Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 3

message: Our template has been given another major overhaul, so please check the instructions before assessing any articles. The default usage of  works as before, however. --kingboyk 22:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|WPBeatles}} 

message: Hi all!  I guess I am joining by talking about my interest here as well as putting the membership template and userbox on my user page, right?  So, my interest is The Beatles line-ups, which is what brought me here.  I've tried communicating in places that I thought were right, but I haven't got much, if any, feedback.  I hope I get some here.  I am very interested in creating rock family trees for not only the Beatles and all the solo incarnations for each member, but also for all music groups.  I've been adding to the afforementioned line-ups article, however it really isn't a tree.  Also, I've found a Wikipedia help page on creating regular family trees.  Please help.  I'm not sure if I'm doing any of this right.  Thanks.  --luckymustard 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello luckymustard and welcome aboard! We have a Participants list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Participants so please just scribble your name at the bottom of that and you're a member. I'm afraid I don't personally know much about family trees so I can't really help there (perhaps someone else can) but if you want any general wiki help just give me a shout. --kingboyk 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines for a partial tree example/method that we are discussing there.  I think that method 7 is a pretty good candidate for being used either in place of or in addition to The Beatles line-ups, but it isn't done yet.  Thanks.  --luckymustard 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining and lne-ups/rock family trees 

message: Do members think Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ought to be tagged with our banner? --kingboyk 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes.... A good chunk of the article focuses on The Beatles and the events that went on in India with them. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've done it. Thanks for the reply. --kingboyk 22:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Maharishi Mahesh Yogi]] 

message: She Loves You is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[She Loves You]]

message: She Loves You is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not archive relevant discussions. The article's review has not ended and it would be good if people from this project contributed to the review. Joelito (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[She Loves You]]

message: A Day in the Life is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. LuciferMorgan 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is quite lengthy and is focussing on references. Have your say please, and if you have any printed material on this song please add it to the article. --kingboyk 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[A Day in the Life]]

message: Hey folks... I noticed that all of Julian's studio albums were redlinked, so I created pages on each one. However, as it stands they are only stubs, and if anyone could provide some of the following it would be greatly appreciated:
*Album lengths
*Online album reviews
*Album covers which come under fair use
*Individual track lengths
*Further (sourced) general information on the albums, to make the articles a bit more interesting
I'm still working on them right now, am just about to categorise them, but if anyone has any useful info, if they could add it to the articles that would be fantastic... or else, if you don't have time, just drop me a line on my talk page and I'll add the info when I get a minute. Obviously I'll do some searching myself, but any help would be appreciated!
Here are the articles anyway:
*Valotte
*The Secret Value of Daydreaming
*Mr. Jordan
*Help Yourself
*Photograph Smile
Thanks a mill folks,
NaLaochra 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tackling that. I'll attend to the assessments and creating a Julian Lennon category when I get a moment. --kingboyk 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks again. --kingboyk 10:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Lennon Albums 

message: Can someone make an article or a list of the times and places where the Beatles played live at?
:I think what we need are articles on each tour, as we already have for the Wings tours. It's on the requested articles list. --kingboyk 10:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Performances from the Beatles 

message: Can someone please edit the introduction to the WikiProject regarding the variance in quality of articles please? The Beatles article itself is no longer an FA, which was revoked not long ago - the introduction still cites the article as an FA though. Thanks. LuciferMorgan 11:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Page 

message: A Hard Day's Night (song) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 20:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[A Hard Day's Night (song)]]

message: I just came across this article. How come we didn't know about this before? It wasn't tagged with the project tag, so I tagged it. I marked it as needing immediate attention. Anyone care to flesh out the article beyond what can be obtained from IMDb or whatnot? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Across the Universe (film)]] 

message: How come its no longer a Featured Article? --Mal 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It got delisted at WP:FAR - read your newsletters!! ;) --kingboyk 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to [[The Beatles]] article? 

message: The Beatles trivia article was up for deletion a short time ago, and it survived. (16 July 2006
) It is now under threat of deletion again...
The John Lennon article was also recently nominated for "speedy deletion" - which is unbelievable.
Have the vandals learned how to be a Trojan Horse? --andreasegde 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: So... thenewno2 got speedy deleted, even though I specifically removed the tag. What is going on with these people and their deletions? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thenewno2]] 

message: Looks like the thread got archived, but to the guy asking about rock family trees, I just found this template: . I imagine the code within could be copied or used an as example. --kingboyk 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock family trees 

message: I don't know if any of you realize this, but we probably have samples of every Beatles song already on Wikipedia. Back in 2002 and 2005, User:Lee Daniel Crocker uploaded Ogg files of a very many samples. I'm in the process of putting them into :Category:The Beatles music samples, but a few things need to be done with songs I've already categorized:
*The category needs to be sorted (e.g. Please Please Me).
*The description pages of the samples need to be standardized. They're not wikified and they all say "Beatles" instead of "The Beatles".
*The talk pages need to be tagged with our project template.
*The articles related to the samples need to be linked with . The Beatles lists a few samples, and the articles for some of those songs don't even link to them!
And there are probably other things that I haven't thought of. Let's get to it! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, not as many as I originally thought (the search results were deceiving), but there are at least 46 to take care of, by my count. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've done a bunch to give an example of what I'm thinking. See All My Loving (sample), The End (sample), I Am the Walrus (sample), Magical Mystery Tour (sample), Penny Lane (sample), and Strawberry Fields Forever (sample) to see how I've done it. And get to the rest of them! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone plan on doing this...? I would've thought it'd be rather important. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 11:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some of it recently, but it still needs to be expanded. I'm sure there are still samples that aren't in the category yet. (I came across some the other day.) There are duplicate samples. Some articles don't link to all samples and some samples aren't linked on all articles. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:The Beatles music samples]] 

message: This article is about a rhythm and blues song that was written in the early 50s by Leiber and Stoller and recorded by a number of artists, most famously Wilbert Harrison. In the 1960s the Beatles recorded a drastically different version of the song which was combined into a medley with a Little Richard composition called Hey Hey Hey. This has given rise to some confusion over at the article, because things like the song infobox reflect the Beatles recording, yet the article is supposed to be about the original song which has a much longer history and notoriety than it having been recorded by the Beatles (the Wilbert Harrison recording is far more famous, IMO). I'd like to suggest that a new article be created specifically about the medley "Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey". Thoughts? 23skidoo 03:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general consensus is that different versions of songs should be in the same article. However, given that they were radically different (and the Beatles one a medley), and both very famous, I suppose a split may be OK. Be bold and try it! --kingboyk 10:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to make a point that The Beatles were covering the Little Richard medley. They didn't create the medley themselves. Little Richard had already put the two songs together. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought, but I didn't want to say in case I was wrong :) --kingboyk 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with article [[Kansas City (R&B song)]]

message: --kingboyk 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, with one caveat. When writing KLF articles I've had the tremendous luxury of access to an online library of press clippings. The best sources for Beatle-related articles are likely to be books and magazines, with a little backup from online resources. Access to Proquest or a similar newspaper archive would of course be great for newer media references, but The Beatles are so well served in print that has to be the main resource. --kingboyk 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem with Beatles articles are direct quotes from Beatles which aren't cited, likely from interviews. Most of these are duplicated online with info regarding the original source also, which means you can use this info to add inline citations to the direct quotes (without needing to own the original mag, nor linking to a website). LuciferMorgan 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect most members have at least one good quality Beatles book, and possibly a whole shelf full gathering dust. They're also likely to have Anthology per below, and some of the old interview records are surprisingly good too, and some of the TV documentaries of course. If anything the internet is a hindrance to researching articles like this cos it makes everyone lazy and reliant on online sources(especially geeks like to me). I'm adamant that most of the best Beatles material is offline. --kingboyk 19:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I have just merged the Haircut into The Beatles´influence on popular culture. I know the popular culture page has also been tagged as "Merge", but I think it can be saved - with a lot of cuts and references. --andreasegde 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. If you think it can be saved, just change the class= from Merge to something else... probably "Start" in this case? --kingboyk 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey-dokey. There´s a lot of stuff to cut out, and funnily enough, the haircut isn´t one of them, as it did influence popular culture. I am sharpening my scissors as we speak... --andreasegde 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Haircut

message: I have adopted him. (Neil Aspinall) --andreasegde 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do his parents feel about that? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question! How does his kid (Roag, who he had by Mona Best; mother of Pete) feel about me being his adoptive-grandad? (I have to sit down - it's getting too complicated...) I'm amazed that nobody ever worked on his (Aspinall's) article before. He's a big-wig in The Beatles Corps. Even McCartney called him "Mr. X". --andreasegde 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil Aspinall

message: I'd like to (again) point out that Beatles FA articles are coming up for featured article review, and I have the full intention of nominating ALL the rest for FAR at regular intervals. So far She Loves You has already been de-featured, A Day in the Life will likely be de-featured in the coming days, and A Hard Day's Night (song) is about to become a Featured Article Removal Candidate. All the others will be put up for FAR also and have the same danger - I'd like to say that this is solely to maintain FA standards and not a personal vendetta (I like the Beatles, especially Lennon). If nothing is done to address the FA concerns, then the Beatles Wikiproject will be left with no FAs which'll be unfortunate. This is a cool Wikiproject with several active users, so rather than adopting stub articles maybe one or two can adopt Beatles FAs and brush them up a little? LuciferMorgan 12:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --andreasegde 13:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article review

message: Is it allowed to reference the Anthology DVDs? I do have them all in my possession, after all... --andreasegde 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this: It´s a good reference. --andreasegde 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah use that website, but when directly adding the inline cite write at the end "Reported at [BeatleBoy1]. I would gain the sufficient info you need - interviewer name, interview heading (if mag interview), publication/broadcast date, name of publication/radio etc. and issue number (if magazine) and so on, and don't forget to add the date you last accessed the info. If you have any problems finding all the info you need about an interview when citing it, email the webmaster and he'll reply (he replied to me regarding a 1962 radio interview and added the extra content needed!). LuciferMorgan 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends what you're quoting, I'd say. If you're using the interviews they recorded in the 90s (with Jools Holland I believe) specifically for Anthology then, yes, definitely. Of course, care has to be taken when quoting the subject, are we citing their first-hand opinion and experiences (great, we want to put their perspective into articles, offset against the writing of "experts" of course) or using them for facts* (not necessarily great; memories fade, people can be jaded etc). In short, yes, use the "new" interviews from Anthology. For older material presented in Anthology, it would as "Lucifer" said be better to cite the original material directly. In cases where that can't be done, citing Anthology is way better than citing nothing. --kingboyk 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthology

message: Does The Beatles project have an agreed format for language and dates in terms of American versus British style?  That is, would we write "organised on 1 June 1967", or "organized on June 1, 1967"? In several of the articles the format is mixed (part American, part British).  I'd like to reconcile these but don't know which standard applies. Apologies if this is an old issue (see WP:BITE). Raymond Arritt 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Raymond. I also have problems deciding which to use. The 31st of December, 2006, for example? It also needs a comma after years: "In 1966 they..." - "In 1966, they..." --andreasegde 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that if dates were wikilinked, the user preferences would then determine the format. As a result I always format like this (8 October 2006) but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Anyone know how we should be doing this? --kingboyk 11:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, as a starting point for discussion I propose that we use British spellings and formats.  They were a British group, after all... Formal usage for dates would be, e.g., 9 October 1940 (not October 9 or the less formal 9th October). Raymond Arritt 15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go for October 9, 1940, as it is international. (I know it's US military speak). 9 October sounds like nine Octobers in a row. British would be "the 9th of October, 1940," which nobody wants to do - do they? (I hope not :) --andreasegde 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, speaking from a field I have experience in, academic journals use the format [day month year], e.g., 9 October 1940.  I don't agree that [month day, year] is international, or British, as shown by a quick look at web sites for some British newspapers. Raymond Arritt 19:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 8 October 2006 is pretty British I think. But is anyone seeing that phrase in a format other than 8/October/2006? I'd been led to believe that a wikilinked date like that would display based on your regional settings. Perhaps I got it wrong. Anyone? Lar? LuciferMorgan? --kingboyk 19:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: American computer settings put the day after the month (10/9/40) which is disturbing. They're following the US military style. If it was written as October/9/1940, I could live a happy life... --andreasegde 19:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bugger, I have just realised that most books use 9 October, 1940. I'll stick to that, if nobody minds. --andreasegde 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we had decided long ago to stick to British usage for anything not specifically related to the United States. I personally have my preferences set up to show "9 October, 1940" (day month, year) as "October 9, 1940" (month day, year). As a side note, in places where this may be a problem (i.e. outside of Wikipedia), I prefer to simply use "1940-10-09" (yyyy-mm-dd). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language and format

message: Get Back is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. LuciferMorgan 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Get Back]]

message: If anyone wants to brighten up their day, I suggest you watch this:  It's fab. --andreasegde 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughter

message: I have noticed (haven't we all?) that editors don't put citations in. (Old news - yawn...) I think that the page on how to put them in is too complicated/confusing for an itchy-fingered new user (myself included, in the past). 
I think that putting citations in should be stressed as much as possible, and a link to explain how it can be done should be at the top of every single page. It would raise the profile, and rating, of hundreds of pages, would it not? --andreasegde 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All hail the new king of inline citations, andreasegde! :) Perhaps some notes could go onto the project template, e.g. into the "Suggested article edit guidelines" section? That would put the info on the top of every Beatles-related talk page, at least. --kingboyk 10:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one King on these pages :) Perhaps a minor foreign prince? As for notes in the templates... errr, I could write a simple explanation (for fools like me) but I would like it to be looked over before it went anywhere. --andreasegde 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing. You write it, one of us (probably me, pfff) will check it. --kingboyk 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: When initially learning how to add inline citations, I found it easier to click edit on a page and paste the text into a document. Some other stuff (like when you're adding several cites which link to the same source) I had DMoon1 to teach me. I'm all for anything which promotes improving Wikipedia's quality and reliability. LuciferMorgan 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've added a note to the project template (could use copyediting), and put some instructions up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy#Citations. --kingboyk 10:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Is it within the realms of possibility that two, three, four (and more of us) could work on ONE article together? (We know who we are, do we not?) We could zap an article with references, and write/rewrite it well, and have lots of FA articles in not much time at all. --andreasegde 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vera, Chuck, and Dave has joined up. --andreasegde 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Other projects call this "colloboration of the week" (or month or however long it takes). It's a good idea. Which article are you gonna work on? Macca? --kingboyk 09:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagine

message: I'd clean up the FAs you all already have first. I intend to nominate the next Beatles FA for FAR on October 22nd which'll likely be I Want to Hold Your Hand (Hey Jude is better cited and only needs minor work such as a cleanup of the "Cultural References" section, so I'll wait awhile to see if this is addressed). A Day in the Life was de-featured today, and the others face the same danger. Currently Get Back is at FAR while A Hard Day's Night (song) is at FARC - if sufficient work isn't being done on the latter within 2-3 weeks it'll be de-featured also. LuciferMorgan 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a question about this: If they were featured, then why have they been de-featured? What happened along the way? What went wrong? --andreasegde 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FA requirements are constantly evolving, and is much stringent compared to when they were initially bestowed featured status. If someone feels an article no longer meets current FA standards, then they can nominate the article's FA status be reviewed at WP:FAR - thus what I've been doing with the Beatles articles. Someone else nominated The Beatles which became de-featured, while under my nominations She Loves You and A Day in the Life have been de-featured. As I mentioned above, two other Beatles FAs are currently being reviewed. Inline citations is a frequent issue which keeps cropping up with the Beatles FAs. LuciferMorgan 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, LuciferMorgan. --andreasegde 21:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Day in the Life De-Featured (Note to Editors)

message: (I'll also raise this on the current newsletter talk page...) See the cyclone newsletter. A progress box showing article status might be a good thing for our newsletter. Thoughts? I think the whole thing is parameterised, or could be (their source has it hardcoded but I could fix that. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress tracking 

message: Paul McCartney. I'm nearly done with His Holiness' article. Could someone look through it and let me know what it needs, or doesn't? (I know the Wings years and later are thin, but Vera,Chuck and Dave is helping on that one.) --andreasegde 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will indeed - as soon as I lay me hands on the book that's on order! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue I raised on your user talk page still needs addressing. LuciferMorgan 15:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What issue on my talk page is that then? Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LuciferMorgan's on about my page. I have cut down the section a lot, but I will put it into prose. --andreasegde 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done it, but I will come back later to polish it. --andreasegde 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers la, wondered wot he was on about! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McCartney

message: Somebody's tagged the Beatles main article for speedy deletion! I'd keep an eye on the page for awhile, and remove the deletion tag. LuciferMorgan 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Beatles (Tagged for Speedy Deletion!)

message: Does everyone agree with the rather certain explanation given for the meaning of this song? Aaadddaaammm 04:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard about it, but if it's in the book, then it is.... (The book is mentioned, but not cited on the page, BTW.) --andreasegde 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't sufficiently cited at present - one would need a specific page number. LuciferMorgan 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Fool on the Hill]] 

message: I think that we should be concentrating on getting all of the articles to be featured as A articles, and then GA articles. (I know some of them already are, but for how long?) FA articles will come, but only when we have done the work that is needed. The standard for FA articles is being raised all the time (as has been previously said) so we should think in terms of "Baby-steps", and work up to FA articles. 
The problems are simple: In-line citations, no adjectives (such as, " a wonderful album") and helping new users to understand these points. We have to make it easy, and understandable. --andreasegde 20:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think (good grief, does this bloke ever shut up? lol) that the simple explanation of how to cite should be on every talk page, and should never be archived. It's alright for us to know how to do it, but it should always be there (with a short explanation about NO POV = adjectives) for the editors that don't know. --andreasegde 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA articles

message: Good morning and greetings from WikiProject Guitarists.  I am posting a note here because someone from the good article project came through and left a note that the Eric Clapton article doesn't use enough inline citations for an article its size.  They are apparently reevaluating all of the GA articles and this article's GA status could be revoked if that issue isn't fixed.  Since you folks have your banner on that article as well, I am just dropping a note in case anyone here has a chance to look at it.  We will try also. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Clapton 

message: Lord revan moved without even discussing it in the talk page "The Beatles (album)" to "The BEATLES", can someone revert it? --69.79.196.112 00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Beatles (album)" moved 

message: (Vera, Chuck, and Dave) made a great point recently that although there are many contributors to this project, there are very few that are involved in "hands-on" work. I believe that this is because they feel insecure about asking for help. (I refer you to the last post...) We have to constantly remember that new users (such as myself, a few months ago) don't know the simplest of meanings like, "My bad", or "We lost the FA".
We have to help, explain to, and support these new users. This is not a private club, and it is no place for elitism (no matter how good we think we are). "Help! I need somebody", being a pertinent phrase. --andreasegde 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main hesitance is that I don't own any Beatles books, I can't do copyedit that well, and my time is so limited I'm afraid my minor contributions may be looked down upon. Also, I'm considered the nemesis of this Project due to FARs. LuciferMorgan 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much, LuciferMorgan, for being truly honest. Is there a Barnstar for that? (If there is, you're gonna get it.) Your contributions should never be "looked down upon" by anybody. Do what you can, and it will be very much appreciated. (BTW, I had exactly the same feeling when I had absolutely no idea what an "in-line citation" was... lol...) Join us on the Macca page, and let's get it an FA. We will appreciate your help. --andreasegde 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that Brother, come on in you little Devil! Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I don't own any published material, my contributions will mostly be confined to highlighting its weaknesses - hopefully this'll help. LuciferMorgan 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! You hum it - we'll play it! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do write "yerrsss...." and throw two hands up in the air on Wikipedia? Nice one. --andreasegde 16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you're considered the nemesis of the project Lucifer Morgan, in fact I think we rather like you :) It might be nice if you slowed down the FARs now the project is starting to get itself organised, to give us a chance to get up to speed, but I don't think anybody takes your actions personally. What I like about you is you're constructive - you're doing the FARs to try and stimulate improvement, not to be destructive; you'll lend a hand; and you say honestly what you think. Not a nemesis at all AFAIC! Indeed why don't u sign up?! :P --kingboyk 13:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-operation

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: I Want to Hold Your Hand is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy (Talk) 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[I Want to Hold Your Hand]]

message: If anyone has time over here, could someone take a look at recent FAs and then tackle the "Cultural references" section in the article? If somebody addressed this it'd be extremely difficult for myself to find a sufficient reason for FAR in the future. The listy section needs tying into smooth, cohesive prose which ties the whole subtopic together. Also, the section will need a summarising lead. As ever, please add inline citations where appropriate. LuciferMorgan 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hey Jude]]

message: Lennon's murder is a much spoken about topic, yet it's only in the John Lennon article. Should it additionally have an article of its own? LuciferMorgan 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also in the Mark David Chapman article. --andreasegde 02:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lennon's Murder

message: As an experiment, I've set this talk page up for automatic archiving by User:Werdnabot. Threads which have no new content after 31 days will be archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 8. (This will need to be changed to archive 9 once archive 8 is getting big).
To change the settings, just edit the template at the top of the page. If the process turns out to be unsatisfactory just remove the template altogether.
I use the bot on my talk page and it seems pretty good. --kingboyk 12:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being the one who normally does the archiving, I'm not loving it. It's rather messy, and there's no need to archive stuff as soon as it turns 31 days old. The bot's gonna be making edits all month long. I'd rather return to the system where I just come by once a month and archive all the old stuff. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I'll remove the template then. --kingboyk 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archiving 

message: I've noticed that a fair number of the picture sleeves that accompany the entries on the Beatles' singles are from countries other than the United States or the United Kingdom. Is there a reason for this?  I know that only a small number of UK singles originally had picture sleeves, but almost all the US ones did. Cheemo 02:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably they are scans of copies owned by whoever uploaded them? I don't think it matters anyway, it's an international enyclopedia, but of course feel free to replace any images with better representations. That's wiki. --kingboyk 11:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture sleeves 

message: Real Love (The Beatles song) is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some references have been added, and it looks like the featured status of this article could be retained with just a bit more work.  I hope editors here can help out.  Sandy (Talk) 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Real Love (The Beatles song)]]

message: In need of project template maybe?
*The Missionary (1982)
*Bullshot (1983)
*A Private Function (1984)
*Bellman and True (1987)
*Five Corners (1987)
*Intimate Relations (1996)
*The Wrong Guy (1997)
Hoverfish 16:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. With george=yes and display=George Harrison please. If you don't do it I'll get it done (if I don't forget) but not just now. --kingboyk 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More handmade film productions 

message: Sgt. Pepper and Beatles for Sale need grade assessing. LuciferMorgan 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Assessments Needed 

message: As soon as Paul McCartney is finished (and we're getting close) we should go over the recently de-featured articles and whack a ton of citations in. Easy-peasey... --andreasegde 12:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles aren't as easy as adding cites. They need general cleanup also, particularly the listy sections. LuciferMorgan 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do that as well. It certainly won't be as hard as finishing McCartney :)) --andreasegde 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To achieve FA with any article is difficult - ask Kingboyk. Most of these defeatured articles aren't even GA. I think it's better to prioritise articles, so the next FA candidate would be either Lennon, Harrison or Starr (I'm plumping for Lennon). LuciferMorgan 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go for that (Lennon). --andreasegde 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA articles

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: We badly need people to read through the article and to spot anything untoward (or crap, in modern parlance) and then to leave a note on the talk page, or to correct the problem. --andreasegde 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't bad, but needs some cleaning up.  I've made a start. See comments there. Raymond Arritt 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Raymond. You made some good points. --That bloke with the girls' name 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Paul McCartney]]

message: Are any members able to help me make this into a good article?? I would appreciate the help, as this member of the Beatles definitely deserves to be a good article. Any advice appreciated. Thanks, --SunStar Nettalk 20:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use Paul McCartney as a guide. LuciferMorgan 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: George's article isn't bad at all. The first thing to do would be to add inline citations. That would probably get it GA. FA would need some more work. --kingboyk 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a book and put page numbers in, and search on respectable news sites. Be careful though, and don't add too much 'trivial' information, or the article will become too long (as we are experiencing on the McCartney page... :) --andreasegde 17:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Harrison]] 

message: We need your votes on Macca's talk page about which section to fork. (1,000 words less and we have it in the bag...) --andreasegde 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise - we don't need to cut much more. After a little prose cleaning, who's going to put it up for an FA review? --andreasegde 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Macca' is now under 10,000 words. --andreasegde 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: McCartney needs some kind soul to put it up for an FA. --The class of 2006 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macca, again

message: This article needs some work. It's mostly unsourced and perpetuates various old myths (e.g., the project started off as "Get Back", George quit because of an argument with Paul, and so on). I'll work on it from time to time but others please join in. Raymond Arritt 09:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Let It Be (album)]]

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards