Talk:The Beatles timeline

Good idea

The timeline looks like a great idea. I encourage others to input any suggestions early on: these painstaking individual entries might take a lot of work to change if someone waits till it's all been entered before popping up with an enhancement idea. PL290 (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is taking shape well and looking good! PL290 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Band names

Just a minor suggestion: most/all later band entries begin "The Beatles...", whereas a few early ones begin "The band..." etc. Would it be a good idea to always start band entries with the band name? (All the more so during the eary entries when the band name was changing.) I can make this change if there's no objection/issue. PL290 (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah—if you want to change it to the band name at the time, that'd be fab. Or I could do it, I don't mind. Dendodge _T\^C 09:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a lot of them, but not all, to stop it from getting repetitive. If you want me to do the rest, just ask. Dendodge _T\^C 09:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the rest now. PL290 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Data

Perhaps better late than even later: a quick check question about data possibilities on WP. Should we be storing it as XML, say, so that the presentation can be separated? PL290 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this Wikibook on XML; it gives the idea, but seems to indicate it can't be done on WP (though I think it's talking about Wikibooks). But anyway, I suppose the table rows are pretty much just data, so they're effectively achieving the same thing. Is there an approach involving/resembling CSS styling? So you can use a style name instead of "background:blue" etc?

Anyway anyway, I need to find out more about all this myself—just wanted to flag the questions in case they trigger any useful ideas. PL290 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not possible, as far as I know. Dendodge _T\^C 18:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Again better late than later: is it worth including some kind of reference with each entry? Perhaps two new columns to the far right, a "Ref" column and a "Page" column? We could then number the referenced works (currently 1) and put that number in the "Ref" column, along with the page number in the "Page" column.

This might be considered excessive if, for instance, all the facts are from one reliable referenced work which is itself in chronological order. Worth being sure about it now, while the page numbers are to hand, rather than deciding later they ought to go in which might be a bigger task. PL290 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The work is chronological, but I understand the need for this if other references are added. Right now I'm working on 1963 (a big task—they didn't have a day off in March!), but I'll get round to it eventually. I could save time by using rowspans for all the ones on the same page. Dendodge _T\^C 10:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it now, using {{harvnb}}? Dendodge _T\^C 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think each entry should have a reference and the extra column should be dropped. That will lead to a long list in the "Notes" section, but it's worth it to stay consistent with the usual way of citing sources in WP. Of course, the <ref name="whatever"> form should be used to avoid duplicate entries. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think John's right; it would be better like that. When I first made the suggestion it seemed it would be better like that because of being in a table, but actually I think there's nothing gained and something lost. Unless there's disagreement I'll do the donkey-work presently to put the existing entries into that form. It was me who suggested the other way which has maybe wasted Dendodge's time! PL290 (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would prefer it that way, and are willing to do it yourself, feel free. However, we'll end up with ^zzzz by the end of 1970. I thought that might look a bit messy, but if you prefer it with individual refs, please change it. Dendodge _T\^C 23:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Feel equally free to revert if you can't stand it like that! I'll leave the ref column in for now, but would expect to remove it presently if the inline citations are to stay. PL290 (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it at lunchtime. Dendodge _T\^C 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Length/Notability

I don't think this timeline should include an entry for every live performance. They all aren't notable and WP isn't the place for the diary of a band. Including all the shows will make the article too long and less useful. People who want the show details should buy one of the diary books. Copying all the entries from Hill may also be a copyvio as too much of the content would be reproduced here. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Dendodge here - not logged in as I only have about 5 minutes and I'm at school). I'm not copying whole entries from Hill - just the information. For example, he might say "The Beatles make their television debut on...", while I would say "The Beatles make an appearance on..., their television debut". You cannot copyright data, only content, and the data is all I am using.

As for notability, I have often wondered what The Beatles were doing on certain days. And the timeline gives an idea of how quickly The Beatles' popularity grew - compare 1962 and 1963!

In fact, I think nearly all Beatles tours are notable, simply because of their extreme popularity - I hope we'll ahve an article on them all one day. This article lists all the tour dates (to make those articles easier to write), and the individual gigs, which will not have articles. 82.3.49.212 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible to employ further colour-coding to highlight rows for "notable" entries, if criteria can be established for deciding which they are. However, it's a moot point whether it's necessary to make the distinction in the first place. PL290 (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could bold entries with an article about them? That's a good way to show notability. (And, yes, that was me above). Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Color coding: Color coding may help though I must admit that when more than a few (three) colors are used I usually forget what the colors mean.

True, but I was actually thinking of shading etc. to highlight the entire row for "notable" entries if such there be (or possibly bolding as Dendodge suggested). So not the kind of coding where you have to consult a key in this case, because there would be a clear visual two-way split between "main" entries and "lesser" ones. PL290 (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Length and tour dates: I think the article will be too long if all the appearances are included. If the consensus is to include the appearances, then I think we should start planning now for multiple articles, perhaps one by year? — John Cardinal (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Planning ahead is always a good thing: can someone quantify (including "notable/other" criteria/counts), to help consider this? I suppose the total number must be quite large. I wondered about hidden groups of rows where you could click "show", but I think that would be messy and unsatisfactory to use. I don't suppose there's a way in WP to "toggle" a view of an entire article, is there, so as to have a "high-level" view showing only "main" entries and switch to a "detailed" view showing them all? Or conceivably a copy of the article in each of the two forms? Anyway, one way or another, there does seem to be something gained by at least being able to see all the entries at once, perhaps if aided by suitable highlighting of "main" entries as above. PL290 (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the absence

I kinda stopped this half way through, for the peer review to finish. Then I went all inactive. But now I'm back, and I'll spend the evening adding some more to this. Sorry, everyone, for the inconvenience. Dendodge _T\^C 11:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Pete Best & George Martin

Missing from the timeline for date of births are Pete Best, George Martin, Linda McCartney, etc. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pete Best is already there: "[Randolph] Peter Best is born in Madras, India". I can't believe I forgot George Martin—I'll add him now. As for Beatle wives, I wasn't sure whether or not to add those. If you think it's a good idea, I will, but I might nit get round to it for a while. Dendodge _T\^C 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Template-based version

I've implemented a template-based version of this article where each row is created using the {{The Beatles timeline event}} template. There is also a matching template for creating the header row of the table, {{The Beatles timeline table start}}. The goal was to make it easier to maintain the entries and make it possible for people who don't know the wiki table code to add and modify entries. I've been thinking about this for awhile but didn't do it until I learned that article-specific templates are allowed on WP; I thought designing a template for use on one page might be frowned upon for some reason.

As of about a week ago, the article had multiple errors in the table code, mostly due to errors on rowspan parameters. At that point, the errors caused formatting issues only, but the potential was there for worse issues. The template method eliminates the wiki table coding. It also eliminates the need to add CSS to an entry to type-code it: the template knows what color to use for various "type=" entries, i.e., "type=L" (Life) events get a blue box. The template will also make it easy to change the colors if we ever need/want to do that. (I may have gone a little code-happy for the different event types.)

The template adds short text codes to the boxes that formerly had colors only (type and location). I think it's an accessibility issue for color-challenged readers to use color alone to mark an entry, and it helps people with bad memories (like me) who can't remember what the colors mean.

The template does not use rowspan or colspan cells. There are a couple reasons for that:

1. It would require more complicated templates to handle rowspan entries where multiple events share a month, day, type code, or location code. That would defeat some of the goal of making the article easier to maintain.
2. The "sortable" option for wiki tables does not support tables with rowspan and/or colspan cells.

Personally, I think the span entries were not worth the trouble, and even without a template-based solution I was thinking of removing them.

I also added a bunch of entries for single, EP, and album releases and I extended the range of the timeline. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work! Slight niggle about the date formats (do we still need separate d, m, y cols?) and the usual issues associated with sorting them (may be better not to use sortable tables at all?) but overall, this is exactly what was needed in my opinion. I always hoped there was a way to separate the data from the presentation and you have come up with one. Thank you. PL290 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Re: dates and sorting, sorting first... I thought sorting was important when I started and that sorting by month or by day might be useful. Now that I see it, I am not so sure. It might be interesting to sort by type, but given the info is split into separate tables by years or decades, sorting won't bring together all the entries of a type. As a result, we could drop the sorting. That's an easy change.

Regarding three fields for the dates vs. one field, if we don't care to sort by parts of the date, or if we turn off sorting completely, then we can render the date in a single field. I'd leave the template call as is (separate y=, m=, and d= parameters), but the template could combine the three into a single value. That's also an easy change. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I love what you've done with it while I've been gone, but I preferred the separate columns for year, month, and date—it seemed, to me at least, more aesthetically pleasing. I understand that I am probably in the minority on this, but thought I'd chip in anyway. Dendodge _T\^C 23:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can easily restore the three-columns for dates by changing the templates. We seem to have three opinions so far: one neutral (me), one for three columns (DenDodge), and one for one column (PL290). Perhaps we ought to let other editors chime in and see if we can reach a consensus. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm for it either way, as I have no problem with Dendodge's original version, in that he did create this article page, so I'll lean towards his direction on this. Also, can someone please add in the other Beatles girls, I don't know who they all were, though I think Barbara Bach is the best looking! Best, --Discographer (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It was the combination with sorting that made me lean towards a single column. Since the conclusion about sorting was that it's better without, I'm now neutral. It occurs to me that if the date could be presented in the order y, m, d as originally, it would allow the eye running down the columns to associate rows more quickly. That in turn leads to three columns being more natural than a single date string in that format. PL290 (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This may cause a lot of problems, but I think it may be better if we used rowspans (it would be possible in the template, but very hard), but that is not important, and probably shouldn't be done until we finish inputting all the data. Dendodge _T\^C 09:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried a 3-column year-first layout for now, to see how it looks—it seems I inadvertently messed with the row heights in doing so, but I think this looks better. Dendodge _T\^C 12:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I fixed the spacing issue. Re: rowspans; I don't think they are needed,they break the consistent structure of the entries, and they complicate editing. Strong oppose. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, how about a horizontal line under years (in the decade tables) and months (in the year tables)? I have created {{The Beatles timeline rule}} to demonstrate this, and it would cause the 1960 table to look like this were it implemented (uncollapse to see):

Extended content

Date T Event L 1960 May 05 B The Quarrymen change their name to The Silver Beetles UK 1960 May 10 PC The Silver Beetles audition for Larry Parnes to support Billy Fury on his next tour. They are unsuccessful, but are offered the chance to support Johnny Gentle on a tour of Scotland UK 1960 May 14 PC The Silver Beetles play the Lathom Hall, Liverpool UK 1960 May 20 B Sutcliffe plays bass, and Tommy Moore plays drums. The Silver Beetles adopt aliases for the duration of the tour; Lennon becomes Long John, McCartney becomes Paul Ramon, Sutcliffe becomes Stuart de Staël, and Harrison becomes Carl Harrison UK 1960 May 20 PC Johnny Gentle's tour, with the Silver Beetles as his backing band, begins at the Town Hall in Alloa, Scotland. UK 1960 May 21 PC The tour concludes at the Rescue Hall in Aberdeen UK 1960 May 21 PC The tour continues to the Northern Meeting Ballroom in Inverness UK 1960 May 23 PC The next date is the Dalrymple Hall in Fraserburgh, Aberdeen UK 1960 May 25 PC The tour continues to St Thomas's Hall, Banffshire UK 1960 May 26 PC The next tour date is the Town Hall in Forres UK 1960 May 27 PC The tour continues at the Regal Ballroom, Nairn UK 1960 May 30 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Jacaranda coffee bar UK 1960 Jun 02 PC The Silver Beetles play The Institute, Neston, Wirral UK 1960 Jun 06 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, Wirral with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jun 11 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, Wirral with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jun 13 B Tommy Moore leaves The Silver Beetles UK 1960 Jun 13 PC The Silver Beetles play the Jacaranda again UK 1960 Jun 18 L McCartney's 18th birthday UK 1960 Jun 18 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jun 25 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jul 02 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jul 09 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jul 16 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jul 23 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard, with Gerry & the Pacemakers UK 1960 Jul 30 PC The Silver Beetles play at the Grosvenor Ballroom, Liscard with Gerry & the Pacemakers again. Further shows at the venue are cancelled due to complaints by locals about noise pollution UK 1960 Aug 12 B Best is hired as drummer for the The Silver Beetles UK 1960 Aug 17 B The Silver Beetles change their name to The Beatles UK 1960 Aug 17 PC The Beatles play at the Indra Club in Hamburg for the first time. They play here for the next 48 days GER 1960 Oct 03 PC The Beatles are moved to the Kaiserkeller after complaints about the noise at the Indra Club. They play here, alongside Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, for the next 58 days GER 1960 Oct 15 S At the Akustic Studio in Hamburg, McCartney, Lennon and Harrison perform on a demonstration tape for Lu Walters of Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. Hurricanes drummer Starr plays for this session, the first time the final lineup of The Beatles records together. "Summertime" is taped, and possibly "Fever" and "September Song." None of the recordings is known to have survived. GER 1960 Nov 21 O Harrison is deported from Hamburg for being under 18 and lacking a work permit. The Beatles continue without him GER 1960 Dec 01 O McCartney and Best are deported from Hamburg after being accused of arson GER 1960 Dec 10 O Lennon returns from Hamburg GER 1960 Dec 27 PC The Beatles play at Litherland Town Hall, Liverpool UK 1960 Dec 31 PC The Beatles give a New Year's Eve performance at the Casbah Club UK

Dendodge _T\^C 15:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to mark the divisions. A thinner border might work, too, but that's splitting hairs. While some less-attentive editors might forget to add or move the {{The Beatles timeline rule}} when making an edit that requires it, someone else can fix it easily. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Update - I added {{The Beatles timeline rule}} to the article. Now that I have (sigh), I think we might implement it differently. We could add a parameter to the {{The Beatles timeline event}} to trigger the addition of a rule or separator row, perhaps "period=text", i.e., "|period=December" or "|period=1948". Using it for months in the 1960 table:

Extended content

Date T Event L November 1960 Nov 21 O Harrison is deported from Hamburg for being under 18 and lacking a work permit. The Beatles continue without him GER December 1960 Dec 01 O McCartney and Best are deported from Hamburg after being accused of arson GER 1960 Dec 10 O Lennon returns from Hamburg GER 1960 Dec 27 PC The Beatles play at Litherland Town Hall, Liverpool UK 1960 Dec 31 PC The Beatles give a New Year's Eve performance at the Casbah Club UK

This is quite a bit different from the thin separator, but it makes it clear why the separation is there. It interferes with the table structure a bit, but not as much as the rowspans from earlier versions. What do you think? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, by this point, could we not do something like the following? (Less fancy, text-based mock-up to make simple point):

Extended content
November 1960 21 Harrison is deported from Hamburg for being under 18 and lacking a work permit. The Beatles continue without him December 1960 01 McCartney and Best are deported from Hamburg after being accused of arson 10 Lennon returns from Hamburg 27 The Beatles play at Litherland Town Hall, Liverpool 31 The Beatles give a New Year's Eve performance at the Casbah Club

(outdent) I think having the date on each line serves a purpose: it makes the date easy to find and unambiguous. The other entries (either the rules or the text) are there for different reasons: they help when scanning the list, giving the user an indication that something has changed. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with rules or the |period=—they both work for me. The |period= is clearer and less ambiguous, but is, IMO, less aesthetically pleasing. Dendodge _T\^C 16:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about it but FWIW I think ease of finding can also be helped by reduction in content, and I think all three ways bring the same enhancement of visual structure that helps the user know when something's changed. With the full date repeated on each row, I prefer the rules to the "period" rows. PL290 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my turn. How about this:

Extended content
Date T Event L 2009 November 2009 Nov 01 0 The Beatles were the world's greatest musical act of the 1960s. UK

I don't know, just though I'd throw my .02¢ in, too. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

For me, effectively the same as John's, so my vote is still for the rules. PL290 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I actually like it just how it is. Guess I got used to it. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

One long table?

The timeline could be a single long table that is not split by years or decades. That would increase the utility of the sorting because you could then sort by type to see all the life events together, all the band membership changes together, etc.

We could combine that with a special form of the table of contents (ToC) where you could still jump from the top of the article to a particular decade or year. The table would have anchors in it that act as targets for the ToC entries. You can see a similar effect on List of The Beatles songs where there is a compact alphabetic ToC at the top of the article and you can click one of the letters to scroll to the first song that begins with "G", etc.

Comments? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's always useful to explore sorting possibilities, but in this case I don't personally think there's much to be gained and it's clearer without. I'm not absolutely dead against it, but I think it may be best for this timeline to keep it in separate tables, with no sorting, and have a single date column. Anything else risks reducing clarity and producing confusing effects, such as when the anchor navigation's used after changing the sort order. A couple of other suggestions for this melting-pot: the single-year tables could possibly use a template that suppresses the year display, since the year's in the table title, especially now we have the ability to try that out without changing/losing a lot of data; and a 1970 table might not be a bad idea. All just ideas, but those are my thoughts at the moment. PL290 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK--let's leave it as separate tables for now. I prefer to see 1970 as entries in "1970s" because "1970" as one table and "other years in the 1970s" as another seems awkward even with a better name for the latter table. We can revisit that when/if we add more entries in that decade.

If we turn off sorting--and it appears we agree about that--then I think we ought to have a single date column. That keeps the tables consistent in terms of the number of columns and that makes it easier to scan the page.

I'll do some date experiments soon so you can see how the article looks with a single date column and no sorting options. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Beatles wives

Might we include info on the other girls aside from Cynthia?!... Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it now. I think I can remember all their names... Dendodge _T\^C 09:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I did the births of all the wives (I think) and Jane Asher. I will now add marriages, divorces, and deaths. Dendodge _T\^C 09:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Done those. I have to go out now, and won't be back for at least a couple of hours, but I'll do children when I get back, if nobody else beats me to it. Dendodge _T\^C 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Done all the children's births now. Dendodge _T\^C 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

DenDodge, should Sean's half-sister be included, too? Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about whether to include Kyoko or not, since she was never the daughter of any of The Beatles (John never formally adopted her, I don't think, unlike Paul with Heather), but I don't mind. If you want to do it, by all means to so. I'm going to be very busy this month, so I probably won't be able to edit very often, and the chances are that I'll forget. Dendodge _T\^C 15:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

By including Heather, I think we should include Kyoko, then that way not only do we have all of The Beatles' children listed, but also that of the wives, too. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. I'll do it if nobody else has by the next time I have chance, but I can't promise anything. Dendodge _T\^C 16:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done it. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Barbara never had Ringo's children as Maureen did, so it's not necessary to include Barbara's children from her previous marriage here. Kyoko and Heather are listed, as they are half-sisters to the other Beatles children. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Barbara Bach has been going by "Barbara Starkey" for some time (see, for example, press coverage of her appearance with Yoko and Olivia at the Glamour awards, Nov. '09). I added "(later Starkey)" to her birth date entry, but someone removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpwauk (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. I couldn't find any evidence that she changed her name. I'm not against you adding it back. Please cite the source. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I'm getting an error message for my citation. I'll appreciate your help. A secondary reference would be "BBC News, 28 August, 2006, “Horse Breaks Ringo’s Wife’s Leg”". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpwauk (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kingsway Club

This red-link date-listed as 1962 Feb 05 should be de-linked, should it not?!... Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I took care of this.

Just a thought

I noticed that a lot of the items listed as "Other" could be made into a new category for "Business". Other things would fit, too, like the founding of Apple Records. What does anyone think? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Beat Brothers

In the timeline of single releases, it says The Beatles were called "The Beat Boys" when backing Tony Sheridan when in fact it should be "The Beat Brothers". Can somebody please fix this? I realise its a picture. Perhaps the picture could be replaced by something better. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul McCartney died in 1966

see Paul is dead article... (without that all timeline will be meaningless!) Böri (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Final concert August 29, 1966, Candlestick park

I think this should be included in the timeline.

http://www.beatlesbible.com/1966/08/29/candlestick-park-san-francisco-final-concert/

37.210.177.223 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Mark Crane

Recording sessions

I've added the start and end of album/single recording sessions in timeline. See 1966. What is your opinion on this ? Poirier2000 (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yesteday movie

In my opinion, this film should not be in timeline...Many other films were shot « about » the Beatles (Across the Universe (film), I Wanna Hold Your Hand (film), etc.) which should not be included.... I deleted change. Redo if you feel I'm wrong but do open a discussion ! JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

First North American single

I found and added this :

|- |1963 |Feb |18 |style="font-size:x-small;background:purple; color: white"|RS |align="left"|"Love Me Do" / "P.S. I Love You" released by Capitol Records of Canada, the first Beatles single published in North America. |style="font-size:x-small;background:#888;"|CAN

...then I saw I was contradicting this :

|- |1963 |Feb |07 |style="font-size:x-small;background:purple; color: white"|RS |align="left"|"Please Please Me" / "Ask Me Why" released by Vee-Jay Records. |style="font-size:x-small;background:black; color: white"|US

The latter's date should read Feb 25 according to Joe Goodden (https://www.beatlesbible.com/discography/united-states-of-america/2/) but Lewishon is usually right. Whoever has the book, please confirm or correct the timeline. Thanks JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Typo or not?

In the first paragraph of 1959, Ringo’s name is Ritchie Starkey, instead of Richard Starkey. Is that a typo or is there a reason it’s like that? Wanted to make sure before I change it. Scooch Cubing (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie is his nickname, Richard is his name. It should be the latter. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Color code RB

I've added « Book release » in the purple section to include Hunter Davies' biography, Anthology and the Get Back books, but the purple box appears white. I do not know why. Should we include Mark Lewishon's titles or Paul McC's The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present ? Does anyone oppose this new category ? JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Self-published and other non-reliable sources

I've just added a tag to the top of the article. I don't believe I've ever seen this page before, but it seems extraordinary (given the wealth of books dedicated to the Beatles) that it relies so heavily on the likes of The Beatles Bible, beatlesbooks.com and Discogs. Those are either self-published or user-generated. I've used rarebeatles.com once or twice, but only when there's a recognised Beatles authority like Matt Hurwitz contributing. I'd also be surprised if How Stuff Works is considered reliable. JG66 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The Beatles Cartoon Series Premiered on ABC, September, 25, 1965.

Could be added Acorrector (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)