Talk:The Beatles/Archive 8

message: Where's that famous eye-popping psychedelic picture of the beatles?! That was one of the most meaningful things in this article. Please put it back. There are now tons of texts without a colourful picture; now there is no difference between "tbe beatles" article and the "other bands articles"
:Ahhh... the thorny problem. There is a view that the four photos look great - which they do - and adding anymore upsets the balance. You have a point though, because now there is a lot of black and white between them (plus lots of wonderful editing, of course) and it does get a bit hard to plough through so many paragraphs without a cup of visual tea. andreasegde 06:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye-popping picture is gone?! 

message: This article is under featured article review. Punctured Bicycle 14:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo hoo! The Beatles score once more! TommyBoy76 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to ruin the atmos, but this means we may loose FA status. I doubt it though.--Crestville 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you tell me not to ruin the atmos... TommyBoy76 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no. I was telling the two who were arguing not to ruin the atmos. We'll never loose FA statue though.--Crestville 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you were enjoying watching them bicker, and I was ruining it. :-) But whatevah... TommyBoy76 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that as well, but I thought it was hilarious. "This is a local page for LOCAL people. Bickering? We´ll have no bickering here!"...... andreasegde 06:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol, I think it's hilarious when people bicker, too. I don't know why I stop it-- dammit. TommyBoy76 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being sarcastic with my "woo hoo!", by the way. I have a feeling that you think I took the FAR as a good thing....just me? TommyBoy76 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhhhh! Right boys, put your tea mugs down and pick up your shovels... andreasegde 06:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we need to plan some referencing? Everyone get a book and add citations for as much as they can? Or, should we go through the article and tag anything which needs a citation with ? Perhaps the latter would be best. --kingboyk 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the latter first, then the former.--Crestville 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under review 

message: This is a great article but could use some general cleanup to make it flow a little better.  I've made a small start and plan to work on it little by little.  I've also made a couple of factual corrections here and there.  If anyone has questions, please respond here.  Raymond Arritt 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "microphones" section is seriously inaccurate.  Almost all the available studio photographs and documentation show the group using U47/U67/U48 mics for vocals.  You can also see that the drum overhead was usually an AKG D19.  The idea that they often used the AKG C28 probably comes from the Let It Be movie.  I don't recall ever seeing a single picture of them using a C28 for vocals in the studio.  Eventually I may write up some details later for mics, but am thinking it best to remove "microphones" section altogether in the interim, since it's so inaccurate. Any objections? Raymond Arritt 00:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me. Can I ask you to include inline citations wherever possible? I.e. if you're adding a fact or quote from a book or other source, include the details in a footnote using a <ref> tag. It would be a tremendous help, thanks. --kingboyk 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don´t remove it; add to it. If you remove it, someone will come along and repeat the process after it has gone. What about the bass drum/snare/guitar mics? Welcome to the club, by the way. andreasegde 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good point.  I've made a start. Raymond Arritt 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Rearranged some blocks of material to improve the organization.  In particular I've tried to get the time coherent by moving the "Backlash and Breakup" material into the History section, as has been previously discussed.  "Be Bold". Raymond Arritt 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I added Cynthia Lennon's account of how the Beatles got thier name and turned her name into a link. It seems to be generally agreed that Lennon (John) was a fan of The Crickets but the reason for the actaul spelling of the word (bEAtles insted of bEEtles)seems to have several possible orgins.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiproconist (talk • contribs) 
Whoever added the bit about John Lennon changing the spelling of the band's name to The Beatles needs because "they were 'beat-less'" needs to add citation, post haste. I have been a Beatle fan and have read quite alot about them and have never come across this explanantion. Not even in Albert Goldman's book and he would have loved to put that in that little tidbit.Swatson1978 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is perfectly consistent with Lennon's sense of humour: and of course nobody ever said: "And here they are, "The Beat-less!" I'm also sure that a citation can be provided Lion King 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your'e in such a rush, BE BOLD and delete it. Lion King 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Why is Backlash and Aftermath before Studio band? This is poppycock, because it throws the whole bally timeline out of order. I´ll write to my MP about this - you just see if I don´t... Colonel Wimpley-Tartoft 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article placings

message: Is there any citation available for the statement about the "live" recording of All You Need Is Love for the Our World show?  The released recording certainly doesn't audibly contain the other performers clapping and singing along. Was the original performance a live version or was the single version played and lip synched (which I've never heard the Beatles doing)?  Just wondering.
OnlyTheHunter 19:58, 3 August 2006
:Good question. Live main vocals but the rest was backing. Orchestra live? The conductor had headphones on. andreasegde 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many, many citations including the Lewisohn books and the Geoff Emerick book.  Plus of course the evidence of the video itself.  A basic backing track was pre-recorded but most of the song was live.  The orchestra, Lennon's vocal, Paul's bass and George's guitar were all done live.   Ringo's drums couldn't be done live because of leakage onto the other mics. Raymond Arritt 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live or Memorex 

message: How come the years under the "Song samples" header are equal to it.
===Song samples===
===1965===
Shouldn't the years be a less important header. (ie: with 4 "="s)
===Song samples===
====1965====
-- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song samples & header levels 

message: Can´t we find a really stunning photo (colour) for the start of the page? I think we should archive this page as well. (I don´t know how to do it... ouch!) andreasegde 19:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First photo

message: I put in two new headers because I thought it could do with a break now and then. After I did it, I realised how much was missing from the sections. 
*"Hamburg" could do with: The names of the club managers, The Hamburg Mafia, the clubs they played in, George being sent back to England, the condom fire incident, Klaus, Astrid, the  ´Beatles haircut´, Stu falling in love, "uppers, downers and prellies", sekt/champagne being sent to the stage, John with a toilet seat around his neck on stage, Best and Lennon robbing a sailor for money, prostitutes buying them food, err.... is that enough for starters? andreasegde 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a lot of this is already in the History of, but I have just read through it and I wonder what the real difference is between the two? Has this been talked about (pistols at dawn, you cad) before? andreasegde 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headers and content

message: I'm a bit worried that we don't have enough categories at the bottom of this talk page. What do you guys think? --kingboyk 16:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough? There are a lot (if I understand what you´re saying). They could be put in some kind of order though. andreasegde 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many, it's like a seeing eye picture. Stare at it for long enough and you will see a disordered chunk of categories that no one will ever use because they are so numerous.--Crestville 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page categories 

message: No mention of the cartoon series?  That was my earliest introduction to the greatest pop music ever.  Fantastic show.  Perhaps it was not shown in the US?Leeborkman 23:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed previously; check the archives. If you want to do an article on it, please feel free. I would comment that it probably isn't important enough to go into the main feature but perhaps a link from one of the myriad other related articles. BTW - it was shown in the US, it was made there. Most of the contributors to this article are British, which is why it may not be so well known.LessHeard vanU 00:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in Beatles trivia. That´s the place for it, and it would be welcome. andreasegde 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles cartoon series?  Why no mention? 

message: I deleted MMT from the British LP list yet again.  It seems that MMT is being reinserted by those without User IDs.  Is it possible to allow ONLY those with Wikipedia User IDs to post in this article?  Those with only IP addresses would not be allowed to make changes to this article. Steelbeard1 11:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request semi-protection, which would only allow the article to be edited by users that have been registered for four days, but articles normally aren't protected unless it's being hit by a lot of vandalism, and don't get protected because of a content dispute.  talk to JD wants e-mail 11:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did at .  Did I do it correctly? Steelbeard1 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, I would suggest replacing the whole list, and instead of making it the "original UK" make it official CURRENT discography, and include MMT and the two volumes of Past Masters. Carlo 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed previously, if you would look above, but the consensus was to keep the original British LP list.  Any minds changed? Steelbeard1 15:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MMT Was not an official UK release whilst The Beatles were together. I am at a complete loss as to why anyone still wishes to include it in their UK Discography - it really is patently obvious why it should not, and can not be included, surely? Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That'll do for me Pal-Good job! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrict who can post in this article? 

message: No joke. What a hoot! BYT 16:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is.  (Sorry about inserting a Beatles song title)  Is  the livecam in question? Steelbeard1 16:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure looks like it. Nice sleuthing. BYT 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That´s got to go in Beatles trivia, under "Politics and Police". andreasegde 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "You say Goodbye, and I say 'ello, 'ello, 'ello." Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fab Four webcam helps stop burglary 

message: The article Artists achieving simultaneous U.S. and UK number-one hits has a gaping vacancy waiting to be filled by someone with some Beatles knowledge. This seemed like a good place to find it. Anyone filling said vacancy wins my eternal favour in this life and the next. Soo 17:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list has been created. Steelbeard1 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, future things of this nature would probably be better addressed at WP:BEATLES. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simultaneous UK/US number 1s 

message: Right, who changed the photos? C´mon, own up. We could have the earlier ones in there as well as the later ones. At the moment it looks like an advert for an early sixties TV programme. (Sound of fingers drumming on desk...) andreasegde 17:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the old ones back in, and left the black & whites in there as well. (Well, the general concensus was more photos...) andreasegde 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I do prefer the early b&w's. Probably not those particular ones however. I have loads of photo's, but they're all in books and magazines of course. I suppose they're all copyright protected? --Patthedog 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: The citation for this is not appropriate. You can't cite an Amazon website for the book; you need to actually cite passages fromt the book to support what you're saying, especially when you go into that much detail. So, please, somebody who's read the book fix this.
:Good point, but you need to sign in. BTW, I´m surprised that someone who has only been contributing since 03:28, 27 August 2006 knows so much about stuff like that. It´s a puzzler... andreasegde 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Have just put in a link to The Guardian newspaper, which should be a verifiable source, should it not? andreasegde 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul McCartney and Avant-Garde

message: Well, we lost FA status (rightly) but we got approved for GA very quickly indeed. I think GA is about right and it's a badge the article can wear with pride until such time as it's ready for resubmission as a Featured Article candidate. Get those reference books out folks and start citing! I don't so much feel that we've lost FA than we've gained GA :) --kingboyk 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that many of the edits are done by IP addresses and/or are reverts, I'm thinking that maybe this article should be semi-protected? You know, that thing were non-logged in users and users younger than four days or something can't edit? What do you think? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Why would somebody not have an account when it´s so easy? andreasegde 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I.  An earlier request to semi-protect this article got rejected, though.  You can read about it above. Steelbeard1 09:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask, but it will be difficult to persuade people. The ethos of Wikipedia is "the enyclopedia that anyone can edit". Quite how that fits in with Featured Articles I don't know, I guess we just have to be very severe with reversions. --kingboyk 09:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the Project were to request it, en masse? Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno mate, but there's no harm in asking. --kingboyk 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of 'em just vandalised The Beatles and Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is How do you warn them? Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:TestTemplates. Basically,  ~~~~ for a first offence. --kingboyk 10:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey that's clever, I like that! Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Win, lose, I don't know