Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluewave (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 19 January 2010 (→British/English straw poll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Template:VA

Consensus has been reached to use 'The Beatles' instead of 'the Beatles'. Please do not change this without first changing consensus.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 26, 2009.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

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

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

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

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

Archives

2004–August 2005 October 2005–January 2006 February 2006–April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 (1) June 2006 (2) July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October/November 2006 December 2006 January/February 2007 March/April 2007 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

British or English?

No doubt the Beatles were predominantly English, as the four band members were English, but as Sutcliffe was Scottish, and Best was born in British India, surely it would be more appropriate to use 'British' to describe their nationality. They were signed to the British label EMI, and were most associated with the label 'British Invasion' in America. Britannica uses 'British' to describe the band. I do not intend to use this as some kind of propaganda for the term, but it seems to be more in line with how the band actually identified themselves. --78.105.52.52 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this change completely, but not the justification used. How they 'identify' themselves is irrelevant, frankly. The Beatles were all British citizens, most of their recording took place in Britain, they were based in and originated from Britain and the Misplaced Pages manual of style even dictates that the the constinutent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) should only be used to describe nationality or origin when regarding particular professional sport teams or players, which do not play as a nation but rather for their constituency. TheStig118 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, and more precisely, the band originated and was based in England, all four long-standing band members were English nationals, and all of their studio recording took place in England. Where applicable, the more specific ("English") is preferable to the more general ("British"). DocKino (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have strong views on whether they are called British or English. However, I don't know what you mean about their being "English nationals": I don't think this is verifiable as there is not test for English nationals. Also, I think your implication that English is simply more specific than the "more general" British is mistaken. Bluewave (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• What I mean when I say they were "English nationals" is that they were born in England to English parents.
• I do not "imply" that "English" is more specific in this context than "British", I state it to be so. In this context, "British" means the people of Great Britain and "English" means the people of England, a constituent of Great Britain. Identification by the constituent is the more specific identification; identification by the whole is the more general identification. DocKino (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a look at Misplaced Pages:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, you'll see that there is no censensus on how the the nationality of people (and presumably bands) from the UK is determined. Being born in England (or any other country) does not automatically confer nationality and saying that their parents were "English" rather begs the question of distinguishing Englishness from Britishness. "English" doesn't just mean "the people of England". A lot of people who are "of England" identify themselves as "British", rather than "English". I suspect that all four of the Beatles had passports that gave their nationality as "British" (because "English" is not recognised internationally as a nationality). But, as I say, I'm not arguing to change the article, merely saying that the argument for leaving it as "English" is not as clear-cut as you suggest. Bluewave (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My take is subtly different again: first off, I agree with the principle that a specific statement is preferable to a general one. To make the point, it's also accurate to say they are a European band, but clearly that's an inadequate description. Bluewave, we who are "of England" identify ourelves as British not rather than "English" but as well as English. We use one or the other term according to the specificity required on any given occasion. As far as an article about The Beatles is concerned, English is a more specific term and so is the one I think is preferable. As a side note, in my opinion--and this is where I differ slightly from others so far--I would have said it's not to do with the individuals but the "base location". Manchester United F.C. is an English Premier League football club--notwithstanding the presence of Welshman Ryan Giggs or Dutchman Edwin van der Sar--while their Scottish manager, Alex Ferguson, also happens to be the most successful manager in British football history. PL290 (talk)

It seems quite clear that the argument for English over British is racially motivated. England is not a country in the international sense and English is not a nationalisty and presenting it as such is deliberately misleading and against the principles of NPOV. If you look at old Beatles videos they play in front of the union flag not the St Georges Cross, there has in fact been an entire book written about the Beatles connection to Scotland, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beatles-Scotland-Ken-McNab/dp/1846971128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263474369&sr=8-1, they clearly had no hatred of the other countries of Britain. There is also the fact that not every person involved in producing the Beatles music, roadies, engineers, former members etc. are 100% English.

American bands aren't defined by states or other countries by reigon, saying English rather than British is over specifying their origin, why not specify their skin colour as well so the opening would then read "The Beatles were a white English band" it's acurate and factual and is no more racist than refusing to mention Britain or the UK anywhere in relation to the bands country of origin for the simple reason that you don't like it.

Another important point the UK music industry is not seperated by constituent country but is the same UK wide, number one in England is number one in Scotland and number one in Wales and number one in Northern Ireland; if the industry is treated as British then so should the bands that are part of it.212.183.140.6 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's just start from the top, shall we? "It seems quite clear that the argument for English over British is racially motivated." Oh, so?! Please describe what in my, or anyone else's, comments made this "clear" to you. While you're at it, please identify the different races involved.

Next, the logic of your argument seems to be that we should abandon the identifiers "English", "Scottish", etc. except in the case of self-identified nationalists or...the linguistics textbook industry? Please explain how the logical argument based on specificity over generality is dismissed as "the simple reason that you don't like it", but your rather radical notions of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable language somehow transcend what you do and don't "like". DocKino (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To refute the fact that Britain is an independent sovereign state and England is not, is to be an idiot. The previous user is completely correct - if we are determining a band be nationality, their viewpoints, other people's viewpoints, it's all irrelevant. All that matters is fact. To argue against fact is just ridiculous. The fact is: their nationality was British, and not English. Not a matter of discussion, a clear fact. Does anything more really need to be said? TheStig118 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As we have now reached that foreseeable point in the discussion where those with only the vaguest understanding of grammar and rhetoric feel compelled to weigh in...no, I think not. DocKino (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Or we could avoid it by making the lede: The Beatles were a Liverpudlian rock band, formed in 1960 and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. :) Shsilver (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

At last! Humor! (Sorry.) Humour! DocKino (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Another debate that went before; most previous discusssions has concluded that English is preferred since (for who knows what reason) both American and British - oh, the irony - contemporaneous sources referred to them as English. Legally, the members and thus the band were British (and all apart from Ringo had recent Irish ancestry) but then Ringo is really Richie and Macca properly James. Since this is a popular culture article, however, then it seems that we go with the terms that have been placed upon them, rather than the definitive. Personally, I prefer British because there was little in their music that is definitely English rather than any part of the United Kingdom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As there is no Misplaced Pages consensus on how the nationality of people from the British Isles is determined, any attempt to resolve the issue on this page through simple argument is doomed. The basic problem is that there is no agreed definition of "English" nationality and no agreed objective criteria for determining "Englishness" (in Misplaced Pages or anywhere else). I suggest that there are two options. The lazy option is to say we stick with the status quo because there is no consensus for change; the more encyclopaedic option is to check reliable sources and go with what the majority of them say. Personally, I'm a lazy git and so I would go for the first option. But if anyone is more zealous than me and has better access to the literature written about The Beatles, they could resolve this once and for all. Bluewave (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(I like that cool outdent thing) If it rises above the noise, my suggestion would be to use "British" as in "The Beatles lead the British Invasion." But that might be considered a 'merican point of view. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it might—a germane observation, Jwy—and don't forget, Donovan is Scottish—he wouldn't've been able to come if they'd called it English Invasion :} PL290 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

“English rock band” is fine with me, although I’d prefer the old pop/rock description included as well. They’re entitled to be referred to as English, just as the Average White Band are described as Scottish, Manic Street Preachers Welsh, and U2 Irish. The phrase "British Invasion" was probably, and possibly wrongly, first used by an American journalist - anyway, how many of those early bands were not English? (BTW, wtf were Chad & Jeremy? They should not be first on that list - if at all - in my ever so 'umble!).--Patthedog (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! U2 are from Dublin and therefore can’t qualify. O.k. swap for Van Morrison or Snow Patrol etc.--Patthedog (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Either British or English would be fine with me. Do we know how the band liked to call themselves? ~DC _{Talk To Me} 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant? The entire purpose of the whole site itself is to act as an encyclopaedia, of which provides factual, unbiased, cited information to the user. By referring to them as 'English', it would be factually incorrect and would thus be against the entire purpose of the project. There is no valid reason to change it from British to English. TheStig118 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it in any way factually incorrect? It is a fact that they were an English band, just as it is a fact that they were a British one. You are hardly able to talk about "unbiased" encyclopedic information as you are clearly biased against using the word English, believing it to be "racially motivated" which it patently is not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC

I have at no point claimed to perceive the term as a racist one, that was some other fellow. I simply argue for fact, and you attempting to refute it is pitiful indeed. 'English' does not exist. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Any further questions?

Yes the racist bit was another user, sorry about that. But I still refute your point that the term "English" to describe a group is somehow inaccurate or "non-existent." Your argument above that "to refute the fact that Britain is an independent sovereign state and England is not, is to be an idiot" is a classic straw man as no-one is saying that at all; simply that all four members of the band were English and England is a part of the UK so it is simply a case of being more specific, in the same way that the Average White Band are described as Scottish and the Manic Street Preachers as Welsh. How is that such a difficult concept to grasp?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Those articles that you keep referring to I view as incorrect also. You argue that the band were English and England is a part of the UK so it is simply a case of being more specific - so we should go round all the American articles and make them more specific by labelling them as which state they are from, not which country they are from? I am now expecting you and/or others to come back with, 'well, England is a country'. No, it is not. Furthermore, 'English' does not exist. There is no such thing as an English citizen. If you're from the UK, check your passports. It's not changed in the past 50 years - therefore, the Beatles were British Citizens, thus saying they were 'English' is factually incorrect. Do you see where I'm coming from now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStig118 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

England is a country, not a state, so your analogy doesn't hold. To answer your question, where you're coming from, it seems, is a country called Denial. Both statements (they were British, and they were English) are equally true. Do you seriously expect to gain consensus for changing the article based on your untrue statements, which include: "By referring to them as 'English', it would be factually incorrect", "'English' does not exist", "I am now expecting you and/or others to come back with, 'well, England is a country'. No, it is not.", "saying they were 'English' is factually incorrect"? Do you see where we're coming from now? PL290 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stig. The USA is a single country, whereas Great Britain consists of four countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Elvis Presley was born in Tupelo in the state of Mississippi (articles will include the state anyway) part of the United States of America. John Lennon was born in the city Liverpool, part of England, which is also part of a sovereign state called Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. He was both English and British, and that is what we are discussing here. Either term would be correct, but I happen to think it’s worth mentioning as we go along that England (or Scotland etc) is a country, as it might help to educate and inform. That’s all. Do you see where I’m coming from? It’s called England. --Patthedog (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stig does have a fair point....we are not debating which country The Beatles came from, we are debating their nationality. It is debatable whether there is such a thing as English nationality: the Stig appears to believe not; also, international law does not recognise "English" as a nationality, so the Stig has got some consensus to point to. However, there are plenty of people in England who believe that there is such a thing as an English nationality, even though it is not officially recognised. Whether The Beatles themselves believed in an English nationality I don't know. Although there is a very clear definition of British nationality, I strongly doubt that anyone can find a reliable source that defines the criteria for someone possessing English nationality and can thereby prove that The Beatles meet those criteria. Bluewave (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, we are not debating that. You yourself drew our attention to WP:UKNATIONALS, where it states, "Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style (biographies) provides that the opening paragraph of a biographical article should state the person's "nationality". However, there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom. The accompanying link is to debates spanning a period of years. On that same page it advises, "Do not enforce uniformity", "Look for existing consensus on the discussion page", and "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British" ... —is strongly discouraged." If there is any meaningful discussion to be had here, it is to gauge whether consensus is to use "British" or stick with the established consensus "English". So, straw poll time... PL290 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure that this discussion is just about nationality. It would be a little odd if the article failed to mention England, or being English, wouldn’t it - or am I going mad? Liverpool is in the Outer Hebrides isn’t it? --Patthedog (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Before we vote, could I just check what we're voting on? I thought it was nationality but Patthedog says not. I think I would vote differently for "general geographical association" than I would for "nationality". Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which of the two wordings sit more comfortably with you? Bearing in mind you can be a British Citizen as well as being English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. I think it’s worth pointing out that The Beatles were English, although there is actually a compromise way of wording it. --Patthedog (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We are voting on Nationality, as described in the article Misplaced Pages:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I've updated the poll to reflect this. As appalled as I may feel, the fact we must be reduced to an opinionated poll to debate the blatant fact they were officially British citizens and not English, it is probably the only reasonable manner we can settle this. I'd like to propose the poll end on the February 1st. TheStig 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does not explicitly assert anything about the nationality of the band members. Changed description of poll back to the original. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you blind? "The Beatles were and English band..." straight there. First line. Not hard to miss. TheStig 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, please see WP:CIVIL. Second, "English" is often used to refer to people from England without making specific claims about nationality, and in some of those cases, it refers to a cultural and/or ethnic characteristic and not to political divisions. Last, thanks for helping me decide how to vote. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

“…reduced to an opinionated poll” as opposed to your sweet, unbiased reasoning?--Patthedog (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

British/English straw poll

Proposal: change the first sentence of the lead to state "British" instead of "English". Interested parties please sign under one of the headings below to Support or Oppose this change. PL290 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

• TheStig 16:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Patthedog (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• PL290 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• DocKino (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• John Cardinal (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

• Bluewave (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC) On the grounds that I don't understand what we are voting for. If we were voting on nationality, I would have a slight preference for "British"; if we are talking about ethnicity, I would vote for "leave it out"; if we mean how the Beatles identified themselves, I'd go for "Liverpudlian". As it is, we don't seem to have an agreement on what we're voting about, so the whole thing's meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. Bluewave (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"In their heyday..."

The phrase "In their heyday" was chosen by consensus after some back and forth about other options (see above). Lately, multiple editors have changed it. I favor what we have over the text used in those edits, but given the editing activity, perhaps we should discuss the matter. What do other editors think? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This has come up a lot, trying to express the post-Sutcliffe/Best period, hasn't it. I remember a while back we settled on "their years of international stardom" after much to-ing and fro-ing, and that stuck for quite a while. Heyday is pretty good. I noticed the latest edit made the comment that heyday can have connotations of "successful for a time and then fell out popularity". I'm not convinced it has to have those connotations, but I also think the latest suggestion, "for most of their existence", is pretty good too. PL290 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow this edit makes me less inclined to want to change it. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite; that edit merely attempted to reassert the change, with the comment, "Nothing to discuss: I'm right and the word "heyday" is inappropriate", in the face of your invitation to contribute to the existing discussion. Hardly conducive to a collaborative effort. As we continue to consider the best wording, I notice that "For most of their existence", while pretty good, itself leaves open the possibility that there was a period at the end with a different line-up—the very issue it was meant to fix. Bearing this in mind, let's remember "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970" which was among those mooted earlier and eliminates that particular issue completely. PL290 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I prefer the "In their heyday" for various reasons, "From 1962 until their breakup in 1970" is OK with me. It's a bit long, but it's accurate, and if it avoids the thrashing it's worth the extra syllables. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally don’t like “heyday”, it doesn’t sound encyclopaedic. What about: “Their ultimate (or eventual or something) line-up of JPG&R achieved international fame”. ?--Patthedog (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Heyday" is a perfectly good, nonslangy English word of long standing. One of the reasons that modern encyclopedias are generally known for being boring or even painful to read is because they deny themselves the use of clear, strong, evocative language and instead employ stilted, verbose phrases in a self-defeating effort to "sound encyclopedic." We can do better. We do better. And that's why this is Misplaced Pages's heyday. DocKino (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but it is colloquial. I think we could do better than that, but it’s not worth starting a civil war over. --Patthedog (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "heyday" IMO either. If we must change it, what about simply, "the classic line-up"?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply "From 1962" does it too. PL290 (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

in their hayday sounds awkward in a wikapedia article, also incredibly corny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

the beatles genre shouldn't be down as pop at all!

the Beatles are a rock band it's so obvious, if they count as pop then so would bands like The Who, The Smashing Pumpkins, Arctic Monkeys, you could even say that about the Ramone or Led Zeppelin They should be down as Rock or Classic Rock anything but Pop-

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmikeheaven (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You weren't there in the 1960s, were you? "Pop" meant something completely different then. But reliable sources call them "pop", and so shall we. Rodhullandemu 15:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop was considered a respectable thing in the UK back then. But I think it was different in the US - our pop sort of equalled US rock. That’s why we get these arguments regarding genres. The Beatles were quite happy to be called a “pop group” though, and to quote Lennon, were going to be “Toppermost of the Poppermost!”.--Patthedog (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If pop music can be considered as music targeted toward chart success, then the Beatles are the epitome of a pop music group. However, per this encyclopedia article it is per Rodhullandemu - we follow the sources. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Members/Former Members

All disbanded bands have their members in Former Members on the table on the right hand side, but the four Beatles are just in Members? I assume this is to keep the four recognised Beatles in one list separate from Best and Sutcliffe. 86.152.217.36 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus which developed is that the Fab Four be listed as "members" with the two ex-Beatles who left before the band became world famous as "former members" to avoid making the infobox misleading. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think it better to have a misleading infobox than a false one. While Stuart and Pete may be known as "former members", the other four are not known as "current members" (come to think of it, I don't see how that is not misleading). And if John and George are "current members" of any band at all, then please alert the media, because that would be the news of the century. Perhaps the infobox needs a new parameter (although I'm not sure what it would be called) to accommodate bands that are known for one particular member line-up. Playing devil's advocate, I would point out that the phrase, "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" (in that order, for some reason) might be as familiar to many ears as "The Beatles". The current/former distinction does make some intuitive sense. But if all six one-time members are listed as "former members", the reader still can figure out from the article--even from the lead--that four of these one-time members became much more famous (as "Beatles") than the other two. However, a reader is not going to understand how a disbanded band has "current members", two of whom are not even alive. Ultimately, the "current member" parameter seems more misleading in this case. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the user reads the infobox indicating "members", not "current members". This discussion is old hat, BTW, based on the 2007 discussion at . Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly though, this has come up time and time again. I think it's time to revisit the question—and Cosmic Latte makes a very good point: currently {{Infobox musical artist}} does indeed allow "some exceptional cases (e.g. The Beatles)" to list members as "current" but what good does it actually do? It's confusing either way. Let's have a poll to gauge the current consensus on this question. If you vote in this poll, if possible please indicate the rationale for your choice.

Proposal: in accordance with the general guideline for inactive groups at {{Infobox musical artist}}, list all individuals in "former members", and none in "current members". PL290 (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I prefer the status quo. The article does not say they are "Current Members", it says "Members", and those four were the members when the group disbanded. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, this topic should be listed at WP:PERENNIAL to save much bloodshed and ploughing over old ground again and again and again. Rodhullandemu 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The band is still marketed and referenced as being John, Paul, George and Ringo and the surviving members and the estates of the deceased are still involved in decisions relating to the band as a brand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The same effect is seen in other inactive bands. See, for example, Pink Floyd, where Syd Barrett and others are bundled into the former members along with those who remained members longer. Is it beneficial to the encyclopedia to make an exception for The Beatles? What are the criteria for the exception? Would it instead be preferable to choose consistency between band articles across the encyclopedia? Is the infobox terminology the real problem, and would consistency across bands become more attractive if the infobox could be improved in some way to remove the issue completely? PL290 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The situation with The Beatles was quite different from Pink Floyd and so I am not particularly concerned about a lack of consistency between the two articles. Before I could comment on an infobox change, I'd have to see some alternatives. However, I think it's hard to make infoboxes deal with every situation perfectly and so we shouldn't worry too much about that; the infobox is a brief summary of what appears in the article, and the prose can explain what the infobox summarizes. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - From the time The Beatles recorded their first record for Parlophone in 1962 to the official breakup in 1970, there were only four members: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. Before they became famous outside Liverpool and Hamburg, there were two other Beatles: Stuart Sutcliffe who left in 1961 and Pete Best who was sacked in favour of Ringo in 1962. So to avoid confusion, the infobox makes it clear that The Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo with ex-Beatles Stu and Pete. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support for reasons stated above. I don't know why I thought it said "current" members, but "members"--especially when juxtaposed with "former members"--strongly implies present membership. The core of my problem with the infobox is that the reader can induce from the article that four of the six "former members" are considerably more famous than the other two, while the reader cannot induce how a disbanded band still has any members, let alone deceased ones. I suspect that the past consensus (which, by the way, is not set in stone) and the present views have accidentally confused two types of membership with one another. John, Paul, George, and Ringo are the established members of the linguistic category, "The Beatles". However, they are not the (current) members of the actual band, the Beatles. Because the infobox pertains to bands--not to general linguistics--it should, IMO, accurately reflect membership in the band rather than in the abstract category. And because the band has no current members (even though the category does), they should not be presented as though they had some members whose membership is "former" and others whose membership is not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Stick with the status quo. I doubt the current setup can mislead readers into thinking The Beatles are inactive, when just lines above it says the band was active from 1962-70. If people are still confused, they can read the article. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: "1962-70" actually strikes me as too restrictive. What about their 1994-96 reunion? Despite John's absence, they were writing (well, adding to some of John's unfinished work) and recording as "The Beatles". In fact, since they did reunite not too long ago, not to list them all as "former members" could give the impression that the 1994 reunion hasn't ended. Add this to the fact that the Beatles are now popular with the Rock Band generation (and since they're the #2-best-selling artists of the 2000s, I'm glad that the lead no longer implies that their "heyday" was confined to the 60s), and readers really could get the impression that the band still is actively making music or performing. While this notion would be (perhaps confusingly) debunked eventually by the article text, the fact that only four one-time members are now known as "Beatles" is noted as early as the second sentence of the lead: "From 1962 the group consisted of John Lennon...Paul McCartney...George Harrison...and Ringo Starr". I'm well aware that this issue has popped up time and time again. But it's for that very reason--i.e., because so many readers have been baffled by the infobox--that it seems most practical simply to list everyone as former members, and to let the second sentence of the lead suffice to indicate who is categorized as a Beatle and who (by implication) is not. In any case, I could've sworn I'd seen the infobox mention the 90s reunion before, and I don't see why that mention shouldn't remain. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That has been discussed before and the consensus is that the "reunion" was strictly to work on the The Beatles Anthology TV mini-series and CD sets. Thus is not considered a reunion of the band. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But the band did reunite to record "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love". While these songs did appear on two of the Anthology albums, these two pieces (especially "Free as a Bird") were created, not compiled, for the Anthology series, and they also were released as singles (and thus weren't always strictly part of the Anthology effort). How does a band record together without reuniting? In fact, if I recall correctly, "Free as a Bird" is one of only two songs (the other being "Flying" from Magical Mystery Tour) that is credited to all four Beatles, and it is the only song to feature three of the Beatles on lead vocals. If that's not a reunion (albeit a brief one), then I don't know what is. Perhaps only 1994 and 1996 (the release years for "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love", respectively) could be noted as years of activity? Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edits to the lead

Re:

• Biographical nationalities that open up an article are an exception to that rule; see the example sentence in WP:MOSBIO, wherein Egypt is wikilinked. What we wouldn't want is something like, "And then Joe had an English muffin with some butter."
• I wouldn't think that "progressive" (in a sociopolitical sense) and "cancer" are "common dictionary terms". Most people probably don't say "progressivism" during the course of an ordinary day (I, for one, don't say it all that often, and I'm a political progressive); and while "cancer" is known as something that kills, the means by which it kills probably are not crystal-clear in most people's minds (can the average person give even a remotely reasonable definition of "metastasis"?). It clearly would be overlinking to say that the Beatles "became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music". But the terms in question are "exceptionally pertinent", because they shed light on A) the whole attitude that the band embodied, and B) the way George died. John's death is wikilinked (pipelinked, to be precise, from the words "shot and killed", which are pretty common terms), and a bit of elucidation (in a linked article) on what killed George could be just as helpful. We can't just take for granted that people will know what "progressive" and "cancer" mean, especially if these people know nothing about Anglo-American politics or have an alternative understanding of the human body. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• I've restored the "which is" for sentence flow, following what probably should have been (at most) only a partial revert. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about the linking but I think it's probably unnecessary. I agree with you in principle about "exceptionally pertinent" being a guiding principle, but I'm not convinced about its applicability to the terms you've linked. The Lennon link is not to a definition of "shot and killed" but to the article about his murder. I don't think "cancer" is analogous and I would have judged it a common term which the reader should use a dctionary for if necessary.

Re. "which is", personally I think it flowed better without these words, and I'm happy to see someone else agreed and they've gone again. Apart from introducing unnecessary padding into the sentence, they also changed its meaning by reducing it to a statement about the present instead of encompassing the fact that Pepper was regarded as a masterpiece on its release. Less = more: sentence is more comprehensive without imposing a time dimension, and no padding is required. PL290 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the past/present tense aspect before, but that's a good point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Acts

I don't like "acts" in the Lead, "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music." I think the sentence works better without it, "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed in the history of popular music." Graham Colm

I think you have a point--and, further, do we really need "became"? How about: "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960 and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed in the history of popular music." PL290 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Infinitely better IMHO, I'm annoyed that I didn't spot that :-) Graham Colm 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand why the word "acts" might not appear essential, but it is. With it, we appropriately describe The Beatles as "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music." Without it, we describe them, per the structure of the resulting sentence, as "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed English rock bands in the history of popular music." The former is obviously more to the point. I've restored the word. DocKino (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it did introduce an ambiguity which allowed that interpretation. But consider: "Elvis Presley is one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed in the history of popular music." I think this shows that the sentence structure allows "those acclaimed" as well as "those acclaimed English rock bands". But I admit it would be better without the ambiguity. Perhaps there's another word? The thing about "acts" is that it covers both bands and individual artists. But it does have some unwanted connotations ("they were just an act"). I wonder if anyone can manage to come up with an even better word! PL290 (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Artists? Performers? (Might need to change "one of" to "among" for either of those.) Endeavours? Enterprises? Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital T

Another thing I noticed (another relatively minor thing, really, but an FA ought to be polished when the opportunity arises) is that the word "the", as in "The Beatles", is always capitalized in the article. I fail to understand why this is necessary. It's true that the word "The" is part of the band's name, and should be capitalized when referring to the band's name (e.g., "The band once known as 'The Beetles' later became 'The Beatles'"). But when referring to the people rather than the name, the word "the" simply functions as a definite article and does not need to be capitalized. For example, one would not write, "And the next week, all of The four Beatles got together for..." Minus the capital "T", this would be a perfectly fine sentence, but the interjection of the optional modifier, "four", makes it clearer that the word "the", when referring to the band as a plurality of members rather than as a single entity or name, is not functioning as part of the band's name, but rather as a grammatical necessity. And, the article does refer to the band as a plurality of members, as is evidenced by the apostrophe placement in the possessive, "Beatles'". If the article were referring to the band as a single entity, it would say "Beatles's", and the possessive "'s" would add an extra (awkward) syllable. It's the difference between, "...and 'The Beatles' is the band's name" and "...and the Beatles are John, Paul, George, and Ringo". In the first phrase, "The" functions as part of the band's name. In the second phrase, the word "the" simply functions as a definite article, indicating that only a select few people are Beatles (as opposed to a non-restrictive construction like "...and Beatles are everywhere around us"). I know this all might sound nitpicky; however, because the article is so good overall, it could benefit from some refining of the "little things". Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The capital T has come up before. Not everyone agrees with it, but consensus was reached to use it and so other editors go along with it. Incidentally, it's a convention used by more sources than you might think. I don't personally agree with it but I accept the convention because consensus was reached about it in the past. There have been strong feelings expressed about it here and I would advise anyone against trying to argue the point or prove one way is right and the other wrong because this has proved complicated and fruitless in the past. But I think anyone should feel free to take a simple yes/no straw poll at any time to gauge current opinion about this or anything else. PL290 (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Beatles" and "Beatles" are registered trade marks owned by Apple Corps, Ltd. So there are legal reasons why the band is identified as "The Beatles." Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the band per se should be identified as "The Beatles". But when talking about the members, i.e., about "more than one Beatle", the nominal "The" is dropped in favour of the functional "the". A comparison would be The Bahamas. As one entity--as the one focus of that article--it is indeed "The Bahamas". But when it's referred to as "the Commonwealth of the Bahamas"--the commonwealth of more than one 'Bahama'--there's not a capital "T" anywhere in sight. In the Beatles article, it's not always clear as to whether the band per se or the plurality of members is intended. But "Beatles'" is favoured over "Beatles's" as the possessive case, so I figure the article might as well be standardized by treating "the Beatles" as a plurality and, therefore, by keeping the "T" in lower-case. Honestly, this stuff is pretty subtle, and I certainly don't want to come across as a troll--especially a troll with a stick. I just think that the/The Beatles deserve a flawless article--and I think this one is almost there, although I realize that the definition of "flawless" is subjective. Anyway, I'm willing to initiate a straw poll to see where things stand. I'm aware now of what the earlier consensus was, but I'd just like to see if it will remain in-place or might change on account of anything I've said. So:

Straw poll: Propose to switch most capital T's in "The Beatles" to lower-case t's. Obvious exceptions would be in the infobox, in the article's name, and where the word "The" begins a sentence. Other exceptions would be where a a capital T appears in a direct quotation, where "The Beatles" as the band's name is referred to, and wherever the band clearly is being referred to as a single entity rather than as a plurality of members .

• Support for all the reasons I've stated above. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment We have too many straw polls on this talk-page.—indopug (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as "The Beatles" is the name of the band as well as a registered trade mark. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this accords with the practice of most sources I've seen. PL290 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lennon as Gollum!!

Who knew?! Chrisfromcanberra, that's who! Folks, this might be trivia—OK, it is trivia—but it just might qualify as...Best. Trivia. Ever. What say you? DocKino (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is actually only one of many unmade Beatles films, listed in The_Beatles_in_film#Unmade_films. I don't think it warrants space in this article. PL290 (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Awwww. Well, it falls to you to make the cruelest cut. Bye-bye, Smeagol. The Walrus was almost you. DocKino (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no critical voices to be heard

The early years and Beatlemania sections of the Beatles article do not include any critical voices, as far as I can see, though there were many to be heard at the beginning of the band’s career. For instance, a Life article of September 13, 1968, reports, p.105, that, when Epstein first visited the Beatles, “They were not very tidy and not very clean. They smoked as they played and they ate and talked and turned their backs on the audience and laughed at their private jokes.” According to Ian Inglis, The Beatles, Popular Music and Society: A Thousand Voices (2000), “the Beatles found the US press less positive: The music was ridiculed along with the haircuts.” (p.144) See also the attacks in the New Statesman concerning the group and their negative influence on the fans cited in the same volume, p. 145. Furthermore, “the Beatles' accent was often ridiculed and regarded as a kind of impenetrable gobbledygook, especially by the southerners.” See Janne Mäkelä, John Lennon Imagined: Cultural History of a Rock Star (2004), p.45. The Beatles have also been accused of overtly shunning “adult values and adult behavior.” See Carl Belz, The Story of Rock (1969), p.128. It has even been said that, while “touring in the 1960s, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones constantly contracted venereal diseases.” See Theodore Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock (1996), p. 190. Does the Misplaced Pages article make mention of these or similar details? No, it doesn’t. It only mentions in passing that Paul McCartney and Pete Best were arrested for arson in 1960, that there was “riotous enthusiasm by screaming fans” and that the group’s “mop-top” hairstyle, unusually long for the era, was “still mocked by many adults.” It is to be hoped therefore that the contributors to this article may change their mind as far as the critical voices about the Beatles are concerned. A Misplaced Pages article is not a fan site Onefortyone (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to start yet another new article: Evidence that The Beatles Were Naughty, Naughty Boys. DocKino (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a little off the mark; it will need at least another two: The Beatles: a-musical or amusing? and Only a Northern Pong. PL290 (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agreed. If you were to make a film based on this entry it would be pretty sterile and not very comprehensive. They even reverted my entry about the Beatle-LOTR connection. Boring. BORING Chrisfromcanberra (talk)

Hey, we agonized over it first (well, DocKino did anyway; and wasn't that a great parting line about the Walrus). Chris, you know it ain't easy. The conversation's just above--convince us! PL290 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

60 US concerts

"it included nearly 60 US concert appearances and over 1400 internationally" See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias -- the 60 US concerts were international appearances! If any of the other 1400 appearances were in Britain then they are the ones that were not international appearances. --PBS (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, these concluding words to the band's "Touring years" chapter are simply intended to note the context for stopping touring: they'd played over 1400 shows internationally (i.e., worldwide), over 60 of which were in the US—the country where they made the breakthrough to international stardom and which was a (the) significant market. I had a quick look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias but I'm not sure what your point is there. If you still feel there's an issue, could you explain further and perhaps illustrate the point with some suggested alternative wording? PL290 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jamming with Elvis

At Footnote 104, it states that The Beatles set up their guitars and jammed with Elvis. I just watched The Beatles Anthology again last weekend, and in it George, Ringo, and Paul said that this was one of John Lennon's erroneous memories. They joked that none of them jammed with Elvis and John must have done so while they were out of the room. This is such a good Misplaced Pages article on The Beatles, I was surprised to read something that was contradicted by the Anthology.Baby Boomer 1958 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting--it's something that comes up in various Beatle and Presley sources. I haven't watched Anthology for years and I don't remember that bit, but from your description, I do wonder if the joke was ironic. Does anyone have a WP:RS that elucidates? PL290 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've heard this both ways, the one stated above, and also when they briefly jammed together and many years later McCartney wishing they'd brought tape recorders with them. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One Billion

Whats wrong with posting the billion figure again? Where is the consensus/discussion on that? A Star Is Here (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to search the archives. There waqs a discussion about posting 600million and 1billion and I believe other numbers. The sources were not in agreement, with differences in detail (how do various organizations count "units") and differences in the actual number. One source, such as Time, isn't sufficient in this case. I am not opposed to citing a number, but the editors here have disgreed about that in the past, so I suggest that you get consensus first. If you have access to good sources, or good research skills, perhaps you will succeed. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good I'll search it and just wait it out and see what happens. Thanks A Star Is Here (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Candlestick Park sound system reference

I ran across a reference to the size of the sound system at the Beatles last concert at Candlestick Park, but I have no idea where it should be inserted. Obviously it's not a major thing, but can help explain why The Beatles could often not hear themselves on stage and how they might find the experience of playing a concert unsatisfying:

When The Beatles played their last concert, at San Francisco's Candlestick Park in 1966, the equipment list for the show could have been written on the back of an envelope. The mics were Shure SM56s, the speakers were modified Altec A-7s powered by Altec 1569 80-watt tube amplifiers, and McCune Sound's Mort Feld mixed the show on one or two Altec 1567 five-input rotary pot tube mixers.

For the sake of comparison, this is smaller than the sound system in an average movie theater. Anyway, here is the link:

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_second_british_invasion/

Mix is a US magazine for professionals in recording and live sound reinforcement. K8 fan (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. When The Beatles switched to playing stadiums they simply just miked up their own very modest stage equipment through the venue’s own basic public address system - more or less. Not much effort made there! The Who, for instance, couldn’t understand why The Beatles continued to use Vox AC30’s etc (although McCartney had bigger system) and sang through microphones that resembled “electric shavers” when there existed far better alternatives. It would have meant investing in bigger and better sound equipment and employing more manpower. Would it have been worth all that for a thirty minute set? The Beatles seemed oddly indifferent in trying to solve the sound problem, preferring instead to complain about it. They were a bit of a rip-off live weren’t they?--Patthedog (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after the Candlestick Park concert, there was a burst of innovation in concert sound design. By the time of the rooftop concert, they could have benefited from on-stage monitor speakers and dramatically better main systems. Oh well. Perhaps in an alternate universe... K8 fan (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

associated acts

Hello, I was wondering if Wings should be listed as an associated act for the same reason Plastic ono band is. In fact, Plastic ono band was just a name for John's solo efforts, but Paul actually tryed to create a new band with Wings. (in spite of all the line-up changes).

190.135.167.93 (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Pelger.

The field Associated Acts is meant to be for "professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career." The guideline on this is located at {{infobox musical artist}}. So, Wings isn't listed as an associated act because it wasn't significant to The Beatles' career (but rather, to the career of an ex-Beatle). By the same token, I'm not sure why Plastic Ono Band does appear as an associated act and I propose to remove it. True, all three of Lennon, Harrison and Starr featured in this "conceptual supergroup" at one time or another after it was formed in 1969 prior to The Beatles' breakup, but it was still not notable or significant in the career of The Beatles. PL290 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal

Just FYI guys the Portal:The Beatles has a new section to draw attention to the WikiProject I have added a nice Link box ..assseen bellow...Can someone update the news in the portal...???...Have fun!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The Beatles WikiProject is a project that helps to assemble writers and editors interested in The Beatles.
• The aim of this project is to standardize and improve articles related to The Beatles, as well as to create any missing articles.
• To become a member of this WikiProject (anyone may join), simply click here - and add {{user|username}}.

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
14	0	145	161	422	817	252	5	24	329	20	6	796	0	55	1,863	78	2	1	4,990

The Beatles named top 'brand band’

] --Roujan (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(and happy new year for all the members of Misplaced Pages)

MUSIC PUBLISHING - AN OVERVIEW

An interesting link, because you can see how the redistribution is done between the songwriters and the publishers ] --Roujan (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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