![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
When I type "Red Album", it sends me to the Beatles album page and I really think that it should send me to the King Crimson's album "Red", because it's much more likely that when someone types "Red Album", this person wants to go to the page of the album called "Red", not to a "best of" album, the is not even called "Red". I don't know how to change the redirection, but someone else could do it. The Chicken 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that a Beatles Greatest Hits list is extremely difficult, but they could've at least thrown in well known songs Do You Want To Know A Secret (a #2 hit) and I Saw Her Standing There. Both are very well known and often requested. Retromaniac
Those songs weren't included since those tracks were only released as singles in the U.S., not in the U.K. Jason 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I bet the source that says Klein picked the songs (cite 1) might give an explanation for his choices. DC T• C 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I know it says rock and roll here, but the red album really does sound very teeny-popish. My music collection only has room for single genres (as in rock or pop, not rock/pop), so which one is it really? JayKeaton 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's rock The Chicken 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition to three items I tagged as {{ Fact}} that appear to contradict what I can verify about the album, the table smacks of OR, and even then, some of the info in the table is incorrect.
As far as I can determine, both 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were compiled by Allan Steckler, an employee of ABKCO (Allen Klein's company), which at that time was managing Apple Records in the United States. The Beatles had no involvement whatsoever with any aspect of the albums. Indeed, they came out in the United States about two weeks before their UK release. Also, the two albums were compiled, at least in part, as a response to a heavily promoted bootleg, The Beatles Alpha Omega, a 4-record, 4-tape set that came out in 1972 and was even advertised on television in the U.S.; the boot's availabiliy made the point that there was no true "greatest hits" collection of the Beatles available in America at that time. Cheemo 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the claim that the Beatles chose the colour red for this album to show support for Liverpool F.C. Aside from the fact the other album is blue so we might as well suggest that indicates that they must be Evertonians, it's unsourced and extremely unlikely to be true. There has been a request for a source and none has been provided. In fact, there is no source for the claim that the Beatles helped select the tracks or helped with the album design at all (I seem to remember reading that McCartney did but not the others, though they may have done I suppose). Forgive me if I am wrong, but the suggestion that the Beatles picked red to show support for LFC sounds as though it's been made up by a Liverpool fan who either assumes this is the case or would like others to think it is. Some Liverpool fans like to proclaim that the Beatles were keen Liverpool supporters when in fact there is no evidence for this and almost certainly no truth to in it whatsover, and it's interesting that the contributer in question did not go over to 1967-1970 to make any similar reference to the choice of the colour blue indicating the Beatles' affection for Everton FC. Fact is, only one of the Beatles were even remotely interested in football (McCartney) and strictly speaking, he is an Evertonian (although he maintains he supports both clubs). Ringo, according to the Guardian, is an Arsenal fan. Neither George or John had any interest in football whatsoever and it is unknown which if any team they favoured, even there families don't know, although Harrison did seem to imply once that he supported Tranmere Rovers rather than Everton or Liverpool (Lennon added a Liverpool player, Albert Stubbins, to the Sgt. Pepper cover but later said he only did so because he knew he was his father's favourite player and that he himself actually knew nothing about Stubbs). There is a remote possibility that if the group were involved in the album's design that they may have chose red and blue in reference to the two Merseyside football clubs, but if it is so there should be a source for this and it should be made clear that this was not a show of support for one club over the other, which gives a false impression (whether intended or not). MarkB79 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, anonymous user here. I found out about a 4-LP set called "Alpha Omega" that was a Beatles compilation sold through infomercials back in 1972 that supposedly got EMI to compile the hits onto "1962-1966" and "1967-1970". But some people claim that the "Alpha Omega" set was withdrawn from the markets since it wasn't legitimate.
Does anyone else know about this? -- 76.214.41.70 ( talk) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that name for this album is actually "The Red Album". They did not put "The Red Album" on the cover as it was obvious. They did the same wih 1967 - 1970. If this is the case, the articles will need to be ajusted. Sco1996 | I will respond. 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting how most Beatles songs on the 1962-1966, 1967-1970 and 1 greatest hits albums are in release or single release order. But for some reason I Want to Hold Your Hand is placed before All My Loving, yet All My Loving was recorded and released before I Want to Hold Your Hand. C.Syde ( talk | contribs)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1962–1966/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
* ![]()
|
Last edited at 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1962–1966. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1962–1966. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1962–1966. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel like having two separate articles for the Red and Blue albums is almost redundant, especially as they contain a lot of the same text. Lemonzingertea ( talk) 20:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
After the recent announcement of the deluxe version of the red and blue albums, I felt it was suitable to add the deluxe track list to the Wikipedia page. Apparently it wasn't suitable as it did not fit the rules described in WP:ALTTRACKLISTING. The two rules described here are "when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response." While I can concede that the second requirement may not be fully met, the first absolutely is. The deluxe version has an entire vinyl record of bonus content which is not included on the original album, which I'd say is significant. The deluxe red album is also described in the page, matching the second condition. Under the sub-section devoted to the release, it says:
"On 26 October 2023, it was announced that the album, along with its counterpart, would be re-released on 10 November 2023, this time with an expanded track listing. Thirty out of the 38 songs on the album would receive a new stereo mix, the remaining eight using mixes from the Revolver: Special Edition set. While this version will be released on both vinyl and CD, the track listings on the two formats vary."
This I believe to be enough commentary to count, as it describes the announcement itself, the mixes used, and the formats of release. I suspect this rule may have been put in place to stop loads of different versions of single releases being listed (different remixes, b-sides etc.), but rules are rules and I can't argue with them. While this text is not present on the blue album page, it could be easily lifted over with some minor adjustments.
And finally, when it was removed, the other reason mentioned was to not "bloat the tracklisting section with something better covered in the body". Apart from the fact this isn't even in the rules, the byte size of a page shouldn't really matter. Secondly, I don't understand how it would be "better covered in the body", as in the case of the red album, it's 12 new tracks, and the only options I see for describing them in the body is just writing out the new tracks, like a track list, or just not mentioning them at all.
If the reason for their removal is because of the lack of description, I will be more than happy to add a thorough description to the page, if it hasn't already been done by someone else. Otherwise, I'd like proper reasoning for the removal.
Tedster41 ( talk) 09:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Since it's been about three weeks since this debate started, I'd like to lay down my arguments to try and bring this to a close somehow. I'm not backing down on my points, I just feel it's silly I've been arguing them for this long.
To start, I'm going to quote that very same rule that's been quoted time and time again here. According to WP:ALTTRACKLISTING, you can include track lists of "alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response."
So, how does my argument fare against this rule? Well, let's first look at the actual page's section on the topic. Over 600 words, discussion on release date, mixes, and most prominently, reviews. The example given in WP:ALTTRACKLISTING is "information about recording and critical response." Information about recording is the mixes used, so discussing how most tracks had entirely new mixes from Giles Martin, and how those on Revolver, including the new Revolver tracks, use the 2022 Mix for that album. As for reviews, there are reviews from four different outlets and an interview with Giles Martin. And, this all makes it the largest body section in the article. That's pretty extensive if you ask me.
Another point I'd like to raise is that while there have been comparisons to Rubber Soul on how the rule should be used, this page is not Rubber Soul. That's a major studio album, this is a compilation made by EMI as a cash-grab. Rubber Soul is much longer than this, with a legacy section and everything. This page is much smaller, and should not be compared to Rubber Soul. Besides, something being "discussed extensively in Beatles literature" does not immediately classify it as passing this rule. If there is a point in the rules that says, "If it's discussed lots outside Wikipedia it's fine", please let me know, as you might have a different copy to mine.
One thing that's demonstrated throughout this section of the talk page, is people are expecting to see the track list. Just look at the reply above mine, someone literally coming to the page to check the track list, only to find it not there. Multiple people since this debate started have attempted to add it themselves, as they also believe that it should be here. People expect Wikipedia to have this information, so why doesn't it?
And as a reminder, this is one extra vinyl record. An extra 1,000 bytes to a page with nearly 46,000. What difference does it really make? The people want it, it's alright according to the rules, so why isn't it there? This is an update to arguably the most beloved Beatles compilation, and surely an update with such a large section describing it, a whole table of how well it charted across the globe, and even a note in the introduction, surely that would qualify to have a track list. But no. Apparently not. At this point, I think this has gone from a debate to a petty argument. The largest section on this page is discussing this new version, but apparently that's not enough to qualify for a track list. What more do you want? Tedster41 ( talk) 12:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This section says "EMI announced on 10 August 2010, that the album had been remastered for a second time and..." Having both "remastered" and "second time" seems redundant, or at least confusing. As far as the CDs, these are the second mastering for CD of the first remastering for CD, right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The 2023 remix of "Love Me Do" sounds to me like the one with Ringo on drums, rather than the more common version.. Can anyone confirm this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
Here are the certifications of 1962-1966
in the United States (RIAA) : 15× Platinum 15,000,000
and
1967-1970
17× Platinum 8,500,000
Both albums were originally double albums published on the same day.
How the 1967-1970 US sales (8,500,000) can be lower than the 1962-1966 US sales 15,000,000 whereas the former was granted more RIAA certifications : 17 platinum versus 15 platinum ?
Something is clearly incoherent. Carlo Colussi ( talk) 12:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
When I type "Red Album", it sends me to the Beatles album page and I really think that it should send me to the King Crimson's album "Red", because it's much more likely that when someone types "Red Album", this person wants to go to the page of the album called "Red", not to a "best of" album, the is not even called "Red". I don't know how to change the redirection, but someone else could do it. The Chicken 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that a Beatles Greatest Hits list is extremely difficult, but they could've at least thrown in well known songs Do You Want To Know A Secret (a #2 hit) and I Saw Her Standing There. Both are very well known and often requested. Retromaniac
Those songs weren't included since those tracks were only released as singles in the U.S., not in the U.K. Jason 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I bet the source that says Klein picked the songs (cite 1) might give an explanation for his choices. DC T• C 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I know it says rock and roll here, but the red album really does sound very teeny-popish. My music collection only has room for single genres (as in rock or pop, not rock/pop), so which one is it really? JayKeaton 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's rock The Chicken 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition to three items I tagged as {{ Fact}} that appear to contradict what I can verify about the album, the table smacks of OR, and even then, some of the info in the table is incorrect.
As far as I can determine, both 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were compiled by Allan Steckler, an employee of ABKCO (Allen Klein's company), which at that time was managing Apple Records in the United States. The Beatles had no involvement whatsoever with any aspect of the albums. Indeed, they came out in the United States about two weeks before their UK release. Also, the two albums were compiled, at least in part, as a response to a heavily promoted bootleg, The Beatles Alpha Omega, a 4-record, 4-tape set that came out in 1972 and was even advertised on television in the U.S.; the boot's availabiliy made the point that there was no true "greatest hits" collection of the Beatles available in America at that time. Cheemo 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the claim that the Beatles chose the colour red for this album to show support for Liverpool F.C. Aside from the fact the other album is blue so we might as well suggest that indicates that they must be Evertonians, it's unsourced and extremely unlikely to be true. There has been a request for a source and none has been provided. In fact, there is no source for the claim that the Beatles helped select the tracks or helped with the album design at all (I seem to remember reading that McCartney did but not the others, though they may have done I suppose). Forgive me if I am wrong, but the suggestion that the Beatles picked red to show support for LFC sounds as though it's been made up by a Liverpool fan who either assumes this is the case or would like others to think it is. Some Liverpool fans like to proclaim that the Beatles were keen Liverpool supporters when in fact there is no evidence for this and almost certainly no truth to in it whatsover, and it's interesting that the contributer in question did not go over to 1967-1970 to make any similar reference to the choice of the colour blue indicating the Beatles' affection for Everton FC. Fact is, only one of the Beatles were even remotely interested in football (McCartney) and strictly speaking, he is an Evertonian (although he maintains he supports both clubs). Ringo, according to the Guardian, is an Arsenal fan. Neither George or John had any interest in football whatsoever and it is unknown which if any team they favoured, even there families don't know, although Harrison did seem to imply once that he supported Tranmere Rovers rather than Everton or Liverpool (Lennon added a Liverpool player, Albert Stubbins, to the Sgt. Pepper cover but later said he only did so because he knew he was his father's favourite player and that he himself actually knew nothing about Stubbs). There is a remote possibility that if the group were involved in the album's design that they may have chose red and blue in reference to the two Merseyside football clubs, but if it is so there should be a source for this and it should be made clear that this was not a show of support for one club over the other, which gives a false impression (whether intended or not). MarkB79 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, anonymous user here. I found out about a 4-LP set called "Alpha Omega" that was a Beatles compilation sold through infomercials back in 1972 that supposedly got EMI to compile the hits onto "1962-1966" and "1967-1970". But some people claim that the "Alpha Omega" set was withdrawn from the markets since it wasn't legitimate.
Does anyone else know about this? -- 76.214.41.70 ( talk) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that name for this album is actually "The Red Album". They did not put "The Red Album" on the cover as it was obvious. They did the same wih 1967 - 1970. If this is the case, the articles will need to be ajusted. Sco1996 | I will respond. 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting how most Beatles songs on the 1962-1966, 1967-1970 and 1 greatest hits albums are in release or single release order. But for some reason I Want to Hold Your Hand is placed before All My Loving, yet All My Loving was recorded and released before I Want to Hold Your Hand. C.Syde ( talk | contribs)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1962–1966/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
* ![]()
|
Last edited at 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1962–1966. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1962–1966. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1962–1966. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel like having two separate articles for the Red and Blue albums is almost redundant, especially as they contain a lot of the same text. Lemonzingertea ( talk) 20:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
After the recent announcement of the deluxe version of the red and blue albums, I felt it was suitable to add the deluxe track list to the Wikipedia page. Apparently it wasn't suitable as it did not fit the rules described in WP:ALTTRACKLISTING. The two rules described here are "when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response." While I can concede that the second requirement may not be fully met, the first absolutely is. The deluxe version has an entire vinyl record of bonus content which is not included on the original album, which I'd say is significant. The deluxe red album is also described in the page, matching the second condition. Under the sub-section devoted to the release, it says:
"On 26 October 2023, it was announced that the album, along with its counterpart, would be re-released on 10 November 2023, this time with an expanded track listing. Thirty out of the 38 songs on the album would receive a new stereo mix, the remaining eight using mixes from the Revolver: Special Edition set. While this version will be released on both vinyl and CD, the track listings on the two formats vary."
This I believe to be enough commentary to count, as it describes the announcement itself, the mixes used, and the formats of release. I suspect this rule may have been put in place to stop loads of different versions of single releases being listed (different remixes, b-sides etc.), but rules are rules and I can't argue with them. While this text is not present on the blue album page, it could be easily lifted over with some minor adjustments.
And finally, when it was removed, the other reason mentioned was to not "bloat the tracklisting section with something better covered in the body". Apart from the fact this isn't even in the rules, the byte size of a page shouldn't really matter. Secondly, I don't understand how it would be "better covered in the body", as in the case of the red album, it's 12 new tracks, and the only options I see for describing them in the body is just writing out the new tracks, like a track list, or just not mentioning them at all.
If the reason for their removal is because of the lack of description, I will be more than happy to add a thorough description to the page, if it hasn't already been done by someone else. Otherwise, I'd like proper reasoning for the removal.
Tedster41 ( talk) 09:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Since it's been about three weeks since this debate started, I'd like to lay down my arguments to try and bring this to a close somehow. I'm not backing down on my points, I just feel it's silly I've been arguing them for this long.
To start, I'm going to quote that very same rule that's been quoted time and time again here. According to WP:ALTTRACKLISTING, you can include track lists of "alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response."
So, how does my argument fare against this rule? Well, let's first look at the actual page's section on the topic. Over 600 words, discussion on release date, mixes, and most prominently, reviews. The example given in WP:ALTTRACKLISTING is "information about recording and critical response." Information about recording is the mixes used, so discussing how most tracks had entirely new mixes from Giles Martin, and how those on Revolver, including the new Revolver tracks, use the 2022 Mix for that album. As for reviews, there are reviews from four different outlets and an interview with Giles Martin. And, this all makes it the largest body section in the article. That's pretty extensive if you ask me.
Another point I'd like to raise is that while there have been comparisons to Rubber Soul on how the rule should be used, this page is not Rubber Soul. That's a major studio album, this is a compilation made by EMI as a cash-grab. Rubber Soul is much longer than this, with a legacy section and everything. This page is much smaller, and should not be compared to Rubber Soul. Besides, something being "discussed extensively in Beatles literature" does not immediately classify it as passing this rule. If there is a point in the rules that says, "If it's discussed lots outside Wikipedia it's fine", please let me know, as you might have a different copy to mine.
One thing that's demonstrated throughout this section of the talk page, is people are expecting to see the track list. Just look at the reply above mine, someone literally coming to the page to check the track list, only to find it not there. Multiple people since this debate started have attempted to add it themselves, as they also believe that it should be here. People expect Wikipedia to have this information, so why doesn't it?
And as a reminder, this is one extra vinyl record. An extra 1,000 bytes to a page with nearly 46,000. What difference does it really make? The people want it, it's alright according to the rules, so why isn't it there? This is an update to arguably the most beloved Beatles compilation, and surely an update with such a large section describing it, a whole table of how well it charted across the globe, and even a note in the introduction, surely that would qualify to have a track list. But no. Apparently not. At this point, I think this has gone from a debate to a petty argument. The largest section on this page is discussing this new version, but apparently that's not enough to qualify for a track list. What more do you want? Tedster41 ( talk) 12:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This section says "EMI announced on 10 August 2010, that the album had been remastered for a second time and..." Having both "remastered" and "second time" seems redundant, or at least confusing. As far as the CDs, these are the second mastering for CD of the first remastering for CD, right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The 2023 remix of "Love Me Do" sounds to me like the one with Ringo on drums, rather than the more common version.. Can anyone confirm this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
Here are the certifications of 1962-1966
in the United States (RIAA) : 15× Platinum 15,000,000
and
1967-1970
17× Platinum 8,500,000
Both albums were originally double albums published on the same day.
How the 1967-1970 US sales (8,500,000) can be lower than the 1962-1966 US sales 15,000,000 whereas the former was granted more RIAA certifications : 17 platinum versus 15 platinum ?
Something is clearly incoherent. Carlo Colussi ( talk) 12:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)