![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Archives: March 2006
The initial discussion about a Beatles WikiProject, pasted from User talk:Kingboyk:
Hi Kingboyk - if you're thinking of getting a group of editors together to work on a list of unreleased Beatles songs, let me know - I'd be willing to help (if you look at the afd saves on my user page, you'll see " I'll Get You" and " Matchbox (song)" there, so that should give you some indication of my musical interests :). I'd suggest that if the list is done it should be for any songs not officially released, so that it would include songs released in bootleg form. Grutness... wha? 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a hunt and see what track names I can come up with from my Beatles-related books. I don't think "The Beatles bootlegs" would be the place for it, because some of the songs mentioned may never have ben released even in that form, or were shelved and only released bby one of the Beatles as solo works. "The Beatles unreleased songs" might be a better title (possibly with an apostrophe after the s). I agree that the items on Let it Be might be a problem (I've never seen it either), but perhaps the intro of the article could define exactly what goes on it, and those have never been officially released on record. Oh, and no problems with the CFD business :). Grutness... wha? 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
On the closed AfD vote there was some mention of starting an article on unreleased Beatle-recorded compositions. I think that's a good idea. It can include obscure items like "Suzy Parker," and notables like "World Without Love." And along the lines of "Suzy Parker," I would include the song "Madman" from the same sessions. ZincOrbie 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the talk page exists, I went ahead and created the skeleton, and filled out a few things. LOTS more to do just to get the project off the ground. I think before we do the whole creating infoboxes and so forth, a few goals and the like ought to be hammered out so that when people start arriving there are clear tasks to do and so forth. (do we need to rate articles the way the NA project is?) I'd encourage folks to be bold and edit them in!... oh my, did anyone check to see if there was a Beatles (without the the) first? I just did and there isn't. I sort of am surprised that no one has created a project given the number of articles that exist. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:TheBeatlesArticle - nice work! You realise that's the American cover? :) I'm not complaining, in fact I rather like it because it's different. I'm used to seeing the Brit cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingboyk ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 March 2006.
Regarding the naughty lady who started all this, I have withdrawn and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Parker (Beatles Song). If I did anything wrong, let me know discretely as that's my first AFD closure :). Now we'd better make good and look at where to merge it to. -- kingboyk 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
(moved from project page)
My thinking is this.... cataloging ALL the articles might take quite a while, no? There are a lot of them. Maybe if we can pick an article or two to work on that will give the newcomers some buy in. Doesn't have to be that one necessarily, as it may well be a merger candidate. But I can go either way, maybe it's premature. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been a heavy contributor to
The Beatles Discography, created the article
The Beatles Collection and greatly enhanced
The Beatles Box Set. I can easily adopt the three articles.
Steelbeard1
01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what "adopt an article" means to be fair, but following from User:Steelbeard1, "my" main watchlisted articles are Apple Corps and Apple Records. -- kingboyk 01:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Welcome Steelbeard1! (the discography is one of the best I've seen by the way...) My take on "adopt an article" was that it was a collaboration of the week (or until fixed up) and move on sort of thing... not an ownership (see WP:OWN). No harm in listing articles we're keen on though. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the subject subsection. I've fed all the articles in that were in category:The Beatles. Before I do more, does alpha order matter/help? (Alpha is as it was in the categories, so in some cases it's by last name, some first, etc,... some by "the" unfortunately, near as I can tell) Are these the right things to capture about the articles? Does the page make sense? I cribbed heavily from the IP of NA project. Should we transclude this onto the main page or no? thoughts? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (from User talk:Lar)
<--- Apple Electronics is in the category because the redirect has a category membership (intentional). Category:Apple Corps is like an "Apple list" without there being a list in sight! I merged it a long time ago. -- kingboyk 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Headings are good. Independtly editable sections are even better. There's over 200 Beatles related articles already, and that's just those which are using the template. [2] -- kingboyk 03:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I gave both tables fixed percent widths. I need to remember this page better! M:Help:Table as the help there is better than the help here. I am not so sure about breaking up at each letter... would need to reproduce the headings or the percentages a LOT... I may try to work on some better automation than what I did the first two with. Maybe some perl code against the categories. Maybe some other projects have automation? maybe I should have checked beforfe I did the first two cats? maybe maybe maybe... ++ Lar: t/ c 04:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a mighty thin article to have made it to the main {{ The Beatles}} box, I think. If it's a keeper, it may be our candidate for the first article improvement drive? (I better put it on the table: My knowledge of the minutia of The Beatles is thin... I'm in this project partly to learn about creating projects and stuff, and partly because I just like The Beatles and can't believe there wasn't a project already, but I'm not otaku, just an ordinary fan... so I have no idea if it's a keeper or not...) ++ Lar: t/ c 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The fair use image Image:Beatles 1969.jpg should not be on this page. See the Fair use policy point nine: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." I'm afraid it needs to be removed, but I'll leave that to a member of the project incase they know of a free replacement image. Raven4x4x 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If the activity on my watchlist is anything to go by, we're off to a good start. -- kingboyk 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
From a HTML comment area inside Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles (edited a little for formatting/relevance by kingboyk without changing meaning):
I have no desire to get into a landwar with another project, and I suspect Lar doesn't either. Let's leave this thread here and quietly move back to the important work. -- kingboyk 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I commented that section out because I didn't think there were Beatles specific stubsother than the one I found, or a need for more. (I was on a commenting out stuff from the boilerplate project starting subst/template kick!!!) I'm glad Grutness turned up and uncommented it, as I didn't think to check for other specific stubs. I have no issue with using whichever one makes sense, or not, as needs dictate, and want to conform with understood practice. And no, I don't want to start a range war about it either. In an ideal world we wouldn't have any stubs left once we're "done" (as if a project is ever "done")... ++ Lar: t/ c 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Both John Junkin ("Shake", A Hard Day's Night) and Ivor Cutler ("Magical Mystery Tour") died within hours of each other in the last day or so. :( Grutness... wha? 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Listed the project at the subject list ++ Lar: t/ c 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
...now redirects here. -- kingboyk 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, CLOSE to here... one namespace over, third star on the left. I think you meant WT:Beatles ++ Lar: t/ c 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jumping in really late... Oh my! I had no idea such a task was underway when I made a passing suggestion on Kingboyk's talk page. I don't believe I can adopt an article right now because of limited time (I have a major project at work which will conclude in the middle of April). But to offer a quick opinion, subcategories listed on category:The Beatles seem to get into minutia. I mean...Beatles' children? Anyway, my original suggestion was that all rare Beatles recordings and compositions be relegated to a single article. This would include three sections:
This would keep Beatles' music organized into simple common and uncommon categories. ZincOrbie 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that a disgusting amount of information about the beatles on wikipedia is just wrong, based on common rumors and misknowledge. someone who knows something about the beatles should be managing the beatles pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twisby ( talk • contribs) .
I've added an "Online resources" section to the page, and listed Alan pollack's Beatles songs series there. It's a densely worded but fascinating site - especially for anyone who's got a bit of music theory - and it's definitely worth reading for anyone interested in individual Beatles songs (as in the "adopt an article" idea). Talking of which, can someone run an eye over what I did to Flying (song), see how it looks now? :) Grutness... wha? 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is simply a matter of consensus, but I am puzzled by the amount of detail and subcategory articles connected solely to the Beatles. Coming from a newspaper background, my inclination is to pare stories down to the essentials. Peripheral information on any given subject can be turned into a book, and is often best left to such mediums. Personally, I view the Beatles as an international phenomena, extremely influential on social and musical norms, and deserving of an extensive article and some sub-articles. My question is where the lines should be drawn; Where pertinent information becomes interesting information, and where interesting information becomes trivia (which is best left to fan clubs).
Another concern for me is that if this project is too ambitious it may never be completed. The more categories that can be merged, the better. Otherwise the project may fizzle out due to exhaustion with unrealized red links everywhere. Also, including Beatle trivia on Wikipedia may set a precedent for fans of other artists to do the same. I think it would be a terrible waste of bandwidth to discover the fans of the Rolling Stones have created articles on every single song the Stones ever released. Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts on tightening the reins here a bit. ZincOrbie 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow... that comment was... encyclopedic. Without disagreeing with ZincObie, I think you're spot on, Steve. I do agree and see where ZincObie is coming from though. As for article classification, this weekend if I have time I hope to step up the intensity of creating tables of articles to sort through. current leaning is to do it by category and then sort out the dups manually, but am still leaning toward doing some perl code. Haven't decided. (a side note, merging categories would make my table generation job slightly easier, but not as much easier as the work to merge categories would be so don't do it)
On notability of some articles. I expect that since The Beatles are the world's most popular band, with an incredibly massive body of work, that is hugely significant to everyone on the planet (ok, maybe that was a BIT more hyperbole than I needed), that many more songs, proportionally, will end up being notable than the average band's songs. That said I am not opposed to merging where it makes sense. I am not opposed to deletion of articles where it makes sense. We need to be aligned with WP:MUSIC and not keep stuff around just because it's Beatles stuff, although we may be a bit off average.
While our goal here is not to include "trivia" for its own sake, I do think we are the first band specific project (or at least the first I could find). What we do here will either be copied, or ridiculed. So far I'm pretty happy with how it's going but there certainly is some pressure here to try to do it right, stay organised, and not burn people out. Every article we improve is a victory, the final task is big, but not impossible. If there end up being a lot of other projects on bands, and they do things (somewhat) the way we do, we will have contributed significantly to the encyclopedia, beyond just Beatles specific things. MILHIST definitely is an inspiration in terms of scope though. We need to learn from them and other projects on burnout. Taking a break from this project and doing other things (other articles, real life, etc) will be necessary for people over time. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'd transclude that on the main project page. It could grow without bound. I think better to just reference the page like we do for the Article Classification section. (unless you think we should transclude THAT?) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
We missed one! -- kingboyk 06:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the items on the WikiProject page look to me more like the sort of things that would be found on a Portal page (Did you know?, Features article/picture, etc). Do we need to bother with them for now, or should they be left until the project's a bit more established? It may be running before we can walk a bit. Grutness... wha? 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It was decided by an IP edit some time ago [4] that Mr Richard Starkey MBE is actually one "Richard Parkin" and that this 'fact' should be inserted into the first line of what ought to be one of our flagship articles. Unfortunately, Google doesn't agree [5]. I removed the reference last night but it was restored again while I was in bed. I've also tried to debunk the theory on the Talk:Ringo Starr. I don't want to be heavy handed and then turn out to be wrong, nor do I want to be the only person watching for and reverting this change, so I'd appreciate some response on the talk page and the adding of the article to watchlists (it's been a recent vandal magnet too I might add).
Whilst I own a copy of the Anthology book I don't have it with me, so I can't check what Ringo said. I think my Talk summary is likely a fair picture of what happened though. Even if I'm wrong and he was actually born Richard Parkin, I'd like some confirmation that that doesn't belong as a simple bracketed insertion without comment in the first line of our article. -- kingboyk 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I know we don't want the template to get bloated and unwieldy, but I was wondering whether we should add Neil Aspinall and Mal Evans to it. Any thoughts? Grutness... wha? 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit early yet (still setting the project up, really) but I think at some point we ought to do some or all of the following:
-- kingboyk 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good ideas... It may be time for our first collaboration, which might be fun. I would be available to collaborate later this week I think. Another technique to consider is updating the project membership box with news (other projects do this)... It would look similar to the text in the bottom of the {{ TheBeatlesArticle}} box. But that may not be as noticable as little newsletter drop offs on talk pages. Note that Esperanza does this. AWB is a good tool for doing this (apply the same change to a number of pages) ++ Lar: t/ c 03:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I've dropped a line to the schools wikiproject in the hope that they'll either write or colloborate with us on redlinked schools which have Beatle alumni. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. -- kingboyk 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to gloat ;) but I've just saved a Beatles related article. I discovered that some time last year somebody had blanked The Fireman, somebody else had then tagged it as empty, and a (naughty!) admin speedy deleted it, obviously without checking the page history! Since that's an invalid speedy deletion, I moved the new incumbent (a Charlie Chaplin film) to a new slot, and restored the article. -- kingboyk 11:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A prominent heading like this might help people with no patience like me! ;) So how d'you become a signed up participant? As you know, I've chucked a few bits at the Apple articles, and am generally au fait with Apple and Rutles, er, Beatles stuff from 65-71, after which I lose interest rapidly. (Apropos solo stuff, here's a nice pic I put on Flickr.) I'm also responsible for the Scarlet Party article and related website! Happy to get involved, anyhow, if you can suggest any areas for me to look at. Jerry Bakewell 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we ought to help Jude out here by checking for him/her that the band passes WP:MUSIC rather than leaving it to him/her. It's very unpleasant for a newbie to find that someone has nominated their new article for deletion, and the guidelines aren't always to understand. If it seems they don't pass, we could look at putting a section into an article somewhere - perhaps shifting some of the other cruft around at the same time. And, failing that (!), I'm sure we can find some nice and easy edits or photo hunting tasks for a keen newcomer right?(Kingboyk/Steve)
Don't worry about still being in school, Jude. As editors we're all equal here. Some of the admins are still in school too. -- kingboyk 11:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, guys! I would've been able to read this sooner if school wasn't a prison. But onto the topic. American English does, in fact, have a CD. Of course, all Beatles songs. It's not sold on Amazon but rather on their website here. However, it's live. So I really don't know if that counts or not...?
And I believe they are notable because, as their website's front page says, they were "featured on the Travel Channel's 'Beatlemania Britain'." If that's not notable, I don't know what is. I mean, there are a few more tribute bands that I can think of that are more popular than American English but I am more familiar with them than any of the others. And I think it would be interesting to have a few Beatles tribute bands be apart of this WikiProject.
Well, I'm off to read...whatever you guys told me to. I appreciate any and all help in this matter. And, yes, making a page will be very bold. Saying I haven't even figured out how to make my own user page. Haha. -- Jude 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Boys (song) is a dab page, but every incoming link is about the Beatles song. Normal convention is that the dab page would be moved and the Beatles song take the slot. However, there's no seperate article for that song, it's a link to Please Please Me. Do we leave it as is, do we want dab all links for Boys to Please Please Me, or do we redirect Boys (song) to Please Please Me and insert a Template:Redirect? -- kingboyk 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I just added an article on the Carl Lindstrom Company which founded Parlophone and where would Parlophone be today without The Beatles? Steelbeard1 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a print ad in German for Parlophone which I also mention in the discussion page for the Carl Lindstrom Company. You can see the ad in the adjacent link [7]. Does this look like a good ad to utilise? Steelbeard1 17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've created a rough draft of a new userbox. I've dropped it onto Mal and Lar's user pages to get a reaction. If it's disliked, it can be quietly dropped. If it's liked, I'll pop it onto the user pages of the other signed up participants. So, comments here please. -- kingboyk 11:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Michigan for a task box. Maybe we should crib the idea? {{ michigantasks}} which then leads to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Michigan/to_do by transclusion. I am not sure I'd do it exactly that way (having two levels of template and one being talk and one not) but the idea is sound... If other projects do it in ways you like, please post their info too so we can compare! I just like the way it looks though, so maybe the style is good for the newsletter we're talking about doing?... (as it happens, I live in Michigan so ran into this) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the Formula One wikiproject, and you'll see the following page: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Related_Pages
I haven't looked yet to see how its done, but perhaps it could be handy for this project too. -- Mal 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Albinomonkey. Sounds simple, though a tiny bit of work involved. I'll wait for other comments, and maybe do it myself if there is no disagreement. -- Mal 08:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
We did it, we made DYK! See Talk:Carl Lindstrom Company. Yaay us!!! Nice work everyone, way to collaborate. Here's hoping this is just the start! ++ Lar: t/ c 04:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Pursuant to previous discussion regarding archiving what we have achieved, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Log. -- kingboyk 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Please add Paul McCartney to your watchlists. It seems that article has been a bit of a battle ground from pro and anti seal hunt POV warriors. I've seriously trimmed the section and hopefully removed POV. Whilst I accept that the section could be expanded a little, an article on an ex-Beatle is not the place to debate the pros and cons of seal hunting and - given all that McCartney has done in his life - it's only a small chapter and should be treated as such. As far as I'm concerned, the article should say nothing more controversial than McCartney opposes seal hunting, he went to Canada, x y and z happened (without every last detail), and reaction was (whatever the reaction was). I'll be reverting anything crufty, POV or verbose (erm... verbose... I'll wrap this comment up now). -- kingboyk 21:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There are two articles, Baby You're a Rich Man and Baby, You're a Rich Man (differing in a comma). There should be only one. But which? cddb suggests the one without the comma... anyone have a definite answer? I slapped a mergetag on them both. (I found these trying to debug what was "eating commas sometimes but not always""... well, as it turns out, nothing was, there are two versions!!! see User:Lar/Sandbox2 ++ Lar: t/ c 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What is up with using "*" as the lexical (sort order) for a cat that's in a cat? ... see Category:Beatles song stubs... I asked on the category page too. It screws up my tablegen semi-badly. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:10, 27 March 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Archives: March 2006
The initial discussion about a Beatles WikiProject, pasted from User talk:Kingboyk:
Hi Kingboyk - if you're thinking of getting a group of editors together to work on a list of unreleased Beatles songs, let me know - I'd be willing to help (if you look at the afd saves on my user page, you'll see " I'll Get You" and " Matchbox (song)" there, so that should give you some indication of my musical interests :). I'd suggest that if the list is done it should be for any songs not officially released, so that it would include songs released in bootleg form. Grutness... wha? 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a hunt and see what track names I can come up with from my Beatles-related books. I don't think "The Beatles bootlegs" would be the place for it, because some of the songs mentioned may never have ben released even in that form, or were shelved and only released bby one of the Beatles as solo works. "The Beatles unreleased songs" might be a better title (possibly with an apostrophe after the s). I agree that the items on Let it Be might be a problem (I've never seen it either), but perhaps the intro of the article could define exactly what goes on it, and those have never been officially released on record. Oh, and no problems with the CFD business :). Grutness... wha? 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
On the closed AfD vote there was some mention of starting an article on unreleased Beatle-recorded compositions. I think that's a good idea. It can include obscure items like "Suzy Parker," and notables like "World Without Love." And along the lines of "Suzy Parker," I would include the song "Madman" from the same sessions. ZincOrbie 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the talk page exists, I went ahead and created the skeleton, and filled out a few things. LOTS more to do just to get the project off the ground. I think before we do the whole creating infoboxes and so forth, a few goals and the like ought to be hammered out so that when people start arriving there are clear tasks to do and so forth. (do we need to rate articles the way the NA project is?) I'd encourage folks to be bold and edit them in!... oh my, did anyone check to see if there was a Beatles (without the the) first? I just did and there isn't. I sort of am surprised that no one has created a project given the number of articles that exist. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:TheBeatlesArticle - nice work! You realise that's the American cover? :) I'm not complaining, in fact I rather like it because it's different. I'm used to seeing the Brit cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingboyk ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 March 2006.
Regarding the naughty lady who started all this, I have withdrawn and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Parker (Beatles Song). If I did anything wrong, let me know discretely as that's my first AFD closure :). Now we'd better make good and look at where to merge it to. -- kingboyk 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
(moved from project page)
My thinking is this.... cataloging ALL the articles might take quite a while, no? There are a lot of them. Maybe if we can pick an article or two to work on that will give the newcomers some buy in. Doesn't have to be that one necessarily, as it may well be a merger candidate. But I can go either way, maybe it's premature. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been a heavy contributor to
The Beatles Discography, created the article
The Beatles Collection and greatly enhanced
The Beatles Box Set. I can easily adopt the three articles.
Steelbeard1
01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what "adopt an article" means to be fair, but following from User:Steelbeard1, "my" main watchlisted articles are Apple Corps and Apple Records. -- kingboyk 01:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Welcome Steelbeard1! (the discography is one of the best I've seen by the way...) My take on "adopt an article" was that it was a collaboration of the week (or until fixed up) and move on sort of thing... not an ownership (see WP:OWN). No harm in listing articles we're keen on though. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the subject subsection. I've fed all the articles in that were in category:The Beatles. Before I do more, does alpha order matter/help? (Alpha is as it was in the categories, so in some cases it's by last name, some first, etc,... some by "the" unfortunately, near as I can tell) Are these the right things to capture about the articles? Does the page make sense? I cribbed heavily from the IP of NA project. Should we transclude this onto the main page or no? thoughts? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (from User talk:Lar)
<--- Apple Electronics is in the category because the redirect has a category membership (intentional). Category:Apple Corps is like an "Apple list" without there being a list in sight! I merged it a long time ago. -- kingboyk 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Headings are good. Independtly editable sections are even better. There's over 200 Beatles related articles already, and that's just those which are using the template. [2] -- kingboyk 03:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I gave both tables fixed percent widths. I need to remember this page better! M:Help:Table as the help there is better than the help here. I am not so sure about breaking up at each letter... would need to reproduce the headings or the percentages a LOT... I may try to work on some better automation than what I did the first two with. Maybe some perl code against the categories. Maybe some other projects have automation? maybe I should have checked beforfe I did the first two cats? maybe maybe maybe... ++ Lar: t/ c 04:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a mighty thin article to have made it to the main {{ The Beatles}} box, I think. If it's a keeper, it may be our candidate for the first article improvement drive? (I better put it on the table: My knowledge of the minutia of The Beatles is thin... I'm in this project partly to learn about creating projects and stuff, and partly because I just like The Beatles and can't believe there wasn't a project already, but I'm not otaku, just an ordinary fan... so I have no idea if it's a keeper or not...) ++ Lar: t/ c 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The fair use image Image:Beatles 1969.jpg should not be on this page. See the Fair use policy point nine: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." I'm afraid it needs to be removed, but I'll leave that to a member of the project incase they know of a free replacement image. Raven4x4x 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If the activity on my watchlist is anything to go by, we're off to a good start. -- kingboyk 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
From a HTML comment area inside Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles (edited a little for formatting/relevance by kingboyk without changing meaning):
I have no desire to get into a landwar with another project, and I suspect Lar doesn't either. Let's leave this thread here and quietly move back to the important work. -- kingboyk 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I commented that section out because I didn't think there were Beatles specific stubsother than the one I found, or a need for more. (I was on a commenting out stuff from the boilerplate project starting subst/template kick!!!) I'm glad Grutness turned up and uncommented it, as I didn't think to check for other specific stubs. I have no issue with using whichever one makes sense, or not, as needs dictate, and want to conform with understood practice. And no, I don't want to start a range war about it either. In an ideal world we wouldn't have any stubs left once we're "done" (as if a project is ever "done")... ++ Lar: t/ c 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Both John Junkin ("Shake", A Hard Day's Night) and Ivor Cutler ("Magical Mystery Tour") died within hours of each other in the last day or so. :( Grutness... wha? 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Listed the project at the subject list ++ Lar: t/ c 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
...now redirects here. -- kingboyk 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, CLOSE to here... one namespace over, third star on the left. I think you meant WT:Beatles ++ Lar: t/ c 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jumping in really late... Oh my! I had no idea such a task was underway when I made a passing suggestion on Kingboyk's talk page. I don't believe I can adopt an article right now because of limited time (I have a major project at work which will conclude in the middle of April). But to offer a quick opinion, subcategories listed on category:The Beatles seem to get into minutia. I mean...Beatles' children? Anyway, my original suggestion was that all rare Beatles recordings and compositions be relegated to a single article. This would include three sections:
This would keep Beatles' music organized into simple common and uncommon categories. ZincOrbie 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that a disgusting amount of information about the beatles on wikipedia is just wrong, based on common rumors and misknowledge. someone who knows something about the beatles should be managing the beatles pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twisby ( talk • contribs) .
I've added an "Online resources" section to the page, and listed Alan pollack's Beatles songs series there. It's a densely worded but fascinating site - especially for anyone who's got a bit of music theory - and it's definitely worth reading for anyone interested in individual Beatles songs (as in the "adopt an article" idea). Talking of which, can someone run an eye over what I did to Flying (song), see how it looks now? :) Grutness... wha? 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is simply a matter of consensus, but I am puzzled by the amount of detail and subcategory articles connected solely to the Beatles. Coming from a newspaper background, my inclination is to pare stories down to the essentials. Peripheral information on any given subject can be turned into a book, and is often best left to such mediums. Personally, I view the Beatles as an international phenomena, extremely influential on social and musical norms, and deserving of an extensive article and some sub-articles. My question is where the lines should be drawn; Where pertinent information becomes interesting information, and where interesting information becomes trivia (which is best left to fan clubs).
Another concern for me is that if this project is too ambitious it may never be completed. The more categories that can be merged, the better. Otherwise the project may fizzle out due to exhaustion with unrealized red links everywhere. Also, including Beatle trivia on Wikipedia may set a precedent for fans of other artists to do the same. I think it would be a terrible waste of bandwidth to discover the fans of the Rolling Stones have created articles on every single song the Stones ever released. Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts on tightening the reins here a bit. ZincOrbie 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow... that comment was... encyclopedic. Without disagreeing with ZincObie, I think you're spot on, Steve. I do agree and see where ZincObie is coming from though. As for article classification, this weekend if I have time I hope to step up the intensity of creating tables of articles to sort through. current leaning is to do it by category and then sort out the dups manually, but am still leaning toward doing some perl code. Haven't decided. (a side note, merging categories would make my table generation job slightly easier, but not as much easier as the work to merge categories would be so don't do it)
On notability of some articles. I expect that since The Beatles are the world's most popular band, with an incredibly massive body of work, that is hugely significant to everyone on the planet (ok, maybe that was a BIT more hyperbole than I needed), that many more songs, proportionally, will end up being notable than the average band's songs. That said I am not opposed to merging where it makes sense. I am not opposed to deletion of articles where it makes sense. We need to be aligned with WP:MUSIC and not keep stuff around just because it's Beatles stuff, although we may be a bit off average.
While our goal here is not to include "trivia" for its own sake, I do think we are the first band specific project (or at least the first I could find). What we do here will either be copied, or ridiculed. So far I'm pretty happy with how it's going but there certainly is some pressure here to try to do it right, stay organised, and not burn people out. Every article we improve is a victory, the final task is big, but not impossible. If there end up being a lot of other projects on bands, and they do things (somewhat) the way we do, we will have contributed significantly to the encyclopedia, beyond just Beatles specific things. MILHIST definitely is an inspiration in terms of scope though. We need to learn from them and other projects on burnout. Taking a break from this project and doing other things (other articles, real life, etc) will be necessary for people over time. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'd transclude that on the main project page. It could grow without bound. I think better to just reference the page like we do for the Article Classification section. (unless you think we should transclude THAT?) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
We missed one! -- kingboyk 06:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the items on the WikiProject page look to me more like the sort of things that would be found on a Portal page (Did you know?, Features article/picture, etc). Do we need to bother with them for now, or should they be left until the project's a bit more established? It may be running before we can walk a bit. Grutness... wha? 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It was decided by an IP edit some time ago [4] that Mr Richard Starkey MBE is actually one "Richard Parkin" and that this 'fact' should be inserted into the first line of what ought to be one of our flagship articles. Unfortunately, Google doesn't agree [5]. I removed the reference last night but it was restored again while I was in bed. I've also tried to debunk the theory on the Talk:Ringo Starr. I don't want to be heavy handed and then turn out to be wrong, nor do I want to be the only person watching for and reverting this change, so I'd appreciate some response on the talk page and the adding of the article to watchlists (it's been a recent vandal magnet too I might add).
Whilst I own a copy of the Anthology book I don't have it with me, so I can't check what Ringo said. I think my Talk summary is likely a fair picture of what happened though. Even if I'm wrong and he was actually born Richard Parkin, I'd like some confirmation that that doesn't belong as a simple bracketed insertion without comment in the first line of our article. -- kingboyk 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I know we don't want the template to get bloated and unwieldy, but I was wondering whether we should add Neil Aspinall and Mal Evans to it. Any thoughts? Grutness... wha? 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit early yet (still setting the project up, really) but I think at some point we ought to do some or all of the following:
-- kingboyk 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good ideas... It may be time for our first collaboration, which might be fun. I would be available to collaborate later this week I think. Another technique to consider is updating the project membership box with news (other projects do this)... It would look similar to the text in the bottom of the {{ TheBeatlesArticle}} box. But that may not be as noticable as little newsletter drop offs on talk pages. Note that Esperanza does this. AWB is a good tool for doing this (apply the same change to a number of pages) ++ Lar: t/ c 03:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I've dropped a line to the schools wikiproject in the hope that they'll either write or colloborate with us on redlinked schools which have Beatle alumni. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. -- kingboyk 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to gloat ;) but I've just saved a Beatles related article. I discovered that some time last year somebody had blanked The Fireman, somebody else had then tagged it as empty, and a (naughty!) admin speedy deleted it, obviously without checking the page history! Since that's an invalid speedy deletion, I moved the new incumbent (a Charlie Chaplin film) to a new slot, and restored the article. -- kingboyk 11:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
A prominent heading like this might help people with no patience like me! ;) So how d'you become a signed up participant? As you know, I've chucked a few bits at the Apple articles, and am generally au fait with Apple and Rutles, er, Beatles stuff from 65-71, after which I lose interest rapidly. (Apropos solo stuff, here's a nice pic I put on Flickr.) I'm also responsible for the Scarlet Party article and related website! Happy to get involved, anyhow, if you can suggest any areas for me to look at. Jerry Bakewell 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we ought to help Jude out here by checking for him/her that the band passes WP:MUSIC rather than leaving it to him/her. It's very unpleasant for a newbie to find that someone has nominated their new article for deletion, and the guidelines aren't always to understand. If it seems they don't pass, we could look at putting a section into an article somewhere - perhaps shifting some of the other cruft around at the same time. And, failing that (!), I'm sure we can find some nice and easy edits or photo hunting tasks for a keen newcomer right?(Kingboyk/Steve)
Don't worry about still being in school, Jude. As editors we're all equal here. Some of the admins are still in school too. -- kingboyk 11:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, guys! I would've been able to read this sooner if school wasn't a prison. But onto the topic. American English does, in fact, have a CD. Of course, all Beatles songs. It's not sold on Amazon but rather on their website here. However, it's live. So I really don't know if that counts or not...?
And I believe they are notable because, as their website's front page says, they were "featured on the Travel Channel's 'Beatlemania Britain'." If that's not notable, I don't know what is. I mean, there are a few more tribute bands that I can think of that are more popular than American English but I am more familiar with them than any of the others. And I think it would be interesting to have a few Beatles tribute bands be apart of this WikiProject.
Well, I'm off to read...whatever you guys told me to. I appreciate any and all help in this matter. And, yes, making a page will be very bold. Saying I haven't even figured out how to make my own user page. Haha. -- Jude 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Boys (song) is a dab page, but every incoming link is about the Beatles song. Normal convention is that the dab page would be moved and the Beatles song take the slot. However, there's no seperate article for that song, it's a link to Please Please Me. Do we leave it as is, do we want dab all links for Boys to Please Please Me, or do we redirect Boys (song) to Please Please Me and insert a Template:Redirect? -- kingboyk 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I just added an article on the Carl Lindstrom Company which founded Parlophone and where would Parlophone be today without The Beatles? Steelbeard1 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a print ad in German for Parlophone which I also mention in the discussion page for the Carl Lindstrom Company. You can see the ad in the adjacent link [7]. Does this look like a good ad to utilise? Steelbeard1 17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've created a rough draft of a new userbox. I've dropped it onto Mal and Lar's user pages to get a reaction. If it's disliked, it can be quietly dropped. If it's liked, I'll pop it onto the user pages of the other signed up participants. So, comments here please. -- kingboyk 11:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Michigan for a task box. Maybe we should crib the idea? {{ michigantasks}} which then leads to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Michigan/to_do by transclusion. I am not sure I'd do it exactly that way (having two levels of template and one being talk and one not) but the idea is sound... If other projects do it in ways you like, please post their info too so we can compare! I just like the way it looks though, so maybe the style is good for the newsletter we're talking about doing?... (as it happens, I live in Michigan so ran into this) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the Formula One wikiproject, and you'll see the following page: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Related_Pages
I haven't looked yet to see how its done, but perhaps it could be handy for this project too. -- Mal 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Albinomonkey. Sounds simple, though a tiny bit of work involved. I'll wait for other comments, and maybe do it myself if there is no disagreement. -- Mal 08:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
We did it, we made DYK! See Talk:Carl Lindstrom Company. Yaay us!!! Nice work everyone, way to collaborate. Here's hoping this is just the start! ++ Lar: t/ c 04:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Pursuant to previous discussion regarding archiving what we have achieved, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Log. -- kingboyk 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Please add Paul McCartney to your watchlists. It seems that article has been a bit of a battle ground from pro and anti seal hunt POV warriors. I've seriously trimmed the section and hopefully removed POV. Whilst I accept that the section could be expanded a little, an article on an ex-Beatle is not the place to debate the pros and cons of seal hunting and - given all that McCartney has done in his life - it's only a small chapter and should be treated as such. As far as I'm concerned, the article should say nothing more controversial than McCartney opposes seal hunting, he went to Canada, x y and z happened (without every last detail), and reaction was (whatever the reaction was). I'll be reverting anything crufty, POV or verbose (erm... verbose... I'll wrap this comment up now). -- kingboyk 21:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There are two articles, Baby You're a Rich Man and Baby, You're a Rich Man (differing in a comma). There should be only one. But which? cddb suggests the one without the comma... anyone have a definite answer? I slapped a mergetag on them both. (I found these trying to debug what was "eating commas sometimes but not always""... well, as it turns out, nothing was, there are two versions!!! see User:Lar/Sandbox2 ++ Lar: t/ c 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What is up with using "*" as the lexical (sort order) for a cat that's in a cat? ... see Category:Beatles song stubs... I asked on the category page too. It screws up my tablegen semi-badly. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)