Talk:The Beatles/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Contents


How the Beatles are defined as a musical group

Success is a subjective thing, but in regards to world-wide album sales and cultural impact, The Beatles seem to have been one of the most succesful music groups of the 20th century, if not the most succesful of all. In saying that, I think it's very important to present the Beatles as what they actually were, and not what some people might want them to be. This article used to start off by saying that the Beatles were a Pop/Rock group. They were obviously a rock group, mainly, but I think by saying that within the first sentence, it suggests that they were not a band that recorded in as many musical styles as they did. I think it misrepresents them to a degree, especially to people who may not be very familiar with their music. The fact is, they performed and recorded in a plethora of different musical styles. Their song 'Revolution 9' is probably the best example of a song that doesn't fit the definition, as it obviously can't be considered Pop OR Rock music. So I took the liberty to change the first sentence so that it simply states that The Beatles were an English "music group". Shortly following that, I've placed a sentence that explains how they were based in the sound of 1950s rock & roll, but explored many different musical styles, and I've gone on to list quite a few of those styles, from Classical to experimental music.

It's such a small change but it's a very important one as it sets a tone for everything that follows, so I thought it'd only be proper to leave an explanation and give others a chance to comment about it.

-- Strawberry Pudding Wings

Eye-popping picture is gone?!

Where's that famous eye-popping psychedelic picture of the beatles?! That was one of the most meaningful things in this article. Please put it back. There are now tons of texts without a colourful picture; now there is no difference between "tbe beatles" article and the "other bands articles"

Ahhh... the thorny problem. There is a view that the four photos look great - which they do - and adding anymore upsets the balance. You have a point though, because now there is a lot of black and white between them (plus lots of wonderful editing, of course) and it does get a bit hard to plough through so many paragraphs without a cup of visual tea. andreasegde 06:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Under review

This article is under featured article review. Punctured Bicycle 14:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Woo hoo! The Beatles score once more! TommyBoy76 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Not to ruin the atmos, but this means we may loose FA status. I doubt it though.--Crestville 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
And you tell me not to ruin the atmos... TommyBoy76 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no. I was telling the two who were arguing not to ruin the atmos. We'll never loose FA statue though.--Crestville 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were enjoying watching them bicker, and I was ruining it. :-) But whatevah... TommyBoy76 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought that as well, but I thought it was hilarious. "This is a local page for LOCAL people. Bickering? We´ll have no bickering here!"...... andreasegde 06:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I think it's hilarious when people bicker, too. I don't know why I stop it-- dammit. TommyBoy76 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic with my "woo hoo!", by the way. I have a feeling that you think I took the FAR as a good thing....just me? TommyBoy76 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

my bad.--Crestville 11:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to keep the FA star, the least you can do is source the quotes!Harmonica Wolfowitz 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh! Right boys, put your tea mugs down and pick up your shovels... andreasegde 06:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to plan some referencing? Everyone get a book and add citations for as much as they can? Or, should we go through the article and tag anything which needs a citation with {{fact}}? Perhaps the latter would be best. --kingboyk 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Do the latter first, then the former.--Crestville 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discography

Hey, I deleted "Magical Mystery Tour" from the Discography section since it's wasn't actually an album in the UK. However, it was in the US, and is usually considered one of the 13 albums today. Does anyone have an opinion on whether it should be on the list or not?

--Caesar 05:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. The problem is, you would need to include the Past Masters volumes to make the discography complete and the Past Masters albums are not original albums. My feeling is to keep the discography as it is showing only the original British albums (and I mean LPs) whilst The Beatles were together which means no MMT. The details, including the US and UK discographies are in the separate discography article. Steelbeard1 10:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to delete it because The Beatles was an internationally famous group and the greatest band. A wikipedia user who's a new Beatles fan, should see that there's an official M.M Tour album available (whether US or UK) and should see that millions bought it. Plus, English version is not for UK users; it's for the whole world :) --JohnEmerald 08:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have said it better, myself. TommyBoy76 21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, shit. I meant couldn't have. TommyBoy76 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of trivial, but if we keep MMT off, its more aesthetically pleasing. 12 albums looks much more even than 13. --Caesar 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So you want to keep it off because thirteen is believed to be a "bad number"? TommyBoy76 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I was sort of kidding. But I do think it shouldnt be on the list. I like the way that it is now though, with the 12 original albums and then a serperate section for the official catologue, with MMT and past masters. Caesar 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Put it in, and just put "US only", "Not available in the UK", or "Available in all native-speaking countries west of the Azores, but not available in any english-speaking country that vaguely resembles an island". Nah... forget the last one. andreasegde 06:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed "UK LPs" to "UK and USA LPs". So, please add Magical M. Tour LP thumbnail to the discog. list.

It may not be convenient or easy, but MMT exists, therefor it definitely needs to be listed, especially whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not. It would be ridiculous to avoid listing it just because twelve records look more even in a list then thirteen do. This is an encyclopedia! And if I'm not mistaken, the American version of MMT was later adopted to the official EMI discography. I don't think we're in the game to argue to EMI that MMT isn't an official record.

On the website www.Beatles-Discography.com, under the American LP section, it reads "It [MMT] ended up selling so many copies that EMI decided to incorporate it into the British discography (the only one of the American imports to do so)"

I believe that quote can also be found in the book titled; The Beatles: Day-By-Day, Song-By-Song, Record-By-Record (by author: Craig Cross)

-- Strawberry Pudding Wings

That's all well and good, but MMT WAS NOT an official UK release when The Beatles together. Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

MMT was an album in the U.S. by Billboard magazine's exacting standards, hitting the summit of its album chart on the first week of 1968 (replacing the Monkees "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones" after the former had spent five weeks on top) and staying there for the next eight weeks. So even if it was only an EP in Great Britain, it had real sale importance as a U.S. album and should be referenced as an official album on that fact alone (besides, how many other albums with pre-released singles are counted as hits?) This isn't "Meet The Beatles," it was a real project the Fabs took on.

You missed a discussion further down this page. A compromise has been reached. Remember that the original Beatle LPs are the original BRITISH albums. MMT was NOT an original British album. A new heading was inserted in the Discography section called "Official CD catalogue" which mentions MMT and the two Past Masters CDs to make the catalogue complete. Steelbeard1 11:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This is a great article but could use some general cleanup to make it flow a little better. I've made a small start and plan to work on it little by little. I've also made a couple of factual corrections here and there. If anyone has questions, please respond here. Raymond Arritt 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The "microphones" section is seriously inaccurate. Almost all the available studio photographs and documentation show the group using U47/U67/U48 mics for vocals. You can also see that the drum overhead was usually an AKG D19. The idea that they often used the AKG C28 probably comes from the Let It Be movie. I don't recall ever seeing a single picture of them using a C28 for vocals in the studio. Eventually I may write up some details later for mics, but am thinking it best to remove "microphones" section altogether in the interim, since it's so inaccurate. Any objections? Raymond Arritt 00:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
None from me. Can I ask you to include inline citations wherever possible? I.e. if you're adding a fact or quote from a book or other source, include the details in a footnote using a <ref> tag. It would be a tremendous help, thanks. --kingboyk 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Don´t remove it; add to it. If you remove it, someone will come along and repeat the process after it has gone. What about the bass drum/snare/guitar mics? Welcome to the club, by the way. andreasegde 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, good point. I've made a start. Raymond Arritt 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Rearranged some blocks of material to improve the organization. In particular I've tried to get the time coherent by moving the "Backlash and Breakup" material into the History section, as has been previously discussed. "Be Bold". Raymond Arritt 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is incorrect that the Beatles "established a prototype for the "self-contained" rock group, which split with the long-established practice of producers, composers and arrangers writing the songs for popular music acts." Buddy Holly wrote his own music and insisted on primary creative control over it, several years before the Beatles came along. Also, regarding the Beatles in the Philippines, the government did not set up roadblocks specifically to "harrass" the Beatles on their way to the airport. The roadblocks weren't there for the Beatles. The country was under martial law at the time, due to political/social unrest completely unrelated to the Beatles. The Fab Four was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. MindBodySoul 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

I added Cynthia Lennon's account of how the Beatles got thier name and turned her name into a link. It seems to be generally agreed that Lennon (John) was a fan of The Crickets but the reason for the actaul spelling of the word (bEAtles insted of bEEtles)seems to have several possible orgins.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antiproconist (talk • contribs).

Whoever added the bit about John Lennon changing the spelling of the band's name to The Beatles needs because "they were 'beat-less'" needs to add citation, post haste. I have been a Beatle fan and have read quite alot about them and have never come across this explanantion. Not even in Albert Goldman's book and he would have loved to put that in that little tidbit.Swatson1978 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Swatson re: the highly questionable "Beat-less" explanation. Remember that at one time they called themselves the "Silver Beatles", and "beat-less" makes no sense in that context. At that time in England, many bands were referred to as "beat groups", and you heard terms such as the "Mersey Beat" and "beat music". Playing music with a "beat" was something they prided themselves on. The Beatles decided on their name because they loved and played "beat" music. Also, if "beat-less" is correct, why didn't they pronounce it like that themselves? I challenge anyone to provide just one documented instance of any Beatle referring to themselves as the "Beat-less". If a citation from a reputable source is not forthcoming, that portion of the article needs to be deleted.

MindBodySoul 12:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is perfectly consistent with Lennon's sense of humour: and of course nobody ever said: "And here they are, "The Beat-less!" I'm also sure that a citation can be provided Lion King 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Swatson first requested a citation nine days ago, and none have been forthcoming. If you're sure one can be provided, then you should have no problem finding it for us. As I previously stated, if no reputable source can document it, the statement needs to be deleted. MindBodySoul 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If your'e in such a rush, BE BOLD and delete it. Lion King 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Article placings

Why is Backlash and Aftermath before Studio band? This is poppycock, because it throws the whole bally timeline out of order. I´ll write to my MP about this - you just see if I don´t... Colonel Wimpley-Tartoft 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have finished tidying up the weed patch called a garden, and have also put back the jolly old timeline. No need to write to The Times just yet. What-ho chaps. Colonel Wimpley-Tartoft 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Have been fiddlin´ with timeline again - even though the chaps at the club say I shouldn´t give a chuff, because some young spiv will come along and change it back. Imagine the cheek! Tally-ho... Colonel Wimpley-Tartoft 13:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Live or Memorex

Is there any citation available for the statement about the "live" recording of All You Need Is Love for the Our World show? The released recording certainly doesn't audibly contain the other performers clapping and singing along. Was the original performance a live version or was the single version played and lip synched (which I've never heard the Beatles doing)? Just wondering. OnlyTheHunter 19:58, 3 August 2006

Good question. Live main vocals but the rest was backing. Orchestra live? The conductor had headphones on. andreasegde 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Many, many citations including the Lewisohn books and the Geoff Emerick book. Plus of course the evidence of the video itself. A basic backing track was pre-recorded but most of the song was live. The orchestra, Lennon's vocal, Paul's bass and George's guitar were all done live. Ringo's drums couldn't be done live because of leakage onto the other mics. Raymond Arritt 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

It really needs more photos. I know the ones there are great, but they look disconnected now. Maybe bring them closer together and add some more below them? I think I´m suffering the effects of snow-blindness at the moment. andreasegde 12:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - there are almost too many photos now. This isn't a magazine article and the Web is *loaded* with Beatles photos; we don't need to duplicate that. Three or four group photos, illustrating their look at various times, is all that is needed, IMHO. - DavidWBrooks 12:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello David!
Loaded? Almost too many? Yes, there are seven - plus the album covers, of course - but can you really read through it without having a cup of tea and a biscuit? I think my attention span is too short, or my eyesight is failing (which are both probably true) but I am thinking about young readers who may give up reading it halfway through.
You´re obviously right about it not being a magazine, but it´s not really a "sepia-tinted photographs of the pyramids" encyclopedia, is it? (I do love them...) We should welcome any comments on this from other editors. It´s a very interesting point. andreasegde 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's not like they had the same look for the duration like Gerry & his Pacemaker is it? Every single time you saw them they had a different look, even during "The Suit Period" Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Why is MMT on the page? It wasn't a British album.Vera, Chuck & Dave
Look at previous comments. It´s a Worldwide Web. Lennon: "I´m ready to sing for the world, Geoff"... All you need is love. andreasegde 15:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case Introducing... The Beatles should be there - at least it was a vinyl import Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Er..no answer then? Vera, Chuck & Dave 09:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ohh... I´m not going to duel with a Master of Vinyl on that one. I know which side my bread´s buttered. I surrender my editing sword to you, dear sir... andreasegde 13:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol! Oh 'ey Lad, no need for pistols at dawn - I'm not even the master of margerine! When it comes to The Fabs pal, you are the Bizzo! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of more or fewer or rearranged pictures, how about different ones? The White Album headshots that are in the article at present will already be familiar to anyone who has an interest in the group. What about replacing them with a historical progression -- say, Quarrymen, Hamburg, Beatlemania moptops, Pepper psychedelia, Abbey Road-era slovenliness? Raymond Arritt 15:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Nice idea - andreasegde 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it could use a few more pictures actually. It's a long article, and there are big glops of white space. Not many - two or three. And replace the ATV logo with a real picture - that just looks strange. Carlo 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I for more. TommyBoy76 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I pulled the main photos together, put in the rooftop concert, a picture of a Neumann mic, and took out the Ed Sullivan photo in instrumentation. Slap me with a wet fish if dissatisfied. andreasegde 10:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Whoever put the four black and white pictures, alternating left to right, along with the white album pictures is probably a genius. I really like it!

Caesar 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Magical Mystery Tour

Instead of removing the picture of Magical Mystery Tour, may I suggest changing the heading on the box and adding MMT and the two volumes of Past Masters, which is the current release of the Beatles entire official discography while they were active? Carlo 14:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider "Past Masters" an album. It's essential to a complete collection, but it is a compilation, and probably shouldn't go on the list of original British albums. Caesar 04:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And so no consensus has developed which means no MMT in the list as it was NOT an official UK album whilst The Beatles were together. Steelbeard1 10:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like only you're against it...and right now, someone who looks at the article will get the idea that MMT was realeased in 1987, which is just silly. Why are we making the discography for UK releases only anyway? That makes no sense. Why not modify the second box (disco) for significant releases of previously unreleased material, that is, albums released in other markets before the UK, ie MMT? It's a significant album and its exclusion from the list makes no sense at all. It came out in 1967, not the 80s, but you'd never know it from this article.

Song samples & header levels

How come the years under the "Song samples" header are equal to it.

===Song samples===
===1965===

Shouldn't the years be a less important header. (ie: with 4 "="s)

===Song samples===
====1965====

-- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Change it. Never mind, I just did it. Be Bold... andreasegde 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First photo

Can´t we find a really stunning photo (colour) for the start of the page? I think we should archive this page as well. (I don´t know how to do it... ouch!) andreasegde 19:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, it has been done. Thanks.

NEWSFLASH

I was bought an album by The Rutles for my Birthday and have sinced watched the film All You Need is Cash. I was shocked to realise that my favorate band, The Beatles, had totally ripped off these poor sods! It's almost as if they took the songs of The Rutles and changed them ever-so-slightly for comic effect.

I am outraged and suggest we rebel. I suggest we boycott The Beatles and burn their records. I have set up collection points all over the coutry where you kids can hand over your Beatles records and paraphernalia. C'mon kids, fuck them scouse cunts!

Does anyone have a steamroller I could borrow?--Eric Idle 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. So we should be WikiProject The Rutles then?! --kingboyk 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Shit! I just knew it would get out into the open one day! Scouse cunt
Without me there would have been no Rutles. The late Spike Milligan 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Without me there would have been no late Spike Milligan. The early Spike Milligan
Without us there would have been no Spike at all. Mr. and Mrs. Milligan 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Music samples

Too many. Is it legal\necessary? Psychomelodic (people from Alpha Centauri think that I look like Zelig write your own!) 21:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, they´re not the full versions,and they may entice younger editors to listen to The Beatles. Even though I have the albums, I occasionally have a listen to one or two to remind myself as to why I am contributing. It always works, and I trudge along with a smile... That can´t be a bad thing, can it? andreasegde 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That Sir, is a very good point. I think I'll do the same myself! Stig O'Hara.
Damn, you just HAD to go and say that. I'm travelling and all my CDs are at home. But it's not like I don't have every single note memorized... Raymond Arritt 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Headers and content

I put in two new headers because I thought it could do with a break now and then. After I did it, I realised how much was missing from the sections.

  • "Hamburg" could do with: The names of the club managers, The Hamburg Mafia, the clubs they played in, George being sent back to England, the condom fire incident, Klaus, Astrid, the ´Beatles haircut´, Stu falling in love, "uppers, downers and prellies", sekt/champagne being sent to the stage, John with a toilet seat around his neck on stage, Best and Lennon robbing a sailor for money, prostitutes buying them food, err.... is that enough for starters? andreasegde 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I know a lot of this is already in the History of, but I have just read through it and I wonder what the real difference is between the two? Has this been talked about (pistols at dawn, you cad) before? andreasegde 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page categories

I'm a bit worried that we don't have enough categories at the bottom of this talk page. What do you guys think? --kingboyk 16:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not enough? There are a lot (if I understand what you´re saying). They could be put in some kind of order though. andreasegde 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There are so many, it's like a seeing eye picture. Stare at it for long enough and you will see a disordered chunk of categories that no one will ever use because they are so numerous.--Crestville 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Beatles cartoon series? Why no mention?

No mention of the cartoon series? That was my earliest introduction to the greatest pop music ever. Fantastic show. Perhaps it was not shown in the US?Leeborkman 23:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed previously; check the archives. If you want to do an article on it, please feel free. I would comment that it probably isn't important enough to go into the main feature but perhaps a link from one of the myriad other related articles. BTW - it was shown in the US, it was made there. Most of the contributors to this article are British, which is why it may not be so well known.LessHeard vanU 00:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Put it in Beatles trivia. That´s the place for it, and it would be welcome. andreasegde 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Restrict who can post in this article?

I deleted MMT from the British LP list yet again. It seems that MMT is being reinserted by those without User IDs. Is it possible to allow ONLY those with Wikipedia User IDs to post in this article? Those with only IP addresses would not be allowed to make changes to this article. Steelbeard1 11:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You can request semi-protection, which would only allow the article to be edited by users that have been registered for four days, but articles normally aren't protected unless it's being hit by a lot of vandalism, and don't get protected because of a content dispute. talk to JD wants e-mail 11:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I just did at [1]. Did I do it correctly? Steelbeard1 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would suggest replacing the whole list, and instead of making it the "original UK" make it official CURRENT discography, and include MMT and the two volumes of Past Masters. Carlo 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It was discussed previously, if you would look above, but the consensus was to keep the original British LP list. Any minds changed? Steelbeard1 15:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
MMT Was not an official UK release whilst The Beatles were together. I am at a complete loss as to why anyone still wishes to include it in their UK Discography - it really is patently obvious why it should not, and can not be included, surely? Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. And to change it from "Original UK" is called rewriting history.Vera, Chuck & Dave

The answer came and there is not enough activity to justify protection. Of course, we should all keep watch. Steelbeard1 21:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I just crafted a compromise solution in the discography section. What do you think? Steelbeard1 16:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That'll do for me Pal-Good job! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fab Four webcam helps stop burglary

No joke. What a hoot! BYT 16:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=13296096&src=rss/oddlyEnoughNews

Yes it is. (Sorry about inserting a Beatles song title) Is [2] the livecam in question? Steelbeard1 16:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure looks like it. Nice sleuthing. BYT 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That´s got to go in Beatles trivia, under "Politics and Police". andreasegde 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"You say Goodbye, and I say 'ello, 'ello, 'ello." Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Simultaneous UK/US number 1s

The article Artists achieving simultaneous U.S. and UK number-one hits has a gaping vacancy waiting to be filled by someone with some Beatles knowledge. This seemed like a good place to find it. Anyone filling said vacancy wins my eternal favour in this life and the next. Soo 17:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A list has been created. Steelbeard1 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, future things of this nature would probably be better addressed at WP:BEATLES. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Right, who changed the photos? C´mon, own up. We could have the earlier ones in there as well as the later ones. At the moment it looks like an advert for an early sixties TV programme. (Sound of fingers drumming on desk...) andreasegde 17:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the old ones back in, and left the black & whites in there as well. (Well, the general concensus was more photos...) andreasegde 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do prefer the early b&w's. Probably not those particular ones however. I have loads of photo's, but they're all in books and magazines of course. I suppose they're all copyright protected? --Patthedog 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney and Avant-Garde

The citation for this is not appropriate. You can't cite an Amazon website for the book; you need to actually cite passages fromt the book to support what you're saying, especially when you go into that much detail. So, please, somebody who's read the book fix this.

Good point, but you need to sign in. BTW, I´m surprised that someone who has only been contributing since 03:28, 27 August 2006 knows so much about stuff like that. It´s a puzzler... andreasegde 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Have just put in a link to The Guardian newspaper, which should be a verifiable source, should it not? andreasegde 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Win, lose, I don't know

Well, we lost FA status (rightly) but we got approved for GA very quickly indeed. I think GA is about right and it's a badge the article can wear with pride until such time as it's ready for resubmission as a Featured Article candidate. Get those reference books out folks and start citing! I don't so much feel that we've lost FA than we've gained GA :) --kingboyk 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Being that many of the edits are done by IP addresses and/or are reverts, I'm thinking that maybe this article should be semi-protected? You know, that thing were non-logged in users and users younger than four days or something can't edit? What do you think? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. Why would somebody not have an account when it´s so easy? andreasegde 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So do I. An earlier request to semi-protect this article got rejected, though. You can read about it above. Steelbeard1 09:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You can ask, but it will be difficult to persuade people. The ethos of Wikipedia is "the enyclopedia that anyone can edit". Quite how that fits in with Featured Articles I don't know, I guess we just have to be very severe with reversions. --kingboyk 09:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What if the Project were to request it, en masse? Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Dunno mate, but there's no harm in asking. --kingboyk 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
One of 'em just vandalised The Beatles and Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is How do you warn them? Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
See Template:TestTemplates. Basically, {{subst:test1}} ~~~~ for a first offence. --kingboyk 10:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey that's clever, I like that! Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Beatles_Archive_8_b3b0.html"