Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WPT:TBP

Contents

[edit] British English

[edit] "UK/US spelling" thread moved from Talk:The Beatles

We just seem to have went through a revert cycle over -ize/-ise spelling... Maybe the talk page should carry a notice at the top that this article uses UK spelling rather than US to avoid that? ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, although I'm not sure how many would see it. A quick revert cycle with appropriate edit comments is not a big deal as far as I'm concerned. John (Jwy) 17:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, but as a Brit I would say that wouldn't I :) No, seriously, I think an article on The Beatles should use UK English (Scouse even? :P), just as an article on his Bobness should go the other way. A talk page notice might not be a bad idea, if there's a template knocking around. --kingboyk 22:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I bet there is but it may be a bit hard to find... We could knock one up that was Beatles specific if you don't find it. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a perfect fit, maybe, but there's {{British-English}}. It could be modified slightly, if necessary. (Special:Allpages is a great way to find templates.) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We could hack that one I think. Cut it down a lot by removing perhaps ", and some terms (including {{{1}}}) that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English". Now here's an idea - if we imported it into {{WPBeatles}} it will instantly appear on over 50 Beatles related Talk pages! --kingboyk 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
There are a (very) few Beatles articles that I expect would be properly written in American English, so some sort of qualifier would be in order there but ya, good find. I'd be willing to hack this template's contents into {{WPBeatles}} if that's the thinking. I like the idea of it flashing up there all of a sudden. (other projects use some of their templates as ways to notify broadly, for example the membership template can have a list of urgent tasks or whatever)... LMK if you want me to give it a go. Its either that or work on the classification tables, or AfD something... (as for Special:Allpages, nod. I use it all the time but the problem is figuring out what a template might start with to narrow the search...) Note: this would be a big change as it would make the box somewhat bigger. So some more feedback would be good. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We could shrink it, while importing it... shall we move this discussion to Template talk:WPBeatles? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Importing content from Template:British-English" thread copied from Template talk:WPBeatles

The idea was mooted at Talk:The Beatles of adding a bit to this template to indicate that Beatles articles should be written in British English. Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would want to see the content kept inside the tan box, with a heading that suggest that more guidelines might be coming along. But ya, seems a good idea. Before we do it would like to hear more thoughts from other project participants. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a play in my sandbox if you like. Can then delete or do a history merge depending on if people disprove/approve. --kingboyk 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
A history merge may be a bit of overkill to just see what it looks like, you can just paste the change in to the real template once we like it, presumably... but sure! Sounds good. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ya, I meant once it had been approved and hacked about. It's currently in User:Kingboyk/Sandbox but read only for a few mins pse. --kingboyk 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the current text (modded and edited down) of {{British-English}} should be inside the upper tan box as a bullet point under the heading "suggested article guidelines" (coming up with at least one more guideline would help make sense of that I guess) Maybe you're working on it! If you don't follow, LMK and I'll have a go... ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hack away. --kingboyk 03:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I will. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I like it seperate. My reason for including it in the template was ease of propogation. YMMV. --kingboyk 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's just one of several guidelines we'll want to introduce though... we don't want to cruft all the articles up with a bunch of boxes because they included one template. The guideline text should be smaller but I was messing about with font and div and small and stuff to no effect. If it's the ONLY guideline, then ya. See how it looks now and then say what you think (I added another guideline bullet, it may not be a keeper but it gives an idea.++Lar: t/c 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice job. Is there any way of adding an optional argument to turn the British English message off for articles to which it probably shouldn't apply (of which there won't be many, if any)? I'm pretty sure there is but I forget (qif??). --kingboyk 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
{{qif}} should do it, I think but I forget too. There's also a way to do it with css (class "hidden structure) I expect, see {{Infobox Bridge}} for example. (that includes things if a parm IS present, we want the opposite though...) before you copy it over let me have a hack by using table cell formatting to see if I can get the text smaller. Probably time to archive off all the stuff that I commented out back when (the cover image we can't use, for example) too... Gimme a few min. However now that we've both been hacking, ya, technically under GFDL a history merge is needed... ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We can leave it in the sandbox until we have at least a 3rd opinion (and until you're done) and then I can move it into place. Trust me I'm a wiki-doctor! (Lar shudders) --kingboyk 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ya, but are you in National Health or private practice? Trust you??? You've been reading talk:Seduction Community and its links again haven't you? OK, give it a boo, it's at 80%. Reformatted but not all the commented out stuff removed yet. I did not do the qif thing though... Try including it from some other page as a test, and point us back here will ya? (this whole convo will redlink once we're done I guess) Totally down with waiting for the final surgery till we hear from others. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As is often the case, I've no idea what you're talking about so will just vaguely agree! :P I've read "The Game" though - cracking read. OK, I'll take a look. Convo won't so much redlink as point to whatever garbage happens to me in my sandbox at any given moment :) --kingboyk 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

<-- I think it's too small, but I'm sick of my own voice so let's wait until User:GTBacchus comes back or someone else shows up with an opinion. --kingboyk 04:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It may well be too small... I had it at 85% and decided to "push it" to 80%... even 90% would make it seem smaller and therefore not the dominant part of the box so that's certainly an option. I'm done for now, then... we've got time of course. What I mean by try including it from some other page is just to do an inclusion as a test to see what it looks like included (we're looking at it when the "noinclude" switches are tripped)... go here: User:Lar/Sandbox to see it included. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally wondering about the need to include this at all. I'm pretty sure the guidelines (or is it policy) are that all articles should be in what is termed 'British English' by default, unless the subject of the article is based in a country which speaks a different dialect of English. I think it might be best to simply state that the articles in question are part of the project, and re-enforce the policy on the main project page (along with the note on categories). Has there been much trouble regarding dialects? --Mal 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, I actually seem to recall the opposite, that all articles are to be in American English (WM foundation is a Florida corporation, Jimbo is a US citizen, etc.) unless the subject is based in a country which speaks a different dialect... 98% of these articles (but not all, articles on American record company activities or memorable US shows, to make up some examples, which I have no idea of their existance or not) are British english subject matter. But I don't have a cite to back me up at the moment. Good thing we're doing this in sandboxes then, I guess. I'm not too sussed if we ditch it. Or ref some project standards guideline, as suggested below. The advantage of having it in the box is that it's in sight. Out of sight, out of mind. Links you have to follow don't always get followed, so some inyourface-ness may be good, if it's polite. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
PS, here's some cites... style actually is as given here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling (read at least through

"National Varieties of English" and here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling) ... so I wasn't quite right, but close. ++Lar

  • Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
  • If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
  • If there's no strong tie, try to find synonyms that can be used in any dialect.
  • If no such words can be agreed upon, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English --kingboyk 06:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Afterthought: if people are determined that some note about English usages should be mentioned in the template, then how about a simple note saying "For editing guidelines see pageX" where pageX contains the editing guidelines for this project (and the page is obviously wiki'ed). --Mal 05:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the guidelines at all. The guidelines are that the dialect of the original author is retained, unless the article is on persons/places/concepts which are geographical. I prefer the seperate box though, I think, because it's a Wikipedia policy not ours. (See Talk:The Beatles for how this discussion arose, by the way). --kingboyk 05:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You still like the separate box better? it doesn't always apply, and as soon as we mod it, it's our sub-policy, not overall project. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. OK - in that case I still think the suggestion I made in my afterthought makes sense. --Mal 05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

lol, I'm getting a headache now. Nothing suggested so far has been outrageous or disagreeable so somebody please be bold :) If that involves moving a sandbox and restoring page history give me a shout. --kingboyk 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions

Any exceptions can be discussed here. --kingboyk 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The" Beatles

[edit] '"The" vs. "the"' thread moved from Talk:The Beatles

I was under the impression that within a sentence, the the in front of a group name does not need to be capitalized. You wouldn't write "I really like The Beatles" just as you wouldn't write "I really like The Dallas Cowboys." This needs to be fixed in the article. —simpatico hi 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • They were "The" Beatles not "Beatles", like "The" Kinks, "The" Who, not the "Who," "the" Dallas Cowboys, is correct, "the" Beatles is not.Lion King 19:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I realize that, but when referring to a group within a sentence it's not necessary to capitalize the the portion of the name. Just like you wouldn't type Beauty and The Beast. In all the Beatles books I have, they are referred to as "the Beatles" when in the middle of a sentence. —simpatico hi 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Beatles is a NAME, "the" in Beauty and "the" Beast, connects Beauty with the Beast. It is obvious that you and your books, are North American.Lion King 20:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I am, and I didn't realize there was a difference in grammar on this point between other English-speaking countries... —simpatico hi 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no difference in grammar, all names must have capital letters, as I've said, "The Beatles" was their name, they were not "Beatles". Had they been called "Beatles", then "the" Beatles would be correct. Best wishes, Lion King 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If there's no difference in grammar, then why are all my professionally edited Beatles books consistently "wrong" in this respect? —simpatico hi 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The official name of the Dallas Cowboys isn't The Dallas Cowboys. The Beatles are The Beatles officially and legally. Kingturtle 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see both sides of this one, but what convinces me that it should be The is 1) the Beatles just looks strange to me, 2) WP:MOS-T has an example Rodin's 'The Thinker' which would seem to be a similar context, 3) the horse's mouth (Henry?): [The Beatles Official site]. John (Jwy) 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry, for got to sign last time).
  • Even at the official site, they are inconsistent. . . John (Jwy) 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) the Beatles just looks strange to me
The Beatles looks strange to me, that's how I noticed it
2) WP:MOS-T has an example Rodin's 'The Thinker' which would seem to be a similar context
"The Thinker" is the title of a work of art, which is why it requires quotations and capitalization. I think the fact that all of the Beatles books I skimmed used the Beatles shows that this is the proper capitalization in the professional editing world. Grammar on websites is not regulated. Also, if "The" is inextricably linked to the Beatles' name, why do we say "Beatles music" and "Beatles books" and "Beatles memorabilia"? Yes, they are "The Beatles," but the "the" is only there when necessary, because "Beatles" is a proper name (see definition 1g of "the"). —simpatico hi 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. "The Beatles" is a title of a band. When the word "the" appears in a title, it is not capitalized, unless it is the first word. Which, in this case, it is. The Beatles is the band's name; the has to be capitalized. And believe me, going through and changing all the "the"s in the article takes a damn long time. Seriously.--jfg284 you were saying? 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, "The Beatles" is not a title at all, otherwise it would be put in quotations or italics. It's a proper name, and when you have "the" in your proper name it needn't be capitalized. I used the example of Beauty and the Beast because of the Beast's name more than the mid-title "the." —simpatico hi 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is correct. When the first letter in a title or name,(The Beatles) wherever it appears in a sentence it is always capitalised. That's what I was taught and for what it's worth, I'm English. Lion King 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC) PS "I've got a whole bunch of Beatles records," - incorrect, "I have almost all of The Beatles records," - correct. Lion King
...almost all The Beatles' records! Don't forget that apostrophe! Davidpatrick 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well said sir! One must never forget the apostrophe! Lion King 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Would someone please explain to me why none of my Beatles books use this seemingly correct grammatical convention? I have 7 of them, and I checked them all. I refuse to believe a bunch of hobby-editors at a website would know better than professionally trained and well-paid editors at a publishing house. If you look at the definition of "the" I linked above[1], the Beatles' "the" fits the definition of an article preceding a proper name. —simpatico hi 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Beatles" is not their proper name. --jfg284 you were saying? 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, but the convention is that when a proper name begins with "the" it doesn't need to be capitalized mid-sentence. Here's evidence: Beatles' Biography at RollingStone.com, Beatles' Biography at AllMusic.com, and most importantly the frickin' Encyclopaedia Britannica (which doesn't capitalize the "the" at all). —simpatico hi 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have checked the entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and their entry "the Beatles, Beatles, the" is incorrect. Correct usage, "Bob was startled by the way The Beatles had reinvented rock'n'roll, rejuvenating the music he had listened to as a teenager." Source - "Down the Highway - The Life of Bob Dylan" by Howard Sounes published 2001 Doubleday. Index: Beatles, The. Lion King 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Not all of these are the ones I have, but these are some Beatles books that have the "Search Inside" function at Amazon. To be fair, I did come across one book that had "The Beatles," by I think majority rules. I could link to more if you'd like, but I have homework... —simpatico hi 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what's important here would be consistency within Wikipedia, so I would suggest whatever the choice, we might suggest the Wikipedia policy pages be updated to suggest that choice. Either way doesn't detract from my understanding of the topic, so I'm not really concerned either way.

But, I did some homework. I have a copy of The Chicago Manual of Style (14th Edition). Chapter 7.2:

Modern publishers of works in the English language, American perhaps more than British, usually discourage excessive use of capital letters in text. . .

And in almost all non-first-word-in-the-sentence examples they have lower case on the, including the Crown, the Sun King, etc. There are various group names (the Congress of the United States, etc.) but nothing in the specific category of something like a pop band. But under 7.135 (part of Books and periodicals), we have (after discussing dropping a title's initial article entirely when it made the sentence awkward):

An initial article that does not offend the syntax may be retained as part of the title (except in newspaper titles):
In The Old Curiosity Shop, Dickens. . .
or
In the Old Curiosity Shop, Dickens. . .

So this very American style book leans toward the Beatles, but with an opening for The Beatles.

As they are an English band, however, I would want to see the English style book (is there one?) checked as it looks like we Yanks are a bit shyer about the capitals.

In the same vein, we might want to double check the same references at The English Amazon Site to see if they English editions capitalize differently (I checked one - they had the Beatles). John (Jwy) 06:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • God Save The Queen's English! God Save Us From The Septic's! Lion King 10:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC) P.S.Capitalise with a Z? You lot are 'aving a larf! Lion King

Lion King, blame this guy.--jfg284 you were saying? 17:14, 25 January 2006 :You blame him.Lion King

  • God Save the Colourful Theatres! I'm sorry, I didn't realise... ;) —simpatico hi 10:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Prithy, dost thou speak of Bridie's Fire? Lion King
  • Wot? Bollocks! —simpatico hi 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • would you care to explain this outburst? Lion King 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Jumping in as a fellow north american, i'll point out that such an outburst is, by our standards, not an outburst at all. It's seen more as a standard British interjection. Bollocks just doesn't carry the same clout here as it does there (or, at least, as I am under the impression it does over there.)--jfg284 you were saying? 21:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear north american, why have you edited your original post? To make my response (which I've blanked) look aggresive, rather than jocular? Don't try to Donald me mate. Lion King 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Totally agree about having the WP style guide reflect some kind of standard with this. I searched and searched for some grammatical guidelines on it, and was shocked not to find any, especially with so many band articles on here. I couldn't even find much on the web at large. Also, I agree that if there is a national difference in grammar here this article should reflect the English convention. Thanks for looking that up. —simpatico hi 10:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all well and good, but you haven't told me why you use a Z instead of an S. Lion King 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Too much reading of the Chicago Manual of Style. I'll have to get me a copy of Ye Olde Manchester Manual Of Style. John (Jwy) 15:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


The Beatles Anthology book refers to them as "The Beatles" throughout, but Hunter Davies' biography (the 1981 edition) uses "the Beatles". I also recently got a book about The Verve (or the Verve, if you prefer) from the library, which capitalises all the thes in band names.

Personally I tend to use a lower-case "the" in band names and in the middle of titles, but a capital letter at the start of titles. For example, "I recently read the book The Lord of the Rings", not the Lord of the Rings, the Lord of the Rings or The Lord Of The Rings. I'd say, "I really like the Beatles' albums The Beatles and With the Beatles." Actually, I'd refer to the first one as The White Album, but you get the point. :)

I've also somehow got it into my head that in song titles, every letter should be capitalised: "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds".

I don't know what to think now. :) --Nick RTalk 12:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an English major, so this is purely opinion, but...The way I see it, "The Beatles" should be used whenever you are referring to the group as a whole, and when they're being specifically addressed. For example, "I really like The Beatles", or "Among the influential bands of the 60's were The Beatles." However, I also think "Beatles" may be considered a word on its own, used to describe individual members ("George was a Beatle") and things that are related to The Beatles ("I have several Beatles records"). And you know how we say things like "Beatles-esque", and not "The Beatles-esque"? Also, I think that although "the Beatles" could be used in certain situations it should be used sparingly...Eg. "Paul McCartney was one of the Beatles" or "Paul McCartney was one of The Beatles"...The first example seems to refer to Beatles as in each individual member, and Paul being among those members, so it seems to make sense. The second applies Paul as being part of The Beatles taken as a whole. It seems to make sense as well. But the only reason I would lean to capitalizing "The" is for consistency. What do you think? Stapler 9 42

  • My two shillings' worth: The confusion above seems based on a multiple (contextual) usage of a word. The word The is the first word in the name of the band, The Beatles. Any mention of the band, qua band should be capitalised. There were also four Beatles (or five or six, whatever). Any usage of the collective noun, "Beatles," should only have the noun capitalised, not the associated article. Analogy: Sue and Fred Millers have a daughter they named The. "I went to the movies with The Millers" means I shared popcorn with the daughter of Sue and Fred; "I went to the movies with the Millers" means I accompanied one or more members of the family. ergo, "John was a Beatle" is correct; "John was a member of The Beatles" is correct; "John was a The Beatles" is not; "John was a member of the Beatles" is not. Just an opinion. Kevin/Last1in 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, Strongly! Lion King 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Beatles or the Beatles?" thread moved from Talk:The Beatles

"The "t" in "the" does not need to be capitalized. I encourage you to look at an style dictionary or article/essay/book on the Beatles" - well that told me, didn't it?! [2] So, anyway, we ought to standardise on one or the other - "The Beatles" or "the Beatles"? I think he's wrong, as policy actually lists "The Beatles" - Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name)#Names_of_bands_and_groups --kingboyk 17:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

God here we go again! You are right Mr. Kingboyk, see the Beatles v The Beatles further up the page. I thought this one had been resolved! Lion King 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah OK mate, thanks for the headsup (Talk:The_Beatles#.22The.22_vs._.22the.22). I'm in agreement with you so it may be a Brit/US thing (I think all words in song titles should be capitalised). On this particular point, it would seem that existing WP policy (the link I provided earlier) says "The Beatles", there's a good argument for capitalising The ("The" is part of their name), but many if not most published sources use "the" (with the very notable exception of The Beatles' own Anthology). Is that a fair summation?
Either way, let's make a Project policy one way or the other and then stick to it. Inconsistency is bad. --kingboyk 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, consistency is paramount. In my opinion the last point made by user Kevin/Lastin in the previous dicussion, hits the nail on the head. I feel that it's irrefutable. Lion King 18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what Kevin said, but how about this: http://www.beatles.com. "Welcome to the official website of The Beatles."
While the "t" is sometimes lower case on The Beatles' official site, that only seems to occur when quoting someone (usually Derek Taylor's biography).
It is standard practice when determining usage to allow those whose logo it is to make such determinations (e.g., Barneys New York has no apostrophe or comma. Caesars Palace has no apostrophe. Macy's does.) It seems to me that if The Beatles capitalize the "T," then a capital T it is. At least that's how we did it when I was a proofreader in advertising. Carlo 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Kevin's comments are not straightforward; they're at the end of the section Talk:The_Beatles#.22The.22_vs._.22the.22. Could someone try and construct a draft policy from the debate above? It would seem to be "The Beatles", with certain exceptions. --kingboyk 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I also agree with Kevin. Carlo 19:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree, what Kevin is saying is, "Sue and Fred Millers have a daughter that they name "The". "I went to the movies with "The" Millers means I shared popcorn with the daughter of Sue and Fred". "I went to the movies with "the" Millers", means I accompanied one or more members of the family. Therefore, "John was a member of "The" Beatles", is correct, "John was a "The" Beatles", is not. "John was a member of "the" Beatles", is not. "John was "a" Beatle", is correct. "The" Beatles was their name just like "The" Millers.Lion King 19:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat the Millers example matey I still don't understand it! :-) Can you just knock up a policy? Or is it simply "The Beatles", full stop? --kingboyk 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's "The Beatles". Full stop, period, wiv knobs on! Lion King 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've invited the editor whose diff I provided to come over here and debate it (Talk:Brian Epstein). I say we let this thread run a few days and if we have consensus make the outcome a Project policy. --kingboyk 21:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is also proper grammer. "The Beatles" is the proper noun name of the group, and should be us as such when refering to the group as a singular item. When referring to the components (that would be John, Paul, George and Ringo) or aspects of the band then grammer dictates that one of the "the's" would become redundant as in "Stuart Sutcliffe was an early member of the The Beatles." (this is how the grammer in some European languages would have it, though!) and since the former "the" takes precedence over the latter "The" then the correct use is "...early member of the Beatles." Hmmm... I think the "Miller" example is easier to understand, even though it is not made clear whether the popcorn was plain, salted or sweetened.LessHeard vanU 09:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Rodger dodger kingie! Cheers, Lion King 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll see your "Rodger dodger" and raise you a Big 10-4! --kingboyk 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen, you whinging poms, don't pin this kerfluffle on UK/US differences, ok? I'm all in favor of "The" rather than "the"... That said, Carlo says above: "It is standard practice when determining usage to allow those whose logo it is to make such determinations (e.g., Barneys New York has no apostrophe or comma...)" WP does not do things that way, because if it did, you'd find the main LEGO article at LEGO instead of that page being a redirect to Lego. THAT said, I agree with Steve/Kingboyk, let this discussion run its course, and then add the outcome to project policy, just like we did on British/US English spelling variation (we chose British for obvious reasons), and let the greater WP rage on as it likes. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oi, I'm not a Prisoner of Mother England, I'm English by birth, Millwall by the grace of God! Lion King 14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
And I live in the Duchy of Cornwall (er... although I am pure British mongrel by birth and inclination!)"Whars thar sayin' too?"LessHeard vanU 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
You live in Cornwall? You lucky Pastie! Lion King 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles. Thank you. TommyBoy76 17:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy6

Alright, I think consensus is clear, it's "The Beatles", so let's make it Project policy. Can I just ask (and apologies in advance for being a pain in the arse), but are there any exceptions (e.g. "each of the Beatles")? I'll probably do an AWB run sometime to bring consistency to the articles so I need to know if I should change every instance of "the Beatles" or whether some discretion is required. --kingboyk 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No exceptions, "each of "The" Beatles". John was "a" Beatle, Beatles' records' etc, fine, yeah? Lion King 21:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, I'm forgetting With the Beatles which is of course, the official title of the album.
OK mate, cheers. --kingboyk 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "each of the Beatles" might be an exception. I'm not an grammatician but it sounds like maybe? Here's why.. we would say "each Beatle had a distinctive style" as easily as "each of the Beatles had a distinctive style" right? No strong feelings though. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
"Each of "the" Beatles" is still refering to their name. "Each Beatle" is correct. Cheers, Lion King 22:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Who'd'a thunk that a band name could be so confusing?? Any other definite articles that need to be discussed? I couldn't find any... I'll have to read a couple times more. TommyBoy76 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

[edit] Exceptions to the "The Beatles" rule

I am not ready to draft the policy text yet because, not being a grammatician, I can't clearly articulate the rule for the exceptions. But I am SURE there are some out there. I think they, or some of them, revolve around possessives, as I alluded to in the thread above. I would on the other hand be comfortable with a statement of "no exceptions unless someone presents a case for the exception that's clearly articulated and which is a rule that can be applied consistently" or something like that... ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have something. I started an AWB run yesterday, and "The Beatles" looked bad in quite a few places so I gave up for the evening. I thought of the following example as a possible exception when I was in bed last night:

  1. "John is a Beatle. Paul is a Beatle. George is a Beatle. Ringo is a Beatle. Interviewed individually, the [four] Beatles all said..." (imagine the "four" isn't there).

Would it not be the case, then, that it's "The Beatles" when referring to the name of the group as a proper noun, but not when it is used to indicate four (or even two or more) individuals who are Beatles? This might also extend to the possessive. Comments? --kingboyk 17:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me, yeah... Is there a grammatician in the house? (I'm not a grammatician but I play one on TV) ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a MA from University College London in Modern English Language and am a former proofreader and copyeditor and current music editor for Amazon.com. Does that count? :) Looks like I've come a bit late to this particular party :) but in my professional work we never capitalize the "the" in band names, never ever. Maybe it's just an American thing, as alluded to above, but by American standards I think it looks unprofessional. If it's more standard in the U.K. that's fine, as it's already been decided British English should be used on Beatles articles. To answer the particular question, Kingboy's exception is correct and necessary. --Lukobe 06:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. What we really need now is an opinion from an expert in British English, since we plan to write most articles in that dialect. (I must confess to absent-mindedly typing "the Beatles" often enough, and I'm sure that not only in the case I provided but others too it's the correct form). We seem to be in a bit of a mess over this one so I've annotated it as "still a draft". --kingboyk 04:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
To not capitalise "The" in a band's name is incorrect, I'm not a grammarian but "The Beatles" is a name, it was their name. Had they been called "Beatles", it would be fine to say, "I heard "the" Beatles on the radio last night", or "all four of "the" Beatles on the radio" etc. To say, "the" four Beatles is correct, but one cannot "imagine" that "four" isn't there because it IS. "The" in The Beatles name, is just as important as "Beatles" and needs to be capitalised. Cheers Lion King 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
LionKing, "incorrect" in what sense, if you're not a grammarian? --Lukobe 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you on the wind up or what? Lion King 23:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I'm just trying to figure out on what basis you consider "the Beatles" to be "incorrect" if it's not on a grammatical one.

I'd still like to see what a British style manual (comparable to Chicago in the U.S.) has to say about the matter. --Lukobe 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes "The" less important than "Beatles"?. Lion King 10:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's an article. --Lukobe 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles is correct as that is their legal name, and I believe it is registered as a trade name - as is "Beatles" - which would be pointless if it were not correct terminology. In discussing the group you are also discussing the legal entity and British law insists on the correct title within context. Grammaticians may argue semantics, but the name is established under Company Law.LessHeard vanU 20:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Company law doesn't control writing style, at least not in this context. If Apple cares to sue Wikipedia for writing "the Beatles" and not "The Beatles," that's something else entirely. --Lukobe 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Why even consider putting Wikipedia in such a position in the first place? They are The Beatles. Lion King 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I would still like to know what generally accepted British writing style is in cases like this. I don't think Wikipedia should go against it. How do the Times, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Sun, Evening Standard, Economist, and FT spell band names when they have occasion to? And how do books put out by reputable publishers do it? That is what Wikipedia should do. Fear not, Apple will never sue over something like this. --Lukobe 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be The Times, The Guardian, The Independant, etc. would it not?LessHeard vanU 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"The Beatles Off The Record" by Keith Badman, which has 496 pages, does not at anytime refer to "the" Beatles once, only "The" Beatles. Right, that's my lot, I've had this bollocks on and off for months. Lion King 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I think you mean Apple Corps.
Who published The Beatles Off the Record? --Lukobe 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I meant what I wrote, "Apple," which is short for "Apple Corps" and which you understood.
BTW Are you telling me that when you were a guest in my fair City, you never read an English newspaper? Lion King-Ombunis Press.
I read the Times, Evening Standard, and Independent quite regularly and still read The Economist. Can't remember how they feel about this particular issue. BTW, you mean Omnibus Press? I'd be more interested in what Cambridge, Oxford, Penguin, HarperCollins, etc. do. --Lukobe 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Spotted the deliberate mistook then? Well done! I don't feel anyone will convince you that you are wrong, so go and find someone else to play with son, I'm very bored with you Bye bye. Lion King 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[3]
I'd be a pretty poor copyeditor if I hadn't, no? I must say I find your attitude interesting, as I've done my best not to insult you here; I don't see why you are trying to do that to me. Coincidentally, "I don't feel anyone will convince you that you are wrong" applies from me to you as well :) The thing is, when it comes to questions like this, what is "right" or "wrong" depends on dominant usage, not necessarily "logic"; which is why I've said I think my version is correct for US English and which is why I repeat my call for someone to come up with a source for UK English standards. I don't see what I've said that you can actually disagree with...I've never said anything definitive about UK English style, have I?
Fascinating... --Lukobe 05:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
To write the Beatles and not The Beatles would be like writing "the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra", They are "The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra", same goes for "The Beatles". "Beatlemad" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.161.12 (talk • contribs) .
That's a circular argument, because of course I would contend that it should be "the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra" :) --Lukobe 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the hell has my IP been revealed? I never gave my permission - who do I report this to???. "BeatlesVERYmad" And don't reveal this one! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.220.2 (talk • contribs).
Your IP appears in the "history" log, whether you sign your comments or not, if you don't have a username or haven't logged on.LessHeard vanU 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If you don't want your IP address revealed, sign up for an account and then post from it... --Lukobe 22:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

After racking my brains, the only scenario I could come up with is if a non-UK, variant English speaking culture, editor contributed a Beatles specific article relating to that country. For example, if a US editor was to produce an article called "John Lennon's New York" then it would follow that naming and grammer conventions would follow the native grammer style - especially in that the article is as much about NY as it is Lennon.LessHeard vanU 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(More of a British vs US English question this one; once we've decided on the or The Beatles there's no changing it regardless of the article subject). Possibly, but John Lennon was British and we've agreed to use British English for all articles unless there is a very good reason why not to, for consistency mostly. What I'm saying is, normal Wikipedia practice would be to stick with the original author's choice of venacular, but we've elected to override that guideline in some cases. It would have to be listed as a possible exception and discussed rather than being an automatic "default to American style". --kingboyk 11:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it is a possible exception; the example of "JL's NY" is still relevant, I feel, since if it is an article regarding New York landmarks with annotations as to what Lennon did there, then it really is an article about NY which we would like to include since it is based around a subject fundemental to the project - possibly written by an editor with no knowledge of the project (for instance, just as a series of "(subjects) New York". We should not demand that it should be written to project policy - as it was not part of the project when created - and most likely should very politely ask of the contributors if they minded it was included. Long point short; if it was written outside of The Beatles ambit, and only deals with The Beatles as part of the subject matter, then we should be careful about applying our policy without us initiating discussion. I'm not being picky ('onest, guv'nor), just providing an example where automatic application of policy may not be correct.LessHeard vanU 20:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)ps. There is an article about US/UK differences in grammer/spelling styles; I've considered bringing the The/the question up on the talk page if the matter continues to be raised - although it shouldn't effect policy in the meantime. I'm all for discussing it, as long as there is no edit war.
I really think we should go for consistency... That said, I'm interested to hear the result of your enquiry, not least because "the" or "The" has come up on The KLF's Featured Article candidacy too! (rolls eyes). --kingboyk 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
(this section is even more difficult to insert edits than to read it) The early concensus is that "the" should be capitalised as it is part of the proper noun. Examples given were The Independent newspaper and, perhaps very importantly, The Who. However, the respondees are UK and they suggested I contact a US editor who contributes to the UK/US Differences article for an opinion. I have done so, and hope that a response will shortly be posted on the talk page. In the meantime, it appears we should continue with "our" naming policy, as it is consistent with an article regarding one of The Beatles contemporaries. Oh yeah, and I made two spelling mistakes in my initial request - and they were pointed out (grin)!LessHeard vanU 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a great idea. Post here letting us know if you post it there, will you? I'd like to see what they have to say. --Lukobe 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've asked it at Talk:American_and_British_English_differences and hope I've taken a neutral tone (or at least commented where my sympathies lie). I've not referred to The Beatles but given similar examples - close enough to be definative - since I don't want to expand the discussion to within these pages. If the answer is that it is a difference of UK/US style then the project policy defines the correct use; if there is no (definative) answer then we need look at other avenues, and if it is our grammatical error then we will just have to bite the bullet and say that it stays as The Beatles cos that's just the way it is! (or change it, I suppose).*grin*LessHeard vanU 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
One doesn't need to be American. What about "The" New York Times, "The" Wall Street Journal, "The" Washington Post, and "The" Byrds? Why "the" Beatles? It's "The" Beatles, just like "The" Rolling Stones. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter of finding a definative authority, so ending the ongoing debate; The policy is established. We need to have everything properly authenticated to get the article back to its "featured" status standard.LessHeard vanU 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The US editor responded by commenting that not only did he consider that "the" should be capitalised as per UK English, but that it would be true for some proper nouns in US English. Whilst he demurs that he is a grammarian, I think we can now proceed on the basis that the case for capitalisation is proven. Lukobe, whilst there indeed may be reference books supporting your contentions, I think this discourse has now been exhausted. If you feel you can contribute to The Beatle articles under the existing grammatical policy, your help would be welcome.LessHeard vanU 00:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I can and will; thanks, LHvU :) ==Lukobe 04:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to formalise your involvement, plonk your name onto the Participants list. If you don't, that's cool too! :) --kingboyk 04:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Never mind articles, biogs or web sites, just take a look at Ringo's Bass Drum - what's it say? "The" Beatles or "the" Beatles? At least HE knew what their name was! Vera, Chuck and Dave.
That is an excellent point.LessHeard vanU 13:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No it's not :) The word "the," like any other word, is always capitalized when it begins a sentence. --Lukobe 19:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a sentence, it is a name/title; and that is why the "The" is capitalised.LessHeard vanU 21:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I missed where this was discussed, but from the band's album covers, it's not obvious to me that they considered the word "The" an essential part of their name. Note that the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, an album to which a great deal of attention was paid to the production of the cover, shows the band name as "BEATLES" instead of "THE BEATLES". The word "The" was similarly omitted from the front cover of Beatles for Sale and Magical Mystery Tour. Obviously, several of the band's albums do refer to them as The Beatles as opposed to just Beatles (and other album covers do not display the band name at all on the front), but this just suggests to me that the band considered the word "The" in their name to be optional. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point :) --Lukobe 05:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Except, it says The Beatles on the labels. Vera, Chuck & Dave 08:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO... this whole non-issue ("the" vs. "The") is a bunch of damned hairsplitting, and I notice that while a few folks fastidiously change "the" to "The" when the word "Beatles" follows, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTEXT OR HOW MANY TIMES THE NAME HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED AND/OR CAPITALISED, this is not done with any other bands; not even within the same article. This is time- and space-wasting... not to mention a bit hypocritical. Zephyrad 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One can write: "Chuck us "the" jam, I want to make a buttie", but not: "I think "the" Jam are a rubbish band". It's their NAME and "The" needs to be capitalised wherever and whenever it appears in a sentence - I was taught that shortly after we'd stopped writing with crayons! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I never wrote with crayons... I coloured with mine, and wrote with a pen, or pencil as needed. And you still haven't answered my point: While I see where you and others have gone around to site after site to implement this Non-Issue with the "The" thing... none of you with this same wild hair are capitalising the T for ANY OTHER BANDS, even within the SAME ARTICLE (eg. "The Remo Four"). So, are we to believe the Beatles are the ONLY band who should get this alleged "show of appreciation"? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Zephyrad 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't got wild hair, it's very neat, otherwise I couldn't get me helmet on :) All the best, Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The reference is to "a wild hair"... oh, sorry, "A Wild Hair", in this case had by more than one person. Best also, but let's not talk further. Zephyrad 20:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
A very good idea, as you seem completly devoid of a sense of humour. Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Even though I still disagree with it, this seems to be settled policy on the project. But that is a good question--why don't the other bands get the same treatment? --Lukobe 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
PS Zephyrad, you're not going to convince them. I'm a professional music editor with a MA in English linguistics and they didn't listen to me :) --Lukobe 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You might be right... after all, you can lead a horse to water... I'd like to see these folks start telling Poli Sci writers they must henceforth say "The President", "The Prime Minister", "The Senate", etc. in every last case? Having to see The every Flipping Time is Awkward and Ridiculous. (And still hypocritical, as in "By the time The Beatles met the Monkees"... wtf?!) We don't see "Last night Governor Whoever spoke, and The Governor's topics included..." Wanna be honest, guys? Make it all or none... or even better, go by CONTEXT! Zephyrad 20:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This, and related articles, falls under the policy of the project regarding The Beatles. After discussion, and the referring of the matter to third parties, it was decided to continue the naming policy regarding The Beatles. Not any other band - just The Beatles. Members of this project may feel strongly about the appropriate capitalisation of the definative in differing bands, but would not wish to impose those views without consultation/concensus. Therefore, other bands names would be left in the style as per the original contributor - per Wiki policy - whether it be correct by the users native version of English or an incorrect application of same.LessHeard vanU 23:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that sounds like somebody's cue to get the stable shovel... things are getting kinda deep in here. Zephyrad 20:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How many times are you going to prat on about about your degree - we believe you, it's not like your'e saying you were awarded the Victoria Cross. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Politeness please - we are all one happy family on The Beatles Project and don't you forget it!!! (grin)LessHeard vanU 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh aye, only having a joke, All You Need Is Love, da da da da da ...All tergether now! :) Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Prate, you mean? I don't consider it such--I was just pointing out to the newcomer that he was wasting his time arguing the point, since my credentials weren't enough to convince you guys, and that he should do the same as me and just give in. --Lukobe 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Only having a joke pal, no offence intented I can assure you Vera, Chuck & Dave GM

Are we all still going on about this? Or are you lot just taking the piss out of each other? It's the longest discussion in the whole project about the very smallest thing. :). I think next month we should nominate it for "running project joke of the month"... ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs

[edit] Other discussion

[edit] New page

So far I think we have two style policies, right:

  • British English, not US English, with rare (I can't think of ANY in use so far) exceptions...
  • "The Beatles" is almost always correct, "the Beatles" almost always isn't...

What other areas need (or already have) policy?

++Lar: t/c 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to redraft the two policies you mentioned (with a placeholder for exceptions to the British English rule), and leave a placeholder/very rough draft for a policy on songs (notability thereof and articles on) for use later. On the talk page I intend to paste in the threads that exist on other pages where we discussed the policies we've agreed upon. I'll do later tonight or (perhaps more likely) tommorow. It's all up in the (fading) brain at the moment but don't worry, it's all planned out :-) --kingboyk 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I advocate when you redact that you MOVE the convo threads here, and only leave links behind, pointing here. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you copied them... I may go back and delete the copied parts if I remember/have time unless someone strongly objects. Well done on bringing them here though! ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I moved them, with the sole exception of the template talk thread which contains technical talk about the template (and with that one, I left a message saying please direct future policy chat here, and leave technical chat there). Any other threads which are still in place == a mistake. --kingboyk 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
OK cool! My reading too fast then I guess, sorry! ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles members names.

I think there are too many individual references to "Paul", "John", and "Ringo" (but not so many to poor old "George"). I am not certain of Wiki format, but I feel that the band members should individually be initially referred to by their full name (first and surname) or surname only, and only then be referred by their first name** within the same article, section etc. This would appear to be more formal, thus better for an encyclopedia. Obvious exceptions would be "John, Paul, George and Ringo" and "John and Yoko", since these appelations are already well known. Perhaps we had best have a concensus before agreeing (or not) to this naming policy?LessHeard vanU 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC) **Just to be clear, did you actually mean "surname" there? Cos if you didn't, I'm not agreeing with you I'm taking the opposite sides :) If we refer to our subjects by their first names it's like we're mates with them; whereas the tone we should strive for is that of the neutral chronicler (alright, with a bit of fan enthusiasm perhaps :)) --kingboyk 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point and I agree with you; I change such references when I find them. We don't need a policy on it though as it's already in the style guide (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names). Note that McCartney can be referred to as "Sir Paul", although that imho should only be in articles about his activities post-Knighthood and (my preference) where he needs to be distinguished from another McCartney such as his wife.
The idea here is to document policy where it differs from Wikipedia guidelines or where the Wikipedia guidelines are ambiguous. The style guide is quite clear so that's enough. --kingboyk 22:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought the general WP policy was to use surname only (not forename only) after the first mention which was always full name... which I support, in general. Are we proposing using forenames after the first mention as a project exception? (as the policy is written only "Sir Paul" would be forenamed, the rest would be "Starr", "Harrison", "Lennon" ...) ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with the WP policy in this one, and that should include "McCartney" except for the cases I mentioned. --kingboyk 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I just had a look at the style policy - so that is clear. This is my modus operandi, I'm afraid; I try and pick up policy and standards as I go, although I usually find that I write to that style most times.LessHeard vanU 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
When faced with so many rules, many of which are pedantic, I think of WP:IAR (ignore all rules!) :) --kingboyk 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I wished that there were not many rules for this. Think of WP:IAR! --Siva1979Talk to me 09:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy regarding female editors

Obviously the first question is "do we even need a policy regarding female editors?", possibly followed by "why is this question being asked?". I thought about this before proposing the heading, and my simple answer is that I feel we need some female NPOV in the articles. I am aware that NPOV is by defination gender indifferent, but I think that some articles fall within the NPOV criteria yet are orientated toward a male perspective of "relevance"/"importance". All I am suggesting is that the Project policy makes clear that contributions from either gender are welcome, which in itself may make the Project more attractive to female (would be) editors. The subject matter of the Project profoundly influenced, and was influenced by, the female experience during and after its lifespan - it may be good to get some of that perspective within the articles.

I have carefully thought about bringing this up - so if your response is scorn or bewilderment please don't hesitate to respond accordingly. I would rather this point be debated and rejected now than to have reason to wish it had been aired previously at some later date.LessHeard vanU 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (male - if that matters)

Hmm... Can't argue with your point about influence, and - as an aside - one of the nicest and most knowledgeable Beatle-people I ever met was of the female gender (saki from rec.music.beatles, who I had the pleasure of meeting in LA back in 1996!). I'm not sure we need a policy on it. Wikipedia is all about editing for all and equal opportunity (as evidenced by the number of young admins we have). We must be careful not to encourage instruction creep. All that said, if folks think there is a genuine problem which needs to be addressed, and have some wording or solution in mind, I'm listening... --kingboyk 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
We have some excellent people on project, doing great work on recording facts and figures on record sales, chronologies, influences, instruments played and all sorts of splendid lists and so forth. It is all just a little.... "uninvolved"(?). These people (The Beatles - not necessarily the editors) were amongst the most desirable individuals in Western culture for some considerable time, but comments on their sex appeal, the grooming of their early image to suit the tastes of their female fans (and how their later choices in image reflected the changing perceptions of the same fans), their (non)role in womens liberation of the time, are largely absent. I suppose I could do a bit of research, find some good sources and references, and write a piece - but there would be no true perspective...
As I commented, it may just be that our policy affirms that of Wiki in the inclusiveness of all - which may have the effect of bringing on board editors who may have otherwise not considered it.(ps. Wouldn't it be good if someone else other than Lar - welcome as he always is - responded?)LessHeard vanU
I didn't know Lar had responded! Thing is, you see, I don't have a TV, so when most people are watching Eastenders or whatever, I'm surfing my watchlist! I'll shut up now. --kingboyk 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a policy per se. But maybe some offsides encouragment?... if you know some, ask them to put their hand in when you are talking to them informally. I'm sure our articles have systemic bias as do many. Technophilic, white, male, western culture centric, etc. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. As for TV, we have 4 in our house but I never watch them except if I'm eating. WP is where it is at. Er, wait, I WASN'T supposed to respond? Oops. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you were expected to respond!*grin* It was that one starts to expect "the usual suspects" when one floats an idea around here. Thank (the deity/belief system of your choice) Lukobe joined in!!LessHeard vanU 12:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think making this project policy would be duplicative of Wikipedia policy. Basically I'm with Lar. ++Lukobe 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Been thinking about this. Policy should be a last resort: where's there a problem with inconsistency, for example. So: Policy, no. But, how about adding it to the mission statement or to some other section on the Project Page? --kingboyk 09:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mission Statement seems reasonable. Hmmm... must have a peek at systemic bias, which I guess is what I think I may have been detecting.LessHeard vanU 12:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:How to create policy

Although that page is itself tagged as "a guideline only and not policy" should we be following the guidance there? Or are we happy that we have had enough community discussion and review to have our Project's policies stick? (I personally think the above threads answer my question in the affirmative, but "policy wonks" (copyright Lar) might not agree with me). Comments? --kingboyk 12:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're not creating WP wide policy. Putting it on a page of our own, tagging it as project policy, and gently persuading non project members to go along (see above, someone may be in need of a bit of gentle persuasion) is the way to go I think. (and this just came up at the Fraternities project, they're struggling with special notability guidelines) ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, what policy are we talking about here? --Lukobe 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Erm, the attached page! --kingboyk 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Female editors? --Lukobe 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the attached article only, not the talk page. I think that particular idea got vetoed as nice but unnecessary. --kingboyk 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_The_Beatles_Policy_a489.html"