| Revision as of 05:24, 9 July 2012 editGabeMc (talk | contribs)File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,831 editsm →"The" or "the" Beatles straw poll: fix← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:19, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,083 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) |
|
|
==(not current) Straw Poll== |
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, we seem to have numerous "straw poll"s being conducted at the same time (eight at the last count). We do apologise for the interruption of the transmission of conversation, for the time being. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.--] (]) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: That was our friend ip 99, a sock no doubt who will be found out soon. You're header is disprutive, please change it. How embarrasing Anddreas. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)</br> |
|
|
|
|
|
:: You better be ready to remove, apologize or prove accusations. Your innuendos, insults, ad hominem comments have gone on too far, here and in other articles involving ''The Beatles'', used as distraction to your plight and frustration. This are not appreciated and not productive. I think it is time for some admin attention to give the needed break from the intense editing and ] behaviour you have been exhibiting with ad hominem attacks. Your ] hes been nonexistent more and more. Your poll is BS anda complete failure for any consensus. The article will stand untouched. Perhaps a lock-down also? ] (]) 03:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)</br> |
|
|
|
|
|
::He wasn't ''my'' friend at all. How dare you make such an assumption, anyway? BTW, my name is spelt "Andreas". Please try harder.--] (]) 01:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hold on... '''"You're header is disprutive"'''. Is this from an editor who insists on "proper grammar"?--] (]) 01:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Okay, one more personal attack and I am filing an ANI report. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please do. Your inability to spell does not constitute a personal attack; I was merely pointing out a basic mistake. If you think you can scare people away by saying "I am filing an ANI report" (actually, it should be "I ''will'' file an ANI report") then I wish you the best. Have fun.--] (]) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The/the ... again. == |
|
|
I would like to gauge the current consensus here for The/the usage. ~ ] ] 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The word you are looking for is "gauge" (to determine the exact dimensions, capacity, quantity, or force of - measure - to appraise, estimate, or judge). It is not "gage".--] (]) 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You got me andraes, wow, a spelling error. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You're the one that insists on "proper grammar". BTW, it's Andreas, and not "andraes". Will you ever get it right?--] (]) 02:10, 9 July 2012 (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) |
|
|
:There was an agreed (after many, many years of argument), which GabeMc now thinks is redundant. Very sad, indeed.--] (]) 00:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't think you need a comma between "sad" and "indeed", that's called a comma splice I believe. Also, the sentence is incomplete, lacking both a subject and a verb, something often called a sentence fragment. Did you notice the S/V split there? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 05:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== "The" or "the" Beatles straw poll === |
|
|
{{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." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
* '''FTR''' - When andreas instituted the solution in March 2011, the previous straw poll was 13 supporting "the" and 10 supporting "The". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:49, 9 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) |
|
::'''Another blatant lie'''. On this page, , it was 17 for '''Support''', and 4 for '''Oppose'''. GabeMc is not being honest, and the facts on the page prove it. Look for yourself.--] (]) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I meant the triangular diplomacy non-solution. Anyone can count and see that I am correct about this. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Before the ''solution''"? Absolutely ridiculous, and you know it. How can one quote something that was "Before the ''solution''"?--] (]) 01:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Well, I think anyone who looks carefully enough at that discussion will see that the tide was turning against "The" when you hastily, and unilaterally, started the triangular diplomacy discussion which yes, was ultimately widely-supported at the time. I think you jumped the gun and you didn't let the poll runs its natural course ''because'' the tide was turning. As I said above, I think most anyone who looks at the discussion will come to a similar conclusion. You instituted ''your'' unilateral non-solution on 18 March 2012, however the last support for "the" came in on 19 March 2012. So really, that poll was not even completed properly. You should have waited for the poll to run its course. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"the ''tide was turning'' against "The""? Have you lost your marbles? It gets worse: "you hastily, and unilaterally, started the triangular diplomacy discussion". Do you have any marbles left? If anybody reads they will immediately see that you are talking absolute, and utter rubbish. I worry about you.--] (]) 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::(More silliness... :)) GabeMc: "you didn't let the poll runs its natural course because the tide was turning"? (I posted it on 19 March 2011. The last comment was on 4 April 2011). Was that not long enough for you?--] (]) 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: There was a "the" support , the same day you started the non-solution poll. You should have let the first poll run its course, but the tally was at 13 against "The" and 10 for "The", so I can understand why you panicked. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I "panicked"? After years of that bollards? Oh, ye of scarce knowledge, and the misunderstanding of common understanding. Are you hoping that I will insult you? I'll bet you are. Not today, young man. I know thrice more than thou in this cobweb of intrigue. Try harder.--] (]) 02:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: ''"nd the misunderstanding of common understanding"''. Nice prose grammar expert! ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: What do you know about grammar? I seem to remember an editor chastising you about your woeful lack of experience in the matter, and I agreed with him.--] (]) 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: I do not claim to be a grammar expert, but I am working on it. Can we please stop talking about ''editors'' and start talking about the content issue at hand? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::: Then why do you have the absolute nerve to talk about "proper grammar", when you admit that you "''do not claim to be a grammar expert''"? I don't ask a street sweeper to repair my computer.--] (]) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Greil Marcus in "Retrospective appraisal" == |
|
* For a related discussion see: ]. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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''' - is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Rebuttal to a blatant misdirection:''' The letter actually says, "'''This is to inform you of the fact that you are not authorized to act or to hold yourself out as the attorney or legal representative of "The Beatles"''' or of any companies which the Beatles own or control". GabeMc has just shot himself in the foot. :)) --] (]) 00:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: True, but are you suggesting that everytime we write The Beatles we put it in quotes as the letter did? This is really discussion stuff that belongs in the above section for discussion. This extended badgering of all points opposed is bogging down and disrupting the poll IMO. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Badgering? Are you serious? You seem to be the one that is blaming all this on an ISP address. :))--] (]) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Andreas, I'll say it again. It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started-up this debate, and if you do not believe me. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And you're trying to put it out, or do you have a gallon of petrol with you? Your lame excuse for bringing this awful debate up again is very, very weak.--] (]) 01:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Well, you're non-solution isn't working, and we need a more firm consensus to avoid wasting time everyday switching "T"s to "t"s. This is actually holding up the improvement of Beatles articles IMO, and we need to find a proper solution so editors aren't being reverted daily for applying the MoS guidelines to articles. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: It might be "holding up" your ideas of what grammar is, but you have completely ignored the consensus, which was agreed upon. One wouldn't like to stop your own personal train of change to suit yourself, but you forget that Misplaced Pages is not your playground.--] (]) 02:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Describing a snipper from McCartney's book "The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present" as "poorly sourced" is not logical == |
|
'''Options''' |
|
|
|
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) |
|
# '''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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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'''. 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) |
|
|
:::: Please stop trying to make this personal. This is about the ''Pepper'' article, nothing else. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Please stop trying to make this personal."??? I was making an observation about the articles to which you have contributed. The more you try to make this look like an attack on you (which is absolutely unwarranted), the more you make it look as if you are defending a hopeless position. Try harder, because the old tricks are not working.--] (]) 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Far Out Magazine is not though. You also erased that source.] (]) 18:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''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) |
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
*'''Comment'''. As read above: ] is actually called ]. Notice the difference? Also listing ] as a link is quite plainly against Misplaced Pages rules.--] (]) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. 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) |
|
|
:::Will 'we' get an answer, or not?--] (]) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The MoS says to capitalise the names of newspapers not the names of bands. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So newspapers have special privileges, but groups of musicians don't? How interesting, but difficult to comprehend, no?.--] (]) 01:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== User wanting outdated/inaccurate link == |
|
* '''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) |
|
|
|
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) |
|
::If you're interested in "proper grammar", you should have put a semi-colon after "the", to read: "'''articles on wikipedia use "the"; I think we should as well'''." Is this a person that is talking about "proper grammar"?--] (]) 13:11, 8 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) |
|
::: Good point andrea, but also a strawman IMO. Again you are trying to make this about ''me'', versus about the content issue at hand. Please stop with the personal attacks; you're wikipedia reputation is on the line here. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"you're wikipedia reputation". Hmmm... What should one make of this from an editor that threatens and insults? My "wikipedia reputation"? Do I have one?--] (]) 02:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Yes, you do have a wikipedia reputation. Up to this point, I think that rep was very positive. Please reconsider your tactics, this is childish of you IMO. Why are you not supporting the ''maintain'' option if your triangular non-solution is so ideal? Seems like you would support that here, if it is indeed such a great solution. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"''Up to this point, I think that rep was very positive''." Wow, I'll sleep well on that thought, because I might get scared if you actually thought ill of me. Do you really think you can scare anyone with that absolute rubbish? Dear boy, you are a renegade, and you think you control the majority, because you believe ''you'' are '''the''' majority. It's a thankless task, unless one has friends. Keep well, in all your endeavours.--] (]) 02:46, 9 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--> |
|
* '''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) |
|
|
:::::::"''This page''" is merely one of very many to do with The Beatles Misplaced Pages project. Are you proposing to poll every single page?--] (]) 12:47, 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. |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
:: 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) |
|
|
:::And what is the point of all of this? <b>]</b> ] 01:08, 5 July 2012 (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) |
|
|
:::::"''What is the point of your fighting it?''" The use of the word "fighting" is extremely provocative, and definitely not necessary. Baiting people is no way to communicate.--] (]) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I guess ''resist'' would have been better, <s>but really now, come on. You are getting silly. Is this an OCD for you or something, or is it just a power struggle to get ''your'' way?</s><small> you have my full apologies andrea </small> ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: "just a power struggle to get ''your'' way"? What do you think I was doing when I proposed ", which resulted in a consensus? Asking, "Is this an OCD -] - for you or something" is as bad as it gets. How dare you? I find your comments extremely insulting, and I ask for an apology, or I will take this further.--] (]) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
This, "you have my full apologies andrea" is NOT an apology, GabeMc, and you know it full well. You have personally attacked me in a way that contravenes every Misplaced Pages rule about decency towards other editors. I demand a FULL apology, and not something you slip in at the end of a comment.--] (]) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: No worries, I thought that was enough, but I don't mind giving you a full apology. Andrea, I fully apologize for any and all uncivil comments I've made to you. I am sincerely sorry, please accept my full apologies. Can we now switch the focus back to the content issue at hand, and away from the editors? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::"No worries, I thought that was enough"? Is that any way to apologise? I'm afraid that is not good enough. The comment, "Can we now switch the focus back", shows how insincere it was.--] (]) 00:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' - per Radiopathy. ] <small>(])</small> 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
* '''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, by you.--] (]) 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) |
|
|
:::::"The mysterious 99.251.125.65 dragged it up"? And what are you doing right ''now''? Blaming this on an ISP address?--] (]) 13:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Perhaps this whole issue should be dropped as nonsense or taken to a higher courtyard? ] has repeatedly attempted used various methods to inflame contributors, similar to other discussions regarding this exact issue. ] is the originator of this subject, again, here, and if civil and collaborating discussion cannot had the whole issue should be dropped and warnings issued to ceast and desist. It would appear a lack of sleep may be prevailing?. The statements I made regarding "Forcing capitalisation of trademarks is nonsense" still stands but "The Beatles" doesn't apply as there is no lowercase to force. Please stick to the issues and stop using issue distractions and/or blame. The mysterious/suspicious ip ] (]) 15:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Very well said, the "mysterious/suspicious" contributor, whom GabeMc is trying to blame for his own crusade against an established consensus.--] (]) 23:38, 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) |
|
|
:::::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."--] (]) 12:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Did you notice the guideline you posted says "capitalized "The" is optional ... when listing"? Are we discussing lists here? Why is this optional? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Because that is what is says in the MoS. The only problem is that you didn't read that far. Try harder.--] (]) 02:56, 9 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) |
|
|
::The Mos is not common sense; it is a guide. It also says "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."--] (]) 00:13, 9 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) |
|
|
::: I see what you mean. I wonder if others who are saying "support" are also supporting the third option. Perhaps it would have been clearer if it had been set up as Option 1, 2, 3 rather than Oppose, Support, Maintain. If this is carried as "support", I wonder if people would have the stomach to go through a second poll to clarify if they wish to use the "triangular_diplomacy" of ]. ''']''' ''']''' 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: You seem to prefer to ''maintain'' here, so maybe you should just change your !vote. Just a thought. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:57, 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) |
|
|
:::::Paul McCartney is undeniably linked to . To say anything else is clearly untrue, and incorrect. The consensus agreed to end the very sorry saga of the/The, but you (on this page, instead of ]' page), are dragging it back into the mud. 'We' moved on, but you still refuse to accept that.--] (]) 12:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support.''' The white album is ''The Beatles'' by the Beatles. Very few publications use upper case for the 'the' that precedes/begins the name of many bands, meaning that the ones that do look decidedly amateurish. ] (]) 13:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - the Beatles with a lower case t just looks all wrong ] ] 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' As per the ] that states</br> |
|
|
::"Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names."</br> |
|
|
:and</br> |
|
|
::"Trademarks that officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks, as proper nouns, are written with initial capital letters wherever they occur in a sentence. Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized:" |
|
|
:This edit style, for this article appears to be same nonsense as ] and another attempt to use a majority arument by dividing and conquering instead of confronting this issue in a poper place and manner. (keeping it on ths sly and behind the scenes). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' -- in an infamous dialogue between Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono, after Ono repeatedly suggested "Beatles should do this, Beatles should do that," an exasperated McCartney interrupts her with a curt, "It's ''The'' Beatles, luv!" Anyway, the name of the band is ''The Beatles'' not Beatles. There's a 70s group called Village People (not The Village People) in which case, when used in a sentence, it would be the small "T" because it's not part of their name. ] (]) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: So you can hear him using a cap "t"? Look at page 352 of ''the Beatles Anthology'', you can see it written in Paul's hand using a lower-case "t". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': This is not about what the name is. Of course McCartney was right to correct Yoko Ono there. Just as he is right when he writes mid-sentence "the Beatles" (as someone noted somewhere on WP in the last few days). The case of the Village People is exactly the same. ] (]) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Radiopathy, Hotcop2 and the hundreds of times we've gone over this before. Trademark, etc. We have argued it and argued it and come to some equilibrium about it with the upper case T. Why would someone who knows this history well be bringing up this disruptive question again? Just wondering. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Tvoz, for the record I wasn't the one who dragged this up. If you look at the Beatles and the McCartney talk pages you will see that 99.251.125.65 dragged this carcass out. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Raising this question yet again seems provocative - Arguing that previous decisions on one article regarding The Beatles, do not apply to other aspects of The Beatles, is absurd. Apple trademarked The Beatles, "the Beatles" could refer to something different, but in this case, and every other referring to a well known "beat-combo" from Liverpool, it is The Beatles. - ] (]) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' ] says to follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", which according to ], mid-sentence the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues. ] (]) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Jprg1966, Radiopathy, and Diego Grez. "]" sounds awkward enough as is. ''']''' “'']''” 20:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::(ec) Mauri96, what do you mean by '"]" sounds awkward enough as is'? This is about calling them "the Eagles", as we do at present (that article gets it right), or changing to "The Eagles". No one is suggesting just "Eagles". What are you opposing? ] (]) 22:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' - Would you say Lennon was one of The Beatles? If so, How could there be four The Beatles? Try, Lennon was one of the Beatles, it's really not that bad. Per Rothrope above, the cap "T" looks amateurish. We cannot re-create their trademarked logo here anyway, since we cannot use the drop-"T". Please see: ]. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: John Lennon was a Beatle and part of a band called "The Beatles" |
|
|
:: Each of the Beatles formed his own band after The Beatles broke up. |
|
|
:: Each member became known as a Beatle unlike many other bands like "Alice Cooper" or "Abba", where thisisn'tgrmmatically possible. This complicates the clarity of what the writer is referring to, the band (singular) or the four member (plural). |
|
|
* '''Support''', on the grounds that the Beatles themselves did ''not'' always use "The" when referring to themselves. For example, the "white" album was just called "Beatles". Now if they had ''consistently'' called themselves "The Beatles" then it would be reasonable to assume they themselves believed the "The" to be an intrinsic part of their name. But as they from-time-to-time dropped the "The", it is fair to suggest that they can be referred to as "the Beatles" as a shorthand for "the band called Beatles". I agree that just "Beatles" sounds awkward, so "the Beatles" is the best compromise. --] 23:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::OTOH I've checked and I think I may have my facts wrong. I still support, but I have no strong feelings either way. |
|
|
:::You are right. entry in Misplaced Pages says this: "The Beatles is the ninth official album by the English rock group The Beatles; a double album released in 1968. It is also commonly known as "The White Album". It was called "The Beatles", because the name was embossed on the cover.--] (]) 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' on the grounds that the official name of the group is obviously now "The Beatles". Among the numerous examples is www.thebeatles.com maintained by Apple Corps and accessing it today I see self-references such as "By hand, frame by frame and without the use of automated software, The Beatles' 1968 Pop Art masterpiece Yellow Submarine has been digitally restored and re-released to huge acclaim." ] (]) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: True, but the same website you are referring to also says: ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' - is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''support''' with a lowercase s. I am happy to be a Beatles fan, without SHOUTING THAT I AM A Beatles fan. But don't ever take the capital B away, it's the Beatles, not the beatles. Nice to see Lots Of Beatles Fans and Lots Of Sentences about the Beatles don't need Capital Letters. Was John the Best Beatle do you think ? or was he the best the Beatle. It goes better in a french accent, he was the best Le Beatle, (cough) I mean he was Le best The Beatle. All jokes aside, the lowercase does it for me, I'm not going to cloud the issue by referring to the MOS, suffice to say that I have read and understand the MOS issues, and at the end of the day we make the MOS, and sources are not so good the more modern they get, because we become a source as well. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 23:54, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''oppose'''{{spaced ndash}} the band being discussed was "The Beatles", no style guide or grammatical rules apply; so, "The Beatles" is fine whether mid-sentence or anywhere else, why is this even being discussed? And, why bring herrings into it? I'm not adherring to anything. :p ] (]) 00:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' The best solution I ever heard of was this one: When referring to the plural of persons as four individual "Beatles" the non-capitalised "the" would be appropriate usage in English grammar. e.g. "Each of the Beatles had different opinions." When referring to the singular group the proper trademark name of the group should be used including a capital on the article. e.g. "Ed Sullivan hosted two episodes featuring The Beatles." ] (]) 00:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' - George Martin's book on ''Pepper'', which was published in London, uses "the" throughout. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' - '''FTR''' - When andreas instituted the solution in March 2011, . ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc''' (directly above). This post can be read in this thread and has been discussed at length. GabeMc is using this to sway the vote. It is not allowed.--] (]) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' - is a letter in Paul's hand that uses "the". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc'''. The link is not clear enough to see anything (even though GabeMc claims it is), but it is true that McCartney wrote "the Beatles", but also "THE BEATLES", which says nothing concrete.--] (]) 03:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Please stop accusing me of giving misinformation. You need to stop the personal attacks. You are making yourself look foolish. Anyone can save the file and enlarge it if they cannot see that Macca clearly uses the Beatles in running prose and The Beatles only once, and while not in running prose, as it stands alone. Just let people decide for themselves and stop trying to convince everyone. Also, look at page 352 of ''the Beatles Anthology'', there you will see another instance of Macca writing the Beatles in running prose. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Can both of you stop sniping each other here? I have no opinion on who is right or wrong, and I know neither of you enough to form such an opinion. Whatever your obviously longstanding issues with each other are, it's a bit distracting to the issue at hand here. Can we tone down the level of discussion a bit? Please? ] ] 03:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I agree 100% Doc. No more sniping from me. FTR, I have no long-standing issue with Andreas that I am aware of. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 03:56, 9 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.
