Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 4

message: It needs to be nominated for FA (or not...) andreasegde 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lights are on but nobody is at home. Poor old Macca... Mr Hornby 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macca

message: 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)
replies: text: Nah, I've worked it out... andreasegde 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Summaries

message: 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)
thread_title: Lennon or The Beatles?

message: 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)
thread_title: The Beatles and forking articles

message: 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)
replies: text: This will be corrected during the next school term. Mr Hornby 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim and Mary

message: 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)
thread_title: Knackered

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sound clips?

message: I noticed recently that  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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Singles chronologies 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mimi Smith

message: 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)
thread_title: Where?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Multiple personalities

message: 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)
replies: text: Make your own talk page, and join us. (Make the changes yourself, BTW.) andreasegde 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yesterday and Today]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the welcome! I'll add my name.  Apepper 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Influence on Recording Music 

message: 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)
thread_title: FA humour

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good article Review]] of [[The Beatles]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hmm. So it could not have been sitting in a cupboard at the studio, circa 1996-7? –Unint 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Steinway used at Abbey Road 

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title: Reducing talk page template clutter

message: 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)
replies: text: I strongly agree with everything you have written there, and have stated so.Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thrown my cap in the ring, and I agree with your very perceptive comments. andreasegde 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please have a look

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

message: 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)
thread_title: The Beatles Trivia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Oh aye, dead witty that. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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!  Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Blues White Album 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links to Discography? 

message: 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  tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article." John Cardinal 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Notes" or "References"? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: [[World War II]] and Macca

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sgt. Pepper Infobox 

message: (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)
thread_title: New editors on the block

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there a battle about this? If so, where? John Cardinal 00:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The" isn't part of the Rolling Stones Trademark. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  Steelbeard1 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Steelbeard1, for "The British Patent Office link to The Beatles trademark." andreasegde 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you indeed and here's an example of it's correct written usage: Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trademark

message: 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)
replies: text: Marvellous - no reaction. Hello, hello, hello....... 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? I think that's good news, right? Worthy of the newsletter? ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA

message: I suggest that editors look at the 'Policy - talk' section  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)
thread_title: Policy

message: 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)
thread_title: Us

message: 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)
replies: text: There was also The The The The Stutterers. Really. Raymond Arritt 16:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What about the hybrid Geordie/Lancs band Th'Thee? LessHeard vanU 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The The]]

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Mal Evans]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Category:The Beatles EPs]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''Please Please Me'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Read Mal Evans, and all will be revealed... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mal Evans

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Anything to stop this bull happening every month. andreasegde 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Beatles' miscellanea

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Brian Epstein]]

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I have looked at them, and they look great - very easy to read, and logical. andreasegde 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes you have, you fibber :) andreasegde 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates and John Cardinal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The life of, err... Brian

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah! What he said! :P --Mal 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disgusted

message: 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)
thread_title:  Backmasking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  April newsletter - final call