Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:36, 2 March 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 20 days

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Consensus per this discussion is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal.

	The Beatles is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 30, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 29, 2006 Featured article review Demoted August 29, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 5, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept April 26, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 9, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 16, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 3, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept September 26, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 3, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rock music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Merseyside Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. The Beatles Top‑importance This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Misplaced Pages. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: For this article Condense, clean and refactor the "Musical evolution" section. Remove uncited fancrufty statements. Source "Achievements" section, intergrate into article or write in prose, not bullet points. Ultimate goal: Get back to FA status For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

	This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Template:VA A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 26, 2009 and September 26, 2010. This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

Template:Find sources notice

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Another suggestion to improve lead.

I think this entire passage is a bit tedious and redundant with the first graph, overly detailed for the lead, and it could/should be removed from the lead:

Initially a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960. Sutcliffe left the group in 1961, and Best was replaced by Starr the following year.

Any thoughts or suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit ambivalent on this one. There is definitely a disconnect with the first para, in terms of the sequence of content. It's almost as though the first para becomes a "lead" for the "lead", but maybe that's ok, per "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. "?

I don't personally mind it too much being in the lead, but I don't think it probably needs to be quite so long. I'm looking at The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd, which are, admittedly, only 'B' and 'Good'-Class, respectively, but have similar discussion about early line-up changes. I'll wait for other input, but I think, if it stays in, it warrants maybe looking at both paras, and if not, well, easy... Begoon  06:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Any thoughts Doc? — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Why is Plastic Ono Band an associated act with the Beatles? — GabeMc (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like it might be the relevant discussion: Talk:The Beatles/Archive 26#Associated acts. I suppose I should offer an opinion too - I abstain, although I would tend to take the position taken by User:LessHeard vanU in that discussion. Begoon  06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be debating the nature of POB, e.g. what constitites a member, in the above mentioned thread rather than if POB is actually an act that is asssociated with the Beatles. If POB is an associated act, then wouldn't Paul and Linda McCartney also be an associated act? — GabeMc (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the "gospel": Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. I might be back after I digest it. Begoon  08:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And here's a "digest" of related previous discussions from the archives: to enjoy too. :-) Begoon  08:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts: "The following uses of this field should be avoided: * Association of groups with members' solo careers." Isn't that exactly the way in which POB is being associated to the Beatles? — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like pretty much semantics to me, you can make a case either way. I'm beginning to wonder what the real point of the field is - if it isn't explained to the reader what the field means, then they will inevitably wonder the same things we are wondering. We could discuss this forever, but if the meaning of the field is unclear as displayed, then we will be the only ones who know what it means. I think that's a salient point here. Maybe the field description needs wikilinking, like "Labels" above it, to a definition. Begoon  04:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is Plastic Ono Band an associated act with the Beatles? — GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it was an act formed while The Beatles were still active, as opposed to Wings, the Wilburys etc which only came into existence after the split. "Give Peace a Chance" was a Lennon/McCartney song (originally, anyway) and "Cold Turkey" was offered to The Beatles to record. There are closer links than other solo projects IMO.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion for the lead

"The Beatles are the best-selling band in history, and over four decades after their break-up, their recordings are still in demand."

1) Shouldn't we have a better source for, "The Beatles are the best-selling band in history"? 2) I would remove: "and over four decades after their break-up, their recordings are still in demand."

Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On 2), For example, I think, "they have sold an estimated one billion records to date" is better than "four decades after their break-up, their recordings are still in demand." — GabeMc (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this?:

"The Beatles are the best-selling band in history, with estimated sales at over one billion units."

— GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good--though since the figure is stated as "over one billion units" (which I do think is the best way to state it), the "to date" isn't needed. DocKino (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Would "of" be better than "at" here? — GabeMc (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. DocKino (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief

How long are you lot going to haggle over the lead or anything else about this article? It's a friggin' Featured Article. Are there not enough Beatles' articles to work on, and improve? (Yes, there are...). Is this the only Beatles' page on your watchlist? The mind boggles.--andreasegde (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that amount of care is being taken because this is an FA. Thanks for the input. Begoon  04:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So let's refurbish and endlessly polish the flagship, and let the rest of the fleet rust.--andreasegde (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could add the most important improvements needed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Beatles#To-do list (or somewhere else more appropriate)? GoingBatty (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, as well as I do, that nobody looks at that. I'd prefer to comment here, thanks very much. BTW, I would appreciate an answer to my first comment, if it's possible, and not a redirect.--andreasegde (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. It seems (from the contributors' list), that Begoon  has made NO edits at all to this article, and GoingBatty has made 29. Am I talking to the right people here? :))--andreasegde (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with andreasegde - I'm getting close to taking this page off my watchlist as I'm finding the constant discussion about tinkering with the lead tedious beyond belief. This is already an FA, hence, it is about as good as it's ever going to be. Let's focus our efforts on the many other Beatles related topics that are nowhere near FA.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm not one of the primary editors of this article, I can't answer how long they'll continue to tweak this article. However, I am interested in improving other articles, and have many Beatles articles on my watchlist. I hope you'll share more details on your ideas for improving other Beatles articles, no matter where you post them. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Paul McCartney is one that leaps to mind for me - it was an FA candidate a couple of years ago and could be again. Also although Something and The Long and Winding Road are still FA, it's been over five years since either was assessed and I'm not sure they would meet today's standards - they could use some work. Plus not one Beatles album is even GA class - that's quite glaring.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just made some fixes to each of the three articles you specifically mentioned, and I'm sure there's more that could be done. (Didn't look at the albums yet.) Would you be willing to start discussions on each article's talk page to suggest further improvements? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical Descriptors in the lead

"John Lennon (rhythm guitar, vocals), Paul McCartney (bass guitar, vocals), George Harrison (lead guitar, vocals) and Ringo Starr (drums, vocals)."

Does anyone else find these a bit tedious, misleading, and incomplete, e.g. both John and Paul played some piano, and lead guitar, live and in the studio. Paul played the drums at times, George played the bass, etcetera. As it stands now, a quick glance of the article's lead would leave the reader assuming the lead guitar work on "Tax Man" or Sgt. Pepper was Harrison. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is fine. These are the instruments they're most identified with. Many musicians in many bands sometimes pick up secondary and tertiary instruments, but there's no need to get more detailed in the lead section. This is a perfectly standard and informative way of describing the members' customary roles in the band. DocKino (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we "get more detailed in the lead section", I was suggesting less detail, remove the descriptors, let the article explain their various roles in the band, not the lead, it's way too complicated with this band to do it justice in the lead. — GabeMc (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Doc on this one, I think. As an overview of roles it's fine, and details are fleshed out later. If you remove it, and the theoretical "only person in the universe who doesn't know", has to start searching the article to find out Ringo was the drummer, for instance, the lead is failing its purpose somewhat. Begoon  06:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But what about the reader who leaves thinking Paul only played bass, the lead isn't doing it's job in that case either. — GabeMc (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, but it still reads fine to me, especially in context (it's part of a dated narrative). I'm not saying I object to any change because it's perfect, but I can't think of a way to improve it without making it messy, and I'm not in favour of removing it entirely. Begoon  07:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Afterword: I guess removing "lead", "rhythm", and "bass" would solve one of your issues - but I'm not too keen on that, either, really. Begoon  07:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

--Roujan (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but I would add "piano" to Paul's description, since he played quite a bit of it, some of it is actually signature, and was the band's principle piano player. Carlo (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rock'n'Roll

shouldn't this be in their genre? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Rock and Pop covers it, to add Rock'n'Roll is redundant and confusing IMO. Rock'n'Roll implies 1950s music. — GabeMc (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, rock and roll and rock are pretty much the same... 24.89.194.251 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WTF pop wasn't there genre look through their wiki albums pages and you'll see only one album had pop songs and 3 had rock and roll and there not the same please listen to rock'n'roll and then a rock song you'll see a clear difference and the 60's were a year for Rock'N'roll too 82.0.95.94 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.95.94 (talk)

There have been many discussions here about the genres to be included which you probably haven't seen - try reading these discussions as it may help you to understand why the article includes what it does. Here's a link: . Maybe there will be parts of those discussions which you think need more consideration, or maybe the links will explain the reasoning. Thanks. Begoon  06:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

82.0.95.94, your unsourced claim that "only one album had pop songs and 3 had rock and roll" does not hold up to scrutiny. In fact it would be easier to argue, IMO, that every Beatle album had both pop and rock songs. — GabeMc (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay then please provide a source that say's there pop 82.0.90.251 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.90.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/Please_Please_Me http://en.wikipedia.org/With_The_Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/Beatles_for_Sale as you can see they released 3 albums with the genre "Rock N Roll" and below you'll see that this is there only album with the genre pop http://en.wikipedia.org/A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_(album) Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Eric, first, other Misplaced Pages articles are not considered RSs for this article, second are you really claiming that the Beatles were not at least in part a pop group? Which Beatles album do you think contains no pop songs? On, "please provide a source that say's there pop":

• Davies, 1985, p.71
• Gould, 2008, p.162
• Brown & Gaines, 2002, p.122
• Spitz, 2005, p.657
• The Beatles, 2000, Paul: p.219, George: p.349 — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly my name is Ben "Eric" is my online ID, none of them contain many pop songs if you read through the albums Pop isn't considered a genre, but 3 of these so called "reliable" articles have the genre Rock'N'Roll and you can ask anyone nowadays and they would agree, and the so called sources you pasted ", Davies, 1985, p.71, Gould, 2008, p.162, Brown & Gaines, 2002, p.122, Spitz, 2005, p.657, The Beatles, 2000, Paul: p.219, George: p.349" that's just writing there's no links whatsoever 86.25.245.177 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd86.25.245.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Okay Ben, but I think you missed my point. Other Misplaced Pages articles are not Reliable Sources for this article, so it really does not matter what other wiki articles say about the Beatles genres, what matters is what the high quality reliable sources say do you understand the difference? But really, I'm curious, can you name one Beatles album that does not contain at least one pop song? And no, I didn't provide links to the sources, but I have hard copies of the sources listed above, and I gave enough detail so that anyone can check what the sources say if they are willing to make an effort. Also Ben, remember to sign your comments with four tildes, ala: ~~~~ And thanks for joining the discussion, a fresh perspective is always appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I think the section "CD releases" should be integrated into the section "After the break-up (1970-present)", because 1) it breaks up the chronological order, and 2) both sections are currently incomplete or redundant if completed. As the section "CD releases" stands now, it excludes 1, Live at the BBC, and the Anthology, but if we complete it it will be redundant with the previous section. — GabeMc (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All this would be covered in the The Beatles discography article anyway, wouldn't? Which lists in addition to Anthology 1, 2 and 3', Yellow Submarine Songtrack as a compilation release in 1999 as well as several compilation releases in the 2000's. There is also the mid-nineties singles releases (incl. "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love"). I agree with your overall sentiment that the section "CD releases", as it is now, does not work well. As I don't edit music articles very heavily or often, I don't know what the definition of "CD release" would be exactly; or the difference between it necessarily and other discography lists (album, compilation etc.)--Racerx11 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it seems we agree that, "the section "CD releases", as it is now, does not work well". So, Racerx11, do you support a re-work of the structure in this regard? Are you suggesting that rather than integrating the "CD releases" section within the current article, it should be integrated at The Beatles discography article? — GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine with integrating the section into this article. As for The Beatles discography, that would be fine too, but I dont understand the difference between a list of "CD releases" and the lists already in that article now. Would it simply be a list any Beatles music released in the CD format? with the dates each first became available in that format? That article already appears fairly exhaustive. In other words, I am leaning toward suggesting that we simply delete the entire 'Discograhy' section here and just have the link pointing to The Beatles discography, but not 100% sure if thats the best thing to do unless there is consensus for such an action.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Specifically, I suggest some variation of this, versus this, any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about all that. The general idea you suggested in your original post is fine with me as far as removing 'CD releases' and incoporating the info into the section 'After the break-up (1970-present)', but I suggest you tie in with User:DocKino, the editor who reverted those changes, before putting all this back. I am stepping out if this dicussion more or less nuetral on the issue of restoring your edits. Thanks.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The CD releases section should remain as is, as it's about the tracks The Beatles released while they were together. There is a hatnote for The Beatles discography. My suggestion is to add a 1990s section to talk about the compilations from Live at the BBC onward. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, please explain how/why "CD releases" is "about the tracks The Beatles released while they were together." Why do we need a separate section for CD releases of music previously released on record? Also, Live at the BBC was not released (in any format except live on the radio) while the Beatles were together, so I am confused by your example. Further, to add info to "CDR" about the 1990s and 2000s would be redundant with the previous section, "After the break-up (1970-present)". Either way, "CDR" is incomplete or redundant. Can you give a good reason/s why "CDR" should not be integrated into "ATB"? — GabeMc (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"The tracks" refer to the core catalog. Nothing else. The details are in the linked album articles. I'm also referring to commerically released recordings of which Live at the BBC did not qualify because it was released after they broke up in 1970. As for the potential redundancy, just list the new compilations of previously unreleased recordings as well as the single CD 1 compilation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in contributing here. I was traveling with limited Internet access.

First off, I'm unconvinced by the primary stated premises behind the restructuring. The "Discography" section as currently constituted no more "breaks up the chronological order" than do the "Musical style and development" or "Awards and achievements" sections. What we currently have is a large "History" section, followed by several topically focused sections that naturally reference periods of time also surveyed in the "History" section--that's an entirely standard format for a culture article, generally, and a pop music artist article, specifically. The question of sections being "incomplete" is similarly off-point; we choose what information goes in what section (chronological-history or topical-focus) to make each as effective and useful as possible; what's important is that the article as a whole is comprehensive and as complete as appropriate, which it is. As for "redundancy", I see all of one sentence that's arguably redundant--the final sentence of the "2000s" subsection; that hardly constitutes a redundancy problem.

Second, I think the "Discography" section as currently constituted has served and continues to serve the positive purpose of focusing on and clarifying the various permutations of The Beatles' canonical recordings. As the sources indicate, the story of what happened with those recordings in the digital era is more noteworthy than what has happened with the classic recordings of almost any other pop music artists, and I believe clearly continues to warrant its own narrative section. That story gets muddied, I believe, when it is divorced from the "Original UK LPs" list and threaded into the "After the break-up (1970–present)" subsection, which currently focuses on post-band activities and the latter-day release of recordings that are supplemental to the canon.

Third--and this is relatively minor--in terms of execution, I saw a very odd structure where sub-sub-sections titled "1970s", "1980s", "1990s", and "2000s" were followed by one titled "2009—present." Furthermore, "2000s" included events from 2009 and "2009—present" included events prior to 2009.

In sum, I believe the restructuring is unnecessary, solves no pressing problems, and actually weakens the narrative. While it doesn't strike me as impossible to come up with a more successful restructuring approach, for now I believe the structure with which the article achieved FA status clearly remains the superior one. DocKino (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc, on your first point, I feel the chronology is broken because "ATB" contains sub-sections for the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, yet these sections do not include the entire Beatles output, and are therefore incomplete. Then later in the article we have sub-sections for the 1980s, and 1990s in "CDR". So to me, we already have an "ATB" chronology that is incomplete and should be completed rather than making "CDR" redundant. Further, why is there a need for a "CD releases" section in the first place? We have no vinyl, 8-track, or cassette sections, and one could argue that with digital downloads, CDs are just another soon to be obsolete format. On your second point, why should this info not be at The Beatles Discography? We could reduce the size and load-time of the Beatles article if this info were smerged into the Discography article. On your third point, that is a simple editing issue that could easily be fixed, and was merely the result of my being bold and trying a new approach, that needed some tweaking. Also, the section, "After the break-up", mentions Live at the BBC, the Anthology, 1, Let it Be- naked, Love, and the 2009 remasters. So why does the section mention these CD releases, yet not the others? I do understand what you mean about the canon versus compilations, but again, couldn't/shouldn't this issue be addressed at the Discography article rather than here? — GabeMc (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I just added onto the CD releases subsection to show my version of how it should look. How is it? Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's well written, really, but I wasn't saying that the section couldn't technically be completed, it's just more redundant now that it's complete, and the Beatles is 1000 bytes larger and a slightly slower article now. The core of my initial arguement was that the section is by nature either incomplete or redundant, and I think your edits have proven that assertion to some extent. — GabeMc (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please indicate here whether you support or oppose GabeMc's proposal to integrate "CD releases" with either "After the break-up (1970-present) or The Beatles discography, or a combination of both. — GabeMc (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified Support While it certainly seems like a good idea to me, I have not, to the best of my recollection, edited this article before, and my opinion probably should not carry the same weight as those of regular contributors. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I support altering the article as discussed. Either method would be acceptable to me. And Joefromrandb, your opinion is as valuable as any other editor's. The number of edits you may or may not have to any particular article is irrelevant. Don't let anyone tell you anything else. Sure, the editors who regularly edit an article tend to be more knowledgeable about that article, but the good ones amongst them recognise that outside views are a breath of fresh air, often allowing them to "see the wood from the trees" and spot issues they otherwise might not because they are so closely invested in the article.Begoon  01:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support* 153,126 bytes. As this page takes so long to load, any kind of brevity would be helpful.--andreasegde (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde, is that a support, or an oppose? — GabeMc (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a support for any kind of trimming. Certain sections are way too long.--andreasegde (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Please see my comments above. DocKino (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support The CD releases section is either incomplete or redundant, in the project as well as the article, and it should be merged as much as possible into the Discography article, reducing the size and load-time of The Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with DocKino. I think an overview of how the band's core catalogue has been handled since the CD era is useful and works better in a separate section. Restructuring seems to me like yet more unnecessary work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What about merging the CD info with The Beatles Discography? And as far as, "more unnecessary work", I will do the work, so that should not be an issue for you IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a few comments on some of the changes that might be required if we decided to move the "Discography" section's content elsewhere:

1. Whatever restructuring is done, I still think the "Discography" section should at least mention MMT, Past Masters, Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2, Anthology, Live at the BBC, the remasters, and the digital releases. But it should do it much more concisely (maybe in list format?), with the most complete descriptions reserved for the page The Beatles discography.
2. The Beatles discography is currently set up primarily for table content - it'd need some restructuring if we wanted to incorporate much of the prose text from this article's "Discography" section.
3. The "Discography > CD Releases > 1980s" section's paragraph on how the band's albums were released on CD in 1987 could easily be transferred to the "After the break-up > 1980s" section of the timeline without much editing.
4. The same goes for the paragraph on the Capitol Albums vol 1 and 2.
5. As for the paragraphs on the 9/9/09 remasterings and the iTunes downloads: whether or not it's decided to leave the structure as it is, incorporate that information into the main History timeline, or transfer it across to The Beatles discography, these paragraphs could do with some trimming! Mainly, this article is supposed to give a general overview of the band, and I don't think such detailed quotes from Mojo about the remasters' sound quality really belong here. The Beatles discography, The Beatles in Mono and The Beatles Stereo Box Set would be the best places for detailed summaries of the remasters' critical reception, as those articles could accommodate further review quotes from a wider variety of sources.

--Nick R 03:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a support to me. I agree with all five points. — GabeMc (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose--Just concentrate on the core catalogue and for the 1990s onward, just mention the new compilations from LIve at the BBC onward in passing. The details would be in the main The Beatles discography article with the hatnote already in place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you support the proposal Steelbeard1, as that's essentially what I want to do. — GabeMc (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But keep it within the CD Releases subsection of the discography section of this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, to it I respond with a question: why do we need a CD section at all, there is no vinyl, 8-track, or cassette sections? Is it particularly notable that the Beatles material has been available on CD for 25 years, and do we really need the details of such here? Why not link to the the canon here, with some key additions (MMT, Past Masters, Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2, Anthology, Live at the BBC, the remasters, and the digital releases), and move as much info as we can to the Discography, and integrate any key points into "ATB"? — GabeMc (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support merging with "After the break-up". -- I've been out of the loop for a while, but I just wanted to get my two cents in here. The discography section, as is, does seem a little overly complicated. I wouldn't have a problem with moving much of the "CD Releases" section into the history article. It would fit in the narrative pretty seamlessly, most likely. The discography really should be just a list of the original UK albums, and maybe the EPs as well. Some articles (Frank Zappa comes to mind) eliminate the discography section entirely and just link to an external article. I don't think we need to do that here, but restructuring would definitely help. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Critics' comments on 1987/2009 CDs

Starting this new section to avoid bogging down the straw poll. Further to my Point #5 above:

1. As I said above, I don't think this article's Discography sections should include critics' comments on the 1987/2009 CDs. But while editing the section just now, I realised something that might be relevant if that text is incorporated into The Beatles discography. At the moment the 9.9.09 paragraph basically goes: "Facts about the remasters -> Brief skips back to 1965 and 1987 -> Critics' comments on 1987 CDs -> Critics' comments on 2009 CDs." That's a bit awkward! So IMO the Danny Eccleston quote about the 1987 CDs' sound quality (and his PW/Rain example) would be better placed in the paragraph on the the 1987 CDs.
2. But wherever this text ends up, "ever since 1987 there have been complaints about the sound" is a strong claim; do you think we'd need more sources (like reviews written in the late '80s) to support it?

--Nick R 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and it's part of what I was trying to say above. — GabeMc (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Need a fix

Number 236 ref need to fix from Southall 2006 to Southall & Perry 2006. 46.35.206.137 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Enigma 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Rock music articles
• Top-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• FA-Class Merseyside articles
• Top-importance Merseyside articles
• WikiProject Merseyside articles
• FA-Class The Beatles articles
• Top-importance The Beatles articles
• FA-Class John Lennon articles
• FA-Class Paul McCartney articles
• FA-Class Ringo Starr articles
• FA-Class George Harrison articles
• FA-Class Brian Epstein articles
• FA-Class George Martin articles
• FA-Class Apple Corps and Apple Records articles
• WikiProject The Beatles articles
• FA-Class England-related articles
• Top-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2010)
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press