that shares one member with the Beatles. They should have the exact same status as associated acts. Either they should both be included, or neither should be included. Dbspencr (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As I recall Plastic Ono Band was included because it was a side project for John while the group were still active, which is not the case with Wings. Nothing to do with anti-Paul bias. (And I'm fine with including Preston, actually.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the addition of Preston, and I seem to remember consensus was achieved on this some years back.

Dbspencr, Plastic Ono Band is included because it featured not only Lennon but, on various occasions, Harrison and Starr, even before the Beatles' break-up. Wings was simply a post-Beatles solo venture for McCartney, just as Traveling Wilburys and Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band were/are for Harrison and Starr, respectively – but they're not included either. PS: Stop edit warring – people here do think before a decision is reached, you know. JG66 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Except Plastic Ono Band started in 1969, while the group was breaking up. The fact that they didn’t legally dissolve the Beatles until 1970 doesn’t change history. Plastic Ono Band was John’s solo project, just as Wings was Pauls Dbspencr (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Plastic Ono Band used George and Ringo as essentially session musicians, they were not members. The only permanent members of the Plastic Ono Band were John Lennon and Yoko Ono Dbspencr (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Further reading

Jarniewicz, Jerzy; Alina Kwiatkowska (eds.) (2010). Fifty Years with the Beatles. The Impact of the Beatles on Contemporary Culture. Lodz: Lodz University Press. ISBN 978-83-7525-465-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:116f:40e2:2e00:747a:2545:c96c:696e (talk) 16:50, 21 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) 20:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)