| Revision as of 12:28, 8 July 2012 editAndreasegde (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers51,262 edits →Straw Poll← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:19, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,081 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{Notice|Consensus per and is to use "the Beatles" (lower case "t") mid-sentence.}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory| action1 = GAN |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
| action1date = 2 February 2006 |
|
| action1date = 2 February 2006 |
|
| action1link = |
|
| action1link = |
|
| action1result = listed |
|
| action1result = listed |
|
| action1oldid = 37793212 |
|
| action1oldid = 37793212 |
| Line 15: |
Line 17: |
|
| action3 = GAR |
|
| action3 = GAR |
|
| action3date = 10 November 2006 |
|
| action3date = 10 November 2006 |
|
|
| action3link = Talk:Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band/Archive_1#GA_Re-Review_and_In-line_citations |
|
| action3link = |
|
|
| action3result = delisted |
|
| action3result = delisted |
|
| action3oldid = 87032703 |
|
| action3oldid = 87032703 |
| Line 22: |
Line 24: |
|
| action4date = 15 June 2008 |
|
| action4date = 15 June 2008 |
|
| action4link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive2 |
|
| action4link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive2 |
|
| action4result = reviewed |
|
| action4result = not reviewed |
|
| action4oldid = 219436013 |
|
| action4oldid = 219436013 |
|
|
|
|
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
| action5 = GAN |
|
| topic = arts |
|
| action5date = 23 April 2014 |
|
|
| action5link = /GA1 |
|
|
| action5result = listed |
|
|
| action5oldid = 605383765 |
|
|
|
|
|
| action6 = PR |
|
|
| action6date = 15 May 2014 |
|
|
| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive3 |
|
|
| action6result = reviewed |
|
|
| action6oldid = 608716042 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAC |
|
|
|action7date=07:09, 23 May 2014 |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive1 |
|
|
|action7result=promoted |
|
|
|action7oldid=609745157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|dykdate=29 April 2014 |
|
|
|dykentry= ... that ''''']'''''{{'s}} title track was once described as a "revolutionary moment in the creative life" of ]? |
|
|
| currentstatus = FA |
|
|
|maindate=June 21, 2014 |
|
|
| topic = albums |
|
|
|four=no |
|
|
|otddate=1 June 2014|otdoldid=611009483|otd2date=2021-05-26|otd2oldid=1025324645 |
|
|
|otd3date=2023-05-26|otd3oldid=1156412159 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WPB|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject The Beatles|class=c|importance=Top|martin=yes|also-beatles=yes|display=Beatles|album=yes|album-importance=Top|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject The Beatles|importance=Top|martin=yes|display=Beatles|album=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Albums|class=c |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pop music|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=c|importance=low|LOC=yes|LOC-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Rock music|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Progressive Rock|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Library of Congress|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{findnotice}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |units=days |small=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Richard Goldstein's review == |
|
== Release date == |
|
|
|
|
Earlier I removed a questionable statement in the ] which claims Goldstein changed his negative opinion of ''Sgt. Pepper'' but was reverted. The passage in question is: <blockquote>However, a few days after this review he changed his opinion, saying that the album was "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He also called it an "in-between experience" and a baroque work.</blockquote>The source for this is a 2010 blog titled "Richard Goldstein Rethinks His 'Sgt. Pepper's' Slam, Sort Of" which contains an excerpt from a July 20, 1967 article in the ''Village Voice''. In the article defending his ''New York Times'' review—published one month, not a few days later—Goldstein wrote "I find the album better than 80 per cent of the music around today" but qualified that with "it is the other 20 per cent (including the best of the Beatles' past performances) which worries me as a critic." He goes on to say "I still feel that if I had to write that review tonight, instead of this defense, it would sound a lot like its predecessor." The reference to ''Sgt. Pepper'' as "baroque" comes from this passage: "When the slicks and tricks of production on this album no longer seem unusual, and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, "Sergeant Pepper" will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement..." In this article Goldstein clearly reiterated his misgivings about the album and was not indicating any change of opinion. He further repeated his opinion of ''Sgt. Pepper'' as "fraudulent" in his review of ''Magical Mystery Tour'' (Goldstein, Richard. "Are They Waning?" ''New York Times'' December 31, 1967: 62). ] (]) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ok, I agree with you. And the "anti-pepper, pro-revolver" people will give you a prize for it. ] (]) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Review in reaction to the Goldstein review=== |
|
|
*{{cite web |url= |title='Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'—Fraudulent, or Most Creative Album Ever? |work=] |archivedate=23 February 2010 |archiveurl=http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/02/clip_job_sgt_peppers_lon.php |date=22 June 1967 |last=Phillips |first=Tom |publisher= |quote=Without attempting a point-by-point refutation of Goldstein, I must say that I think the Beatles have scored a genuine breakthrough with "Sgt. Pepper."}} |
|
|
Album "concept" explanation from same article:<blockquote>'''' unlike all past long-playing records that I know of, this one has a metaphorical structure, very much like a work of fiction '''' Cuts two through 11 are widely disparate in mood and sound, but the significant thing is that the characters who appear form a gallery of Lonely Hearts, leading lives that range from quiet to raucous desperation. Among them are a solipsistic acid-head, an aging-only child running away from home, a troupe of circus exhibitionists, a silly man worrying about his old age, and a nutty kid in love with a meter maid. '''' "A Day in the Life," is a kind of epilogue. Here the whole substance of the work is turned inside out, and what has been an insane world taken as normal is now the normal world viewed as insane.</blockquote> |
|
|
I suppose that qualifies as one listener's interpretation than anything authoritative. I've not found a Misplaced Pages article on a Tom Phillips who was "writer on the Broadcast Desk of the Times." / ]<small> ] ]</small> 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mellotron? == |
|
|
|
|
|
So, where's the Mellotron on this album? I think Mr Thompson of the excellent Planet Mellotron page successfully busted this myth, referring to Mr Emerick himself. http://www.planetmellotron.com/revbeatles.htm --] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I think it's on the single that was sadly torn from it in advance. ] (]) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The/the ... again. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to have been a bit of edit warring in the lead and infobox about the UK release date. The main body of the article says that 1 June was the original intended release date but that it was rush released on 26 May. Assuming this is true and backed up by citations (which it appears to be), can we put 26 May as the release date and maybe add a note asking people not to change it without first discussing on the talk page? ] (]) 20:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
I would like to gage the current consensus here for The/the usage. ~ ] ] 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:This information is already well sourced and is there in that note. There's nothing more we can do besides revert the vandalism when you see it. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 22:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
===General discussion=== |
|
|
Also, this raises the question, should we have a wikiproject-wide consensus established on this issue, or should consensus be established page by page, as the issue is pressed? Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ ] ] 01:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Greil Marcus in "Retrospective appraisal" == |
|
===Straw Poll=== |
|
|
|
In "Retrospective appraisal", is said Greil Marcus described ''Sgt. Pepper'' as "playful but contrived" and "a Day-Glo tombstone for its time" in his 1979 book ''Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island'', the references used are Marcus own book and Tim Riley's 1988 book ''Tell Me Why – The Beatles: Album by Album, Song by Song, the Sixties and After'', and although Riley effectively cites Marcus saying that, he doesn't mention the cite is extracted from ''Stranded'', and the only book from Marcus in the bibliography section is ''Mystery Train: Images of America in Rock 'n' Roll Music''. Does Greil Marcus really described Sgt. Pepper as "playful but contrived" in his 1979 book ''Stranded: Rock and Roll for a Desert Island''? --] (]) 03:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
{{rfc|bio|soc|media|rfcid=55F7FDB}} |
|
|
Please indicate below whether you '''support''' ''adherring'' to the wikipedia MoS by implementing a consensus here, that ''prefers'' "the", versus "The", except of course when the band name begins a sentence. Please add a rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ ] ] 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* A third option is to !vote for adherring to the current consensus at ], here at this article. Which currently is: "Consensus per is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal." |
|
|
'''Options''' |
|
|
# '''Support''' adherring to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t") |
|
|
# '''Oppose''' adherring to the current MoS guidelines (upper-case "T") |
|
|
# '''Maintain''' consistency with the current consensus at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think that book is on the ]. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 04:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
*'''Comment'''. Editor GabeMc has contributed 371 edits (#2 in the list of contributors), to ], which contains "The Tea Set, The Pink Floyd Sound, The Pink Floyd". The aforementioned editor has also contributed 2,391 edits (#1 contributor) to ] (an FA article), which contains ], ], and ]. All of them are mid-sentence. One should not throw stones when one lives in a glass house.--] (]) 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: At the time I wrote that using lower-case was not an option in a wikilink. I'll go fix them. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's ''exactly'' what I thought you would do. Ridiculous.--] (]) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Describing a snipper from McCartney's book "The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present" as "poorly sourced" is not logical == |
|
*'''Comment'''. The MoS states this as well: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--] (]) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
It's not cool to erase it and describe it that way. It's even on the good source The Paul McCartney Project.] (]) 18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The Paul McCartney Project is a blog which hosts material from Misplaced Pages (]). Also, my larger point is that a one-sentence paragraph supported by only a blog and a magazine is not a valuable addition. That is not good enough for a featured article. This article is one of the most written about albums ever, for which there is a multitude of reliable ]. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Comment'''. As read above: ] is actually called ]. Notice the difference?--] (]) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' - 90% or more of the sources used to cite Beatles articles on wikipedia use "the", I think we should as well. It reads more fluidly, and is proper grammar. ~ ] ] 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' - for the reasons I gave <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 23:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Right, but if "both are acceptable", then how are editors to agree? A consensus needs to be adopted at each page where there is contention in this regard. In other words, how can this article ever make FA, if its usage is inconsistent, and the subject of frequent edit wars? What do you suggest as a solution to this age-old question? ~ ] ] 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It seems to be consistent now so it can stay as it is and any future edits should be changed, if necessary to fit with that. It's a simple matter of keeping each article internally consistent. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 00:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Right, but consensus can indeed change over time, as it should, sometimes anyway. Many of the editors who established this usage are not even editing here anymore, so who are we honoring? Also if consensus does change here, is there any reason why ''this'' article cannot enforce the current MoS guidelines, and revert to small case "the"s? ~ ] ] 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Would you advocate for the current consensus at ]? ~ ] ] 00:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You're in the middle of an FAC for McCartney and you bring this up? Friggin' unbelievable.--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: This issue has nothing to do with ]. This has to do with the current consensus ''here'' at this page. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' - this has been discussed to death over the years and doesn't need to be discussed any more. The band name is a registered trademark; they are a British band, and in the UK, it is much less common to use a lower case 'The' than in the US, so ] should be respected; in the billions of bits that have been expended in discussing this issue over the years, the net result has been that "The Beatles" is indeed acceptable in running prose in spite of the contradictory way the issue is addressed by the MoS. The only time the lower case 'T' would be unequivocally acceptable is within a direct quote, or in the title of a work within a citation, which is how American spellings within British articles are handled. The articles are reasonably stable for once, and any further edits should reflect new or improved content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Far Out Magazine is not though. You also erased that source.] (]) 18:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:BTW, aren't you going to a ridiculous extreme in linking to the band article as ''"]"''? Do you truly not understand the nature of this discussion? <b>]</b> ] 00:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Indeed, like I said above, I do not think it is a good enough source for a Featured article. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 19:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: Radiopathy, I do understand actually, and I agree with Richerman, both uses are generally acceptable. Caps at the start of wikilinks are now optional, maybe you weren't aware of that. Also, consensus can change Radio, and sometimes, it does. Of the 42 printed books I used to source the ] article, only 3 or 4 use upper-case, so when 90% or more of the sources used to cite an article are in complete agreement, then perhaps a mistake was made here at wikipedia in this regard. At any rate, as Richerman said, as long as usage in the article is consistent, and in-line with ''current'' consensus, then either is acceptable. Although I predict an analysis of the top-ten highest quality Beatles secondary sources would prove nearly 100% small-case. We also have the third option, as currently implemented at the Beatles. ~ ] ] 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== User wanting outdated/inaccurate link == |
|
:::And what is the point of all of this? <b>]</b> ] 01:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Some time ago, someone added a link for a UK "sales figure". Subsequent to that, the BPI certified SPLHCB 18-Platinum. Thus, the link, snd its figure, are not accurate. I have attempted to correct/update the Certifications paragraph. However, a persistent editor seems determined to keep reverting it back to the obsolete lower figure. ] (]) 06:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::: To gage the ''current'' consensus on this issue ''here'', at ''this'' article. What is the point of your fighting it? Do you have any other argument than, ''"that's the way it's always been"''? ~ ] ] 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:If you check my revision , my revision not only undid , but also hid the obsolete information. So the obsolete information no longer shows up when reading the page. And allows editors to replace the obsolete information at a later date. After this edit , there was no need to continue undoing my edits. Especially as it readded the changes made by this ], one of which contained a typo. If a number is obsolete then it should be replaced with an updated number. It shouldn't be removed unless there's no updated numbers to replace them with. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">(] | ])</span> 08:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::"''What is the point of your fighting it?''" The use of the word "fighting" is extremely provocative, and definitely not necessary.--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' - per Radiopathy. ] <small>(])</small> 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: But it doesn't need to be there at all. It's irrelevant and immaterial. The BPI Certifications gives the certified sales. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
* '''Support''' because I happen to like the MoS and have a strong aversion to ]. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 11:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:To "like the MoS" is a very weak argument.--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' adherring to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t"). The Beatles are no different than any other group in the application of this guideline. Also, the claim that the upper case "T" is a British English variation needs a source to back it up. A quick search of the British newspapers '''' and '''' indicates use of the lower case "t". ] (]) 15:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Then how about these? |
|
|
*Examples of the uppercase definitive article (The): On TV and radio: |
|
|
], ], ], ], and ]. |
|
|
*Bands: of course, if you have a foreign name like ] (The Wolves) or ], it's OK. ],], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] |
|
|
*Newspapers: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] , ], circulation equals ], ], ], ], The Oldie, ], and ].--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: How do the reliable sources on those bands write their names in running prose? Ninety-percent or more of the Beatles sources use "the", and grammar itself dictates we use "the", or at least our MoS does. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How are reliable sources like ] and ] linked in Misplaced Pages articles?--] (]) 12:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Maintain''' consistency with the current consensus at ] and work on more substantial improvement to Beatles-related articles than this ]. ] (]) 22:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Actually, improving the article is the point, but until a clear consensus is established in this regard I have no interest in going back and forth over this issue. We need an established consensus here so that this issue is not ongoing, and disruptive to article improvement. Also, as far as maintaining the current consensus at the Beatles, I have to respectfully disagree. The consensus there is to ''avoid'' the issue, not to decide either way, a non-solution really, IMO. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This torturous "issue" has been ongoing for years, as you well know. A compromise was reached, but the whole messy business is being dragged back out of the the Black Lagoon of Lame.--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Actually, the dragged it up six days ago. Soon after they started the thread: Indeed it is. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree that improving the article is the point, and I can understand why you want this issue to be resolved before proceeding. I'm concerned that we're not going to come to a consensus on "The" or "the", and I don't want to have a separate discussion of this same issue on each of the hundreds of Beatles-related articles. Therefore I'm suggesting that we consider that the consensus to avoid the issue on ] be our own "Beatles MOS" and be used on every other Beatles-related article. ] (]) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' per Radiopathy's reasoning. The band is mainly known as "The Beatles", and not as the "Beatles". --] (]) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: That's not 100% accurate Diego. Of the 40-50 highest-quality reliable sources, maybe 4 or 5 use "The". Lewisohn, Spitz, Gould, Miles, Epstein's book, George Martin's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book, Emerick's book, and Derek Taylor's book all use "the". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The fact that "the/The" is not universally used is enough to declare this a no-brainer.--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per Gabe's rebuttal of Mr. Grez. ] (]) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per ] and my belief that it looks better. --] (]) 23:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' against my instincts, which are schooled in American typography. To form my answer, I did some "original research" and read a handful of LP spines. Keep in mind that these "credit" the "authors" of the work contained therein. It is "The Beatles", "The Who", and "The Rolling Stones", although usually in allcaps or all lower case. More importantly, it is not "The Queen" or "The Yes" or "The Led Zeppelin", although it certainly could have been. The "The" is part of the name of the band, in my opinion, and should be capitalized. "]" is a special case, of course. Thanks GabeMc for inviting me to this interesting discussion. ] (]) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: How do the high-quality ]s write it in ''running prose''? Pick a source or two out and check. Almost all of the highest-quality sources write "the Beatles" when mid-sentence. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::But they do not determine our style. They determine theirs. ] (]) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I agree, that's my point, ''our'' current MoS tells us to use the small-case "t", so why aren't we following our MoS. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' -- "The Beatles" is the real name of the so-called "White Album." It should not be confused with the group's name. Anyway, ] explained this in an interview that appeared in ''Mersey Beat'' (1961): 'Many people ask what are Beatles? Why Beatles? Ugh, Beatles, how did the name arrive? So we will tell you. It came in a vision--a man appeared in a flaming pie and said unto them "From this day on you are Beatles with an A." "Thank you, Mister Man," they said, thanking him.' -- Beatles with an A, not "The Beatles" with an A.] (]) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' agrees with MoS and reads more fluently. --] (]) 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. It's not worth fighting over. Just follow the MoS. We've got lots better things to argue about. ] (]) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' The Beatles. The Who. The Rolling Stones. ], if you'd like. ] (]) 05:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' - MoS, common sense. ]]] 06:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' To me, "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" have meant different things. Being ''a Beatle'' has its own quality distinct from being a member of the band as a unit. It is common to refer to Paul McCartney as a "former Beatle," but you would never call Denny Laine a "former Moody Blue." '''T'''he Beatles was/were a band; '''t'''he Beatles were its members. The spelling should reflect that. --] ] 06:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' as Misplaced Pages works better when we follow general consensus and guidelines. It makes sense to find a compromise which keeps within guidelines and works to minimise potential offence, so I am in favour of all Beatles related articles following the to keep the mid-sentence use of the band name minimal. ''']''' ''']''' 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Sounds more like a ''maintain'' !vote to me SilkTork. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. See ] for a case where there's not officially a "the" at all in the title, but one is more than commonly added because of the rules of the language. ] ] 08:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. The Beatles own publicity material of the 1960s referred to "the Beatles". The band name was a contraction of the then widespread "<Named singer> and the <Band name> - for example, "Buddy Holly and the Crickets" - rarely written as "Buddy Holly and The Crickets". ] (]) 09:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''', per Radiopathy.--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': "The" or "the" is not always a grammatically essentially part of the group's name. For instance, it would be grammatically silly to write that "the second "The Beatles" single was ..." Instead, we would write that "the second Beatles single was ..." The MoS on this issue is sensible. ] (]) 10:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''--"The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. The consensus is to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence like I just did. Let's keep it that way. If the band's name has to be mentioned, it should consistently be as The Beatles. ] (]) 11:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If we are really re-creating a trademark everytime we write the Beatles, then wouldn't we have to pay the Beatles every time someone wrote the Beatles on wikipedia? Non fair-use rationale I guess. Also, dosen't the actual tradmark contain a dropped-T that we couldn't recreate here anyway? ] ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 12:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Did you read what ] wrote? "The '''consensus''' is to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence". It was agreed not to keep repeating the group's name. In the ] article, it seems that someone is deliberately ignoring that.--] (]) 12:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: (ec)The consensus of which you speak was established at ] not at Paul McCartney. Consensus does not bleed over into all related pages. It's time to move on now. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 12:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
There seems to have been a bit of edit warring in the lead and infobox about the UK release date. The main body of the article says that 1 June was the original intended release date but that it was rush released on 26 May. Assuming this is true and backed up by citations (which it appears to be), can we put 26 May as the release date and maybe add a note asking people not to change it without first discussing on the talk page? MFlet1 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Some time ago, someone added a link for a UK "sales figure". Subsequent to that, the BPI certified SPLHCB 18-Platinum. Thus, the link, snd its figure, are not accurate. I have attempted to correct/update the Certifications paragraph. However, a persistent editor seems determined to keep reverting it back to the obsolete lower figure. 197.87.143.112 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
