The Beatles Project‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
I really wish we could do something about the History of the Beatles article. We have a very long History section here, and then a slightly longer, rather unloved 'main article'. The obvious solutions would be to trim the History section here mercilessly, or to merge. That would have size issues of course. -- kingboyk 12:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Reposting to hopefully stimulate debate:
Well sure, it's a good idea. A lot of work though. Hottest fish to fry on our worklist? Dunno. As to which alternative, I'd rather not merge, but rather trim this one way way back and point people there. (or is history so intertwined that you can't tell the Beatles' story without delving into history all along the way?) ++ Lar: t/ c 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not in favour, but perhaps it should be considered editing the main article as a history with an introduction - using subheadings to signpost the more important developments and events - and link to every other relevant article? LessHeard vanU 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Another problem we have here is that new editors think that every single bit of trivia, rumour, gossip and innuendo about anything remotely connected to The Beatles should go into this article. I wish we had some way of alerting these people that we have some 300 or more Beatles articles and that in the vast majority of cases info missing from this article is missing for a reason - that it belongs elsewhere, or doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. </rant> -- kingboyk 17:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: Some of the less focused material was shipped out to The Beatles trivia. That article recently survived at AFD. -- kingboyk 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles Project‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
I really wish we could do something about the History of the Beatles article. We have a very long History section here, and then a slightly longer, rather unloved 'main article'. The obvious solutions would be to trim the History section here mercilessly, or to merge. That would have size issues of course. -- kingboyk 12:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Reposting to hopefully stimulate debate:
Well sure, it's a good idea. A lot of work though. Hottest fish to fry on our worklist? Dunno. As to which alternative, I'd rather not merge, but rather trim this one way way back and point people there. (or is history so intertwined that you can't tell the Beatles' story without delving into history all along the way?) ++ Lar: t/ c 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not in favour, but perhaps it should be considered editing the main article as a history with an introduction - using subheadings to signpost the more important developments and events - and link to every other relevant article? LessHeard vanU 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Another problem we have here is that new editors think that every single bit of trivia, rumour, gossip and innuendo about anything remotely connected to The Beatles should go into this article. I wish we had some way of alerting these people that we have some 300 or more Beatles articles and that in the vast majority of cases info missing from this article is missing for a reason - that it belongs elsewhere, or doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. </rant> -- kingboyk 17:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Note: Some of the less focused material was shipped out to The Beatles trivia. That article recently survived at AFD. -- kingboyk 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)