Talk:Yesterday and Today

message: I think the 'butcher cover' ought to be displayed within the article. It's the one thing that makes this album infamous outside the US. --kingboyk 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Butcher cover

message: What is up with the title of this article? Not only does Yesterday...and Today redirect here (and Yesterday... and Today not), but the title it redirects to has some oddly spaced periods in it! If the title should have an ellipsis in it, then it should be Yesterday… and Today (compare Let It Be... Naked vs. Let It Be… Naked), but I see no indication on either cover that it should have any ellipsis at all! I'm really in favor of moving this to Yesterday and Today. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The ellipses in the name seem to be a common convention but plenty of Google hits show references that ignore them. As you say, the acid test (pun unintended) should be what's on the cover and they ain't there... Cheers, Ian Rose 10:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the ellipsis does appear on the back cover (at least on the horribly damaged version that I have, which has no front cover remaining), but I still stand by the fact that the article title should be without an ellipsis (or a horrible excuse for one). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ellipsis also appears on the record label itself.  In fact, according to the label, the title (with full punctuation) is "Yesterday" …and Today. Note the ellipsis is actually shifted to the word on the right. Also, as depicted in Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, an interim cover was proposed and scrapped prior to the official "trunk" cover. I found a picture on the Web which matches the one in the book.  On this cover, the ellipsis is visible on the front. That said, I don't have a problem with moving the article to the less confusing title. Critics seem to split the difference. Schaffner doesn't use the ellipsis, but the Rolling Stone Album Guide does. Due to Capitol's inconsistent typography, I think we have multiple valid options availabe to us. --GentlemanGhost 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is their spacing and punctuation inconsistent, but Capitol is also inconsistent with their capitalization. The front cover has "And" while the back cover has "and". Obviously, all of these possible interpretations would be a redirect to the actual article, which I still suggest we move to Yesterday and Today, as per the final front cover and Wikipedia's capitalization policy. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alas, I did a cut-and-paste move and consequently truncated the edit history of this article. (Newbie mistake, send me hate mail if you must.) In order to redeem myself, I have made a request at WP:MOVE to fix this, if possible. --GentlemanGhost 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated follow-up: An admin moved the article name properly and restored the edit history, so we're in good shape. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The first paragraph states that this is the ninth official album, however it is not in the sequence at the bottom of the page. The information in the box below the photo shows this album between Revolver and Sgt Peppers, and would be the 7th in the series of official album releases. Does anyone have any objection to updating the information in the first paragraph and at the bottom to match? --Baronvon
:Actually, the first paragraph states that this is the 9th Capitol release by the Beatles, not the 9th official album. This is accurate and not in conflict with the template at the bottom of the page. The trick is that the Beatles' album releases in the U.K. and the U.S.A. were not synchronized. Yesterday... and Today is a U.S.-only release, containing mostly songs that were previously released in the U.K. on other Beatles albums. I presume that is why the creator of the Beatles template did not include it in the list of "official" albums. Since the Beatles were a British group, it is reasonable to consider the U.K. record chronology as official, especially since these releases usually preceded their American releases. I hope that helps to clarify. --GentlemanGhost 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ninth album? 

message: My apologies in advance to whoever labored over the lengthy and exceedingly detailed section about Peter Livingston, etc. -- but that section is far too long and detailed to belong in this article. It is simply disproportionate, and actually somewhat off-topic. A short paragraph summarizing the story would be fine, and more than adequate. I strongly suggest that it be taken down. Perhaps it can be moved elsewhere -- possibly incorporated into the article about record collecting? I'd like to know if there are any serious objections to my proposal before I proceed. Cgingold 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Record Collecting, etc 

message: Strange that this has been nominated without any recent discussion (9 October 2007?) Hmmm... Anyway, it needs more references, but I hope it will pass.--andreasegde (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never nominated an article for GA before, but I thought that this one might meet the criteria. If not, I'm sure whatever suggestions are made will help move the article in that direction. As far as the lack of recent discussion, I presume that there was enough compromise on the issues to satisfy all concerned parties who made points here on the talk page previously. However, I didn't actually verify this. I suppose someone may have just given up fighting for their point of view. :) I did, however, re-read the article to make such it didn't have anything that I considered to be a glaring fault. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe bringing it up here beforehand might have proven to be helpful. As I don't think we can withdraw it now, we are stuck with this premature action. I am unsure as to how long we would have to wait if the article is refused GA - since I don't think its representative of GA-quality articles - but perhaps it would be very, very wise in the future to work within the community of discussion before doing something like that again, GG.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Too true, compadre Arcayne. BTW, the nominator can take it off the GAN list anytime, and even if it has failed, they can put it back on straightaway (although this is probably not a good idea.)--andreasegde (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arcayne, I'm sorry that you feel that the nomination was premature. However, I don't see how receiving impartial feedback will hurt the article. Also, I'd like to point out that discussing the nomination on the talk page beforehand is not a requirement for nomination; it's not even suggested as a "good practice". However, I will certainly think about doing so next time as I don't like being bitten. Moving on, where can the article be improved? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Andreas, are there items in particular that you think need further reference? Or is it that you would like to have more sources in general? Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back on this, I get a strong whiff of ownership. Gross. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Find as many as you can. Sentences such as ""first state" covers, are very rare and command the highest prices", "Nevertheless, the album reached #1 on the U.S. Billboard charts by 30 July 1966 and was certified gold soon after", "Apart from the butcher cover, this album is of interest to collectors for the appearance of unique mixes of Revolver-era tracks unavailable elsewhere", "In particular, John Lennon pushed to use it as an album cover", all need references. That's just a start - there are a few more.--andreasegde (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I think the "Lennon pushed" quote (and ensuing material) were all sourced by the Schaffner book, but I'll double-check. I wasn't sure if you needed to reference each sentence or if one reference was enough to cover multiple sentences. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They cover one subject, even if it is spread over two or three sentences. As soon as the subject changes, it needs another one.--andreasegde (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I don't think this meets the broad criteria of WP:GA?. Compare it to some of the GA Beatles articles (here) - a lot of the songs there have a lot more information, including much more reception and release info, plus more on songwriting. I don't think this article is quite there yet, but I'd be happy to take another look if you wish to renominate it at some stage. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsuccessful GAN

message: User  has been adding the link http://www.buythebutchercover.com/Home/Butcher-Cover to the External links section. I don't personally think that this site meets the WP:EL guideline as it is merely a website selling variations of the butcher cover. However, I mention it here as in case anyone wants to weigh in on the usefulness of this link. As of now, I have again removed it from the article (but I let Riptastic know my rationale). Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  buythebutchercover.com 

message: I realise the "butcher cover" is the original cover, but since it was replaced and is little known outside of collectors and Beatles enthusiasts (I'm both), shouldn't the main cover image used for the article be the cover that's best known?216.153.143.247 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  We could swap the images in the infobox.  Radiopathy •talk•   17:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Strongly agree In the context of history, the vast majority of albums were sold with the trunk cover, and I for one was never even aware of the existence of the "butcher" cover. It is a short-lived (thus collector's item) controversial variant, and despite it being Lennon's and McCartney's first choice, Harrison correctly identified it as another example of the "naive and dumb" things the young Beatles did. Thus I believe putting it in the primary slot becomes a WP:POV issue, adding undue weight to Lennon's and McCartney's controversial view; the technical point about it being "first" is irrelevant. As a variant, it still meets the criteria for "Extra album cover" as documented on the template. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover image use

message: According to http://www.mp3.com/albums/1253/summary.html, The Beatles Bible and many other sources, Yesterday and Today was released on the 20th, not the 15th. I cannot find any sources saying the 15th.
Also, should the album be considered a studio album? It is not an official studio album, just a collection of songs from UK studio albums from 1965 and 1966. It's more of a compilation released for Americans because some of the songs on the proper UK albums had already been released in the US.
Mclay1 (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the release date should be the 20th (per Lewisohn 1988, p. 201). I think it should stay a "studio" album. For most of the songs, this was the first release in the US. All the Capitol releases prior to Sgt. Pepper had similar changes. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: From all genres, "rock n roll, pop" is the last to fit.
Drive My Car, And Your Bird Can Sing, If I Needed Someone, Day Tripper - they're all classic rock songs.
I'm Only Sleeping, Nowhere Man, Doctor Robert - they're more into psychedelic rock.
Yesterday, We Can Work It Out, Act Naturally - yes, they're kinda pop, but not exactly. If we ignore Yesterday for a sec (it doesn't have an official genre), We Can Work It Out and Act Naturally are kind of folk rock songs.
But seriously, non of the songs in this album are rock n roll.
Pilmccartney (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V and WP:NOR. Wiki libs (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: This statement is very broad and without further explanation may be confusing to some readers as to why it lost money for Capitol. It may also be false. The claim comes from the book The Beatles Forever by Nicolas Schaffner and is in reference to the cost involved in removing 750,000 "butcher" covers and repackaging the records, estimated to be $200,000 to $250,000. I believe the statement in the book is a somewhat mistaken interpretation of the press reports at the time of the album's release which suggested the additional $250,000 cost would negate the profit on those records. That is entirely possible, however it does not take into account sales of the album beyond that first pressing. This album went on to sell an additional 1.25 million copies (at least) so it is unlikely to have lost money for Capitol. Also, Schaffner's book was written in 1977 while the album was still in print so such a definitive outcome could not even have been possible at the time. Piriczki (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. Perhaps someone has a source with an updated version of the story which demarcates when EMI/Capitol finally started to see a profit from it. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only Beatles record to lose money for Capitol 

message: The alternate cover for the album -- the more common LP cover, with the Beatles posed around a steamer trunk -- has been nominated for deletion. The debate is about whether or not this second version of the album cover should be kept in the article, or removed. Interested editors are encouraged to give their opinions, at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 29#File:YesterdayandTodayalbumcover.jpg. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate cover nominated for deletion 

message: You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles RfC 

message: * Both (with condition) - Placing "Compilation" ahead of "Studio" in the infobox type/longtype fields and in the lead, on the basis of the third-party sources discussed below that actually make the distinction of it being a "compilation". Dan56 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: I've reverted your change in the numbering, because I believe that you are getting the higher numbers by counting the Canada-only releases as separate albums (if I'm mistaken about that, please let me know).  But this raises the question of whether Capitol of Canada should be considered to be the same company as Capitol.  It also raises the question of whether the lede's use of the word "American" means "United States" or "North America".  Before we start changing the status quo, we should discuss these basic questions.  I look forward to your response.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but then what are the ten U.S. Capitol releases that preceded the Yesterday album?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks for getting back on this.  There are two questions that come up when counting the early American releases.  The first is whether to count the non-music Beatles Story.  And the second question is whether we are counting only the Capitol releases, and not the two that were released by other companies (and note that Hard Day's Night was released by United Artists, not Capitol).  So, if Yesterday was their 12th overall release, and you leave out Story, Introducing and Hard Day's Night, you get to the numbers that originally appeared in the lede.  I'll note that the language in the lede probably ought to be clarified in some fashion to make clear that they are counting only the music albums.  I'll also add that there is a more subtle question as to whether Introducing and Early Beatles really should be counted as separate albums, because the Capitol version strikes me as more of a re-issue of Introducing than as a truly separate album.  But I'll leave that question to this article's regular editors.One last point -- you really should be signing your posts.  You can do this by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of your post.  Or, you can use the button that appears right below the Edit window (the one that says "Sign your posts on talk pages").Thanks again for following up on this.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ninth" or "Eleventh" 

message: How is this a studio album when it's ACTUALLY a compilation McGuinessTom1941 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above under Talk:Yesterday and Today#RfC: Should this be categorized as a studio album or a compilation album?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddy listen, this is really confusing as the discussion ends when the last person says that it's a compilation. 24.247.218.39 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio album? 

message: As explained with the edit, the text mentions that some retailers did carry (and sell) the "butcher cover" LP until the Capitol recall kicked in. In the Collectivity section, the article currently states:
This is sourced to an Antiques Roadshow page (here), which goes nowhere ... I've found this Roadshow appraisal, where there's a linked page, "Beatles Butcher Cover", which the site terms an "article". I haven't been able to access this PBS article because of site maintenance; if anyone finds they can, please let me know. (It'll be useful to confirm the "only day" point, as it will much of the first paragraph of the Collectivity section, I imagine. Bruce Spizer's book would be the go-to source for the latter, too – if only more was available in the google books preview.)
Robert Rodriguez also writes, referring to Capitol's pressing plants working around the clock to have the album back out in the marketplace: "" A "handful of people" might be slightly dramatic, but the point is the album was released, in that it was commercially available in some stores and available for purchase.
If anyone disagrees with this change, I'd understand it. Without being able to get better informed through Spizer, especially, or the Antiques Roadshow article, it does look a bit flimsy. Perhaps a few hundred, a couple of thousand?, slipped through to stores for a day or so before the Capitol edict came down – but does that make it a 15 June (or 14 June) release? A lot of sources go with 20 June, btw – Castleman & Podrazik, Turner's Beatles '66, Lewisohn, Ian MacDonald (all cited in this article). On the other hand, Miles' Beatles Diary, Rodriguez's Revolver (by implication) and the timeline sidebars in Mojo Special Limited Edition: 1000 Days That Shook the World (The Psychedelic Beatles) set it out the way I've described in the recent edit. I've not looked at fansites like recmusicbeatles.com, because we can't use them – even though I've found in the past that when reliable sources contradict one another, it's those same sites that, in giving so much detail and thought to everything Beatles, help determine which version of events and which RS's to go with. JG66 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the appraisal on YouTube if it is any help. Tkbrett (✉) 11:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed release date from 20 June to 15 June 

message: Originally this page only included the single for Nowhere Man. I added the Yesterday and We Can Work It Out / Day Tripper singles to the list. These were removed by @JG66. He noted that, "Per sources, [the] Nowhere Man single sets up & signals the upcoming album", distinguishing it from the others "which are not the same as singles 'from' the album". I am not sure I understand what the specific difference is  as all three had been released prior to the album being issued. Tkbrett (✉) 11:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's all pretty academic now. As outlined at Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles, the candidates for inclusion are "songs on the album that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album", which means none of them in the case of Y & T. JG66 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I suppose it makes sense to include Nowhere Man, given the paragraph on this article stating, 'Similarly, the February 1966 single "Nowhere Man" – a song Capitol omitted from its reconfigured Rubber Soul in December 1965 – was a typical practice whereby the company exploited the most commercial-sounding EMI LP tracks and signalled a forthcoming album.' That is referenced per Schaffner, which I unfortunately do not have on my bookshelf. I think it ought to be added back without the other two, along with a note on the page source to stop other editors from making the same mistake I did. Tkbrett (✉) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles 

message: OK, we have "The June 1966 LP was unusual in its inclusion of tracks that had yet to be issued in the UK."  (Those were the 3 tracks left off Revolver by Capitol.)
This isn't the only case of early release in US.  I know that Beatles VI had 4 songs not yet released in UK: You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, Dizzy Miss Lizzie (all then appeared on non-soundtrack part of the UK Help! album), and Bad Boy, which was unreleased in UK until British Beatles "oldies" LP reached late 1966 Christmas market.
(The rest of Beatles VI: the 6 songs which were on Beatles For Sale but not on Beatles '65; Yes It Is, flip side of Ticket To Ride and available for use on Beatles VI because it was not in Help! movie.) Carlm0404 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and nowhere in the article does it say that Y&T was anything more than "unusual" in this respect – we're not saying it was a unique repackaging approach by Capitol. JG66 (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material yet to be released in UK