Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Archives: January 2007 - April 2007

Macca

It needs to be nominated for FA (or not...) andreasegde 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Hello? Is anyone there....? (sound of an annoyingly long echo...) Sir Sean de Garde 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The lights are on but nobody is at home. Poor old Macca... Mr Hornby 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I work on articles in depth, and I make changes that would take longer to explain than the time it takes to do it. Most editors make one small change, but I go through everything with a fine tooth-comb. I have been asked to leave a summary very often, but I get so involved I forget, or my itchy mouse-finger clicks before I know it (but usually to prevent edit conflicts).

Can anyone suggest a way around my problem? Would it be possible to add something like, "Trusted Beatles' editor" to my user name? It would ease the pain of answering comments about my lack of edit summaries from other well-meaning editors. I am "caught between a rock and a hard place", as they say. andreasegde 03:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I've worked it out... andreasegde 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lennon or The Beatles?

I have been working on the Lennon article, but I am toying with the idea of finishing it and then going on to The Fabs, or going there now. Decisions, decisions, decisions... andreasegde 08:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles and forking articles

I have a problem that I would like to impart to all you good 'Beatles project' editors, and it is this:

  • Should anything directly Beatles-related be in the main Beatles' article, and only 'personal' stuff put into the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr articles? I have the disturbing feeling that I'm repeating stuff in both Lennon and McCartney articles that should only be in the main article.
  • But... if only personal stuff is included in the individual Beatles' articles, would it make them too confusing/random, to read?

Please answer (on a stamped and self-addressed postcard please) on our talk page. (This might be more interesting than talking about MBEs... :) andreasegde, Mr Hornby, and Sir Sean de Garde 15:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim and Mary

If there are articles on Julia Lennon, Freddie Lennon, Mimi and George Smith, then why are there none (or even one) about Jim and Mary McCartney? This is a disgrace, and an affront to the Beatles Empire, don't you know. Hrrumphh.. Sir Sean de Garde 15:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This will be corrected during the next school term. Mr Hornby 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Knackered

I have to admit that I have run out of energy on this gargantuan task. (I may be experiencing my first bout of 'Wiki-stress', and I don't like it very much). I will now concentrate on Mimi and George Smith, Julia and Freddie Lennon, and Jim and Mary McCartney for a while (if only to dispel some Urban Legends). If anyone wants a citation for something specific, please leave a message on my talk page. andreasegde, Mr Hornby, Sir Sean de Garde, John Bender and Raoul McKnickers 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sound clips?

Anybody know the Wikipedia policy on using sound clips? I'd like to upload a few brief ones and use them to show things like development of a song. Raymond Arritt 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I found out that Wikipedia requires all audio files to be in Ogg format, so even if they were allowed few people could hear them. Raymond Arritt 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this format, which delivers good sound quality and is still small. How do you do (what you do to me) it? andreasegde 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Singles chronologies

"WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 4"
Song

I noticed recently that a series of edits was made to We Can Work It Out. Not all the Beatles singles are on my watchlist, so I didn't notice that similar changes were made to others as well. I've temporarily replaced the custom markup with a standard {{Extra chronology}} template, but I'm not sure how to best handle the situation. The problem is the two disparate chronologies. I'm curious if there was a previous consensus here about how to handle the situation. If only one chronology is to be included, that's fine. If consensus is that both are to be included, though, then ideally, I think one should be titled "The Beatles UK singles chronology" and the other "The Beatles U.S. singles chronology". I would suggest omitting the main singles chronology fields entirely, and using two extra chronology templates, as in the compacted example at right. Note the use of the "Artist" field in the sub-templates to clean up/clarify. Any comments/objections? --Fru1tbat 16:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been several weeks since I posted the above about the non-standard style that I noticed in some of the singles articles. I'd really like to go through and start cleaning them up. If there are no comments, I'll assume my above proposal is ok with the project. --Fru1tbat 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Smith

I find that I am really enjoying working on Mimi Smith (if that were possible, Vicar) and I am free of interference from vandals (she's not that interesting to them..) It also means that a lot of interesting stuff gets put in about The Beatles (that I never knew before). I'm having fun, and I hope you are too. andreasegde 19:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated it for GA. Knock me down wi' a fev-ver, Guv-nor... andreasegde 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Where?

I can hear the sound of a long echo in an empty city. Hello - hello - hello - hello.... Has everyone gone to the moon? andreasegde 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple personalities

It said, in the last Beatles' newsletter, that "Sir Sean de Garde appears to have developed multiple personalities." This is very true (and made me laugh an awful lot) but it is necessary when one is faced with talking to one on one's pages that one has contributed to. (Work that one out... :) The changing of one's name brings tremendous amusement to one - as other editors are wont to do the same. I refer you to members, Vera, Chuck, and Dave, LessHeard vanU, and Crestville, who have given one a terrific amount of pleasure in the general 'laughing gear' area, because of their inovative choices of Nom de plumes. One can only hope that this practice does not offend one's own sense of normality. One can only live in hope. :)) Who am I? 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you are also VC&D, LHvU, and C'ville? Probably not, but it's getting late and I've been on pain medication, so I'm not thinking straight.McTavidge 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they have multiple personalities that even they can not control.... :)) Pain medication? Look at Mr. Hero's (VC&D) talk page. I am beginning to wonder if I edit these pages to add citations, or to laugh my socks off. What a wonderful life. andreasegde 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday and Today

I'm not an official participant, but I was distressed to see an "unreferenced" tag on the album Yesterday and Today. I've added some references, enough to justify removing the tag, but if someone else could fill in the cracks, I think it'll be a pretty good article. --GentlemanGhost 12:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Make your own talk page, and join us. (Make the changes yourself, BTW.) andreasegde 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence on Recording Music

I've created an article The Beatles' influence on recording music, obviously, in retrospect, I should have looked here first to make it fit in with the project. But as I've done it now, perhaps some other Beatle fanatics could have a look.

I'd be pleased if someone wanted to collaborate on this; I feel sure I've missed some Beatle influenced techniques.

Apepper 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! All contributions (and contributors, do you want to stick your name on the participants list on the project page here?) are welcome. As for collaboration, now that it exists I'm certain that there will be no end of edits... LessHeard vanU 17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! I'll add my name. Apepper 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Send this editor (Apepper) The Beatles newsletter, and a big bunch of flowers. Maybe he likes chocolates as well? Welcome, Apepper. andreasegde 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FA humour

I hereby recommend this editor's comments for FA:

I didn't say it did; I was using RS as an example of a good source, if RS (or any other good published reference) had taken a poll and declared the results showed that the Beatles were the tallest band ever to play Croyden Tea Rooms then they could then be "acclaimed" as giants of popular music. Only then could this be cited and included in the article.::::::: ;) LessHeard vanU 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Laughing Cavalier 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mimi and Julia

They are both up for GA. Call me a (....insert words here...), but it would be nice for some Beatles editors to have a look at them and tell me if I am 'barking up the wrong tree'. Yours faithfully, Mr Hornby 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I took Julia out. I want to wait and see if Mimi gets a GA, or a good bashing... andreasegde 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Should get GA, I think Mimi is fab. Bongo O'Starkers
I thank you, young man, but if you don't turn on your siren and race to the fishmongers to get some hake fish for my cats (which you once rescued from a tree) I will tell John to give you a cuff around the ear. Mimi Smith 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Received, Alfa Four-One on route. Wooooooooooooooooooooerararararararararrarararararara!

Julia is back in again, which is probably a reflection of her life with Johnny. andreasegde 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article Review of The Beatles

I've submitted The Beatles at good article review. While there are a number of references, good articles these days (particularly on lengthy topics) are expected to be well-cited. There are a plethora of fact tags in The Beatles article, an unreferenced section, missing fair use rationales, improperly formatted citations to websites. This is not necessarily mean that the article will lose its GA status, so your input at good article review would be appreciated. Teemu08 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on it, and it looks more like a GA now. I will send you the bill, forthwith. (Bogus cheques for 5 pounds will not be accepted from Crestville) :) andreasegde 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Steinway used at Abbey Road

I'm looking to correlate some information I wrote somewhere else with the experts. Is anything specific known about the Steinway they recorded on at Abbey Road? Was there only one? Would it still be sitting there to this day? –Unint 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think (from Anthology) that McCartney bought it. He has bought lots of stuff, so maybe he plans to open his own corner shop some day. :) andreasegde 06:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. So it could not have been sitting in a cupboard at the studio, circa 1996-7? –Unint 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure which year he bought it. Ah, I see what you mean now... but did they have two pianos? One for each studio? andreasegde 03:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

I have nominated it for FA. andreasegde 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) No I haven't, because I messed it up. Bugger. andreasegde 04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I truly do believe I've got it right this time. Wonders will never cease. andreasegde 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the movement on the FA Nom page, it may get reviewed before next Xmas. Don't hold your breath.. andreasegde 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

NO! It's being reviewed as we speak. Where are you all? If it gets a kick in the pants, I will never go for FA again. Defending "commas in the wrong places", and "too many citations" (laugh) is 'not my cup of tea', as they say... andreasegde 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's going down the pan. The points made were all valid - although not about the article, but about commas, reference formatting, and spacing. Ho-hum; onwards and upwards... andreasegde 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a learning process, mate. I suppose there is something to be said that an FA should read enjoyably, but it really is nitpicking. Next time (of course there is going to be a next time!) we will have to get someone to proofread it. Mind you, if we decide that we are not going limit ourselves to an arbitary limit then said reader will be faced with 12,000+ plus words... Chin up anyhow!
To be honest, I am getting a little bit teazy about some of the self proclaimed guardians of Wikipedia. I note that along with the Beatles at WP:GAR is Shakespeare! It seems that if you want to take a subject to FA or GA these days then pick a subject that nobody is going to be interested in, then you can polish it up to your hearts content. If you are editing one of those pieces that pull people into the Wiki world, those that a new editor will want to add a few lines too (and isn't familiar with standards or policy or that they exist), then just get used to the fact that despite your efforts it is only ever going to be classed as B grade. It makes me really rather cross and I am just contemplating which avenue/medium in Wiki I shall use voicing my festering resentment. Really. I am going to use the Beatles article as an example. I will let folks know when and where I am letting rip (and I do mean rip, I will be using language that may get me suspended). LessHeard vanU 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Better off going for peer review with Paul McCartney next time. Also, I think we should have a sandbox for articles Beatles regulars are working on, so vandals can't mess around when work's being done. Then when you want it FAC'd, you just paste the sandbox content into the actual article. Seriously good idea I reckon. LuciferMorgan 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, LuciferMorgan, that sounds like a spiffing idea. 10 points to that man. andreasegde 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Volunteering as copyeditor-in-residence. I'm working on lots of other stuff, but ping me when something fab needs a spot of polish for FA nom, GA review, or whatever. Raymond Arritt 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reducing talk page template clutter

While I was at Talk:Paul McCartney trying to determine if a peer review had been done, I noticed the template clutter there. I asked a knowledgeable editor what should be done - his answer is Greek to me, but here it is, FWIW:

WP:Beatles needs to be asked to implement the "small" option on their banner; and it should also be added to {{reqimageother}}. Once that's done, the templates should be more-or-less neatly collapsible.

Don't be discouraged, Andreasegde - it's all a learning curve, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I have made a few comments at the above place, mostly directly relating to frustrations I have encountered while contributing to this Project and the articles The Beatles and Paul McCartney. My festering resentment has leaked out in the form of WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Please feel free to disassociate yourselves from me... ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with everything you have written there, and have stated so.Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have thrown my cap in the ring, and I agree with your very perceptive comments. andreasegde 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway - I don't know if LessHeard's comments will keep the zealot vultures away, but we could try to ignore them on the pages a bit more, and not get ourselves in long discussions about whether one tiny sentence should be changed or not. We know who we are, do we not? Let's not let the ............ (insert insulting word here) grind us down, and distract us. (Note use of hyphen/en-dash/em-dash at start)Mr. Softy "Mine's a 99!" 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Discouraged, moi?

To all the editors that sent me encouraging words - a heart-felt thank you. I am not discouraged in the least, and I will carry on as always. I expected a barrage of comments, and was not surprised. I even laughed a lot at the differences between hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes, which I will have to find/create on my Austrian keyboard. ( - -- _ __ these are all I have... :( Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(Tennyson)

andreasegde 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed. Not too often that you see Tennyson put up against comma-cops. Tvoz | talk 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't resist this:

En dash versus em dash

The en dash is half the width of the em dash. The width of the en dash was originally the width of the typeset letter "N", while the width of the em dash was the width of "M"; hence the names.

Traditionally an em dash—like so—or spaced em dash — like so — has been used for a dash in running text. Some guides, including the Elements of Typographic Style, now recommend the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argue that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash cater to grandiose Victorian era taste. However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste; the important thing is that usage should be consistent.

En dashes are often preferred to em dashes when text is set in narrow columns (as in newspapers and similar publications).

andreasegde 11:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Here, this will give you a chuckle. I have just looked through Macca, and guess how many en-dashes that needed em-dashes I found? Three. 'Effin three. The sentences just needed commas or parentheses. Astounded is not the word... andreasegde 13:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look

Mimi Smith and Julia Lennon are up for GA review. Cal me a glutton for punishment, but they need a scan by eagle-eyes. andreasegde 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to find the correct venue for my next venting of spleen regarding the matter of "Flogship Articles"; an invention of mine regarding an article that has barely any life left in it, but is nominated for Review just 'cos an editor fancies getting a good whipping... ;~) LessHeard vanU 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ps. I have no idea why I mention this here!
  • I've got the very thing for you, my dearest LessHeard vanU. I have just been delving into the Macca FA review and I have found some very 'effin interesting stuff. Have a read at the end of the review to see something surprising regarding the Wiki manual of style, and who they cite. The game is afoot, my dear Watson! en and em-dashes, my mother's ar#e... andreasegde, who is a bit miffed 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Smith

Mimi has been classified as GA (with a very positive comment that it could be FA). Congratulations to Crestville, McTavidge, Raymond Arritt, Tvoz, anybody else, and that bloke with the girl's name. (The drinks are on him, BTW...) andreasegde 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. On to Julia Lennon... Cheese & Onion crisps, Fish & Chips, Pork Scratchings, and a pint of John Smith's Smooth, please. 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled "Fuller's ESB." Hope this helps. Raymond Arritt 13:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Is the first round on you? "Time, Gentlemen please!" 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just realised that John Lennon is a B article, and Mimi Smith is a GA. Mimi has one up on Johnny at last.andreasegde 09:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles Trivia

They're at it again - trying to delete it. See the discussion page. The Beatles Trivia "delete" page. andreasegde 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The disgruntled editor is Worldtraveller, who nominated it for deletion last July, and has done it again (only 6 months later). He even specifically mentions The Beatles trivia on his talk page as something he really doesn't like. andreasegde 09:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Blues White Album

Hey folks.. been quite a while. Anyway, I did a quick search and could find nothing on Wikipedia about this album. Apparently it was released in 2002. Today was the first time I came across it - randomly on the 'Net as I was auto-tagging a Beatles song for MediaMonkey.


I was just wondering if it might deserve mention, its own article, or .. has anyone here heard it even..?

Anyway, the Amazon info for it is here. --Mal 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reet good Sat'day night out at the East Leeds Labour Working Men's Club. andreasegde 07:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you Andrea. Has anyone any idea whether this album should have its own article or whatever? --Mal 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't think so Mal, it may warrant a mention in The Beatles trivia though? Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chuck. I just had a thought, and I'm going to put double squares around all the names mentioned above in the Amazon quote to see if any of them turn blue.. obviously Mississippi John Hurt is going to turn blue, or my name isn't Mal 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh look - they all turned blue (apart from The Drivers). --Mal 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You could put it in The Beatles' influence on popular culture, and I have to say that I like your sense of humour. (Positive comment, BTW.) andreasegde 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh aye, dead witty that. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not mention it on White Album too if it's not already. The artists are plenty notable. heck maybe it deserves an article of its own, are there any critical reviews and suchlike to build an article from? ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention it on White Album? LOL! Has anyone heard this garbage? Just another bunch of has beens and neverreallywaser's trying to make a few quid off the back of The Beatles as per! [1] Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Freddie Lennon

Little Freddie Lennon has been put for a GAR. Would someone look at it for stupid mistakes, and give it a wipe with a damp cloth? andreasegde 09:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a loook like, an' he loooks a lot better without his leg irons (LOL!) Hilda Baker & The Deaf Ada's
He had braces, but he didn't use them to hold his pants up. andreasegde 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to Discography?

I have made a few changes to Beatles-related article. As I am editing, I often want to go to the Beatles discography in order to navigate to some other album. I know I can make a bookmark, but another alternative is to add a link to the discography in the infobox. Any support for that idea? John Cardinal 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Look before you leap! I just found that the list of Beatle albums is present on most songs. I was just editing Twist and Shout, which didn't have it. Never mind. John Cardinal 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Notes" or "References"?

Some Beatle-related pages use a "Notes" section for footnotes, and a "References" section for references to uncited documentation. Other pages use the "References" section for footnotes. Shouldn't this be consistent? WP:FOOT is ambivilent; it says, "Place the <references/> tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article." John Cardinal 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The ones I have worked on use 'Notes' to specify page numers from books and web citations, and 'References' to list the books the page numbers were taken from. andreasegde 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian

I think Brian Epstein could be a GA, with a little work. Anybody agree? andreasegde 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

The Beatles trivia is now "The Beatles’ miscellanea". Let the trivia zealots boil their heads in oil... andreasegde 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC

Julia Lennon

Julia is now a Good Article. Freddie Lennon is next...Easy, easy, easy, easy... 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC

Neil Aspinall is also on its way. By the time they get around to reviewing it, I mean....C'mon you whites (Leeds United - who are not feeling very well at the moment) 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC

World War II and Macca

This article (World War II) looks like it will fail its FA, but NOBODY has mentioned the 17,131 words it has. I refer you to the Macca article that has 9,500. Bugger. andreasegde 16:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper Infobox

It looks like the songs on Sgt. Pepper have an old-style infobox. While editing "Fixing a Hole", I changed that song to mimic the infobox for the Revolver songs such as "Doctor Robert". Before I change the others, what do people think? Is there a reason why the Pepper infoboxes are different? John Cardinal 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So much to do, so little time to do it? If you fancy trawling through the songs per album category, then it is your decision which style to use. If you are aware of any non-Beatles song/album articles, check what style they are using. It is best to be consistent. LessHeard vanU 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New editors on the block

(I don't mean chopping block.) I think we should go so far as to be over-friendly to them. I know we're all jaded hacks with smart one-liners up our sleeves - :)) but they're keen to help and should be encouraged. Now tell me to get lost. Mr Oh-so-bleedin' friendly. 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The beat-less 'article'

So, it's now the Beatles, is it? Every mention of The Band should be changed (in the middle of a sentence) to the Band. "At the gig, Bob Dylan and the Band.... which means his 'backing band', and not The Band. Explanation:

  • "I saw the Band tonight."
  • "Which band?"
  • "The Band!"


  • "I watched the beetles tonight."
  • In your kitchen again?"
  • No, The Beatles!

It's a question of emphasis... andreasegde 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that is spot on! It's also irrefutable! bob Dylan & the Band

There is a difference between the collective names of animals/insects and the name of a band. It is called "The definite article". andreasegde 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

... I pronounce the, The and occasionally tHe pretty much the same. The emphasis is in the inflection. I am getting slightly tired of 1.) requesting a defination from a published source, 2.) noting that I was requesting comments both at the relevant talk page and in the recent newsletters, and 3.) my preferred version is with a capital T but I follow Wikipedia procedures and the consensus of the debate, and the only examples provided, were for use of lowercase.
Time to put up or shut up, folks. Find an appropriate authority or another topic. Whatever. LessHeard vanU 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia - what trivia?

Hi guys, just wondering if anybody had seen my post on Ringo's talk page; does anybody have any more Ringo trivia or anything it could link to? At the moment there's the rather uninteresting: Ringo Starr is briefly mentioned in the Season 8 Full House episode, "We Got the Beat." Any more for any more? Liamshaw 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff listed there under "Recent years" and "Other information" which covers similar material. Maybe some sort of reoganization? Freshacconci 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking - I'm planning to move "Other information" into "Trivia" - they seem pretty compatible. Liamshaw 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It is done. It will need more extensive editing, but, *yawn*, I'm off to bed. Nighty night. Liamshaw 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there editors who dislike the use of the term trivia, owing to the crufty info often found there. If it is good notable stuff that has no other place to go then fine, but Other information is as good a title.
ps. I have answered and actioned over at Ringo's article. Goodnight.LessHeard vanU 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not 100% again the word "Trivia", but I understand some of the resistance to it and I'd suggest moving information out of Trivia and into other sections with more informative titles, if possible, rather than t'other way 'round. John Cardinal 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. However, should there be a general consensus as to the consistency of the word "Trivia" in articles concerning The Beatles? Here is a run-down of the members of the Beatles and their status concerning trivia:
  • John Lennon - has "Trivia" which links to "John Lennon Trivia" and "The Beatles Trivia" (no actual information in the section apart from these links)
  • Paul McCartney - no "Trivia" section
  • George Harrison - no "Trivia" section
  • Ringo Starr - has "Trivia" section
I think we should either go one way or the other - personally, I'm not opposed to "Trivia", but understand the reasons, so would not be opposed to its replacement with other word(s). Liamshaw 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles Trivia has been retitled The Beatles' miscellanea. This alternative word may be an appropriate substitute. LessHeard vanU 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I shall do so to the articles which contain "Trivia", if that's OK. Liamshaw 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A piece of advice: Stay as far away from the word trivia as you can, or the heavens will open and the anti-trivia zealots will come knocking on your door. It makes them mad, bad, and angry. (This is from past experience, BTW.) andreasegde 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Stay away from it literally? So just whenever I happen to say the word

trivia


I keep away from it for good? Does just the mention of it bring the zealots to the door, like hungry wolves, snarling and baring their vicious pointy teeth, seeking vengeance for the wrongs against... *sigh* Okey dokey. Got it. Don't mention the 't' word. the person who did not say the 't' word ever ever ever 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"A Day In the Life": An Interpretation by W.P. Norton

Death and time lay men and nations low, but life, though short, can have brief meaning, through drugs and intense human relationships, including of a sexual nature. That interpretation of “A Day In the Life” is based on the following line-by-line analysis.

I read the news today, oh, boy. An anonymous narrator seeks information about the world outside his own life. He reads a newspaper, a chronicle of the undifferentiated, relentless march of human events. “Oh, boy” is a euphemism for “Oh, God” — an exclamation of surprise, fear, powerlessness in the face of reality. In the vein of the bromide which declares that mediocre minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas, the narrator is seeking information through the media beyond that which is available in the course of ordinary, narcissistic personal experience.

About a lucky man who made the grade. Our narrator overlays irony over this line. The individual has been blessed by fortune, in the sense that he has “made the grade” — achieved material or worldly success. On a deeper level, one who dies because of inattention in a traffic accident is the opposite of “lucky.” He is in fact cursed, doomed — a victim of the fate that claims us all in the end. This sarcasm expresses uneasiness about the transitory nature of temporal human ambitions.

And though the news was rather sad, well I just had to laugh; I saw the photograph. He blew his mind out in a car; he didn’t notice that the lights had changed. The narrator, while acknowledging the tragedy of the accident, reflexively, automatically (“had to”) employs sarcasm as a defense mechanism against the awful reality: death is a fate that spares no-one. “Blow your brains out”: to commit suicide with a firearm. “Blew his mind out” substitutes “mind” for “brain,” indicating fatal head injury in an accident that is suicidal in the sense that the driver caused his own demise, if not with intent then certainly with the same outcome. “Blow your mind”: to be amazed, to be stunned by new awareness or insight by information coming from outside the boundaries of familiar experience. And death is certainly the ultimate alien experience — the one true “alienation” experienced universally. All of which is suggestive of the fact that we live in utter ignorance of the nature of death, the ultimate truth which defines our lives by virtue of being the opposite of life. Not noticing that the traffic signal had changed describes one running a stoplight and dying in a collision: a mundane, relatively meaningless demise suffered by many. Meaningless, because death results from so small an action as being distracted for a moment while behind the wheel.

A crowd of people stood and stared; they’d seen his face before. Nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Lords. The anonymous crowd is gripped by impolite, morbid curiosity; the vicarious thrill derived from viewing death first-hand — from the knowledge that someone has died, but not me: I am still alive. Of course, death is the most important fact, and ultimately the defining reality, of human experience. However, the nature of that experience cannot be accessed second-hand. The anonymous, gaping street crowd degrades the significance of this event, reducing what should be a moment of solemnity to an opportunity to access cheap thrills. This member of the House of Lords — a British political institution of long tradition — has political power and inherited wealth. Such an individual might be known to average people through glimpses in the media, but these people would have no occasion to be personally acquainted with him: to the mass of people on the street, he is no more recognizable than a face on a television screen or in a newspaper photograph — an abstraction, representing a distant, governing elite. This individual is separated — alienated — from the rest of us by his power and privilege. However, the commonness of his death proves that his privileged status is an illusion. I saw a film today, Oh, boy. The English Army had just won the war. A crowd of people turned away. But I just had to look, having read the book. The anonymous narrator, continuing to seek information about the wider world, is again struck by his insignificance, as signified by his invocation of the euphemism for the religious exclamation “Oh, God.” Again discarding the oblique mechanisms of symbolic allusion, the narrator references a historical event in which the armed forces of a named country — the United Kingdom — is victorious in an unnamed war. The unspecified triumph of British arms in war symbolizes Britain’s temporal greatness or significance. But in the same way that individual achievement fades into the past, the greatness of the English nation has become a matter of history — whether fictional or documentarized, we are not told, and it does not matter: this is merely a “film.” The point being made is that this unspecified British victory is an irrelevancy from which the anonymous audience of moviegoers literally turns away. Standing in contrast (more likely, sitting) is our protagonist, whose desire to acquire knowledge finds special expression in the act of viewing a film regarding a subject in which he is interested enough to have not only read a book about it, but to have then sought additional information on this specific topic. However, the majority does not share the narrator’s interest. By implication, the meaningless death of one man in a car accident today is more interesting to society than a monumental achievement of the storied, historic English army. What this describes is a society severed from any connection to its past.

I’d love to turn you on. “To turn on” is of course a double entendre, meaning either “to excite sexually” or “to provide access to drugs or to a drug experience.” In the face of these events, the narrator is declaring that access to a deeper, more-meaningful level of existence — or even mere diversion from these melancholic facts — is available by means of intense, shared interpersonal experiences, including sexual relationships, mind-altering drugs, or both.

Woke up, fell out of bed, dragged a comb across my head. Waking up is the first action any individual must make in a given day — an action that is in a sense involuntary and paradoxical, in that the act of waking up is automatic, requiring no free will. The need to rise from sleep is inevitable, a rigid fact of existence, like the cycles of nature, and therefore inescapable. In a way, it is its own negation of free will — or birth by another name. Falling out of bed evokes the experience of falling, of being an object of gravity, a prisoner of the natural laws and forces that govern all existence. It is one of the first things we learn after being born: you can fall down. Combing one’s hair symbolizes all that is cosmetic in the putting on of our public face, in choosing how to present ourselves to society. Thus is a kind of pilgrim’s progress described: We are born. We learn how the world works. We decide what we want others to know about us.

Found my way downstairs and drank a cup. And looking up, I noticed I was late. Moving through life, we “find our way” by trial and error; we acquire sad knowledge of the baser requisites to be fulfilled in the construction of our foundation. We grow sadder and wiser — a process which that seems to satisfy a human need no less elemental than that of thirst slaked by the raising of a drink to the lips. The universality of such an experience drives a further sense of inevitability, of being captive to the larger forces of gravity, the need for food and water, the inexorability of time.

Found my coat and grabbed my hat, made the bus in seconds flat. We further refine our public posture in our choice of defensive garments. And we do so in haste, with the sense of urgency derived from our knowledge that we are running against time.

Made my way upstairs and had a smoke. And somebody spoke and I went into a dream. We have arrived at a destination. Though our trip on the bus is over, we’re still on a trip, in the sense that we’re not at home. And though anywhere other than home is at least to some degree, and by definition, alien — alienated — at least we are familiar with the terrain: we can go upstairs. And though we may still be isolated, we are at least no longer alone. We know this, because we hear the voice of an anonymous party. Thus is the possibility for the transcendence of isolation made available, by means of communication with another human being. However, we decline this opportunity in favor of the ultimate introverted act: retreat into the internal, dreamlike, surreal, irrational, non-linear mental state made created by drugs. Thus, although we have opted out of an opportunity for interpersonal contact, we have shifted our consciousness away from the strictures of reality and toward the freedom of a dreamlike, drug-induced state.

I read the news today, oh, boy. Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire. And though the holes were rather small, they had to count them all. Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall. I’d love to turn you on. The theme of individual powerlessness and insignificance against the backdrop of the relentlessly and endlessly unfolding human drama is repeated. Initially, the relevance of the quantity of holes is unkown to us, because the context is known only to the protagonist. But if you can’t know what the holes are, you can know that they were counted in a specific place whose importance the narrator signals by naming the city and county. The holes could be anything: a symbolic stand-in for the march of ephemeral concerns that constitute the bulk of human existence in every locality. More likely, their meaning is literal, for holes are indeed empty, devoid of meaning. The identity of the unnamed “they” whose duty it was to count the holes is a matter of speculation. Call them census-takers, tax collectors, assessors. Whatever the moniker, their role is the same — that of faceless, anonymous “experts.” Anointed by the Establishment, these experts enumerate those facets of reality deemed by that same Establishment to be relevant to the society. Only after this act of counting — literally, of determining “what counts” — can come the dictation of the societal priorities flowing therefrom. The anonymity of those doing the counting symbolizes the essentially alien nature of the means by which government rules. This reinforces our narrator’s concern with the theme of alienation — the alienation of the successful politician from the fundamental truth of his mortality; the alienation of the street crowd from the governing elite; the alienation of the moviegoers from their nation’s history; and the alienation of so-called experts from the daily concerns of laypeople. The experts announce an absurd finding: 4,000 holes will fit in the Albert Hall. This result underscores the distinction between meaningless information, which is everywhere but of no use to anybody, and meaningful knowledge, which is elusive. The reference to the Albert Hall is an English place-name familiar to very few outside England. The idea here is that if you recognize the reference to the Albert Hall, you will experience the minor thrill of recognition — and the fleeting satisfaction that comes from feeling that you can construct meaning within the context of random and terrifying events by means of language: the power to superimpose order onto chaos simply by giving things a name. Even if you don’t recognize the reference to the Albert Hall, you still recognize the absurdity of counting the holes in Blackburn. Significantly, the Albert Hall is a place where famous performers ply their craft. An allusion, we may conclude, to the meaninglessness of fame — the emptiness in the soul modern celebrity. It was a void the Beatles themselves spoke of after they had reached their peak. And the narrator sends, for the second time, the dually desirous proposition to provide the anonymous “you” with an opportunity to replace mental alienation and emotional emptiness — to fill these twin voids at the center of the modern soul — with the twin towers of a mind-altering drug experience and an interpersonal relationship, the latter being sexual in its intensity if not in its expression.

It’s one song, but there are crucial difference between the two narrators. Narrator No. 1 seeks to understand reality; he wants to know about the news, he’s interested in history; he ponders the nature of societal forces; alludes to the absurdities that underlie conventional wisdom; clothes his comments in ironic sarcasm. Whereas No. 2 accepts his immediate reality without a second thought; makes no comment about the world beyond the boundaries of his narcissistic concerns about grooming, hairstyle, clothes. He knows time outruns us all, but doesn’t seem to care a whit about that fact. In another key contrast, No. 2 rejects human contact in favor of drug-induced inner space, while No. 1 invites the anonymous “you” to experience, along with him, a chemical- or sex-induced alteration of consciousness. In essence, No. 1 stands outside society. He analyzes, judges, constructs an edifice of emotional self-defense. And yet, despite his isolation, it is he who seeks alliance with another person. Indeed, his most meaningful action is to invite someone to share with him in the pursuit of transcendence through drugs and intense relationships. Whereas No. 2 accepts reality implicitly, tailors for himself a stylish suit of armor, and rejects a relationship in favor of introversion.

What is the takeaway here? First, that we modern men and women are alienated: from each other, from the Establishment, even from our own history. This latter fact is one of the things that makes us modern. And that which we value most — fame, success, power and money — are but fleeting unrealities trumped by death and the passage of time. Our humor may provide defense against the terror arising from these melancholic facts. But solace can be achieved, if only temporarily, by raising our consciousness to different levels, whether through intense relationships or chemical substances. W.P. Norton 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)W.P. Norton

Um, thanks? Freshacconci 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To new editors: If you ever want a perfect example of what POV is, you have just read it. W.P. Norton doesn't even credit Lennon, but refers to him as "the narrator". As has oft been quoted, Dr. Winston O'Boogie wrote the lyrics after reading a newspaper. 'Nuff said? andreasegde 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Most enlightening. *stifled yet audible giggles*. Liamshaw 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Rock On Tommy! Bobby Ball
Oh... I understood that Lennon was referring to the recent death of one of the Guinness family, part of the London Set in the first stanza. As for "I saw a film today..."; Lennon was a actor in a British film called "How I Won The War", starring Michael Crawford (I think the director may have been Richard Lester). As mentioned, Lennons lyrics are from a newspaper he was reading. The bit about getting up and combing his hair is, I believe, McCartneys words. Of course this is all from memory and unassisted by a degree in trick cycling. LessHeard vanU 13:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Trademark

Put up or shut up?

This document is irrefutable proof (even though the writer uses "the Beatles" title): An auction for the document used to register the name "The Beatles" back in 1964 Game, Set, and Match. andreasegde 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a battle about this? If so, where? John Cardinal 00:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is wearing me out. You have given us "irrefutable proof" that the Beatles and their lawyers like capitalizing the article, not any evidence of what any language authorities think.McTavidge 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with McTavidge. It seems that the (non-trademark lawyer) authoraties line up well with a lower case "the".

Additionally, an earlier suggestion that "The" be capitalized to show emphasis is completely absurd given the existance of a typographical style developed specifically for that case: italics.

The concept that since "Coca-Cola" is capitalized, "the" in the bands name should be as well seems to be missing out on "the" as an article.

Them be's my thoughts.

"The" isn't part of the Rolling Stones Trademark. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Both "Beatles" and "The Beatles" are registered trade marks of Apple Corps Ltd. The British Patent Office link to "The Beatles" trade mark is at [2] Steelbeard1 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Steelbeard1, for "The British Patent Office link to The Beatles trademark." andreasegde 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you indeed and here's an example of it's correct written usage:[3] Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This "The/the Beatles" problem is typical of Wikipedia. All a problem needs is strong citations and then we can all go home. If you want to go to court about it, contact Apple Corps and set a date, and take your piggy bank with you. andreasegde 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA

Mimi Smith, Julia Lennon, Freddie Lennon, and Neil Aspinall are now all GA. Now, let's see... Brian Epstein, or Mal Evans? Here go, here we go, here we go... 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Marvellous - no reaction. Hello, hello, hello....... 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh? I think that's good news, right? Worthy of the newsletter? ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe a line about how the status board is looking at the moment. It makes me feel good to look at it once in awhile. andreasegde 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy

I suggest that editors look at the 'Policy - talk' section [4] to voice their opinions. Democratic (and legal) are my favourite words (and I don't mean political parties in the USA, BTW.) andreasegde 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Us

This is not a project - it is a collection of dedicated people who love what we do. We have more fun than a bishop in a brothel, and we have a wonderful working-friendship with each other. This should never be broken. Tell me I'm wrong, and I will slap you with a wet fish. Mr. Oh-so-'effin friendly 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The The

I found a great example. There was a band in the 80s called The The. Now, what do we do with that, I ask? andreasegde 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also The The The The Stutterers. Really. Raymond Arritt 16:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Raymond. A bit of humour in all this is very welcome. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andreasegde (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
What about the hybrid Geordie/Lancs band Th'Thee? LessHeard vanU 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All We Are Saying Index

Frustrated by trying to find information in All We Are Saying by David Sheff, I decided to make an index:

Perhaps other Lennon/Beatle editors will find it useful. John Cardinal 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If they can tear themselves away from arguing about the/The, that is. :-) John Cardinal 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Comprehensive! Do you want to make internal Wikilinks in the Lennon article, and relevant songs, to the index? It's up to you, but you could always create a All We Are Saying stub article (with Beatles templates, etc.) and make the index a sub-page. Be wary of copy-vio, of course! LessHeard vanU 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ps. If there's anything in the book worth a bit of a ding dong about, you will let us know, won'cha? ;~)
Thank you. I think it's best for articles to cite the book in the usual way. The index is a finding aid, and if an editor uses it to find something in the book the editor would cite the page they read to support the assertion made in the article.
I am not against moving the index under the article for a short or stub article about the book, but someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia policies would have to comment on that.
I don't think there is a copyright issue. While there is a lot in the index, little of it appears in the book itself. I didn't take the book's index and add to it, for example, (it has no index), and most of the index terms are names of people or general concepts ("Marxism") that aren't subject to copyright. John Cardinal 13:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I skipped over most of the content the first time. I now agree there is no content that could be copyright violation. I retract that statement. I will see if the friendly project Admin would care to clear it for Wikipedia. My only concern now is if it falls within original research, although you are simply noting where subjects are mentioned and not drawing any conclusion (other than it would have been nice to have had an index). I shall go ask. LessHeard vanU 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, while we are waiting you could always go ahead and create an article for the book and then create the stub page. If there is anything untoward then someone will pick up on it. LessHeard vanU 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The friendly admin advises (see User_Talk:Lar "Non Shouty..." discussion) that an index is too narrow for a Wiki article. I am seeing if it would be okay to link to your userpage from an article for the book. LessHeard vanU 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I don't think a link from a main page to a user page will fly, and shouldn't, so the question is, where is an appropriate place for a link? John Cardinal 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither did the friendly admin. I'll simply copy over what he wrote, since I am not as familiar with articlespace and userspace as you seem to be (although I think I get the idea)

If this is an articlespace thing, we should not link from articlespace to a user subpage. We should link to some other place within article space (the "list"...) but in order for that list to survive a possible AfD we need to be able to establish relevance of the list to the article it's linked from as well as accuracy. If this is an index someone did by their own reading, it's original research and therefore not OK by our policies. Tricky wicket. now, on the other hand, if this is a resource that we would keep in the project or on an article TALK page, for use by editors to make articles better, then it's much less stringent about how AfD defensible it needs to be, as well as how non original research it needs to be. I'm confused which it is. If you think the original author isn't going to be miffed that wp policy says that we shouldn't have his list in article space by all means feel free to copy this whole thread over to there or whatever. That's what I was scared of, he's put a lot of work into it, and people just hate having their baby called ugly. :) Hope that makes sense, mate. And PS thanks for trying to work through the t/T thing... rather thankless, that, eh? Good work on helping keep things calm. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this with him then he is open to all friendly inquiries, although he does get a lot of requests so he may take some time, so just let him know that you are the other concerned editor. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. Hopefully this is all sorted but if you want more of my opinion please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I just left it in user space. John Cardinal 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to create an article stub for the book (as you have it, you can do it most easily) and mention in the article talkpage that you have an index? LessHeard vanU 15:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to do that. I'm not against it, but I am not sure it's notable. What's the policy about that? I don't want to bother adding it and then discover its been deleted. If it gets one, then Many Years From Now, and Lennon Remembers and other books should probably get one, too. John Cardinal 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess you are the de facto judge on notability, as you have read it. Your call... LessHeard vanU 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mal Evans

I am working on Mal, but it needs more about his schooling and birthplace. Anybody know anything? ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mal is now up for a GA. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Beatles EPs

Last year I noted that in the process of streamlining all entries in category:Albums by artist, we eliminated all "EPs" categories except the Beatles one, under the logic that all EPs are just short albums. Since it doesn't make sense for one band (even this one) to have a different categorization scheme, I've just nominated it for merging into category:The Beatles albums on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, so feel free to weigh in there.--Mike Selinker 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Please Me

There's a "Summary" section in the Please Please Me album article that I don't think belong there for various reasons. I asked for comments on Talk:Please Please Me, but so far only the author of that section has replied. Can some other editors chime in and help us decide what to do—if anything—with it? Enta Da Stage is a featured article, but Please Please Me isn't. We should correct that. IMO the "Summary" section is a barrier to GA or FA; it's a B as of the last rating. John Cardinal 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GA—which is a short step from a B-article

Sometimes I treat myself by having a look at this:The Beatles' Status Board. What it says it that "the powers that be" do absolutely 'eff all (if you look at the history) but blab on and on about contributions and tHE style. They hate the idea of getting their sleeves dirty—because they definitely don't want to—as their exalted positions would then become redundant. I'll bet that they do not know what "elbow grease" means. (If they do, it is then even more embarrassing for them...) Every Beatles' article should be a GA. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the above a reaction to my Please Please Me comment above? If not, what are you talking about? (I must admit I don't understand a lot of the posts here and there by project members. I assume I'll catch on someday, but more context would help! John Cardinal 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not at all. It's just a rant about the fact that looking at the status board shocks me. There are too many B articles, and I find that shocking, especially considering how long the pages have been there. Are we talking years, here? Yes we are, as John Lennon was started in 2002. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 10:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I agree about GA. I've stayed away (mostly) from the high-priority articles because those articles are likely to deal with controversial material and I would rather wait until I've had more experience writing for an encyclopedia. I've been working on song and album articles, mostly, adding citations because they're needed and (at the moment, at least) I have a lot of the necessary source books. John Cardinal 18:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Who exactly are the powers that be? We're all volunteers here and we do what we choose to do when we can. --kingboyk 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(Hi, Kingboyk). I refer to the statement that "It is still usually up to a smaller group of people who decide which arguments have carried the day"... (I am not referring to Admins here, or the original writer, but what is called "the consensus/policy"). I see no fairness in it at all. You say, "we do what we choose to do when we can", which is very agreeable, but our efforts/opinions are accepted or rejected by "a smaller group of people". Who are they? Why do they have so much power?
I totally understand the Nazi problem, when 50 tossers try to overrule a policy/idea/fact by voting (bad word that...) and can be successfully defeated by "a smaller group of people", but does that always apply? I am afraid that it looks like it does. It means that no matter what the general feeling is, it can be cast aside. This all relates to the/The Beatles problem, when nobody else in the whole of Wikipedia (apart from Beatles' editors) bothers about it at all. Five recent GA reviews (and one FA review) never mentioned it once - not once.
My point is that we should be concentrating on getting ALL of (...) Beatles to (at least) GA, and stop faffing about with accusations about vandalism whether someone writes The or the. The John Lennon article was started in 2002, and is a B article, BTW. I feel we are losing the plot here, and are not seeing the wood for the trees. I apologise for my rant, but this whole thing has made me ever-so-slightly miffed... (and that is the understatement of the year...) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. Well I personally decided long ago to let others argue about the/The and just to abide with whatever the "policy" is at the end of it all. I frankly couldn't care less :) Let me tell you though as somebody who's been away and come back to see the work that's gone on, you've not been wasting your time in as much as some great work has happened (the Mimi article for a kickoff). Whether Wikipedia is a waste of time as an "encyclopedia" I couldn't tell you (although I suspect it is)... It's not just Beatles articles. Have a gander at some of the articles relating to Iron Maiden, if you can bear it... they are appalling. --kingboyk 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I thank you very much, Kingboyk, for giving me a good chuckle - I really needed it :) "Have a gander", "if you can bear it", and "appalling" are phrases/words that make me laugh a lot... :)) Thank you. I will now shut the 'eff up and do something worthwhile... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just looked at it. "A poor gig at the Bridgehouse in November 1977, with a makeshift line-up including Tony Moore on keyboards, Terry Wapram on guitar, and drummer Barry Purkis resulted in Harris firing the entire band". It sounds like Spinal Tap! :)) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Spinal Tap must have been based at least partly on Status Quo, given that they were the most prominent rock band to have started off as flower power rockers.... --kingboyk 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) PS Anybody who wants to slag off the mighty Quo should see me outside! ;)
Saw a free Quo gig here on the Hauptplatz in Linz a few months ago. Felt strange listening to cockney accents in the middle of sausage land. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
re;

"our efforts/opinions are accepted or rejected by "a smaller group of people". Who are they? Why do they have so much power?"

Well, I assume they started as editors like everybody else and after a while accumulated sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia methods and practices that their opinions carried some weight in discussions about AfD, FAR/Cs and GAR. They pretty much appointed themselves by dint of their type of contribution, and mostly the majority of editors have come to accept their decisions as binding (oh, I guess that a few disgruntled objectors file complaints in the appropriate places when their opinion is overridden) which in turn gives them these powers - the Wikipedia community allows them the excercise of same.
When an editor reaches an impasse with another contributor an Admin (or just somebody with more experience sometimes) is asked to intervene, sometimes this referee gets a reputation as someone to talk to in resolving matters. The "small group" likely started like this, a few experienced editors (perhaps admins) who got a reputation for being prepared to rationalise the debating points being offered with reference to Wikipedia rules and policies and coming to a decision. As you will have noted, even they don't always agree what constitutes correct application.
In the end they were just editors like you and me (well, more like me - since I prefer the debate and administrative side than finding and citing references in text, my contributions to Project articles in the way of new information has always been pretty thin from the very start) who were prepared to make decisions on behalf of the Wikipedia Community. I would suggest it is a tough job, since most people will disagree with you at some stage, and not one that most people would take on; hence the small number.
Like the man said, we are all volunteers here - some find avenues that better suit their talents... or as was once written "some people are more equal than others"...
Whatever. LessHeard vanU 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So they are self-elected, and there is a hierarchy:
"Hierarchies denote a singular/group of power at the top, a number of assistants underneath and hundreds of servants beneath them."
Nobody is allowed to vote to reach a consensus and the minority rules. Does Mr. Wales know about this? If he does, then does he approve? I can't think of a worse position to be in. We are volunteers that are dictated to (and I don't use that word lightly) by a self-elected board of governors. Bloody hell, I'm gobsmacked...
Thanks for your reply BTW, LessHeard vanU. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(Engaging political pomposity mode, Mr Rimmer) Of course you 'can't vote on a consensus debate; voting specifically implies a split between yes and no, right and wrong, black (or red or yellow) and blue, with a simple majority overriding the wishes of the minority; be they ever so small or large. Consensus is what happens in Oxford and Cambridge debates, the strength of the arguments is considered and that which appears strongest (even without the greatest number of adherents) is declared the winner by both opponents and proponents. (disengaging political pomposity mode).
So the cadre that makes the decisions on Wikipedia considers the arguments and declaims from upon high which side most closely reflects the ethos, principles, and whatnot that Wikipedia represents. That they are few is most likely because few other people want the job (the work, not the power) and because they have been around WP for some time and few can match their experience. That isn't to say they get everything right, or that they agree with each other all of the time, but that their stewardship of WP has been regarded as beneficial. At worst it is a benign dictatorship. LessHeard vanU 22:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (ps. This is only my perception of the state of affairs - it could be hideously wrong!)

What's all this then?

There's no "heirarchy" here at WP:TB. No "powers that be". We'll have none of that, thank you very much.

There's only a bunch of people interested in The (thE) Beatles and in Wikipedia. Some are casual fans, some are grammarians, some are lunatics for whom the clock stopped in September 1969 (who, me?) but none are better or worse, or have more or less authority than others. Sometimes they disagree, as humans tend to do. Sometimes they even squabble over silly things, as humans tend to do. In the end you get up, dust off, shake hands and move on.

Rembember - Every Beatles article should be a GA. Sermon over. Back to work, lads. Raymond Arritt 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mal Evans

Mal Evans has graciously been allowed to join the Good Article ranks of his fellow friends and family connected with that Liverpool band. That should make up for the royalties he never received (not)...

Evans wrote on 1 February 1967: "Sergeant Pepper sounds good. Paul tells me that I will get royalties on the song — great news, now perhaps a new home." He hoped to get royalties but instead had to make do with £38-a-week pay. Bugger. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 14:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's that quote from then? Did he help write the song (or something else on the album)? --kingboyk 23:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Read Mal Evans, and all will be revealed... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Poor sod :( That sucks. They could have printed Lennon/McCartney whilst still paying Mal his royalty couldn't they?! Personally, I think Lennon/McCartney/Evans sounds fine anyway. Down with egotistical cashed up rock stars!!! --kingboyk 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Too true. The more I read about that band from Liverpool, the more I am beginning to like them, and loathe them (Lennon, for giving money away to friends, but also being a [expletive deleted] and Macca, for being extremely nice, and a total [expletive deleted].) Great music though... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get carried away with "Mal Evans, songwriter". He may have contributed lyrics, but given McCartney had to nod at him to control the duration of a single organ note, it's unlikely he was a musician in any true sense of the word. Watch him in Let It Be. He has trouble banging Maxwell's hammer at the right times. How he got usable sound out of a saxophone—if he did—is beyond me. My point is, his diary and/or the mysterious tape are both his POV of what went on. They may be right or wrong from someone else's point of view, and even if right, he may not have deserved a writing credit. Could the Beatles have given him more cash? Sure, I can't put his pay in context. He was a road manager, and that's not a lucrative position. John Cardinal 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you add a single sentence to a song, you deserve a credit. They had enough dosh to splash around, after all. Pete Shotton got a supermarket, and he was just a mate. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This WikiProject considers this matter closed. All procedural matters have been noted. Take any further complaints to the editors involved or the proper forums (not here). --kingboyk 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been nominated for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles' miscellanea, perhaps this WikiProject would like to offer to userfy the article so the items can later be merged to other articles. –Pomte 10:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have no objection to that, it might even be the best solution. Andrew? I've closed the AFD by the way, coming so soon after the last one is just taking the piss. --kingboyk 11:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Anything to stop this bull happening every month. andreasegde 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles' miscellanea and removed the (small number of) links from article space. --kingboyk 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're consenting to the move to project space, then you don't really consider it "bull", now do you? You just object to being forced to deal with it (through a possible delete outcome). I didn't know about any of the past AfDs, and should have checked before nominating it, but that just goes to show that another completely uninvolved individual found fault with the article. It really does seem to go against the idea of an encyclopedia, which is to summarize the relevant information on a subject. It's as though I had a bunch of facts about Canada that I couldn't find a place for in any Canada-related article, so I created Canada miscellany. I'm sure it will be hard work, but those bits of information that can be placed in other articles should be, but, unfortunately, those bits that can't, really have no place on Wikipedia—we can't be creating catch-all articles to hold that which we can't work into "real" articles. Lexicon (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brian Epstein

I seem to be running into some flak on Brian Epstein's page. In-line citations (I thank thee kindly Kingboyk) seem to be the problem, as the editors there like POV/unreferenced sources. andreasegde 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

There is a serious problem on the Brian Epstein page that needs to be looked at by other editors. I politely request other editors to take a look at the article and the talk page to decide whether the article is defamatory to Epstein, and whether there is too much in it about his sexuality. andreasegde 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I thank the editors that replied very much for their contributions. The next round's on me... andreasegde 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates and John Cardinal

If anyone is interested User:John Cardinal has created some alternative templates on his userpage. Whilst I have no problem with current templates his seem logical and clear, and it may give the project a slightly different look to other similar subjects (whether this is good or bad, I have no opinion). LessHeard vanU 11:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at them, and they look great - very easy to read, and logical. andreasegde 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not bad, but I'm not too keen on the Studio Albums section. I've tried an alteration but it didn't help much. There's too much white space for my liking. Perhaps a list seperated by middots would be better, with the removal/merger of the Past Masters section too? I just think that part of the template is too large. --kingboyk 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Anything that gets away from a pile up of centered text seems an improvement to me! Nice work John and thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
kingboyk: There is a lot of white space in the studio albums part. One of my goals was to make vertical lists, and given many wikipedia users won't have large monitors, I tried to minimize the amount of horizontal text without making the navbox to tall. I have some ideas about what to do, but no good ones! :-) John Cardinal 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes you have, you fibber :) andreasegde 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The life of, err... Brian

As Brian Epstein is almost ready for GA, it would be nice if editors would scan it and look for anything untoward, blatantly silly, or just gramatically hopeless. That dick with the girl's name 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian is now up for a GA, and if he doesn't get one, I will eat the hat of any concerned editor (with curry sauce and mushy peas, of course...) "Urgghh", say them blokes from "darn sarf" and across the pond... A person with very strange ideas about food 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe Orton

First I knew of this man, or of the great Gary Oldman, was when I watched Prick Up Your Ears a good few years ago now. I happened to be looking at the article just recently because I was trying to explain to someone from the USA who Kenneth Williams was! One thing leads to another, six degrees of separation and all that! This bloody wiki is addictive! Anyway - I tagged Orton's article and that of his rejected play.. I was surprised they weren't alreayd tagged tbh. -- Mal 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mal, you should have used that as a quiz question! What a wasted opportunity :(
Seriously though, I've never heard of him, and the article doesn't scream out "Beatles" to me. I don't think he's within scope. I might be wrong - it has been known! --kingboyk 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted

I came back here to see when Brian Epstein would be granted a GA. It has not, because nobody could be bothered to to fix the little problems that were raised by the reviewer. This is disgusting, and confirms my belief that The Beatles project is nothing more than a bunch of loud-mouthed pedantic control freaks who can not be bothered to carry out the simplest of tasks, but prefer to write reams and reams of self-important drivel about their own opinions. You should all hang your heads in shame. andreasegde 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! What he said! :P --Mal 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Backmasking

I'd appreciate it if someone who's knowledgeable about the Beatles could check my writing at Backmasking#Development of backmasking, as I've pulled the information together from various sources and want to be sure it's correct. Λυδαcιτγ 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Beatles songs

Hey all,

I have done a review the the List of Beatles songs and List of Beatles songs by singer pages, to find there seems to be some missing songs and some that I don't think belong. I am no expert however, and I would appreciate members of this WikiProject checking the relevant talk pages to agree/disagree and then someone can make the change(s). I also have a list of which of the songs in these lists are from non-core releases, such as Anthology and Live at the BBC - should this information be added?

Cheers, Stu 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this - it would be good to finalise this. Should it be added to the To Do list? Someone has added a count, which I don't think is relevant unless the titles are confirmed. --Stu 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Could songs beginning with the word "A" or "The" be alphabetised according to the next word, so that for example "A Hard Day's Night" in under H rather than A? This is standard practise.

A statement

As I am not a member of The Beatles' project, I see no reason to abide by its policy rules, as it does not represent Wikipedia as a whole, but insists on enforcing its own self-determined policy on contributors. I truly believe that this is dictatorial, and does not have anything to do with the true purpose of Wikipedia. The Beatles' project is a break-away group, and should be reminded of what Wikipedia really is. andreasegde 18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC

I agree 100% with the above statement. Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You're only saying that because, it would seem, you lost the argument. The difficulty I have is that I agree with you that the policy is wrong. Are there any active contributors to Beatles articles (as opposed to outside forces) who think "the Beatles" is correct? --kingboyk 18:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
We didn't lose the argument, because that would imply that we are being childish (which is not the case) but we are standing up for something that we believe to be right. As for losing arguments, we believe that the argument should not have arisen in the first place, and is a waste of valuable time. The Beatles' policy does not correspond to Wikipedia as a whole, and that is the central problem. This is not some individual project that can define by itself what Wikipedia should be. That is elitist and antagonistic. andreasegde 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, you didn't seem to hold that view when the policy was one agreed with you and when you were an active member. The policy was introduced 1) to encourage consistency, and 2) because people outside the project were insisting on "the Beatles". Now that the policy says the same as the MoS ("the Beatles"), we don't need it. As such, I've zapped it, and encourage folks to use whichever form they prefer, or to adide by the Wikipedia MoS, which ever they prefer. --kingboyk 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I never even knew about it! Nobody asked me if I agreed with it, because it was in place before I knew. I have talked too much about this, and I stand by my statement that I will ignore the policy, as I would much prefer to get articles to GA/FA. If anybody wishes to block me for that I would suggest an old English phrase: "Cutting off your nose to spite your face". andreasegde 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Style guidelines are generally considered just that, guidelines. Ignoring them is rarely a case for blocking, unless there's clear intent to be disruptive. I certainly won't be blocking anybody over it, which ever form they use. As you say, there's rather more important work to be done - work you do very well - like adding citations! --kingboyk 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if we don't have any active members we may as well tag the project as {{historical}} or {{inactive}}. --kingboyk 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You know this as well as I do, Kingboyk, because to waste so much time over an uppercase/lowercase 'T' is infinitely silly. The conversation should be about how many articles are GA or FA, and what can be done to improve that situation. (You and I can absolve ourselves from that, as you know). I see no real effort being made to improve articles (as much as I would dearly like to see them) but just a lot of talk about the The. andreasegde 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's silly, which is why I haven't contributed to the policy talk page since 6 June 2006!!!! --kingboyk 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
I agree, and sympathise. andreasegde 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles WikiProject does not have any active members as some who were contributing under that banner left when it became apparent that the Project was unable to sustain any policy. If those who did not agree with recent changes had agreed to abide by policy while finding arguments to counter the changes then there might still be a viable Project. Everything was done by both Wikipedia guidelines, and under the practices already established within the Project.LessHeard vanU 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I think everyone here agrees. Even if they don't, often the two can be used interchangably; let's move forward. Can we get this project going again, now that the dust has settled? (For completeness, I added an expert opinion to the Policy talk page.) … What about sorting out those lists I mentioned above? Stu 10:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think somebody, or anybody at all, should "throw their hat in the ring" and start claiming how many GA articles they have seriously contributed to. Over the past few months (I know this sounds arrogant, but it's not meant to be) I have worked on getting, and reaching, a GA status for Freddie Lennon, Julia Lennon, Mimi Smith (now up for FA) Mal Evans, and Neil Aspinall. I previously took Paul McCartney (with lots of help from concerned editors, and which was a monster task) to GA, although it failed FA mostly because of its size. Brian Epstein is up for GA (and he will get it, without a doubt.)
This will sound totally over the top, but can anybody beat that? I sincerely hope that someone wants to, because that will make me very happy. The only reason we are here is to improve articles. I lay down the challenge... andreasegde 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to join the Beatles project after writing some suggestions on the talkpage. I commented that I wasn't in possession of any books other than "Shout!", and wasn't that familiar or keen on adding citations and stuff; that all I was good for was checking spelling and grammar, asking sensible questions, and doing administration stuff. I was told that that was what the Project needed, a backroom boy. So I devoted myself to that job, I got involved in the first Newsletter (and finished up doing more than a third single handed), I took part in discussions and more than once acted as peacemaker/go-between editors, I fostered (in the absence of the founding Project admins) the Project ethos and kept the bastard ship on course, I encouraged new editors (and found one or two along the way), got involved in some heated debates and used my growing experience of Wikipedia to mediate and find ways that editors could work together.
I know it sounds arrogant, but who else worked as hard on and dedicated themselves to the Project (allowing other people to do their stuff on individual articles)? Who else cared? The answer is obvious, because it has now been decided that the project doesn't need policies... but guidelines. LessHeard vanU 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your contributions are and would be welcomed, of course.
We don't need policies for exactly this reason: we can't agree on them. Besides, a small WikiProject probably shouldn't be in the business of making policies anyway. I was probably wrong to even try it in the first place, but live and learn. Perhaps I should send it to WP:MFD? I'm quite sure the wider community would support deletion.
Now, can't we all try and get along, and focus on whatever we do best? (Me: bossing people about; you: doing useful admin and copyediting and other background work; Andrew: spreading the citations mantra; Lar: making the tea ;)) --kingboyk 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh? I don't even drink the stuff, much less make it. At least not since I was told I was putting the milk in at the wrong time. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since members and former members are re-hashing their positions here, I will pipe in with something that has not been discussed in the latest attempt to get the project back on track. The issue for me, and perhaps a few others, was not about the/The. I said that repeatedly. My dissatisfaction was about process. A few editors who did not agree with the policy preference for "the" decided to change it without following any process. If that is allowed to happen, then IMO there is no project whether it's marked active or inactive. I heard Jimbo Wales on the radio yesterday and one of the things he stressed was that Wikipedia had processes for dealing with difficult/divisive situations. If this project has no policies—a well-intentioned decision, but decided by one person—then the value is reduced. There will still be value: it's a place to coordinate editing activities, and perhaps there are other useful reasons for the project to exist. Personally, I think there is a lot to be said for setting policies so that articles are consistent, and right or wrong, that's a hot-button for me. Maybe guidelines are enough, and so without policies, I could come back again when the atmosphere was more inclusive, positive and fun. Without process, though, there's no reason to come back. John Cardinal 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rock. Hard place. I just want people to get along. The Wikipedia Manual of Style isn't policy, why should we have policy on the same issues? I was wrong to create the policy page in the first place, I've recognised it, and attempted to undo my mistake. If folks want to challenge my decision, they can revert and discuss. That's the process. That's how Wikipedia works. And, if somebody does revert me and it's challenged (which I will), we send the page to WP:MFD. Now, tell me, what more can I do than that?
Also, don't we have more important things to be working on, like writing featured articles? --kingboyk 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
IMO, getting some important articles to FA status does not require a project. There are a lot of FA articles and most don't belong to projects as far as I can tell. Getting an article to FA seems to require a dedicated editor, or maybe two, who care about an article enough to focus on it for a week or two to the exclusion of most everything else. In contrast, I think it does take a project to improve the quality of a large group of articles, such as the 250+ articles that are related to the Beatles. (Seen any song articles lately? Most of them are an f-ing mess with no citations and full of fancruft and errors.) Improving a lot of articles takes a coordinated effort by a group of editors. It takes communication, education, motivation, prioritization, some standards or guidelines... it requires a project. Participating editors will want to take part in decisions, know what has been decided, etc. That takes process. If I am off-track about all that, then I ask, what is the purpose of the project? (And that's a serious, actual question, not a rhetorical one.) John Cardinal 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. All I know is that the project was achieving f*ck all and members were dropping like flies. If you think you can do a better job, take over.
Also, I repeat: the Wikipedia Manual of Style is not policy. It is a guideline. Why, then, should we have policy on style?
Policy is decided by consensus. We don't have consensus. The policy was changed from "The" without consensus AFAIC.
I'm not going to argue about this, you can all put up or shut up: if somebody else thinks they can do a better job with this issue, at bringing back members, and getting some decent articles written then please do take over. I do this work because nobody else does, not because I particularly want to. --kingboyk 11:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

<-- To answer your question, "what is the purpose of the project?":

  • The project was originally formed in response to an AFD nomination for an obscure "lost" song from the Get Back sessions. The goals as envisaged at the time were to reduce cruft, clean up the articles about the group, and establish some guidelines about notability, article presentation and so on. This was at a time when WikiProjects still claimed "this article is part of..." rather than "this article in within the scope of...", and most of it never happened anyway. We managed to attract a lot of people signing up, and some good came of it, but the original goals were never really met.
  • Over time, the role of WikiProjects, including this one, has changed. Article assessment has become a primary function, and the principle job we've done is assessing all 600 or so articles (although, as it happens, I did most of the assessing myself, over the course of a few days full time work). The other primary function has been to provide a central meeting point (and, to an extent, rightly or wrongly, a social venue) for people interested in working on Beatles-related articles.
  • Beyond that, it's hard to say what the project has achieved; the hard answer is probably "not a lot", one reason why I wasn't unhappy at the alternative idea of abandoning it.
  • As for what the purpose of the project is going forward, that's for you - the membership - to decide, within the confines of what the wider community consider to be an acceptable role for a WikiProject. I personally think the focus should be on improving Beatles-related articles to GA or FA standard. If I'm in a minority, and folks think the real purpose should be debating the vs The ad infinitum then so be it, but you'll be doing it without me and I daresay without a few others too.

--kingboyk 11:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer about the history and purpose of the project. I am not sure what elicited your "Damned if I do, damned if I don't" response above; I am not interested in debating the/The. I don't think I am helping in putting this project back together and so I will bow out. Please remember, though, that when people left in March, most did so in response to the lack of process for the overnight change, and not because the change was from "the" to "The". John Cardinal 12:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I meant by that, whatever approach I've tried ("hey folks, let's not worry about the/The", "no? then let's change it back to The Beatles", "OK, let's abandon it altogether") somebody is unhappy :)
Thanks for pointing out about the unhappiness around the process of the change. I wasn't around much at the time so didn't know that. --kingboyk 12:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have enough members to carry on?

I've just trimmed the active participants list, and it looks like we still have a reasonable number of active editors. It's just that many of them don't show up round these pages, which is totally cool.

Do we have enough members to carry on, or should we discuss tagging the project as {{inactive}}? --kingboyk 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have two people who are agreed to work together on a(n) (group of) article(s), then you have the basis of a Project. If those two or few do form a Project (or maintain) a Project then they are likely to find other people joining in. From those editors who put their name down you will likely get a couple who will stick with it and start really contributing. In the event that some of the originals go missing (or simply reduce their presence) then there is a pool which can alleviate the loss.
Folding the Project will not allow this to happen. Stick with it, it is the less of two evils. LessHeard vanU 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose so. Andrew and I are currently working on Mimi Smith, that's a WikiProject right there by your rationale :) I can't promise to always be here and active on such things though, I have several KLF-related articles which are close to FAC standard and owe it to myself to get them finished and promoted. I also owe it to myself to try and earn some money!!! :( Erm... I digress... right, anyway, we have some basis for a project at least. Anyone else wish to comment? --kingboyk 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, this has been a pretty unsatisfactory experience. It happens that some of my very first edits on W'pedia were about the t issue (in early January). Although it was clear that the past discussions of the issue hadn't been uniformly civil, I nonetheless took a leap of faith and jumped in, hoping that calm, reasoned debate, unencumbered by ad hominem attacks and childish retorts, would ultimately prevail. And for a while it seemed that under LessHeard's capable guiding hand the process (yes, John Cardinal, the process) was taking us to a reasonable, reasoned, objectively supported position. Accordingly I spent many hours -- apparently alone, which troubled me, given all the heat some of my fellow lowercase supporters created -- implementing the policy and re-implementing the policy over and over in some cases. Note that I never once lowercased a t before the change in policy -- I followed the thing through, actually uppercasing some ts when that was the policy. And now it's come to this -- a whole lot of yelling and screaming and foot stomping and finally everyone's (predictably) sick of the issue and so apparently we're done talking about it -- there is no policy, which I suspect means that they will all eventually be Big T anyway because that's what the majority seem to want in any case, just as the majority (of English speakers) seem to want to eliminate the word "lie" (as in "recline") and replace it with "lay" -- doesn't make it right, but usage tends to prevail ultimately. I had hoped for better. Sucks. McTavidge 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Lay" always takes an object - you lay down the wrench. If a person is becoming horizontal, he, or she lies down. To complicate matters, the past tense of "lie" is also "lay" -- So "John lay himself down" in the past. But the past tense of "lay" is "laid" -- So "John laid down the wrench" when he was done fixing the sentence. [Dictionary] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andreasegde (talk • contribs). [5]
We argued about it before the current batch of advocates arrived, and reached a decision not just on a majority but on a consensus based on argument that it was "The".
The whole point of having the policy was to bring consistency, and to avoid arguments. Then, when I was away, a few folks come and change it and we hemorrhage about half our active membership. Smart? I think not. --kingboyk 11:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you really think I was asking for a grammar lesson (lie versus lay)? I was making an observation about the (deplorable) state of the language, not wondering aloud which was right. McTavidge 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't me wrote that. I'll check the page history and tag is at as unsigned. --kingboyk 15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The Project did not lose any members over changing big T to little t. The Project lost them (me included) when some big T proponents changed the policy back without the consultation, discussion, and examples/evidence that I had insisted that little t proponents provide before I made the decision to change policy. LessHeard vanU 12:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
the page's history doesn't bear that out. Nobody has edited that section since you, until I blanked the entire page. --kingboyk 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You need to look at the talkpage as well as the Policy page. This is the history, supported by diffs;
Dec 06 Newsletter notification of discussion
Jan 07 Newsletter request for comments
LessHeard vanU amends policy following debate and requests for comment in Newsletters 009 and 010 dd 10.02.07 Diff
Feb 07 Newsletter announcement sent out 14.03.07
Vera, Chuck & Dave left 03:39 16.02.07 Diff (rejoined 10:09 instant Diff)
Andreasegde re-opens debate regarding t/T 16.03.07 Diff
Andreasegde unilaterally declares intention to change policy back to T. 17.03.07

Diff

John Cardinal comment on above 17.03.07

Diff

McTavidge comment 17.03.07

Diff

LessHeard vanU comment 17.03.07 Diff
LessHeard vanU left 17.03.07 Diff
Lukobe comment re policy change back to T 19.03.07 Diff
Lukobe left 19.03.07 Diff
John Cardinal left 20.03.07 Diff
Vera, Chuck & Dave left 30.03.07 Diff
Vera, Chuck & Dave return 23.04.07

Diff


Obviously Andreasegde didn't proceed to make big T policy, but I and others already left over the matter. I would also point out that the above is the bare bones, and I am only including that which establishes the timeframe. I re-iterate, nobody left because the capitalisation of The was changed to lowercase. People left when procedure was subsequently ignored. LessHeard vanU 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. I'm sorry to hear that. As stated above, I stopped following the debate on policy talk long ago, when it started going round in circles. It looks like Andrew made a fuss but didn't actually change the policy page. That's allowed.
Given all the kerfuffle, don't you think that removing the policy page is the best way to proceed? (Please comment at the MFD either way, btw). If you were me (the person who started the policy page and feels obliged to clean up the mess) what would you do? I have people I respect unable to reconcile their differences and it seemed and seems to me that the best solution is to zap the page that's caused the problems. --kingboyk 20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not you... but if I had recourse to your buttons I would have kept lowercase policy and blocked all dissenters. I would then have tried to find an authority for capitalising the T, upon finding it changed policy again and blocked the other dissenters. Then I would WP:OWNed the Project. Anybody I really didn't like would be required to do the Newsletter. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does. Or, I could just click on this link and press a button: Special:Blockip/LessHeard_vanU :P --kingboyk 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (only joking!)
Oh, I thought the only reason you didn't comment at my RfA was cos the support was so huge you would have looked a right chump... LessHeard vanU 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU? Looks empty for now... when it's turning blue? --kingboyk 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
T'aint, yet. Editorship allows me the freedom to choose how I contribute, the responsibilities of Admin may restrain me. LessHeard vanU 22:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You want deplorable? how's this: The Beatles. Double album by "the" Beatles! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I hate to read about two great people (LessHeard vanU and Kingboyk) arguing about something that I am the cause of. Please don't do it guys, because it hurts (me personally, you, as well as many others). I fully accept that I disturbed the status quo, but I did it with the best of intentions. I never intended to hurt anyone at all, but merely wished to reflect the views of other people that disagreed with a policy that was purely exclusive to members of this project. I have read through the whole of the last year's edits on the policy page, and it made interesting reading. I suggest other users do the same, when you have some time to spare.

I actually agree with the small 't' when it relates to the individual Beatles. Lukobe, McTavidge and others are totally right about that, but not when it relates to the "product" or The Band as a whole.

I apologise for causing any bad feeling between anybody (and no, this is not a preamble to me saying I will stop working on this project, because I certainly will not) but I hate to read about great people arguing with each other. All I can say is that Mimi Smith is going through an FA process (and it's looking good so far) which is the biggest laugh/joke of all. Mimi gets the last laugh over all of us. She always hated John's music... :)

Hate me if you want, but I truly believe in working together in a friendly way, and I hope you do too. Peace and love.andreasegde 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's alright. We just had a little chuckle on my talk page. I'm certainly not taking things personally.
Damn, though, too much wikistress and meta business. I should be giving Mimi's article another check over and working on nearly-FA stuff like K Foundation! :( --kingboyk 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no problem! You are a great editor, and person. I like you, and forgive you your faults think you do great stuff for the project (along with others). Like Steve said, get over to FDM (that's Female Dominatrix/Masochism) and comment. LessHeard vanU 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's MFD actually, but FDM will do between friends! --kingboyk 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder about you two. "Female Dominatrix/Masochism"? "Do we have enough members to carry on?" It sounds like some kind of suburban wife-swap. Uhh-err, Missus, I need a cuppa tea. andreasegde 21:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

April newsletter - final call

If you have any stories for the April newsletter or can help with copyediting, please head to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 012. Final call! Thanks. --kingboyk 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Archive_4&oldid=1190095391"