This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
The article currently reads: "Starr quit for two weeks, leaving McCartney to play drums on a couple of tracks.[200]"
Hold on... As they were still using four tracks at the time, overdubs were a very definite luxury.-- andreasegde ( talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE IGNORE THIS POLL - IT IS A DISTRACTION TO AVOID THE REAL POLL
There is an ongoing poll here, (Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), which User:GabeMc is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on this page.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is also a request on a mediation page (which User:GabeMc started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished. Check it out.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the mediation page was: "Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", Lord Roem ( talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)]
Because User:GabeMc is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion here. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an edit warring complaint by GabeMc at [1] which is not going GabeMc's way and, the way things are going, it seems the complainer may himself get punished by the admins. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an open mediation taking place
here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current "consensus" here was improperly implemented by User:Andreasegde. The poll that preceded the "triangular diplomacy" implementation was never concluded, as !votes were still coming in when Andreasegde prematurely began a new poll. We need to establish what the current consensus here is by allowing the below straw poll and discussion to run its natural course. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Cambridge and Oxford use lower-case. So does Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on Lennon. Sources that use lower-case: Lewisohn, Harry, Spitz, Gould, Norman, Davies, Everett and others. In fact of my 50+ books on the Beatles, with perhaps one or two exceptions, only those published by Omnibus use upper-case.
The Associated Press Stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals". The MLA Handbook says not to capitalise "the". The Chicago MoS states: "Chicago's preference is for sparing use of capitals—what is sometimes referred to as a "down" style." On page 416 of the sixteenth edition of the Chicago MoS, the work specifically mentions the Beatles, and the MoS states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." The Cambridge Handbook by Butcher, page 241 says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". See Fowler's Modern English Usage page 293, they specifically use "the Beatles". The AP stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals", so does Hart's Rules. Also, The Times and The Guardian both use lower-case "t". ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the" and here is a hand-written letter by McCartney who uses "the Beatles" in running prose and "The Beatles" when written on its own. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 07:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Allmusic uses "the" throughout, as does Rolling Stone. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica online uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
From The World Book Encyclopedia: "Berry was a major influence on later rock performers, including the Beatles and the Rolling Stones." ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
From www.thebeatles.com: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale, the White Album and Yellow Submarine. That's six of their twelve UK studio LPs. Yes, I admit, you can find instances of "The" at the same site, in other album pages, but at most of those album pages you will also find instances of "the". In fact several of the album pages use both, with apparently little logic behind it. The context argument is far too complex IMO. It's metaphysical, and even if there is some truth to it, that solution will lead to uncounted discussions per occurrence exponentially exacerbating the problem. Or we could have a simple Beatles project-wide consensus, or even an article page by article page consensus, either of which would be infinitely easier IMO. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music: Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.
Please indicate below whether you support adhering to this current wikipedia MoS guideline by implementing a consensus here, that prefers "the" over "The" in running prose. Or, please indicate that you oppose adhering to the current wikipedia MoS guideline and instead prefer to use "The" mid-sentence. A third option is to maintain the current consensus here to avoid mid-sentence usage of the band's name. Please include a detailed rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Options
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
From
the British library:
There are many, many more where that came from. Take a look for yourself: ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 06:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please note that request for input by email was made on the
talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as you input to this matter.
99.251.125.65 (
talk) 11:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Johnny and the Hurricanes, a 1959, instrumental rock band from Toledo, Ohio, was listed on this Beatles poster. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.289109337821422&type=1 Toledo turtle 47 ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section, the discography section should contain a simple list of the artist's major works and other information such as sales certifications should go in a separate discography article. Also, I can't think of a more incongruous pairing of information than a list of "original UK LPs" and US record awards. Piriczki ( talk) 13:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the Labels part of the infobox have EMI? Sorry if I'm being clueless, I just thought that George Martin was an EMI producer and the Beatles' greatest albums were EMI albums? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 08:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way to increase the speed of the Beatles wiki page without compromising the content? I've noticed that it's cumbersome to edit; I think improving the loading time would make it friendlier for Wikipedians and casual viewers. Thanks for any suggestions! Littledreamer78 ( talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Why does every rarity and b-side the Beatles ever had have an article? Surely you don't think those songs are notable. If You got Trouble's article may just be one of the most bland and unnecessary articles I've seen on wikipedia. -- Mrmoustache14 ( talk) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
According to this page, the entire gahetNA in het Nationaal Archief archive from The Netherlands has images available under the Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 3.0 Nederland (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. I bring this up because there are 239 Beatles images available, some of which would be invaluable additions to the article. Could someone a little better at navigating through non-English websites confirm this for me? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 04:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where it says "From 1966 on, they produced what many critics consider their finest material, including the innovative and widely influential albums Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles (1968), and Abbey Road (1969)" it should say "From 1965 on" and include the 1965 album " Rubber Soul". Rubber Soul is considered by many critics to be among the 10 best albums of all time and it's odd that it's left out of this statement. Rolling Stone magazine listed it as the 5th greatest album in music history. 66.215.100.114 ( talk) 09:25, 16 September 2012 (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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence could use grammatical repair:
"Moulded into a professional act by manager Brian Epstein, the creativity of producer George Martin enhanced their musical potential."
The initial modifier must be immediately followed by the noun it modifies - specifically, "the Beatles," not "the creativity of..."
68.52.189.176 ( talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (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 band's name 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. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Billy Preston and the Plastic Ono band were removed. I do not see why. The late Billy Preston was the only artist to have been credited for playing Beatles record (Get Back & Don't Let Me Down - The Beatles & Billy Preston). The Beatles appear in Preston's related artists. Why has his credit been removed? And to add to that, the Plastic Ono band featured not one, not two, but THREE former Beatles: Lennon, Starr and Harrison. Surely this qualifies as a related artist? I know WINGS do not appear under related artists due to Wiki Policy, because only Paul being a member; however the Plastic Ono band at one point contained 3/4 of the Beatles. Please can we try and add these back.
I also think it's stupid that Wing's aren't under related artists, but I am not going to argue with Wiki Policy. 86.183.165.50 ( talk) 16:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The Sources section has three broken references with only author-names—"Gould (2004)", "Lewisohn" and "Lewisohn (1991)". Does anybody know how to fix this?— indopug ( talk) 03:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this deserve a mention? See: [5] Apparently The Beatles played there before they played at The Cavern. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This statement is anachronistic and should be removed. Apparently something else significant relating contemporaneously to the March 1963 release of their first album (probably a measure of public reception), is meant to be placed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.54.130 ( talk) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc. Why twelve studio albums? Eleven yes, but Why twelve? -- Roujan ( talk) 20:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc. Thank you for the answer. For me,"Yellow Submarine" was not a real album.(and it's for this reason that "The Beatles are the only act of history with all their original albums which reached number one and the only act of history with the first eleven albums that reaches the first place". (About your sentence "but Yellow Submarine were UK number 1s": single yes, but not 'album'#3) -- Roujan ( talk) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking we should liven up the rather dull and repetitive "1970s, 1980s..." sub-section headers...— indopug ( talk) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need that kind of nonsense here?
My last revert to this page was completely unintended, and is one of many reasons I shouldn't edit from smartphones. Apologies! Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 03:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
In these recent edits made in light of the t/The decision, several quotes have been modified.— indopug ( talk) 07:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how please change in "The Beatles albums footer" "With The Beatles" to "With the Beatles"? I am referring to the footer which appears at the bottom of the individual album navboxes. Thank you.
Hoops gza ( talk) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not the dreaded "past/current members" argument. I propose that we add sections to the musical artist infobox for who influenced the artist and who the artist influenced, just like the writer infobox has. Of course only the most notable artists would have this information in their infobox, and only a handful of artists would go in each section. Hoops gza ( talk) 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
There are numerous punctuation errors in this article (and many others throughout the Wiki), the most of which concern the use of periods and commas with quotation marks. The rule is as follows: Periods and commas should be placed INSIDE the quotation marks. The only exception is if there is a reference to a source, e.g., The author states: "Time alone reveals the just" (p.471).[The period follows the reference to the source of the direct quotation.]
Colons and semicolons are placed OUTSIDE the quotation marks, e.g., She spoke of "the protagonists"; yet I remembered only one in "The Tell-Tale Heart": the mad murderer.
Dashes, question marks, and exclamation points are placed INSIDE the quotation marks when they apply ONLY to the quoted material; place them OUTSIDE when they apply to the whole sentence. Some examples: Pilate asked, "What is truth?" [The question mark applies only to the quoted material.] What is the meaning of the term "half truth"? [The question mark applies to the while sentence.] Grammargirl66 ( talk) 18:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to add to the end of the infobox, below the website link, a link to the Beatles wiki which is here? I've decided to ask on the talk page, instead of logging-in to make the change myself, in case it might not be appropriate; after all, although a resource of Beatle information, the wiki (like most Wikia wikis with only a few exceptions) is in effect a fan site. — 188.28.20.4 ( talk) 13:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see this revert for context on this discussion. A bit of info on the band performing in Hamburg with Little Richard was added by User:Smoovedogg, then removed shortly thereafter by User:Indopug. I agree in principle that substantial additions such as this should be talked through beforehand, that any argument for inclusion based on WP:NOTABILITY is invalid, and that the information in question would likely be more at home at a non-summary article like The Beatles in Hamburg. Colour me a bit perturbed, however, at the lack of any discussion once the decision was made to revert. I think things would move a lot smoother around here if we all did our best to observe D in addition to B and R. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the material in question, though there might be a place for some of it, it does place undue emphasis on Little Richard's involvement in the history of the Beatles. For example, weren't Chuck Berry and Gene Vincent also doing well in the UK at that time? WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone placed them nr. 1 artist of all time. I don't see it being mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.81.204 ( talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help).
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs) 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Being an encyclopedia with a worldwide viewership, why does this article not have any reference to The Beatles being British as opposed to English, or at least added to their origin? (eg. Liverpool, England, United Kingdom - Anyone who says it is obvious that being English is the same as being British is just as bad as any American for instance who assume that they are both the same thing. They were/are a citizen of the UK first and foremost, not England, so I strongly believe this should be reflected in their article. To make another point this wording excludes every other British citizen in in the United Kingdom from having a rightful connection to them if he is being listed as solely English, which is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.49.179 ( talk) 04:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I see this website being referenced on a lot of Beatles and John Lennon related articles and I looks like a fan site rather than a reliable citation. Can you enlighten me on why this is a good source? -- Mrmoustache14 ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Since there are only two "notes" in this article, I think the corresponding section needs only two rows, not four (30em). Plant's Strider ( talk) 07:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Should there be some reference to this calypsonian? He was an early musical influence in Liverpool, played in the same clubs (and managed some of them) and drove the van to Hamburg in 1960. He is briefly mentioned in The Beatles in Hamburg but had a much larger role. -- Ferma ( talk) 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There really isn't much about how the teenagers feel now. There was a study in: Womack, Kenneth (2009). The Cambridge Companion to The Beatles. University of Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. that showed that 34% of 3000 adults hid there past from their 60's childhood to keep respect from friends and family because of the influences of the Beatles. Mousehead50 ( talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Mousehead50
I posted this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, but didn't receive any response there, so I'm also posting here.
Thanks to User:Svick, we now have a Cleanup listing for WikiProject The Beatles. As of 22 January, of the 2781 articles in this project 677 or 24.3% are marked for cleanup, with 1096 issues in total.
Could we come up with a fun way to do this cleanup, such as creating a Beatles barnstar for those editors who do the most cleanup? GoingBatty ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles was ranked as nr. 1 artist of all time in their 100 Greatest Artists list. Could this be mentioned in the article, as the rankings of other artists are very often mentioned in their own articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.81.204 ( talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"They became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music."
What is the completely dependable measuring tool for definitively establishing the level of critical acclaim for all popular music artists in history, by analysing in detail every single review published about each? This claim amounts to mere opinion, since you absolutely cannot prove that an act is the most critically acclaimed in history. Yeah, The Beatles made some great music and took the world by storm, but I can't believe that this kind of hyperbole has made the lede of a so-called "featured article". أنا أحبك ( talk) 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles had reunions in 1973 (on album), 1974, 1979, 1981, and 2000 (on album). Is it okay if I add these to the "years active" part of the infobox??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles won 10 Grammy, no 7, as written in the introduction of the article. Review the list of awards, thanks, bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.43.220 ( talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the beatles are not only the most succesful band they are the most succesful act in history of all time . Their claims reach 1,8 billion sometimes .So we should mention that MJ1982 ( talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should have a long list of genres on the "genre" section in the infobox instead of just "rock, pop." The Beatles musical style has encompassed many genres including Merseybeat, rock and roll, skiffle, pop rock, hard rock, soft rock, folk rock, baroque pop, psychedelic rock, raga rock, experimental, avant-garde, progressive rock, classical, folk, soul, country rock, surf rock, art rock, blues rock, and gospel, and I think that at least some of these should be represented in the "genres" section. I'd change it myself, but there is a comment in the code saying "Please discuss on talk page before changing." Condenser Coil 01:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's plainly dishonest that the term "boy band" is not mentioned once in the whole article. They were as constructed and artificial as any of the boy bands today, and as unpleasant as this might sound to many (including myself), they clearly were the real initiators of the boy band phenomenon. Understanding the past can go a long way in curing the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.120.10 ( talk • contribs)
I think we have established here that The Beatles themselves were not a boy band. As for the influence on later boy bands, there were multiple influences on the boy band phenomenon, including some before The Beatles became a success. I'm not sure that this deserves to be mentioned in every article for every group that had an influence, and if it is mentioned, certainly no more than a few words. But, anon 92.41.21.116, here is a point that has been mentioned repeatedly. Nothing will ever be added to this article (permanently, that is) until there are reliable sources to back it up, and there don't seem to be many editors here willing to find those sources for you. So let me suggest that you first find the sources verifying The Beatles' influence of the boy band phenomenon before pushing this any more. You've made your point, but all of us need to see reliable sources before we decide what goes or doesn't go in the article. For help in finding reliable sources, see WP:RS and WP:V. 15:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just giving some advance warning of edits I intend to do to this article. I'm currently trying to get two releases on the Emporio and Laserlight labels removed from the discography for Desmond Dekker. An editor has refused this on the basis that they are releases associated with the artist. I then disputed that criteria and used this Beatles article to prove that we shouldn't include everything especially budget releases. They are still adamant that its a POV I'm expressing. I feel as though I have no option now but to prove that is not the case and that there is a consensus (tacitly understood) to not include "such" releases. I intend to add these releases to the Legacy section of this Beatles article:
The above are just a small example of acts associated with The Beatles legacy and I will be digging around for a more extensive list to include. If its fine for an article on a reggae artist to have "rubbish" included then it should be ok to include "rubbish" here.
Here's the link to the discussion page of the editor who disputes my removals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michig#Emporio_and_Laserlight_Releases
I'll be searching around the net for actual "budget" Beatles releases (not covers by other groups) so that I can create here the exact conditions as they exist in the Desmond Dekker article. Personally I'd rather not have to do this but since it is the only way to prove my point to Michig I feel as though I have no option. Please except my apology in advance for adding the Pinky and Perky track to the Legacy section.
Sluffs ( talk) 22:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid that you have proved my point. Just the mere suggestion of adding these releases under the rules imposed upon my edits has led to accusations of "pointy" editing. What a load of rubbish. All that's going on here is that I've made a legitimate editing decision based on an admin imposed rule on my edits to the Desmond Dekker article which I hold to be applicable to this article. I'll be reviewing whether its worth doing anymore reggae article or any articles period. Cheers.
Sluffs ( talk) 23:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well actually I've made the decision to stop editing on Wikipedia completely. I cannot justify my role as an editor here because there is no equality in the application of the rules. Its a sad reality that this Beatles article is protected from the inclusion of sub-standard CD releases (ie. Pickwick, Emporio, Laserlight) by editors that will resort to the rules or an over-powering majority consensus to stop these being included and yet I am not allowed to extend the same quality control to the Dekker article. Why is that so? I'm not too sure but I imagine its a "perception issue" with The Beatles article considered of higher importance than the Dekker article and thus has a more quality driven editing team. I mainly work alone on the reggae articles (some have not received "real" edits ie. not bots or auto-fixes in a long time) and I made the decision to remove the Emporio and Laserlight releases (ironically to stop caucasians getting ripped off since reggae fans know which sub-standard releases to avoid which I imagine is exactly why The Beatles editors don't want me to include sub-standard Beatles related releases here). We all want visitors to this site to be pointed to the best versions of the material but Michig (admin) has said that the two albums I removed from the Dekker article are not sub-standard. All that did was show me that Michig doesn't know his "reggae" releases and labels. I imagine if I mentioned Yvonne's Specials he wouldn't have a clue what I was on about though any rasta or sound-system operator would be able to tell you immediately what I was on about. I can't be bothered to fight my corner on this issue and it actually makes my editing position untenable due to the irony that I'm using The Beatles article as a "quality" template in my attempts to bring up reggae and R&B articles to the same quality. If you go to the articles on The Clovers, Ernest Ranglin and Prince Buster (all articles I've turned around from bad to at least passable) and use the history to compare versions you can actually see that I'm using the Beatles article as a quality guide. The Clovers article was a "copy and paste" job from a commercial site. I just spent three week researching and rewriting the whole thing to bring it up to the standard found on The Beatles article. The Clovers article had three or four refs when I started it now has over 40. So sub-standard and "cash-in" releases are not to be included here but its fine for Dekker. If the Emporio or Laserlight releases were essential to the Dekker article to help clarify some point in his career then they should be included but they are not - they are garage forecourt rip-off CDs. Pinky and Perky's superb version of Yellow Submarine is part of The Beatles legacy and should be included here. I know its not and so do most Beatles fans but a 12 year old in Nigeria doesn't. Thats why in nearly a decade of the existence of The Beatles article that every editor has made the POV non-neutral decision to not include Pinky and Perky, Cilla Black (friend of the Beatles that they wrote songs for), Scaffold (Mike McCartney), Hooked on the Beatles (classical versions of Beatles tracks that will be of a very high quality) as examples of the Beatles Legacy to popular culture. When The Beatles article gets the "quality" treatment but I'm not allowed to extend the same consideration to the Dekker article it makes my position here as an editor untenable.
Sluffs ( talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
lol. Oh the live wires are here. I'm on about budget releases on two labels in particular: Emporio and Laserlight. What happened was it widened out and you read far more into it than there is. This is basically a question of fair treatment on all articles. Everyone presumes that Dekker's discography is less important than the holy grail that is The Beatles discography. The Dekker article is his main namespace here on Wikipedia as is The Beatles - this goes out to the world - BBC Music, Google Sidebar, and countless minor wikis and commercial sites link back to these articles. Who the hell are any of you to decide that I as an editor cannot present the Dekker discography in its best light using the original releases (with the exclusion of rubbish budget crap). What makes his article any different from this article. So cut the "we're a clever pair" bull and give me a straight answer to why I have to include budget releases in the Dekker article but its excluded from this article. Whats was that terrible Pickwick Beatles album - the one with the illustration style cover. Stop being smart asses and just be smart. Whats your answer guys.
Sluffs ( talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hold on. Look at the thread title "You Got To Be Batty To Think You Have The Right To Call Others Batty" - sorry wrong title - it says the inclusion of budget releases into The Beatles article. Michig admin has set down a criteria for virtual authority by reverting my removal of the budget releases in the Dekker article under a POV remit. Michig has by his action stated virtual authority (I presume you're not too batty to understand virtual authority) can include budget releases into the main namespace article. Dekker is contemporary with The Beatles and both opened "floodgates" (as nicely stated in the Beatles legacy section): they for singer-songwriter bands and Dekker for Bob Marley and any reggae artist that wished to sing in patois. This is a case of all articles are equal but some more than others. Yeah you're right take it up Michig - he set the criteria. I don't think I will edit this article. I would like to give the Dekker article virtual authority but I'm not going bother with it if its going to include budget releases. Knee jerk reaction coming here but I still hold that your username GoingBatty is a outward directed insult and cowardly directed at other editors that don't fit into your comfort zone and is actually a true representation of how you view others. How does it feel to think you're the only sane person in the world? cheers
Sluffs ( talk) 22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Dekker article already has virtual authority and is linked across the web with the budget releases included. Oh well another example of a poorly represented chapter of African history and the diaspora through slavery. Well he was the descendant of a slave so why present him as anything more than a budget release. Well done Michig. Only a causcasian could justify that.
Sluffs ( talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This thread should really be removed. As it states right at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article." Most of the stuff here has little to do with this article; it seems to be about problems an editor had at another article.— indopug ( talk) 05:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Then you should have been more careful in choosing your username if you wanted to avoid other adults misinterpreting your username as "annoying prat". Indopug wants to know why I'm drawing comparisons between an article that has featured status and one that doesn't that Indopug considers unrelated. I'll have to remember that next time I try to remove "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" from the Reggae article (check edit history) only to have an editor revert my edit saying at the same time in all seriousness that it is an example of a reggae influenced song. Yes quite often you find rastamen at sound-systems discussing the profound influence that "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" had on their lives.
Sluffs ( talk) 11:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
The article currently reads: "Starr quit for two weeks, leaving McCartney to play drums on a couple of tracks.[200]"
Hold on... As they were still using four tracks at the time, overdubs were a very definite luxury.-- andreasegde ( talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE IGNORE THIS POLL - IT IS A DISTRACTION TO AVOID THE REAL POLL
There is an ongoing poll here, (Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), which User:GabeMc is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on this page.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is also a request on a mediation page (which User:GabeMc started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished. Check it out.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the mediation page was: "Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", Lord Roem ( talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)]
Because User:GabeMc is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion here. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an edit warring complaint by GabeMc at [1] which is not going GabeMc's way and, the way things are going, it seems the complainer may himself get punished by the admins. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 12:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an open mediation taking place
here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current "consensus" here was improperly implemented by User:Andreasegde. The poll that preceded the "triangular diplomacy" implementation was never concluded, as !votes were still coming in when Andreasegde prematurely began a new poll. We need to establish what the current consensus here is by allowing the below straw poll and discussion to run its natural course. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Cambridge and Oxford use lower-case. So does Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on Lennon. Sources that use lower-case: Lewisohn, Harry, Spitz, Gould, Norman, Davies, Everett and others. In fact of my 50+ books on the Beatles, with perhaps one or two exceptions, only those published by Omnibus use upper-case.
The Associated Press Stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals". The MLA Handbook says not to capitalise "the". The Chicago MoS states: "Chicago's preference is for sparing use of capitals—what is sometimes referred to as a "down" style." On page 416 of the sixteenth edition of the Chicago MoS, the work specifically mentions the Beatles, and the MoS states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." The Cambridge Handbook by Butcher, page 241 says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". See Fowler's Modern English Usage page 293, they specifically use "the Beatles". The AP stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals", so does Hart's Rules. Also, The Times and The Guardian both use lower-case "t". ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the" and here is a hand-written letter by McCartney who uses "the Beatles" in running prose and "The Beatles" when written on its own. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 07:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Allmusic uses "the" throughout, as does Rolling Stone. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica online uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
From The World Book Encyclopedia: "Berry was a major influence on later rock performers, including the Beatles and the Rolling Stones." ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
From www.thebeatles.com: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale, the White Album and Yellow Submarine. That's six of their twelve UK studio LPs. Yes, I admit, you can find instances of "The" at the same site, in other album pages, but at most of those album pages you will also find instances of "the". In fact several of the album pages use both, with apparently little logic behind it. The context argument is far too complex IMO. It's metaphysical, and even if there is some truth to it, that solution will lead to uncounted discussions per occurrence exponentially exacerbating the problem. Or we could have a simple Beatles project-wide consensus, or even an article page by article page consensus, either of which would be infinitely easier IMO. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music: Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.
Please indicate below whether you support adhering to this current wikipedia MoS guideline by implementing a consensus here, that prefers "the" over "The" in running prose. Or, please indicate that you oppose adhering to the current wikipedia MoS guideline and instead prefer to use "The" mid-sentence. A third option is to maintain the current consensus here to avoid mid-sentence usage of the band's name. Please include a detailed rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Options
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
From
the British library:
There are many, many more where that came from. Take a look for yourself: ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 06:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please note that request for input by email was made on the
talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as you input to this matter.
99.251.125.65 (
talk) 11:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Johnny and the Hurricanes, a 1959, instrumental rock band from Toledo, Ohio, was listed on this Beatles poster. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.289109337821422&type=1 Toledo turtle 47 ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section, the discography section should contain a simple list of the artist's major works and other information such as sales certifications should go in a separate discography article. Also, I can't think of a more incongruous pairing of information than a list of "original UK LPs" and US record awards. Piriczki ( talk) 13:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the Labels part of the infobox have EMI? Sorry if I'm being clueless, I just thought that George Martin was an EMI producer and the Beatles' greatest albums were EMI albums? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 08:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way to increase the speed of the Beatles wiki page without compromising the content? I've noticed that it's cumbersome to edit; I think improving the loading time would make it friendlier for Wikipedians and casual viewers. Thanks for any suggestions! Littledreamer78 ( talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Why does every rarity and b-side the Beatles ever had have an article? Surely you don't think those songs are notable. If You got Trouble's article may just be one of the most bland and unnecessary articles I've seen on wikipedia. -- Mrmoustache14 ( talk) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
According to this page, the entire gahetNA in het Nationaal Archief archive from The Netherlands has images available under the Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 3.0 Nederland (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. I bring this up because there are 239 Beatles images available, some of which would be invaluable additions to the article. Could someone a little better at navigating through non-English websites confirm this for me? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 04:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where it says "From 1966 on, they produced what many critics consider their finest material, including the innovative and widely influential albums Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles (1968), and Abbey Road (1969)" it should say "From 1965 on" and include the 1965 album " Rubber Soul". Rubber Soul is considered by many critics to be among the 10 best albums of all time and it's odd that it's left out of this statement. Rolling Stone magazine listed it as the 5th greatest album in music history. 66.215.100.114 ( talk) 09:25, 16 September 2012 (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. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence could use grammatical repair:
"Moulded into a professional act by manager Brian Epstein, the creativity of producer George Martin enhanced their musical potential."
The initial modifier must be immediately followed by the noun it modifies - specifically, "the Beatles," not "the creativity of..."
68.52.189.176 ( talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (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 band's name 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. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Billy Preston and the Plastic Ono band were removed. I do not see why. The late Billy Preston was the only artist to have been credited for playing Beatles record (Get Back & Don't Let Me Down - The Beatles & Billy Preston). The Beatles appear in Preston's related artists. Why has his credit been removed? And to add to that, the Plastic Ono band featured not one, not two, but THREE former Beatles: Lennon, Starr and Harrison. Surely this qualifies as a related artist? I know WINGS do not appear under related artists due to Wiki Policy, because only Paul being a member; however the Plastic Ono band at one point contained 3/4 of the Beatles. Please can we try and add these back.
I also think it's stupid that Wing's aren't under related artists, but I am not going to argue with Wiki Policy. 86.183.165.50 ( talk) 16:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The Sources section has three broken references with only author-names—"Gould (2004)", "Lewisohn" and "Lewisohn (1991)". Does anybody know how to fix this?— indopug ( talk) 03:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this deserve a mention? See: [5] Apparently The Beatles played there before they played at The Cavern. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This statement is anachronistic and should be removed. Apparently something else significant relating contemporaneously to the March 1963 release of their first album (probably a measure of public reception), is meant to be placed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.54.130 ( talk) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc. Why twelve studio albums? Eleven yes, but Why twelve? -- Roujan ( talk) 20:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc. Thank you for the answer. For me,"Yellow Submarine" was not a real album.(and it's for this reason that "The Beatles are the only act of history with all their original albums which reached number one and the only act of history with the first eleven albums that reaches the first place". (About your sentence "but Yellow Submarine were UK number 1s": single yes, but not 'album'#3) -- Roujan ( talk) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking we should liven up the rather dull and repetitive "1970s, 1980s..." sub-section headers...— indopug ( talk) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need that kind of nonsense here?
My last revert to this page was completely unintended, and is one of many reasons I shouldn't edit from smartphones. Apologies! Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 03:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
In these recent edits made in light of the t/The decision, several quotes have been modified.— indopug ( talk) 07:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how please change in "The Beatles albums footer" "With The Beatles" to "With the Beatles"? I am referring to the footer which appears at the bottom of the individual album navboxes. Thank you.
Hoops gza ( talk) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not the dreaded "past/current members" argument. I propose that we add sections to the musical artist infobox for who influenced the artist and who the artist influenced, just like the writer infobox has. Of course only the most notable artists would have this information in their infobox, and only a handful of artists would go in each section. Hoops gza ( talk) 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
There are numerous punctuation errors in this article (and many others throughout the Wiki), the most of which concern the use of periods and commas with quotation marks. The rule is as follows: Periods and commas should be placed INSIDE the quotation marks. The only exception is if there is a reference to a source, e.g., The author states: "Time alone reveals the just" (p.471).[The period follows the reference to the source of the direct quotation.]
Colons and semicolons are placed OUTSIDE the quotation marks, e.g., She spoke of "the protagonists"; yet I remembered only one in "The Tell-Tale Heart": the mad murderer.
Dashes, question marks, and exclamation points are placed INSIDE the quotation marks when they apply ONLY to the quoted material; place them OUTSIDE when they apply to the whole sentence. Some examples: Pilate asked, "What is truth?" [The question mark applies only to the quoted material.] What is the meaning of the term "half truth"? [The question mark applies to the while sentence.] Grammargirl66 ( talk) 18:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to add to the end of the infobox, below the website link, a link to the Beatles wiki which is here? I've decided to ask on the talk page, instead of logging-in to make the change myself, in case it might not be appropriate; after all, although a resource of Beatle information, the wiki (like most Wikia wikis with only a few exceptions) is in effect a fan site. — 188.28.20.4 ( talk) 13:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see this revert for context on this discussion. A bit of info on the band performing in Hamburg with Little Richard was added by User:Smoovedogg, then removed shortly thereafter by User:Indopug. I agree in principle that substantial additions such as this should be talked through beforehand, that any argument for inclusion based on WP:NOTABILITY is invalid, and that the information in question would likely be more at home at a non-summary article like The Beatles in Hamburg. Colour me a bit perturbed, however, at the lack of any discussion once the decision was made to revert. I think things would move a lot smoother around here if we all did our best to observe D in addition to B and R. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 03:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the material in question, though there might be a place for some of it, it does place undue emphasis on Little Richard's involvement in the history of the Beatles. For example, weren't Chuck Berry and Gene Vincent also doing well in the UK at that time? WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone placed them nr. 1 artist of all time. I don't see it being mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.81.204 ( talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help).
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs) 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Being an encyclopedia with a worldwide viewership, why does this article not have any reference to The Beatles being British as opposed to English, or at least added to their origin? (eg. Liverpool, England, United Kingdom - Anyone who says it is obvious that being English is the same as being British is just as bad as any American for instance who assume that they are both the same thing. They were/are a citizen of the UK first and foremost, not England, so I strongly believe this should be reflected in their article. To make another point this wording excludes every other British citizen in in the United Kingdom from having a rightful connection to them if he is being listed as solely English, which is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.49.179 ( talk) 04:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I see this website being referenced on a lot of Beatles and John Lennon related articles and I looks like a fan site rather than a reliable citation. Can you enlighten me on why this is a good source? -- Mrmoustache14 ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Since there are only two "notes" in this article, I think the corresponding section needs only two rows, not four (30em). Plant's Strider ( talk) 07:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Should there be some reference to this calypsonian? He was an early musical influence in Liverpool, played in the same clubs (and managed some of them) and drove the van to Hamburg in 1960. He is briefly mentioned in The Beatles in Hamburg but had a much larger role. -- Ferma ( talk) 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There really isn't much about how the teenagers feel now. There was a study in: Womack, Kenneth (2009). The Cambridge Companion to The Beatles. University of Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. that showed that 34% of 3000 adults hid there past from their 60's childhood to keep respect from friends and family because of the influences of the Beatles. Mousehead50 ( talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Mousehead50
I posted this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, but didn't receive any response there, so I'm also posting here.
Thanks to User:Svick, we now have a Cleanup listing for WikiProject The Beatles. As of 22 January, of the 2781 articles in this project 677 or 24.3% are marked for cleanup, with 1096 issues in total.
Could we come up with a fun way to do this cleanup, such as creating a Beatles barnstar for those editors who do the most cleanup? GoingBatty ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles was ranked as nr. 1 artist of all time in their 100 Greatest Artists list. Could this be mentioned in the article, as the rankings of other artists are very often mentioned in their own articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.81.204 ( talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"They became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music."
What is the completely dependable measuring tool for definitively establishing the level of critical acclaim for all popular music artists in history, by analysing in detail every single review published about each? This claim amounts to mere opinion, since you absolutely cannot prove that an act is the most critically acclaimed in history. Yeah, The Beatles made some great music and took the world by storm, but I can't believe that this kind of hyperbole has made the lede of a so-called "featured article". أنا أحبك ( talk) 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles had reunions in 1973 (on album), 1974, 1979, 1981, and 2000 (on album). Is it okay if I add these to the "years active" part of the infobox??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles won 10 Grammy, no 7, as written in the introduction of the article. Review the list of awards, thanks, bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.43.220 ( talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the beatles are not only the most succesful band they are the most succesful act in history of all time . Their claims reach 1,8 billion sometimes .So we should mention that MJ1982 ( talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should have a long list of genres on the "genre" section in the infobox instead of just "rock, pop." The Beatles musical style has encompassed many genres including Merseybeat, rock and roll, skiffle, pop rock, hard rock, soft rock, folk rock, baroque pop, psychedelic rock, raga rock, experimental, avant-garde, progressive rock, classical, folk, soul, country rock, surf rock, art rock, blues rock, and gospel, and I think that at least some of these should be represented in the "genres" section. I'd change it myself, but there is a comment in the code saying "Please discuss on talk page before changing." Condenser Coil 01:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's plainly dishonest that the term "boy band" is not mentioned once in the whole article. They were as constructed and artificial as any of the boy bands today, and as unpleasant as this might sound to many (including myself), they clearly were the real initiators of the boy band phenomenon. Understanding the past can go a long way in curing the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.120.10 ( talk • contribs)
I think we have established here that The Beatles themselves were not a boy band. As for the influence on later boy bands, there were multiple influences on the boy band phenomenon, including some before The Beatles became a success. I'm not sure that this deserves to be mentioned in every article for every group that had an influence, and if it is mentioned, certainly no more than a few words. But, anon 92.41.21.116, here is a point that has been mentioned repeatedly. Nothing will ever be added to this article (permanently, that is) until there are reliable sources to back it up, and there don't seem to be many editors here willing to find those sources for you. So let me suggest that you first find the sources verifying The Beatles' influence of the boy band phenomenon before pushing this any more. You've made your point, but all of us need to see reliable sources before we decide what goes or doesn't go in the article. For help in finding reliable sources, see WP:RS and WP:V. 15:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just giving some advance warning of edits I intend to do to this article. I'm currently trying to get two releases on the Emporio and Laserlight labels removed from the discography for Desmond Dekker. An editor has refused this on the basis that they are releases associated with the artist. I then disputed that criteria and used this Beatles article to prove that we shouldn't include everything especially budget releases. They are still adamant that its a POV I'm expressing. I feel as though I have no option now but to prove that is not the case and that there is a consensus (tacitly understood) to not include "such" releases. I intend to add these releases to the Legacy section of this Beatles article:
The above are just a small example of acts associated with The Beatles legacy and I will be digging around for a more extensive list to include. If its fine for an article on a reggae artist to have "rubbish" included then it should be ok to include "rubbish" here.
Here's the link to the discussion page of the editor who disputes my removals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michig#Emporio_and_Laserlight_Releases
I'll be searching around the net for actual "budget" Beatles releases (not covers by other groups) so that I can create here the exact conditions as they exist in the Desmond Dekker article. Personally I'd rather not have to do this but since it is the only way to prove my point to Michig I feel as though I have no option. Please except my apology in advance for adding the Pinky and Perky track to the Legacy section.
Sluffs ( talk) 22:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid that you have proved my point. Just the mere suggestion of adding these releases under the rules imposed upon my edits has led to accusations of "pointy" editing. What a load of rubbish. All that's going on here is that I've made a legitimate editing decision based on an admin imposed rule on my edits to the Desmond Dekker article which I hold to be applicable to this article. I'll be reviewing whether its worth doing anymore reggae article or any articles period. Cheers.
Sluffs ( talk) 23:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well actually I've made the decision to stop editing on Wikipedia completely. I cannot justify my role as an editor here because there is no equality in the application of the rules. Its a sad reality that this Beatles article is protected from the inclusion of sub-standard CD releases (ie. Pickwick, Emporio, Laserlight) by editors that will resort to the rules or an over-powering majority consensus to stop these being included and yet I am not allowed to extend the same quality control to the Dekker article. Why is that so? I'm not too sure but I imagine its a "perception issue" with The Beatles article considered of higher importance than the Dekker article and thus has a more quality driven editing team. I mainly work alone on the reggae articles (some have not received "real" edits ie. not bots or auto-fixes in a long time) and I made the decision to remove the Emporio and Laserlight releases (ironically to stop caucasians getting ripped off since reggae fans know which sub-standard releases to avoid which I imagine is exactly why The Beatles editors don't want me to include sub-standard Beatles related releases here). We all want visitors to this site to be pointed to the best versions of the material but Michig (admin) has said that the two albums I removed from the Dekker article are not sub-standard. All that did was show me that Michig doesn't know his "reggae" releases and labels. I imagine if I mentioned Yvonne's Specials he wouldn't have a clue what I was on about though any rasta or sound-system operator would be able to tell you immediately what I was on about. I can't be bothered to fight my corner on this issue and it actually makes my editing position untenable due to the irony that I'm using The Beatles article as a "quality" template in my attempts to bring up reggae and R&B articles to the same quality. If you go to the articles on The Clovers, Ernest Ranglin and Prince Buster (all articles I've turned around from bad to at least passable) and use the history to compare versions you can actually see that I'm using the Beatles article as a quality guide. The Clovers article was a "copy and paste" job from a commercial site. I just spent three week researching and rewriting the whole thing to bring it up to the standard found on The Beatles article. The Clovers article had three or four refs when I started it now has over 40. So sub-standard and "cash-in" releases are not to be included here but its fine for Dekker. If the Emporio or Laserlight releases were essential to the Dekker article to help clarify some point in his career then they should be included but they are not - they are garage forecourt rip-off CDs. Pinky and Perky's superb version of Yellow Submarine is part of The Beatles legacy and should be included here. I know its not and so do most Beatles fans but a 12 year old in Nigeria doesn't. Thats why in nearly a decade of the existence of The Beatles article that every editor has made the POV non-neutral decision to not include Pinky and Perky, Cilla Black (friend of the Beatles that they wrote songs for), Scaffold (Mike McCartney), Hooked on the Beatles (classical versions of Beatles tracks that will be of a very high quality) as examples of the Beatles Legacy to popular culture. When The Beatles article gets the "quality" treatment but I'm not allowed to extend the same consideration to the Dekker article it makes my position here as an editor untenable.
Sluffs ( talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
lol. Oh the live wires are here. I'm on about budget releases on two labels in particular: Emporio and Laserlight. What happened was it widened out and you read far more into it than there is. This is basically a question of fair treatment on all articles. Everyone presumes that Dekker's discography is less important than the holy grail that is The Beatles discography. The Dekker article is his main namespace here on Wikipedia as is The Beatles - this goes out to the world - BBC Music, Google Sidebar, and countless minor wikis and commercial sites link back to these articles. Who the hell are any of you to decide that I as an editor cannot present the Dekker discography in its best light using the original releases (with the exclusion of rubbish budget crap). What makes his article any different from this article. So cut the "we're a clever pair" bull and give me a straight answer to why I have to include budget releases in the Dekker article but its excluded from this article. Whats was that terrible Pickwick Beatles album - the one with the illustration style cover. Stop being smart asses and just be smart. Whats your answer guys.
Sluffs ( talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hold on. Look at the thread title "You Got To Be Batty To Think You Have The Right To Call Others Batty" - sorry wrong title - it says the inclusion of budget releases into The Beatles article. Michig admin has set down a criteria for virtual authority by reverting my removal of the budget releases in the Dekker article under a POV remit. Michig has by his action stated virtual authority (I presume you're not too batty to understand virtual authority) can include budget releases into the main namespace article. Dekker is contemporary with The Beatles and both opened "floodgates" (as nicely stated in the Beatles legacy section): they for singer-songwriter bands and Dekker for Bob Marley and any reggae artist that wished to sing in patois. This is a case of all articles are equal but some more than others. Yeah you're right take it up Michig - he set the criteria. I don't think I will edit this article. I would like to give the Dekker article virtual authority but I'm not going bother with it if its going to include budget releases. Knee jerk reaction coming here but I still hold that your username GoingBatty is a outward directed insult and cowardly directed at other editors that don't fit into your comfort zone and is actually a true representation of how you view others. How does it feel to think you're the only sane person in the world? cheers
Sluffs ( talk) 22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Dekker article already has virtual authority and is linked across the web with the budget releases included. Oh well another example of a poorly represented chapter of African history and the diaspora through slavery. Well he was the descendant of a slave so why present him as anything more than a budget release. Well done Michig. Only a causcasian could justify that.
Sluffs ( talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This thread should really be removed. As it states right at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article." Most of the stuff here has little to do with this article; it seems to be about problems an editor had at another article.— indopug ( talk) 05:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Then you should have been more careful in choosing your username if you wanted to avoid other adults misinterpreting your username as "annoying prat". Indopug wants to know why I'm drawing comparisons between an article that has featured status and one that doesn't that Indopug considers unrelated. I'll have to remember that next time I try to remove "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" from the Reggae article (check edit history) only to have an editor revert my edit saying at the same time in all seriousness that it is an example of a reggae influenced song. Yes quite often you find rastamen at sound-systems discussing the profound influence that "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" had on their lives.
Sluffs ( talk) 11:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)