Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
Beatles for Sale is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently up for Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
In a 2 to 0 decision, this article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of ' What is a Good Article?', which states;
LuciferMorgan 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:
Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...as described by some as mainly Lennon's work... By whom?
Both Lennon and McCartney have referred to this song as completely co-written.
I think their accounts carry slightly more weight than those of some unnamed someone's. -- 84.208.224.234 ( talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence doesn't make sense.
The reason for this was due to a union rule stating that either new had to be made for overseas albums or the original cover was to be photographed
Is it saying that a new cover was needed? Myrvin ( talk) 08:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The article states the first three tracks "are sometimes referred to as the "Lennon Trilogy," I have never once heard this before. Who sometimes refers to them as this? Is there a citation needed? Thanks! Airproofing ( talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{ Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
-- CactusBot ( talk) 09:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the original song " I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" does not have its own subsection. The previous edit includes a passage which does not belong in the overview section and is more appropriate for the song's subsection if there is one. Can someone put it in? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 10:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Beatles for Sale → Beatles For Sale – According to The Beatles' official site, not to mention the album cover itself, this is the correct spelling. Article was moved from correct spelling in 2003 without explanation. Radiopathy •talk• 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
1. The first word and last word in the title.
2. All other words except for:
* Coordinating conjunctions - and, but, or, nor.
* Prepositions shorter than five characters - Not okay: of, to, in, for, on, over, with, than; Okay: Through, About, During, Until
* Articles - an, a, the.
* The word to in infinitives." Dohn joe ( talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
As of Aug 11, 2014, the section "Overview begins as follows:
"The Beatles began their first studio session for Beatles for Sale on 8 June 1964, only seven days after their last session for A Hard Day's Night."
I have no idea where this date and assertion comes from. Almost all sources I have seen place the Beatles on a world tour starting on June 4th and not returning until June 30th.
Furthermore, Ian McDonald, Mark Lewisohn, and "Recording the Beatles" all list the first recording session for this album (Baby's in Black) taking place on August 11, 1964. Additionally this same Wikipedia article supports the Aug. 11 date in a later section (Writing and recording -- Background)
I do not feel fluent enough in adding accuracy tags to articles to do so, but I feel at best the article ought to be corrected by a better Beatles scholar than myself, and at the least a "disputed" tag ought to be inserted at this sentence -- wish I had the confidence to do so myself.
UPDATE: I've taught myself how to use the "dubious" tag and applied it -- hope I've done it all correctly.
UPDATE 2: Versions of this article prior to Sept 2, 2008 would appear to describe a timeframe that is roughly correct ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=234558898). On Sept 2, the article was updated with a claim of "six days" by an unregistered user without any explanatory comment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=235734113)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
146.115.179.142 (
talk)
01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, could someone please fix this? The article itself now says: "The Beatles began their first studio session for Beatles for Sale on 8 June 1964, only seven days after their last session for A Hard Day's Night..." While in the Writing and Recording section is says: "Recording for the album began on 11 August, just one month after the release of A Hard Day's Night..." Neither of which is sourced. Please correct! 70.91.35.27 ( talk) 20:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Tim
The title announcing this non-existent medley did appear only on a later pressings of this album, due to an intervention of Venice Music, being an interested party (see
Notes here). But actually nor Little Richard, neither The Beatles did never perform this so-called medley, them did perform "Kansas City".
There is
the chronology of recordings by Little Richard and their releases:
September 13, 1955: "Kansas City", at least two takes. This first version was very close to the original song by Leiber & Stoller, but was first released only in 1971 (take 2 of this version, which runs 2:16).
November 29, 1955: "Kansas City", at least eight takes. This second version, very different from the first one (in particular, including a refrain starting by the words "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey") was first released in March 1959 (it runs 2:37).
May 9, 1956: "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", at least eight takes. This song, having not to do with "Kansas City" (except a title and verse similar to the refrain of "Kansas City" 2nd version) was released in January 1958.
So none of versions of "Kansas City", both recorded by Little Richard in autumn 1955, can be a medley with "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", recorded a half of year later.
January 1958:
Single Specialty 624 "Good Golly Miss Molly" backed by "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" is released.
March 1959:
Album "The Fabulous Little Richard" (Specialty LP-2104) including "Kansas City" (2nd version) is released.
April 1959:
Single Specialty 664 "Kansas City" (same 2nd version) is released.
No "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" on title of song, no "medley", the title is simply "Kansas City".
However, as "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" was released more than a year before "Kansas City", it was considered as preceding "Kansas City". That "inverse chronology", together with a similarity of the word "Hey" repeated four times in both songs, created a mistake.
This obvious mistake, being created accidentally or intentionally, should be fixed.
RocknRollArchivist ( talk) 21:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Beatles for Sale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beatles for Sale/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.
Article requirements: All the start class criteria |
Last edited at 04:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
In Tim Riley's Tell Me Why (p. 118), he writes: "If Magical Mystery Tour demonstrates the limits of rock psychedelia, the country excursion of Beatles for Sale says something about how the Beatles view rock's antecedents." Ian MacDonald, in Revolution in the Head (2005 edn, p. 129), says of "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party": "this is the group's most overt exercise in country-and-western on an album dominated by the idiom." I'm thinking that these statements are sufficient to have country music added to the genre field – anyone disagree? JG66 ( talk) 03:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Beatles for Sale. 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) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Ian MacDonald claimed in his book that Paul McCartney played acoustic guitar on "I'll Follow the Sun", but he didn't always get his line-ups right, and even Paul himself has questioned the accuracy of Revolution in the Head.
According to this page [1], Paul bought his Epiphone Texan acoustic guitar in December 1964 and this coincided with the purchase of his Epiphone Casino, so I don't have any proof that he actually played guitar on any of the first four albums - as in six-string guitar, not bass guitar.
I've also read that in the talk page for the article on "I'll Follow the Sun" on Beatles Bible that there was actually no acoustic lead guitar at all. 203.219.44.252 ( talk) 12:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
Beatles for Sale is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently up for Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
In a 2 to 0 decision, this article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of ' What is a Good Article?', which states;
LuciferMorgan 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:
Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
...as described by some as mainly Lennon's work... By whom?
Both Lennon and McCartney have referred to this song as completely co-written.
I think their accounts carry slightly more weight than those of some unnamed someone's. -- 84.208.224.234 ( talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence doesn't make sense.
The reason for this was due to a union rule stating that either new had to be made for overseas albums or the original cover was to be photographed
Is it saying that a new cover was needed? Myrvin ( talk) 08:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The article states the first three tracks "are sometimes referred to as the "Lennon Trilogy," I have never once heard this before. Who sometimes refers to them as this? Is there a citation needed? Thanks! Airproofing ( talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{ Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
-- CactusBot ( talk) 09:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the original song " I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" does not have its own subsection. The previous edit includes a passage which does not belong in the overview section and is more appropriate for the song's subsection if there is one. Can someone put it in? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 10:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Beatles for Sale → Beatles For Sale – According to The Beatles' official site, not to mention the album cover itself, this is the correct spelling. Article was moved from correct spelling in 2003 without explanation. Radiopathy •talk• 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
1. The first word and last word in the title.
2. All other words except for:
* Coordinating conjunctions - and, but, or, nor.
* Prepositions shorter than five characters - Not okay: of, to, in, for, on, over, with, than; Okay: Through, About, During, Until
* Articles - an, a, the.
* The word to in infinitives." Dohn joe ( talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
As of Aug 11, 2014, the section "Overview begins as follows:
"The Beatles began their first studio session for Beatles for Sale on 8 June 1964, only seven days after their last session for A Hard Day's Night."
I have no idea where this date and assertion comes from. Almost all sources I have seen place the Beatles on a world tour starting on June 4th and not returning until June 30th.
Furthermore, Ian McDonald, Mark Lewisohn, and "Recording the Beatles" all list the first recording session for this album (Baby's in Black) taking place on August 11, 1964. Additionally this same Wikipedia article supports the Aug. 11 date in a later section (Writing and recording -- Background)
I do not feel fluent enough in adding accuracy tags to articles to do so, but I feel at best the article ought to be corrected by a better Beatles scholar than myself, and at the least a "disputed" tag ought to be inserted at this sentence -- wish I had the confidence to do so myself.
UPDATE: I've taught myself how to use the "dubious" tag and applied it -- hope I've done it all correctly.
UPDATE 2: Versions of this article prior to Sept 2, 2008 would appear to describe a timeframe that is roughly correct ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=234558898). On Sept 2, the article was updated with a claim of "six days" by an unregistered user without any explanatory comment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=235734113)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
146.115.179.142 (
talk)
01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, could someone please fix this? The article itself now says: "The Beatles began their first studio session for Beatles for Sale on 8 June 1964, only seven days after their last session for A Hard Day's Night..." While in the Writing and Recording section is says: "Recording for the album began on 11 August, just one month after the release of A Hard Day's Night..." Neither of which is sourced. Please correct! 70.91.35.27 ( talk) 20:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Tim
The title announcing this non-existent medley did appear only on a later pressings of this album, due to an intervention of Venice Music, being an interested party (see
Notes here). But actually nor Little Richard, neither The Beatles did never perform this so-called medley, them did perform "Kansas City".
There is
the chronology of recordings by Little Richard and their releases:
September 13, 1955: "Kansas City", at least two takes. This first version was very close to the original song by Leiber & Stoller, but was first released only in 1971 (take 2 of this version, which runs 2:16).
November 29, 1955: "Kansas City", at least eight takes. This second version, very different from the first one (in particular, including a refrain starting by the words "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey") was first released in March 1959 (it runs 2:37).
May 9, 1956: "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", at least eight takes. This song, having not to do with "Kansas City" (except a title and verse similar to the refrain of "Kansas City" 2nd version) was released in January 1958.
So none of versions of "Kansas City", both recorded by Little Richard in autumn 1955, can be a medley with "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", recorded a half of year later.
January 1958:
Single Specialty 624 "Good Golly Miss Molly" backed by "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" is released.
March 1959:
Album "The Fabulous Little Richard" (Specialty LP-2104) including "Kansas City" (2nd version) is released.
April 1959:
Single Specialty 664 "Kansas City" (same 2nd version) is released.
No "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" on title of song, no "medley", the title is simply "Kansas City".
However, as "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" was released more than a year before "Kansas City", it was considered as preceding "Kansas City". That "inverse chronology", together with a similarity of the word "Hey" repeated four times in both songs, created a mistake.
This obvious mistake, being created accidentally or intentionally, should be fixed.
RocknRollArchivist ( talk) 21:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Beatles for Sale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beatles for Sale/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.
Article requirements: All the start class criteria |
Last edited at 04:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
In Tim Riley's Tell Me Why (p. 118), he writes: "If Magical Mystery Tour demonstrates the limits of rock psychedelia, the country excursion of Beatles for Sale says something about how the Beatles view rock's antecedents." Ian MacDonald, in Revolution in the Head (2005 edn, p. 129), says of "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party": "this is the group's most overt exercise in country-and-western on an album dominated by the idiom." I'm thinking that these statements are sufficient to have country music added to the genre field – anyone disagree? JG66 ( talk) 03:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Beatles for Sale. 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) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Ian MacDonald claimed in his book that Paul McCartney played acoustic guitar on "I'll Follow the Sun", but he didn't always get his line-ups right, and even Paul himself has questioned the accuracy of Revolution in the Head.
According to this page [1], Paul bought his Epiphone Texan acoustic guitar in December 1964 and this coincided with the purchase of his Epiphone Casino, so I don't have any proof that he actually played guitar on any of the first four albums - as in six-string guitar, not bass guitar.
I've also read that in the talk page for the article on "I'll Follow the Sun" on Beatles Bible that there was actually no acoustic lead guitar at all. 203.219.44.252 ( talk) 12:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
References