Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Style

message: Should we now consider either splitting the ongoing t/T debate into its own page, or archiving the remainder. I would prefer splitting as I think policy discussion should be kept in the open and be available for further discussion, however the current matter does seem to be taking up most of the space. Er... if there is consensus would somebody kindly do the deed (I'm only here for the bunfights, don'cha know?) LessHeard vanU 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to split/archive this talkpage?

message: ==="UK/US spelling" thread moved from Talk:The Beatles===
Just a note:  I don't believe the British have really decided on -ize versus -ise.  There is apparently a movement afoot among certain British publications to revert to -ize, apparently on the theory that it more accurately reflects the Greek origine of the suffix.  For a more learned discussion, please see http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ise1.htm.McTavidge 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, although I'm not sure how many would see it.  A quick revert cycle with appropriate edit comments is not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.  John (Jwy) 17:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me, but as a Brit I would say that wouldn't I :) No, seriously, I think an article on The Beatles should use UK English (Scouse even? :P), just as an article on his Bobness should go the other way. A talk page notice might not be a bad idea, if there's a template knocking around. --kingboyk 22:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet there is but it may be a bit hard to find... We could knock one up that was Beatles specific if you don't find it. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a perfect fit, maybe, but there's .  It could be modified slightly, if necessary. (Special:Allpages is a great way to find templates.) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could hack that one I think. Cut it down a lot by removing perhaps ", and some terms (including ) that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English". Now here's an idea - if we imported it into  it will instantly appear on over 50 Beatles related Talk pages! --kingboyk 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a (very) few Beatles articles that I expect would be properly written in American English, so some sort of qualifier would be in order there but ya, good find. I'd be willing to hack this template's contents into  if that's the thinking. I like the idea of it flashing up there all of a sudden. (other projects use some of their templates as ways to notify broadly, for example the membership template can have a list of urgent tasks or whatever)... LMK if you want me to give it a go. Its either that or work on the classification tables, or AfD something... (as for Special:Allpages, nod. I use it all the time but the problem is figuring out what a template might start with to narrow the search...) Note: this would be a big change as it would make the box somewhat bigger. So some more feedback would be good. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could shrink it, while importing it... shall we move this discussion to Template talk:WPBeatles? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would want to see the content kept inside the tan box, with a heading that suggest that more guidelines might be coming along. But ya, seems a good idea. Before we do it would like to hear more thoughts from other project participants. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a play in my sandbox if you like. Can then delete or do a history merge depending on if people disprove/approve. --kingboyk 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A history merge may be a bit of overkill to just see what it looks like, you can just paste the change in to the real template once we like it, presumably... but sure! Sounds good.  ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I meant once it had been approved and hacked about. It's currently in User:Kingboyk/Sandbox but read only for a few mins pse. --kingboyk 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current text (modded and edited down) of  should be inside the upper tan box as a bullet point under the heading "suggested article guidelines" (coming up with at least one more guideline would help make sense of that I guess) Maybe you're working on it! If you don't follow, LMK and I'll have a go... ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hack away. --kingboyk 03:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I will. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I like it seperate. My reason for including it in the template was ease of propogation. YMMV. --kingboyk 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking it's just one of several guidelines we'll want to introduce though... we don't want to cruft all the articles up with a bunch of boxes because they included one template. The guideline text should be smaller but I was messing about with font and div and small and stuff to no effect. If it's the ONLY guideline, then ya. See how it looks now and then say what you think (I added another guideline bullet, it may not be a keeper but it gives an idea.++Lar: t/c 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job. Is there any way of adding an optional argument to turn the British English message off for articles to which it probably shouldn't apply (of which there won't be many, if any)? I'm pretty sure there is but I forget (qif??). --kingboyk 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  should do it, I think but I forget too. There's also a way to do it with css (class "hidden structure) I expect, see  for example. (that includes things if a parm IS present, we want the opposite though...) before you copy it over let me have a hack by using table cell formatting to see if I can get the text smaller. Probably time to archive off all the stuff that I commented out back when (the cover image we can't use, for example) too... Gimme a few min. However now that we've both been hacking, ya, technically under GFDL a history merge is needed... ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can leave it in the sandbox until we have at least a 3rd opinion (and until you're done) and then I can move it into place. Trust me I'm a wiki-doctor! (Lar shudders) --kingboyk 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ya, but are you in National Health or private practice? Trust you??? You've been reading talk:Seduction Community and its links again haven't you? OK, give it a boo, it's at 80%. Reformatted but not all the commented out stuff removed yet. I did not do the qif thing though... Try including it from some other page as a test, and point us back here will ya? (this whole convo will redlink once we're done I guess) Totally down with waiting for the final surgery till we hear from others. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As is often the case, I've no idea what you're talking about so will just vaguely agree! :P I've read "The Game" though - cracking read. OK, I'll take a look. Convo won't so much redlink as point to whatever garbage happens to me in my sandbox at any given moment :) --kingboyk 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It may well be too small... I had it at 85% and decided to "push it" to 80%... even 90% would make it seem smaller and therefore not the dominant part of the box so that's certainly an option. I'm done for now, then... we've got time of course. What I mean by try including it from some other page is just to do an inclusion as a test to see what it looks like included (we're looking at it when the "noinclude" switches are tripped)... go here: User:Lar/Sandbox to see it included. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about that, I actually seem to recall the opposite, that all articles are to be in American English (WM foundation is a Florida corporation, Jimbo is a US citizen, etc.) unless the subject is based in a country which speaks a different dialect... 98% of these articles (but not all, articles on American record company activities or memorable US shows, to make up some examples, which I have no idea of their existance or not) are British english subject matter. But I don't have a cite to back me up at the moment. Good thing we're doing this in sandboxes then, I guess. I'm not too sussed if we ditch it. Or ref some project standards guideline, as suggested below. The advantage of having it in the box is that it's in sight. Out of sight, out of mind. Links you have to follow don't always get followed, so some inyourface-ness may be good, if it's polite. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, here's some cites... style actually is as given here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling (read at least through 
"National Varieties of English" and here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28spelling%29 ... so I wasn't quite right, but close.  ++Lar
* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
* If there's no strong tie, try to find synonyms that can be used in any dialect.
* If no such words can be agreed upon, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
--kingboyk 06:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not the guidelines at all. The guidelines are that the dialect of the original author is retained, unless the article is on persons/places/concepts which are geographical. I prefer the seperate box though, I think, because it's a Wikipedia policy not ours. (See Talk:The Beatles for how this discussion arose, by the way). --kingboyk 05:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still like the separate box better? it doesn't always apply, and as soon as we mod it, it's our sub-policy, not overall project. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: lol, I'm getting a headache now. Nothing suggested so far has been outrageous or disagreeable so somebody please be bold :) If that involves moving a sandbox and restoring page history give me a shout. --kingboyk 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British English

message: Just a note:  I don't believe the British have really decided on -ize versus -ise.  There is apparently a movement afoot among certain British publications to revert to -ize, apparently on the theory that it more accurately reflects the Greek origine of the suffix.  For a more learned discussion, please see http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ise1.htm.McTavidge 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, although I'm not sure how many would see it.  A quick revert cycle with appropriate edit comments is not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.  John (Jwy) 17:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me, but as a Brit I would say that wouldn't I :) No, seriously, I think an article on The Beatles should use UK English (Scouse even? :P), just as an article on his Bobness should go the other way. A talk page notice might not be a bad idea, if there's a template knocking around. --kingboyk 22:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet there is but it may be a bit hard to find... We could knock one up that was Beatles specific if you don't find it. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a perfect fit, maybe, but there's .  It could be modified slightly, if necessary. (Special:Allpages is a great way to find templates.) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could hack that one I think. Cut it down a lot by removing perhaps ", and some terms (including ) that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English". Now here's an idea - if we imported it into  it will instantly appear on over 50 Beatles related Talk pages! --kingboyk 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a (very) few Beatles articles that I expect would be properly written in American English, so some sort of qualifier would be in order there but ya, good find. I'd be willing to hack this template's contents into  if that's the thinking. I like the idea of it flashing up there all of a sudden. (other projects use some of their templates as ways to notify broadly, for example the membership template can have a list of urgent tasks or whatever)... LMK if you want me to give it a go. Its either that or work on the classification tables, or AfD something... (as for Special:Allpages, nod. I use it all the time but the problem is figuring out what a template might start with to narrow the search...) Note: this would be a big change as it would make the box somewhat bigger. So some more feedback would be good. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could shrink it, while importing it... shall we move this discussion to Template talk:WPBeatles? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "UK/US spelling" thread moved from [[Talk:The Beatles]]

message: The idea was mooted at Talk:The Beatles of adding a bit to this template to indicate that Beatles articles should be written in British English.  Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would want to see the content kept inside the tan box, with a heading that suggest that more guidelines might be coming along. But ya, seems a good idea. Before we do it would like to hear more thoughts from other project participants. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a play in my sandbox if you like. Can then delete or do a history merge depending on if people disprove/approve. --kingboyk 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A history merge may be a bit of overkill to just see what it looks like, you can just paste the change in to the real template once we like it, presumably... but sure! Sounds good.  ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I meant once it had been approved and hacked about. It's currently in User:Kingboyk/Sandbox but read only for a few mins pse. --kingboyk 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current text (modded and edited down) of  should be inside the upper tan box as a bullet point under the heading "suggested article guidelines" (coming up with at least one more guideline would help make sense of that I guess) Maybe you're working on it! If you don't follow, LMK and I'll have a go... ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hack away. --kingboyk 03:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I will. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I like it seperate. My reason for including it in the template was ease of propogation. YMMV. --kingboyk 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking it's just one of several guidelines we'll want to introduce though... we don't want to cruft all the articles up with a bunch of boxes because they included one template. The guideline text should be smaller but I was messing about with font and div and small and stuff to no effect. If it's the ONLY guideline, then ya. See how it looks now and then say what you think (I added another guideline bullet, it may not be a keeper but it gives an idea.++Lar: t/c 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job. Is there any way of adding an optional argument to turn the British English message off for articles to which it probably shouldn't apply (of which there won't be many, if any)? I'm pretty sure there is but I forget (qif??). --kingboyk 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  should do it, I think but I forget too. There's also a way to do it with css (class "hidden structure) I expect, see  for example. (that includes things if a parm IS present, we want the opposite though...) before you copy it over let me have a hack by using table cell formatting to see if I can get the text smaller. Probably time to archive off all the stuff that I commented out back when (the cover image we can't use, for example) too... Gimme a few min. However now that we've both been hacking, ya, technically under GFDL a history merge is needed... ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can leave it in the sandbox until we have at least a 3rd opinion (and until you're done) and then I can move it into place. Trust me I'm a wiki-doctor! (Lar shudders) --kingboyk 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ya, but are you in National Health or private practice? Trust you??? You've been reading talk:Seduction Community and its links again haven't you? OK, give it a boo, it's at 80%. Reformatted but not all the commented out stuff removed yet. I did not do the qif thing though... Try including it from some other page as a test, and point us back here will ya? (this whole convo will redlink once we're done I guess) Totally down with waiting for the final surgery till we hear from others. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As is often the case, I've no idea what you're talking about so will just vaguely agree! :P I've read "The Game" though - cracking read. OK, I'll take a look. Convo won't so much redlink as point to whatever garbage happens to me in my sandbox at any given moment :) --kingboyk 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It may well be too small... I had it at 85% and decided to "push it" to 80%... even 90% would make it seem smaller and therefore not the dominant part of the box so that's certainly an option. I'm done for now, then... we've got time of course. What I mean by try including it from some other page is just to do an inclusion as a test to see what it looks like included (we're looking at it when the "noinclude" switches are tripped)... go here: User:Lar/Sandbox to see it included. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about that, I actually seem to recall the opposite, that all articles are to be in American English (WM foundation is a Florida corporation, Jimbo is a US citizen, etc.) unless the subject is based in a country which speaks a different dialect... 98% of these articles (but not all, articles on American record company activities or memorable US shows, to make up some examples, which I have no idea of their existance or not) are British english subject matter. But I don't have a cite to back me up at the moment. Good thing we're doing this in sandboxes then, I guess. I'm not too sussed if we ditch it. Or ref some project standards guideline, as suggested below. The advantage of having it in the box is that it's in sight. Out of sight, out of mind. Links you have to follow don't always get followed, so some inyourface-ness may be good, if it's polite. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, here's some cites... style actually is as given here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling (read at least through 
"National Varieties of English" and here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28spelling%29 ... so I wasn't quite right, but close.  ++Lar
* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
* If there's no strong tie, try to find synonyms that can be used in any dialect.
* If no such words can be agreed upon, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
--kingboyk 06:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not the guidelines at all. The guidelines are that the dialect of the original author is retained, unless the article is on persons/places/concepts which are geographical. I prefer the seperate box though, I think, because it's a Wikipedia policy not ours. (See Talk:The Beatles for how this discussion arose, by the way). --kingboyk 05:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still like the separate box better? it doesn't always apply, and as soon as we mod it, it's our sub-policy, not overall project. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: lol, I'm getting a headache now. Nothing suggested so far has been outrageous or disagreeable so somebody please be bold :) If that involves moving a sandbox and restoring page history give me a shout. --kingboyk 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Importing content from [[:Template:British-English]]" thread copied from [[Template talk:WPBeatles]]

message: Any exceptions can be discussed here. --kingboyk 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions

message: I think I found the citation which trumps everything at  Steelbeard1 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark 

message: So far I think we have two style policies, right:
*British English, not US English, with rare (I can't think of ANY in use so far) exceptions...
*"The Beatles" is almost always correct, "the Beatles" almost always isn't... (see above topic)
What other areas need (or already have) policy?
++Lar: t/c 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to redraft the two policies you mentioned (with a placeholder for exceptions to the British English rule), and leave a placeholder/very rough draft for a policy on songs (notability thereof and articles on) for use later. On the talk page I intend to paste in the threads that exist on other pages where we discussed the policies we've agreed upon. I'll do later tonight or (perhaps more likely) tommorow. It's all up in the (fading) brain at the moment but don't worry, it's all planned out :-) --kingboyk 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I advocate when you redact that you MOVE the convo threads here, and only leave links behind, pointing here. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you copied them... I may go back and delete the copied parts if I remember/have time unless someone strongly objects. Well done on bringing them here though! ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I moved them, with the sole exception of the template talk thread which contains technical talk about the template (and with that one, I left a message saying please direct future policy chat here, and leave technical chat there). Any other threads which are still in place == a mistake. --kingboyk 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool! My reading too fast then I guess, sorry! ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New page

message: Although that page is itself tagged as "a guideline only and not policy" should we be following the guidance there? Or are we happy that we have had enough community discussion and review to have our Project's policies stick? (I personally think the above threads answer my question in the affirmative, but "policy wonks" (copyright Lar) might not agree with me). Comments? --kingboyk 12:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're not creating WP wide policy. Putting it on a page of our own, tagging it as project policy, and gently persuading non project members to go along (see above, someone may be in need of a bit of gentle persuasion) is the way to go I think. (and this just came up at the Fraternities project, they're struggling with special notability guidelines) ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what policy are we talking about here? --Lukobe 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, the attached page! --kingboyk 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Female editors? --Lukobe 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the attached article only, not the talk page. I think that particular idea got vetoed as nice but unnecessary. --kingboyk 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:How to create policy]] 

message: I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.
The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.
=== Belated reaction ===
The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.
=== My Comments ===
My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.
Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.
Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.
=== My Observations ===
No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponets of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.
More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.
=== My Conclusion(s) ===
The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.
I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as) bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project. LessHeard vanU 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are going around changing the Beatles back to The Beatles? Maybe a RFC needs to be filed against such editors. Yes, all discussion should be here. Lukobe 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I spent several hours changing the following pages:  The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, among several others.  It's pretty discouraging that with a click of a button someone can undo all that effort.McTavidge 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I vehemently oppose filing any RFC against any editor in this matter. This is a co-operative effort and this Project does not need schisms. It may be that an independent arbiter may be needed to ensure that practice complies with Wikipedia rules, but the debate needs to be civilly conducted here, and consensus reached. LessHeard vanU 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would comment that the filing of the trademark for Beatles singular possibly recognises that the preceding lowercase "the" is a alternative correct rendition of the band name. I still believe that the appropriate avenues for determining which is (more) correct would be English Language guides (not just style, but how it is taught as a science) or a premier dictionary. Unfortunately, the OED requires membership. The online dictionaries I have found are split 50/50 (three to three) between lower and upper case. Another resource may be a standard text on how Proper Nouns are expressed in British English (providing that it can be agreed that the the is part of the band name) LessHeard vanU 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK Patent Office link shows there are separate filings for both "Beatles" and "The Beatles".  The actual link for "The Beatles" is for Beatle merchandise.  The full list of trade marks owned by Apple Corps Ltd is at  and note in the individual "Beatles" entries that the trade marks are for use of the terms "Beatles" and "The Beatles".  As "The Beatles" is a registered trademark as proven by the UK Patent Office links, I again ask if legal reasons trump grammatical reasons. Steelbeard1 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say for certain. I was, however, involved in company law a couple of decades back. Whilst a company may register itself under a name (and the right to that name belongs to said company) the company may well be known as somthing else, e.g. Company X trading as Y & Z Corporation. The company may then be known as Y & Z Corporation, even to the extent of establishing it as a trading name and having some protection to the right of the name under law. This is why I believe that the bands lawyers were very canny in Trademarking all the variations they could. Registering a Trademark, thus protecting the right to use the form of words, may not indicate the primacy of that name use; it is to stop other people from being able to use it. As I said, however, it may take legal opinion to see if a Trademark has precedence over style guides and/or grammatical standards. LessHeard vanU 21:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that neither Apple Corps, McCartney, Starr, nor the estates of Lennon and Harrison have ever brought suit or made a complaint against any newspaper or other media outlet, or the producers of any stylebook or style guide, for not making it a capital T each and every time... I don't think changing the policy is going to be a problem. And it appears some of the amateur writers are continuing to act as amateurs in this matter. It's a shame. Zephyrad 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan Clayson isn't an amateur writer, and in all four of his books concerning each member of the band, The Beatles is capitalised throughout. Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Alan Clayson the one going around changing Wikipedia pages, against the new policy? (And if Alan Clayson jumped off the roof...) Zephyrad 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nor have they to protect the use of the lowercase, so that argument doesn't prove anything. Even an amateur can see that. I feel that Trademarking or registering a name, and its variations, is a legal device and no indication that any one style is preferred. LessHeard vanU 13:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It's all legalities and has nothing to do with actual style and usage, which is what we should be concerned with. --Lukobe 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia, Consensus, The Beatles and Project Policy 

message: The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.
I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as) bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project. LessHeard vanU 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Conclusion(s) 

message: I agree -- it really is too bad that things have taken this turn.  It didn't have to go this way.  It's actually embarrassing at this point.McTavidge 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are going around changing the Beatles back to The Beatles? Maybe a RFC needs to be filed against such editors. Yes, all discussion should be here. Lukobe 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I spent several hours changing the following pages:  The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, among several others.  It's pretty discouraging that with a click of a button someone can undo all that effort.McTavidge 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I vehemently oppose filing any RFC against any editor in this matter. This is a co-operative effort and this Project does not need schisms. It may be that an independent arbiter may be needed to ensure that practice complies with Wikipedia rules, but the debate needs to be civilly conducted here, and consensus reached. LessHeard vanU 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Conclusions 

message: Thanks for your new comments on the "The/the" dispute.  Strong legal citations have emerged which indicate that "The Beatles" should be used as it is a registered trademark.  Check out this discussion  which includes a link to the UK Patent Office which proves that "The Beatles" as well as "Beatles" are registered trade marks of Apple Corps Ltd.  The actual link is at .  So does legal reasons trump grammatical reasons? Steelbeard1 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would comment that the filing of the trademark for Beatles singular possibly recognises that the preceding lowercase "the" is a alternative correct rendition of the band name. I still believe that the appropriate avenues for determining which is (more) correct would be English Language guides (not just style, but how it is taught as a science) or a premier dictionary. Unfortunately, the OED requires membership. The online dictionaries I have found are split 50/50 (three to three) between lower and upper case. Another resource may be a standard text on how Proper Nouns are expressed in British English (providing that it can be agreed that the the is part of the band name) LessHeard vanU 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK Patent Office link shows there are separate filings for both "Beatles" and "The Beatles".  The actual link for "The Beatles" is for Beatle merchandise.  The full list of trade marks owned by Apple Corps Ltd is at  and note in the individual "Beatles" entries that the trade marks are for use of the terms "Beatles" and "The Beatles".  As "The Beatles" is a registered trademark as proven by the UK Patent Office links, I again ask if legal reasons trump grammatical reasons. Steelbeard1 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say for certain. I was, however, involved in company law a couple of decades back. Whilst a company may register itself under a name (and the right to that name belongs to said company) the company may well be known as somthing else, e.g. Company X trading as Y & Z Corporation. The company may then be known as Y & Z Corporation, even to the extent of establishing it as a trading name and having some protection to the right of the name under law. This is why I believe that the bands lawyers were very canny in Trademarking all the variations they could. Registering a Trademark, thus protecting the right to use the form of words, may not indicate the primacy of that name use; it is to stop other people from being able to use it. As I said, however, it may take legal opinion to see if a Trademark has precedence over style guides and/or grammatical standards. LessHeard vanU 21:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that neither Apple Corps, McCartney, Starr, nor the estates of Lennon and Harrison have ever brought suit or made a complaint against any newspaper or other media outlet, or the producers of any stylebook or style guide, for not making it a capital T each and every time... I don't think changing the policy is going to be a problem. And it appears some of the amateur writers are continuing to act as amateurs in this matter. It's a shame. Zephyrad 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan Clayson isn't an amateur writer, and in all four of his books concerning each member of the band, The Beatles is capitalised throughout. Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Alan Clayson the one going around changing Wikipedia pages, against the new policy? (And if Alan Clayson jumped off the roof...) Zephyrad 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nor have they to protect the use of the lowercase, so that argument doesn't prove anything. Even an amateur can see that. I feel that Trademarking or registering a name, and its variations, is a legal device and no indication that any one style is preferred. LessHeard vanU 13:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. It's all legalities and has nothing to do with actual style and usage, which is what we should be concerned with. --Lukobe 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "The/the" policy reevaluation 

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: I think I will take the tack of answering questions but not re-explaining my own position. So here goes. In the band name you refer to above, the first the is the definite article; the second the is a proper noun. So the second the should be capitalized everywhere. The first the, well, that's what the debate's about. If you're for The Beatles, then you're for The The--if you're for the Beatles then you're for the The. --Lukobe 22:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The The]]

message: OK, time to review a little.  
Books and articles -- There's clearly a divergence of views among those writing books and articles about the Beatles.  Some capitalize, some don't.  That's not a promising avenue of argument for either view.
Trademark -- Although it hasn't been articulated particularly clearly, the trademark-filing-based argument for capitalization seems to go something like this:  The trademark filing shows an instance of capitalization.  Therefore, this is "proof" that capitalization is "correct" and furthermore that any nonconforming usage is an infringement.  Have I correctly summarized the argument?  If not, let me know where I've strayed.  I'd like to make sure I understand.
It would be helpful if one of the uppercase supporters would summarize my argument, just so we can be sure we're all really understanding each other.
Incidentally, I was away from this for about five hours today and in the interim someone posted anonymously a message about passing off an article (meaning the Beatles-related Wikipedia articles) as being about the Beatles, except that the "the" was capitalized in his or her comment.  It was intended as a retort to me and as a gotcha (I was discussing the trademark law concept of passing off).  This was interesting not only because it showed that the anonymous poster didn't really understand anything about trademark law and didn't seem to care that his comment betrayed his ignorance but also because Andreasegde incorrectly assumed I had posted the goofy comment and then deliriously cheered:  "You did it again! You wrote "The Beatles" yourself. Game, Set, and Match."  Come on -- can't this discussion be elevated above that level?  Even if I had written and accidentally failed to sign the goofy comment, surely I didn't deserve the all-caps shout:  "SIGN IN; DON'T JUST LEAVE A COMMENT."McTavidge 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: *1. Professional dictionaries don't agree
*2. Book writers don't agree
*4. The Beatles' own pages don't agree (Macca's uses both)
*3. There is a contract that states 'The Beatles' 'Beatles' etc.. was trademarked
Now, who are we (AMATEUR editors) to state that there must be a fixed policy? If anyone dares to suggest that they know more about style, or have a firmer grasp on grammar than respected professional editors and writers (who don't agree with each other) or the people at FA (Macca's review) who didn't mention 'The/the' problem AT ALL, or even the Wikipedia editors who reviewed the last five GA articles, then I suggest a visit to the clinic to sort out their ego problems. Nobody cites it as a problem, apart from here.  andreasegde 10:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter that at least one of us is a professional editor with a graduate degree in English linguistics? I would wager that that person does stand a good chance of knowing more about style and grammar than the FA reviewers and the GA reviewers. Other professional editors and writers, now, that's a different story--but there are varying styles and our job is to pick one for Wikipedia. --Lukobe 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The good thing about a fixed policy is consistency, we are all reading from the same script. It would make Wikipedia appear more professional. I would prefer that someone gets the Oxford English Dictionary most recent definition, and examples of current English Language GCSE course work/books, so the use in Standard English can be found. If that agrees with the style guides (style, by definition, being more subject to change) then the question is answered. If it differs then we may need to discuss the primacy between academical and practical standards. LessHeard vanU 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. We need to look more professional. --Lukobe 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody has a fixed policy in the real world. How can we expect to have one? And what about The The? Answer that one, and I will agree with everything. andreasegde 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of publishing houses and Web sites have fixed policies. --Lukobe 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll take that bait... the name has appeared as "the The" again and again, in the media, and in record outlets, if it wasn't actually sanctioned by the band. Putting the lowercase the first makes the capital The stand out. Zephyrad 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you Sir, but... the band is called The The (on its own web page.) It should be called the The The, to be truly correct, and deeply pendantic. andreasegde 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't sound like agreement to me. It sounds like you have broken your word. Zephyrad 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering if what we are really disagreeing about is the defintiion of truly correct. Johnson & Johnson want you to refer to band-aids as Band-Aid(R) Brand Bandages, really--does that mean we should? --Lukobe 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The state of play

message: Please add to this list to clarify this problem, and so that we can finally have a POLICY:
*I like The Beatles. (Correct)
*I like The Beatles’ music. (Correct)
*I like the music of The Beatles. (Correct)
*I like Paul McCartney’s Beatles’ songs. (Correct)
*I like Paul McCartney’s songs when he was in The Beatles. (Correct) 
*Many Beatles’ songs are ballads. (Correct)
*Many of The Beatles’ songs are ballads. (Correct)
*Many songs by The Beatles are ballads. (Correct)
ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I go breaking my pledge. But oh well. This is how I would say it should go (note I also removed some of your apostrophes):
*I like the Beatles.
*I like the Beatles’ music.
*I like the music of the Beatles.
*I like Paul McCartney’s Beatles songs.
*I like Paul McCartney’s songs when he was in the Beatles. 
*Many Beatles songs are ballads.
*Many of the Beatles’ songs are ballads.
*Many songs by the Beatles are ballads. 
Note that if the band were the The, it would be the same: I like the The, I like the The's music, I like the music of the The, many The songs are ballads, many of the The's songs are ballads, many songs by the The are ballads, etc.
--Lukobe 22:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got an album by t/The The. I think it is called "Mind Bomb" or similar. Appropriate, really. ;~) LessHeard vanU 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Misused apostrophes are likely to make Wikipedia look even less professional than misused capital letters. --Lukobe 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The or the 'The' list

message: Sod it, let's have a vote from all the members, and if it comes down one or the other, I will abide by the policy. Democracy is a must. (When I say a vote, I mean a simple yes or no, and not an explanation... :) Can we agree on that? ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... No, I'm afraid. Specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not mentions democracy, and rejects it. If the majority in an argument voted that the earth was flat you still wouldn't fall off the edge no matter how far you sailed. Verification and authorative references is what matters. Only when there are two, or more, differing good authorities is there a need for consensus, which may or may not be reached in a vote. LessHeard vanU 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said. Reaching consensus is the preferred approach, not polling. Polls are evil. :) Full marks for trying everything to resolve this though, andreasegde... ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must also say no... and no vote, please. Zephyrad 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, full marks Andrea! Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was a consensus a few months ago when it was settled on "The Beatles".  I wasn't in the loop when that was reversed and I'm sure several others were also out of the loop so the mess began again.  I don't think there will be a consensus on the The/the dispute. Steelbeard1 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For the avoidance of doubt (re your comment below), the arguments that follow each vote are the criteria by which the poll is conducted; statements such as "I (don't) like it" carry no weight whatsoever. It is the number of people putting forward valid reasons for and against which count. It is still usually up to a smaller group of people who decide which arguments have carried the day, or whether there is no consensus. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: I have created a section at the top of my discussion page for evidence and citations for The Beatles. Please add to it when you have a fact, as it will be presented as a complete statement on the The Beatles' Policy talk page (but will not be presented as a vote, a straw poll, a survey, or anything at all that is binding - honest :) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Special section

message: It's been about a week since I last suggested that the documented, verifiable support for Little T is significantly greater than that for Big T.  I still don't see any documented support for Big T.  The only new thing I've seen is a reference to a discussion in the Chambers Concise Dictionary on capitalization (on Andreasegde's talk page), but it's hard to tell from the summary on Andreasegde's talk page whether the definite article is intended (by Chambers) to be part of what's capitalized.  Moreover, another Chambers text actually uses Little T in its article on the Beatles, so the first Chambers reference (such as it is) is canceled out by the second one.  See [].  So, I'm still not seeing any verifiable source for Big T.  Am I misreading the situation?McTavidge 04:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The little T used is not part of the article, it's a Lennon quote, but what you are missing is, if one types "the" Beatles into the search engine, it returns "The" Beatles. Chambers also states that all proper names, place names and words used as names - The Windy City, The Who, The Beatles, Old Father Thames, The Grim Reaper etc, must be capitalised. Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Beatles-related articles" is perfectly good English. --Lukobe 20:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If and when there is a decent enough authority to support the use of the Big T please be assured that everyone will be informed and the matter debated. Until there is then there is little to be gained by attempting to stymie discussion among the Big T proponents. LessHeard vanU 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, me stymie?  Seriously, is that how I was perceived, as somehow putting a damper on Big T proponents' discussion?  McTavidge 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By nobody other than me, and I admit stymie was perhaps too strong a phrase. Put it another way, it might appear that you are advancing arguments for the retention of the current policy when it hasn't yet been found if there is any grounds for it to be debated, let alone challenged. It might be considered therefore that such comments may influence Big T proponents to abandon investigations/discussions into whether any reason to again debate the issue can be found. As I said, however, this is just a reaction on my part to the ongoing saga. Even if there is anything to it there is nothing really wrong in it, it may just be a bit premature and diverting effort from the articles themselves (speaking for myself, I've recently done little more than a little vandal patrolling outside of this matter). LessHeard vanU 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw it that way too, a bit, rightly or wrongly. Please don't stymie discussion prematurely. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okey dokey.  I'll just, um, wait a bit.  Just give me a sign. McTavidge 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking Stock

message: Don't believe (in your wildest dreams) that this problem has been finished, and put to bed. It will continue for forever and ever, by many other editors. Have fun... andreasegde 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the The

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 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: This is a nifty project, about a Fabulous Four, and I'd hate to see anything drive a wedge between the participants. Certainly nothing as unimportant as the The/the thing... let's keep working together, use consensus and keep our perspective. Thanks to everyone for all your hard work so far! ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's keep this in perspective 

message: The Beatles' project has a policy, but why do we need a specific policy that only relates to this project and not to Wikipedia as a whole? As that is the case, why would it not be possible to start a project called "The uppercase definite article Beatles project" and create its own policy? (We all know what that would be, don't we?) This project is closing its eyes to what is happening elsewhere and is being dictatorial.
I would suggest looking at The Office, The Who, The Band, The Libertines, The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The The, and The Cure, which all use the uppercase definite article throughout their articles. Do they have projects that have a policy? I wonder what their policy is. Does this project's policy wish to disagree with all of them? andreasegde 16:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A serious question

message: As I am not a member of The Beatles' project, I see no reason to abide by its policy rules, as it does not represent Wikipedia as a whole, but insists on enforcing its own self-determined policy on contributors. I truly believe that this is dictatorial, and does not have anything to do with the true purpose of Wikipedia. The Beatles' project is a break-away group, and should be reminded of what Wikipedia really is. andreasegde 18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% with the above statement. Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A statement

message: What we had here was basically a set of style guidelines. Two of them - British English and citations - were uncontroversial, and have been moved to the main project page as guidelines rather than policy. The other - the/The - was of course very controversial; so controversial that continuing to debate it is a waste of time.
I consider this page to have been a failed experiment and have blanked it. I hope nobody will revert me, and that the departure of this page will see valuable contributors return and allow us to get on with the serious business of improving Wikipedia's coverage of the most important band in the history of popular music. --kingboyk 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been involved in the controversy over this but I have reverted the blanking - if the content isn't left there then it's likely that at some point in the future a similar proposal will be made causing more problems. Also lots of pages still link here, and it's useful to see what rationale people were using in their arguments. Unless it's going to be replaced with a new policy, then it should be left as is with the historical tag, or a  tag. QmunkE 08:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but no. It was in this state when it went to the MFD, so that's how it stays. If people want to see how it looked they can click on that wonderful tab marked "History". --kingboyk 11:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanked and tagged as {{tl|historical}} 

message: I did some very long-overdue cleanup to normalize this page with current policy and procedures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine-years-overdue cleanup 

message: I'm moving this to the talk page:
(This was after some attempted cleanup on it, before realizing it was futile. The original as of an hour ago dated to 2006, and read "At some point we will need a policy on songs. I would propose that we have a basic Project policy along the lines of: All Beatles songs are considered notable, but the Project chooses to exercise discretion and to merge articles on songs which cannot be turned into serious, interesting encyclopedia articles. kingboyk 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-viable draft guidance