Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 12 July 2012 (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 20d) to Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 14.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:53, 12 July 2012 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 20d) to Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/Archive 14.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 20 days 
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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.
Former good articleSgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 4, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 10, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good 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.
WikiProject iconThe Beatles Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to albums on Misplaced Pages.
To-do list:
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:

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlbums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findnotice

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 20 days 

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 --217.232.45.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's on the single that was sadly torn from it in advance. Huw Powell (talk) 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.--andreasegde (talk) 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. ~ GabeMc 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
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 WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been exhibiting with ad hominem attacks. Your WP:Collaboration 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? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@ GabeMc: He wasn't my friend at all. How dare you make such an assumption, anyway? BTW, my name is spelt "Andreas". Please try harder.--andreasegde (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hold on... "You're header is disprutive". Is this from an editor who insists on "proper grammar"?--andreasegde (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, one more personal attack and I am filing an ANI report. ~ GabeMc 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. BTW, have you tried spell checker? You might like it.--andreasegde (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The/the ... again.

I would like to gauge the current consensus here for The/the usage. "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, 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." ~ GabeMc (talk) 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".--andreasegde (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
You got me andraes, wow, a spelling error. ~ GabeMc 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?--andreasegde (talk) 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? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There was an agreed consensus (after many, many years of argument), which GabeMc now thinks is redundant. Very sad, indeed.--andreasegde (talk) 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? ~ GabeMc 05:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't think? Is this from the same person that very recently asked another editor if it should be "writes" or "wrote"? I think he advised you about comma splices, didn't he? FYI, the comma is placed in the correct place. You don't know your splice from your semi-colon, I'm afraid.--andreasegde (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this discussion being conducted on the talkpage of an article relating to an album by the band, rather than on the bands' article talkpage - where previous discussion can be quickly reviewed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"The" or "the" Beatles straw poll

Please read: "Misplaced Pages works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion), polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Misplaced Pages are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion".--andreasegde (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • A third option is to !vote for adherring to the current consensus at the Beatles talk page, here at this article. Which currently is: "Consensus per this discussion is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal."
  • Comment: The MoS states: "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."
Another blatant lie. On this page, which was the poll, 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.--andreasegde (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant the straw poll before the triangular diplomacy non-solution. Anyone can count and see that I am correct about this. ~ GabeMc 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"?--andreasegde (talk) 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. ~ GabeMc 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 that section of the page they will immediately see that you are talking absolute, and utter rubbish. I worry about you.--andreasegde (talk) 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?--andreasegde (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a "the" support on 19 March, 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. ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"nd the misunderstanding of common understanding". Nice prose grammar expert! ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 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? ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you think you can ask me: "Have you lost your marbles?", whilst I cannot ask you if you have an OCD issue with "The".? ~ GabeMc 05:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you not know the difference between the two? Are you being serious? --andreasegde (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the". ~ GabeMc 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. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 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. ~ GabeMc 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. :))--andreasegde (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Andreas, I'll say it again. It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started-up this debate, look at the Beatles talk page and McCartney's talk page if you do not believe me. ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 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. ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Options

  1. Support adherring to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t")
  2. Oppose adherring to the current MoS guidelines (upper-case "T")
  3. Maintain consistency with the current consensus at the Beatles.
At the time I wrote that using lower-case was not an option in a wikilink. I'll go fix them. ~ GabeMc 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I thought you would do. Ridiculous.--andreasegde (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Please stop trying to make this personal. This is about the Pepper article, nothing else. ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

After GabeMc saying "I'll go fix them", the Pink Floyd article still has "The Tea Set, The Pink Floyd Sound, The Pink Floyd" in the infobox. It also has, "They covered songs by The Searchers", as well as, " including The Meggadeaths, The (Screaming) Abdabs, Leonard's Lodgers, and The Spectrum Five before settling on The Tea Set". Any more, you ask? Yes: "the band were first referred to as "The Pink Floyd Sound"", "also called The Tea Set", "All Saints Hall and The Marquee", "coverage in The Financial Times and The Sunday Times", "Nevertheless, The Pink Floyd Sound were present", "invited to watch The Beatles record". Editor GabeMc has contributed 371 edits (#2 in the list of contributors), to Pink Floyd. One wonders where the logic is.--andreasegde (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Office, The Apprentice, The Wire, The Archers, and The Likely Lads.

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. ~ GabeMc 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
How are reliable sources like The Independent and The Observer linked in Misplaced Pages articles?--andreasegde (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Will 'we' get an answer, or not?--andreasegde (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The MoS says to capitalise the names of newspapers not the names of bands. ~ GabeMc 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
So newspapers have special privileges, but groups of musicians don't? How interesting, but difficult to comprehend, no?.--andreasegde (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - 90% or more of the sources used to cite Beatles articles on wikipedia use "the"; I think we should as well. It reads more fluidly, and is proper grammar. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (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"?--andreasegde (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2012 (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. ~ GabeMc 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?--andreasegde (talk) 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. ~ GabeMc 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. (BTW, it should be "Up to this point, I thought that rep was very positive"). 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.--andreasegde (talk) 02:46, 9 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? ~ GabeMc (talk) 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. Richerman (talk) 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? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Would you advocate for the current consensus at the Beatles? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You're in the middle of an FAC for McCartney and you bring this up? Friggin' unbelievable.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This issue has nothing to do with the current McCartney FAC. This has to do with the current consensus here at this page. ~ GabeMc 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?--andreasegde (talk) 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 WP:ENGVAR 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 "the Beatles"? Do you truly not understand the nature of this discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 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 McCartney 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. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
And what is the point of all of this? Radiopathy •talk• 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"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 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.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess resist would have been better, 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? you have my full apologies andrea ~ GabeMc 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"just a power struggle to get your way"? What do you think I was doing when I proposed "Triangular diplomacy", which resulted in a consensus? Asking, "Is this an OCD -Obsessive–compulsive disorder - 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.--andreasegde (talk) 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.--andreasegde (talk) 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? ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
To "like the MoS" is a very weak argument.--andreasegde (talk) 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 The Times and The Guardian indicates use of the lower case "t". Piriczki (talk) 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."--andreasegde (talk) 11:30, 8 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. ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the mysterious/suspicious ip 99.251.125.65 dragged it up six days ago. Soon after they started the thread: Forcing capitalisation of Trademarks is nonsense. Indeed it is. ~ GabeMc 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?--andreasegde (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this whole issue should be dropped as nonsense or taken to a higher courtyard? User:GabeMc has repeatedly attempted used various methods to inflame contributors, similar to other discussions regarding this exact issue. User:GabeMc 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 99.251.125.65 (talk) 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.--andreasegde (talk) 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 The Beatles be our own "Beatles MOS" and be used on every other Beatles-related article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:09, 8 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". ~ GabeMc 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact that "the/The" is not universally used is enough to declare this a no-brainer.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Gabe's rebuttal of Mr. Grez. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:MOSCAP and my belief that it looks better. --John (talk) 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. "The The" is a special case, of course. Thanks GabeMc for inviting me to this interesting discussion. Huw Powell (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
How do the high-quality WP:RSs 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. ~ GabeMc 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
But they do not determine our style. They determine theirs. Huw Powell (talk) 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. ~ GabeMc 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC) "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, 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." ~ GabeMc 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."--andreasegde (talk) 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? ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 02:56, 9 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."--andreasegde (talk) 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." The Beatles was/were a band; the Beatles were its members. The spelling should reflect that. --Jprg1966  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 consensus to keep the mid-sentence use of the band name minimal. SilkTork 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds more like a maintain !vote to me SilkTork. ~ GabeMc 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 Talk:The Beatles. SilkTork 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem to prefer to maintain here, so maybe you should just change your !vote. Just a thought. ~ GabeMc 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. See Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars#Eagles (band) 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. Doc talk 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". Apepper (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Radiopathy.--andreasegde (talk) 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. Afterwriting (talk) 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. Steelbeard1 (talk) 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? File:Beatles logo.svg ~ GabeMc 12:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you read what Steelbeard1 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 Paul McCartney article, it seems that someone is deliberately ignoring that.--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)The consensus of which you speak was established at the Beatles not at Paul McCartney. Consensus does not bleed over into all related pages. It's time to move on now. ~ GabeMc 12:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Paul McCartney is undeniably linked to WikiProject The Beatles. 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 The Beatles' page), are dragging it back into the mud. 'We' moved on, but you still refuse to accept that.--andreasegde (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names."
and
"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 Paul McCartney 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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 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. Hotcop2 (talk) 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". ~ GabeMc 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"in Paul's hand"? In your innocence, you might not know that McCartney did not physically write that book. It was taken from interviews and then printed.--andreasegde (talk) 10:58, 9 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. Rothorpe (talk) 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. Tvoz/talk 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. ~ GabeMc 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. - Arjayay (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment MOS:TRADEMARK says to follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", which according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article), 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. Piriczki (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jprg1966, Radiopathy, and Diego Grez. "Eagles" sounds awkward enough as is. Mαuri “...over the Borderline” 20:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Mauri96, what do you mean by '"Eagles" 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? Rothorpe (talk) 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: File:Beatles logo.svg. ~ GabeMc 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).
I would rather reword one of the confusing sentences with the following: Each Beatle formed his own band after The Beatles broke up. You can also use the phrase 'individual Beatle' to stop the the/The inconsistency. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 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. --Matt Westwood 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. The White Album 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.--andreasegde (talk) 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." Tearaway (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
True, but the same website you are referring to also says: "Greatly turned on by the Spirit of the Age and by the “tea-parties” of those times, the Beatles provided a sound-track for the plottings of the baby boomers – millions of them – whose enlightenment ... still provides a hedge against humankind’s grosser instincts." ~ GabeMc 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here is a letter dated 1969 and signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses "the". ~ GabeMc 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. Penyulap ☏ 23:54, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose – 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 Nortonius (talk) 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." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - George Martin's book on Pepper, which was published in London, uses "the" throughout. ~ GabeMc 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - FTR - When andreas instituted the Triangular diplomacy solution in March 2011, the previous straw poll was 13 supporting "the" and 10 supporting "The". ~ GabeMc 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.--andreasegde (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here is a letter in Paul's hand that uses "the". ~ GabeMc 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).--andreasegde (talk) 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. ~ GabeMc 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? Doc talk 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. ~ GabeMc 03:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
GabeMc seems to think he can accuse people of having psychological disorders, because they do not agree with him. That's not even in the same league as "sniping".--andreasegde (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, I'm not taking anyone's side here. But I must say, Andreasegde, that "Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc" is just terrible decorum. Think Robert's Rules of Order. Doc talk 11:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It is correct, as the information he is presenting is not the whole truth. He selects certain passages to suit his own viewpoint, and then presents them as gospel. It's called cheating.--andreasegde (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand you're pisssed off, but "Rebuttal of disinformation by GabeMc", decorum issues aside, is poisonous to a discussion and should be stricken. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It should be stricken when the editor in question chose to present certain facts that were not the whole truth? I think not.--andreasegde (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Notice – since there is a reasonable amount of concern regarding the behaviour of Andreas, I have opened a discussion here in which everybody is asked to participate to determine a possible course of action for the future. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
This is great. I'm looking forward to detailing GabeMc's insults.--andreasegde (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Already added my input there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose i really do not like the idea of it being called "the Beatles" I have a metal poster legit to the original one of when they played at the Cavern which says "The Beatles". Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd
  • Support MoS-preferred version, but since there seems to be some disagreement in both primary and secondary sources, I'd say internal consistency should be the prevailing guide. New Beatles-related articles should use lowercase, and existing ones should follow one or the other convention, as long as it's consistent. Accedie 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (on balance). Tricky one this, as there's no clear consensus, even on the main Beatles' web sites (or should that read "....on the main The Beatles' web sites"). On balance though, they do seem to favour the lower case option, and personally I think that does seem to flow a little better too.Obscurasky (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - In Derek Taylor's first liner notes for the band (Beatles For Sale), he uses "the" throughout, which brings me to the question, why is it Beatles For Sale and not The Beatles For Sale, if "The" is an indispensable part of their trademark? ~ GabeMc 00:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's "MEET THE BEATLES," not "MEET BEATLES." Sadly, the album cover capitalizes all the letters in the title of that album, so we do not get definitive guidance from that source.Jburlinson (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"Beatles For Sale" does not imply the band was for sale but rather each Beatle was for sale. There were four of them! People are confusing the issue with references to the Beatles personalities. The band should be referred to as "The Beatles" per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trademarks which still states:
"Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized."
99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting MOS:TM. The Beatles trademark is not rendered without any capitals so that guideline does not apply here. The relevant guideline is:
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".
Standard text formatting and capitalization, according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article), is that 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. Piriczki (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article)" also says: "According to BBC journalist Julie Glassman, "they can boast almost as many tribute bands as The Beatles". "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."--andreasegde (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the use of "the" mid-sentence, which seems to be the issue. The above examples only apply to quoted printed sources, wikilinks and lists. Piriczki (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
But what about "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"? It's also in the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article); just below the sentences that everybody quotes.--andreasegde (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It clearly specifies "in wikilinks" and "when listing." Piriczki (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. A certain editor (GabeMc) wants to link the fab four as the Beatles, as well as the Jimi Hendrix Experience, the Grateful Dead, and the Doors. Please look at Paul McCartney.--andreasegde (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That's how Rolling Stone does it actually, though for the moment I can only find this example, which does not have "the" as part of the blue link: Rothorpe (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have always believed that it is The Beatles when talking about the whole "act", but "the Beatle(s)" when writing about individual members. "As a group, The Beatles performed in the USA, but the Beatles who went to Paris on holiday were Lennon and McCartney". That sentence is entirely correct.--andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • FTR: I have discerned the source of andreasegde's antipathy towards "the Beatles": some way back (it's up there on 30th July 2009), on the user page for that user is: "After having worked on many articles related to The Beatles, this user will never contribute again if one is forced to write "the Beatles". It looks stupid, and makes me feel ill. Castigate my attitude if you will, but it is mine, after all." So, for whatever reason, any suggestion to use "the Beatles" instead of "The Beatles" is bound to upset him/her. Read from this what you will. --Matt Westwood 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You went back to 2009 through all of my talk page edits? I congratulate you on your diligence (it must have been awfully tedious). Yes, I do have an "antipathy" towards "the Beatles", which I have explained very often during the many torturous trials that this page is repeating. Am I to be castigated for my antipathy? Hmmm... Make of that what you will.--andreasegde (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was just intrigued as to what makes you so angry when someone suggests to apply the MoS to the Beatless. It's such a trivial point and you come across so screamy about it, I was interested, from a purely scientific angle, as to what if anything was behind it. But it would not do to accuse you of being barking mad, or even mildly neurotic, so I won't. Ultimately, however, your "oppose" carries no more weight than my "support", however much you appear to insinuate that those whose grammar and spelling are not up to your standards should be allowed to influence the outcome of a poll on pages that you, personally, have had some part in editing. No matter - as I say, I can't understand why it's even remotely important, and I'd be interested to learn, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, as to why to some people it is so important. --Matt Westwood 20:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You were "intrigued"? So much that that you had to go through my talk page as far back as 2009?
  1. I, "come across so screamy about it"? Really? Do you have speakers? Do I type in CAPITAL LETTERS all the time? No, I don't.
  2. "But it would not do to accuse you of being barking mad, or even mildly neurotic, so I won't." That's a classic, and anybody reading that would know what you really meant. :))
  3. Who wrote this on my talk page: "Stop being childish. And while you're at it, grow a pair and learn some manners." You did.

If a reasonable discussion was proposed, I would be all for it. I'm sure you might have read that on my talk pages. To insinuate and attack, as one editor (GabeMc) recently wrote: ""Andreasegde has been harrassing me and threatening edit-wars, and making multiple personal attacks", makes things difficult, no?--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Question - If "The" is proper, then why do so many books written by Brits, and printed in London use small-case? Epstein's book, Martin's book, Taylor's book, Emerick's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book, Cynthia's book, Pattie Boyd's book, etcetera? Did all these British publishing houses and their professional copyeditors get this wrong? ~ GabeMc 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You have repeated that line of reasoning so often I'm sure everyone is well aware of it by now. I refer you back to your own link, which states it clearly. BTW, how are "The" corrections coming along on the Roger Waters and Pink Floyd pages?--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't own the Pink Floyd article, nor do you own the Beatles article, or pages related to the Beatles. This is a collaborative project. This strawman argument of yours is weak IMO. If there are any cap "The"s for band names at Roger Waters they were not added by me, and I am not responsible for every cap "The" at Pink Floyd, I've barely even edited there this year, end of story. ~ GabeMc 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - A case could be made for the name of the band being Beatles -- no "the" or "The". Mention was made earlier about a dispute between Yoko and Paul during which Paul reprimanded her for saying "Beatles" and not "the Beatles." Yet John Lennon repeatedly referred to the group as "Beatles", even singing in his song "God": "I don't believe in Beatles." He wasn't saying he didn't believe in each of the individual people in the group, he was referring to the collective. Basically, this straw poll takes us back to the early days of Fab Four fandom: either you're a John person or a Paul person. Paul people like "The", John people don't (or, at minimum, they're OK with "the", if forced into a corner.)Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Just regarding "God", almost every name in the litany is two syllables, with accent strong on both and strongest right where the syllables meet (Bi-ble, Bud-dha, etc), and the couple of three-syllable ones (Kennedy and Zimmerman) are squeezed in with the third syllable unaccented. To put "The Beatles" in there wouldn't work; he had to sing hard on just "Beat-les" for it to have the desired effect (and oh what a great recording). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think not, because every photo of Ringo's bass drum would be wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ringo was late to join the group. It might be that, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the others, he had "The Beatles" printed on his drum, only to be met with scorn by Lennon. "It's all right, Ringo," Paul, ever Mr. Nice Guy, might have said: "E for effort." Thus was born the persona of Ringo the lovable loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburlinson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
"in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the others"? Nah, but I do applaud your imagination; it would make a great stage play. :))--andreasegde (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion of some behaviour here

Discussion regarding the behaviour of an editor here 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Of several editors, actually. Including yourself. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Categories: